Memphis politics are mostly uncultured petty squabbling with occasional bursts of cultured petty squabbling, but the indictment of several Tennessee politicians, including four from Memphis, is too big for me to ignore.
Of particular note on the list is Memphis' most controversial figure, state Sen. John Ford. He is the uncle of the far more credible Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (who announced a bid to replace Sen. Bill Frist yesterday and would probably like voters to forget some family ties). In addition to being the target of the FBI investigation into his financial deals, John Ford's troubled past includes apparently creating a child support bill for himself concerning at least six children he's had with three different women in two different homes, related questions about his residency, and really too many conflicts to enumerate here.
So, yes, it looks like they are finally going to catch the dirty rotten scoundrel.
Update: Bill Hobbs has the goods.
Update: The John Ford indictment (pdf file).
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Filly Buster
Mickey Kaus points out that the judicial filibuster deal may simply be a way to keep Congress corrupt:
The filibuster's infrastructural role has powerful multiplier effect: It means not only that obscure minority Senators attract millions in campaign contributions. while the aides of obscure minority Senators aides find pleasant $250,000 jobs as influencers with vital "access." It means that those Senators can afford to hire well-paid fundraisers to funnel those contributions, while interest groups need direct mail experts to raise the money to make their own "access" producing contributions, and all these people need restaurants like The Palm to feed them and brokers to swap their houses and mechanics to service their Acuras and Audis. Thanks to the Senate's precious right of unlimited debate, a wave of prosperity sweeps over the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area! Funded by the rest of the country.
Probably true. Still, while Kaus' admitted cynicism cuts through the high rhetoric, the filibuster (on judicial nominees or other matters) is worth defending, and ought to appeal to both parties. Democrats should appreciate this deal because it favors them (as Kaus noted 12 hours earlier) and largely guarantees them a seat at the table, and Republicans should appreciate it as upholding the values of Republicanism that hold the United States as a democratic but constitutional republic where minority rights are equal to those of the majority, as opposed to the majority autocracy of direct democracy. The ad hoc coalition kept mob rule away from the most powerful branch of government. That is cause for celebration.
I do support the calls for a supermajority vote on judges that have some folks upset, although America's Founding Fathers considered one version of such a vote (from The Founder's Constitution, via Althouse):
Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.
My own observation is that, unlike staff appointments and general legislation, judicial appointments last for life and are supposedly non-partisan. I care very little about whether the "2d. branch" and the Executive are working well together compared to whether we see fair & effective judges on the bench. We need justices more than half the country can respect, otherwise "Judicial activism!" becomes the rallying cry whenever a decision proves unpopular and appointees become little more than political pawns. Supermajorities force the government to either get along or get distracted. Either option works for me. A supermajority requirement for judicial nominees seems like a good, easy way to restore some lost faith in the system.
If I am wrong? Interest groups are paying off senators anyway (they do that everywhere; it is one of those international traditions you're always hearing about), so we might as well make it cost them.
The filibuster's infrastructural role has powerful multiplier effect: It means not only that obscure minority Senators attract millions in campaign contributions. while the aides of obscure minority Senators aides find pleasant $250,000 jobs as influencers with vital "access." It means that those Senators can afford to hire well-paid fundraisers to funnel those contributions, while interest groups need direct mail experts to raise the money to make their own "access" producing contributions, and all these people need restaurants like The Palm to feed them and brokers to swap their houses and mechanics to service their Acuras and Audis. Thanks to the Senate's precious right of unlimited debate, a wave of prosperity sweeps over the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area! Funded by the rest of the country.
Probably true. Still, while Kaus' admitted cynicism cuts through the high rhetoric, the filibuster (on judicial nominees or other matters) is worth defending, and ought to appeal to both parties. Democrats should appreciate this deal because it favors them (as Kaus noted 12 hours earlier) and largely guarantees them a seat at the table, and Republicans should appreciate it as upholding the values of Republicanism that hold the United States as a democratic but constitutional republic where minority rights are equal to those of the majority, as opposed to the majority autocracy of direct democracy. The ad hoc coalition kept mob rule away from the most powerful branch of government. That is cause for celebration.
I do support the calls for a supermajority vote on judges that have some folks upset, although America's Founding Fathers considered one version of such a vote (from The Founder's Constitution, via Althouse):
Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.
My own observation is that, unlike staff appointments and general legislation, judicial appointments last for life and are supposedly non-partisan. I care very little about whether the "2d. branch" and the Executive are working well together compared to whether we see fair & effective judges on the bench. We need justices more than half the country can respect, otherwise "Judicial activism!" becomes the rallying cry whenever a decision proves unpopular and appointees become little more than political pawns. Supermajorities force the government to either get along or get distracted. Either option works for me. A supermajority requirement for judicial nominees seems like a good, easy way to restore some lost faith in the system.
If I am wrong? Interest groups are paying off senators anyway (they do that everywhere; it is one of those international traditions you're always hearing about), so we might as well make it cost them.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
They're Russian To Judgment
First, Russian President Vladimir Putin puffed himself up as a truer democrat than American President George W. Bush...
In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic.
If you define democracy as strict majority rule with fewer checks & balances against fraud, yes. Following up on Putin's ignorance of America, I must remind him that the United States is a democratic republic, which means the heart of the election (and government as a whole) is supposed to be Constitutional law, not mob rule. Which leads us to...
Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the pivotal Florida vote was unfair to everyone, but that there was not enough time to sufficiently study and legally correct the voting process in Florida. A joint Miami Herald/USA Today study later found that only one scenario could allow a Gore win: a state-wide recount using the loosest standards possible. The biggest study, by the National Opinion Research Center, confirmed that only the most fraud-friendly standards would have provided a Gore victory. The problem is America's lack of uniformity on voting, but that clearly can't be worse than in Russia. Given the legal concerns regarding democratic failure in three counties of one state, the parties made the logical step of advancing to those who know the law. This beats going to the chief executive and/or his cronies for arbitration, as seems to occur in certain backsliding democracies. Which then leads us to...
Democracy cannot be exported to some other place.
Yeah, it would be like dropping bombs on (and then occupying!) Japan and Germany in order to foster democracy in places that, at best, hadn't had it in awhile. Or like an international organization meddling to such an extent that it can impose borders, send people to keep the peace against the wishes of the local government, issue mandates against sovereign nations, and commit gross acts of interventionism. But what if there is already a democratic movement in a country, and it needs help from outside in order to rise to the occasion?
The day that Putin's silliness made headlines, a Russian astrologer received the all-clear to sue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for $300 million over a plan to crush a probe into a comet:
In a 279-million-dollar (215-million-euro) project, NASA in January launched the Deep Impact spacecraft which will travel to the comet and release an "impactor" -- a 370-kilogram (820-pound) self-guided mass -- on US Independence Day (July 4) which is expected to create a crater that could be as large as a football stadium.
Scientists believe that the exposed material from the resulting crater will yield clues to the formation of the solar system and provide important information on altering the course of comets or asteroids on a collision course with earth.
In other words, they are looking for data that could save our lives in the event that a giant rock is about to slam into Earth. So how does she justify potentially sending humanity to an early grave?
"My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe," Molokhova was quoted as saying.
The lawyer said Tempel 1 had sentimental value to Bai because her grandparents met when her grandfather pointed the comet out to his future wife.
So 1) the big ball of ice gives her warm fuzzies, and 2) she predicts that the universe will go wobbly if the rocket roadsters make a comet crater. See what too much vodka does to people?
But wait! America is the root of all that is tragic, as a Russian community now knows!
A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its lake disappeared overnight.
Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more sinister explanations.
"I am thinking, well, America has finally got to us,” said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house.
Exactly, and this man helped us do it.
In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic.
If you define democracy as strict majority rule with fewer checks & balances against fraud, yes. Following up on Putin's ignorance of America, I must remind him that the United States is a democratic republic, which means the heart of the election (and government as a whole) is supposed to be Constitutional law, not mob rule. Which leads us to...
Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the pivotal Florida vote was unfair to everyone, but that there was not enough time to sufficiently study and legally correct the voting process in Florida. A joint Miami Herald/USA Today study later found that only one scenario could allow a Gore win: a state-wide recount using the loosest standards possible. The biggest study, by the National Opinion Research Center, confirmed that only the most fraud-friendly standards would have provided a Gore victory. The problem is America's lack of uniformity on voting, but that clearly can't be worse than in Russia. Given the legal concerns regarding democratic failure in three counties of one state, the parties made the logical step of advancing to those who know the law. This beats going to the chief executive and/or his cronies for arbitration, as seems to occur in certain backsliding democracies. Which then leads us to...
Democracy cannot be exported to some other place.
Yeah, it would be like dropping bombs on (and then occupying!) Japan and Germany in order to foster democracy in places that, at best, hadn't had it in awhile. Or like an international organization meddling to such an extent that it can impose borders, send people to keep the peace against the wishes of the local government, issue mandates against sovereign nations, and commit gross acts of interventionism. But what if there is already a democratic movement in a country, and it needs help from outside in order to rise to the occasion?
The day that Putin's silliness made headlines, a Russian astrologer received the all-clear to sue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for $300 million over a plan to crush a probe into a comet:
In a 279-million-dollar (215-million-euro) project, NASA in January launched the Deep Impact spacecraft which will travel to the comet and release an "impactor" -- a 370-kilogram (820-pound) self-guided mass -- on US Independence Day (July 4) which is expected to create a crater that could be as large as a football stadium.
Scientists believe that the exposed material from the resulting crater will yield clues to the formation of the solar system and provide important information on altering the course of comets or asteroids on a collision course with earth.
In other words, they are looking for data that could save our lives in the event that a giant rock is about to slam into Earth. So how does she justify potentially sending humanity to an early grave?
"My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe," Molokhova was quoted as saying.
The lawyer said Tempel 1 had sentimental value to Bai because her grandparents met when her grandfather pointed the comet out to his future wife.
So 1) the big ball of ice gives her warm fuzzies, and 2) she predicts that the universe will go wobbly if the rocket roadsters make a comet crater. See what too much vodka does to people?
But wait! America is the root of all that is tragic, as a Russian community now knows!
A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its lake disappeared overnight.
Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more sinister explanations.
"I am thinking, well, America has finally got to us,” said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house.
Exactly, and this man helped us do it.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Aww Star Wars, Give Me Those Star Wars
Saw Star War: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Thursday evening...
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Quote For The Day
P.J. O'Rourke, Republican Party Reptile:
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
Monday, May 16, 2005
NewsTweak
Blogs everywhere seem to be tackling Newsweek's non-apology for their coverage of the non-story involving an alleged and, it turns out, very much unsubstantiated Koran desecration. The Blogfather has three (count 'em: one, two, three) separate posts on it in less than 24 hours. But while the main thrust of discussion seems to be about American journalists continuing to fall into the same [self-]destructive trap as their overseas counterparts, what stands out for me is the excessive reaction to the story, whether true or false.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
UNnecessary Roughness
Mark Steyn confronts the United Nations with a vengeance:
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life
Reuters:
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Georgia On My Mind
Over at BBC's Have Your Say the warm reception President Bush received in Georgia is being badmouthed with ad hominems. Assuming Bush is making nice for ulterior motives (apparently a politician looking out for his constituency is unthinkably bad), let us not forget that politics is not always a zero-sum game. Georgia is already receiving some benefit--namely, publicly for what a lovely country it's become--as a result of Bush's visit. I am sure they will receive more, though probably without the fanfare. The naysayers would do well to let them enjoy it, and remember that helping through tourist dollars would be a better way to show concern than griping online.
Imperial March (Darth Tater's Theme)
While Darth Tater sells for over $30 on eBay, where I know the battle for him firsthand, other bits of plastic strive to show they are powerful in the Dark Side of the Brick. (Via Doug Lacey)
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Britons Give Liberty A Bloody Nose
Being an American, I lack the first-hand experience of my Britannia brethren on such matters, but it looks to me like the United Kingdom is unfortunately on its way to becoming a nanny state, but for the moment is holding ground as a supporter of foreign nations gaining/maintaining sovereignty by the people.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
An Open Letter To Silvio Berlusconi
Dear Prime Minister Berlusconi,
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The World Doesn't Always Seem Magical
People may say Human Rights Watch becomes hysterical over even the most understandable offences, but that is the organization's job, and they do it with more credible perspectives (i.e., constructive criticisms and actual solutions) than the perpetual whiners at Amnesty International.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
