Show Them The Door

The folks over at Tim Blair suspect there is more wrong with the Beeb than meets the eye. From AFP:

Staff at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) have been given instructions on how to walk through a door, a tabloid newspaper reported.

The Sun, Britain's biggest selling daily newspaper, reported that workers at the global broadcaster's offices in Birmingham, central England, had been issued with a memo advising them on how to get through a revolving door...

Employees at BBC Radio Sheffield in the north of England had previously been instructed on how to get through the often confusing and peril-laden task of boiling a kettle.

Here is an artistic rendering of a BBC employee going to work.

We Are All Going To Die!

Panic!!! (Via Instapundit)

Update: Never mind.

The Post-Melodramatic Stress Disorder of the Opera

So it begins...

"We're seeing a barrage of psychological consequences in those who have been exposed to the violently overblown acting and protracted, heightened emotions in The Phantom Of The Opera," said Bill Lambert, a psychology professor at the University of Chicago. "After such intense abuse of their artistic sensibilities, melodrama victims are finding themselves plagued by extreme sentimentality, flashbacks to especially torturous scenes, and canned-emotional detachment."

According to Lambert, a good portion of PMSD sufferers are experiencing distress so great that it is interfering with their jobs as overweight receptionists, struggling fashion designers, and community-theater actors.

The Right To Be Offended

Winston Churchill: Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.

It's been said that one of the prices of freedom of speech is that anyone can make a statement worth less than the neuron that powered the thought. Now, BBC News Magazine tackles the debate over "the right to be downright offensive." Perhaps I am being a contrarian, but as John Cleese says, nobody has the right not to be offended. Frankly, many people act as though they could find their own shadows objectionable, and these are usually the same individuals lecturing on inclusiveness. (They are inclusive, of course, depending on how much you think like them or the extent to which they can arrange/exploit your victimhood.)

South Park and Chappelle's Show are my two favorite programs on Comedy Central. They also aim to offend, and frequently hit their marks. I enjoy the challenge. Who can forget Dave Chappelle's portrayal of a blind Ku Klux Klan member unaware that he is black? The satire is sharp. There are 'appropriate' contexts for 'inappropriate' subjects. Excepting speech that is literally dangerous or detrimental to another's freedoms (yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater being oft cited, or calling for people to maim and murder), there is room for views I regard as wholly inappropriate and loathsome. I counter those views by sharing my views. Surely anyone genuinely concerned about each individual's right to expression knows, at least in principle, that "The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech."

Update: Changed my typographical error of "mime and murder" to "maim and murder," though you could argue that it works well either way.

16 July 2005

You almost certainly know this already, but I repeat with no small amount of glee that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, the sixth book in the popular series, will arrive on bookshelves in the summer. While my favorite entry remains Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, J.K. Rowling's tales appear increasingly imaginative and dramatic (her annoying obsession with adverbs notwithstanding). Now is the part where we wait.

With this on top of the last Star Wars prequel, a new Steven Spielberg film, and Narnia coming to life, 2005 looks like a blockbuster year for storytelling. We shall see!

The Moore The Merrier

I never thought I would see Michael Moore as a smart man, but Tim Blair has a round-up of some folks that make him look that way.

Moore's guess at how Bush won the election: He got more votes.

Hopefully being forthright and honest will do the filmmaker some good.

Wearing a jacket and tie still does not suit him, however.

Personal Responsibility

I had this observation from Free Will bookmarked a couple of weeks ago, thinking I would add loquacious commentary here. Aaron's view on responsibility stands well enough on its own, though.

This pointer may be past due, but as the sales pitch for The Commercial Appeal used to go, "If you haven't read it, it's still news."

25

Today is my birthday! A quarter of century lies behind me, so a big public Thank You to all the people who helped me make it this far.

Offensive

More lessons from the "don't fight the rapist; enjoy it" academy...

In most cases the best form of defence is always avoidance. If this isn't possible, act passively, be careful what you say or do, and give up valuables without a struggle. This allows the victim to take charge of the situation, without the intruder's awareness, through subtle and non-confrontational means.

Accepting that it is true that handing over your existence to a burglar is self-empowering, consider how this works in actuality. When your valuables are in danger, you strive to protect them. You have a right to your personal property. More importantly, what if you value your body, or the life of another? You can and should fight a fire, for example, so many people own fire extinguishers, the weapons against that threat. Certainly avoidance is wise if your life is in imminent danger (you are worth more than your television set), but you have the right to fight back when situations are unavoidable, and the right to prevent intruders from creating intolerable situations for you in the first place. To that end, the best defense is a good offense.

Update: On a note related to this entry and the previous post, I wish my Jewish friends a happy Armed Jews Week.

Update II: Efforts to ban guns are so 20th century. Let's ban pencil sharpeners.

Australia's Nazi Hanukkah

Herald Sun: Gardeners hired by Melbourne City Council intended to arrange the purple and white pot plants into neat geometric shapes.

But they left six 3m garden beds along Swanston St displaying large Nazi symbols.

The article indicates that the gardeners did not know swastikas might be inappropriate.

Excuse me, but how #&(^ing ignorant are these gardeners?

It's A Gas!

Behold, the fruits (prunes, most likely) of science...

The present invention relates generally to intestinal discharge control products and, more specifically, to flatulence deodorizers. There are various devices in this field for dealing with the problems of intestinal discharges with some degree of success. However, all of them are somewhat cumbersome and/or bulky to use. The present invention, the Flatulence Deodorizer, is the first product for this application to use activated charcoal cloth as a deodorizer because it is so much more effective in removing odor than other known agents and because of its highly efficient filtering action, the thickness of the cloth can be significantly reduced without loosing effectiveness. The filter is worn taped to the inside of briefs or panties and because of its slim profile, the wearer is comfortable and virtually unaware of its presence. The activated charcoal cloth filter is also washable and reusable. This makes the present invention the most effective, cost efficient, comfortable and least intrusive means of deodorizing gassy discharges.

Of course, I should not be making light of preventing odor from flatulence. This is obviously quite serious. FIG 1, with the man emitting gases from flatulence, illustrates the harsh and humiliating effects of flatulence. See the gentleman forced to hold his nose? FIG 5 demonstrates the positioning of the deodorizer. It also shows that although a woman may have shapely buttocks, beauty is no cure for flatulence. FIG 6 shows her flatulence attempting to escape, but being stopped dead in its tracks by U.S. Patent 6,313,371.

That'll teach that flatulence who's boss.

Colby Nolan

Education belongs to every species...

Investigators paid $299 for a bachelor's degree for Colby Nolan — a deputy attorney general's 6-year-old black cat — claiming he had experience including baby-sitting and retail management.

On the bright side, the feline wasn't Toonces.

Hope And Prey

I recently finished reading Michael Crichton's Prey. I enjoyed it, but his favorite Powerful Morons plot device grows stale, and the science is surprisingly off considering Crichton's [mostly deserved] reputation as skeptical technology watcher. It offers little beyond terrific intrigue and thrills.

BBC: Slower Than A Bucket Of Snails?

Hot on the tail of America's media breakdown, featuring the spectacular Rathergate implosion, British Broadcasting Corporation came up with their own example of 'hard' investigative reporting...

BBC World said on Friday that an interview it ran with a man it identified as a spokesman for Dow Chemical Co, in which he said the U.S. company accepted responsibility for India's Bhopal disaster, was wrong and part of an "elaborate deception."

So hard is their reporting that it appears that making a phone call to verify the credibility of their source is beneath them. And it is not like this is the only recent failure at BBC...

Update: Jude Finisterra?!

Spider-Man 2

I am currently amazing myself with my amazing Spider-Man 2 DVD. The film is easily superior to the first; is not only better technically (including top-notch special effects this time 'round), but artistically and morally. "And Lord knows, kids like Henry need a hero. Courageous, self-sacrificing people. Setting examples for all of us... I believe there's a hero in all of us, that keeps us honest, gives us strength, makes us noble, and finally allows us to die with pride, even though sometimes we have to be steady, and give up the thing we want the most. Even our dreams." Amen. Alfred Molina's performance is one of the best, if not The Best, I've seen out of this genre--frightening, but also sensitive, seductive and heartbreaking. A good Danny Elfman score and fine, sometimes laugh-out-loud sense of humor also help keep things moving. This may be the most genuinely entertaining film I've seen this year.

Still Feeling Stuffed?

You are not the only one.

I had a great Thanksgiving, by the way. The food was wonderful, and I am fortunate enough to have friends and family that never try to kill me. (Here comes an Assault Knife Ban...)

Efficient Charities Of America

Forbes has the list.

The Right TV

Catherine Seipp recently weighed in on one of the best television shows ever, The Simpsons:

The cartoon family became the longest-running primetime series in TV history with its 300th episode last year, surpassing even Bonanza and Ozzie & Harriet. It continues to add to the pop-culture lexicon, especially on the right, although I'm sure that was not the intention of its lefty creator, Matt Groening. The show's description of the appeasing French as "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" was quickly picked up by war-hawk bloggers. And Ben Stein once told me, when I asked him about conservatives in Hollywood, that The Simpsons was a breakthrough statement against leftist pieties — because it "was the first show that said if you're a loser, it's your own fault."

But it is her opening remarks that ring most truly, because as much control as Republicans have in Washington, the Democrats hold a massive share of power elsewhere...

One of the election lessons for Democrats is that while the Left doesn't understand the Right, the Right can't help but understand the Left, because the Left is in charge of pop culture. Urban blue staters can go their entire lives happily innocent of the world of church socials and duck hunting and Boy Scout meetings, but small-town red staters are exposed to big-city blue-state values every time they turn on the TV.

Happy Thanksgiving, America!

I am going to enjoy dinner...

Beverages
Crystal Lite
Diet Coke
Dr. Pepper
Hot Tea

Appetizers
Spinach Dip & Crackers
Raw Veggie Plate

Salads
Fruited Jello Surprise

Main Course
Ham & Turkey
Dressing & Gravy
Jellied Cranberry Sauce
Sweet Potatoes
Rice Casserole
Cabbage
Peas
Bread & Butter

Dessert
Pumpkin Cake
Butter Pecan Ice Cream

Neal Stephenson Vs. William Gibson

Neal Stephenson finally answers the question, "In a fight between you and William Gibson, who would win?"

You don't have to settle for mere idle speculation. Let me tell you how it came out on the three occasions when we did fight.

The first time was a year or two after SNOW CRASH came out. I was doing a reading/signing at White Dwarf Books in Vancouver. Gibson stopped by to say hello and extended his hand as if to shake. But I remembered something Bruce Sterling had told me. For, at the time, Sterling and I had formed a pact to fight Gibson. Gibson had been regrown in a vat from scraps of DNA after Sterling had crashed an LNG tanker into Gibson's Stealth pleasure barge in the Straits of Juan de Fuca. During the regeneration process, telescoping Carbonite stilettos had been incorporated into Gibson's arms. Remembering this in the nick of time, I grabbed the signing table and flipped it up between us. Of course the Carbonite stilettos pierced it as if it were cork board, but this spoiled his aim long enough for me to whip my wakizashi out from between my shoulder blades and swing at his head. He deflected the blow with a force blast that sprained my wrist. The falling table knocked over a space heater and set fire to the store. Everyone else fled. Gibson and I dueled among blazing stacks of books for a while. Slowly I gained the upper hand, for, on defense, his Praying Mantis style was no match for my Flying Cloud technique. But I lost him behind a cloud of smoke. Then I had to get out of the place. The streets were crowded with his black-suited minions and I had to turn into a swarm of locusts and fly back to Seattle.

The second time was a few years later when Gibson came through Seattle on his IDORU tour. Between doing some drive-by signings at local bookstores, he came and devastated my quarter of the city. I had been in a trance for seven days and seven nights and was unaware of these goings-on, but he came to me in a vision and taunted me, and left a message on my cellphone. That evening he was doing a reading at Kane Hall on the University of Washington campus. Swathed in black, I climbed to the top of the hall, mesmerized his snipers, sliced a hole in the roof using a plasma cutter, let myself into the catwalks above the stage, and then leapt down upon him from forty feet above. But I had forgotten that he had once studied in the same monastery as I, and knew all of my techniques. He rolled away at the last moment. I struck only the lectern, smashing it to kindling. Snatching up one jagged shard of oak I adopted the Mountain Tiger position just as you would expect. He pulled off his wireless mike and began to whirl it around his head. From there, the fight proceeded along predictable lines. As a stalemate developed we began to resort more and more to the use of pure energy, modulated by Red Lotus incantations of the third Sung group, which eventually to the collapse of the building's roof and the loss of eight hundred lives. But as they were only peasants, we did not care.

Our third fight occurred at the Peace Arch on the U.S./Canadian border between Seattle and Vancouver. Gibson wished to retire from that sort of lifestyle that required ceaseless training in the martial arts and sleeping outdoors under the rain. He only wished to sit in his garden brushing out novels on rice paper. But honor dictated that he must fight me for a third time first. Of course the Peace Arch did not remain standing for long. Before long my sword arm hung useless at my side. One of my psi blasts kicked up a large divot of earth and rubble, uncovering a silver metallic object, hitherto buried, that seemed to have been crafted by an industrial designer. It was a nitro-veridian device that had been buried there by Sterling. We were able to fly clear before it detonated. The blast caused a seismic rupture that split off a sizable part of Canada and created what we now know as Vancouver Island. This was the last fight between me and Gibson. For both of us, by studying certain ancient prophecies, had independently arrived at the same conclusion, namely that Sterling's professed interest in industrial design was a mere cover for work in superweapons. Gibson and I formed a pact to fight Sterling. So far we have made little headway in seeking out his lair of brushed steel and white LEDs, because I had a dentist appointment and Gibson had to attend a writers' conference, but keep an eye on Slashdot for any further developments.

British Hooligans

The Agence France-Presse reports something I did not know about the typical Briton...

The typical Briton is polite, witty and phlegmatic, but lacks a certain style and has a dental hygiene issue while having an occasional drinking problem

Tim Blair hosts some fun comments in response.

France Loves America

Want to know what makes me feel all warm inside? French nationals probably should concentrate on their own business, but they just cannot stop writing about (and profiting from) the ever-fascinating Americans. Jean-Francois Revel does it from the opposite angle.

My own thought is that neither form of attention is necessary. One popular complaint about Americans is that we are too inward-looking; making exceptions for omphalopsychites and black holes, a gaze far enough inward often casts your gaze outward, like how cutting a tomato in half slides the knife's blade toward the center and then away from it. America became the sole "superpower" not by aiming to be the greatest nation in the world, but by aiming to be the greatest nation it can be in its own right. The former superpowers lost their statures largely because they did rely on being the world's greatest nations. There are benefits to seeing out by looking in. So, yes, French nationals probably should concentrate on their own business.

Update: Hi. Are you nuts?

Update II: Is that a maybe?

Update III: Hey, No Blood for Cocoa!

Update IV: More on the French Patriot Act.

Thursday's Quote

Neal Stephenson: Weirdly, the ones who adopted the sternest and most terrible Old Testament moral tone were the Modern Language Association types who believed that everything was relative and that, for example, polygamy was as valid as monogamy. The friendliest and most sincere welcome he'd gotten was from Scott, a chemistry professor, and Laura, a pediatrician, who, after knowing Randy and Charlene for many years, had one day divulged to Randy, in strict confidence, that, unbeknownst to the academic community at large they had been spiriting their three children off to church every Sunday morning, and had even had them baptized...

Randy hadn't the faintest idea what these people thought of him and what he had done, but he could sense right away that, essentially, that was not the issue, because even if they thought he had done something evil, they at least had a framework, a sort of procedure manual, for dealing with transgressions. To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post-modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz. society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How-tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability. (Via Instapundit)

Around The World In 80 Days

For those interested, my review of the Trevor Jones soundtrack is now online at Film Music on the Web.

The Iraq War Was Rong!

Is this site a parody?

Iraq's Defense Minister v. Kofi Annan

This guy definitely had too much Kofi. (Via Pharaoh's Egypt)

Goodbye (And Good Riddance)

Everything seems settled now, but when I heard the early response to Arafat's tardy but nevertheless appreciated demise, well, it sounded vaguely familiar...

(An Israeli enters Gaza, and addresses a Palestinian.)

Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, I wish to register a compliment.

(The Palestinian does not respond.)

Mr. Sharon: 'Ello, Miss?

Palestinian: What do you mean "miss"?

Mr. Sharon: I'm sorry, I have a cold. I wish to offer a compliment!

Palestinian: We're closin' for lunch.

Mr. Sharon: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to compliment on this Arafat what I quarantined not half a decade ago during this very occupation!

Palestinian: Oh, yes, the, uh, the Palestinian Authority's leader... What's, uh, what's right with him?

Mr. Sharon: I'll tell you what's right with him, my lad. 'E's dead, that's what's right with him!

Palestinian: No, no, 'e's uh... he's resting.

Mr. Sharon: Look, matey, I know a dead Arafat when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Palestinian: No, no, he's not dead. He's restin'! Remarkable dictator, my leader, idn'it, ay? Beautiful eyelashes!

Mr. Sharon: The eyelashes don't enter into it. He's stone dead.

Palestinian: No, no, no, no, no, no! 'E's resting!

Mr. Sharon: All right then, if he's restin', I'll wake him up! (shouting at casket) 'Ello, Mister Jackasser Arafathead! I've got a lovely fresh Jewish boy for you if you show...

(Palestinian hits the casket.)

Palestinian: There, he moved!

Mr. Sharon: No, he didn't, that was you hitting the casket!

Palestinian: I never!

Mr. Sharon: Yes, you did!

Palestinian: I never, never did anything...

Mr. Sharon (shouting and repeatedly hitting the casket): 'ELLO YASSER!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o'clock alarm call!

(Sharon takes Arafat out of the casket and thumps his head on a bombmaker's counter, throws him up in the air, and watches him fall to the ground.)

Mr. Sharon: Now that's what I call a dead Arafat.

Palestinian: No, no... No, 'e's stunned!

Mr. Sharon: STUNNED?!

Palestinian: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin' up! Glorious leaders stun easily, major.

Mr. Sharon: Um... now look... now look, mate, I've definitely 'ad enough of this. That Arafat is definitely deceased, and when I pinned 'im not 'alf a decade ago, you assured me that his total lack of movement was due to 'im bein' tired and shagged out expecting another raid.

Palestinian: Well, 'e's... 'e's, ah... probably pining for the Jihadis.

Mr. Sharon: PININ' for the JIHADIS?! What kind of talk is that?! Look, why did 'e fall flat on his back the moment I let 'im to Paris?

Palestinian: The Palestinian Authority prefers keepin' on its back! Remarkable leader id'nit, squire? Lovely eyelashes!

Mr. Sharon: Look, I took the liberty of examining that Arafat when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that 'e had been sitting in his office in the first place was that 'e had been PROPPED UP.

(Pause.)

Palestinian: Well, o'course he was propped up! If we hadn't had sham elections, he wouldn't let people nuzzle up to those bombs, strap 'em on with bony little arms, and BOOM! Yeahahahah!

Mr. Sharon: "BOOM"?! Mate, this tyrant wouldn't "boom" if you put four million volts through him! 'E's bleedin' demised!

Palestinian: No, no! 'E's pining!

Mr. Sharon: 'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This Arafat is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't propped him in power 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-ARAFAT!

(Adapted from this sketch)

Update: A 93-year-old provides the quote of the day: I wonder who'll get his tea-towel.

Had Too Much Kofi?

"Bush Swats Kofi Annan with Rolled Newspaper," reads a headline at the brilliantly unreliable ScrappleFace.

Unfortunately, there are other reasons why Bush might do such a thing...

Get Your Twangers Out

Naughty innuendo? In a children's show? Never!

Preemptive France

The USA PATRIOT Act has foreign competition:

Armed with some of the strictest anti-terrorism laws and policies in Europe, the French government has aggressively targeted Islamic radicals and other people deemed a potential terrorist threat. While other Western countries debate the proper balance between security and individual rights, France has experienced scant public dissent over tactics that would be controversial, if not illegal, in the United States and some other countries.

Didn't Jean-Francois Revel once ask, "Why is it that the dark night of fascism is always descending on America, but keeps landing on Europe?"

Updates Coming

Sorry for not keeping in touch the past few days--got sucked into the post-election excitement, plus I received some additions to my DVD collection. I shall be back in a few hours to try to catch up on lost time.

The Earth Still Turns

Don't worry, I refuse to gloat. This map says it all, anyway. I will say that John Kerry could have won if he delivered his campaign as gracefully as he delivered his concession speech, a gentlemanly message and a rebuttal to the obnoxious non-concession of John "Two Americas!" Edwards. As I wrote earlier, unity is of great importance in times of war. Few are confident in the protection of a crumbling home.

With that in mind, I note some lessons learned from the election:

1) We need more civil debates.

2) The people in 'flyover country' are no more or less intelligent than the coastal elite. Rather, people across America have different views, attitudes and needs, so they vote accordingly. Everyone could do well by respecting that.

3) Jane's Law is frightfully accurate: The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.

4) It is as possible to speak poorly and mean much as it is to speak clearly and mean little.

5) Audiences around the globe ought to strive to avoid living in an echo chamber, because their establishment media is about as reliable as a town gossip.

Congratulations, President Bush. Now, about that spending habit of yours...

Representative Government Lives On

After the nervousness of my first time voting in 2000... I was still nervous for 2004. But this time, after bumbling to the wrong table, correcting course, stumbling through the stuff I had to sign and praying I was not doing something that could send my vote to Venezuela, I am fairly confident that I managed to accurately punch the buttons I sought to punch. "But your machine was rigged!" my brother joked.

I voted for Bush, gave Democrats and liberals my state and municipal support, endorsed a referendum requiring city employees to live inside city limits, and aggressively pushed the switch to register disdain over a possible tax hike.

It is a gray world of clouds and rain in Memphis, which may be an omen for Memphians of today's worries being washed away, or a sign of many more gray days ahead. Only one person stood in front of my brother and me when we entered the polling place. No bombs went off. There were no signs of voter intimidation. People were in typically Southern high spirits, although a silent, dismal, multi-partisan gaggle of activists huddled on the sidewalk outside--drizzled upon and largely ignored.

This is terribly anticlimactic for such a closely watched election. Why not reward voters, by the way? A little fun would be a fair way to cut into voter apathy. How about door prizes? Balloons to take home to the kids? Clowns (not the ones seeking elected office)?

Of course, things are bound to heat up again as the polls start closing.

Update: Somebody likes me?! Thank you for the kind words, Citizen Jo! I shall listen to some Bernard Herrmann in celebration!

I Pledge

I'll be off to vote in a couple of hours.

Heavily inspired by BuzzMachine and thoughts of the future, I now promise to...

Support the President, even if I didn't vote for the jerk.
Criticize the President, even if I did vote for the jerk.
Uphold standards of civilized discourse in blogs and in media while pushing both to be better (though standards may vary by subject).
Unite as a nation, putting country over party, though I actually wanted to unite myself as a continent. Gotta start small, I guess. Call me Wheelerstan.
Do the same thing as Michele, but without the drunken, naked cursing.
Review the advance copy of "The Incredibles" soundtrack that arrived yesterday.
Clip my toenails.
Take a shower.
Drink a glass of water.
Go to bed.

And that is a promise!

A New Ghoul Rises

To this comment of mine I want to add Christopher Hitchens' observation that humanity has a bigger enemy nowadays. One argument went out the window with the old ghoul's reappearance for Halloween; still, the article builds on much more important observations, and remains worth reading.

Update: James Lileks: No one showed up as bin Laden; perhaps it’s not because he’s scary any more. I’ll admit, I thought he was dead, and I am on record in print and on the radio as having said so. Let the record show I was wrong, and by all means keep that in mind the next time I speak with confidence and assurance. That said, he might as well be dead for all it seemed to spook anyone. I hate to say more about it lest something happen in the next few days, but for Binny to jack-in-the-box now, rather than appearing after his next Brilliant Mastermind Strike, seems to suggest he has nothing in the tank and less in the trunk.

Clueless BBC Strikes Again

In a story on the American electorate, BBC's editorial ignorance allows an urban legend on its website yet again:

George Bush's father lost the 1992 election because he went to a supermarket and plainly had not the slightest idea of what people did in supermarkets.

If that were true it would be a bizarre stretch over something so trivial. But it is not true.

Wait, there's more:

But there is another lesson that might be added to the list: democracy is one heck of a mess.

Which is why Americans need to stop thinking of the United States as a democracy. Cox & Forkum recently blasted Bush (and most of the American population, I daresay) on the issue, quite rightly pointing to this explanation by Leonard Peikoff...

The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn't like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one's rights.

Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies the individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom...

The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protection of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.

Please remember that.

Update: Instapundit links to two cases of further BBC-induced lunacy.

Happy Halloween!

May your evening be spookier than a vicious bunny!

A New Name In Western Bias

Suggesting that BBC's anti-American bias is insufficient, Al Jazeera is starting an English-language channel. If their English-language website is anything to go by, the United States will finally host a major news channel more corrupt than CNN.

I would say "I don't know whether to laugh or cry," except there is probably time to do both. (Via Iraq the Model)

Screed: Kerry Lied, People Died

The most unthinking movement of the past two years is the Anybody But Bush crowd, those who would elect Charles Manson if that meant ousting Bush, and who would rather have a Harding, Grant, Hoover or Carter-style presidency with Kerry--with no relevance, benefit, or mandate for/by the people--than endure President Bush's mediocre but dedicated record.

Foremost among the complaints is the "Bush Lied, People Died" meme. Ignoring that this means Kerry/Edwards are just as guilty (both senators voted to invade, and Edwards called the threat of Saddam Hussein 'imminent,' a notion President Bush countered in his State of the Union address), it is true that we have a right to expect politicians to be perfectly truthful.

We also have a right to expect the nations of the world to come together, join hands, and live in peace and harmony forever. But tabulate not thy pre-partum fowl. A politician saying he is right and his opponent is wrong is a common occurrence, even though there are usually valid facts on both sides (in most American discourse, at least). Accusing a politician of over-selling his position is like ticketing Indianapolis 500 racers for reckless driving.

I expect politician to have strong character and reason. Other traits are negotiable. During the Blitz, Prime Minister Churchill and others made public shows of defiance by strolling outside at the height of bombing fears, never letting on that intercepted Nazi communications often enabled them to know when those walks were safe. They deceived the world. But would you argue it was an inappropriate deception? At the opposite end of the spectrum, what do we make of those anti-war leaders who were on Saddam's payroll?

President Bush ran a campaign that trashed the Democratic doctrine of interventionism and nation building, and for a while as president he edged the U.S. toward his promised isolationism. After September 11, 2001, Bush reassessed that doctrine. Regardless of whether one agrees with that reassessment, acting on new information is a legitimate and responsible act of civil service. His father did the same thing with "Read my lips: No new taxes!" Clinton did it. I cannot think of a politician that has not done it. Politics are fluid, and the most dependable situations can still change. Not only must we consider that politicians must sell policies, we must also consider that they are no better at predicting the future than us. What anyone says may be entirely valid at the time he says it, but not so much at a later date. So we are back to character and reason.

We can extend this to the Iraq War. If pre-war information was believed to be reliable, and Bush, Blair, Howard, etc., rationally concluded that invasion was an appropriate response to that information, then they are in the clear. One cannot prove or disprove the justification for an action after the fact. If I hear a window break, I make sure it is not because of a burglar or rabid animal; if it proves to be a stray baseball that does not mean I was unjustified in taking action because I thought it might be something else. The leaderships' understanding of information was either reasonable, or it wasn't. People can only act on what they know.

Likewise, I am fascinated by the number of people who believe justification hinges entirely on statements, resolutions, motives, or finds. We could say we invaded Iraq because we wanted to steal Saddam's collection of erotic art, and while that would speak poorly of our motives, it has zero relevance to whether the war was justified. It is fun to debate the politics, as I do regularly here, but the reality is that people, institutions, and governments frequently do the right thing for the wrong reasons. What someone says is not anywhere near as important as what they do, and in Bush's case any American downfall will likely have more to do with his reckless spending (he is a bit of a socialist in a capitalist's job, but here the Democrats promise to be even worse [Kerry will pilfer more money out of American pocketbooks so he can cover it, naturally]).

Another popular ad hominem attack is that America has not exactly been pure in its international relations, an argument that is undoubtedly true, but irrelevant to the former Iraqi regime breaking its mandatory acceptance of United Nations resolutions. Guantanamo Bay invariably pops up in discussion, although Camp 22 in North Korea speaks better for the failings of American foreign policy:
Witness from Gitmo: For two or three days I was confused, but later the Americans were so nice with me, they were giving me good food with fruit and water for ablutions before prayer.
Witness from Camp 22: I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber. The parents, a son, and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save the kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.
America confuses an inmate for a few days, feeds him too well, and then takes an insufferable amount of time to sort the details. Shameful legal maneuvering receives more press than ongoing weapons testing on families. And of all the prisons in Cuba, the one most unlike Castro's gulags--where cockroaches offer every prisoner company, show trials are the norm, and biological waste often ends up as bedding--completely dominates most discussions. Some people's priorities are screwed.

Yes, America once supported Saddam (though nowhere near as much as others) against Iran, much like America worked with Stalin against Germany. All the more reason America needed to atone for its past action by removing Saddam. Also consider America's relationships with numerous Latin American nations throughout the 1950s-80s, that mostly fall under the "oops!" category ('mostly' because some regime changes, like in Grenada and Nicaragua, really did lead to improvements), in an effort to undermine communism? For all of the differences, there is at least one key similarity between American support for Stalin, Saddam, as well as the criminals closer to home: All took actions against the more serious threats at the time. These alliances, even the Latin American fiascos, were based on a degree of altruism as well as national security. That America has a history of being more fearful of third-world leadership by middle-class industrialists than spoiled militarists is not the result of flaws in policy, but a repeated flaw in execution. In politics, it is unfortunately better to appear reckless than weak.

But using "you hypocrites!" logic one must concluded that nobody should do anything about anybody. We could just as easily ask about the brutal repression of civilian populations actively supported by the United Nations over the decades, right up to the present day, and conclude that the United Nations should stay out of the Israel-Palestine issue since it has done little of merit about Turkey's power plays in Cyprus, Russia's grab of Japanese islands, Lebanon being made into Syria's puppet, Britain's continued hold over Gibraltar, or France's not-too-distant annexation of what used to be Germany territory or even her truly unilateral intervention in the Ivory Coast. At least the U.S. never vouches for Syria to help keep the world safe from the likes of, well, Syria.

America, Britain and, yes, Australia are the only three countries with a military force capable of responding to major/multiple threats. Many nations cower simply because they have no fortitude to do otherwise, a vile few cast themselves as bystanders, while the rest would as soon cheer the equal distribution of oppression than any unequal distribution of freedom. These wafflers, these self-interested wimps, these moral equivocators are telling America (and others) to make the Genovese Syndrome foreign policy? I subscribe to the view that those who have the resources to make a difference, the spirit to reach out, and the humility necessary to understand that we live in a global community should act like it.

Americans kept to themselves many times before, as during the crisis in Rwanda, and always ended up lectured for not interfering. Likewise, whenever America pulls troops out of a place in response to shouts of "Yankee go home!" the slogan shortly thereafter, from many of the same people, is invariably "The Yankees abandoned us!" It does not matter what happens, it is always America's fault. This thinking extends to other arenas. Polls in England and France conclude that a major problem is that Americans are too religious, while polls in Mexico and Turkey conclude that a significant fault is that Americans are too secular. It doesn't matter what Americans actually believe, they simply must be wrong. Australians say the United States is taking advantage of their nation's resources, while South Africans want to know why the United States is not doing more to take advantage of their resources. It rarely matters how America lends support, for it is never the right support. There is no policy that will enable America to satisfy the world, and it is foolish for America to even try to find one. So let me propose that America stands for neither isolationism nor imperialism, but should pursue interventionism, as is consistent with her essential values:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness--That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed; that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while Evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

America's liberation came because of interventionism, and most of America has not forgotten. We are our brothers' keepers. Ironically, the universal catechism of the Catholic Church states that free people have a moral obligation to liberate the oppressed. To that end, in no sense is a muted United States preferable to today's vocal one. The counter to America's loudness is not for opponents to call for her silence, but is instead for them to cease their own quiet tolerance of the intolerable. (And could someone explain to me why the Pope suddenly forgot his long-standing stance that the authority to decide whether a war is justified resides in a nation's authorities, for "it is not the role of the Pastors of the Church to intervene directly in the political structuring and organization of social life." I suspect the Church ignored its own position simply so it would not lose Tariq Aziz as one of its donors.)

Also consider how the first Gulf War never ended. If Saddam had done what the United Nations told him to do, then France (until they sold out), Great Britain and the United States would not have dropped bombs on Iraq every day for over 10 years to enforce the 'no-fly zones.' The fact that the war was already going on was a pretty good reason for taking the decisive actions the Coalition did to end it. That same action will be responsible for saving an estimated 565,000 Iraqi lives within four years, and the war itself received a touch of praise from the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and Human Rights Watch for efforts in avoiding civilian casualties and for removing "a government that preyed on the Iraqi people and committed shocking, systematic and criminal violations of human rights." Of course, this does not take into account the feelings of liberation, or ongoing commentary from Iraqi bloggers.

Saudi Arabia comes up a lot, too, despite her responding to pressure to reform. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001 were Saudis, so it is pretty obvious that the House of Saud did not do all it could to stamp out terrorism in the kingdom. The Saudi flights a bit later also caused a fuss (see older but more detailed info here). Of course, the nationalities of the hijackers are only one factor relevant to confronting threats to national security. The majority of them also lived comfortably above the poverty line, had Western educations, and spent money on decidedly non-Islamic strip clubs and gambling, meaning they also fit the noticeable pattern of Islamic terror coming from middle-class, European-based weirdoes.

There are plenty of bad guys in the world. Removing them from circulation is a security goal worth perpetuating. But limited resources means prioritizing the order in which even the most appropriate actions must take place. Among the issues are which of these actions are most 'do-able', as well as those that offer the most benefits. Saudi Arabia is an American ally, but it has long turned a blind, or at least blurry, eye to terrorism (though the 9/11 Commission did clear Saudi Arabia of the most popular and dangerous accusation), but for the U.S. to put meaningful pressure on the House of Saud to crack down, a few things had to occur: First, a consolidation of forces outside Saudi Arabia, in this case by facilitating the removal of the S.A.-U.S.'s joint military deterrent against Iraq, subsequently reducing training personnel inside S.A., and placing a sizable military force nearby; second, if tensions flared, a large alternative source of oil would be needed to prevent economic collapse in those countries dependent on Saudi oil; finally, an example must be set of what happens when key security issues are insufficiently resolved, so as to dissuade all parties from inviting a deadlier conflict. Thus...

David Frum, one of the architects of the Bush Doctrine, notes that "the operation in Iraq was a tremendous success--and an indispensable prerequisite for what comes next. One crucial thing we must do is pressure Saudi Arabia to cut off the flow of funds from its citizens to terrorists. So long as the world's second-biggest oil producer was, in effect, an international outlaw, Saudi Arabia's ability to get away with a two-faced policy on terrorism was magnified. Iraq is now rejoining the international community. Soon its oil will be flowing. And Saudi Arabia will find itself much less immune to American pressure to cut off the terrorists' funds."

Barring the occasional deadly thrashing as we pull the sharks from the water, the Iraq war really is a success. Thanks to the Iraq intervention, considerably more light has been shed on the weapons programs in Libya and Pakistan and Iran and North Korea and... The Arab League finally condemned attacks within Israel's legal territories and called for democratic reform... The likes of Seif al-Islam Gadhafi and Hossein Khomeini endorse Bush's Middle East policy... We now know that individuals at the United Nations and the World Bank were making a sizable profit from letting Saddam Hussein starve children, and that the UN really is the Enron on the East River (and worse: "Emergency Sex and Other Desperate Measures: A True Story from Hell on Earth")... We now know that Iraq was bribing and blackmailing hundreds of major public personalities, and subsequently recognize that Russia and France are unparalleled in Western political corruption... We now know that several media organizations, including CNN, downplayed or outright ignored atrocities in exchange for access and exclusives with the Butchers of Baghdad... We now know that the suggestion that Saddam Hussein & Sons be pressured into exile so the United Nations could oversee bringing Iraq into compliance would have resolved all of the outstanding issues with little to no bloodshed, but was refused because populist obstructionism against the United States has more socio-political value than any genuine attempt at a pro-peace solution... And so we now know who our real friends are.

Plus, if this backfires, there is always Plan B.

As for the legality? Whether the Bush Administration's arguments for the Iraq War apply under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the United Nations Charter may be debatable, but all of the justifications are consistent with Chapter VII, Article 42 and the history of that article in relation to Iraq (e.g., Operation Desert Storm, the responses to the 1993 assassination attempt on President George H.W. Bush and Iraq's attempt to re-invade Kuwait in 1996, the no-fly zones, and Operation Desert Fox).

The United Nations is not a judicial or representative authority, but a bureaucracy; manned not by objective judges or moderated lawmakers, but by highly partisan diplomats. The organization approved things that were against international law, and rejected things accepted by international law. Its key value is that it provides a resource for multinational debate, such as in 1962 when the organization allowed the last two remaining superpowers a mechanism to sidestep an escalation to nuclear war. It gives smaller nations voice, and the controversial veto system prevents solutions like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. The organization is unparalleled in drawing up constitutions and other civil services. The United Nations can provide a hammer better than any other. But not every problem is a nail. And the United Nations means even less to France, Germany, Russia, et al., those countries that actively ignored and undermined the enforcement of international law in Iraq for 12 long years. As an Iraqi Foreign Minister succinctly put it: "[T]he Security Council was divided between those who wanted to appease Saddam Hussein and those who wanted to hold him accountable... The United Nations as an organization failed to help rescue the Iraqi people from a murderous tyranny that lasted over 35 years, and today we are unearthing thousands of victims in horrifying testament to that failure."

The French delegation in particular showed utter contempt for U.N. processes, allowing for no negotiation and thus, as promised would happen in such an event, finding itself deferring to an "ad hoc" Coalition supported by more countries than supported the liberation of the Kuwait, backed by four of the Group of Seven, backed by 11 of the 19 members of N.A.T.O., backed by 13 of the 25 members of the expanded European Union, and backed by all but one of the major Asia-Pacific economies. As for the U.N. itself, there was no U.N. resolution or action, not a statement from individuals or governments, condemning or attempting to bar the Iraq War. Countries can hardly defy the United Nations if the United Nations makes no legal attempt to restrain them. And since this may be unfair considering how the United States has veto power on the Security Council, please note that I would also consider a draft or General Assembly resolution for this exercise. But the opposition amounted to nothing more than a public relations campaign. It is no surprise that mainly opponents of the war are still profiting from Saddam's mass-grave playset.

As for the WMD themselves, see that and more here. Opponents of the intervention also claimed Iraq had WMD (the only real debate in the Security Council was whether an assertive Coalition was preferable to a lackadaisical Axis in verifying Saddam's disarmament), so we must not make the factual error of suggesting that Bush made his decision in a vacuum. And even though it is easy to pin the blame on him because he took controversial but solid steps to do something about it, one still might forgive Bush for thinking that the possibility of the lunatic dictator having these weapons qualified as A Very Bad Thing. The worst scenario is that the Iraq War is a justified mistake, in the same sense that a man confronted with a thief pointing a gun-like object at him is excused for concluding that it is a gun, saying that it is gun, and acting in response to such a threat. That it turns out to be a candy-bar is tragic but irrelevant to the logic of his response. Indeed, if the man thought it was a joke and was wrong, the situation could have been much worse.

The Bush Administration repeatedly emphasized that a reason for going into Iraq was to prevent Iraq from becoming an immediate threat, the logical extension of Winston Churchill's Gathering Storm policy, and a policy supported by recent events. They, at least, presented the war as a preventive strike (as well as a punitive strike and humanitarian intervention). Despite popular misuse of the term, 'preemptive strike' is an attack intended to prevent an imminent attack, but President Bush said, "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option." It remains quite clear that while Iraq was not an imminent threat, it would have inevitably become one. The fact that the U.S. was willing to wait months after authorizing war before actually going to war should be a clear indicator that 'imminent threat' never entered into it. If the threat were immanent, America would not have wasted time with the United Nations. President Bush called it a 'continuing threat,' in which the treat was not significantly less or worse than it was before, but intolerable to endure. It did not help that the evaluation of that threat put excessive faith in the world's intelligence services, that is true, and George Tenet's surprise resignation was not so surprising when one considers that virtually all of the President's great woes had (or have) root causes in the letters C, I, and A--still bearing in mind that intelligence flaws also go the other way, as they did in the '90s when several agencies, Hans Blix's team among them, erroneously declared Iraq free of any intent to possess nuclear weapons. (So do forgive me for being relieved that Iraq intelligence estimates erred toward being too liberal rather than too conservative; if we will make mistakes regarding anti-proliferation, then overstating disarmament goals is surely a preferable way to screw up.)

Bush did speak of urgency, but always qualified by "our intelligence" and in regard to Saddam's failure to fulfill his end of our bargain, which included verifiable destruction of his WMD-related activities. It was not evidence of the presence of weapons of mass destruction that formed that basis of the war, but the absence of evidence of disarmament. Worldwide assessments suggested that Saddam did indeed have banned weapons, and Bush bolstered his argument using those cases, but that bolstering did not change the Administration's primary justification for the war: Iraq was in material breech of our armistice agreement. Donald Rumsfeld summed it up: "If the Iraqi regime had taken the same steps Libya is now taking, there would have been no war."

So we get streams of public whining without a single convincing response to the question, "How would keeping Saddam Hussein's regime in power have benefited the world?" Anti-intervention groups overestimated the number of casualties, overestimated the number of refugees, overestimated the terrorist retaliation, were wrong about the effects on anti-Americanism in the Middle East, were wrong about the Coalition being unable to capture Saddam, underestimated the dangers Saddam posed to the region, forgot that even non-Coalition allies like Saudi Arabia and Germany still provided resources for the invasion (others, like France, offered conditional support), and otherwise indulged in gross appeasement and hysteria. And then there are those who said, "I'd support it for humanitarian reasons, but Bush isn't doing it for humanitarian reasons," a thought process that, like the "Not In Our Name!" mob, relies on group-think, rather than that wise notion of individualism that says you don't have to support anything for someone else's reasons. There is absolutely no inferential path connecting "Bush lied" and "The Iraq War was unjustifiable."

Maybe it was just me, but I found the revelation that there are no longer weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to be A Very Good Thing. Saddam wasn't trustworthy with a Lawn Jart, and having him removed and finding that we need not worry so much about someone going the "Sum of All Fears" route with his programs is a spectacular achievement, especially under the circumstances. Not a single weapon of mass destruction appeared in Nazi Germany, recall. The closest the Nazis came was the horrifically successful use of common household pesticides against human beings. But the U.S. intelligence agencies, General Marshall, and Albert Einstein all thought the Nazis were building an atomic bomb, when Hitler was nowhere near achieving his goal. Then again, if a corrupt Nazi weapons program enabled the German Werewolves to easily develop an atomic bomb, either on their own or by passing the stolen/bought intelligence to an industrious third party, then the threat to Europe during World War II would have been more precarious. Likewise, there was a bigger threat from even the known programs in Iraq precisely because the system actually was—undeniably--a mess. The most vulnerabilities and least predictable threats come from systems that the systems' owners will not or can not control. So did the U.S. government exaggerate the Nazi threat to justify its aggression against Germany? After all, Adolf Hitler had as much to do with the bombing of Pearl Harbor as Saddam Hussein had with 9/11. The Nazis were not a threat to the territorial integrity of America, there were no resolutions or agreements to provide legal cover, and Congress only authorized military action against Japanese forces. The US and the UK also did many things during this period that make their military actions today look like jamborees. Yet, somehow, few doubt that US was right to help overthrow Hitler. Like Saddam, Hitler ruled over a brutal, inhuman kleptocracy. They were the weapons of mass destruction, as cliché as that now sounds.

Of course, there was that old shell with enough Sarin to kill thousands of people, contained only because it was misused. How about the mustard gas confirmed to have come from Iraq, but that was never disclosed as required by the terms of the ceasefire agreement? How about this? And nobody searched Lebanon's Bekaa Valley, where Iraq reportedly paid Syria $35-$50 million to hide materials in February 2003. Still, we already have plenty to show Iraq was indeed a threat--we found illegal weapons, we found illegal programs, we found clear evidence of illegal efforts, but we did not find the promised stockpiles. Three out of four is hardly an embarrassment.

Weapons of mass destruction were among the many legitimate reasons for the intervention. I never cared much about the weapons, to be honest. As an anti-totalitarian, I supported going in and toppling a genocidal sociopathic regime on the basis of going in and toppling a genocidal sociopathic regime. Saddam's regime was unfinished business that needed a resolution before the U.S. could move on. It needed to go; the when, where, why and how are incidental. (I already dislike Bush, so even if the "Bush Lied!" crowd's rants were reflected by reality, it would still leave me saying, "And?") It hardly matters whether there were banned weapons in Iraq at the time of the invasion. They were there in the past, we didn't know they were gone forever, and Iraq was obligated to let us know either way, verifiably. The burden of proof was always on Saddam, who failed to comply with the ceasefire agreement and a multitude of U.N. resolutions--not only those sections regarding WMD--for more than a decade. There was little evidence to suggest that the Weapons Inspector Clouseau answer to the WMD question would in fact be a solution, quite a bit suggesting it would confuse matters, and no doubt that other outstanding crimes were ignored in favor of fools from both sides of the fence massaging their egos over that one question (while saying they are looking out for the best interests of the Iraqi people, as though the oppressed people of Iraq were more concerned about American foreign policy than Saddam & Sons' unique methods [caution: video contains graphic violence]).
Ad hominem attacks continue with Bush's "open corruption' being the target. Sadly, the staggering thing is that a guy can ask about the latest corruption scandal and still have to specify whether he means one in the U.S., Russia, France, Italy, England, China, the United Nations, Egypt, etc. Corruption happens everywhere (and, given the age of the United States, America has comparatively little experience at it). While suggestions of impropriety may be accurate, they remain unproven, and do not address individuals who donated large sums of cash to Bush yet received nothing more than a thank-you card, if that. Nor does it take into account that President Bush has thrown the likes of Kenneth Lay to the wolves, and that John Ashcroft's anti-corruption witch-hunt may be going to the opposite extreme, having somehow found Martha Stewart guilty of lying about committing a crime federal prosecutors could not prove she committed.

I leave you, and hopefully those you know who most ought to read it, with a little perspective from American history, courtesy of a famous dead guy:

A Word Of Encouragement For Our Blushing Exiles
...Well, what do you think of our country now? And what do you think of the figure she is cutting before the eyes of the world? For one, I am ashamed. [Extract from a long and heated letter from a Voluntary Exile, Member of the American Colony, Paris.]
And so you are ashamed. I am trying to think out what it can have been that has produced this large attitude of mind and this fine flow of sarcasm. Apparently you are ashamed to look Europe in the face; ashamed of the American name; temporarily ashamed of your nationality. By the light of remarks made to me by an American here in Vienna, I judge that you are ashamed because:

1. We are meddling where we have no business and no right; meddling with the private family matters of a sister nation; intruding upon her sacred right to do as she pleases with her own, unquestioned by anybody.
2. We are doing this under a sham pretext.
3. Doing it in order to filch Cuba, the formal and distinct disclaimer in the ultimatum being very, very thin humbug, and easily detectable by you and virtuous Europe.
4. And finally you are ashamed of all this because it is new, and base, and brutal, and dishonest; and because Europe, having had no previous experience of such things, is horrified by it and can never respect us nor associate with us any more.

Brutal, base, dishonest? We? Land Thieves? Shedders of innocent blood? We? Traitors to our official word? We? Are we going to lose Europe's respect because of this new and dreadful conduct? Russia's, for instance? Is she lying stretched out on her back in Manchuria, with her head among her Siberian prisons and her feet in Port Arthur, trying to read over the fairy tales she told Lord Salisbury, and not able to do it for crying because we are maneuvering to treacherously smooch Cuba from feeble Spain, and because we are ungently shedding innocent Spanish blood?

Is it France's respect that we are going to lose? Is our unchivalric conduct troubling a nation which exists to-day because a brave young girl saved it when its poltroons had lost it - a nation which deserted her as one man when her day of peril came? Is our treacherous assault upon a weak people distressing a nation which contributed Bartholomew's Day to human history? Is our ruthless spirit offending the sensibilities of the nation which gave us the Reign of Terror to read about? Is our unmanly intrusion into the private affairs of a sister nation shocking the feelings of the people who sent Maximilian to Mexico? Are our shabby and pusillanimous ways outraging the fastidious people who have sent an innocent man (Dreyfus) to a living hell, taken to their embraces the slimy guilty one, and submitted to indignities Emile Zola - the manliest man in France?

Is it Spain's respect that we are going to lose? Is she sitting sadly conning her great history and contrasting it with our meddling, cruel, perfidious one - our shameful history of foreign robberies, humanitarian shams, and annihilations of weak and unoffending nations? Is she remembering with pride how she sent Columbus home in chains; how she sent half of the harmless West Indians into slavery and the rest to the grave, leaving not one alive; how she robbed and slaughtered the Inca's gentle race, then beguiled the Inca into her power with fair promises and burned him at the stake; how she drenched the New World in blood, and earned and got the name of The Nation With The Bloody Footprint; how she drove all the Jews out of Spain in a day, allowing them to sell their property, but forbidding them to carry any money out of the country; how she roasted heretics by the thousands and thousands in her public squares, generation after generation, her kings and her priests looking on as at a holiday show; how her Holy Inquisition imported hell into the earth; how she was the first to institute it and the last to give it up - and then only under compulsion; how, with a spirit unmodified by time, she still tortures her prisoners to-day; how, with her ancient passion for pain and blood unchanged, she still crowds the arena with ladies and gentlemen and priests to see with delight a bull harried and persecuted and a gored horse dragging his entrails on the ground; and how, with this incredible character surviving all attempts to civilize it, her Duke of Alva rises again in the person of General Weyler - to-day the most idolized personage in Spain - and we see a hundred thousand women and children shut up in pens and pitilessly starved to death?

Are we indeed going to lose Spain's respect? Is there no way to avoid this calamity - or this compliment? Are we going to lose her respect because we have made a promise in our ultimatum which she thinks we shall break? And meantime is she trying to recall some promise of her own which she has kept?

Is the Professional Official Fibber of Europe really troubled with our morals? Dear Parisian friend, are you taking seriously the daily remark of the newspaper and the orator about "this noble nation with an illustrious history"? That is mere kindness, mere charity for a people in temporary hard luck. The newspaper and the orator do not mean it. They wink when they say it.
And so you are ashamed. Do not be ashamed; there is no occasion for it.

S. L. CLEMENS.

Thursday's Quote

The Washington Post: Beside the box, a magazine had been opened to reveal a picture of the presidential balls... FBI forensic testing would later confirm the balls' authenticity. (Via OxBlog)

Hey, The Elections Could Be Worse

Much worse.

Monday's Poetry Corner

Wolves, by Louis Macneice:

I do not want to be reflective any more
Envying and despising unreflective things
Finding pathos in dogs and undeveloped handwriting
And young girls doing their hair and all the castles of sand
Flushed by the children's bedtime, level with the shore.

The tide comes in and goes out again, I do not want
To be always stressing either its flux or its permanence,
I do not want to be a tragic or philosophic chorus
But to keep my eye only on the nearer future
And after that let the sea flow over us.

Come then all of you, come closer, form a circle,
Join hands and make believe that joined
Hands will keep away the wolves of water
Who howl along our coast. And be it assumed
That no one hears them among the talk and laughter.

What's Going Right In Iraq

The Los Angeles Times looks at the biased reporting on Iraq...

Even as some media gurus accuse journalists of naively accepting officials' positive spin on the war, the sweep of coverage suggests that Iraq's occupiers have turned post-invasion chaos into a hellish nightmare and perhaps a quagmire — and the consensus is that matters will only grow worse.

From the beginning, of course, there has been a counterpoint from those who are encouraged by what they see — often expressed via the Internet. "As I head off to Baghdad for the final weeks of my stay in Iraq, I wanted to say thanks to all of you who did not believe the media," Ray Reynolds, an Iowa Army National Guard medic, wrote in an e-mail forwarded to the Los Angeles Times. "They have done a very poor job of covering everything that has happened." His e-mail cited a litany of positive changes in Iraq since the invasion, from increased immunizations and educational opportunities for children — including, notably, girls — to reopened hospitals, ports and improved delivery of drinking water and telephone service.

The Debates, Part III

I know this is late, but the scatological brilliance of Triumph the Insult Comic Dog's debate coverage still has me in awe.

And be sure to view the fun at JibJab!

They Didn't Have A Leg To Stand On

After 18 pages of legal opinion, it stands to reason that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is from another planet:

If Congress and the President intended to take the extraordinary step of authorizing animals as well as people and legal entities to sue they could and should have said so plainly.

'Cause, you know, Penelope ought to be able to sue Pepe le Pew for sexual harassment.

Makes you wonder why the dolphins don't just say, "So long, and thanks for all the fish," eh?

Republicans Vs. Democrats

Richard Rushfield tried being a partisan Democrat in Republican territory, and a partisan Republican in Democratic territory. Result? Stares from Reps, and obscenities from Dems. His experiment touches on one of the reasons I will vote for Bush: Far too many anti-Bush forces have been behaving violently and shamelessly, and Senator Kerry has done little to denounce them. Heck, expert prevaricator Michael Moore received a seat of honor at the Democratic National Convention, right alongside the depressingly senile President Carter, and Kerry himself engages in desperate fearmongering (including the daft "Bush = draft"). I voted straight ticket Democrat in the last election, but with Kerry being a major letdown--to the extent that he must scrape the bottom of the barrel to round up enough votes to so much as tie his opponent during the media's polls--making one exception on my ballot this year strikes me as the wisest option. Count me among the ranks of split ticket voters.

Ein Ende Zum Unsinn

German author Heinrich Maetzke takes his homeland to task over her prevailing views on Iraq, Bush, and America in general. (Via David's Medienkritik)

A Lesson

Thanks to Tamas for sending this my way...

One day a farmer's donkey fell down into a well. The animal cried piteously for hours as the farmer tried to figure out what to do.

Finally, he decided the animal was old, and the well needed to be covered up anyway; it just wasn't worth it to retrieve the donkey. He invited all his neighbors to come over and help him. They all grabbed a shovel and began to shovel dirt into the well.

At first the donkey realized what was happening and cried horribly. Then, to everyone's amazement he quieted down. A few shovel loads later, the farmer finally looked down the well. He was astonished at what he saw. With each shovel of dirt that hit his back, the donkey was doing something amazing. He would shake it off and take a step up. As the farmer's neighbors continued to shovel dirt on top of the animal, he would shake it off and take a step up. Pretty soon, everyone was amazed as the donkey stepped up over the edge of the well and happily trotted off!

Life is going to shovel dirt on you, all kinds of dirt. The trick to getting out of the well is to shake it off and take a step up. Each of our troubles is a steppingstone. We can get out of the deepest wells just by not stopping, never giving up! Shake it off and take a step up.

Remember the five simple rules to be happy:

1. Free your heart from hatred - Forgive.
2. Free your mind from worries - Most never happen.
3. Live simply and appreciate what you have.
4. Give more.
5. Expect less-------- NOW --------

Enough of that crap. The donkey later came back and bit the shit out of the farmer who had tried to bury him. The gash from the bite got infected, and the farmer eventually died in agony from septic shock.

MORAL FROM TODAY'S LESSON: When you do something wrong and try to cover your ass, it always comes back to bite you.

Over Seas From Coast To Coast

I am listening to Westlife's "Unbreakable: Greatest Hits 1" album. And enjoying it.

Sample:
So I say a little prayer
And hope my dreams will take me there
Where the skies are blue
To see you once again, my love
Over seas from coast to coast
To find the place I love the most
Where the fields are green
To see you once again

Am I normal or nutty? I report, you decide.

Wednesday's Quote

Unnamed former Bush Administration official: The objective in staffing is never to assemble the best possible team. It is to assemble the best possible team that supports the president. (Via The Volokh Conspiracy)

Having the best possible team, period, including "neutrality and independence," is what best supports a president. This is especially true in wartime, as Winston Churchill knew when he loaded his war cabinet with political opponents. An interesting test for Kerry would be to ask whether he intends to fill key cabinet posts with Republicans, as a real "uniter, not a divider" in a time of war. Given that he has yet to attack Bush on this, I rather doubt it. Shame.

Back Away From The Truck

If you thought Hummers were bad, see this new truck allegedly built as a service vehicle, but destined to tenderize, chop and pulverize roadkill (and pretty much anything else that gets in its way). Not exactly environmentally friendly, either. But one of these might be able to fight it.

Thursday's Quote

It is late, and the words are familiar, but it is a statement worth remembering (from a story worth reading)...

Cpl. Dante Ruiz: If you stay in the past, you'll never get anything done.

You Grandson Of A Gun!

A few clarifications on this post...

One basic assumption is that there is a 'gun problem.' It is true, if you mean it in the same sense as deadlier item like motor vehicles (43,354 incidents in 2001, accounting for 1.8% of all American deaths that year, compared to 28,663 firearms, or 1.2%, including criminals legally killed through law enforcement or self-defense) give rise to a 'car problem.' Those same vehicles accounted for 44.3% of all accident fatalities in the United States, whereas firearms accounted for 0.8%. For comparison, liquids such as hydroxyl acid (and I drink this stuff all the time!) killed 3,842 people, about 3.9% of all accidental deaths.

If the numbers of guns deaths were higher, one would still have to weigh them against the lives saved by guns, or consider how a gun could have prevented situations like this recent tragedy. Here in Memphis, an 80-year-old woman threatened by a known felon managed to protect herself and end his criminal career from a safe distance, thanks to a little handgun that was all her dainty hands could handle. (Why support making the elderly defenseless? The most avid gun buyers in the United States are senior citizens. We need not worry, unless they are Hell's Grannies.)

It’s been suggested that guns entered homes after a gun owner made others so threatened they felt they also had to own guns, but the more likely scenario is that the threat already existed and the gun filled the need for a tool to combat it. After all, a gun is an amoral, inanimate object. It has no innate wickedness, or inherent ability to commit evil. A gun can work as well as a collectable paperweight as a thief's tool of the trade, just as a knife in the hands of a gourmet chef brings wonder while the same knife in the hands of a serial killer brings horror. Guns do not pull their own triggers. We need more criminal control, not more gun control.

Much about anti-gun activism builds an aura of 'forbidden fruit' around guns that is both unnecessary and dangerous, a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy. I lost a friend in elementary school when he, intrigued by responses that he should not attempt to learn more about guns, accidentally shot himself in the belly after he decided to do his own research. A supervised exploration of an unloaded weapon would have avoided the tragedy.

Firearm deaths go down with more gun education. Most criminals become less inclined to be criminals in areas with more guns, too, leaving only the deranged and desperate to engage in such sad pastimes as gang wars and drug cartels (Memphis' high murder rate pools deeply in such drug-infested neighborhoods, where even stricter gun control would be as successful as the stricter drug control supposedly already in place). Example: Rapists typically disapprove of any increased probability of getting their heads blown off by bellicose females opposed to being violated. Strange, but true! At the opposite end, Brazil started a ban on carrying a gun on one's person in July, and now the bad guys of Brazil are bolder and deadlier. In September, a criminal first for Brazil occurred as four locals--with illegal guns, natch--robbed a bus carrying 46 unarmed men, all policemen, before driving away. Targeting guns for cultural censorship works, but usually for the wrong people.

Finally, when I quote Lincoln on maintaining a 'revolutionary right,' I am not doing so in reference to head-to-head combat (since it has been noted that few rebels survive against superior firepower) but seek to emphasize the deterrent effect. Dictators are no doubt aware that many a coup occurred because of "weekend wannabe warriors," and take lessons even from hopelessly out-gunned revolts like America's own Whiskey Rebellion. There is also the opposite matter of giving Government a helping hand. I am not calling for everything a government owns to be made available to the public--though I could definitely live with citizens having military firearms, provided the owners were well-trained, licensed and evaluated--but am calling for recognition that the People are captains & guards of their own destinies.

Those Puritan Perverts

Heh. Turns out they weren't so pure.

You Son Of A Gun!

One of the joys of the US Constitution is that it is a living document, subject to interpretation, and alterable should American society deem it appropriate. It succinctly tells the government what to do, and leaves everything else to the States or the People. Compare to the European Union's Constitution--a pre-fossilized behemoth that tells the People what to do, and regulates practically everything down to how many dustbins should be in a schoolroom.

The Second Amendment reads: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Anti-gun control lobbyists tend to ignore "a well-regulated Militia", and gun control lobbyists tend to ignore "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Both operative phrases are subject to interpretation, hence the debate. But George Mason pithily clarified, "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." All of the Second Amendment's originators and supporters were adamant that "the Constitution shall never be construed... to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."

For my part, I support gun ownership on the same basis that I support gay equality, by following the traditional American ethos that Government is best suited for, and should therefore stick to, Government business. Is there a more striking example of personal freedom than the Pink Pistols?

Those who try to peg support for gun ownership on the Religious Right may have a point, though. Jesus Christ also supported weapons in the home, observing in Luke 11:21 that "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe."

But the Son of God makes a rational argument.

As Patrick Henry put it, "Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own self-defense?" James Madison similarly remarked, "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust people with arms." More recently, conservative guru Mark Steyn wrote what may be his best perspective on the issue here. And of course an amusing example of this perspective appears in a Japanese admiral's (possibly apocryphal) explanation of why his country did not invade the US mainland after Pearl Harbor. "We did indeed know much about your preparedness," he said. "We knew that probably every second home in your country contained firearms. We knew that your country actually had state championships for private citizens shooting military rifles. We were not fools to set foot in such quicksand." The bottom line is that gun-crazy American citizens save lives, not by firing their weapons, but by simply being gun-crazy American citizens. It is also worth adding that many of these gun-toting loonies are gentle souls who collect modern weaponry as a hobby, in a mold related to those who collect ancient swords, medieval maces, or build catapults.

The curious thing is that stricter gun control tends to create more violent crime. In 1999, the tight gun controls in Washington, DC permitted 69 murders per 100,000, a death rate worse than American troops experienced in the Iraq War. The same year, Indianapolis' weaker gun controls resulted in 60 fewer murders per 100,000. And look overseas, where, apparently inspired by the long-time gun control in Northern Ireland (because, you know, it worked so well at preventing the IRA from hurting anyone...) British Prime Minister Tony Blair pushed a "total ban" on home gun ownership, the result of which has been a startling increase in violent crime every year since, with Birmingham's New Year bloodshed in 2003 an especially sad example. The year before, the United Nations revealed that England now has the dubious honor of having the highest crime rate of the world's 20 leading nations. Why? Well, there is the obvious fact that criminals are not likely to stop being criminals because the government bans guns, and those criminals are in fact rather happy that the government opened the door for an entire underground industry devoted to the buying, selling and manufacture of illegal weapons. Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, an expert on this matter, called such gun control "the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters."

And despite scaremongering from the likes of Michael Moore, America has a rate of gun violence actually on par with, if not less than, Canada in terms of demographic percentage. Drug-related crime is an oft-marginalized factor, for one, as most homicides are drug-related and, quite frankly, America's War on Drugs functions with the same effectiveness as the UK's War on Guns (and for many of the same reasons). Firearms remain the most effective means of self-defense, particularly for women, and self-defense deters crime. After recently easing its gun control laws, New York recorded its lowest murder rate since the 19th century.

The punchiest argument for guns everywhere is protection from corrupt governments. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government," wrote Thomas Jefferson. Or as Abraham Lincoln put it, "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." His observation bookends nicely with the fact that every descent into fascism in the modern age was accompanied by the implementation of gun control, and one of the most successful champions of gun control, Adolf Hitler, cleverly noted that "the most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing." Indeed, as a Washington University Law Quarterly article notes, none of the dozens of major genocides of the past 100 years, including China's democide under Mao, occurred against an armed population. And look at efforts against genocide by citizens with firepower, as in the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt. It is sadly worth remembering that many gun control laws in the US tended, and still tend, to have racist connotations. Consider the New York State Sullivan Act, originally created with the ulterior motive of keeping guns out of the hands of Italian-Americans.

All of this is especially frightening to consider in view of a United Nations effort to internationally overturn sovereign laws such the Second Amendment, with the UN Secretary-General, facing ever-mounting evidence that an armed populace decreases rather encourages crime (and even if there were an increase, surely it should be weighed against the benefits such as prevention of invasion, tyrannical government and genocide), intends to disarm the world's populace.

But the biggest issue in the US is not gun ownership, but what kind of gun ownership. Fully-automatic and military weapons are rightfully banned and will remain banned, but a ban on 'assault weapons' recently, and rightfully, expired. The ban had no effect on crime, as the criminals simply bought the stuff in unregulated alleyways rather than regulated gun shops. Another claim, more popular nowadays, was that terrorists could use the semi-automatics against Americans, ignoring that terrorists prefer fully-automatics, because a semi-automatic Uzi with one 25-round magazine is no deadlier than a handgun used with three 10-round magazines, but *real* assault weapons like the outlawed fully-automatic Uzi do have questionable merit as a method of home defense ('overkill'). Which brings to point how the ban was entirely arbitrary in its selection: How is a rifle with a 'pistol grip' more dangerous than a standard rifle? How are semi-automatics--which, by the way, cannot "spray bullets"--the toughest guns on the market when big game hunters actually prefer .30-06s and .375 H&Hs? The ban included bayonet mounts, but a long kitchen knife and some duct tape works around that (except for those hobbyists forced to hide some of their World War II paraphernalia), and who exactly anticipated a rash of crimes committed by bayonet charge?

Motor vehicles kill more people than guns, and are used more often in fatal crimes... but we allow people to own and use motor vehicles... however, we require that people pass standardized tests in owning and using motor vehicles... so perhaps a solution is to require people to know how to handle a gun before owning one? This is consistent with the Constitution, and in fact Richard Henry Lee once said, "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." We trust 16-year-olds with difficult-to-learn, two-ton mechanisms that average over a million lbs. of energy per foot, so the rabid paranoia over an easy-to-learn, lightweight mechanism that exerts 250 lbs. of energy per foot simply baffles me.