A letter from Santa Clau....err, Michael Moore

Tuesday, November 14th, 2006
A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives ...by Michael Moore

To My Conservative Brothers and Sisters,

Oh, right--NOW you wanna play all nicey-nicey...

I know you are dismayed and disheartened at the results of last week's election. You're worried that the country is heading toward a very bad place you don't want it to go. Your 12-year Republican Revolution has ended with so much yet to do, so many promises left unfulfilled. You are in a funk, and I understand.

Oh, yes--you were there a few years ago, screaming in despair when YOUR candidate lost. Let's see now--weren't you angry, and calling for investigations, and ranting and raving? And now you want to play all nice?! Make up your mind, Mikey--mind if I call you Mikey? I don't care if you do or don't, actually.

Well, cheer up, my friends! Do not despair. I have good news for you.

Friends? Friends?! Right--you would, of course, have us forget or ignore your many diatribes against conservatives of various stripes. All is forgiven because the Dems are back in town now, right? And you have good news? I can hardly wait to hear it....

I, and the millions of others who are now in charge with our Democratic Congress, have a pledge we would like to make to you, a list of promises that we offer you because we value you as our fellow Americans. You deserve to know what we plan to do with our newfound power -- and, to be specific, what we will do to you and for you.

Sorry, Mikey--that's not YOUR Democratic Congress. That's MY Congress, too--even though they happen to Democrat. They don't represent just YOU--they represent US.
And YOU value US as fellow Americans?! Sure--just like you have a bridge to sell me, or 100 acres of water-front property in a swamp somewhere. Sorry, Mikey--your credibility is shot to heck and back--or did you think anybody would notice?

You seem to be certain that your far-leftism is represented in Congress by every single Democrat. Gotta watch that wishful thinking, Mikey. You say it's YOUR (plural) newfound power, but I don't think that anybody elected you, buddy-boy.

Thus, here is our Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives:

Here comes the cringe-fest....

Dear Conservatives and Republicans,

Umm...what about Libertarians, or Centrist Democrats who, in your book, might as well be Republicans? Surely the world is more varied than "us" and "them?"

I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:

And if you don't....? Then what? Can we beat you with sticks, or help you move to Canada?

1. We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs. We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.

Hahhahah! Hahahah! Oh, you're such a kidder! You don't practice a word of what you preach there, Mikey. I've seen what happens to people who dissent and disagree with you, and it's not pretty. Why would you change your tactics now that "you" are in power? Sorry, Mikey, hard to believe this one.

2. We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral." Who you marry is none of our business. Love and be in love -- it's a wonderful gift.

Why, could this be a snide reference to gay marriage, or something? What about those Democrats (like, say, John Kerry, or Hillary Clinton) who are ON RECORD as opposing gay marriage? Does your promise include them, too? This is clearly satire--which, of course, indicates that you don't intend to keep your promise, right?

3. We will not spend your grandchildren's money on our personal whims or to enrich our friends. It's your checkbook, too, and we will balance it for you.

Oooh, a sly dig at Republican fiscal shenanigans! Clever one, Mikey! But, you know what? You somehow omit Democrat failings in this regard...or did you not know about those? Plus, you want to keep Social Security the way it is--and thus this promise can't be kept.

4. When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.

*Sniff* *sniff* awww, so caring and patriotic! And so condescending. I'm touched.

5. When we make America the last Western democracy to have universal health coverage, and all Americans are able to get help when they fall ill, we promise that you, too, will be able to see a doctor, regardless of your ability to pay. And when stem cell research delivers treatments and cures for diseases that affect you and your loved ones, we'll make sure those advances are available to you and your family, too.

And a chicken in every pot! Woohoo! Put your money where your mouth is, big boy--you gonna pay for all this....how? (see promise 3 above). By the way--did you know that not all stem cell research is equal, and that much of it IS already funded, PRIOR to 2006's election?
No, you probably overlook that on purpose. Hence, this isn't a serious promise.

6. Even though you have opposed environmental regulation, when we clean up our air and water, we, the Democratic majority, will let you, too, breathe the cleaner air and drink the purer water.

A mighty broad brush there, Mikey--what do you mean, specifically? Have those nasty Rethuglicans opposed ALL environmental regulations? Did your beloved Donkeys never oppose any environmental legislation, no matter how self-serving or stupid?
Do you mean those Kyoto Accords, that even CANADA now admits are unrealistic?

7. Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.

Umm...right. You didn't do this the last time... You also seem to misunderstand the nature of cellular terrorism: it doesn't revolve around Osama.

8. We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.

Hmm...must be a sly reference to abortion! Thanks for the information--but you seem to conflate the rights of the individual with the needs of society. Do you really think any and all abortion is just fine? Do you really think unrestricted and unregulated abortion has no effects on society as a whole? Instead, you hide behind this...sorry, Mikey.

9. We will not take away your hunting guns. If you need an automatic weapon or a handgun to kill a bird or a deer, then you really aren't much of a hunter and you should, perhaps, pick up another sport. We will make our streets and schools as free as we can from these weapons and we will protect your children just as we would protect ours.

Isn't this a bit inconsistent? First you promise not care what "we" do in the bedroom, and you don't care who we marry, and you don't care what goes on in "our" wombs--and now you stick your nose into our lives. Sorry, Mikey--seems a bit hypocritical to me. You also say you WILL make the streets and schools free from these weapons--but you don't say how. Good luck with that--taking guns away from citizens sure makes the criminals happy (just ask the folks in Great Britain about this phenomenon.)

10. When we raise the minimum wage, we will pay you -- and your employees -- that new wage, too. When women are finally paid what men make, we will pay conservative women that wage, too.

Hahaha! Hahahahaha! Ah, what a kidder you are! If employer X has Y dollars to pay out for salaries, and you force him to increase Y, what happens next? Where will X get those dollars you promise him or her? Won't he or she have to fire some workers to make up the difference?
And for those of us who aren't making minimum wage, where does your promise get us?

11. We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. In fact, we will actively seek to promote your most radical religious beliefs ("Blessed are the poor," "Blessed are the peacemakers," "Love your enemies," "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God," and "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me."). We will let people in other countries know that God doesn't just bless America, he blesses everyone. We will discourage religious intolerance and fanaticism -- starting with the fanaticism here at home, thus setting a good example for the rest of the world.

Sorry, Mikey--I'll believe this when I see it. You seem to promising that now "your kind of folk" are in power, "your folks" will change their behavior. Why should they, just because you said you would? I suspect that you aren't exactly the center of the Democrat Universe (although you might think so). You've got a nice little moonbat solar system, though. And besides, your statement is inconsistent--the first and last sentences don't match. You also seem to ignore secular fanatics, or even secular anti-religious fanatics--why do you do that?

12. We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich. We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people. And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST. If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it. Simply because we are in power does not give us the right to turn our heads the other way when our party goes astray. Please perform this important duty as the loyal opposition.

Hee heee hee ehehehehe! Ahahaha ahahaha! Sure, right! Mikey--are you stuck on stupid, or what? Do you think "we" are as dumb as "you?" Why should you do this now, if you haven't been doing it all along? Let's see you put your money where your mouth is. Just for starters, what are you going to do to Jefferson? Reid? Sandy Berger?

I promise all of the above to you because this is your country, too. You are every bit as American as we are. We are all in this together. We sink or swim as one. Thank you for your years of service to this country and for giving us the opportunity to see if we can make things a bit better for our 300 million fellow Americans -- and for the rest of the world.

If you weren't so condescending and sneering in your tone, and if your behavior was consistent with this, and if you spoke for people actually in power rather than a fringe group, perhaps we would believe you. Sorry, Mikey--your "can't you take a joke?" tone is not funny.

Of course, the story that recently hit the blogosphere that you plagiarised this kind of puts the boot in, too...

Barbra Streisand's Class Act

Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006
Streisand Has Outburst at NYC Concert

NEW YORK (AP) - The most riveting moment of Barbra Streisand's Madison Square Garden concert was one of the only unscripted ones.

So why do people pay so much to listen to her perform, anyway?

Streisand endured jeers as she interjected a political skit into Monday night's show, exchanging zingers with a celebrity impersonator playing George Bush as a bumbling idiot.

Ooh, so funny! Wow, Barbra, you should go into standup comedy! That's such an original shtick you found there!
Did you warn your paying guests ahead of time that they were going to have to listen to some humorous propaganda, or was it a free extra?

Though most of the crowd offered polite applause during the slightly humorous routine, it went on a bit too long, especially for those who just wanted to hear Streisand sing.

Clearly, it was the hit of the night, if it was all just polite applause at the slight humor. I'll bet people loved shelling out big bucks to hear Barb yukking it up about Bushitlerburton.

``Come on, be polite!'' the well-known liberal implored. But one heckler wouldn't let up. And finally, Streisand let him have it.

Can you see the hypocrisy here? She pleads with a heckler to be polite, so that she can continue on with her impoliteness. Most of the audience was not there to hear her unhinged haraguing, I suspect, but they also didn't pay big money to listen to other audience members heckle.

``Shut the (expletive) up!'' Streisand bellowed, drawing wild applause. ``Shut up if you can't take a joke!''

Well, so much for the party of tolerance and progressiveness. I suppose Barbra can't take a joke either, so why should her audience?

With that one F-word, the jeers ended. And the message was delivered - no one gets away with trying to upstage Barbra Streisand, especially not in her hometown.

Good guess, anonymous AP drone...but perhaps what people were REALLY clapping for is that the "humorous" bit ended and the concert continued, which is what they paid for...

Strike Three...You're OUT!! (Israeli "war crimes")

So, did Israel deliberately target ambulances in Lebanon?
There have been many "neutral" articles reporting "facts" about this, and even some video footage. Blogger "Zombie" discusses the incident on his blog article, The Red Cross Ambulance Incident:

On the night of July 23, 2006, an Israeli aircraft intentionally fired missiles at and struck two Lebanese Red Cross ambulances performing rescue operations, causing huge explosions that injured everyone inside the vehicles. Or so says the global media, including Time magazine, the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and thousands of other outlets around the world. If true, the incident would have been an egregious and indefensible violation of the Geneva Convention, and would constitute a war crime committed by the state of Israel.

But Zombie analyzes the information carefully and comes up with a reasoned explanation that doesn't start from an anti-Israel ideology. He writes, "But there's one problem: It never happened..."
Zombie carefully builds his argument based on photographs--not just two or three, but many that apparently have not been published in the Western Media. He examines the possible arguments made that support the "factual" event above, and lists the possible claims as follows:

Claim #1: An Israeli missile pierced the exact center of the red cross on the roof of the ambulance in the first photo above.
Claim #2: The attack happened on July 23.
Claim #3: There was a huge explosion inside the ambulance depicted in the third photo above.
Claim #4: There was an intense fire inside that same ambulance.
Claim #5: A man lying on a gurney inside the ambulance had his leg sheared off by the missile.
Claim #6: You're analyzing the wrong ambulance, you idiot.
Claim #7: The ambulance driver who reported the incident was injured in the attack.
Claim #8: The Lebanese ambulance drivers are politically neutral and would have no motivation to lie.

Even I, an admitted non-expert in munitions, can tell immediately from the photographs that #1, 3 and 4 are bogus claims. And if #6 is false, as Zombie points out, then it reinforces the analysis of 1, 3 and 4 being false claims.
Claim #8 is easily debunked, too, as long as you put aside your ideology and not automatically believe that Israel lies, and other people involved (Lebanon, Syria, Hezbollah, etc.) never do.

Zombie goes on to carefully analyze the entire set of arguments and reaches the following conclusion, which is the one supported by the actual facts as seen in the photographs. If the photographs do NOT represent what happened, then 1) The event happened, but these are not photographs of it (which is not the claim made), or 2) The event never happened, and these photographs are anti-Israel propaganda.

The mainstream press (in its ideological rush to condemn Israel and stop the killing of helpless Lebanese children) seems to have not done its homework, relying entirely on what certain people say, rather than actual analysis.
The "fauxtography" of Adnan Haj is strike one, the use of Hebollywood video propagan....err, I mean productions is strike two, and here is strike three. So, why should we listen to "professional" journalists when they are less interested in fact than in artistic interpretation in search of "truth?"
Apparently, the outcry over things like this helped Hezbollah to not have to defend itself from the evil Israeli invaders. Too bad it was largely based on deliberate mispresentations (i.e. lies).

Winning the War--On the Virtues of Killing Children

From "Grim," on the Blackfive Blog:

On the Virtues of Killing Children

You are not going to like this.

On the demonstrable virtues of not caring if children die, on hardening your mind for war, and other things we can no longer avoid discussing.

Beware that you are ready before you pass this seal.

Let us begin with a debate between a peaceful, gentle soul, and me. The topic could be Israel's war, or ours in Iraq, or -- if they have the heart for it -- the one to come.

The gentle soul -- how I respect her! -- will begin by pointing out how many innocents have died in the recent wars, and especially the children, who are the most obviously innocent. She will point out figures for Iraq, for Afghanistan, for Lebanon, and ask: "How can you justify this? These poor children, who might have been good men, good women, lain in the cold earth?"

We have all had the conversation that far, have we not? We are accustomed to reply: "But the enemy is the one that targets children. We try our best to avoid hurting children. That makes us better. Furthermore, the enemy hides himself among children. As a result, in spite of our best efforts, sometimes children die on the other side also. But again, it is not our fault -- it is his fault. He endangers them."

She replies: "But how can you justify their deaths? Regardless of how hard you try, will you not kill them? Some of them? Should we not choose peace instead?"

Let us consider that...

Read the rest...

Grim runs through a clear Socratic dialogue and concludes in the end that

"It must be," I tell her sadly, "Here: That we pursue war without thought of the children. That we do not turn aside from the death of the innocent, but push on to the conclusion, through all fearful fire. If we do that, the children will lose their value as hostages, and as targets: if we love them, we must harden our hearts against their loss. Ours and theirs."

"How can that be right?" she wonders.

"It cannot be," I must say. "Love should always rise, above war and fear and death. Love should always be first, and not last, in our hearts. It should never be that love brings wrong, and disdain brings right.

"And yet," I say, "It is. I have shown you that it is. That means we have moved into a time beyond human wisdom. We can no longer know the right. It is beyond us.

"We can only do," I must warn her, and you. "We can only do, and pray, that when we are done we may be forgiven."

May God protect our children as we protect them, and have mercy upon us for what we may have to do in order to protect all the children.

A "Fast" Way to Peace in our Time?

(From this article: US stars align in anti-Iraq war hunger strike)

Star Hollywood actor-activists including Sean Penn and Susan Sarandon and anti-war campaigners led by bereaved mother Cindy Sheehan plan to launch a hunger strike, demanding the immediate return of US troops from Iraq.

So, all we have to do to get rid of these people is let them starve to death? Oh, if only, if only...

"We've marched, held vigils, lobbied Congress, camped out at Bush's ranch, we've even gone to jail, now it's time to do more," said Sheehan, who emerged as an anti-war icon after losing her 24-year-old son Casey in Iraq.

She "emerged" as an "anti-war icon?" This way of stating things hides the powers that are using the "icon." And this also hides Sheehan's change of heart, and her son Casey's own feelings about the war, and Casey's father's feeling about it, as well as the hearts of many other mothers who lost their sons, but believe that Sheehan's type of anti-war sentiment is a waste of their sons' lives.

The hunger strike was the latest bid by the US anti-war movement to grab hold of American public opinion, after numerous marches, vigils and political campaigns.

I don't think that the "US anti-war movement" is all one organized body. And rather than actually "anti-war" they really are "anti-US-war" in their rhetoric and goals. If they were truly anti-war, then why are they not decrying the acts of Al Qaeda in Iraq and others who target and kill civilians? Look at the logic--if terrorist groups in Iraq stop fighting, what would happen? Many people (including US soldiers) would no longer die, and an independent, stable Iraq would no longer need the US military, who would then leave. Isn't this a true anti-war campaign?
So, where is the anti-war campaign against those who bomb American soldiers and Iraqi civilians?

Despite polls which show the Iraq war is unpopular and many Americans are skeptical of President George W. Bush's wartime leadership, peace protests have not hit the opinion-swaying critical mass seen during the Vietnam War.

Okay, so there are many polls (which, as EVERYBODY knows, are true indications of what all Americans really think) that are, of course, paid for by non-political, non-partisan organizations.
It is apparent that many people (usually on the left) are bewildered by the dissonance between dissatisfaction with the war and Bush's leadership and his re-election. They seem to think that if a person doesn't support Bush and what he does, then that person will vote Democrat.
This knee-jerk anti-Bushism (what some call the Bush Derangement Syndrome) keeps many Democrats out of office.

But this next statement is even more interesting.

"We have been continually sheltered from the actual cost of war from the beginning," said Meredith Dearborn, of human rights group Global Exchange, explaining how anti-Iraq war protests have stuttered. While 2,526 US soldiers have died since the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, according to an AFP tally based on Pentagon figures, the impact of the deaths has rarely dominated headlines.

Who is "we," Ms. Dearborn? And what is this "actual" cost--monetary, suffering, deaths, or what unit of cost? I, for one, fail to see how (at least in America) we have been "sheltered" from the actual cost, since the media are constantly reminding us of death, death, death in Iraq, and how the government keeps asking for (and getting) more money to finish the job. I suppose that Dearborn's logic is that if knew the ACTUAL cost, then we would immediately withdraw and stop fighting.
What Dearborn probably doesn't believe is that many believe the cost is large, but worth it, and that the cost of withdrawal in future lives would be a mighty debt borne on generations of Iraqi lives.
The "body count" logic of the Iraq war isn't really sound when one compares the body count of the World War I battle of the Somme, for example, where 20,000 men fell in one day, and close to a million in the entire battle.
That, Dearborn, is an expensive war, in the coin of men's lives. This one, even factoring the Iraqi losses (most of which are caused by "freedom fighters" rather than American aggression), is one of the least bloody wars yet.

While it is not unusual to see an Iraq-war veteran or amputee in an airport for instance, or newspaper features on horrific injuries inflicted by roadside bombs in Iraq, the United States hardly feels like a nation at war. Some protestors and experts in public opinion put that down to the absence of the Vietnam War style conscription draft, which means only professional soldiers or reservists can be sent off to war.

So the USA hardly feels like a nation at war? I wonder why that could be? Perhaps some Americans don't believe we are at war... And I don't know why we have to keep referring to the Vietnam war--were there no draftees for the Korean War? The 2nd World War? By continually referring to the Vietnam War, writers such as this one apparently want to equate the Iraq war to that one, with all the political baggage that accompanies it.

"We have done everything we could think of to end this war, we have protested, held marches, vigils ... lobbied, written letters to Congress," said Dearborn. "Now it is time to bring the pain and suffering of war home. We are putting our bodies on the line for peace."

Perhaps what Dearborn really lacks is imagination. Here are some other things that she and her peace-loving crowd could do:
>Join the militar--oh, okay, so that's not an option. That is, after all, the ludicrous "Chicken-Hawk" argument. Let me think of some others.
>Protest, march, hold vigils, and lobby the Mullahs and Sheikhs of Sunni and Shiite Iraq, Al Qaeda, and other extremist Islamic groups. If your anti-war campaign isn't working here, perhaps you are aiming at the wrong target.
>Take a look at the goals of the other anti-American crowd in Iraq and the Middle East and see how you are helping them in their goals of winning the publicity war. And then do things differently--change your means to your end.
>Stop thinking that Americans are the bad guys here. Sure, some Americans are bad guys, and are being punished for their actions. But you need to really look at the military and what they are trying to do in Iraq.

Perhaps the only time the anti-Iraq war movement captured lasting coverage was in August 2005, when Sheehan and supporters pitched camp outside Bush's Texas ranch, where the president habitually stays in high summer.

And why is the media still so confused about why everybody hasn't jumped on the Sheehan wagon? One more time, for the terminally stupid: just because you disagree with Bush, or think he's doing a poor job, doesn't mean you agree with the antics of people like Sheehan and their "progressive" handlers/publicists/et al.

Even then, the fiercely partisan debate unleashed may have harmed Sheehan, who faced fierce fire from conservative groups and radio talk show hosts, as much as it hurt the Bush administration's image over Iraq.

Well hey, here's some analysis that makes sense to me, too!
But this next thing makes little sense to me:

The hunger strike will see at least four activists, Sheehan, veteran comedian and peace campaigner Dick Gregory, former army colonel Ann Wright and environmental campaigner Diane Wilson launch serious, long-term fasts. "I don't know how long I can fast, but I am making this open-ended," said Wilson. Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.

Somehow, that doesn't seem very effective to me. It's post-modern hunger striking, or merely referring to hunger strikes. It sounds kind of like 2,700 people choosing to not shop at Wal-Mart, but only one refusing to go each day instead of all at the same time.
Yup, really effective--but hey, it sells papers and air time, and that's what it's really all about, right? It's more of a media stunt than an actual hunger strike. Perhaps these people have visions of Gandhi dancing in their heads, but they are probably misunderstanding what a hunger strike really is. Nobody will be convinced until these folks start dying from hunger.
And even then, some will think, "That's a good start."
Sure, that's rude, but it's realistic. Think about other hunger strikes, like those of prisoners in Northern Ireland. Did they work? Not really--they only tended to convince the already convinced. And even then, they only had any chance of any effect if the person was actually willing to, you know, die for his or her cause. Somehow, I have a hard time believing that Glover, Sarandon, "Press Boat Stunt" Penn, and others are willing to actually follow through with it.

Though the anti-war movement is trying hard to puncture public perceptions, some experts believe such protests have little impact on how Americans view foreign wars. Ohio State University professor John Mueller for example, argued in the Foreign Affairs journal in December, that only rising US casualties could be proven to erode public support for a conflict.

And guess what the mass media has been focusing on? Yup, just what Professor Mueller has been saying. If it bleeds, it leads. The only thing Americans are doing in Iraq are killing and dying, right? (Oh, and raping and murdering, too. Our guys are thugs, just like their guys, but we can't criticize them because our guys are the REAL bad ones....)

Anti-war movements during the Korean and Iraq wars have been comparitively invisible, but public support had eroded in a similar way to the Vietnam conflict, in which the peace movement played a dominant role, he wrote.

Perhaps the peace movement has a golden vision of a golden age when it actually reflected something other than a minority or a fringe movement. Take as a parallel the American Civil Rights movement in the 60s or even Gandhi's Indian independence movement--both of them worked only because most people involved already agreed with them. The Civil Rights movement didn't happen in the 1920s, or 30s, or 40s, even though there were civil rights protests and whatnot going on. It was through the long-term campaigning and commitments of many Americans of a variety of colors that the campaign finally resulted in the will of the people.
The anti-(America in Iraq) war movement seems to be frustrated that this hasn't happened yet.

Recent polls reveal public scepticism over Iraq, and damage to Bush's personal ratings. In a poll in Time magazine published Friday, only 33 percent of respondents approved of Bush's leadership on Iraq while 64 percent said they disapproved his handling of the campaign.
A Pew Research Center poll released on June 20, found that only 35 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of the Iraqi conflict -- though that was up five percent from a similar poll in February.

But none of these polls really ask WHY people disagree, or if they do, popular articles such as this refuse to mention it. Like I said above, people can disagree with someone but still vote for them or their policy if there is nothing else better.
And that's the problem of the anti-war crowd--they consider themselves the better solution for a more peaceful, perfect world--but they would only be that solution if the world were more perfect.
However, others in the world are not all as "rational" and "progressive" as the anti-war folks in the USA--after all, those two adjectives don't really fit the people who rejoice in killing civilians and Americans in Iraq. And those are the people the anti-war crowd really need to target.

"Discussing" the Columbine shootings

Commentary based on this article, Columbine Video Game Draws Relatives' Ire.

DENVER (AP) - An online game based on the Columbine High School massacre is drawing criticism from relatives of those who died in the 1999 attack, including a father who says it trivializes the actions of the two teen killers.

The game, Super Columbine Massacre RPG, was posted on a Web site last year, but is becoming more popular now. It draws on investigative material, including images of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, who killed 12 classmates and a teacher before committing suicide.

So, here we have an individual (as we will see later) who decides to program his own revenge fantasy game. He does some research, and uses pictures (without permission, I suppose?)
It is listed here as an RPG, or "role playing game," which is term that may or may not apply here. Perhaps "first person shooter" is a better description, horrific as that may be.
So, who is the master programmer behind this?

The site's creator, who identified himself in an e-mail interview only by the name ``Columbin,'' told the Rocky Mountain News he wanted to make something that would ``promote a real dialogue on the subject of school shootings.''

What does "Columbin" mean by his baffling, pseudoprofound statement about "promoting dialogue?" The ''subject of school shootings'' apparently means the motivations that people such as Klebold and Harris (and apparently this fellow) had to act as judge, jury and executioner for their treatment at the hands of their classmates. But what "dialogue" can there be, exactly? Apparently, as seen in his next statement, he is protesting against bullying:

He said he was inspired to make the game because he was in Colorado at the time of the attack.``I was a bullied kid. I didn't fit in, and I was surrounded by a culture of elitism as espoused by our school's athletes.'' He added that he considered the killers, at times, ``very thoughtful, sensitive and intelligent young men.''

Okay, to get this straight, Columbin was a bullied young man, like Klebold and Harris were, who didn't "fit in" with the school culture of elite athletes. And because of their treatment at the hands of these snobbish fools, Klebold and Harris decided that it would be right and just to kill them. Columbin apparently agrees, since he created a game that lets the viewer take the perspective of these two killers acting out their revenge fantasy on their fellow students.
I assume that by "dialogue" Columbin wants to discuss why his heroes did what they did, which apparently is bullying (leaving aside any questions of other cultural influences or even parental non-influence.) Columbin appears to be protesting bullying and wanting that to stop.

But how will this game do that?
Here are details about the game:

Players are told it is ``ultimately up to you'' how many people Harris and Klebold kill that day. Each time Harris and Klebold kill someone in the game, a dialogue box pops up that says: ``Another victory for the Trench Coat Mafia.''

The game also includes crime scene photos of the killers and images of students running and crying, though it does not have photos of any victims.

If this is a role playing game, then clearly we are meant to be sympathetic with Klebold's and Harris's actions. Victory in the game means killing fellow students. One wonders if the player is also required to shoot himself at the end of the game (I suspect that most players are male, so I will use that pronoun at the risk of sexist language.)

``We live in a culture of death, so it doesn't surprise me that this stuff has become so commonplace,'' said Brian Rohrbough, whose son, Daniel, was among those slain that day. ``It disgusts me. You trivialize the actions of two murderers and the lives of the innocent.''

Clearly, Columbin feels that Klebold and Harris were also victims, and wants to draw attention to bullying. But I doubt very much that, as Rohrbaugh points out above, that trivializing or even celebrating the actions of these two who killed many others before killing themselves will stop the bullying. After all, it wasn't only bullies who died in the high school that day.

Richard Castaldo, who was paralyzed from the chest down in the attack, played the game after reading about it on a gaming Web site. He said it reminded him of the 2003 film ``Elephant,'' which follows students and others on the day of a school massacre without assigning reasons or blame for the bloodshed.

``It didn't make me mad, just kind of confused me,'' he said. ``Parts of it were difficult to play through, but overall, I get the feeling it might even be helpful in some ways. I don't think it's bad to discuss.''

An expert witness, apparently. Since he was there, Castaldo has extra credibility, one assumes. But what he says is useless as a defense of the game. He feels "it might even be helpful in some ways," but it is absolutely unclear on how this game will actually create a culture or an environment in which people will come together to put an end to the petty trivialities of high school.
This game is in bad taste, for certain, but taste is not important. I myself have played first person shooters such as Counterstrike, Doom, Quake, and so on. The difference is in evaluating the game. Evaluation of a work of art means that the creator's intent is weighed with what the art actually does. If this game is meant to reduce bullying by causing certain people to change their attitudes or actions towards unpopular people like Klebold, Harris and Columbin, then the evaluation is that this is unsuccessful.
But clearly Columbin is grasping at straws to try to justify his "work of art," anyway. I'll bet his game sees a sudden surge in downloads after this newsstory, and I don't think that bullying will go down because of it.
I don't suggest censorship, or prosecution, but I will argue that this is a self-serving, shallow piece of fantasy that has little value in the real world, where murder is more than winning a game.

Food of the month: Wensleydale cheese

Most American kids don't grow up in a world of diverse cheese. In my own home, cheese meant Velveeta, the big block of processed cheese product that has a shelf life on the shelf and not in the fridge. Parmesan cheese came in a can, to be used on spaghetti. Occasional bits of factory cheddar or jack might have crossed my path, but that's about it.
Not until after I left home for college and beyond did I discover the world of cheeses.
I am not quite the cheese fanatic as Wallace (the star of Aardman Animation's excellent "Wallace and Gromit" clay animated films.) But when Wallace mentioned Wensleydale cheese in "A Close Shave," I wondered just what he was referring to, since I had never seen such a thing.
I didn't know the history of this locally produced British cheese, nor what it tasted like.
But then I saw this in the cheese section of a local produce store (that also stocks cheeses, and wines, for those that like such things):

Having just been gifted with the DVD of "The Curse of the Wererabbit" movie, I was intrigued. Here was a chance to see what Wallace was going on about. I picked it up--$9.00!?
It took me another couple of trips before I bit the bullet (as it were) and bought one.
I took it home, managed to locate some proper crackers, and got out a knife to make the first incision.
It was very nice--a cracking good cheese! It was semi-hard, crumbly, and quite creamy. Not too rich, with a note of sweet cream to it and a mild aftertaste. It's very nice, and my infant daughter liked it too (she's the real expert).
The more I ate, the more I liked it. I can see why he likes it so much--but I realize also that too much Wensleydale can cause one to need some Assistance because of the weight gain.
I was surprised to learn that Wensleydale was an endangered cheese, and only just escaped the oblivion by factory buyouts. Read the above link to discover how a very small regional cheese survived, and then go out and support these small businessmen! If it weren't so expensive to import to the USA, I'd get more.

Radical Students strike a blow for peace!

Here's a nice story for you:

UCSC protesters push military recruiters off campus

By Roger Sideman
Sentinel Staff Writer
Military recruiters packed up their displays and left a UC Santa Cruz job fair Tuesday after several protesters attempted to force themselves inside the fair while others blocked the entrance over the course of a tense hour-long standoff.
Citing safety concerns, the four recruiters from the Army and National Guard reversed an earlier decision to remain at the fair in a room separated from other job recruiters and protected by more than a dozen campus police.
Students Against War, or SAW, drew national attention following a similar protest against military recruiters last April when MSNBC reported that the Department of Defense surveillance program listed the group as a threat.
Under pressure from campus officials, the Pentagon says it has since removed SAW from the list.
Campus spokesperson Liz Irwin said UCSC complies with a 1995 federal law called the Solomon amendment, which denies federal funding to universities that bar military recruiters from campus. Last month, a challenge to the amendment failed in the U.S. Supreme Court.

So, here we have a very zealous group of students who believe strongly in a cause, which is apparently to keep the U.S. Military from getting new recruits. I would guess that these same young people believe that military recruiters lie and cheat and make false promises in order to trick under-privileged young people from joining the military.
Apparently the military recruiters who were just doing their job felt threatened enough to leave, and realized that if they were physically attacked and they defended themselves in ANY way, they would be the bad guy, no matter what. So they just left. I suspect that the report here is accurate, but also intended to inflate the drama/conflict a bit.

But these young college activists have a bad argument--if they reduce the U. S. Military, exactly how does that reduce war? If they REALLY believed in their cause, wouldn't they be out boycotting Al Qaeda recruiting stations?

Immigrate or Assimilate?

Peggy Noonan, in her article, hit this topic out of the park:

What this all got me thinking about, the next day, was . . . immigration. I know that seems a lurch, but there's a part of the debate that isn't sufficiently noted. There are a variety of things driving American anxiety about illegal immigration and we all know them--economic arguments, the danger of porous borders in the age of terrorism, with anyone able to come in.

But there's another thing. And it's not fear about "them." It's anxiety about us.

It's the broad public knowledge, or intuition, in America, that we are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically. And if you don't do that, you'll lose it all.

We used to do it. We loved our country with full-throated love, we had no ambivalence. We had pride and appreciation. We were a free country. We communicated our pride and delight in this in a million ways--in our schools, our movies, our popular songs, our newspapers. It was just there, in the air. Immigrants breathed it in. That's how the last great wave of immigrants, the European wave of 1880-1920, was turned into a great wave of Americans.

We are not assimilating our immigrants patriotically now. We are assimilating them culturally. Within a generation their children speak Valley Girl on cell phones. "So I'm like 'no," and he's all 'yeah,' and I'm like, 'In your dreams.' " Whether their parents are from Trinidad, Bosnia, Lebanon or Chile, their children, once Americans, know the same music, the same references, watch the same shows. And to a degree and in a way it will hold them together. But not forever and not in a crunch.

Well said--I myself am a product of people who both immigrated to this country and assimilated. I believe that there really is a core of American experience and values at the center of this country, that make us who we are, in spite of what some radical multi-culturalists argue.
It has nothing to do with racism, or cultural imperialism--it has everything to do with a wider shared identity that should bind all Americans together, regardless of whether they are Norwegian Americans, or Mexican Americans.
This cultural assimilation is hit and miss--it's pop culture, which changes at a frightening speed, and is mass-produced and transmitted commercially. This isn't America, although those things are American. There is a formal, "taught" America that seems to have been dropped out of schools in favor of political correctness, or an attempt to balance actual and perceived injustices of our shared past.
But that just severs the link that should bind us all together, and makes us into tribes (or victims and oppressors, or the priveleged and exploited). If there is no "us" for people coming to this country to join, then we remain fragmented, and E Pluribus Unum means nothing anymore. We don't ask them to give up lutefisk, or fish tacos, but we invite them to learn about our common history, warts and all, and take their place in it.
To do otherwise is to stand outside, yet be inside, and we can't afford for that to happen.

Borders Becomes a Victim of Terrorism!

Click the title below to read the original article:

Borders, Waldenbooks Won't Carry Magazine
- By CAROLYN THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Wednesday, March 29, 2006

(03-29) 16:36 PST Buffalo, N.Y. (AP) --

Borders and Waldenbooks stores will not stock the April-May issue of Free Inquiry magazine because it contains cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad that provoked deadly protests among Muslims in several countries.

"For us, the safety and security of our customers and employees is a top priority, and we believe that carrying this issue could challenge that priority," Borders Group Inc. spokeswoman Beth Bingham said Wednesday.

Well, how nice of Borders! It's all about safety, isn't it?

The magazine, published by the Council for Secular Humanism in suburban Amherst, includes four of the drawings that originally appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, including one depicting Muhammad wearing a bomb-shaped turban with a lit fuse.

Islamic tradition bars depiction of Muhammad to prevent idol worship, which is strictly prohibited.

If you aren't familiar with these cartoons, you can read a nice article about them here at Wikipedia. Now, as for that second bit, about Islamic tradition--read here to find out that it isn't quite so cut and dried as people think. There is another problem here--since when was Borders a bookstore that was run according to Muslim custom? If Borders is so worried about "offending" violent groups, they'd better close their stores tomorrow.

Some people, like said Paul Kurtz, editor-in-chief of Free Inquiry, are quite incensed by this action:

"What is at stake is the precious right of freedom of expression....Cartoons often provide an important form of political satire ... To refuse to distribute a publication because of fear of vigilante violence is to undermine freedom of press — so vital for our democracy."

I partially agree with Kurtz. Cartoons are an important form of political satire, and have been for many, many years. On the other hand, Borders are a private company, and they have the right to sell or not sell what they want. I am sure that Free Inquiry magazine is available at many other bookstores. And this is what Borders' spokesperson points out:

"We absolutely respect our customers' right to choose what they wish to read and buy and we support the First Amendment," Bingham said. "And we absolutely support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoons. We've just chosen not to carry this particular issue in our stores."

Okay, let me parse this--Borders respects the rights of customers to buy certain publications. They support the rights of Free Inquiry to publish the cartoon. But then they decide that it is less important to sell a magazine that contains these cartoons, than it is to avoid offending people (which is what Bingham really means by just choosing not carry THAT issue.)
It's not really a free speech issue, but it does indicate that for Borders, certain things seem to be more important than that.
Yet as Tim Blair points out, perhaps Borders is chickening out and being inconsistent in their practice of free speech.

I can't figure out just what Borders is afraid of here--are they just being touchy-feely, pat-ourselves-on-the-back-for-being-so-senstive, or are they responding to a genuine threat?

If there is a genuine threat, then perhaps Borders had better police ALL its books for materials offensive to these radical Muslims. And better shut off those Wi-Fi portals in the coffee shops--people might be looking at those cartoons online! Oh no!

Why are they choosing to knuckle under to radical Muslims who live half a world away? If they choose to honor this one custom, it seems inconsistent to not follow ALL of them, or purge their shelves of ANY offensive materials. The gay sex books should be the next to go, of course, since those are offensive to Muslims. Better make sure that Salman Rushdie books aren't sold, either, or any art books that contain historical pictures of Islamic art depicting Mohammed in the past.

But, of course, most people who are offended don't act violently like these radical followers of the "religion of peace," so Borders is playing it safe--more politically safe than physically safe, it appears. Here is what they are afraid of happening in their stores, I guess:

The cartoons, which were reprinted in European and American papers in January and February, sparked a wave of protests around the Islamic world. Protesters were killed in some of the most violent demonstrations and several European embassies were attacked.

Borders, congratulations. The terrorists got a bit of what they wanted out of you.

Director George Lucas is worried about American "cultural imperialism."

You can read the original article here:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110008136

Here are my comments:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Director George Lucas is worried about American "cultural imperialism."

A bit late for that, isn't it, Mr. Lucas? Are you feeling guilty, or what? And just what\ exactly do you mean by "American?" What is this "American culture" like? And what is this "imperialism" thing? Is this culture "forced" onto people at gunpoint, or do they choose it and embrace it, in the same way that Americans do?

---

In a speech to the World Affairs Council in San Francisco on Wednesday, he cited the lifestyles portrayed on "Dallas" as an example of how Hollywood irresponsibly infects the minds of poor people overseas.
"They say, 'That is what I want to be' . . . [and] that destabilizes a lot of the world," AFP quotes him as saying.

---

So, you found a group of star-struck "yes-men" in Frisco to talk to, did you ? Perhaps you can ask them for plot clues for your next movie. (Hint--midichlorians were a stupid idea, and Jar Jar was pathetic.)
When speaking to this group of caring folk (many of whom are not likely to be people of color or of little wealth), which poor people were you talking about specifically, Lucas?
How many of them are you actually referring to?
How, precisely, does them saying "We want everything that you have, Mr. Lucas," destabilize the world?

So here we have an unnamed, unnumbered group of people whose lives are so miserable that they want to be like Dallas characters. EVERYBODY knows these people exist--who? Where? If they even have a TV, do they have no local shows from their own country and in their own language? Are these poor people so stupid that they can't tell what is real? Do they really believe that J.R. is an example of a typical American, or that American Women are all like those on Sex And The City? Do these unnamed folk really believe that all American women are Desperate Housewives, or Married With Children?
Ah, but they do know that they are poor and miserable, especially when compared to people on Dallas. Whose fault is it that they are so miserable and poor? Quick quiz--
A) Their own;
B) Their own government's fault;
C) The greedy dictators that run their governments;
D) people like Quentin Tarantino and Tom Cruise;

If you feel, Mr. Lucas, that what you are doing is so bad, why do you keep doing it? Or are the messages you send so much better than the ones you criticize?
Do you really feel that the world revolves around Hollywood and the American entertainment media? You seem to be deprecating things like Bollywood in India, that produces wildly popular films that have nothing to do with American culture or values.

---

U.S. filmmakers should be more careful about the messages they send, Mr. Lucas added.

---

But you can't have it both ways, Mr. Lucas. You claim filmmakers should be more careful about the messages they send, but then when anybody complains about the messages or content that is sent out, Hollywood types cry, "Censorship! Evil! I want my Freedom of Speech!"
You claim that films don't influence people to be violent (no matter what the content or messages are), but then you claim the films do influence people to want to be unrealistically affluent?

Which is it?

---

Marketers, too, presumably, since a lot of poor people in other countries probably see Mr. Lucas's "Star Wars" line of products and think: "That is what I want to have."

---

If it's good enough to sell to Americans, why isn't it good enough to sell to Pakistanis, or Nigerians, or Indonesians?

Sorry, George, that Bantha don't hunt.

Do people really buy this stuff?

I recently read about a new children's book on the market. It's titled"Why Mommy is a Democrat." Oh boy, I thought to myself--this ought to be a real must-read!

The website has the following blurb on it:

Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others. It's a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.

[It] may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party, [it] will appeal to all ages!

Finally, a portion of the profits will be donated to Democratic candidates and party organizations, so your purchase will help make an immediate difference!

So, by reading this book, I can learn exactly what makes a Dem different from a Repub, eh? Is it these deep down core values? I hope they aren't trade secrets. Well, let's a take a look, shall we?
Here are some sample pages, taken from the website.

Here is the first:

Okay, now what's going on here? The poor oppressed guy on the bench is clearly not getting his share of the "toys," I suppose. Those must be Republicans or something walking by, since by implication no Democrat would *ever* walk by a homeless guy without giving him a pat on the head, a food stamp, or some free condoms.

Mommy squirrel must be representative of the government, I suppose. It makes sense--nanny state, mommy squirrel. Of course, where did the kids get those toys, anyway? From Mommy squirrel, natch! So, I don't need to earn my own toys because dear sweet Mommy will give them to me! Thus, since they are really *her* toys (but she would never say she owns them, because "owning" them would make her a nasty capitalist), she can give them to whomever she wants!
These toys she gives us are not Babie dolls, or soldiers, or anything nasty or declasse or (heaven help us!) red-state toys like guns or knives. They are clearly educational toys, since the blocks seem to spell out "democrat"...or perhaps it's "taco me, dr" or "maced rot" or even "cadre tom"...that could come in useful for understanding Marxism, I guess.
Thanks, Mom, for teaching us how to spell, so that we can spell "victim," and "welfare" and all those important words!
Of course, Mommy could just let the homeless fellow sleep in the living room, instead of making him suffer out there on the park bench...

Here's the next one:

Whoa! Watch out! That must be a Republican walking down the road there! (Could be Rush Limbaugh, I guess) you know how those elephant guys are natural enemies of cute, helpless little fuzzy squirrels. Is that other guy a flasher, or what? I suppose that if the elephant attacks, Mommy will protect her little flock by...umm...sacrificing herself by flinging her body under its feet? shooting its eyes out with righteous wrath and protest signs? running away and screaming?
Well, I can't really tell how, other than making sure her right-thinking little squirrels don't play with elephants. But...wait! That's speciesist!

On to the last sample page:

Wow! Mommy is helping us get into that big expensive university back there! I don't know where she got the money--maybe it's a diversity scholarship or something. That black kid on the railing must not be talented enough, or rich enough, to get in.
Hey, are those parents with the happy grad the same ones from the park, earlier? You can just feel the evil non-egalitarian racist Republicanism oozing off of them, can't you? I don't know why Mommy would want us to go to school with kids like theirs, anyway--oh, but I forgot--universities educate people so they become Democrats when they get out! So that's okay, then.
That's one expensive school--where *did* the money for that come from, again? Is that a public school, or a private one? Why doesn't Mommy send us to a cheaper school, and use the money as investments for her retirement fund, or for a down payment on a house for us when we get out of school in 4-10 years?

To recap, this book is designed to show "the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others."
I guess that the core values shown here on the sample pages are these:

1. Democrats share (and Republicans never do);
2. Democrats protect people (and Republicans don't);
3. Democrats educate all people (and Republicans don't)

The book pretends to use "plain and non-judgmental language," but a little innuendo goes a long way, doesn't it? If fairness or tolerance is an actual Democratic principle, it's hard to spot there here, since they are only applied to some and not to others.

And are those core Democratic principles so simplistic that they can be broken down into simple soundbites, or is the author saying that Democrats are childlike? I can't say that I find blatantly political illustrations "warm and whimsical." Squirrels are nice and warm and fuzzy, I guess, but there isn't much whimsy here. There's some "I feel GOOD about what I believe" action here, but nowhere is there any indication that this simplicity leads to misrepresentation or (dare we speak the verb that has no name?) even lies.

The blurb states, "It's a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party." If parents have to resort to satirical distortions in picture book form to explain what they believe, what does this say about them? I think it suggests that they can't think or communicate outside of propaganda, or that their notion of what they stand for is based on childish rationale.

So...who is responsible for this sparkling prose, witty humour, backed up with scathing expose, years of research and careful fact finding?

Meet Jeremy Zilber:

A lifelong Democrat and political activist, I have been teaching and writing about American politics for over a decade. Although Why Mommy is a Democrat is my first children's book, I've previously authored and coauthored numerous political essays and the book Racialized Coverage of Congress: The News in Black and White.

After hearing for years that I should consider writing children's books, I finally decided to give it a try. But I didn't want to write a typical children's story; instead, I set out to write a book that would help parents communicate important political values to their children and offer an underlying theme of political satire for adults. The result, Why Mommy is a Democrat, reflects my passion for progressive politics, my sense of humor, and my academic training in fields such as political psychology and socialization.

Born and raised in Columbus, Ohio, I received a B.A. from Oberlin College and a Ph.D. from Ohio State University. I currently live in Madison, Wisconsin, with my partner Julia, her daughter Isabella (age six), and our cat Zachary -- all lifelong Democrats.

I certainly hope the last two didn't vote in the last election. I doubt that Zilber is seriously suggesting that his step-daughter (it's his Partner Julia's, after all, and not his) and his cat are registered, card-carrying, primary-voting Democrats. But it comes across as rather "twee" to mention it.

Hmm...well, Shaquille O'Neal and Britney Spears thought they could act, and the Great One became a children's author (Madonna, I mean, not Wayne Gretzky) of some notoreity. I guess Zilber thought that he should join the crowd of people who give it a whirl. Many people think, "How hard can it be to write a children's book anyway, since we all know that kids don't read very well?" Here's a tip--it's hard. But this isn't a children's book, anyway, but a book for adults, who can pretend it's for the kids.

I can't quite see the market for this book, unless it is Democrats who are still wondering why everybody isn't one. It can't be the principles they espouse, because (those who buy this book must opine) when put in simple, black and white terms like this, why wouldn't everybody want to be a Democrat? I guess it's a "please validate me and make me remember why I am such a good person" kind of book.

Don't get me wrong--the principles might be sound, but presented like this, it becomes indoctrination. This isn't really what Democrats want for their kids, is it? And I'm not trying to be partisan--if the book happened to feature principles which were more Republican in nature, I'd still say the same things about it. Here, the medium (to distort McLuhan) is a message above the message. And it doesn't send a good one about people who purchase this medium.