There are limits to how broadly one can reasonably define conditions for a judicial appointment...
A Republican planning document provided to The Washington Post described the need to avoid disclosing the nominee's "personal political views or legal thinking on any issue."
Barring personal politics is appropriate, but taking the 'legal' out of the judiciary? Nope. Uh-uh. And Republicans are going to burn themselves if planning like this keeps up. The decline of the judicial branch is already under way, and a centrist or libertarian could help reverse the trend, but political tricks like the above will only increase the statist hegemony no matter how worthy the appointee. It should be about the law, period. A short-term "up-or-down vote" or condemnation of "judicial activism" or issue-based nomination means little if the process continues a long-term rot.
Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Monday, July 04, 2005
July 4, 2005
To celebrate Independence Day, how about a few words on the United States of America's national anthem? It is awkward to sing, its third stanza openly offends our British brethren, the religious fourth stanza openly offends our neighborhood atheists, and the entire thing uses the tune of an old song about beer and sex. As a national anthem, it is terrifically problematic. So here is a reassuring commentary from the late, great Isaac Asimov, reprinted in its entirety...
I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.
The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.
I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.
This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.
"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."
I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.
Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.
More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.
So now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.
At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.
Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.
The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.
The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.
On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.
As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.
As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"
After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.
Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.
In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.
During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.
And don't let them ever take it away.
--Isaac Asimov, March 1991
Happy Fourth, America!
I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.
The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.
I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.
This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.
"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."
I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.
Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.
More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.
So now let me tell you how it came to be written.
In 1812, the United States went to war with Great Britain, primarily over freedom of the seas. We were in the right. For two years, we held off the British, even though we were still a rather weak country. Great Britain was in a life and death struggle with Napoleon. In fact, just as the United States declared war, Napoleon marched off to invade Russia. If he won, as everyone expected, he would control Europe, and Great Britain would be isolated. It was no time for her to be involved in an American war.
At first, our seamen proved better than the British. After we won a battle on Lake Erie in 1813, the American commander, Oliver Hazard Perry, sent the message "We have met the enemy and they are ours." However, the weight of the British navy beat down our ships eventually. New England, hard-hit by a tightening blockade, threatened secession.
Meanwhile, Napoleon was beaten in Russia and in 1814 was forced to abdicate. Great Britain now turned its attention to the United States, launching a three-pronged attack. The northern prong was to come down Lake Champlain toward New York and seize parts of New England.
The southern prong was to go up the Mississippi, take New Orleans and paralyze the west. The central prong was to head for the mid-Atlantic states and then attack Baltimore, the greatest port south of New York. If Baltimore was taken, the nation, which still hugged the Atlantic coast, could be split in two. The fate of the United States, then, rested to a large extent on the success or failure of the central prong.
The British reached the American coast, and on August 24, 1814, took Washington, D. C. Then they moved up the Chesapeake Bay toward Baltimore. On September 12, they arrived and found 1000 men in Fort McHenry, whose guns controlled the harbor. If the British wished to take Baltimore, they would have to take the fort.
On one of the British ships was an aged physician, William Beanes, who had been arrested in Maryland and brought along as a prisoner. Francis Scott Key, a lawyer and friend of the physician, had come to the ship to negotiate his release. The British captain was willing, but the two Americans would have to wait. It was now the night of September 13, and the bombardment of Fort McHenry was about to start.
As twilight deepened, Key and Beanes saw the American flag flying over Fort McHenry. Through the night, they heard bombs bursting and saw the red glare of rockets. They knew the fort was resisting and the American flag was still flying. But toward morning the bombardment ceased, and a dread silence fell. Either Fort McHenry had surrendered and the British flag flew above it, or the bombardment had failed and the American flag still flew.
As dawn began to brighten the eastern sky, Key and Beanes stared out at the fort, tyring to see which flag flew over it. He and the physician must have asked each other over and over, "Can you see the flag?"
After it was all finished, Key wrote a four stanza poem telling the events of the night. Called "The Defence of Fort M'Henry," it was published in newspapers and swept the nation. Someone noted that the words fit an old English tune called "To Anacreon in Heaven" --a difficult melody with an uncomfortably large vocal range. For obvious reasons, Key's work became known as "The Star Spangled Banner," and in 1931 Congress declared it the official anthem of the United States.
Now that you know the story, here are the words. Presumably, the old doctor is speaking. This is what he asks Key
Oh! say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
Oh! say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?
"Ramparts," in case you don't know, are the protective walls or other elevations that surround a fort. The first stanza asks a question. The second gives an answer
On the shore, dimly seen thro' the mist of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep.
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream
'Tis the star-spangled banner. Oh! long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
"The towering steep" is again, the ramparts. The bombardment has failed, and the British can do nothing more but sail away, their mission a failure.
In the third stanza, I feel Key allows himself to gloat over the American triumph. In the aftermath of the bombardment, Key probably was in no mood to act otherwise.
During World War II, when the British were our staunchest allies, this third stanza was not sung. However, I know it, so here it is
And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave,
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.
I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.
And don't let them ever take it away.
--Isaac Asimov, March 1991
Happy Fourth, America!
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Comet Get It
NASA's Deep Impact is mere hours away from target.
Elijah Wood is nowhere in sight.
Update: Success!!!
Elijah Wood is nowhere in sight.
Update: Success!!!
Since I've Been Gone...
Sorry for being out of circulation for so long. I had an exam and have more projects underway, but here are some notes to help catch up on my missed postings...
You may recall that Aaron of Free Will has an interest in personal responsibility. Well, while cleaning out my bookmarks, I rediscovered his magnificently sharp assessment of our waning parental culture.
With Live 8 fresh in people's minds, it is worth noting that the solution to extreme poverty is in the grasp of the impoverished nations themselves--from public health to the environment, if they discourage corruption and embrace economic development--and to caution that some wealth is illusionary.
Senators take money from special interest groups? You don't say!
Quite a few people think that liberals have pretty much lost their forward-looking perspective.
Does Neverland Ranch have one of these?
Right Wing News has a must-read interview with outspoken columnist Mark Steyn, whose recently penned commentary on the rise of China is truly fascinating.
You may recall that Aaron of Free Will has an interest in personal responsibility. Well, while cleaning out my bookmarks, I rediscovered his magnificently sharp assessment of our waning parental culture.
With Live 8 fresh in people's minds, it is worth noting that the solution to extreme poverty is in the grasp of the impoverished nations themselves--from public health to the environment, if they discourage corruption and embrace economic development--and to caution that some wealth is illusionary.
Senators take money from special interest groups? You don't say!
Quite a few people think that liberals have pretty much lost their forward-looking perspective.
Does Neverland Ranch have one of these?
Right Wing News has a must-read interview with outspoken columnist Mark Steyn, whose recently penned commentary on the rise of China is truly fascinating.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Liberal Liberation
Michael J. Totten, one of the smartest liberal writers around, points to Christopher Hitchens' recent first-hand account of the liberation of Iraq:
The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to start - I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by, umm, political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that the - where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with - months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south.
I remember seeing flowers on television--no sweets, but I am willing to give some slack on that since I can't imagine where they would buy them in sufficient supply, particularly with Saddam trying to quietly starve his own people--and the more recent cheers (and purple fingers!) with the elections. As one of the comments at Totten's site reads...
Iraq is a country of 24 million, of whom lets say 1/4 are males of military age. That means 6 million or so. Automatic weapons etc. are plentiful in Iraq. No army, even with air supremacy, armor etc. can stand against 50-1 odds on the other guy's turf if the other side desires a fight. The common Iraqi has had two years to decide to wipe us out. They have chosen not to. If they truly wanted us out we wouldn't last a week. Heck, let's go further. If only 1/10th of the military aged males came against us, we'd lose hundreds a week. THAT would be Vietnam.
We remain in Iraq, as we always have, only with the goodwill, or at least tolerance of the general population.
And:
Look: the "insurgents" have as their most effective tactic blowing up Iraqi Security recruiting centers, because there are lots of recruits and not-so-many "insurgents".
It's an effective tactic, of course, trading one man for 10 or 15. Any Civil War general would have jumped at that kind of tradeoff.
But aren't any of the naysayers getting the significance of that ratio? Or understanding the desperation of the side resorting to the tactic?
I think we owe it to all the Iraqis who stood in line, both to vote and to sign up, to stick it out a good while longer. "Cutting bait" in this case would be the same as cutting throats...
This is basically a continuation of an earlier post, but the thought bears repeating.
Update: Looks like the budget cuts have already begun...
The welcome that I've seen American and British forces get in parts of Iraq is something I want to start - I want to mention first because there are people who say that that never happened. It is commonly said by, umm, political philosophers like Maureen Dowd say that the - where were the sweets and where were the flowers? Well, I saw it happen with my own eyes and no one's going to tell me that I didn't. I saw it with - months after the invasion, people still lining the roads, especially in the south.
I remember seeing flowers on television--no sweets, but I am willing to give some slack on that since I can't imagine where they would buy them in sufficient supply, particularly with Saddam trying to quietly starve his own people--and the more recent cheers (and purple fingers!) with the elections. As one of the comments at Totten's site reads...
Iraq is a country of 24 million, of whom lets say 1/4 are males of military age. That means 6 million or so. Automatic weapons etc. are plentiful in Iraq. No army, even with air supremacy, armor etc. can stand against 50-1 odds on the other guy's turf if the other side desires a fight. The common Iraqi has had two years to decide to wipe us out. They have chosen not to. If they truly wanted us out we wouldn't last a week. Heck, let's go further. If only 1/10th of the military aged males came against us, we'd lose hundreds a week. THAT would be Vietnam.
We remain in Iraq, as we always have, only with the goodwill, or at least tolerance of the general population.
And:
Look: the "insurgents" have as their most effective tactic blowing up Iraqi Security recruiting centers, because there are lots of recruits and not-so-many "insurgents".
It's an effective tactic, of course, trading one man for 10 or 15. Any Civil War general would have jumped at that kind of tradeoff.
But aren't any of the naysayers getting the significance of that ratio? Or understanding the desperation of the side resorting to the tactic?
I think we owe it to all the Iraqis who stood in line, both to vote and to sign up, to stick it out a good while longer. "Cutting bait" in this case would be the same as cutting throats...
This is basically a continuation of an earlier post, but the thought bears repeating.
Update: Looks like the budget cuts have already begun...
Dick "Dick" Durbin Writes Back
Perhaps the Democratic senator from Illinois who drew comparisons between U.S. troops and Nazis/Communists simply has a love of dramatic metaphors?
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Monday, June 13, 2005
If America Is Worth Fighting For, So Is Iraq
The Iraqis are better off. Our tactics are improving. Heck, a pro-intervention film appeared at Cannes and military rappers are calling for support. There are good things happening in Iraq (as the latest must-read Chrenkoff entry shows), as well as bad.
Yet the insurgents (and their unwitting allies) in Iraq are playing off American fears, which is paying off. Even the "These colors don't run" crowd are deciding that surrender may be a perfectly acceptable alternative after all. (You have to wonder what these characters would write about our occupation of France.) Defeatism is America's greatest home-grown enemy. The disturbing news:
Six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the highest number who have said that in the Gallup poll.
I watched The Patriot again yesterday. It is far from great (though John Williams' score is effective), but it reminded me that America's own fight for freedom relied on the assistance of a foreign power. Iraq's equivalent of Yorktown will be very different, it may not be a battle at all, but it is worth remembering where we might be had the French pulled out before finishing the job. Liberty was the motivation then, and Victor Davis Hanson's classic "Western Cannibalism" article from early last year makes a liberal argument for ensuring success now...
Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.
We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.
The terrorists and insurgents have a losing position, and we need to make them realize that. Liberty enlightening the world is a threat to those who prefer seeing the world in despotism's shadow, and to them alone. We have a choice between principle and negligence in Iraq; a choice between commitment and betrayal; a choice between victory and self-defeat.
Update: Hanson now:
Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.
This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing.
Yet the insurgents (and their unwitting allies) in Iraq are playing off American fears, which is paying off. Even the "These colors don't run" crowd are deciding that surrender may be a perfectly acceptable alternative after all. (You have to wonder what these characters would write about our occupation of France.) Defeatism is America's greatest home-grown enemy. The disturbing news:
Six in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, the highest number who have said that in the Gallup poll.
I watched The Patriot again yesterday. It is far from great (though John Williams' score is effective), but it reminded me that America's own fight for freedom relied on the assistance of a foreign power. Iraq's equivalent of Yorktown will be very different, it may not be a battle at all, but it is worth remembering where we might be had the French pulled out before finishing the job. Liberty was the motivation then, and Victor Davis Hanson's classic "Western Cannibalism" article from early last year makes a liberal argument for ensuring success now...
Everything that the world holds dear — the free exchange of ideas, the security of congregating and traveling safely, the long struggle for tolerance of differing ideas and religions, the promise of equality between the sexes and ethnic groups, and the very trust that lies at the heart of all global economic relationships — all this and more Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, and the adherents of fascism in the Middle East have sought to destroy: some as killers themselves, others providing the money, sanctuary, and spiritual support.
We did not ask for this war, but it came. In our time and according to our station, it is now our duty to end it. And that resolution will not come from recrimination in time of war, nor promises to let fundamentalists and their autocratic sponsors alone, but only through the military defeat and subsequent humiliation of their cause. So let us cease the hysterics, make the needed sacrifices, and allow our military the resources, money, and support with which it most surely will destroy the guilty and give hope at last to the innocent.
The terrorists and insurgents have a losing position, and we need to make them realize that. Liberty enlightening the world is a threat to those who prefer seeing the world in despotism's shadow, and to them alone. We have a choice between principle and negligence in Iraq; a choice between commitment and betrayal; a choice between victory and self-defeat.
Update: Hanson now:
Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.
This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Movie Star Favorites
In response to Prof. Geras' plea regarding his film stars poll...
Lauren Bacall
Christian Bale
Angela Bassett
Glenn Close
Cary Grant
Tom Hanks
Nicole Kidman
Angela Lansbury
Peter O'Toole
James Stewart
Such lists always drive me bonkers. A point comes where ranking art, ranking people turns from an effort to understand the subject and becomes something crude. There are a lot of great performers, so I ended up simply going with ones as they popped into my head. As good a method as any, I suppose. But it is not like they are cattle.
Lauren Bacall
Christian Bale
Angela Bassett
Glenn Close
Cary Grant
Tom Hanks
Nicole Kidman
Angela Lansbury
Peter O'Toole
James Stewart
Such lists always drive me bonkers. A point comes where ranking art, ranking people turns from an effort to understand the subject and becomes something crude. There are a lot of great performers, so I ended up simply going with ones as they popped into my head. As good a method as any, I suppose. But it is not like they are cattle.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Or So The Germans Would Have Us Believe
Davids Medienkritik is on top of Germany's Tatort storyline that pandered to "Bush planned 9/11" conspiracy theorists.
Many picked on America for having "Saddam planned 9/11" conspiracies, but at least the target of that paranoia was a fascist with terrorist connections. (Yale didn't exactly produce a criminal mastermind.) Portraying a legitimately elected official as a de facto dictator is a dangerous game, and I find the proliferation of such nonsense very frightening indeed... Though I confess some amusement at how, as Prof. Reynolds wrote, "Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural."
The article also mentions the "Moon Hoax", which reminds us that even a peaceful entity like NASA is not immune to anti-Americanism.
Many picked on America for having "Saddam planned 9/11" conspiracies, but at least the target of that paranoia was a fascist with terrorist connections. (Yale didn't exactly produce a criminal mastermind.) Portraying a legitimately elected official as a de facto dictator is a dangerous game, and I find the proliferation of such nonsense very frightening indeed... Though I confess some amusement at how, as Prof. Reynolds wrote, "Bush's ability to drive his opponents stark, raving bonkers is almost supernatural."
The article also mentions the "Moon Hoax", which reminds us that even a peaceful entity like NASA is not immune to anti-Americanism.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Saturday, June 04, 2005
General Sherman's Legacy
Citizen Grim of the blasphemously-named Right Hand of God blog confronts the problem of taking appropriate action...
For example, just last week, I was walking through the park and I come around some trees to see this huge demon on horseback on the other side of the pond, swinging a saber around, lighting fires, and generally making mischief. This one blind dude wandered out into the fracas, obviously having no clue what was going on, and the demon, with a fiery glee, turned and charged him. In that moment of indecision, I had to ask myself: What Would Jesus Do?
I decided that Jesus would most likely dash across the surface of the pond, smite the demon with divine justice, put out the fires with a glance from his eyes, and then heal the blind dude, just for good measure.
That didn't help me much, as my superpowers are relatively underdeveloped, so I had to ask myself the second question: What Would General Sherman Do? Well, I reasoned, General Sherman would probably raze the city and leave a swath of destruction all the way to the sea.
Which was significantly easier to accomplish, once I enlisted the demon's aid.
The lesson drawn from this is every bit as educational.
For example, just last week, I was walking through the park and I come around some trees to see this huge demon on horseback on the other side of the pond, swinging a saber around, lighting fires, and generally making mischief. This one blind dude wandered out into the fracas, obviously having no clue what was going on, and the demon, with a fiery glee, turned and charged him. In that moment of indecision, I had to ask myself: What Would Jesus Do?
I decided that Jesus would most likely dash across the surface of the pond, smite the demon with divine justice, put out the fires with a glance from his eyes, and then heal the blind dude, just for good measure.
That didn't help me much, as my superpowers are relatively underdeveloped, so I had to ask myself the second question: What Would General Sherman Do? Well, I reasoned, General Sherman would probably raze the city and leave a swath of destruction all the way to the sea.
Which was significantly easier to accomplish, once I enlisted the demon's aid.
The lesson drawn from this is every bit as educational.
The Defense Spending Myth
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld put forward some unhappy remarks about the Chinese boosting their military, and that made China upset:
"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.
China's right to self-defense is a given, and Rumsfeld surely would have kept his mouth shut if he knew who is such a serious threat China. Or maybe he does know and is concerned about China's present response? If China is preparing an attack on Taiwan, Rumsfeld's remarks make a great deal of sense: Protecting Taiwan is not only a good deed, it is a U.S. security policy.
No, what annoys me is Cui repeating the view of U.S. military expenditures that results from using absolute dollars. At first glance, he is correct. The U.S. spent $370,700,000,000 on defense at last report, while China spent $67,490,000,000 for a distant second place. However, much of America's cost is purely by virtue of the United States being more active on the humanitarian scene, demanding more advanced equipment, and spending more on disarmament. Any comparison between military expenditures would do well to consider how much goes toward actual defense, as opposed to humanitarian, development, or support functions. Barring that, the percentage of gross domestic product represents how much a nation pulls from what they have in their wallet...
Suppose we apply that last thought to charity. If a person with $10 in his pocket passes by a collection tin and donates $5, he sacrifices 50% of his available funds. If a person with $100 also donates $5, is he equally charitable?
Out of the respective nations' GDP, the United States stands a full percent below China's 4.30% on defense expenditures... China uses more of its wealth on military.
"Since the U.S. is spending a lot more money than China is doing on defense, the U.S. should understand that every country has its own security concerns and every country is entitled to spend money necessary for its own defense," Cui told The Associated Press after Rumsfeld's remarks.
China's right to self-defense is a given, and Rumsfeld surely would have kept his mouth shut if he knew who is such a serious threat China. Or maybe he does know and is concerned about China's present response? If China is preparing an attack on Taiwan, Rumsfeld's remarks make a great deal of sense: Protecting Taiwan is not only a good deed, it is a U.S. security policy.
No, what annoys me is Cui repeating the view of U.S. military expenditures that results from using absolute dollars. At first glance, he is correct. The U.S. spent $370,700,000,000 on defense at last report, while China spent $67,490,000,000 for a distant second place. However, much of America's cost is purely by virtue of the United States being more active on the humanitarian scene, demanding more advanced equipment, and spending more on disarmament. Any comparison between military expenditures would do well to consider how much goes toward actual defense, as opposed to humanitarian, development, or support functions. Barring that, the percentage of gross domestic product represents how much a nation pulls from what they have in their wallet...
Suppose we apply that last thought to charity. If a person with $10 in his pocket passes by a collection tin and donates $5, he sacrifices 50% of his available funds. If a person with $100 also donates $5, is he equally charitable?
Out of the respective nations' GDP, the United States stands a full percent below China's 4.30% on defense expenditures... China uses more of its wealth on military.
Friday, June 03, 2005
E.T. Phone Earth
National Geographic's latest poll on aliens found that most Americans believe extraterrestrial life is possible. Interesting stuff, but what stood out for me was the next-to-last paragraph:
The poll also reported that belief in alien life did not split across political lines, but did vary depending on religious practices. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent), the poll stated.
Kinda undermines the stereotypes of Democrats as godless Modernists and Republicans as unthinking Puritans, doesn't it?
(Of course, it is no secret that aliens cause global warming.)
The poll also reported that belief in alien life did not split across political lines, but did vary depending on religious practices. Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to believe in life on other planets, while regular churchgoers were less likely to believe in extraterrestrial life (about 46 percent) than non-churchgoers (about 70 percent), the poll stated.
Kinda undermines the stereotypes of Democrats as godless Modernists and Republicans as unthinking Puritans, doesn't it?
(Of course, it is no secret that aliens cause global warming.)
Quote Of The Day
From the comments section at Beautiful Atrocities:
Hitler - sexually ambiguous vegetarian, failed artist, coffeehouse philosopher. Likes: funny facial hair, snappy clothes, over-the-top opera. Dislikes: big business, the bourgeoise, Americans and Jews.
If Hitler exists today, he's a copy editor at the Village Voice.
Be sure to click the link for a Hitler roundup. (James Lileks takes note.)
Hitler - sexually ambiguous vegetarian, failed artist, coffeehouse philosopher. Likes: funny facial hair, snappy clothes, over-the-top opera. Dislikes: big business, the bourgeoise, Americans and Jews.
If Hitler exists today, he's a copy editor at the Village Voice.
Be sure to click the link for a Hitler roundup. (James Lileks takes note.)
Thursday, May 26, 2005
In Local News
Memphis politics are mostly uncultured petty squabbling with occasional bursts of cultured petty squabbling, but the indictment of several Tennessee politicians, including four from Memphis, is too big for me to ignore.
Of particular note on the list is Memphis' most controversial figure, state Sen. John Ford. He is the uncle of the far more credible Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (who announced a bid to replace Sen. Bill Frist yesterday and would probably like voters to forget some family ties). In addition to being the target of the FBI investigation into his financial deals, John Ford's troubled past includes apparently creating a child support bill for himself concerning at least six children he's had with three different women in two different homes, related questions about his residency, and really too many conflicts to enumerate here.
So, yes, it looks like they are finally going to catch the dirty rotten scoundrel.
Update: Bill Hobbs has the goods.
Update: The John Ford indictment (pdf file).
Of particular note on the list is Memphis' most controversial figure, state Sen. John Ford. He is the uncle of the far more credible Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (who announced a bid to replace Sen. Bill Frist yesterday and would probably like voters to forget some family ties). In addition to being the target of the FBI investigation into his financial deals, John Ford's troubled past includes apparently creating a child support bill for himself concerning at least six children he's had with three different women in two different homes, related questions about his residency, and really too many conflicts to enumerate here.
So, yes, it looks like they are finally going to catch the dirty rotten scoundrel.
Update: Bill Hobbs has the goods.
Update: The John Ford indictment (pdf file).
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Filly Buster
Mickey Kaus points out that the judicial filibuster deal may simply be a way to keep Congress corrupt:
The filibuster's infrastructural role has powerful multiplier effect: It means not only that obscure minority Senators attract millions in campaign contributions. while the aides of obscure minority Senators aides find pleasant $250,000 jobs as influencers with vital "access." It means that those Senators can afford to hire well-paid fundraisers to funnel those contributions, while interest groups need direct mail experts to raise the money to make their own "access" producing contributions, and all these people need restaurants like The Palm to feed them and brokers to swap their houses and mechanics to service their Acuras and Audis. Thanks to the Senate's precious right of unlimited debate, a wave of prosperity sweeps over the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area! Funded by the rest of the country.
Probably true. Still, while Kaus' admitted cynicism cuts through the high rhetoric, the filibuster (on judicial nominees or other matters) is worth defending, and ought to appeal to both parties. Democrats should appreciate this deal because it favors them (as Kaus noted 12 hours earlier) and largely guarantees them a seat at the table, and Republicans should appreciate it as upholding the values of Republicanism that hold the United States as a democratic but constitutional republic where minority rights are equal to those of the majority, as opposed to the majority autocracy of direct democracy. The ad hoc coalition kept mob rule away from the most powerful branch of government. That is cause for celebration.
I do support the calls for a supermajority vote on judges that have some folks upset, although America's Founding Fathers considered one version of such a vote (from The Founder's Constitution, via Althouse):
Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.
My own observation is that, unlike staff appointments and general legislation, judicial appointments last for life and are supposedly non-partisan. I care very little about whether the "2d. branch" and the Executive are working well together compared to whether we see fair & effective judges on the bench. We need justices more than half the country can respect, otherwise "Judicial activism!" becomes the rallying cry whenever a decision proves unpopular and appointees become little more than political pawns. Supermajorities force the government to either get along or get distracted. Either option works for me. A supermajority requirement for judicial nominees seems like a good, easy way to restore some lost faith in the system.
If I am wrong? Interest groups are paying off senators anyway (they do that everywhere; it is one of those international traditions you're always hearing about), so we might as well make it cost them.
The filibuster's infrastructural role has powerful multiplier effect: It means not only that obscure minority Senators attract millions in campaign contributions. while the aides of obscure minority Senators aides find pleasant $250,000 jobs as influencers with vital "access." It means that those Senators can afford to hire well-paid fundraisers to funnel those contributions, while interest groups need direct mail experts to raise the money to make their own "access" producing contributions, and all these people need restaurants like The Palm to feed them and brokers to swap their houses and mechanics to service their Acuras and Audis. Thanks to the Senate's precious right of unlimited debate, a wave of prosperity sweeps over the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area! Funded by the rest of the country.
Probably true. Still, while Kaus' admitted cynicism cuts through the high rhetoric, the filibuster (on judicial nominees or other matters) is worth defending, and ought to appeal to both parties. Democrats should appreciate this deal because it favors them (as Kaus noted 12 hours earlier) and largely guarantees them a seat at the table, and Republicans should appreciate it as upholding the values of Republicanism that hold the United States as a democratic but constitutional republic where minority rights are equal to those of the majority, as opposed to the majority autocracy of direct democracy. The ad hoc coalition kept mob rule away from the most powerful branch of government. That is cause for celebration.
I do support the calls for a supermajority vote on judges that have some folks upset, although America's Founding Fathers considered one version of such a vote (from The Founder's Constitution, via Althouse):
Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.
My own observation is that, unlike staff appointments and general legislation, judicial appointments last for life and are supposedly non-partisan. I care very little about whether the "2d. branch" and the Executive are working well together compared to whether we see fair & effective judges on the bench. We need justices more than half the country can respect, otherwise "Judicial activism!" becomes the rallying cry whenever a decision proves unpopular and appointees become little more than political pawns. Supermajorities force the government to either get along or get distracted. Either option works for me. A supermajority requirement for judicial nominees seems like a good, easy way to restore some lost faith in the system.
If I am wrong? Interest groups are paying off senators anyway (they do that everywhere; it is one of those international traditions you're always hearing about), so we might as well make it cost them.
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
They're Russian To Judgment
First, Russian President Vladimir Putin puffed himself up as a truer democrat than American President George W. Bush...
In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic.
If you define democracy as strict majority rule with fewer checks & balances against fraud, yes. Following up on Putin's ignorance of America, I must remind him that the United States is a democratic republic, which means the heart of the election (and government as a whole) is supposed to be Constitutional law, not mob rule. Which leads us to...
Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the pivotal Florida vote was unfair to everyone, but that there was not enough time to sufficiently study and legally correct the voting process in Florida. A joint Miami Herald/USA Today study later found that only one scenario could allow a Gore win: a state-wide recount using the loosest standards possible. The biggest study, by the National Opinion Research Center, confirmed that only the most fraud-friendly standards would have provided a Gore victory. The problem is America's lack of uniformity on voting, but that clearly can't be worse than in Russia. Given the legal concerns regarding democratic failure in three counties of one state, the parties made the logical step of advancing to those who know the law. This beats going to the chief executive and/or his cronies for arbitration, as seems to occur in certain backsliding democracies. Which then leads us to...
Democracy cannot be exported to some other place.
Yeah, it would be like dropping bombs on (and then occupying!) Japan and Germany in order to foster democracy in places that, at best, hadn't had it in awhile. Or like an international organization meddling to such an extent that it can impose borders, send people to keep the peace against the wishes of the local government, issue mandates against sovereign nations, and commit gross acts of interventionism. But what if there is already a democratic movement in a country, and it needs help from outside in order to rise to the occasion?
The day that Putin's silliness made headlines, a Russian astrologer received the all-clear to sue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for $300 million over a plan to crush a probe into a comet:
In a 279-million-dollar (215-million-euro) project, NASA in January launched the Deep Impact spacecraft which will travel to the comet and release an "impactor" -- a 370-kilogram (820-pound) self-guided mass -- on US Independence Day (July 4) which is expected to create a crater that could be as large as a football stadium.
Scientists believe that the exposed material from the resulting crater will yield clues to the formation of the solar system and provide important information on altering the course of comets or asteroids on a collision course with earth.
In other words, they are looking for data that could save our lives in the event that a giant rock is about to slam into Earth. So how does she justify potentially sending humanity to an early grave?
"My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe," Molokhova was quoted as saying.
The lawyer said Tempel 1 had sentimental value to Bai because her grandparents met when her grandfather pointed the comet out to his future wife.
So 1) the big ball of ice gives her warm fuzzies, and 2) she predicts that the universe will go wobbly if the rocket roadsters make a comet crater. See what too much vodka does to people?
But wait! America is the root of all that is tragic, as a Russian community now knows!
A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its lake disappeared overnight.
Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more sinister explanations.
"I am thinking, well, America has finally got to us,” said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house.
Exactly, and this man helped us do it.
In the United States, you first elect the electors and then they vote for the presidential candidates. In Russia, the president is elected through the direct vote of the whole population. That might be even more democratic.
If you define democracy as strict majority rule with fewer checks & balances against fraud, yes. Following up on Putin's ignorance of America, I must remind him that the United States is a democratic republic, which means the heart of the election (and government as a whole) is supposed to be Constitutional law, not mob rule. Which leads us to...
Four years ago, your presidential election was decided by the court.
The Supreme Court ruled that the pivotal Florida vote was unfair to everyone, but that there was not enough time to sufficiently study and legally correct the voting process in Florida. A joint Miami Herald/USA Today study later found that only one scenario could allow a Gore win: a state-wide recount using the loosest standards possible. The biggest study, by the National Opinion Research Center, confirmed that only the most fraud-friendly standards would have provided a Gore victory. The problem is America's lack of uniformity on voting, but that clearly can't be worse than in Russia. Given the legal concerns regarding democratic failure in three counties of one state, the parties made the logical step of advancing to those who know the law. This beats going to the chief executive and/or his cronies for arbitration, as seems to occur in certain backsliding democracies. Which then leads us to...
Democracy cannot be exported to some other place.
Yeah, it would be like dropping bombs on (and then occupying!) Japan and Germany in order to foster democracy in places that, at best, hadn't had it in awhile. Or like an international organization meddling to such an extent that it can impose borders, send people to keep the peace against the wishes of the local government, issue mandates against sovereign nations, and commit gross acts of interventionism. But what if there is already a democratic movement in a country, and it needs help from outside in order to rise to the occasion?
The day that Putin's silliness made headlines, a Russian astrologer received the all-clear to sue the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for $300 million over a plan to crush a probe into a comet:
In a 279-million-dollar (215-million-euro) project, NASA in January launched the Deep Impact spacecraft which will travel to the comet and release an "impactor" -- a 370-kilogram (820-pound) self-guided mass -- on US Independence Day (July 4) which is expected to create a crater that could be as large as a football stadium.
Scientists believe that the exposed material from the resulting crater will yield clues to the formation of the solar system and provide important information on altering the course of comets or asteroids on a collision course with earth.
In other words, they are looking for data that could save our lives in the event that a giant rock is about to slam into Earth. So how does she justify potentially sending humanity to an early grave?
"My client believes that the NASA project infringes upon her spiritual and life values as well as the natural life of the cosmos and would disrupt the natural balance of forces in the universe," Molokhova was quoted as saying.
The lawyer said Tempel 1 had sentimental value to Bai because her grandparents met when her grandfather pointed the comet out to his future wife.
So 1) the big ball of ice gives her warm fuzzies, and 2) she predicts that the universe will go wobbly if the rocket roadsters make a comet crater. See what too much vodka does to people?
But wait! America is the root of all that is tragic, as a Russian community now knows!
A Russian village was left baffled Thursday after its lake disappeared overnight.
Officials in Nizhegorodskaya region, on the Volga river east of Moscow, said water in the lake might have been sucked down into an underground water-course or cave system, but some villagers had more sinister explanations.
"I am thinking, well, America has finally got to us,” said one old woman, as she sat on the ground outside her house.
Exactly, and this man helped us do it.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
Aww Star Wars, Give Me Those Star Wars
Saw Star War: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith Thursday evening...
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Yes, there are quite a few lousy (if not outright contradictory) lines. But I am pretty forgiving on this. As Yoda might say, In my attempts at writing fiction, better my dialogue is not. Regarding the content of the speeches, the storyline is George Lucas' Hamlet--tragic, hard-hitting, but with grace.
Some see the latest entry as liberal propaganda, others as conservative propaganda, but Star Wars is a striking piece of popular art, welcoming to individual interpretation. The series is a starting point for discussions, not a resource to use toward ending them. So I offer this theory: Lucas makes clear in the prequels (particularly Attack of the Clones) that the Jedi are increasingly arrogant, manipulative, and reckless (what does it say about the good guys that one of their tenets seems to be "Don't think"?); the Emperor doesn't so much lie as maneuver the truth to create more truths that he can finagle. Lucas may be deliberately embracing contradictions as a libertarian argument for limited government--power can corrupt any mortal, particularly since to be mortal already means to be fallible--and the opening scroll appears to bear this out ("There are heroes on both sides. Evil is everywhere"). Or maybe this is just a friggin' good fantasy thrillride.
Acting is another weak spot, but the realization that performances in Star Wars films relied more on charm than skill, lowered expectations due to the worst moments in the prequels, and the inherent drama of the story combined to make the acting seem rather serviceable. Damning with faint praise, perhaps, but I think Hayden Christensen does fine considering the material, and that Natalie Portman turns in her best performance in the series (they receive bonus points for looking so attractive!). Samuel L. Jackson unfortunately seems a bit lost, Jimmy Smits makes an impression with a key role in the final act, R2-D2 is a stellar comedian in the introductory battle, but the real stars of the show are the swashbuckling Ewan McGregor and the Machiavellian Ian McDiarmid, who exude the perfect amount of Original Trilogy finesse, and the all-digital Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz), whose no-nonsense encounter with a pair of Imperial guards provides the climax's only moment of frivolity.
Where the film becomes a masterpiece is in its music and technical execution. The designs and effects are superb. The sound is immersive, the landscapes real, the imagery compelling enough to make you want to know more about the cultures onscreen. John Williams' score, while still evidencing a few bizarrely edited moments, feels less tainted by post-production meddling than in the other prequels, and is tremendously handsome and effective. The film's lengthy opening shot, a fly-through of an epic space battle, pulls you into the cinematic universe with sights and sounds little like anything you've encountered before. Raiders of the Lost Ark comes closest to predicting the editorial structure of this film that starts on a high and rarely sinks. It is visionary. You simply have to see it.
Revenge of the Sith is easily the darkest and most violent of the Star Wars films. You leave smiling because the ending is a bit hopeful, ties nicely into the original film, and, hey, it's truly Star Wars; not because it is happy. The moviegoing experience is very beautiful, and very intense.
Update: Further evidence that, like in the cave on Dagobah, what's in Star Wars is only what you take with you:
Protectionism and collectivism are only the first steps toward communism. With economic globalization so demonized, the only remaining solution lies in market control and state monopoly. Will today's France be Europe's future? Sadly enough, this future seems probable owing to popular support that can be seen in France, paving the way for a process that is opposed to the building of free and open societies.
The political class - and even its most economically liberal leaders -- now raves about this social economy for the market, the first step of collectivism. Some really believe it, others support it for political opportunities, all join in the same rhetoric. Oddly enough, it could be related to the new Star Wars movie, in which Padme declares after a vote giving executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."
Friday, May 20, 2005
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Quote For The Day
P.J. O'Rourke, Republican Party Reptile:
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
America was founded on danger. How many lifeboat drills were held on the Mayflower? Where were the smoke detectors in the Lincoln family cabin? Who checked to see whether Indian war paint was made with Red Dye No. 2? It was the thrilling, vast, wonderful danger of America which drew people here from all over the world--spacious skies filled with blizzards and tornadoes, purpled mountain majesties to fall off, and fruited plains full of snarling animals and armed aborigines. America is a dangerous country. Safety has no place here. In fact, safety has no place anywhere. Everything that's fun in life is dangerous. Horse races, for instance, are very dangerous. But attempt to design a safe horse and the result is a cow (an appalling animal to watch at the trotters).
Monday, May 16, 2005
NewsTweak
Blogs everywhere seem to be tackling Newsweek's non-apology for their coverage of the non-story involving an alleged and, it turns out, very much unsubstantiated Koran desecration. The Blogfather has three (count 'em: one, two, three) separate posts on it in less than 24 hours. But while the main thrust of discussion seems to be about American journalists continuing to fall into the same [self-]destructive trap as their overseas counterparts, what stands out for me is the excessive reaction to the story, whether true or false.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
One cannot be much of a believer if his beliefs are shaken because somebody spoiled his literature. No-one died because a dung-splattered Virgin Mary upset Catholics. If the heart of your spiritual life is a stack of paper, losing the pages is the least of your worries.
There are also questions of civil, governmental, and cultural rights here. Is blasphemy against international law? Should it be? Why? Can we say flushing a book has passed from the realm of brute ignorance into that of torture? What if the book was supplied by the same people who took it away--in other words, does an entity have the right to destroy the books it loans? Does the destruction of any book, even with the intention of "rattling" the recipient, justify death and mass hatred?
By all means protest blasphemy. Everyone has the right to be offended, and to express their feelings through civil means. But I disagree with the judge in this case that blasphemy is a "gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", when the real oppression comes in acts of fascism, either mandating religious practice or restricting the free & fair practice of individuals, or terminating people's ability to have innermost beliefs (usually by terminating the people). Anything else is not an intrusion, it is an insult. As I covered earlier, the right to be offended precludes a right not to be offended.
Update: Professor Reynolds now says that "heads should roll at the Pentagon for this." But what he means is probably not what you think.
Update II: Flushed with failure.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
UNnecessary Roughness
Mark Steyn confronts the United Nations with a vengeance:
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Whatever one feels about it, the United States manages to function. The U.N. apparatus doesn't. Indeed, the United States does the U.N.'s job better than the U.N. does. The part of the tsunami aid operation that worked was the first few days, when America, Australia and a handful of other nations improvised instant and effective emergency relief operations that did things like, you know, save lives, rescue people, restore water supply, etc. Then the poseurs of the transnational bureaucracy took over, held press conferences demanding that stingy Westerners needed to give more and more and more, and the usual incompetence and corruption followed...
Unlike more "controversial" issues like the mass slaughter in Sudan, no Security Council member is pro-tsunami. And yet even when the entire planet is on the same side, the 24/7 lavishly funded U.N. humanitarian infrastructure can't get its act together.
Steyn tears through several horrible instances of international ineptitude. (But he is still no match for Roger L. Simon--related links, involving the infamous George Galloway, are here and there.)
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Thursday, May 12, 2005
Always Look On The Bright Side Of Life
Reuters:
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Pessimistic, anxious and depressed people may have a higher risk of dementia, U.S. researchers reported Thursday.
Great. Now pessimistic, anxious and depressed people have something else to be pessimistic, anxious and depressed about.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Georgia On My Mind
Over at BBC's Have Your Say the warm reception President Bush received in Georgia is being badmouthed with ad hominems. Assuming Bush is making nice for ulterior motives (apparently a politician looking out for his constituency is unthinkably bad), let us not forget that politics is not always a zero-sum game. Georgia is already receiving some benefit--namely, publicly for what a lovely country it's become--as a result of Bush's visit. I am sure they will receive more, though probably without the fanfare. The naysayers would do well to let them enjoy it, and remember that helping through tourist dollars would be a better way to show concern than griping online.
Imperial March (Darth Tater's Theme)
While Darth Tater sells for over $30 on eBay, where I know the battle for him firsthand, other bits of plastic strive to show they are powerful in the Dark Side of the Brick. (Via Doug Lacey)
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Update: The link is down.
Update II: Link corrected.
Monday, May 09, 2005
Britons Give Liberty A Bloody Nose
Being an American, I lack the first-hand experience of my Britannia brethren on such matters, but it looks to me like the United Kingdom is unfortunately on its way to becoming a nanny state, but for the moment is holding ground as a supporter of foreign nations gaining/maintaining sovereignty by the people.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
As Chrenkoff notes, the mainstream media are missing an interesting story: The Liberal Democrats, who opposed the Iraq intervention, gained merely 3% at the polls--a paltry amount considering how much the media is claiming Iraq led to Labour's losses. The pro-intervention Conservatives took most of the seats from Labour, and Jack Straw held strong in Blackburn, where the 25% Muslim constituency did not lash out. Few facts support the media's negativity on the Iraq issue, and the British elections offer few more. Joseph Britt at The Belgravia Dispatch has his theory on the real reason for Blair's slip: "The bottom line is that his causes are not really that dear to the British people today. They are for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment -- but if their Prime Minister is up for a crusade on any of these subjects, they are not."
It goes without saying that Blair is seen as being less in touch with the British electorate. I suspect, though, that it has something to do with a shift in British attitudes, not necessarily a shift with Labour. After all, Blair's so-called crusade "for freedom, against poverty, and for the environment" is nothing new, and has been rather consistent even in its American influence: He prodded the United States on Kosovo, and encouraged the U.S. to increase foreign aid and foster initiatives like the Clean Air Act. So when the Tories bash Blair for "lies" about Iraq, a bizarre tactic seeing as they pushed his arguments harder than he did and largely continue to support the war effort, it sounds as though the real trouble for Labour is that Conservatives are taking some wind out of their sails by motioning leftward.
If we accept that notion, George Galloway's election is part of a worrisome trend. An anti-progressive Socialist Workers sycophant who publicly saluted Saddam Hussein's "courage, your strength, your indefatigability", names Fidel Castro as "the most magnificent human being I've ever met", and can tell an Iraqi that Iraq's sovereignty means nothing to him because continued aid in securing individual rights is "not a matter for you - it's a matter for us" beat out an MP who actually gives a damn about freedom and individual rights. Worse, I gather that Oona King being black, female, and (in particular) Jewish also contributed to her loss.
There is more evidence of a public move toward socialist nationalism here, with the British National Party now positioning itself as the fourth largest party of the U.K.
So from here it looks as though Britons still favor personal liberty, but it faces a growing number of challenges and challengers.
Update: Turns out that although the British National Party made gains, they are dishonest with the numbers.
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Thursday, May 05, 2005
An Open Letter To Silvio Berlusconi
Dear Prime Minister Berlusconi,
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
You have my gratitude for being a steady ally of America. Italy's current relations with the United States are indeed those of friendship, and it is because of this that tensions can reveal themselves in civil but deep contrast, as they have lately regarding the accidental shooting of Nicola Calipari.
I have had doubts about Italian versions of events, and still find reason to question them, but regardless of discrepancies in reports there is a mutual, unquestionable belief that the incident was tragic, and that we must take steps to deter repeat occurrences. As you noted, the U.S. has made some progress. All that truly remains to be said is an honest apology from America.
Apologies can hinge more on perceptions than on facts. It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted, and I believe one always apologizes for harming a friend, regardless of whether the one is directly culpable for the injury. Indirect culpability, as is the case here, deserves more than expressions of regret and solidarity, but an acknowledgement that the mistake may be excusable, but is still a grievous mistake. I am not in a position to offer much of worth, but for my part, the people of Italy have my regret and solidarity, and apologies are due for anything my compatriots have done, regardless of flaw or intent, that contributed to the needless loss of Calipari's life, the injuries of others, and the sorrow affecting their relatives, friends, and countrymen.
Recriminations must not derail our countries' just efforts in attempting to light candles in dark times. Calipari's death in particular affects Italy, the United States, and the rest of the world: What I know of his work is that his services in Iraq were to further individual freedom and support a country in greater need than either of ours. So I also want to thank you, Prime Minister Berlusconi, for honoring his memory by continuing to support the Iraq reconstruction for which he put his life on the line.
Bear in mind that some principles are worth more than individual personalities or national pride.
Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey Wheeler
Update: Paolo from the Italian I Love America blog (currently on hiatus) adds:
I agree with what you say, though I wish to underline a thing. You wrote:
> It is clear many in Italy are angry and feel slighted
Well, there aren't angry and slighted Italians here. Or better: There is a COMEDY. A simulated anger enacted by members of extreme-left or extreme-right parties, supported by some journalists, people hating America since 1945 or 1989, nostalgic fascist or Marxist followers. All you read in newspapers is a media hype enacted because of political elections, which are next. Few ballots are important now, so even some moderate politicians are prone to wink at some extremists to gain votes.
Indeed, in Italy if you don't stop at a police control, they can shoot and kill you. It happens. How many young boys without a driver's license have attempted to escape from a police control and were shot and killed?
Lawsuits? Do you remember when newspapers published photos of Italian soldiers in which they were torturing boys and raping women during a peacekeeping mission in Somalia? In 1996 there was a leftist government in Italy. No scandal and especially NO LAWSUIT. Those soldiers were not even put on trial.
This hoopla about the unlucky incident in Iraq that regretfully caused the death of a brave Italian serviceman is a due cost of our commitment to free Iraqi people.
Personally I don't want USA regret for the incident, because there's no guilt. Italians owe USA gratitude only. For 1945 and 1989.
Perhaps, but what does America have to lose by sticking to its story on matters of disagreement, but deferring to Italy on those points where both can agree? A well-worded apology seems wise, something along the lines of "We stand by our findings, as we are sure the Italian government stands by theirs, but we agree that a fatal error occurred involving some of our troops, and we recognize that tragic accidents happen in our imperfect world. As such, we sincerely apologize for any missteps on our part that may have contributed to the incident, and as both reports note we are already taking measures to address them. It also bears repeating that Italy is an honorable ally, having stood shoulder-to-shoulder with the United States though the brave efforts of men like Nicola Calipari, and so we share the nation's loss."
It is like when someone misunderstands what you are saying, even though you speak what you mean and speak it correctly. You have no reason to apologize for their failure to comprehend, yet you can apologize for being unclear to them by saying, "I am sorry if I led you to misunderstand me." You point out that they made a mistake, but accept that you have the control over what you say, while 'if' (along with 'may have' in the earlier example) sidesteps the matter of actual guilt.
Thank you greatly for your kind words, Paolo.
Update II: Thanks also to Dominic of Serenade (on hiatus as well), whom I give the last word:
However, one point which has not been mentioned much even in the Italian coverage of this event is the existing mis-trust of American military forces. Events like the Cernis tragedy, where US military personnel caused the deaths of 20 civilians but were not even reprimanded, have left a lot of bitterness in the relationship with the US military specifically, as distinct from the USA overall. This, to me, explains why some are very reluctant to believe any explanation or extenuating circumstance provided by the US military or government.
For myself, I have resigned myself to never knowing exactly what happened, but I am satisfied in my own mind that the fault lies at worst about equally on the two sides. I have not seen any convincing evidence that the Italian secret services had liaised with the Americans before carrying out their operation. As for Giuliana Sgrena, if she said that the sky was blue, I would have to go outside and check.
The soldiers at the checkpoint may have been a little trigger-happy, but very understandably so, and in any case this was a factor that the Italian agents should have been aware of in planning.
Anyway, thank you again for your message, and remember that Berlusconi and Bush belong to a very elite club - that of democratically elected politicians who feature in plays and books fantasizing about their murder... This alone should allow them to understand each other very well.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The World Doesn't Always Seem Magical
People may say Human Rights Watch becomes hysterical over even the most understandable offences, but that is the organization's job, and they do it with more credible perspectives (i.e., constructive criticisms and actual solutions) than the perpetual whiners at Amnesty International.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
Why do I mention this? Because Amnesty's top story at the moment is unfortunately just another cashing-in on the terrible abuses at Abu Ghraib, while HRW's top story is a far more sobering account by children who witnessed acts of genocide in Darfur.
You can tell whether an organization or program is serious about helping people by how much it works to defeat the need for its own existence.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
