Thursday, July 07, 2005

Words Fail: London


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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

Zarqawi Not A Lefty

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

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Wanted: Judicial-Free Supreme Court Justice

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.

Monday, July 04, 2005

Why Cows Aren't Higher On The Food Chain

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

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!

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!!!

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.

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...

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

Darth Tater's Best Spuds

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

Bush Goes Blogging

The circle is now complete:

Part I

Part II

Part III