The Tone-Deaf Mushroom

Sing Along With JFK!

2007-11-08T23:32:00.000-06:00

Ask not (ask not!) about this song from one of Basic Hip Digital Oddio's pages of oddities.

English As The English Speak It

2007-09-29T23:33:00.000-05:00

A bit of Fry and Laurie...
(Via ayesham819)

Fun With Scientology

2007-09-03T19:05:00.000-05:00

Good ol' Boston Legal...

(Via petoso2)

But where is Peter Brennan?

Something To Take My Mind Off The Return To Uni

2007-08-26T09:13:00.000-05:00

Marcy Playground performing The Ballad of Aslan...

(Via woz22)

Help Leukaemia Research

2007-08-02T00:03:00.000-05:00

Please spread the word about composer Patrick Doyle's "Music from the Movies: An All-Star Celebration" to benefit blood cancer research. You can try to attend if you are in London in late October, or you can contribute simply by making a donation (in British pounds).

The "New" John Williams

2007-08-01T21:05:00.000-05:00

America's greatest living composer is probably John Williams. Since his music has been around for about 50 years, there is a temptation to engage in chronological snobbery (new/old music is better because it is newer/older). The Maestro changes a bit with the times, so while many had Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark as their first Williams soundtrack, I had Jurassic Park. Younger people have Harry Potter. Those of the Star Wars generation may listen to War of the Worlds with disappointment; the Harry Potter child may embrace War of the Worlds with dark fascination. There may be value in both reactions.

I respect the analytical seriousness in Williams' work. It has always been there, but emerges more often as he gets older. Though written with exceptional skill, his epic fanfares and soaring love themes nevertheless tackle emotions he usually explores in far subtler ways, or not at all, when left to his own devices. Like Aaron Copland and Leonard Bernstein before him, he went through a phase where his music could touch almost everyone, learned from it, and moved on. John Williams' film music is sounding more like John Williams, and I admire this "new" sound.

Final "Blade Runner" Cut

2007-08-01T00:04:00.000-05:00

Some previews are here, and there is more about this as well as a possible (though, to my mind, highly unlikely) sequel: "It probably keys off with Edward James Olmos’ line when he says, 'It's a pity she won't live. But then who does.'" Better bring back Edward James Olmos, then.

They Must Have Hated The Enlightenment

2007-07-07T20:44:00.000-05:00

I largely agree with the new "seven wonders." Easter Island and Stonehenge each seem more wondrous than the Statue of Christ Redeemer, but, hey, all of the finalists were marvels.

Today's Associated Press coverage did make me chuckle in reference to another famous erection:

Many jeered when the Statue of Liberty was announced as one of the candidates. Portugal was widely opposed to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

I never knew Lady Liberty was involved in the Iraq intervention.

Booing an inanimate object because it resides in the United States has more to do with prejudices than policies, and that anti-Americanism is complete merde when the target is a French statue. D'oh!

Call of the Champions

2007-06-29T23:09:00.000-05:00

Here is something to help cool those of us in warm (read: sweltering) climes, with John Williams, orchestra, and chorus modeling garden gnome winter fashions:

(Via MeridiusReborn)

Iran, Through Iraq?

2007-06-29T10:21:00.000-05:00

The recent WSJ editorial that outlined how a U.S. withdraw from Iraq could broaden the Middle East conflict prompted me to wonder whether that was part of the plan all along, particularly with regard to Iran. If Iraq becomes a lasting success story (as is still possible), then that significantly marginalizes Iran, and war with the burgeoning nuclear power is less likely. If one of the few countries in the region that is [proto-]democratic and not overwhelmingly anti-American falters, the resulting boost for Iranian influence would also boost U.S. grounds for a war against Iran. With Iraq effectively neutralized by war and American troops freed for a new conflict, war with Iran would become highly probable. So Iraq presents a win-win opportunity over Iran: Succeed with one, gain diplomatic advantage against the other; fail with one, gain militaristic advantage against the other. Success is ideal, but there are a growing number of Pontius Pilates in D.C. who would rather do what is popular than do what is just. So barring a restored interest in saving Iraq, I suspect that bombs will drop on Iran a few months after America abandons the Iraqis. (Count this as another reason why I oppose abandoning the Iraqis...)

Thinking Of Spew

2007-06-20T00:34:00.000-05:00

Sunday was the sickest day in my memory. It was probably food poisoning, but I am not clear on when or where I started hosting Viral and the Gastroenteritises. I do know that I woke up on Sunday morning, ran to the bathroom to vomit, drank some water, slept an hour, woke up, ran to the bathroom to vomit, drank some water, slept an hour, woke up, etc., for about 20 hours, with Gatorade, a bedside bucket, and a late-night addition of the runs being the only key variations. Of the graphic details I will quickly observe that leaning over the bathroom sink while sitting on the toilet is bad, having the dry heaves is worse, and blowing chunks through one's nose is worst of all ("I just sneezed corn?!").

Apart from the blur of bed, bath, and bucket, I experienced an overwhelming feeling that I was lost, despite being aware and responsive. Essentially, I was disassociating myself from my body. I have had others disassociate themselves from my body, but this was a first. The good thing is that I am happy to be reacquainted.

I rarely remember my dreams, so I should probably note the two I recall from Sunday night. In the first, I decided to go for an eventful walk while visiting friends in California. By eventful, I mean getting lost in the woods, surrounded by vicious ghosts, and rescued at the last minute by the claw of an alien spacecraft. In the second, I tried to help my brother track down an international hitman based at the University of Memphis.

All I consumed on Sunday was water, Gatorade, and a couple of aspirin. Honest.

Give Carter Credit

2007-06-20T00:14:00.000-05:00

Any man who accepts a Nobel Peace Prize awarded out of spite rather than merit, manages to lose 14 partners at one go, and paints Hamas terrorists as misunderstood victims must be blissfully free from reality's burdens.

Next: Mars plan condemned after making a foreign official "very angry! Very angry indeed!"

No-Go For The Logo

2007-06-10T15:51:00.000-05:00

My initial reaction to the 2012 Olympic "brand" was apparently the same exclamation of "What the [expletive deleted] is that?!" uttered by almost everyone not involved with the ghastly thing. Lileks of course summed it up as only he can, yet I hoped to be the first to note that it looks like... well, suppose the "0" represents a head and the final "2" is the rest of the body, with an arm reaching out for that protruding bit of the first "2." But no, someone had to say it outright: "It looks like Lisa Simpson giving a blowjob."

The Varèse Sarabande logo could not be reached for comment.

Al Gore's Mileage Will Be Amazing

2007-06-05T13:30:00.000-05:00

India is producing an automobile that runs on compressed air. It pays to be full of wind!

Still, Bob Ewing's byline on the article is a surprise.

This Explains So Much

2007-06-02T17:08:00.000-05:00

Write you own punchline: "You might not want to do it, but removing half of your brain will not significantly impact who you are."

Sudan Holds Fizzy Drinks Hostage

2007-06-01T04:33:00.000-05:00

Accuse them of genocide, and they plot to take away our Coke. Do they want a full-scale war?

Gorgeous Tiny Chicken Machine Show

2007-05-31T13:57:00.000-05:00

My life will never be the same again.

(Via MediocreFilms)

My Five Favorite Beatles Songs

2007-05-28T18:54:00.000-05:00

In response to Norman Geras' incredibly tough poll...

"Across the Universe": Psychedelic Beatles songs are my least favorite of their stylings, since I am neither a product of the sixties nor its chemical rebellion. But this song is brilliant without the assistance of hallucinogens. A perfect fusion of music and lyric.

"Eleanor Rigby": Yes, it is ersatz-classical. Yes, it is a predictable selection for this poll. Yes, it is one of the most evocative songs in the English language.

"Hey Jude": I had the most trouble settling on this title, mostly because of "Strawberry Fields Forever" and "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds". Nevertheless, there is a mature quality in this song that the others lack. Underneath its classic rock form is a timeless lullaby for adults.

"Nowhere Man": The cold opening is an attention-getter, and the song just gets better. If the lyrics' wit (as in both humor and insight) are not enough to merit top placement, then consider the music. It is unapologetically catchy without being cheesy.

"Yesterday": This simple yet powerful song about love and loss is one of my first musical memories and one of my last memories of my maternal grandmother. I heard it along with "Let It Be" in her hospital room when I was four years old. Both have similar merits, but "Yesterday" has the edge.

Whatever you think of these picks, do not click the last link in this post.

Sign Language Translation

2007-05-28T17:07:00.000-05:00

(Via AdamBuxton)

We Can't Pull Out

2007-05-28T16:07:00.000-05:00

Robert Mitchum says so!

And here is the smartest article on Iraq I have seen in ages.

Saud Off

2007-05-26T08:32:00.000-05:00

"My notion is that religions should be robust enough to trust their members. A religion should arm you to go into the world, not wall you off from it." - Roger Ebert

I watched Undercover Mosque, the video referenced in Vanity Fair's "Londonistan Calling" article. The paranoia at the mosques in question is bad, the bigotry is worse, and I think there are laws against inciting violence. One speaker claims a "freedom of speech" right to destroy the rights of others.

Why are so few Muslims publicly challenging these extremists? And why is the West failing in its support of Muslims courageous enough to shatter the stereotypes?

Update: Speaking of shattered stereotypes, CBS News reveals that aspiring to be a journalist-slicing jihadist will not free you from the long arms of the bureaucrats (pdf file). (via The Belmont Club)

Shatner in the Sky with Diamonds

2007-05-23T10:16:00.000-05:00

Oh... the... humanity!

BBC vs. Scientology

2007-05-20T12:22:00.000-05:00

A comment at Samizdata:

It seemed to me that on one side you had representatives of a fanatical cult trying to foist its views on the rest of the world and on the other... the Church of Scientology.

Truly, they deserve one another.

Owie.

Unwell Falwell Farewell

2007-05-18T09:48:00.000-05:00

I did not want to post anything about Jerry Falwell. Speaking ill of the dead is not a good a habit, and the best I could muster for the reverend were double-edged adjectives such as "dedicated," "well-meaning," and "sincere." But the parishioners of Westboro Baptist Church remind me that Falwell at least had the reassuring trait of relative sanity:

"WBC will preach at the memorial service of the corpulent false prophet Jerry Falwell, who spent his entire life prophesying lies and false doctrines like 'God loves everyone,'" reads a posting on Godhatesamerica.com...

"Falwell warmly praised Christ-rejecting Jews, pedophile-condoning Catholics, money-grubbing compromisers, practicing fags like Mel White, and backsliders like Billy Graham and Robert Schuler, etc.," the site reads.

The hate-sponsoring lunatics also reworked "We Are the World" into "God Hates the World".

Know what God really hates? Nazis.

Update:

Update II: Bombs are not good coping devices.

Where Are We Going In This Handbasket?

2007-05-17T13:00:00.000-05:00

Instapundit is covering a series of abuses under America's current president as professors share information, students express ideas, painters paint, religion engages minds, bloggers speak truth to power, others criticize government officials, and citizens publicly organize their views.

NASA's Idea of Breaking Wind

2007-05-11T09:15:00.000-05:00

Watch the video with your volume up!

Iraq To The Future

2007-02-03T19:34:00.000-06:00

Debate never hinges on what people know, but on what people believe they know. I have yet to find myself in an argument over whether fire burns, for example, but everyone has his talking points on Iraq. Human actions can be misguided, misread, mysterious. I know, because I oppose Big Government, favor gay marriage, think bans are an "un-nuanced" way to deal with problems such as drugs and abortion, believe all levels of government have social responsibilities, reject strict gun controls, support the Iraq intervention in principle, think Bush has actually done some things correctly, want Congress to raise the minimum wage, respect Condoleezza Rice immensely, and love to challenge and be challenged. Consequently, I have been called an anarchist, a closet Republican, a closet Democrat, a fascist, and a few synonyms of "moron." Turns out that people just think differently (when they think at all).

If you know me, you probably know my four-point action theory:

1. One can view actions as legitimate or illegitimate based on the morals of those doing the actions. The idea is that ulterior motives undermine even the most righteous aim. A crime-lord's henchman can turn his bosses over to the feds, but if he does it in order to take over the operation then society is hardly better for the exchange.

2. One can view actions in terms of whether we can justify the act ourselves. The argument is that people can do good things for the wrong reasons, so the morality of the actor is separate from that of the action. A donation through convenience can benefit the needy as well as any through charity.

3. A person can also view actions in terms of how they occur. An action can be personally and objectively justified, but the methods used can damage credibility. Even Belloq knows one shouldn't use a bulldozer to find a china cup.

4. Another perspective focuses on results. The end may not justify the means, but it sure is nice when happy endings occur by providence or human hand.

This may be an oversimplification, but most people I know consider all four factors. For example, (1) there is no doubt in my mind that President Bush was political about Iraq and so engaged in some dubious exaggerations, omissions, and contacts. But then his statements were reasonably honest compared to many pundits', including a significant number that chose to mislead in the opposing direction. Certainly I never bought conservative arguments that Bill Clinton killed 4,000 Iraqis and signed the pivotal Iraq Liberation Act "for no good reason," and do not buy them now that they are liberal arguments against George W. Bush. Instead, (2) I hold my head high among the dwindling number of Iraq interventionists and speak out against unfair criticisms because blowing the lid off of a U.N.-sponsored murder-for-profit scheme, giving others the option of democracy, and pushing anti-authoritarian agendas are all traditional liberal ideas that Clinton, Bush and the vast majority of Congress, even now, deserve credit for promoting in Iraq. I also happen to think there is valid historical and moral precedent for disposing of dictators who invade neighboring countries, target Jews, bar free and fair elections, gas fellow countrymen, torture political opponents, murder into the seven digits, endorse ethnic cleansing, and have silly mustaches. (3) The manner in which this happened raises questions about the mores of both sides of the debate, although the government's failure to engage the world press and to forcefully repudiate torturers and abusers among its own ranks has done the most to allow growing numbers of people to see individuals who rape, behead, and slaughter innocents as more sympathetic. (4) Nobody can be certain of the future, especially not with "war fever" and "war fatigue" at issue, so I will not join the pundits in this particular guessing-game. I will only say that the consequences of engaging in a war without a decisive victory usually, historically match or surpass the damages from the war itself, so I hope that there is a decisive victory, that any American withdraw without one bucks the trend and, if it does not, that America will hasten to aid again.

So there ya go, a few scattered thoughts for use as fertilizer. (Sorry about the smell.)

Indonesia Calls For Aid

2006-05-28T21:54:00.000-05:00

Please offer what you can to help the people of Java.

And while people are most important, many of them have other loved ones that also need care.

But I Have Charlton Heston's Autograph

2006-05-21T12:55:00.000-05:00

The things you see when you haven't got your machine.

Thank You Very Much Oh Mr. Donato

2006-05-20T05:37:00.000-05:00

Spotted: New dress code for Democratic leadership.

The Language Gap As A Handicap?

2006-05-20T03:16:00.000-05:00

The following is an essay I wrote in April concerning a series of articles on America's English-only debate.

English dominates the United States as the nation’s de facto language of commerce and entertainment. Although scattered pockets of non-English speakers and nods to “cultural diversity” fragment the language’s cultural reign, it is otherwise monolithic in its influence. Robert D. King’s “Should English Be the Law?” S. I. Hayakawa’s “Bilingualism in America: English Should Be the Official Language,” Greg Lewis’ “An Open Letter to Diversity’s Victims,” and Myriam Marquez’s “Why and When We Speak Spanish in Public” use well-reasoned arguments to explore the role English plays in American life as well as the extent (if any) languages such as Spanish threaten its supremacy. King and Marquez argue that the English-speaking majority is in no danger and should accommodate non-English speakers. Lewis and Hayakawa argue that non-English speakers should adapt to the mainstream for their own good as well as that of the masses. Each brings so many different views to the discussion that a reader may easily support making English mandatory in public schools while simultaneously opposing a law making English the official language of the United States.

For instance, King frames his argument with histories of the Official English movement and of other national languages, balancing his own observations in such a way that they could seem indifferent were it not for the nine pages leading to his proposed solution: “Benign neglect is a good policy for any country when it comes to language, and it’s a good policy for America.” Lewis is keen to report such facts as California’s English-only education substantially improving Hispanic elementary students’ grades, but he is blunter in his assessment of administrators who supported the earlier system of bilingual education (“liberal educational segregationists,” he calls them); he is downright quarrelsome when he segues into a tangent involving Ebonics and employment. Marquez is the most personable of the quartet, largely due to a first-person narrative drawn from her life as an Hispanic in America. The most reasonably passionate is Hayakawa. He has no difficulty providing data similar to Lewis’, but he also supplies his own experiences as an American, a son of immigrants, and a politician. Sentences such as “As a former resident of California, I am completely familiar with a system that uses two official languages, and I would not advise any nation to move in such a direction unless forced to do so” provide introductions for his essay’s supporting details.

One of those details cited by Hayakawa is the extensive use of English in India, arguably because the country would be in a multilingual muddle otherwise. This answers King’s contention that “India gets along pretty well with a host of different languages,” a rather bold remark considering how King adds that “English functions more nearly than Hindi as India’s lingua franca” without addressing why. This is probably because King regards languages as nothing compared to the “unique otherness” of a nation’s dominant character: his other example of multilingualism, Switzerland, is actually further removed from American size, population, and culture than India, but it possesses a solid cultural identity that enables it to function well with four different languages. However, his appears to be a minority view. Hayakawa, Marquez, and Lewis presume that language is a key component of cultural identity.

So while King suggests that “America has that unique otherness,” Hayakawa suggests it means nothing if Americans cannot communicate that “otherness” to one another. Hayakawa writes, “While it is certainly true that our love of freedom and devotion to democratic principles help to unite and give us a mutual purpose, it is English, our common language, that enables us to discuss our views and allows us to maintain a well-informed electorate, the cornerstone of a democratic government.” The argument is that America is a nation of immigrants, and “English unites us as American-immigrants and native-born alike.” Marquez strongly resists the notion that one must speak English to become culturally American, yet concedes that when she and her family speak Spanish it is because they wish to maintain ties to their ancestral culture, indicating that language is in fact very important to social integration. Lewis proposes that the reason behind American bilingual education is that Hispanic children should not have to learn English because they “are at risk for losing their cultural identity” by learning English. Hayakawa tones that notion down to merely say that bilingual education sometimes comes “dangerously close” to making avoidance of English the main goal, a declaration that still seeks to undermine claims that English’s presence in America is secure. King admits that “in much of the world, ethnic unity and cultural identification are routinely defined by language,” so it is fair to ask whether it is wrong for Americans to define Americanism as including English speech.

France is a major example of national identity through language, as President Chirac recently highlighted when he stormed out of a summit after a fellow countryman favored English and refused to do a presentation in French. Note that France maintains the Académie Française, a government entity devoted to preventing the “corrupting forces” of foreign language. Should French be law? Does a language spoken by a clear majority justify creating law to ostracize speakers of a minority language and thereby restrict their freedom to express themselves in whatever way they can? Thomas Jefferson observed, “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” Like King, Marquez contends, “From its inception, [the United States] was careful not to promote a government-mandated official language.” Perhaps the reality is English’s influence in American culture is not absolute, and that is not necessarily a negative value. There are non-English speakers living in the United States who may be unwilling to learn the language due to age, disinterest, or situation, but they are capable of exercising their rights as Americans.

Countering that last thought is the observation that they cannot exercise their rights as well as English speakers. Both sides of the debate offer variations on the idea that exclusively speaking a foreign language is crippling in American society. King writes, “It has always been taken for granted that English is the national language, and that one must learn English in order to make it in America.” Indeed, Lewis argues that “To succeed in America—with a number of relatively minor although often highly visible exceptions—it’s important to speak, read, and understand English as most Americans speak it.” Hayakawa reports how many Hispanic students fail academically in America because they were not taught English from the start. Marquez concurs that “to get ahead here, one must learn English.” There is agreement that the language gap is a hindrance for the minority, so the real issue is one of correcting that imbalance.

Please recall that King sides with leaving the matter to correct itself. Marquez appears to support government assistance for those who speak little or no English, as when she references voting ballots for German speakers in 19th century Pennsylvania. This is an especially sore point for Hayakawa, who notes that contemporary efforts to do the same target only those who are not white (since Caucasians are “presumed to be able to learn English without difficulty”) and ignore that there are already ways to achieve the same end (absentee ballots, translators allowed at voting booths, etc.). His solution is to use bilingualism solely for teaching students enough English to enter regular classes within two years of their educations. Lewis’ position is simply that teaching Standard English is imperative to allowing all citizens the opportunity to succeed, and “those who promote ‘diversity’” are to blame for denying many linguistic minorities that opportunity.

That brings to mind an interesting political juxtaposition among the articles. Lewis repeatedly warns on how "liberals who still blindly support bilingual education are condemning a significant portion of Spanish-speaking children to second-class economic citizenship.” There are strong words in the sentence: ‘blindly,’ ‘condemning,’ ‘second-class,’ and they all point to ‘liberals.’ King is the only one to note that many liberals supported English-only measures (including Bill Clinton, though he later expressed regret) and many conservatives opposed them (including George W. Bush). Marquez offers no blatantly political comment whatsoever, and Hayakawa focuses his attention on the perceived failures of specific U.S. legislators and his expectations for U.S. legislators in general.

Politicians are expected to act in the best interests of their constituencies, but practical considerations also play a role. As Marquez illustrates in her interactions at home and in public, there is no linguistic takeover of America planned, there is no disrespect toward English intended, and knowing one language does not preclude the learning of another. So why should others care for an official language? More to the point, why should others pay for it? King reports that laws in Quebec kept imported goods for Passover off the shelves because they were not labeled in French. Marquez and King both point to many bilingual immigrant parents who complain about how their children are failing to learn their parents’ tongue. Consider that a claim that English’s presence in America is secure. Hayakawa’s condemnation of government bilingualism as expensive is well-taken, particularly when he draws attention to the likelihood of it costing Americans billions, but he neglects to mention the costs of uniformly enforcing any English-only law; he then claims that recognizing Spanish as well as English as official languages would open the door for the multitude of other languages spoken in the U.S. though he does not explain why creating one official language cannot have the same effect. Lewis insists that “Membership in [racial or ethnic or cultural] groups is reductive” and Americans should devote their energies to “truly positive and universal values” instead, but the idea of citizens using their individuality to contribute to society is unenforceable. It is a noble but nebulous concept. The people rather than the government must bring about the change.

The overall effect of these four articles is the feeling that English merits becoming a requirement in U.S. public schools, but that using law to enforce any language is highly questionable. Lewis and Hayakawa are right to acknowledge that being able to communicate with all quarters of society is advantageous through a shared language. King and Marquez are less persuasive in their marginalization of that idea, but they touch on the overriding matter that making English law is essentially a means of regulating speech. All make apparent that there is a language gap in America and that every American in some sense bears the chore of reconciling the sides.

What Have I Missed?

2006-05-08T15:44:00.000-05:00

My lengthy disappearance was the result of preparing for and attending university. I made the Dean's List my first semester with an A in English Composition, an A in General Psychology, an A+ in Introduction to Film (the instructor used the +/- scale), y tengo una A en mi clase de español.

The plan is to major in biology. I am unsure about my minor, but it will probably be photography or film & video production. My English instructor suggested I pursue a creative writing degree, but life as a starving artist can be quite a downer.

Noting accusations of liberal bias in academia, I must say that the most objective professor I had was... the film teacher! To be fair, though, the English teacher promptly apologized for her one, fleeting digression, and all of them encouraged independent thought.

I will attend Elementary Spanish II and World History I [ed: changed course] during the summer. Wish me well!

Update: Via Instapundit: James Felton, a professor of finance and law at Central Michigan University, and a colleague looked at ratings for nearly 7,000 faculty members from 370 institutions in the United States and Canada, and his verdict is: the hotter and easier professors are, the more likely they’ll get rated as a good teacher.

I liked my professors, from the two ladies with movie star looks to the 60-something men with too much/little hair, and they were only easy in the sense that they taught freshman courses. I was in the top 10 out of 300+ psych students (and that was my worst subject!), so I suggest the greatest failure of our educational system is not bias, or hotness ratings, or even depth of subject, but the neglect of critical thinking. Encouraging independent thought means little without also developing the tools (namely reason) to apply one's intellect. A women who sat behind me in film class was amazed at how much I took notes and studied, and when I said to her that studying is how one makes good grades she replied, "Maybe that's why I don't make good grades."

Still Here

2006-04-12T21:04:00.000-05:00

Apologies for the tremendous lull in posting. University coursework can be challenging! Will return to posting on events (past, present, and future) after final exams in early May.

In the meantime, treat yourselves to some Basic Hip Digital Oddio.

"Cheney Visits Iraq; Attacks, Kills 19"

2005-12-18T12:20:00.000-06:00

I suppose the mainstream media's coverage of Iraq is finally getting to me, because that is how I initially read the headline, Cheney Visits Iraq; Attacks Kill 19.

Not sure if I misread this one, though. (Via Dave Barry's Blog)

Color-Impoverished Phosphorus (And Other Weapons Of Mass Distraction)

2005-12-06T02:06:00.000-06:00

Scott Burgess did a fine job of exposing last month's lies about white phosphorus (further details here and here); however, the Dec 1, 2005 comment by Rabbitvoz on Burgess' follow-up provides a clue about why the myth-making began:

I am cringing in terror from some of the most disadvantaged people on Earth,

Are we talking about truly disadvantaged people, like those being slaughtered in Sudan, or the 'poor' killers who are as likely to be well-off (Osama bin Laden was disadvantaged?) and well-educated as they are the alternative? Because the reaction to the first seems to trend toward shameful indifference, and the reaction to the second involves no cringing 'round these parts (heck, most complaints seem to argue the exact opposite--that there are too many people like Amir Taheri who lack humility in response to terrorists.)

while I unleash gargantuan forces of destruction,

It takes a fascinating mind to cringe toward terror, and to do so with superior firepower.

poisonous Depleted Uranium

Michael McNeil wrote a must-read essay on depleted uranium a couple of years ago: "Depleted uranium has two possible modes of instigating biological damage--ionizing radiation due to the fact that it's a radioactive metal, and biological toxicity due to the fact that it's a 'heavy' metal. Regarding the first of these, radioactively 'depleted uranium' is basically as little radioactive as it's possible to be and still be radioactive and not inert. This may sound like a quibble, but the half-life of uranium-238, the major radioactive component of depleted uranium (since it's been 'depleted' of other uranium isotopes) is 4.5 x 109 (i.e., billion) years (not '109' years as news pieces have erroneously reported). In other words, over the entire 4.6 billion year age of the Earth, the quantity of uranium-238 on this planet has decreased by only half. That is barely detectably radioactive at all, on the human timescale. Even when it does decay, virtually all (> 99.99%) of uranium-238 follows the mode of alpha decay (emission of a Helium-4 nucleus), which cannot penetrate beyond a couple of inches in air and is stopped cold by sheet of paper. Contrast with gamma rays (high energy electromagnetic radiation emitted by some radioactive decayers) which can penetrate through feet or meters of lead and are highly destructive to biological tissue. The possibility of heavy-metal toxicity by uranium is potentially of greater scientific import. That, though, is fundamentally no different than toxicity due to say lead, which has traditionally been used (without environmentalists' extraordinary complaints) as bullets on battlefields for centuries."

Or are we really writing about Depleted Uranium?

and Torture, Murder and Rape against their citizens.

Rabbitvoz should be more like the United States. Murder, rape, and torture are illegal, and those who are caught are punished (not always as they probably should be, but then justice is not always linear). Correcting problems like torture among military ranks is difficult and others are quick to see malice where there are mistakes, but necessary reform is always possible.

Ia sit at home and watch it all on Television

Careful. Press coverage can be misleading.

and pontificate about the righteous nature of the great crusade for Freedom,

"What would you do, if you were asked to give up your dreams for freedom?
What would you do, if asked to make the ultimate sacrifice?
Would ya think about all them people who gave up everything they had?
Would ya think about all them war vets, and would ya start to feel bad?
Freedom isn't free. It costs folks like you and me,
and if we don't all chip in we'll never pay that bet.
Freedom isn't free. No, there's a hefty fuckin' fee,
and if you don't throw in your buck o'five, who will?
Oooo, buck o'five. Freedom costs a buck o'five."

which for me means the Patriot Act.

Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? In the words of Eugene Volokh: "Remember, 'Patriot Act,' like 'fascism' and 'unconstitutional,' is not Latin for 'government action I don't like.'"

I am America

Did anyone not see that coming?

I am a complete nimcompoop, a hubristic arrogant, ninny

That comes through in the writing. No need to spell it out.

and such a trigger happy prick that I kill my Allies like its duck hunting season everytime any of them are stupid enough to get mixed up in the wars I make.

Some folks need to be more straightforward with arguments like this. For example, an American opponent of the Iraq intervention could find all the British or Australian armed servicemen he can, and then personally inform the soldiers of their stupidity one-on-one rather than boasting of superiority from behind a screen-name or protest sign.

I would rather bomb TV stations and shoot Journalists in the back than allow news of my atrocities to reach the world.

Intimidation of the press-at-large requires that they uniformly recognize that they are targets, but accidents are so frequent in combat zones that illegitimate kills on the battlefield are rarely convincing as deliberate acts. One can get around that challenge by shooting journalists in the public square rather than in the back, but that creates another set of problems in that murders are bad for public relations. Saddam Hussein's old method of bribing with access and information appears shrewder, and when that does not work, killing journalists' obscure friends and family does. That is the proven way to directly corrupt or threaten journalists, have them believe the threats, but not create any serious repercussions for the dictator and his stooges. Or one could try being good, support press freedoms, and also push his own stories, while the likes of Joe Katzman, Michael Yon, and StrategyPage share the lesser-known side of his atrocities.

I am just deluded enough to think this will stop the truth getting out, and also believe if my eyes are shut it is dark for everyone.

Oh, go boil your head.

I am America

Not the one I know.

My point in citing Rabbitvoz's comment is not to be snarky (that is a bonus), but to point to its needless hysteria. Intelligent criticism, not fashionable cynicism, is essential. Let's not confuse the two.

Cake & Ice Cream For C.S. Lewis

2005-11-29T22:11:00.000-06:00

C.S. Lewis' birthday is today (or was today, by the time most of you read this).

Being a Lewis aficionado, I decided my own birthday plans should have a theme this year: Have lunch with family & friends at an Irish pub, since Lewis was born in Belfast, and then see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe on a 65-feet-high, 98-feet-wide screen.

At least the beer would make Prof. Lewis proud!

My Fellow Americans

2005-11-24T11:12:00.000-06:00

Happy Thanksgiving!

Yes, I Can ACT

2005-11-17T14:24:00.000-06:00

Given the circumstances, my exam turned out nicely. I needed a 21, and...

I scored a 25!

So no need for despair.

Those Musicians Are Up To Something

2005-11-12T13:44:00.000-06:00

Late composer George Antheil is at the heart of one of the most unusual tales of celebrity service:

At a dinner party given by Janet Gaynor, George Antheil met Hedy Lamarr. Shortly after this meeting, Lamarr and Antheil invented and patented a secret communications system, U.S. Patent 2,292,387. The patent was applied for June 10, 1941, and received August 11th, 1942. The purpose of the system was to provide reliable and jam proof control of long range torpedoes. The system involved the use of the frequency hopping principles of Spread Spectrum radio. However it was 20 years before it was put to effective use by the United States Navy in torpedo guidance systems, and 40 years before it was permitted by the FCC to be used in commercial radios. Among other things, Spread Spectrum forms the basic principle that allows the use of simultaneous multi-channel operation used in modern digital cellular telephone systems. Spread spectrum is the basis for the communications security of the strategic $25 billion MILSAT Defense communications system.

Now, rock guitarist "Skunk" Baxter serves as an adviser for the U.S. Department of Defense:

As a member of the Doobie Brothers and Steely Dan, and as a session guitarist for Carly Simon, Bryan Adams, Ringo Starr and many others, Jeff "Skunk" Baxter has been a clandestine rock and roll hero since the '70s. Now, as a specialist in terrorism, missile defense and chemical and biological warfare, he's also a covert hero for the U.S. military.

He's currently working for the Department of Defense as an adviser to the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and has also served as a top military adviser for numerous congressmen and senators.

And country singer Clint Black talks about rocket science:

"Did you know my guitar is like a rocket?" he asks.

Show-business exaggeration? No. It's scientific fact. Black's guitar is like a rocket.

"They both resonate," explains aerospace engineer Rodney Rocha of NASA's Johnson Space Center (JSC) in Houston.

"When you pick up an acoustic guitar," Black demonstrates, "one of the first things you'll notice is the body is basically an air chamber. The shape of the chamber is designed to be 'in tune' with the sound from the strings." He plucks the E string and the body of the guitar vibrates, producing "sympathetic" E-frequencies of its own.

What are the odds on Britney Spears having a missile silo under her swimming pool?

Going All The Galloway

2005-11-10T05:59:00.000-06:00

On October 25th, the U.S. Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released their report (PDF file) on George Galloway's testimony before them. Two days later, the United Nations' Independent Inquiry Committee into the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme added relevant findings of their own (PDF). Among the shared accusations are that Galloway's wife received more than $120,000, and that Galloway received several million barrels of oil, with several million more allocated in his name. Blogger George at Seixon claims to have further evidence of his own, centering on Galloway's failure to register Fawaz Zureikat's donations for the Mariam Appeal and how his claim that the organization "publicly brandished [Zureikat's sponsorship] on all of our literature, along with the other donors to the campaign" appears demonstrably false.

These are not the only charges against international actors, but Galloway may be the most recognizable. He is almost certainly the loudest, apparently having become a minister of Parliament through browbeating rather than by legislative accomplishment. An English friend of mine suggests that by pursuing the MP, the U.N. and, particularly, the U.S. are playing with fire. I doubt it. For one thing, Galloway does not appear interested in becoming an American politician, and a teaching post at Berkeley seems more logical. Secondly, Galloway's Sir Oswald Mosley shtick plays well with the chattering class, but provides Lord Haw Haw-flavored entertainment for everyone else, such as this goofy attack on President Bush over Hurricane Katrina (the fisking of which I cheerfully purloin from Tim Blair)...

His is the America of Halliburton,

Curses to Bush for having a Vice President with ties to one of the world's most qualified businesses--one that has consistently served the U.S. government since World War II. We deserve less.

the M-16 rifle,

Made in Canada... (Bush is outsourcing the American War Machine!)

the cluster bomb,

Invented by Germany... And Great Britain still uses them, too.

the gated communities of the rich and of the billionaires he grew up with in Texas.

The gated communities of the rich and the billionaires Galloway knows in Syria are far more stylish.

There is another America.

I think I know this one: South America?

It is the land of the poor of Louisiana,

Oh. But as P.J. O'Rourke once noted, "Political scientist Robert Rector has worked up figures showing that when the official U.S. measure of poverty was developed in 1963, a poor American family had an income twenty-nine times greater than the average per capita income in the rest of the world. An individual American could make more money than 93 percent of the other people on the planet and still be considered poor." The poor of Louisiana are a lot richer than, say, the poor in African or Middle Eastern kleptocracies. I wonder why Galloway expresses more interest in discussing the poor of the U.S. than he did in freeing the needier people of, say, Saddam-era Iraq?

it is the land of the young men and women economically conscripted into the military.

Sure, the U.S. military is volunteer-only, but when made to choose between working at a grocery store, busing tables, or getting shot at, obviously people will rush to join the armed forces. The most damning evidence: The government offers additional financing and education to citizens in return for military service, and we even have career soldiers who "love" fighting for their country! Is any more proof of wickedness necessary?

It is the land of the glorious multiethnic mix that was New Orleans...

Complete with corruption and a murder rate nearly eight times the national average. Also, the hardest-hit section of the city, St. Bernard Parish, was 95% Caucasian. So not such a glorious multiethnic mix, really.

The oil-for-food charges are merely indicative of a more troubling problem: Galloway is a load of bull. Like too many of the "anti-war" crowd, he is not against a war on fascists; he is cheering for the other side. (Compare his appreciation for dictators to Condoleezza Rice, who literally tagged the president of Kazakhstan, brought him to a podium, and put in the position of answering questions from the press.) Galloway allegedly bruised the Senate in May; if so, it was because they failed to hold him to any rules of order: he freely dodged questions, interrupted senators, and gave a very clever performance of some very bizarre statements. (Comment at The Big Pharaoh: "US Senators are notorious gasbags who love to hear themselves talk. Apparently Galloway didn't realize that when a US Senator shuts up, he's giving you an opportunity to incriminate yourself.") It would be much more interesting to see whether Galloway could get away with his diversions in a hearing before a grand jury. Would a member of a foreign government stonewalling an American investigation, insulting American officials, demonstrating profound ignorance of American systems, and attempting to single-handedly boss the United States around impress many American citizens?

That brings us to the latest left-wing conspiracy, which is that Galloway and Bush are working together:

Where did this guy come from? Who invited him here? The answer: US Senate REPUBLICANS. As Cindy Sheehan was gathering public sympathy as the Gold Star mom against the killing in Iraq, the Republican party decided to import an easier target to pummel. So they brought over the "I-salute-your-courage, Saddam" religious fundamentalist crack-pot who can't tell us where the money went.

Maybe there is some truth to this paranoia. At the moment, few in the U.S. know or care about Galloway, but it might not be so smooth when the face of the anti-intervention movement becomes that of a man who engaged in duplicitous accounting; called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the biggest catastrophe" of his life; told Saddam Hussein, "Sir, I salute your courage, strength, and indefatigability;" cited Fidel Castro as his political hero; and in September of this year, in New York City, publicly suggested that America deserved the September 11, 2001 attacks.

A Man Of Few Words

2005-11-09T09:38:00.000-06:00

For the time being, anyway. Apologies for not being my usual loquacious self. My only excuse is that my mind is elsewhere... and, alas, not the sort of "elsewhere" wandering minds prefer!

So, how about a link to jumping cats?

Update: Might as well offer a potpourri while I am here...

Just what the world needed: A beer advertisement that cleverly (ab)uses Carl Orff's Chiquita Banana, Carmen Miranda, whatever.

Soldiers in Iraq are using advanced technology to save lives.

Barbeque is indeed pulled pork smothered in red sauce, but as a native Memphian I must add that the sauce should be sweet rather than sour, the meat should have some gristle, and the environment is absolutely vital: It is not real barbeque unless it is homemade or comes from some hole-the-wall restaurant. High dining barbeque is a myth.

California is preparing for a real-life remake of The Birds.

Senator John Kerry is trying desperately to be taken seriously, and failing comically.

Would this discovery qualify as good sex, or bad sex?

One of the title characters in "The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe" is rather wooden. Guess which one.

South London is dreaming of a politically correct Christmas. Not to be outdone, Brussels is dreaming of a politically correct Christ. (The Grinch could not be reached for comment.)

German authorities are not all smiles and sunshine: Some of Germany's taxes recently went toward the creation of Jew-hating agitprop.

Slither looks like another movie I can miss. The trailer brings back too many memories of cleaning aquariums.

Speaking of creepy things (hello, Mr. Carter), check out the National UFO Reporting Center.

And speaking of spacey things (hello, Mr. Luthor), it looks like Pluto has new-found companionship.

Film Music on the Web has my Cinderella Man and Jericho/The Ghostbreaker reviews.

For more aural goodness, try the archived shows at Mercury Theatre on the Air.

So, A Frog Goes Into A Bank...

2005-11-09T00:30:00.000-06:00

A frog goes into a bank and approaches the teller. He can see from her nameplate that her name is Patricia Whack.

"Miss Whack, I'd like to get a $30,000 loan to take a holiday."

Patty looks at the frog in disbelief and asks his name. The frog says his name is Kermit Jagger, his dad is Mick Jagger, and that it's okay, he knows the bank manager.

Patty explains that he will need to secure the loan with some collateral.

The frog says, "Sure. I have this," and produces a tiny porcelain elephant, about an inch tall, bright pink and perfectly formed.

Very confused, Patty explains that she'll have to consult with the bank manager and disappears into a back office.

She finds the manager and says, "There's a frog called Kermit Jagger out there who claims to know you and wants to borrow $30,000, and he wants to use this as collateral."

She holds up the tiny pink elephant. "I mean, what in the world is this?"

The bank manager looks back at her and says...

"It's a knickknack, Patty Whack. Give the frog a loan. His old man's a Rolling Stone."

(via Ron Burbella)

Magic Surrealism

2005-11-06T21:25:00.000-06:00

"We will remain here until Bush disappears from the planet or leaves Brazil, whichever comes first," said one demonstrator, Rosa Marques, a history student at the University of Brasilia.

My bet is that he will leave Brazil first. Still, I wonder... If President Bush remained in Brazil but made himself invisible (American stealth technology, of course), would they leave? What if Brazil disappeared from the planet, taking Bush with it? Sounds too David Copperfield.

Wasn't McDonald's the favorite of that other President?

Hands Off, Jedi! He's Mine!

2005-11-01T19:02:00.000-06:00

Revenge of the Sith is out on DVD today, which means I have an excuse to post this still from a deleted scene...

The movie has steamy romance, and deep affection...

It is worth owning.

Something Fishy In Italy

2005-10-29T18:05:00.000-05:00

Goldfish bowls, widely regarded in the U.S. as sanctuaries for goldfish opposed to consumption by predators, are now illegal in Rome.

In Turin, failing to walk your dog three times daily is punishable by a 500 euro fine.

More expensive aquariums do tend to show more commitment toward proper animal care; but, as someone who tends to just let the dog run in the backyard, I hereby endorse James Lileks' suggestion:

The fine for not walking your dog, incidentally, is almost $600. If you were charged with such a thing, I recommend feeding high-denomination Euro notes to your dog, waiting 24 hours, then and leaving the money in a bag on the boulevard outside the city hall.

Trick and treat.

Does That 'I'...

2005-10-29T15:01:00.000-05:00

In I. Lewis Libby's name stand for 'innocent' or 'incarcerated'?

A few observations, though...

1) In April 1999, CIA officer Valerie Wilson publicly listed (pdf file) her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential campaign under her married name, but listed herself as an employee of "Brewster-Jennings & Assoc.", where she was in fact employed covertly as "Valerie Plame", her not-so-covert maiden name.

2) As noted in this amici curiae brief (pdf), "Plame was not given 'deep cover' required of a covert agent" and a Washington Times report pointed to Plame's cover having been compromised at least twice previously. Also, MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell and former New York Times correspondent Clifford D. May suggested that Plame's status with the CIA was well-known in D.C. political circles.

3) Joe Wilson publicly identified himself as a CIA employee investigating weapons of mass destruction, his wife's area of expertise, further drawing attention to what former CIA official Fred Rustmann said was an already unraveling cover as a result of his marriage. Wilson claimed that she "was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity," but that phrasing is subject to interpretation. The Washington Times did report that she hadn't been a covert agent since 1997.

Perhaps Libby's alleged cover-up is graver than the alleged original crime.

Update: President Clinton's former counsel more-or-less tells everyone to grow up.

Update II: Heh:

This leaves two possibilities. One is that the mission was intended to result in the New York Times oped all along, meaning that the CIA didn't care much about Plame's status, and was trying to meddle in domestic politics. This reflects very badly on the CIA.

The other possibility is that they're so clueless that they did this without any nefarious plan, because they're so inept, and so prone to cronyism and nepotism, that this is just business as usual. If so, the popular theory that the CIA couldn't find its own weenie with both hands and a flashlight would appear to have found some pretty strong support.

Can I ACT?

2005-10-22T21:56:00.000-05:00

I took the ACT this morning. It was tougher than my last academic exam: more questions, greater complexity, and less time to respond. I found myself rushing, or trying to rush, through nearly every question. My English and reading scores are probably going to be acceptable, but I fell dangerously behind on science (usually my strongest subject), and I fear a grading massacre in mathematics (always my weakest subject).

The most uncomfortable desk in student history became my workspace for a few hours. The torture device was a construction of metal bars and hideously-colored plastic, shaped into a seat that digs into the backside and a desktop barely wide enough to hold an open Reader's Digest. Two examinees forgot to turn off their cell phones, with one in a deep slumber while his phone sounded (and sounded, and sounded). There is the possibility that I am simply making excuses here, but is it too much to ask that conditions for a standardized test be, well, standard? I was already having trouble concentrating; my glasses broke and I had to buy a fresh pair yesterday night, so my eyes are still adjusting to the new lenses. Adding numb buttocks to my testing plan is not appreciated.

My scores should arrive next month. If I receive a composite score of 21 or higher out of a possible 36, then I am all set for college; if I do not pass, I've already reserved a seat for another exam in December. So the bright side is that I am still here to screw up another day!

Temporary Outages And Outrages

2005-10-16T18:58:00.000-05:00

I have an exam coming up, so blogging will be light, possibly nonexistent, till next week. Must git my self en edukayshun!

Meanwhile, a few questions to ponder...

Illustrating the right to be offended is one thing, but is making f-wad Neo-Nazis look better behaved a good way to fight the hate?

Government knows best?

Was President Bush's Iraq conference less staged than Wrestlemania?

Did you know that terrorists hate their bosses, too?

Donated toward Pakistan earthquake relief yet?

What Would Aslan Do?

2005-10-12T19:25:00.000-05:00

Frank Cerabino bashes part of an effort to get children to read because the classic literature in question has Christian parallels, and one of the movie makers donated to the Republican party:

When you can combine the forces of Disney, the McDonald's Happy Meal and Gov. Jeb Bush in one tidy package — all of them working together to cram thinly veiled Christian theology down the gullets of Florida's schoolchildren — you've got yourself a hell of a plan.

Please. Prof. Lewis, author of the The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, would be most displeased...

"Some people seem to think that I began by asking myself how I could say something about Christianity to children; then fixed on the fairy tale as an instrument; then collected information about child-psychology and decided what age group I'd write for; then drew up a list of basic Christian truths and hammered out 'allegories' to embody them. This is all pure moonshine. I couldn't write in that way at all. Everything began with images; a faun carrying an umbrella, a queen on a sledge, a magnificent lion. At first there wasn't even anything Christian about them; that element pushed itself in of its own accord."

J.R.R. Tolkien wrote his famed books much the same way. I suppose they ought to be banned as well, since Tolkien stated, "The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Christian work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously so in the revision."

From a letter Lewis wrote in 1951:

"I am glad you all liked The Lion. A number of mothers, and still more, schoolmistresses, have decided that it is likely to frighten children, so it is not selling very well. But the real children like it, and I am astonished how some very young ones seem to understand it. I think it frightens some adults, but v. few children."

It still frightens some adults.

Auf Wiedersehen

2005-10-12T18:18:00.000-05:00

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, that country's most responsible and skillful leader since a certain Austrian held that job over six decades ago, concedes that he is a loser, but not without taking the opportunity to be a sore one...

"I do not want to name any catastrophes where you can see what happens if organised state action is absent. I could name countries, but the position I still hold forbids it, but everyone knows I mean America," he said to loud applause.

When did Louisiana become just 'America'? Good thing he made an effort at clarification, though, or I would have thought he was referring to Germany's large-scale unemployment, regressive socialist policies, and worse-than-Katrina disaster death toll.

I liked him better when he played piano.

If You Don't Want To Stereotype, Type With One Hand

2005-10-10T10:19:00.000-05:00

Live Science reports on a National Institute of Aging study showing that stereotypes are incorrect. The study found, for example, that Germans are not more efficient (as German elections occasionally remind us), and that Czechs are actually caring people (see the Czech Republic's involvement in Iraq as evidence, such as this good news). Americans and Canadians scored almost identically on aggression in the study, which no doubt comes as a surprise to an almost identical number of both Americans and Canadians.

Stereotyping is a dangerous act of laziness. Lumping people together cuts down on thinking on a case-by-case basis. Fortunately, stereotypes are prime targets: Monty Python, South Park, Blazing Saddles, etc., would be rather unfunny without them.

And now for something completely different...

Alas, Poor Piglet

2005-10-05T17:29:00.000-05:00

I wonder if my review of the Piglet's Big Movie soundtrack makes me a target for Muslim extremists? I ask, because there appears to be a load of Pooh in the U.K. concerning make-believe pigs. (via Instapundit)

Update: First, I read about Piglet's forced exile. Later, I see Thomas the Tank Engine in depictions of the London bombings. Now, the United Nations Children's Fraud is massacring Smurfs.

Is the international community trying to destroy my childhood?!

This sounds like a job for robots in disguise, heroes in a half-shell, or, more likely, well-armed, anti-fascist Americans.

After Katrina, Rita

2005-10-02T14:57:00.000-05:00

Continued from an earlier post.

Please note that most of the charities on Instapundit's list of Katrina relief programs now include Rita relief.

As usual, the media's self-satisfied posturing [edit: link corrected] outpaced the media's actual position. From coaching commentators to "get angry", to failing to fact-check, to calling for a socialist revolution, the press did a good job of misinforming the public (with the aid of certain personalities) and putting lives at greater risk. British Prime Minister Tony Blair allegedly noticed this spreading in the U.K. Among the exceptions, Nicholas Lemann wrote a must-read reflection on the good and the bad of New Orleans, Paul Recer challenged the environmentalist takeover of Hurricane Katrina, and Rondi Adamson dared to debunk critics in one fell swoop.

This post from August 31 is a reminder that undue finger-pointing over the Katrina response began almost immediately. I suggest that blaming the Democrats who slammed disaster preparedness is equally undue. Individuals themselves, not some political entity, are most responsible for their lives. Why not simply blame the hurricane that was outside human control (unless we are writing about the Japanese mafia), as well as specific failures of humans--including, but not limited to, government officials--to react accordingly (unless, "It's called a disaster because it overwhelms our ability to respond"). We can debate what qualifies as a specific failure (I think of this, this, this, this, and this) and where accountability lies for that error, but it is rare for any one person, party, community, or institution to have a monopoly on mistakes. The persistent squabbling seems increasingly out of touch with reality, especially after revelations that the federal response was atypically swift (and superior to, say, another's grasp of how to cope with a heat wave), the smoother response to Hurricane Rita, and the president further establishing himself as wanting to help the poverty-stricken.

Jeff Goldstein wrote, "I just want SOMEBODY to point out FEMA’s actual failures instead of using a disputed resume blemishes and a lot of showy handwringing to suggest Brown’s failures," in response to an "understanding" of FEMA's role. My own understanding centers the reasoning behind federalism. A case can be made for centralized government. After all, it is theoretically easier to repair when in error because it is only one bureaucracy, the federal government has more resources to deal with large-scale events, and opportunism by local authorities would be a thing of the past. On the other hand, having such a bureaucracy may very well make matters worse, because centralization too often does nothing more than exacerbate confusions and divisions by attempting to force them together (think: Soviet Union), and a case can be made for having other sovereign institutions when a government falters. It also requires removing many of the checks-and-balances that are in place to keep government honest, such as the Posse Comitatus Act and our having, in Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu's words, "a democracy and a citizenship that has elected mayors, county commissioners and governors..." (My suggestion is that the U.S. should create an emergency & peacekeeping organization specifically for circumstance in America and abroad where military-style precision is required, but an actual military is not.) Another asset is that people have more of their own funds to donate to worthy charities: Americans delivered, and showed their strength. So is the problem "small government" federalism? I am unconvinced.

Update: He did not have to give, but he did anyway:

The anonymous donor turned up at a U.S. diplomatic office and presented an envelope with 1,000 euros (about $1,245) for Hurricane Katrina relief efforts.

It was a way of repaying a debt to the United States for being liberated by American soldiers from a concentration camp and treated more than 60 years ago, Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said Wednesday in relating the incident.

Update II: Animal rescues.

Not-So-Weekly Roundup

2005-10-01T23:29:00.000-05:00

How could anti-U.S. sentiment be on the rise in China after the United States has done so much to help the country (sometimes unwittingly)? A clue: "An American college student in Beijing recently read a Chinese textbook stating that Martin Luther King Jr. never had the sympathy or help of white Americans, and that blacks in the south are hated by whites. 'It wasn't even entirely true in the 1950s civil rights movement period,' commented the student, who hails from Atlanta, Ga." The piece goes on to observe some liberalization of views (specifically the change from an outright damning perception of the Iraq intervention to a damning-with-faint-praise view), but China's rise in global power may have an accompanying rise in anti-American paranoia.

Airbus is bringing death-defying adventure back to transcontinental voyages!

Do you have low self-esteem? Maybe you're not so bad.

March of the Penguins has backing from the Religious Right. I wonder, do they know about penguin same-sex marriages in Bremen, or the divorced couple in New York City?

BBC states the obvious: People are booming in Gaza.

Dean's World states the obvious: "For a country that's on the verge of collapse, we seem to be doing pretty well."

Some folks think we would do better if we repealed the Seventeenth Amendment.

A comet started the Chicago Fire? That is unlikely.

On another spacey note, the 10th planet has a celestial companion.

Color perception.

Animal lovers should note that National Geographic is engaging in warthog profiteering.

Home Done

2005-09-20T01:36:00.000-05:00

Baseball is looking sluggish:

An average of 2.06 homers per game were hit through Sunday, according to the Elias Sports Bureau, down 8 1/2 percent from last season's final average of 2.25. The figure hasn't been so low since it dipped to 2.05 in 1997.

How long till they find a way to blame Bush?

Crescent Of Disgrace

2005-09-16T16:04:00.000-05:00

Why did so few notice earlier that the Crescent of Embrace is an ill-considered plan--from its 'crescent' symbolism that seems to sympathize with those who murdered Americans, to its vague 'embrace' of the dead? Was the committee truly so insensitive to the situation on September 11, 2001, and so indifferent to the heroes of Flight 93 who sacrificed their lives so America would not suffer more death and destruction that day? (Via Roger L. Simon)

Presidential Potty Break

2005-09-16T15:46:00.000-05:00

President Bush has bodily functions? Am I the only one who finds this reassuring?

At least it wasn't a photo of him in the restroom.

By the way, put "failure" in the Google searchbox and click "I feel lucky". Now that is mean.

Remembrances

2005-09-11T01:41:00.000-05:00

Watching this flash film again, my initial reaction was jaded. The memories and emotions flooded back as the movie progressed, but that moment of distance troubles me.

Distance from a historical event is not an evil. It allows more resources and more historical context. We can look back as through a rearview mirror and see the scope of the event, with a readier eye for where we are headed. The years since September 11, 2001 remind us of how united Americans can be as a civilized society, and how splintered we can be across ideological lines.

But rolling ahead with the metaphor: Objects in mirror are closer than they appear. Our perception of distance can lead us to dismiss much of what we understood at the time as archaic, regardless of whether it is as true (or truer) today as it was then. It is easy to become desensitized to ideas as well as images. It is not enough to be bystanders, or actors for some half-forgotten cause. We ought to remember.

Leftovers

2005-09-11T01:08:00.000-05:00

What happens when a guy procrastinates? He misses things. This time the guy is me. A story catches my eye, I put it aside to cover later, but it sits. So here are the pieces I let slide...

Cathy Seipp wrote an article on Hollywood politics several months after Sept. 11, 2001. Now it serves as a reminder that Hollywood has somehow managed to become more hypocritical, and as documentation of lines like "I think George Bush is a lesbian! A lesbian in a dress! And high heels!"

"When I signed on to the Hundred Years' War, I thought it would be over in 120, 140 tops. Nobody told me we'd be committing for more than two centuries. So I understand the media's impatience. But you know, what looks bad on Day Four doesn't seem such a big deal when you're in Year 137. If I have a criticism, I'd say the media were over-invested in the decapitation approach. For months they pounded the leadership with state-of-the-art precision-guided surgical strikes--Bush is a moron, Rumsfeld's a madman, Blair's a poodle--assuming that, if you remove the nerve centre, the regime will be unable to function. Ha! If there's one thing we French have come to learn, it's that George W. Bush is perfectly capable of functioning without a brain," said Philip VI of France (according to Mark Steyn).

In April, the Family Research Council declared that women are better sick/cancerous than promiscuous.

SpaceShipOne's designer cheered 'small government' initiatives in 1986: "I want to thank Ronald Reagan for providing and maintaining this environment that was devoid of government regulations that would've made this thing impossible in any other country that I can think of. I only filled out two pieces of paper for the U.S. government. I'm serious. We have an application for air-worthiness and an application for the tail number on the airplane."

From July 5th's New York Times: "The spectacle we have made of confirmation hearings reinforces the public notion that the justices exist to decide cases the way political movements want them to. Liberals think the right started it, and conservatives think the left started it, but the important question is not who started it but who is going to stop it."

Do you believe in ghosts?

Do you believe in idiotarians?

An Instapundit reader tackled the notion that Democratic-leaning states subsidize Republican-leaning states: "Since Social Security is the highest federal expenditure, and Medicare is the third largest, it only makes sense that the feds spend more where there are more retirees. Can the red states help it if the Americans who have enjoyed our country the longest choose to retire in Florida, Arizona, and other red states?"

Another Instapundit reader asks, "If we must have [mandatory sensitivity re-education] for racially/ethnically motivated stupidity, why not mandatory patriotism re-education for anti-American or anti-military stupidity?" (Glenn Reynolds' response: "I'm against both, but the door has certainly been opened. And those who are creeped out more by one or the other might ask themselves why.")

Has anyone heard much from John Bolton at the United Nations? The press gave me the impression that he was going to bulldoze the place by now.

The American Center For Voting Rights issued a report stating that during the 2004 elections, "paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts."

This is like something out of a bad novel.

So is this. What if grasshoppers are only the beginning?

"Prosecuting victimless crimes is a colossal waste of time." Well, duh.

I used to demand boycotts of sweatshop-manufactured goods, until this commentary got me thinking.

John Roberts is likable.

Cindy Sheehan is not. More here, there, this way, that way, and the other way.

America already has Chester Cheetah, but some scientists want us to have real speedy cats on the loose.

Israelis have been giving Jews a tough time.

James Lileks revisited Silent Running.

And since we live in a cynical age, I better close on an ironic note.

At Least I Don't Live In Monroe, LA*

2005-09-07T07:11:00.000-05:00

Forbes has a list of the safest and least safe places in the United States.

For me, the results are not reassuring.

* No offense to the people of Monroe, LA. You would dislike me as a neighbor, anyway. I hear you have lots of big bugs**, and big bugs loose in the home make me scream like a girl***.

** No offense to big bugs.

*** No offense to girls.

The Penn Is Mightier Than The Ford

2005-09-06T22:34:00.000-05:00

The great American actor/activist Sean Penn (in white flak jacket) and his noble photographer set out to rescue the people of New Orleans...

But something appears to be wrong. Their mighty rescue vessel is taking on water, and the engine won't start! They must paddle back to safety...

Our hero, wielding his legendary Red Cup of Pollution, keeps the team afloat...

Whew!!!

Update: For your consideration.

Update II: From Day by Day:

Katrina

2005-09-01T18:14:00.000-05:00

The situation looks increasingly grim. For those of you here or abroad who would like to donate or volunteer, I suggest the following...

Mercy Corps

For those that like to play blame games while corpses are warm, allow me to suggest you focus your energy where needed most: assisting survivors so that they do not become new fatalities. Exploitation is obviously bad (if not outright bizarre; we might as well go all the way and blame Ronald Reagan for Katrina: his decomposition is releasing greenhouse gases). But prudence is not unwarranted when complaints are valid, either. More probably could have done to impress upon the poor and the illiterate to leave during the evacuation, more people could have offered rides out, the evacuation order could have come sooner, etc., but there will be plenty of time to ready the crosses and nails later. Right now people need help, not recriminations.

Update: James Lileks: "FEMA’s list of charities is here. Note anything about what sort of organizations are doing the hard work? I keep looking for the Objectivist Mutual Aid Society, but it never pops up."

Update II: Don't forget all the little animals: The American Veterinary Medical Foundation. [Edit: Good only for American and Canadian donations. Everyone may donate to the Humane Society of America.]

Update III: By the way, at least a hint of moral support for the U.S. from certain parties might do some good.

Update IV: More on exploitation. (Via Instapundit, who also has a massive roundup of charities)

Update V: The rebuilding of New Orleans is already underway, with the Army Corps of Engineers planning reconstruction from Memphis (scroll down). See a report on Memphis-area relief efforts here.

Update VI: Our troop deployments leave many barracks at home largely empty, so here is a question for those with suitable experience: Why not use U.S. barracks to temporarily house evacuees?

Update VII: Mark Steyn talks to Hugh Hewitt, and nearly blames everybody... namely local, state, and federal governments.

Update VIII: Look, folks, there is more than enough blame to go around. The mandatory evacuation order could have been given two days sooner. New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin could have tried to push buses into service from the very beginning to save lives, and U.S. President George W. Bush could have ordered the armed forces (there are plenty in the U.S. to do the job, they just haven't been called) to be ready to go just as quickly. New Orleans' and Louisiana's governments have known for 40 years that they needed a better levee system, and it is their responsibility (which is probably why Bush is the eighth president to gut federal upgrade funding), while the Army Corp of Engineers is partly responsible for the system that made the flooding so likely in the first place. Congress' spending spree, like the recent $250+ billion highway & transit bill, is taking money away from war and disaster preparation & relief funding we need. And as much as blowhards love to make this a race issue, it is a resource issue--so many people did not leave because they were so poor they did not television or radios to know what was going on, or were illiterate, or simply did not have the ability to flee, and the situation is so bad that even Canada refused to send in a search and rescue team at one point. The list goes on. If you insist on placing blame from the comfort of your air-conditioned home, at least admit that we are looking at bi-partisan and non-partisan stupidity, note that there will plenty of time later to call for heads to roll, and do more to help those in need. Alternatively, consider that everyone in charge is human and is overwhelmingly doing his/her best to set things right, and then do the best you can.

Former President Bill Clinton: Because when you say that they should have done this, that or the other thing first, you can look at that problem in isolation, and you can say that. But look at all the other things they had to deal with. I'm telling you, nobody thought this was going to happen like this. But what happened here is they escaped -- New Orleans escaped Katrina. But it brought all the water up the Mississippi River and all in the Pontchartrain, and then when it started running and that levee broke, they had problems they never could have foreseen. And so I just think that we need to recognize right now there's a confident effort under way. People are doing the best they can. And I just don't think it's the time to worry about that. We need to keep people alive and get them back to life -- normal life.

Update IX: "We pay taxes for this?!" is the latest complaint I overheard about government efforts. Let us take it as read that Americans are taxed less so that they have more freedom over exactly where their money goes and that the government offers special breaks for charitable individuals and businesses to encourage giving, because non-governmental donations, volunteer work, and trade are more efficient and help more causes than the halls of bureaucracy ever can or ever will. That is why America's federal aid can be comparatively low, but American private charity is unsurpassed. So I hate to say it, but in a sense the complaints are spot-on: Much of what we have seen so far illustrates P.J. O'Rourke's truism, "Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." Except this time nobody is having fun in the backseat (nor the front, for that matter). [Edit: I suppose I am now griping rather than helping. Is it contagious?]

Update X: I am going to gripe. This looks bad, JunkYardBlog is on the attack, and The Irish Trojan's Blog blasts FEMA Director Mike Brown. We're gonna need more crosses and nails.

At least there is movement.

Update XI: Proof that nothing changed after Sept. 11?

Sen. Hillary Clinton must like the author's "Katrina Kommission" idea.

Update XII: River City Mud Company has an update on evacuee resources in Memphis, culminating in Theatre Memphis' offer of cheap "The King and I" tickets for storm victims...

Here is an entire blog dedicated to the Mid-South's Response to Katrina.

Free Will digs deeper into Louisiana's [non-]response (and, to a degree, defends FEMA's Michael Brown). So does a Chrenkoff reader.

Chrenkoff himself also offers more crazy quotes. Here are a couple of questions for Rev. Jesse Jackson and Kanye West: Do you honestly believe anyone heading rescue & relief efforts said, "Let's take our time. It's only blacks and deadbeats"? And if you do believe the leaders, inclusive of some of the highest-ranking blacks in American history, are criminally bigoted, why did you not do anything for those in need before the storm hit, and immediately after? You say there is "historical indifference" and that "George Bush doesn't care about black people", so you obviously suspected "poor people and black people" needed more help in advance. You have the connections and the money to do things, yet you concentrated your efforts toward press conferences and photo-ops. After the fact.

Also, Rev. Jackson, here is the definition of 'refugee':

One who flees in search of refuge, as in times of war, political oppression, or religious persecution.

'Refugee' sounds that much more appropriate with you adding political oppression on top of escaping a disaster area. Some could argue that your focus ought to be on showing a way up for all of those individuals with no ground to stand upon, or promoting actual tolerance and pluralism through this tragedy, but I understand why you would rather debate the meaning of a word. Apparently, calling class and ethnicity irrelevant to basic decency makes a person racist. Better for progressives to determine qualifications for providing aid on the basis of skin color, and to knock Lou Dobbs for noting that whites are not the only people in charge.

Update XIII: KatrinaHomes.org is helping those still looking for a shelter without "dome" or "center" in the address. For gay and lesbian (and presumably bisexual and transgender) evacuees, the folks at GayOrbit are discussing lodging. (Via GayPatriot)

A warm welcome and thank you to Tim Blair and readers. Hope you find this site better than dull.

Update XIV: You know those reports of rape and murder at the Superdome? Well, have you ever wondered about fact-checking by the mass media?

Update XV: FEMA's Michael Brown is almost certainly going down for his unmitigated cluelessness, especially after this report, though it should be said that the system itself seems to be the disaster's secondary catalyst (the hurricane of course being the primary catalyst, though you might never guess that by watching the stuffed clothes on CNN). Lots of people require a lesson in federalism.

What does it tell us when it was the most-upgraded levee that burst?

The mayor of New Orleans approves forced evacuations. Presumably, he now also approves the use of buses. A notable comment from this story:

"Bureaucracy has murdered people in the greater New Orleans area," [Jefferson Parish president Aaron Broussard] said on CBS' "Early Show." "Take whatever idiot they have at the top of whatever agency and give me a better idiot. Give me a caring idiot. Give me a sensitive idiot. Just don't give me the same idiot."

Because caring and sensitive idiots like teary-eyed Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco are doing such a brilliant job... Keep the 'caring'/'sensitive', but drop the 'idiot', and perhaps bureaucracy will stop being a murderer and revert to its status of robber & scoundrel.

Major relief organizations refuse clothing donations because of the resources necessary to sort and clean the garments, but if your priorities do not follow those of Teresa Heinz Kerry (after Hurricane Ivan) you can still donate to your local Salvation Army to support their efforts and ensure that a supply of clothes remains available for those in need following Katrina.

Update XVI: Christopher Hitchens offers a twofer on Iraq and Katrina.

Update XVII: Relief is available for people with disabilities. The site looks a bit dodgy--so be careful--but the links I tested were valid.

It Can Spread Faster Than Butter

2005-08-21T12:56:00.000-05:00

Liberty. In response to my post on freedom for Belarus, I received an e-mail from the Students for Global Democracy organization. They offer to "give moral support to dissidents", so not much help in actually fighting tyrants, but it is a start. Check it out.

A Recommendation To My Favorite Britons

2005-08-11T14:50:00.000-05:00

After making use of British booze, you may want to utilize this guide.

Just sayin'.

Terror In Egypt

2005-08-11T14:38:00.000-05:00

Extremists targeted civilians in Egypt...

October 21, 1992 - Militants ambush tourist bus, killing a British woman and wounding two British men. The woman is the first foreigner to die in militant-related violence.

February 26, 1993 - Bomb in crowded coffee shop in central Cairo kills a Turk, a Swede and an Egyptian and wounds 20.

June 8, 1993 - Bomb explodes near tour bus on Pyramids Road in Cairo, killing two Egyptians and wounding 22 people, including five Britons.

March 4, 1994 - Gunmen fire at Nile cruiser in southern Egypt, wounding a German woman tourist, who died after being flown back to Germany.

August 26, 1994 - Gunmen kill Spanish boy in an attack on a tourist bus in southern Egypt.

September 27, 1994 - Gunmen shoot and kill one German tourist and wound another in a gun attack in the Red Sea resort of Hurghada. Two Egyptians also killed and another German man died of his wounds after returning to Germany.

October 23, 1994 - Suspected Muslim militants kill a British tourist and wound three in a minibus attack.

April 18, 1996 - Islamic militants shoot dead 18 Greek tourists they mistook for Israelis near the Pyramids.

September 18, 1997 - Gunmen kill nine German tourists and their Egyptian bus driver in a shooting and firebomb attack outside the Egyptian Museum in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

November 17, 1997 - Attackers kill 58 tourists and four Egyptians at an ancient temple near the southern tourist town of Luxor. Six gunmen and three police also die in the violence.

October 7, 2004 - A series of bombings at the Taba Hilton hotel on Egypt's border with Israel, and two beaches further south, kill 34 people.

April 7, 2005 - A probable suicide bomb attack in a bazaar in medieval Cairo kills an American man, a French man and woman and the suspected bomber.

April 30, 2005 - A suicide bomber wounds seven people including four foreigners - two Israelis, an Italian and a Swede - near the Egyptian museum.

July 23, 2005 - Car bombs rock Red Sea resorts of Sharm el-Sheikh and nearby Naama Bay, killing at least 49 and wounding more than 100.

"I didn't know Egypt had troops in Iraq. Otherwise, why would the terrorists target them?" remarked Instapundit reader Sean Fitzpatrick.

Quote Of The Day

2005-08-07T23:23:00.000-05:00

In a reply to Roger L. Simon's latest post on Iraq coverage:

Heroism itself has been deconstructed as a contemptible artifact having no place in a post-modern narrative of class struggle and victimology.

Another Reason To Love NASA

2005-08-06T05:12:00.000-05:00

They work to feed people:

If Boss and Grunden are successful, their work could make a huge difference to humans living in marginal environments here on Earth. In many third-world countries, says Boss, "extending the crop a week or two when the drought comes could give you the final harvest you need to last through winter. If we could increase drought resistance, or cold tolerance, and extend the growing season, that could make a big difference in the lives of a lot of people."

In other news, "My Very Eager Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" needs revising.

It's within reach.

Terror Topics

2005-08-02T06:34:00.000-05:00

Prof. Juan Cole says of the Bush administration: "...if they are fighting a war on terror, the enemy is four guys in a gymn in Leeds." Michael J. Totten offers a graphic response.

The enemy Cole dismisses so casually are getting around, but at least he admits the enemy is not us. I say we should send some Iraqi women after them. (Assuming the terrorists are human.)

Meet The Clintons

2005-07-26T20:15:00.000-05:00

They'll be handy in Arkansas:

Former US president Bill Clinton has been offered 40 goats and 20 cows for his daughter by a love-struck African government official.

A Nice Pair Of Hooters

2005-07-19T14:45:00.000-05:00

Update: In the interest of contributing more juvenilia, I hereby suggest that the target consumers for these boxers are optimistic men, novelty lovers, and Bill Clinton.

Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince

2005-07-17T18:01:00.000-05:00

I finished this last night, after 11 hours (including meal and breaks).

For most of the book, the main plot is about searching for a plot: It is basically a murder mystery in reverse, leading up to the shocking, though not terribly surprising, death of a major character. "Half-Blood Prince" also ties up several loose ends from earlier volumes, "Chamber of Secrets" in particular, while providing heavy doses of exposition for the final tome. The rest of the book is the more familiar chronicling of life in the wizarding world, which from a logical standpoint is overshadowed by the growing forces of darkness, but from a dramatic standpoint is therefore no longer as fascinating.

J.K. Rowling's writing improved in some ways, being less gimmicky and continuing her pattern of treating the reader as wiser with each book. At the same time, her style is looser, less interested in providing a tight narrative. I love the book, but several chapters could have used a trim.

Apart from the brutal third act, the book is not as dark as "Order of the Phoenix". Although the deaths pile higher than ever before, there is, as one character opines, a bit more love in the world. And a bit more humor: There are dozens of throwaway gags, with more hits than misses, and the magnificently odd Luna Lovegood returns. Plus Harry does not SHOUT as much, having thankfully learned how to handle some of his angst; indeed, a scene where he calmly yet firmly expresses his loyalties stands out in my mind as one of the most genuinely mature passages in the series--Rowling apparently recognized this too, as she provides a reprise.

Now, how long till book seven?

Buy Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

Young Belarus Rallies For Freedom

2005-07-14T12:24:00.000-05:00

This sounds promising:

"I am 23 years old. I was 19 when I joined Zubr. I was still a student at the Belarusian literature faculty," said the strong-voiced blonde, sitting in a Minsk cafe.

Shortly after the founding in January 2001 of the Zubr group (named after the European bison found in Belarus' forests) "we carried out our first action -- carrying posters of the disappeared in public," she recalls.

The pictures included those of reporter Dmitry Zavadsky and politician Viktor Gonchar, both kidnapped and, according to the opposition, killed by the authorities.

Since then, Tustsik has participated in a series of "performances" intended to "stir up public opinion."

The group declares its aims as establishing democracy in Belarus.

They are aiming high. Now to keep it up.

Funding The London Olympic Games

2005-07-13T11:11:00.000-05:00

As they should, the Games will go forward despite the terrorist attacks. But Johnathan Pearce at Samizdata made some observations about the power of the state prior to the bombing that are worth noting as Londoners press forward, if only to prevent being hit in the pocketbook on both defense and entertainment. This suggestion seems credible:

Asset-backed securities are an increasingly common source of funding in our capital markets. Even pop star David Bowie, demonstrating the sort of business savvy common in the pop world, has issued bonds using his record sales as collateral. Why not issue "Olympic Bonds" with 20 or 30-year maturities to pay for the Games?

And more good wishes from across the sea, Britain.

Confused?

2005-07-13T10:23:00.000-05:00

There may be an explanation:

We appear to be witnessing a new experience of male insecurity and confusion. Half of all men in the research agreed that their role in society is unclear. This ranged from 36 percent of Indian men to a staggering 64 percent of French men."

Likewise, 50 percent of American men surveyed stated they were unsure of their place in society, the report stated.

Personally, I blame Barry Manilow.

Today's Anti-Drug Message

2005-07-09T17:14:00.000-05:00

Chicken Hawks Up

2005-07-08T07:35:00.000-05:00

"'But if there are many of these ruffians,' said Merry, 'it will certainly mean fighting. You won't rescue Lotho, or the Shire, just by being shocked and sad, my dear Frodo.'" - J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
As a pejorative referring to someone who supports a war but does not fight in it, might "chickenhawk" be perilously broad?

Because I am, as defined here, a chickenhawk myself, you may take the following cum grano salis, but I take it as something worth writing.

The armed forces are not for everyone, for reasons that may have nothing to do with cowardice or confidence in the fight. People have emotional limitations, or physical limitations, or obligations that, while no greater than their perceived duties as citizens, weigh too heavily on their wills. These people speak out precisely because they acknowledge that they are unable to be soldiers, or sailors, or airmen, or marines, but they do want to contribute. They spread the word, they arrange care packages, they secure the fort at home--all through the belief that this support is preferable to none. Those who put their lives on the line for what is right are the personification of nobility, and I cheer them and argue for them for doing what others, including me, can not or will not. But for what I do, I hope touches those men and women made of stronger stuff than me.

Update: Eve Garrard, writing at Normblog: For we can equally ask of those who were and remain against the war whether they were themselves, in their own or their children's persons, prepared to incur the consequences attendant on that war not having been waged.

Words Fail: London

2005-07-07T08:08:00.000-05:00

My prayers up front to the victims of the London attacks, my solidarity behind the survivors, and my contempt upon the perpetrators.

As for those already wondering whether Britain will fight or, like Madrid, fold: At this point, I don't give a damn. Many are certain to make a stand against this evil, in some way at some time, so let the bastards worry about what the United Kingdom is going to do next. The rest of us, Britons specifically and especially, have more urgent concerns.

Deepest condolences and love to you, People of Great Britain.

Update: It didn't take long for the "you have yourself to blame" crowd to spill their bile in England.

Update II: A heartfelt message to the Secret Organisation of al Qaeda in Europe: Screw yourselves.

Zarqawi Not A Lefty

2005-07-06T23:07:00.000-05:00

Foul-mouthed terrorist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi has harsh words concerning right-wingers unhinged enough to try comparing members of the anti-war crowd to "freedom fighters" like himself.

Wanted: Judicial-Free Supreme Court Justice

2005-07-05T00:18:00.000-05:00

There are limits to how broadly one can reasonably define conditions for a judicial appointment...

A Republican planning document provided to The Washington Post described the need to avoid disclosing the nominee's "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue."

Barring personal politics is appropriate, but taking the 'legal' out of the judiciary? Nope. Uh-uh. And Republicans are going to burn themselves if planning like this keeps up. The decline of the judicial branch is already under way, and a centrist or libertarian could help reverse the trend, but political tricks like the above will only increase the statist hegemony no matter how worthy the appointee. It should be about the law, period. A short-term "up-or-down vote" or condemnation of "judicial activism" or issue-based nomination means little if the process continues a long-term rot.

Why Cows Aren't Higher On The Food Chain

2005-07-04T20:05:00.000-05:00

A tree can outsmart them. (Via Dave Barry's Blog)

July 4, 2005

2005-07-04T02:35:00.000-05:00

To celebrate Independence Day, how about a few words on the United States of America's national anthem? It is awkward to sing, its third stanza openly offends our British brethren, the religious fourth stanza openly offends our neighborhood atheists, and the entire thing uses the tune of an old song about beer and sex. As a national anthem, it is terrifically problematic. So here is a reassuring commentary from the late, great Isaac Asimov, reprinted in its entirety...

I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.

The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.

This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.

Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.

At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.

The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.

The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.

On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.

As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.

As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"

After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.

Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key

Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?

And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer

On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?

Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.

In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.

During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.

No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And don't let them ever take it away.

--Isaac Asimov, March 1991

Happy Fourth, America!

Comet Get It

2005-07-03T21:51:00.000-05:00

NASA's Deep Impact is mere hours away from target.

Elijah Wood is nowhere in sight.

Update: Success!!!

Since I've Been Gone...

2005-07-03T21:02:00.000-05:00

Sorry for being out of circulation for so long. I had an exam and have more projects underway, but here are some notes to help catch up on my missed postings...

You may recall that Aaron of Free Will has an interest in personal responsibility. Well, while cleaning out my bookmarks, I rediscovered his magnificently sharp assessment of our waning parental culture.

With Live 8 fresh in people's minds, it is worth noting that the solution to extreme poverty is in the grasp of the impoverished nations themselves--from public health to the environment, if they discourage corruption and embrace economic development--and to caution that some wealth is illusionary.

Senators take money from special interest groups? You don't say!

Quite a few people think that liberals have pretty much lost their forward-looking perspective.

Does Neverland Ranch have one of these?

Right Wing News has a must-read interview with outspoken columnist Mark Steyn, whose recently penned commentary on the rise of China is truly fascinating.

Liberal Liberation

2005-06-18T23:10:00.000-05:00

Michael J. Totten, one of the smartest liberal writers around, points to Christopher Hitchens' recent first-hand account of the liberation of Iraq:

The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to start - I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by, umm, political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that the - where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with - months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south.

I remember seeing flowers on television--no sweets, but I am willing to give some slack on that since I can't imagine where they would buy them in sufficient supply, particularly with Saddam trying to quietly starve his own people--and the more recent cheers (and purple fingers!) with the elections. As one of the comments at Totten's site reads...

Iraq is a country of 24 million, of whom lets say 1/4 are males of military age. That means 6 million or so. Automatic weapons etc. are plentiful in Iraq. No army, even with air supremacy, armor etc. can stand against 50-1 odds on the other guy's turf if the other side desires a fight. The common Iraqi has had two years to decide to wipe us out. They have chosen not to. If they truly wanted us out we wouldn't last a week. Heck, let's go further. If only 1/10th of the military aged males came against us, we'd lose hundreds a week. THAT would be Vietnam.

We remain in Iraq, as we always have, only with the goodwill, or at least tolerance of the general population.

And:

Look: the "insurgents" have as their most effective tactic blowing up Iraqi Security recruiting centers, because there are lots of recruits and not-so-many "insurgents".

It's an effective tactic, of course, trading one man for 10 or 15. Any Civil War general would have jumped at that kind of tradeoff.

But aren't any of the naysayers getting the significance of that ratio? Or understanding the desperation of the side resorting to the tactic?

I think we owe it to all the Iraqis who stood in line, both to vote and to sign up, to stick it out a good while longer. "Cutting bait" in this case would be the same as cutting throats...

This is basically a continuation of an earlier post, but the thought bears repeating.

Update: Looks like the budget cuts have already begun...

Dick "Dick" Durbin Writes Back

2005-06-18T12:31:00.000-05:00

Perhaps the Democratic senator from Illinois who drew comparisons between U.S. troops and Nazis/Communists simply has a love of dramatic metaphors?

Darth Tater's Best Spuds

2005-06-15T17:50:00.000-05:00

Need two of these to flank Darth while he lets rebels stew...

And We Can Win

2005-06-14T06:28:00.000-05:00

Here is proof!

If America Is Worth Fighting For, So Is Iraq

2005-06-13T21:54:00.000-05:00

The Iraqis are better off. Our tactics are improving. Heck, a pro-intervention film appeared at Cannes and military rappers are calling for support. There are good things happening in Iraq (as the latest must-read Chrenkoff entry shows), as well as bad.

Yet the insurgents (and their unwitting allies) in Iraq are playing off American fears, which is paying off. Even the "These colors don't run" crowd are deciding that surrender may be a perfectly acceptable alternative after all. (You have to wonder what these characters would write about our occupation of France.) Defeatism is America's greatest home-grown enemy. The disturbing news:

Six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the highest number who have said that in the Gallup poll.

I watched The Patriot again yesterday. It is far from great (though John Williams' score is effective), but it reminded me that America's own fight for freedom relied on the assistance of a foreign power. Iraq's equivalent of Yorktown will be very different, it may not be a battle at all, but it is worth remembering where we might be had the French pulled out before finishing the job. Liberty was the motivation then, and Victor Davis Hanson's classic "Western Cannibalism" article from early last year makes a liberal argument for ensuring success now...

Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.

We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.

The terrorists and insurgents have a losing position, and we need to make them realize that. Liberty enlightening the world is a threat to those who prefer seeing the world in despotism's shadow, and to them alone. We have a choice between principle and negligence in Iraq; a choice between commitment and betrayal; a choice between victory and self-defeat.

Update: Hanson now:

Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.

This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing.

Movie Star Favorites

2005-06-11T17:49:00.000-05:00

In response to Prof. Geras' plea regarding his film stars poll...

Lauren Bacall
Christian Bale
Angela Bassett
Glenn Close
Cary Grant
Tom Hanks
Nicole Kidman
Angela Lansbury
Peter O'Toole
James Stewart

Such lists always drive me bonkers. A point comes where ranking art, ranking people turns from an effort to understand the subject and becomes something crude. There are a lot of great performers, so I ended up simply going with ones as they popped into my head. As good a method as any, I suppose. But it is not like they are cattle.

Or So The Germans Would Have Us Believe

2005-06-10T10:29:00.000-05:00

Davids Medienkritik is on top of Germany's Tatort storyline that pandered to "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theorists.

Many picked on America for having "Saddam planned 9/11" conspiracies, but at least the target of that paranoia was a fascist with terrorist connections. (Yale didn't exactly produce a criminal mastermind.) Portraying a legitimately elected official as a de facto dictator is a dangerous game, and I find the proliferation of such nonsense very frightening indeed... Though I confess some amusement at how, as Prof. Reynolds wrote, "Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural."

The article also mentions the "Moon Hoax", which reminds us that even a peaceful entity like NASA is not immune to anti-Americanism.

Hey Baby, Wanna See My Titan Arum?

2005-06-09T10:48:00.000-05:00

Watch out, it's gonna bloom!

General Sherman's Legacy

2005-06-04T14:07:00.000-05:00

Citizen Grim of the blasphemously-named Right Hand of God blog confronts the problem of taking appropriate action...

For example, just last week, I was walking through the park and I come around some trees to see this huge demon on horseback on the other side of the pond, swinging a saber around, lighting fires, and generally making mischief. This one blind dude wandered out into the fracas, obviously having no clue what was going on, and the demon, with a fiery glee, turned and charged him. In that moment of indecision, I had to ask myself: What Would Jesus Do?

I decided that Jesus would most likely dash across the surface of the pond, smite the demon with divine justice, put out the fires with a glance from his eyes, and then heal the blind dude, just for good measure.

That didn't help me much, as my superpowers are relatively underdeveloped, so I had to ask myself the second question: What Would General Sherman Do? Well, I reasoned, General Sherman would probably raze the city and leave a swath of destruction all the way to the sea.

Which was significantly easier to accomplish, once I enlisted the demon's aid.

The lesson drawn from this is every bit as educational.

The Defense Spending Myth

2005-06-04T08:06:00.000-05:00

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put forward some unhappy remarks about the Chinese boosting their military, and that made China upset:

"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.

China's right to self-defense is a given, and Rumsfeld surely would have kept his mouth shut if he knew who is such a serious threat China. Or maybe he does know and is concerned about China's present response? If China is preparing an attack on Taiwan, Rumsfeld's remarks make a great deal of sense: Protecting Taiwan is not only a good deed, it is a U.S. security policy.

No, what annoys me is Cui repeating the view of U.S. military expenditures that results from using absolute dollars. At first glance, he is correct. The U.S. spent $370,700,000,000 on defense at last report, while China spent $67,490,000,000 for a distant second place. However, much of America's cost is purely by virtue of the United States being more active on the humanitarian scene, demanding more advanced equipment, and spending more on disarmament. Any comparison between military expenditures would do well to consider how much goes toward actual defense, as opposed to humanitarian, development, or support functions. Barring that, the percentage of gross domestic product represents how much a nation pulls from what they have in their wallet...

Suppose we apply that last thought to charity. If a person with $10 in his pocket passes by a collection tin and donates $5, he sacrifices 50% of his available funds. If a person with $100 also donates $5, is he equally charitable?

Out of the respective nations' GDP, the United States stands a full percent below China's 4.30% on defense expenditures... China uses more of its wealth on military.

E.T. Phone Earth

2005-06-03T07:46:00.000-05:00

National Geographic's latest poll on aliens found that most Americans believe extraterrestrial life is possible. Interesting stuff, but what stood out for me was the next-to-last paragraph:

The poll also reported that belief in alien life did not split across political lines, but did vary depending on religious practices. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent), the poll stated.

Kinda undermines the stereotypes of Democrats as godless Modernists and Republicans as unthinking Puritans, doesn't it?

(Of course, it is no secret that aliens cause global warming.)

Quote Of The Day

2005-06-03T04:47:00.000-05:00

From the comments section at Beautiful Atrocities:

Hitler - sexually ambiguous vegetarian, failed artist, coffeehouse philosopher. Likes: funny facial hair, snappy clothes, over-the-top opera. Dislikes: big business, the bourgeoise, Americans and Jews.

If Hitler exists today, he's a copy editor at the Village Voice.

Be sure to click the link for a Hitler roundup. (James Lileks takes note.)

Bush Goes Blogging

2005-06-03T04:16:00.000-05:00

The circle is now complete:

Part I

Part II

Part III

In Local News

2005-05-26T11:43:00.000-05:00

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).

Filly Buster

2005-05-25T22:25:00.000-05:00

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.

They're Russian To Judgment

2005-05-24T07:48:00.000-05:00

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.

Aww Star Wars, Give Me Those Star Wars

2005-05-21T14:52:00.000-05:00

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."