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.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Aww Star Wars, Give Me Those Star Wars
Saw Star War: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Thursday evening...
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Quote For The Day
P.J. O'Rourke, Republican Party Reptile:
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
Monday, May 16, 2005
NewsTweak
Blogs everywhere seem to be tackling Newsweek's non-apology for their coverage of the non-story involving an alleged and, it turns out, very much unsubstantiated Koran desecration. The Blogfather has three (count 'em: one, two, three) separate posts on it in less than 24 hours. But while the main thrust of discussion seems to be about American journalists continuing to fall into the same [self-]destructive trap as their overseas counterparts, what stands out for me is the excessive reaction to the story, whether true or false.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
UNnecessary Roughness
Mark Steyn confronts the United Nations with a vengeance:
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life
Reuters:
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Georgia On My Mind
Over at BBC's Have Your Say the warm reception President Bush received in Georgia is being badmouthed with ad hominems. Assuming Bush is making nice for ulterior motives (apparently a politician looking out for his constituency is unthinkably bad), let us not forget that politics is not always a zero-sum game. Georgia is already receiving some benefit--namely, publicly for what a lovely country it's become--as a result of Bush's visit. I am sure they will receive more, though probably without the fanfare. The naysayers would do well to let them enjoy it, and remember that helping through tourist dollars would be a better way to show concern than griping online.
Imperial March (Darth Tater's Theme)
While Darth Tater sells for over $30 on eBay, where I know the battle for him firsthand, other bits of plastic strive to show they are powerful in the Dark Side of the Brick. (Via Doug Lacey)
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Britons Give Liberty A Bloody Nose
Being an American, I lack the first-hand experience of my Britannia brethren on such matters, but it looks to me like the United Kingdom is unfortunately on its way to becoming a nanny state, but for the moment is holding ground as a supporter of foreign nations gaining/maintaining sovereignty by the people.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
An Open Letter To Silvio Berlusconi
Dear Prime Minister Berlusconi,
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The World Doesn't Always Seem Magical
People may say Human Rights Watch becomes hysterical over even the most understandable offences, but that is the organization's job, and they do it with more credible perspectives (i.e., constructive criticisms and actual solutions) than the perpetual whiners at Amnesty International.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
The Beetle Administration
This blog loves politics. This blog also loves nonsense. It probably goes without saying that the two usually go together, though rarely like the following:
Two US scientists have paid tribute to their favourite politicians by naming three species of beetle after them.
President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were all honoured.
One of the entomologists said he admired all three men for 'having the courage of their convictions' and standing up for freedom and democracy...
They named them Agathidium bushi, Agathidium cheneyi and Agathidium rumsfeldi.
I cannot say I am as keen on these guys (what happened to small-government Republicanism?), but, yes, they do have a lot of balls. Unlike some beetles.
Two US scientists have paid tribute to their favourite politicians by naming three species of beetle after them.
President George Bush, Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were all honoured.
One of the entomologists said he admired all three men for 'having the courage of their convictions' and standing up for freedom and democracy...
They named them Agathidium bushi, Agathidium cheneyi and Agathidium rumsfeldi.
I cannot say I am as keen on these guys (what happened to small-government Republicanism?), but, yes, they do have a lot of balls. Unlike some beetles.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
This Is How They Created Ben Affleck
Imagine a system that scans your face in a matter of seconds, renders it in 3-D computer graphics, then melds it to a performance in the movie you are watching. (Via We Make Money Not Art)
Monday, April 25, 2005
Smart Americans
Daniel Drezner has a post on how average Americans may be smarter than the elite. Consider a passage from one of the news stories he cites...
In fact, they inexplicably found that people who weigh a few pounds more than the ideal are less likely to die than those who weigh a few pounds less.
"Less likely to die..."? I am not an elite journalist, but I do know that every creature eventually passes on. The risk of dying is currently 100%. Living is the leading cause of death, folks.
In fact, they inexplicably found that people who weigh a few pounds more than the ideal are less likely to die than those who weigh a few pounds less.
"Less likely to die..."? I am not an elite journalist, but I do know that every creature eventually passes on. The risk of dying is currently 100%. Living is the leading cause of death, folks.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Beware Of Penguin Terror
The CIA apparently determined that Osama bin Laden is getting desperate. Someone better tell him these guys do not behave in an Islamic manner.
Update: Monkey business.
Update: Monkey business.
Friday, April 22, 2005
Friday's Quote
C.S. Lewis, Miracles: The Englishness of English is audible only to those who know some other language as well. In the same way for the same reason, only Supernaturalists really see Nature. You must go a little away from her, and then turn around, and look back. Then at last the true landscape will become visible. You must have tasted, however briefly, the pure water from beyond the world before you can be distinctly conscious of the hot, salty tang of Nature's current. To treat her as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see... this astonishing cataract of bears, babies, and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality? How could you ever have thought that it was merely a stage-set for the moral drama of men and women?
Nature is herself. Offer her neither worship nor contempt. Meet her and know her. If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The 'vanity' to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured, but cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilized. We shall be able to recognize our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster-mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting.
: The Englishness of English is audible only to those who know some other language as well. In the same way for the same reason, only Supernaturalists really see Nature. You must go a little away from her, and then turn around, and look back. Then at last the true landscape will become visible. You must have tasted, however briefly, the pure water from beyond the world before you can be distinctly conscious of the hot, salty tang of Nature's current. To treat her as God, or as Everything, is to lose the whole pith and pleasure of her. Come out, look back, and then you will see... this astonishing cataract of bears, babies, and bananas: this immoderate deluge of atoms, orchids, oranges, cancers, canaries, fleas, gases, tornadoes and toads. How could you ever have thought this was the ultimate reality? How could you ever have thought that it was merely a stage-set for the moral drama of men and women?Nature is herself. Offer her neither worship nor contempt. Meet her and know her. If we are immortal, and if she is doomed (as the scientists tell us) to run down and die, we shall miss this half-shy and half-flamboyant creature, this ogress, this hoyden, this incorrigible fairy, this dumb witch. But the theologians tell us that she, like ourselves, is to be redeemed. The 'vanity' to which she was subjected was her disease, not her essence. She will be cured, but cured in character: not tamed (Heaven forbid) nor sterilized. We shall be able to recognize our old enemy, friend, playfellow and foster-mother, so perfected as to be not less, but more, herself. And that will be a merry meeting.
Sunday, April 17, 2005
Bulldog Bolton
United Nations envoy nominee John Bolton is receiving mixed reviews. I read one or two or more frightening things about the current Undersecretary of State, and he comes across as a bullying lawyer.
On the other hand, I daresay Dr. Fred Newman makes an interesting point:
I know the standard stuff that people know, that he’s Bulldog Bolton, but it makes sense. His is the current American position towards the UN, so why wouldn’t that be the U.S. Representative’s position. He’s not the UN Representative to the UN, he’s Washington’s representative to the UN. I think the critique is sort of overstated.
And Bolton's supporters make a few points, as well. Andrew Sullivan, by no means a Bush Conservative, wrote in Britain's Sunday Times:
Bolton’s real sin is to see the UN for what it is: an assembly of representatives of all world governments — some of which are democratic, some autocratic, and some of which are outright kleptomaniac, genocidal dictators.
This body can sometimes be effective in limited ways, but more often it defends the international status quo and sustains corruption.
Bolton’s deeper sin is to believe that democracy matters, that democratic regimes are more easily dealt with than non-democratic regimes and that institutions — such as the UN — that make no distinction between them have a serious credibility problem.
...
It remains true that Bolton’s visceral suspicion of the UN is not what we usually think of as diplomacy. But the post of UN ambassador has long been a job in which ferocious critics of the UN have found their niche. Remember Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s ambassador, or, more pertinently, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator? When the UN passed its infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution, Moynihan diplomatically stated, “This is a lie.” When Idi Amin addressed the organisation and was granted the same respect and status as a democratic leader, Moynihan called him a “racist murderer”. Somehow the UN and world diplomacy survived this rare outburst of truth.
At a time when the UN needs some tough love, after appalling scandals and impotence, Bolton is not an inexplicable choice, as Kerry stated. He is a potentially inspired one.
With that, Kofi Annan reportedly telling Bolton, "Get yourself confirmed quickly," and other positive revelations, anti-Bolton hysteria is probably as misguided as its anti-Bush relative. He is not a very pleasant diplomat, but he's not a very dangerous one, either. In this case, a bull in a china shop might not be a bad idea.
On the other hand, I daresay Dr. Fred Newman makes an interesting point:
I know the standard stuff that people know, that he’s Bulldog Bolton, but it makes sense. His is the current American position towards the UN, so why wouldn’t that be the U.S. Representative’s position. He’s not the UN Representative to the UN, he’s Washington’s representative to the UN. I think the critique is sort of overstated.
And Bolton's supporters make a few points, as well. Andrew Sullivan, by no means a Bush Conservative, wrote in Britain's Sunday Times:
Bolton’s real sin is to see the UN for what it is: an assembly of representatives of all world governments — some of which are democratic, some autocratic, and some of which are outright kleptomaniac, genocidal dictators.
This body can sometimes be effective in limited ways, but more often it defends the international status quo and sustains corruption.
Bolton’s deeper sin is to believe that democracy matters, that democratic regimes are more easily dealt with than non-democratic regimes and that institutions — such as the UN — that make no distinction between them have a serious credibility problem.
...
It remains true that Bolton’s visceral suspicion of the UN is not what we usually think of as diplomacy. But the post of UN ambassador has long been a job in which ferocious critics of the UN have found their niche. Remember Jeane Kirkpatrick, President Reagan’s ambassador, or, more pertinently, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, the late Democratic senator? When the UN passed its infamous “Zionism is racism” resolution, Moynihan diplomatically stated, “This is a lie.” When Idi Amin addressed the organisation and was granted the same respect and status as a democratic leader, Moynihan called him a “racist murderer”. Somehow the UN and world diplomacy survived this rare outburst of truth.
At a time when the UN needs some tough love, after appalling scandals and impotence, Bolton is not an inexplicable choice, as Kerry stated. He is a potentially inspired one.
With that, Kofi Annan reportedly telling Bolton, "Get yourself confirmed quickly," and other positive revelations, anti-Bolton hysteria is probably as misguided as its anti-Bush relative. He is not a very pleasant diplomat, but he's not a very dangerous one, either. In this case, a bull in a china shop might not be a bad idea.
101 And Still Kicking
Literally:
She began dancing on Broadway while the doughboys were still fighting in France. In the 1920s, she was Al Jolson's leading lady, and later was the first to perform "Singin' in the Rain" — years before Gene Kelly.
On Friday, 101-year-old Doris Eaton Travis, a former Ziegfeld Girl, was back on a 42nd Street stage, rehearsing for Broadway's 19th annual fund-raiser to fight AIDS.
She began dancing on Broadway while the doughboys were still fighting in France. In the 1920s, she was Al Jolson's leading lady, and later was the first to perform "Singin' in the Rain" — years before Gene Kelly.
On Friday, 101-year-old Doris Eaton Travis, a former Ziegfeld Girl, was back on a 42nd Street stage, rehearsing for Broadway's 19th annual fund-raiser to fight AIDS.
Come Back Soon, Zhao
More regarding the Caper at the Capital:
After several days in a US immigration detention facility, Mr Zhao was expelled from the US and arrived in Australia early on Saturday on a United Airlines flight.
At Sydney airport, Mr Zhao told reporters he had not enjoyed living in Australia and had wanted to raise his concerns and chat generally with Mr Bush.
"Just to speak about normal topics like weather, like architecture and buildings," he said.
Zhao's behavior was suspicious and, like Mr. Chrenkoff, I find it amazing that he could be so naive. But I do feel sorry for him. Partly because he now comprehends his ordeal, partly because he is abstaining from faddish anti-Americanism despite having his personal effects destroyed, but mainly because this story reveals an understandable and refreshing tenacity in seeking to take dissatisfaction "to the top" with nothing more than a casual conversation. He attempted to take it to the head of the wrong country and in the wrong way, but I can sympathize with his plight. And if he can refrain from rooting himself and his suitcases in front of government buildings, I hope the Powers That Be will allow his return. I mean, he still hasn't seen the White House...
After several days in a US immigration detention facility, Mr Zhao was expelled from the US and arrived in Australia early on Saturday on a United Airlines flight.
At Sydney airport, Mr Zhao told reporters he had not enjoyed living in Australia and had wanted to raise his concerns and chat generally with Mr Bush.
"Just to speak about normal topics like weather, like architecture and buildings," he said.
Zhao's behavior was suspicious and, like Mr. Chrenkoff, I find it amazing that he could be so naive. But I do feel sorry for him. Partly because he now comprehends his ordeal, partly because he is abstaining from faddish anti-Americanism despite having his personal effects destroyed, but mainly because this story reveals an understandable and refreshing tenacity in seeking to take dissatisfaction "to the top" with nothing more than a casual conversation. He attempted to take it to the head of the wrong country and in the wrong way, but I can sympathize with his plight. And if he can refrain from rooting himself and his suitcases in front of government buildings, I hope the Powers That Be will allow his return. I mean, he still hasn't seen the White House...
Saturday, April 16, 2005
American TV Should Be More Like This
From the Australian Herald Sun:
NOTHING beat SBS in the TV ratings on Wednesday night.
But in glum news for the public broadcaster, the nothing was a blank screen on Channel 7.
After a mystery technical snarl sent Seven off the air, viewers remained staunch. And its 48 minutes of beige, blank, soundless screen was preferred over SBS and, at times, the ABC.
At 9.09pm, viewers of the Blue Heelers episode Killing Time found themselves doing just that.
And at 9.30, when Air Crash Investigation was scheduled, the only thing down was Seven, still.
For Melbourne viewers, though, Seven's impromptu version of Blankety Blanks wasn't the worst thing on.
SBS's Dateline program -- tracking a volunteer doctor through the Congo -- had 105,000 fewer Melbourne viewers than Seven's non-event. And the ABC's acclaimed new comedy Nighty Night could have gone to bed early. It drew 35,000 fewer viewers than Seven's ad, sound and vision-free offering.
Even at its lowest point, the blank screen had 88,000 fans -- more than anything SBS ran all day.
I say make the "technical snarl" permanent, change the color at odd times, and call it the ScreenSaver Channel. It'll be a hit. (Also via Tim Blair)
Update: In contrast to another link in Mr. Blair's post, regarding a "moderate" Sheikh's recent endorsement of raping unveiled women, and to counter some of the vulgarities in his comments section, I recommend a fascinating article on Laylat Al-Isra wa Al-Miraj (The Night Journey and Ascension) of Muhammad:
The commentaries of Shaykh al-Maliki on the Night Journey are significant to the future of Islam as a faith and to the Saudi kingdom. This is because the irrational and absurd strictures imposed by the Wahhabis on Muslims and Saudi subjects include a rigorous ban on celebration of the Night Journey, normally observed on the 27th day of the Muslim month of Rajab.
Such is but one of many prohibitions enacted by Wahhabis against the traditions of classical Islam, which make moderate Muslims hate Wahhabism. Wahhabis also forbid celebration of the Prophet's birthday; commemoration of holy men and women (Muslim saints); the maintenance of graveyards; recitation of Fatiha, the first sura or chapter of Qur'an, for the dead; intercessory prayer through Muhammad, his companions, or the Muslim saints, and, of course, the entire practice of Sufism. Possession of the great Sufi books is a crime in the Saudi kingdom. Although Shaykh al-Maliki was the head of the Maliki school of Sunni Muslim law in the kingdom, he suffered from many acts of discrimination and marginalization. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was barred from preaching in the Grand Mosque at Mecca. Nevertheless, his funeral was the largest public event in recent years in the holy city.
Shaykh al-Maliki's writing on the Night Journey stands in direct and eloquent opposition to Wahhabi doctrine. A prominent Wahhabi bigot, Muhammad al-Munajjid, also known for declaring the South Asian tsunami a divine punishment against the celebration of Christmas and the Christian New Year, has declared that commemorating the Night Journey by holding special events is a bida, or forbidden innovation in Islam. By contrast, Shaykh al-Maliki not only encouraged marking this important Islamic spiritual landmark by festivals, but also offered some comments on the Prophet's rapture that would doubtless prove surprising to many non-Muslims.
NOTHING beat SBS in the TV ratings on Wednesday night.
But in glum news for the public broadcaster, the nothing was a blank screen on Channel 7.
After a mystery technical snarl sent Seven off the air, viewers remained staunch. And its 48 minutes of beige, blank, soundless screen was preferred over SBS and, at times, the ABC.
At 9.09pm, viewers of the Blue Heelers episode Killing Time found themselves doing just that.
And at 9.30, when Air Crash Investigation was scheduled, the only thing down was Seven, still.
For Melbourne viewers, though, Seven's impromptu version of Blankety Blanks wasn't the worst thing on.
SBS's Dateline program -- tracking a volunteer doctor through the Congo -- had 105,000 fewer Melbourne viewers than Seven's non-event. And the ABC's acclaimed new comedy Nighty Night could have gone to bed early. It drew 35,000 fewer viewers than Seven's ad, sound and vision-free offering.
Even at its lowest point, the blank screen had 88,000 fans -- more than anything SBS ran all day.
I say make the "technical snarl" permanent, change the color at odd times, and call it the ScreenSaver Channel. It'll be a hit. (Also via Tim Blair)
Update: In contrast to another link in Mr. Blair's post, regarding a "moderate" Sheikh's recent endorsement of raping unveiled women, and to counter some of the vulgarities in his comments section, I recommend a fascinating article on Laylat Al-Isra wa Al-Miraj (The Night Journey and Ascension) of Muhammad:
The commentaries of Shaykh al-Maliki on the Night Journey are significant to the future of Islam as a faith and to the Saudi kingdom. This is because the irrational and absurd strictures imposed by the Wahhabis on Muslims and Saudi subjects include a rigorous ban on celebration of the Night Journey, normally observed on the 27th day of the Muslim month of Rajab.
Such is but one of many prohibitions enacted by Wahhabis against the traditions of classical Islam, which make moderate Muslims hate Wahhabism. Wahhabis also forbid celebration of the Prophet's birthday; commemoration of holy men and women (Muslim saints); the maintenance of graveyards; recitation of Fatiha, the first sura or chapter of Qur'an, for the dead; intercessory prayer through Muhammad, his companions, or the Muslim saints, and, of course, the entire practice of Sufism. Possession of the great Sufi books is a crime in the Saudi kingdom. Although Shaykh al-Maliki was the head of the Maliki school of Sunni Muslim law in the kingdom, he suffered from many acts of discrimination and marginalization. Unlike his father and grandfather, he was barred from preaching in the Grand Mosque at Mecca. Nevertheless, his funeral was the largest public event in recent years in the holy city.
Shaykh al-Maliki's writing on the Night Journey stands in direct and eloquent opposition to Wahhabi doctrine. A prominent Wahhabi bigot, Muhammad al-Munajjid, also known for declaring the South Asian tsunami a divine punishment against the celebration of Christmas and the Christian New Year, has declared that commemorating the Night Journey by holding special events is a bida, or forbidden innovation in Islam. By contrast, Shaykh al-Maliki not only encouraged marking this important Islamic spiritual landmark by festivals, but also offered some comments on the Prophet's rapture that would doubtless prove surprising to many non-Muslims.
Friday, April 15, 2005
Burger & Fries--Super Sized, Please
I lost eight pounds recently, bringing me to the ranks of those of normal weight. Hooray! Success did not come by significantly altering what I consume (apart from largely giving up on soft drinks), but by moderating my diet. I continue to act like I'm allergic to exercise--that which makes allowances for the occasional pig-out and would do wonders for my lingering paunch--but one hurdle at a time, okay?
That said, I beg Cookie Monster not to follow this example.
Update: I did not know it when I wrote the above, but today is McDonald's 50th anniversary. Happy Birthday, Mickey D's. (via Tim Blair)
That said, I beg Cookie Monster not to follow this example.
Update: I did not know it when I wrote the above, but today is McDonald's 50th anniversary. Happy Birthday, Mickey D's. (via Tim Blair)
Monday, April 11, 2005
Traffic Safety In Tennessee
How does the Tennessee Department of Safety announce a new project to relieve highway dangers?
By holding simultaneous press conferences in the middle of the interstate.
By holding simultaneous press conferences in the middle of the interstate.
Saturday, April 09, 2005
The "Star Wars" They Do Not Want You To See
We already know that George Lucas loves to tinker, but this trailer (warning: contains spoilers) for the original edit of Revenge of the Sith, then subtitled The Lost Hope, shows just how willing he can be to compromise the integrity of his craft.
The Duck Begins Here
When it comes to questionable government expenses, this is probably the cutest...
The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.
Seems appropriate, actually, considering the lessons of ol' Scrooge McDuck.
The duck, a brown mallard with white markings, has had several names suggested by Treasury Department people, including "Quacks Reform," "T-Bill," and "Duck Cheney." It has built a nest in a mulch pile right at the main entrance to the Treasury Department on Pennsylvania Avenue.
The Secret Service's uniformed division, which provides protection for the White House and Treasury building, has set up metal guard rails to protect the nest, which has attracted the notice of tourists on their way to see the White House.
Seems appropriate, actually, considering the lessons of ol' Scrooge McDuck.
Humanitarianism And Iraq
I referenced Norman Geras a couple of times here, so that may explain why The Tone-Deaf Mushroom is now among the links on his blog, though I like to think my charming personality has something to do with it (stop laughing). Endorsements or criticism always make it easier for me to write, because I don't feel as though I am venting into a void. So thank you, Norm, though admittedly I never dreamt I would receive promotion from a Marxism scholar!
The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:
We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.
Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.
I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.
The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.
There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.
Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.
Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."
In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here]justify this?" or some other question for which the answer can vary wildly depending on whatever narrow position you take, but the broad, challenging "Is this justifiable?" We need honesty and reason (and snarky comments).
Anyway, as promised...
From An E-Mail To My Friends
No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.
But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."
These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:
Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.
There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)
I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.
As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.
I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.
For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.
The issue that attracted me to Geras' blog in the first place was his thoughtful approach to the Iraq War. From his latest post on the topic:
We were not choosing between a real-world war and an ideal-world peace (of glowing humanitarian projects), any more than critics will be willing to allow the opposite - that we were choosing between an ideal-world war (of glorious, costless liberation) and a tarnished real-world peace. We were choosing between a real regime-change war and a real avoidance of war that would have spared the regime in question - with all the complexities there are, of value and of cost and benefit, on either side of that choice structure. The pressure to simplify possibly reflects some troubledness of mind with a less simplified statement of the case. It's hard to know.
Of course my screed is what it is, long and repetitive, in no small part due to those complexities. I recently wrote an e-mail (reprinted in revised form below, for archival purposes) that offered a few summery notes precisely because we need more serious discussion on what the war meant and what it should mean for us today.
I mentioned that the international community should have put more pressure on Hussein than Bush if it were genuinely concerned about peace. The response was that there is "a huge difference between trying to increase pressure on a country like Iraq via international coalitions." That is true. Even something like a World War II-style coalition of the willing would suffice. Apparently, America went into Iraq unilaterally--nobody from England, or Australia, or Poland, not even strictly humanitarian support from countries like Japan. Still, I must say America is doing well considering that there is no international coalition in Iraq.
The United Nations received a mention. The U.N. exposes the biggest flaw in U.S. foreign policy: We are the wealthiest nation in the world, so why aren't we buying nations off? It worked for Saddam for years. The Enron on the East River illustrates time and time again that you can get at least helpful indifference for anything, up to and including genocide, provided you make the right noises. It may catch up with you later, perhaps, but unless some agitators like the United States or Australia raise a fuss, by then you achieved whatever it is was you wanted and can safely retire to a comfy villa in France. One of our fair-weather allies made a chunk of change aiding the slaughter in Rwanda, Sudan remains a killing field, six countries facing sanctions for ongoing human rights abuses made a full third of the commission to investigate human rights abuses, Iran has a say regarding cracking down on WMD proliferation, etc., so perhaps America should pay its dues to the international Murder, Inc., chalk up some brownie points by spreading the cash to kleptocracies (before President Bush ruins all the best ones), and after awhile we'll be able to indiscriminately carpet bomb Antarctica (there is something fishy about those birds in formalwear). Plus, I see that a large number of U.N. peacekeepers are experts at pillaging, and we could use the help: Our rampage in Iraq has been a disaster; insurgents keep messing things up before our troops get a turn.
There was also a suggestion that those people mutilating others will behave if we just don't talk so mean.
Yes, I love making snarky comments, but there is more at stake.
Here is a story. Frank Devine's research for The Australian pointed to one conclusion on the Iraq invasion:
The Americans had established and then strengthened a military presence in countries surrounding Saudi Arabia - Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait. Invasion of Iraq would complete the encirclement."
In short, illicit weapons programs and human rights abuses in Iraq provided a smokescreen for a containment policy against Saudi Arabia. Is it true? I have no idea. Is it a legitimate rationale for the war? Arguably. But it illustrates how the human tendency to lock into a specific possibility at the expense of all others can account for unnecessary conflicts. Devine may be correct, but that has nothing to do with why I support the presence in Iraq or whether my reasoning is correct. It is possible that both pro-intervention and anti-intervention forces are right to some extent (i.e., Bush did a good thing for bad reasons, or a bad thing for good reasons). It may actually explain some of the cognitive dissonance we see. My view of the Iraq War and subsequent occupation is not "Did [insert name here]
Anyway, as promised...
From An E-Mail To My Friends
No human is so "good" as to be trusted with absolute control over others. That is one reason why having a representative government is so important as to be essential.
But if the world is so bad, how could any sane person see much good in himself? The average person surrounded by death does not conclude that he is immortal. Quite the opposite, in fact. So what is the man who sees himself in a positive light comparing himself to in order to make his conclusion? There is goodness in the world, and it requires defending. Vaclav Havel noted that "Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can't be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by force."
These are hardly ideas originating from "neo-conservatives". President Bill Clinton urged the overthrow of the Iraqi regime in 1998, Congress passed his bill making "Iraq liberation" official U.S. policy, and he signed it into law. Heck, just read what former Vice President Al Gore said in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations not too long ago:
Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq. As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms.
Also, Bush could only have invaded with the support of Congress (which holds the purse, and is the sole government power capable of legally authorizing military force) and the American people (he is a democratic politician, after all, and is thus very much poll-driven). Regardless of whether the decision was the right one, nobody can truthfully say it happened on a whim, was never debated, and bypassed the public and institutional checks-and-balances of our American republic.
There are many reasons why I stand by my support of the Iraq intervention. That it saved lives is one of them, no matter how bold the lies of those who wish it were otherwise. The lowest estimates indicate that Saddam Hussein's regime killed about 5,000 Iraqis every month by deliberately withholding food and medical supplies, and violently executed hundreds of Iraqis a month (including children). Unless we assume these practices would have ceased by now in Iraq without intervention (a rather difficult assumption, considering blowing up Iraqis or shoving them into plastic shredders were long established as regime entertainment), that equals at least 124,800 lives over 24 months. IraqBodyCount.net, which liberally includes "insurgents" as "civilians" and factors in unsubstantiated death claims, currently puts the Iraqi death toll at a maximum of 19,800. So the policy Clinton initiated saved around 105,000 Iraqis thus far. (Frankly, I am impressed that the Iraqi death rate is so low. I recall reading that the brief [and truly useless] war with Iraq in 1998 killed nearly 1,000 Iraqi civilians a day.)
I am not one for speculation that a Democratic president would have done better, whether in planning or merely leaving the gate. Gore was a major contributor to the policy of regime change in Iraq, and there are few circumstances where leaving a mass-murdering sociopathic dictator in power may be necessary. Gore has since changed his tune, true, but then that happens a lot when trying to appease a political base while part of a minority party. Clinton and his senator wife are still among the Democratic supporters of the Iraq War, so a President Gore, only having to worry about a hostile Congress and buoyed by his predecessor, may very well have gone much the same route as the current POTUS. I think of Art Buchwald's famous "If Goldwater Had Won" column.
As for culpability for lives lost (including Americans), here comes my own speculation: Everybody is to blame. The U.S. wanted the Husseins to go into exile, and for the United Nations to handle administration of Iraq a la Afghanistan--a handover that I propose would not have caused anywhere near as much bloodshed. All the international community had to do was apply enough pressure to Saddam & Sons. After all, the worst that could happen was what happened anyway when the international community chose to shout streams of rhetoric instead. France, China, Russia, etc., are as culpable as the United States, England, Australia, etc.; surely lives could have been saved had they made as much effort in working out a peaceful solution as they did in having fits and protests over one "last resort" solution many of them had approved previously.
I believe in liberty, specifically that "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others" (Thomas Jefferson). Where "rightful liberty" exists, I have little stomach for intrusions--not from my government, or anyone else's. If the people do not have it, I say we give them the opportunity to grab it, through force if necessary. It is the only social construct that inherently allows for its own rejection, so they can always opt for imprisonment or servitude later.
For my part, I still have hours' worth of unused notes and URLs, and all that research has me utterly convinced that going into Iraq was the correct thing to do come hell or high water. Iraq may be a morass, but it was one before the war. On top of the mass murder, the entire country’s infrastructure largely existed only in places Saddam liked, with a great many people surviving without such niceties as the electricity and clean water they have at least some access to now. True, he kept the people "in line" so that there were considerably fewer crimes and no terrorist attacks, but then Iraq had little need for criminals--Saddam's security forces offered better pay for the same activities. And unlike during Saddam reign, the new morass has always had a shot at ending in the foreseeable future. There is hope. That counts for quite a lot.
Friday, April 08, 2005
Bad Chimera
A National Geographic story from January: Scientists have begun blurring the line between human and animal by producing chimeras--a hybrid creature that's part human, part animal.
Curiously, this article on fractionally-human beasts makes no mention of members of Congress.
Curiously, this article on fractionally-human beasts makes no mention of members of Congress.
R.I.P. John Paul II
Much has changed in the 26 years since Karol Wojtyla's papal election. Food, literacy, wealth, charity, medical care, environmental stewardship, and essential freedoms are more widespread now than at any moment in Earth's past. Countries are now debating same-sex marriages, when just a short time ago they were imprisoning homosexuals, condemning interracial marriages and enforcing segregation. Western wars are looking less like wars and more like police actions, while the most heinous crimes result from indifference or unseriousness such as we see happening with Sudan. An unregulated Internet enables the rapid distribution of ideas, as well as rapid responses to ideas. We remain every bit as a fallen as our ancestors (albeit in different ways), and human progress is always of the one-step-back-for-every-two-steps-forward variety, but at the same time we are struggling to rise with greater nobility than before. There were leaps and bounds in a matter of a few decades, and I have every reason to look to more leaps and bounds. My motto: Prepare for the worst, but hope for and work toward the best.
With the [beautiful, if repetitious] funeral of Pope John Paul II now at an end, I recall the Holy Father's ministry with both sadness and satisfaction. In attempting to mold entire societies to Church dogma (see today's quote) he held ill-considered views on homosexuality and the like, while on a related theme his blanket opposition to matters like therapeutic cloning and stem cell research revealed frightening scientific blind spots. He was also the pope who wholeheartedly embraced the Church's oft-neglected view that "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go," brought the papacy into the 20th Century with outreach well beyond traditional Catholicism, was as much a force in working toward the collapse of the Soviet Union as Ronald Reagan (who was socially liberal compared to the pope, come to think of it), and brought powerful diplomatic force to bear on behalf of countless lives in need. He fought intelligently, ethically and devoutly for some of the progress we take for granted. I respect him for that.
With the [beautiful, if repetitious] funeral of Pope John Paul II now at an end, I recall the Holy Father's ministry with both sadness and satisfaction. In attempting to mold entire societies to Church dogma (see today's quote) he held ill-considered views on homosexuality and the like, while on a related theme his blanket opposition to matters like therapeutic cloning and stem cell research revealed frightening scientific blind spots. He was also the pope who wholeheartedly embraced the Church's oft-neglected view that "The Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go," brought the papacy into the 20th Century with outreach well beyond traditional Catholicism, was as much a force in working toward the collapse of the Soviet Union as Ronald Reagan (who was socially liberal compared to the pope, come to think of it), and brought powerful diplomatic force to bear on behalf of countless lives in need. He fought intelligently, ethically and devoutly for some of the progress we take for granted. I respect him for that.
Friday's Quote
C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: ...I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question--how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.
That logic applies to many things in many places, not only British divorce laws.
That logic applies to many things in many places, not only British divorce laws.
Monday, March 28, 2005
Gun For Your Lives: A 2nd Amendment Round-Up
I've tackled how "the right to buy weapons is the right to be free" (Vincent van Gogh) in some detail, but David's Medienkritik observes a new low: Watch pockets are evil! You can store ammunition in them! Levi's jeans = fascist!
Murder is tragic and serious, so why do inanimate objects absurdly take the blame?
And the following is from a reader...
Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock may cause people to seek medical attention.
Murder is tragic and serious, so why do inanimate objects absurdly take the blame?
And the following is from a reader...
Think about this:
A. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
B. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
C. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
(Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Then think about this:
A. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
B. The number of accidental gun deaths per year is 1,500.
C. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner 0.0000188.
Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.
We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock may cause people to seek medical attention.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
Finger Food
You might try avoiding Wendy's for awhile. Especially if you are related to this guy.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Update: Wendy's can't figure out what happened, and the woman in question has a litigious history.
What I want to know is: Where is the rest of the body?
Update II: The woman in question is now under arrest.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Orkney Terrine, With Sunrise
BBC reports that a famed British composer is in trouble with the law:
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
The Queen's composer has ruffled feathers after police found the body of a swan at his home.
Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, Master of the Queen's Music, was cautioned over the discovery of the remains of a protected species at his house in Orkney.
He said the bird died after hitting a power line. When police called at his home he offered them swan terrine.
It is yummy, Sir Max. When are you going to do Swan Bake?
This Entry Is Not Titled "Crying Wolfowitz"
After Reuters' penetrating analysis on why insurgents in Iraq target Iraqis, you may wonder how the press could be less intelligent. But Paul Wolfowitz's nomination to head the World Bank offers new heights of lowness:
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Norman Geras observes (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") that The Guardian continues its tradition of employing Britain's mentally impaired. "Some worry that his strong emphasis on human rights may complicate relations with China," says the editorial, without reference or logic (putting a human rights champion at the World Bank is bad?).
For out-and-out bias, though, James Taranto (in an entry titled "Crying Wolfowitz") leans into The New York Times over this:
The announcement, coming on the heels of the appointment of John R. Bolton as the new American ambassador to the United Nations, was greeted with quiet anguish in those foreign capitals where the Iraq conflict and its aftermath remain deeply unpopular, and where Mr. Wolfowitz's drive to spread democracy around the world has been viewed with some suspicion. . . .
Despite the displeasure of some diplomats who had hoped that the administration would appoint a person without the almost radioactive reputation of a committed ideologue, they said that they expected Mr. Wolfowitz to receive the approval of the World Bank's board of directors in time for Mr. Wolfensohn's departure in May.
Taranto also forwards a priceless quote from an unnamed French official: "We all know he has strong convictions, and that is a bit frightening." I'm guessing the official is from Vichy.
Update: On a related note, the gross inflation of Iraqi deaths continues in the press. This is worse than the unstoppable fake turkey fantasy.
Thursday, March 17, 2005
Social Security Tango
The QandO Blog notes that the Washington Post report on Bush's social security plans is not entirely honest...
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
The public overwhelmingly disapproves of 1) the way Bush is handling Social Security (56% - 35%), and 2) "Bush's proposals on Social Security" (55% - 37%).
But the public also overwhelmingly supports — by a margin of 56% - 41% — "a plan in which people who chose to could invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Uh.....
That brings up a couple questions:
1. Where have I seen a plan like that before?
2. If the public supports personal accounts, then to which of Bush's "proposals on Social Security" do they object? Because the only thing he's actually proposed is the option to "invest some of their Social Security contributions in the stock market".
Investment specialist Donald Luskin wrote an eviscerating response to critics of SS privatization back in December. 'Tis worth reading.
Wednesday, March 16, 2005
Tuesday, March 15, 2005
Tomorrow Never Lies
A look around at Snopes reveals a sad truth about mankind: We love gossip. We especially love gossip presented as news, never mind the absurdity.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
For example, much is still made about NASA's use of an anti-gravity pen that can write in weightlessness and the million-dollar cost of developing it, whereas the Soviet Union's cosmonauts simply used grease pencils. That NASA also started out with grease pencils, but found them too expensive (nearly $130 per unit in 1965) and insufficient for their needs, receives less discussion. NASA eventually purchased the "spacepen," developed and paid for solely by the Fisher Pen Co., for $6 per unit in 1967. Cosmonauts stopped using the pencils in favor of the American-made pens in 1969. The American and Russian space agencies continue to use the pens today.
While the "NASA wasted money on a space pen" story is untrue and can serve as an anti-American anecdote, it is frivolous. Nobody goes crazy over it. More harmful are conspiracy theories. "Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia," says a recent debunking of 9/11 myths in Popular Mechanics. We see some of the same lunacy about Iraq, whether it is those Americans who believe Saddam Hussein directly aided the 9/11 attacks, or in critics of the war who insist the only justification was the "misguided concern" (if they are polite) over weapons of mass destruction. Both views have some supporting facts, but then so do many illusions.
How do we deal with misinformation? One of the reasons I started this blog was to share what I know. I like to think that helps. Another reason was to learn, because I do not know everything. We all have our biases and our blind spots, and blogging enables an open accounting of them. There is no place where such an open accounting is inappropriate. We ought to encourage it. So while suspicions that there are government plans to bar free expression on web logs may be misplaced (update: or not), I still have to worry when Massachusetts senator John Kerry sounds a similar note:
If 77 percent of the people who voted for George Bush on Election Day believed weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq--as they did--and 77 percent of the people who voted for him believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11--as they did--then something has happened in the way in which we are talking to each other and who is arbitrating the truth in American politics... When fear is dominating the discussion and when there are false choices presented and there is no arbitrator, we have a problem.
We will have a bigger problem when there is an arbitrator. Who decides what is true, and how? Who chooses this arbitrator? What standards and safeguards ensure that the arbitrator is fair, and how does the arbitrator differ from the legal standards and safeguards that already exist? The First Amendment has no requirements on facts, which actually works in your favor, Sen. Kerry. (I understand that you are still upset over the American people not rewarding you for offering such votes of confidence. Perhaps if you call Americans stupid outright, rather than dressing it up in "nuance," you might win more votes in '08. Bluntness worked for that other fella.)
We learned that the mainstream media, over the course of the last year, did a pretty good job of discerning.
You would say that. From an Associated Press report on a Project for Excellence in Journalism study: "A more limited look at campaign coverage found that 36 percent of stories on President Bush were negative, compared to 12 percent for Democrat John Kerry. Stories were positive 20 percent of the time for Bush, 30 percent for Kerry, said the project, which examined some 250 stories for tone."
But there's a subculture and a sub-media that talks and keeps things going for entertainment purposes rather than for the flow of information.
Darn you, bloggers! Darn you all to heck! You laugh at me! Do you know who I am?
And that has a profound impact and undermines what we call the mainstream media of the country.
The mainstream media deserves it. Widening personal discussion, encouraging independent research, and embracing reason are healthy steps forward in the age of globalization. On these traits, the media is slipping out of the mainstream. Another argument is that the people drive the basic dynamics of the United States of America's media; those in the American media who do not follow the changes will never rise above them.
And so the decision-making ability of the American electorate has been profoundly impacted as a consequence of that.
This cannot possibly be a good thing, because...? I'll repeat the P.J. O'Rourke summery: "American free speech needs to be submitted to arbitration because Americans aren't smart enough to have a First Amendment, and you can tell this is so, because Americans weren't smart enough to vote for John Kerry."
The question is, what are we going to do about it?
We could start by teaching you about civil liberties, you pompous censor.
Nobody can doubt that, intentionally or not, misinformation spreads far and wide. What we should doubt is that limiting free expression is wiser and more liberal than countering dishonest speech with honesty. I prefer our arrangement where a fraud is comfortable telling a lie over one where I am afraid to tell the truth.
Friday, March 11, 2005
United Patients
Many are deeply skeptical of President Bush's nomination of John Bolton as America's United Nations ambassador. They have good reason to worry, which means that a U.N. official seemingly intent on shooting the organization in the foot (another U.N. official...) had to open his mouth and make Bolton look ideal. In this instance, Secretary-General Kofi Annan's chief of staff, Mark Malloch Brown, chose to say something silly:
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Democracy has a lot longer roots and a lot more friends than just the current campaign of President Bush.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. England and Australia are also particularly active on championing representative governments, and are not afraid to work with the United States not only diplomatically but, when appropriate, militarily as well. That said, President Bush is the first American leader to make actually being a powerful friend--rather than simply talking like one--a key to both national security and foreign policy. He may deserve some praise for that. An excerpt from P.J. O'Rourke's upcoming "Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperialism" touches on Bush's reasoning...
Americans would like to ignore foreign policy. Our previous attempts at isolationism were successful. Unfortunately, they were successful for Hitler's Germany and Tojo's Japan. Evil is an outreach program. A solitary bad person sitting alone, harboring genocidal thoughts, and wishing he ruled the world is not a problem unless he lives next to us in the trailer park. In the big geopolitical trailer park that is the world today, he does.
America has to act. But, when America acts, other nations accuse us of being “hegemonistic,” of engaging in “unilateralism,” of behaving as if we’re the only nation on earth that counts.
We are. Russia used to be a superpower but resigned "to spend more time with the family." China is supposed to be mighty, but the Chinese leadership quakes when a couple of hundred Falun Gong members do tai chi for Jesus. The European Union looks impressive on paper, with a greater population and a larger economy than America's. But the military spending of Britain, France, Germany, and Italy combined does not equal one third of the U.S. defense budget. The United States spends more on defense than the aforementioned countries—plus Russia plus China plus the next six top defense-spending nations. Any multilateral military or diplomatic effort that includes the United States is a crew team with Arnold Schwarzenegger as coxswain and Nadia Comaneci on the oars. When other countries demand a role in the exercise of global power, America can ask another fundamental American question: "You and what army?"
...Fascists do bad things just to be bad. "I'm the baddest dude in Baghdad," Saddam Hussein was saying, "the baddest cat in the Middle East. I'm way bad." This was way stupid. But fascists are stupid. Consider Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. He didn't have any. How stupid does that make Saddam? All he had to do was say to UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, "Look where you want. Look beneath the couch cushions. Look under my bed. Look in the special spider hole I'm keeping for emergencies." And Saddam Hussein could have gone on dictatoring away until Donald Rumsfeld is elected head of the World Council of Churches.
Instead, we blew the place to bits. And a mess was left behind. But it's a mess without a military to fight aggressive wars; a mess without the facilities to develop dangerous weapons; a mess that cannot systematically kill, torture, and oppress millions of its citizens. It's a mess with a message--don't mess with us.
Regardless of whether one considers the policy wise, unwise, or mediocre, its foundation has nothing to do with Bush inventing democracy--again, who thinks he did?--and everything to do with supporting it. If you care so much about democracy, Bush challenges, then try to act a little more like you mean it.
The conference gets stranger. Not satisfied with watching Malloch Brown lash out against suggestions Bush never made, Chilean Vice-President Jose Miguel Insulza tossed in a cliché:
We must also remember that democracy develops from within the people.
We must also remember that some people needed a lot of help developing a viable democracy (read: a representative constitutional republic) over the years... frequently through having the first step imposed by outside forces... most successfully by the United States and Friends.
He also warns of "a hidden agenda" if a single country promotes democracy. Assuming, for the sake of his argument, that more nations do not add more hidden agendas, this still raises the question of why the multinational United Nations is not therefore working harder at promoting democracy. We see counsels and committees, but concrete actions are few and far between. Until world leaders get busy, it is difficult for many Americans to take international complaints about Bush's actions seriously. If you can do a better job, guys, then now is a fine time to start.
Progressive Zoology
Since this blog metaphorically fell into a hole in February, I am linking to this story about a month late. It is still worth reading.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Ananova also posted an update, by the way. They make no mention of the two imported males from the earlier story, so I guess that at least the experiment didn't backfire.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Confession: I Am A Capitalist Pig
Ayn Rand: If capitalists are as evil as you say they are, what magic faculty endows a politician with virtue? If men who deal with others by means of voluntary trade are selfish monsters, how does... the right to force others transform a man into a selfless public servant?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Some say making a profit, especially a hefty profit, is selfish or greedy. You know what? I don't want to be famous, I don't want to be fabulously wealthy, but if I were a biddy-biddy rich...!
Let us assume making money through sales is selfish. Shame, then, on people who buy in order to obtain the goods/services they desire, even those desiring things for others. Further, consumers usually want to profit more from this exchange, the same as businesses. Most people like good deals! Companies grow or fold on the basis of whether a sufficient number of buyers regard their benefits from goods/services as equal to, or greater than, their cost. This is an open trade system. The only exceptions are businesses that cheat the system (à la Enron, though the system caught up with them), and consumers that do the same (stop, thief!).
I do hear how capitalists are taking over the world... but maybe the Protestants are doing it... no, I mean the Jews... the Freemasons... Mormons... Muslims... oil barons... communists... Hollywood... Honestly, who is in charge here? A capitalist atheist?
The real disgrace concerning capitalism is how few anti-capitalist protesters realize that they wear products from globalized industries, or that those cameramen filming them work for mass-media corporations. I want to see consistency! I want to see them buck naked and breaking lenses! At least the athletic college students, please. And if Prince Charles can do enough to earn a couple of angry naked people, it stands to reason that those evil capitalists who work every day deserve lots of angrier, naked-er people.
Fair enough?
Moron... Err... More On Sgrena's Nonsense
Monday, March 07, 2005
Elton John Attacks!
Your suspicion that Sir Elton is in fact an intimidating warrior may prompt laughter at the office, but now there is proof. (Via Roger L. Simon)
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Flashing Jeffrey
On a lighter note, my favorite flash movie is probably "Ddautta". There is such a thing as 'Punk Romantic.'
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
I meant to link it on St. Valentine's Day, but this day will do.
Sgrena Is No Quattrocchi, Calipari
Apparently aware that the tragic death of Italian security agent Nicola Calipari undermines her triumphant homecoming, Giuliana Sgrena is shamelessly making the rounds in the news services. If nothing else, she sure can ride the coattails of a real Italian hero. Among the most fascinating displays is this BBC interview where Giuliana Sgrena raises some serious questions, albeit not the sort she probably had in mind...
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
And so they [became] aware that I was really working against the occupation and people were supporting me and so they told me: "We have seen that you are very appreciated in Italy". And that helped me to be freed.
Well, yeah. Supporting 'insurgents,' especially if you are willing to ally yourself with those who have no problems killing nobler Italians like Fabrizio Quattrocchi, probably does give your would-be killers pause. "Don't kill her yet! She's practically one of us! She could prove useful!"
And when I was freed it was the last of my problems which kind of negotiations were going on.
Perhaps if you had taken Mark Steyn's advice, you wouldn't have gotten yourself (or Nicola Calipari and the others) into this mess in the first place.
We were on our way to the airport when the tanks started to strike against us...
Tanks? And you are still alive? When you just said there was a "hail of bullets" the reason you were still alive could have been that America is filling Iraq with useless marksmen (all that ammunition and, despite being "no accident," the troops failed to kill everyone?) so you got lucky, but now not just one tank, but tanks... Bizarre.
We were not a hidden car. We were just a car on the road with lights and we were not running without any signal.
Why didn't the Italian government see to it that you were transported in an armored vehicle or had a military escort, by the way?
...We don't know what happened.
That much is clear.
Our car was destroyed.
Given the number of car bombs we see on the news, this supports the claim that U.S. troops were indeed serious about stopping what they perceived as a clear threat. Totaling the car is the most prudent move under such circumstances.
And then the driver got out and was shouting "we're Italian, we're Italian"
Stopping and explaining that beforehand was never an option? The Americans materialized out of thin air, guns ablaze! Even assuming everyone in the car was ignorant about past accidents in Iraq, since when has blindly trusting bureaucracy with one's safety been an intelligent move? And under conditions like we see in Iraq?
I can't say it was deliberate because we can't say if there was a lack of information.
Yet you feel comfortable saying, "The United States doesn't approve of this (ransom) policy and so they try to stop it in any way possible"--suggesting, without empirical evidence or experience, that you were the target of a U.S. assassination attempt. We are supposed to consider you a credible witness?
But also a lack of information in this case is [their] responsibility because you are in a war field and you have the responsibility to pass immediately any information.
Whose responsibility? Did the Italians fail to call? Did the Americans fail to call? Were there other circumstance that mean no-one is really to blame? Are the soldiers who actually fired upon the car responsible? Perhaps someone should have made a better effort to locate a specific piece of information he was not aware that he was supposed to know? (Curse those Americans and their feeble psychic abilities!)
Nicola Calipari gave his service to Italy, and gave his life to save Giuliana Sgrena. One brave way for Sgrena to honor his sacrifice would be to recognize the high value of his service, including his work and that of his compatriots in Iraq that she so despised. Some principles are worth more than individual personalities. Calipari knew this. Learn from him, Sgrena. And fast.
Iranian Pups
Dictators can be so cute.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
I guess it's time for Glenn Reynolds to warm up his special blender.
Update: Darn, I was beaten to the punch. So much for my 15 minutes of Instapundit fame.
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Flow From The Pen, Bow And Brush
There really are few things I love more than making a personal discovery. Being behind-the-times when it comes to popular music, I only just now stumbled across a gem from rock group Sixpence None the Richer, titled 'Melody of You,' with music and lyrics by guitarist Matt Slocum. While not as ubiquitous as 'Kiss Me' or their cover of 'There She Goes' (or 'Dancing Queen'), it was apparently no trade secret a couple of years ago. Why did no-one tell me about this? The chorus is straightforward...
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
This is my call, I belong to you
This is my call, to sing the melodies of you
This is my call, I can do nothing else
I can do nothing else
But look at this first stanza...
You're a painting with symbols deep
A symphony, soft as it shifts from dark beneath
A poem that flows, caressing my skin
In all of these things you reside and I
Want to flow from the pen, bow and brush
Then paper and string and canvas touch
With ink and the air to dust your light
From morning 'til the black of night
And the second...
You're the scent of an unfound bloom
A simple tune I only write variations to
A drink that will knock me down on the floor
A key that will unlock the door where I
Hear a voice sing familiar themes
Then beckons me weave notes in between
A bow and a string, a tap and glass
You pour me 'til the day has passed
This isn't pop lyricism. It is poetry.
Plus, the music is charming.
And where does the band's name come from? My favorite author, C.S. Lewis, in a passage from "Mere Christianity":
Every faculty you have, your power of thinking or of moving your limbs from moment to moment, is given to you by God. If you devoted every moment of your whole life exclusively to His service you could not give Him anything that was not in a sense His own already. So that when we talk of a man doing anything for God or giving anything to God, I will tell you what it is really like. It is like a small child going to his father and saying, 'Daddy, give me sixpence to buy you a birthday present.' Of course, the father does, and he is pleased with the child's present. It is all very nice and proper, but only an idiot would think that the father is sixpence to the good on the transaction.
Sixpence None the Richer has another listener in Memphis.
"Hello." Such A Simple Way To Start A Love Affair
Hello, I'm back! I feel like writing again, which means I will be writing here again. Much like I am now. (Amazing coincidence, yes?)
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
And what prompted this sudden urge to write? Why, a blogger made the sort of discovery that could shred the fabric of society...
There are penises on U.S. coins. (Via Wonkette)
Bush must still be courting the South Park Republicans!
This is almost as surreal as the list of cusswords from Congress. But not quite.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Fw: To My Dearest Friends
Are you tired of all those sissy "friendship" poems that always sound good, but never actually come close to reality? Well, here is a series of promises that really speaks to true friendship:
1. When you are sad, I will help get you drunk and plot revenge against the pathetic twit who made you sad.
2. When you are blue, I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3. When you smile, I will know you had sex.
4. When you are scared, I will rag on you about it every chance I get.
5. When you are worried, I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be and to quit whining.
6. When you are confused, I will use little words.
7. When you are sick, I will stay the heck away from you until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have. Sheesh.
8. When you fall, I will point and laugh at your clumsy ass.
Remember: A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body. Let me know if I ever need to bring a shovel!
P.S. Maybe these Saudis aren't my friends?
1. When you are sad, I will help get you drunk and plot revenge against the pathetic twit who made you sad.
2. When you are blue, I will try to dislodge whatever is choking you.
3. When you smile, I will know you had sex.
4. When you are scared, I will rag on you about it every chance I get.
5. When you are worried, I will tell you horrible stories about how much worse it could be and to quit whining.
6. When you are confused, I will use little words.
7. When you are sick, I will stay the heck away from you until you are well again. I don't want whatever you have. Sheesh.
8. When you fall, I will point and laugh at your clumsy ass.
Remember: A good friend will help you move. A really good friend will help you move a body. Let me know if I ever need to bring a shovel!
P.S. Maybe these Saudis aren't my friends?
Friday, January 21, 2005
Mainstream Media Madness
While James Lileks' famous "Olive Garden" screed is a righteous attack on overseas journalism, Tim Blair recently reminded folks that even American personalities can be ignorant about Americans (although that particular case of lousy reporting is not as bad as certain others').
Let Them Eat Cake
Government using bad science and excessive public interference to make it look like it has good policies? How could that happen?
Maybe we'd be better off if we trusted our own common sense and stopped looking to the government to tell us what to do.
Sorry, that makes too much sense.
Maybe we'd be better off if we trusted our own common sense and stopped looking to the government to tell us what to do.
Sorry, that makes too much sense.
More Door Bores
Here is a deep thought: In order to get out of car, open door, get out, lock doors, and then close door.
The driver must work at BBC.
The driver must work at BBC.
Saddam's German Fireworks
Saturday, January 08, 2005
Friday, January 07, 2005
Canada Dry
With President Bush's second inauguration coming up, those of you still thinking about moving from the U.S. to Canada may wish to reconsider.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
