Psuedotsuga menziesii

I see a little of myself in Obama...for reals?!

2009-02-02T21:32:00.006-08:00

The nutty "journalists" at the Detroit Free Press seem to think that this is a cool idea:

We've got a photo of Obama you can cut out for yourself -- click here to download it. Then follow the instructions, take a picture and send it to us here. Tell us what part of Obama is in you and we'll add your comments to your photo.

Naturally, the "editors" reserve the right to not publish submissions, or they'd likely get things like this:

Or this:

Or even this!

Heh...too easy to make fun of this one! I can't believe that the originators of this didn't realize what big fools they appear to be.

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

2006-11-16T23:21:00.000-08:00

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

2006-10-10T10:26:00.000-07:00

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")

2006-08-24T11:51:00.000-07:00

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

2006-08-11T15:12:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-07-23T15:41:00.000-07:00

(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

2006-05-17T13:09:00.000-07:00

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

2006-05-11T16:20:00.000-07:00

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!

2006-04-11T23:47:00.000-07:00

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?

2006-03-31T01:04:00.000-08:00

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!

2006-03-31T00:14:00.000-08:00

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."

2006-03-31T00:09:00.000-08:00

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?

2006-02-04T14:07:00.000-08:00

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:

Democrats share (and Republicans never do);
Democrats protect people (and Republicans don't);
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.

Food of the week: Dry Soda's Lavender

2005-11-01T20:38:00.000-08:00

So, we were up in Bellevue, an upscale suburb of Seattle this weekend, and we stopped at a Larry's supermarket, to pick up some Apple Beer (a non-alcoholic apple soft drink that is quite nice, and not easily found).
After a bit of confusion ("Apple Beer? That's probably in the cooler with the beers and wines." "No, it's non-alcoholic." "Is it?"), we located some bottles of Apple Beer on a cooler shelf.
But then my eye was caught by a clear bottle, filled with a clear liquid, and a very clean, spare graphic design.
I looked a little closer, and discovered a soft drink made by Dry Soda, in a lavender flavor. (Kumquat, lemongrass and rhubarb are also available.)
"Ooh!" says I, "I gotta try that!" I like lavender, and some of my favorite ice cream is lavender flavored, and I had never thought of a lavender soda.
So, I bought a bottle, and today I tried it.
It is indeed dry. It's not too sweet nor syrupy, and the scent of lavender rising from the clear liquid is surprising. It is sweetened with cane sugar, rather than cheap corn syrup, and that makes a difference. The taste is not too strong, and doesn't linger too long in the mouth. It is quite refreshing, with a good carbonation that is not too sharp nor too soft.
This is good stuff...but at $2.00 a bottle I won't be looking too hard for it. After all, it is just fizzy water with flavoring and sweetener, and I can't think of people I need to impress by offering them designer soda.

Food of the Month: Pure Maple Walnut Ice Cream

2005-10-25T15:10:00.000-07:00

I just stumbled across a flavor of Snoqualmie Ice Cream that I had never seen before: Pure Maple Walnut. This is a Western Washington company that makes top quality ice cream (low air content, high fat content, and high quality ingredients), and I have tried a lot of their flavors before (my favorite at this point still being French Lavender.)

I have recently really begun to like walnut ice creams, and I love the taste of real maple syrup, so I had to give this a try. It contains all natural ingredients, and it's fabulous--the dark, smokey flavor of the maple combined with walnuts in the thick, solid premium ice cream is intoxicating. I need to get more! and more!

Multiculturalism and Feminism: strange bedfellows

2005-10-15T08:19:00.000-07:00

For another very cogent example of the hollowness or even shallowness of trumpeting multiculturalism as a watchcry to guide the world, take a look at this interview (thanks to Blithering Bunny for linking to it) from FrontPage magazine with Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, a contributing editor to City Journal and the author of his new collection of essays Our Culture, What's Left of It: The Mandarins and the Masses. I was especially struck by this section near the end of the interview:

FP: You discuss the horrifying suffering that women endure under the vicious and sadistic structures of Islam’s gender apartheid. You touch on the eerie silence of Western leftist feminists on this issue, noting “Where two pieties – feminism and multi-culturalism – come into conflict, the only way of preserving both is an indecent silence.”

To be sure, the Left has long posed as a great champion of women’s rights, gay rights, minorti rights, democratic rights etc. Yet today, it has reached out in solidarity with the most fascistic women-hating, gay-hating, minority-hating and democracy hating force on the face of the earth – Islamism.

What gives? It’s really nothing new though is it? (i.e. the Left’s political pilgrimages to communist gulags etc.)

Dalrymple: I think the problem here is one of a desired self-image. Tolerance is the greatest moral virtue and broadmindedness the greatest intellectual one. Moreover, no decent person can be other than a feminist. People therefore want to be both multiculturalist and feminist. But multiculturalism and feminism obviously clash; therefore, you avoid the necessity to give up one or the other merely by disregarding the phenomena. How you feel about yourself is more important to you than the state of the world.

And that is the problem that I have with the American Left. It's not all about me, and how I feel about things.

October 2005 Iraqi Elections

2005-10-15T07:46:00.000-07:00

So, the Sunnis have finally decided that the elections weren't puppet elections after all, and have decided to give their yea/nay to the democratic process in Iraq.
An amazing thing to see, indeed.
Yet it seems that some of the headlines in the news are things like this:

Polling Stations Attacked as Iraqis Cast Ballots
A roadside bomb killed three Iraqi soldiers in Iraq, and seven people were wounded during attacks by insurgents near five of Baghdad's polling stations, police said.

This headline screams out about what a bloody election this is (and remember, if it bleeds, it leads), and how bad things in Iraq STILL are because that stupid Chimpy McBushitler decided to go over there and kill Iraqis for Oil or Halliburto....oh, wait, sorry...I started to channel a moonbat there somehow.
Compare this headline to Publius Pundit's compilation of information that he collected:

Terrorism was minimal, with only three relatively unsuccessful attacks wounding two police officers and one civilian — which, out of 6,000 polling stations, is a highly ineffective 0.05% success rate.

This headline is similar to what the more serious news agencies are publishing. Even Al Jazeera mentions this, although they say that the vote is expected to pull Iraq into three pieces (Kurdistan, Shi'iteistan, and Sunnistan, I suppose, although it is unclear what their rather pessimistic prediction is based on other than the standard anti-American viewpoint, that anything America is involved in must be bad and will fail.)
Anyway, yes, there are still some insurgents trying to derail the process--or is that what they are trying to do at all? If they were truly trying to affect the government, wouldn't voting be a better way to do it? If they were truly insurgents, why would they be targeting SUNNI muslims, who have been the ones most decrying the opposition? Could it be that these people might be terrorists?
Well, whatever they are, it is clear that the resounding media silence regarding the many,many instances of voting without death (ho hum, boring, won't sell news to jaded Americans, it's still a quagmire, dontchaknow?) seems to indicate what kind of news they prefer to tell/sell.
If you just read the headline and never bothered to go out and PULL news to you (instead of waiting for it to be PUSHED to you via MSM channels), you'd get a pretty skewed picture.
You want a good picture of voting in Iraq?
For starters, tryIraq the Model. Omar is decided pro-American, and doesn't hide it, but he has some pictures. Quiet and peaceful...but surely that's a lie, just like Michael Moore's infamous Farenheit 9/11 scenes of children playing in Saddam's Iraq? Then look at Sooni's blogspot, with some more pictures. Sooni seems to be a Sunni Muslim, who seems to be tolerating the American presence because of its effects on his country. But his pictures show nary a body--lots of voters--Iraqi military and police exerting security control.
For a very good overview and collection of articles and opinions on what the Iraqi on the street (Sunnis, mostly, since they are the key in this election), peruse The Adventures of Chester and his live-blogging and links. Then go back and read the Publius Pundit link posted earlier.

Good luck, people of Iraq. May your voices be heard, and may they peacefully organize and govern your country to become a safe place you can be proud of.

Multiculturalism and Tolerance near Seattle

2005-10-04T15:10:00.000-07:00

This house is the residence of a former US soldier with three tours of Vietnam. He says that he feels like his own freedom of speech is under attack. According to this article, at http://www.komotv.com/stories/39576.htm:

in the last year the mailbox has been blown up twice with fireworks. The house has been egged. Paint has been thrown on the house too. The flags have been torn down and ripped up more than once.
And the 101st Airborne flag has had the
word "murder" and a swastika written on it with a permanent marker.
"It's really difficult for me to see something like this and not feel sad," Potts told us of the vandalism that started around election day last year. Especially, he
says, since the 101st led the charge in World War II to defeat Nazi Germany."

I thought that if somebody was a left wing party member in the USA, he or she was for tolerance and alternative points of view and lifestyles. Of course, I know that these people in this article are pretty fringe-oriented left wingers--it is wrong to tar all lefties with the same brush.

Now, what would be the proper liberal response to this action?

Serenity: the movie

2005-10-03T21:54:00.000-07:00

Saw Serenity today, the feature film based on the too-soon-departed TV series Firefly.
I saw the show (most episodes, at least) when it first aired in 2002, and was disappointed when it was suddenly canceled, due to some rather stupid marketing errors and decisions on the part of Fox network.
The complete set of episodes (including unaired ones) was made available on DVD, and we have enjoyed repeated watching of the episodes ever since.
The movie was quite loud, frenetic, and has some great filmmaking in it. I love the cast--they are so good together, and make the whole premise work so well.

Here are some of my thoughts about the movie:
(WARNING--Possible Spoilers Below)

1) It bugs me when characters repeat stupid actions that are vital to the plot. To wit: Mal shoots the (unnamed) Operator once...maybe twice...grabs Inara and then runs. The Operator is wearing body armor, however, and is not harmed. Mal knows about body armor (since Zoe wears it in an episode of Firefly), so why doesn't he MAKE SURE the Operator is dead, before running off?
2) How did Mal know what the effect of the Operator's nerve-ending punch was to be, so he could stand there half paralyzed? Had he seen this before? The convenient reason why it didn't work was a throw-away gag.
3) This film is a love story, above all else. The writer/director Joss Whedon has created some complex characters with complex relationships, and this is why I liked the series so much. Here, we see the depths of love--how far will you (and Captain Mal) go for real, selfless love? It's Mal's love for his crew-family, his ship and even his ideals that make the show more than just a shallow action series. Sure, that's there, but it is this deep subtext that makes the show art. Whedon loves his characters, and the audience who has seen the TV series cares about the ship enough to cringe when it gets heavily damaged.
4) It is heartbreaking to see characters you care about actually die on screen. The deaths are anti-heroic, and this makes it so much less cliche than usual. It also makes the drama of the action so much stronger, because you realize the surving heroes might not actually survive to the end of the show, unlike so many other films.
The film had a few other problems here and there. It might also be confusing to people not familiar with the series, but there is just enough essential information that an awake viewer will quickly figure out who is who and what is what.
I rate it an 8 to 8.5 out of 10.
Well done, Whedon. And Nathan Fillion IS Captain Reynolds.

Multi-culturalism: what is it good for?

2005-08-16T21:33:00.000-07:00

Michael Barone discusses the British responses to the 2005 summer bombings in London. He argues that in the UK, multiculturalism is under attack, which is making a lot of left-wingers (for whom multiculturalism is a central issue of their ideology) uneasy. The usual idea behind multiculturalism is, as Barone writes, "that we should allow and encourage immigrants and their children to maintain and celebrate their own culture apart from the national culture." However, this idea has recently come under attack, as Britons (and the Dutch, and many others) realize that this isn't working for many Islamic immigrants, for whom maintaining and celebrating their own culture includes attacking the culture that allowed them in, gave them housing and refuge (and often an income).
In the United States, we have a bit more room (and a much less socialistic government,) so this problem doesn't seem to be seething on the surface. This direct attack on American culture while on American soil is here (as shown in various articles I have read), but seems to be harder to find. But we still, in many parts of US society, seem to value multiculturalism (abbreviated here as MC). In nearly every college job requirement list that I have seen, applicants are required to explain how they support the "doctrine" of MC, and what they do/have done to apply it in the classroom. And at the same time, it is also apparent that much of the members of the academy in the USA turn right around and declare that the culture of the USA is the cause of so many problems, and terrorism, and so on. Often this seems to be an attempt to excuse the brashness, the difference of American culture that is not part of the other. This excuse seems to be an attempt to say, "We know we are bad, but we hope that by admitting it, you will see that we are trying to change it to become more acceptable to you, and so you will be more tolerant of us and not quite so angry at us." This is exactly what Barone points out here:

The Age 's Tony Parkinson quoted the French writer Jean Francois Revel's Cold War comment: "A civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself." Tolerating intolerance, goodhearted people are beginning to see, does not necessarily produce tolerance in turn.

Barone then points out the relativistic underpinnings of moral relativism. This has even crept into many Christians' ideas about culture (they sing out "Don't judge--Jesus said not to!") But as Barone points out,

Multiculturalism is based on the lie that all cultures are morally equal. In practice, that soon degenerates to: All cultures all morally equal, except ours, which is worse. But all cultures are not equal in respecting representative government, guaranteed liberties, and the rule of law. And those things arose not simultaneously and in all cultures but in certain specific times and places--mostly in Britain and America but also in other parts of Europe.

In the American academy, MC is seen as an important aspect of education--much is made of trying to be MC, and teach MC, and to not call anything bad, as if by studying things hard enough, we can see all the good (or conversely, we can see that even we are more evil than we think we are.) This leads, as Barone points out, to fragmentation of information that privileges only that which supports a certain ideology rather than a broad picture:

In America, as in Britain, multiculturalism has become the fashion in large swaths of our society. So the Founding Fathers are presented only as slaveholders, World War II is limited to the internment of Japanese-Americans and the bombing of Hiroshima. Slavery is identified with America though it has existed in many societies, and the antislavery movement arose first among English-speaking evangelical Christians.

Amazing...but very much true. We can penny-wise, and know the minutiae about one aspect of things like slavery, but then completely ignore the rest, and the complete context, and become pound-foolish. The academy, however, seems to spend more time worrying about pennies than pounds (or dollars.) Barone points this out:

But most Americans know there is something special about our cultural heritage. While Harvard and Brown are replacing scholars of the founding period with those studying other things, book buyers are snapping up first-rate histories of the founders by David McCullough, Joseph Ellis, and Ron Chernow. Multiculturalist intellectuals do not think our kind of society is worth defending. But millions here and increasing numbers in Britain and other countries know better.

Therein lies the rub--the definition of just what our society is. Are we citizens of the world? Are citizens of Jesus-land, led by ignorant faux-patriots and neocons? Is American really special, or are we too clever to believe the lie, and we live to be the nail that sticks out, the gadfly of society, the one that is smarter than the rest of the sheep? Is American society worth defending as a whole, or in parts? Which parts do we get to emphasize, and which do we deemphasize? Which are the ones that matter?

Read the full editorial here.

Why do they want the USA to lose in Iraq?

2005-08-09T08:34:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not talking about Al Qaeda, disaffected Sunnis, or other Islamist terrorist groups who seek for legitimacy, glory or publicity by fighting the USA in Iraq.
It's the left-wingers in the USA who seem to find a perverse joy in each American death, revelling in the suffering of families and enjoying a vindication of their anti-war = anti-Bush position. But Christopher Hitchens points out the absurdity of this position:

How can so many people watch this as if they were spectators, handicapping and rating the successes and failures from some imagined position of neutrality? Do they suppose that a defeat in Iraq would be a defeat only for the Bush administration? The United States is awash in human rights groups, feminist organizations, ecological foundations, and committees for the rights of minorities. How come there is not a huge voluntary effort to help and to publicize the efforts to find the hundreds of thousands of "missing" Iraqis, to support Iraqi women's battle against fundamentalists, to assist in the recuperation of the marsh Arab wetlands, and to underwrite the struggle of the Kurds, the largest stateless people in the Middle East? Is Abu Ghraib really the only subject that interests our humanitarians?

Hitchens is right on the money. He also points out the bankruptcy of deciding your war stance on pre-conceived ideology (easy to do from a comfy USA home) instead of what you actually want to happen in Iraq, given the current things that have *actually happened* and that you *cannot* go back and change (i.e. there is a war in Iraq, and it will go one way or the other):

There is a sort of unspoken feeling, underlying the entire debate on the war, that if you favored it or favor it, you stress the good news, and if you opposed or oppose it you stress the bad. I do not find myself on either side of this false dichotomy. I think that those who supported regime change should confront the idea of defeat, and what it would mean for Iraq and America and the world, every day. It is a combat defined very much by the nature of the enemy, which one might think was so obviously and palpably evil that the very thought of its victory would make any decent person shudder. It is, moreover, a critical front in a much wider struggle against a vicious and totalitarian ideology.

I have briefly wondered, myself, why anti-war demonstrations and sentiments are focused solely on Americans, and not on the people who are aggressively pursuing death and destruction in Iraq. Of course, the answer is likely one of the following:
a) the war is the USA's fault caused by their aggression, so they (never *we*) are to blame;
b) protesting where people ignore you is futile;
c) Iraq is too far away and too expensive to get to, to mount massive marches;
d) if this were tried in Iraq, you will be in mortal danger from those who want war (usually considered Americans, and, strangely, not those who are killing Americans.)
Imagine, if you will, if all human rights groups and world media attention suddenly began to roundly condemn and protest insurgency, and world organizations and funding was diverted to Iraqi causes. What would happen to support for the insurgency then?
But, of course, in many people's minds, that is the equivalent of support for Bush.

Voting Fraud in the USA--who did it?

2005-08-04T13:17:00.000-07:00

You hear many stories talking about this, from the 2004 election or the 2000 election--but which are real? Are the stories just the pot calling the kettle black, or are they based in reality?
Read this article written by the bi-partisan American Center for Voting Rights (who are they?), and you may be surprised.
(Home Page) (HTML Article) (PDF Article)
The report concludes, after careful background checking and citing articles, investigations, and even court cases, the following:

While Democrats routinely accuse Republicans of voter intimidation and suppression, neither party has a clean record on the issue. Instead, the evidence shows that Democrats waged aggressive intimidation and suppression campaigns against Republican voters and volunteers in 2004. Republicans have not been exempt from similar criticism in this area, as alleged voter intimidation and suppression activity by GOP operatives led the Republican National Committee to sign a consent decree repudiating such tactics in 1982. However, a careful review of the facts shows that in 2004, paid Democrat operatives were far more involved in voter intimidation and suppression efforts than their Republican counterparts.

Hmm...Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

Apologizing for Terrorism, or not?

2005-08-03T16:13:00.000-07:00

Norman Geras has a very dense and careful post on his blog discussing what is apologizing for terrorism, and what is not. Many writers, after the London bombings in July of 2005, have been writing about terrorism and trying to blame the West while purportedly not supporting the actions of the bombers. Often, these writers drag out the "anger" of the bombers, and often try to say that if we just put our rifles away and attempted to understand these folks, and their anger, we could reach a solution that didn't involve death on either side.

However, there is crack in the argument.

As Geras points out:

The anger either doesn't justify the act or it does. We have ruled out the case that it does; people who think so aren't apologists for terrorism, they're open supporters of it and not the object of the present discussion. But there are those who say that terrorist bombing isn't justified but the whole emphasis of whose comment is either to minimize the responsibility of the perpetrators and their 'managers' and supporters, or to deflect the consideration of this responsibility on to other targets. Here are a couple of questions for such people.

First - a question already posed in my original piece on this - if understanding and not justifying or condoning is what it is really all about, why is this 'understanding' discourse never deployed by the same people when racist thugs, angry about immigration, carry out hate crimes? It might be said, well, because their anger is unjustified, whereas Muslim anger over Afghanistan and Iraq is justified. But it's understanding, remember, and not justification, that this has just been said to be about, so the fact that the anger of the racists is unjustified is neither here nor there. It could still be a contributory cause and in need of being understood as such. You don't, however, read hand-wringing pieces in the Guardian or the Independent about that. It suggests that the apostles of (apologetic) understanding are caught between two places. They don't want to say that terrorism is justified because... they don't want to say it. But they do want to dwell on the anger which feeds it, not merely as cause, because they don't do this in pleading on behalf of white racists, or on behalf of those who, angered by acts of terrorism, attack Muslims. It looks like something else, both psychologically and in terms of subtextual meanings, must be going on - as if they felt that some of the justification for the anger might just seep over towards the act, even though they profess to believe that the act isn't justified.

Second, most of those who opposed the Afghan and/or Iraq wars, though some amongst them did let us know how very angry they were, have not resorted to the bomb and the wrecking of other lives. The vast majority of them, in truth, haven't even engaged in civil disobedience over it. They have remained within the framework of standard democratic procedure: of protest, argument, use of their votes, and so on. Since these people do not invoke anger on their own behalf towards explaining why they might (one day) violate the usual democratic norms as well as other human beings, why are they so ready to indulge others with this type of understanding? If anger is not a sufficient cause in the way they themselves react, how do they judge it such a mammoth cause of what the bombers do?

After due reflection, therefore, I think I want to say - there are apologists among us. Even though to understand is not necessarily to condone, there are those who, during the last month - to say nothing of before that, in relation to other atrocities - have been condoning acts they shouldn't have, under the plea of 'understanding'.

Read the complete article (parts 1 and 2)--it's not easy reading, but Geras is very careful here.

Historical Revisionism revised--World War II and the Atomic Bombs

2005-08-01T12:27:00.000-07:00

Richard B. Frank, in his article titled "Why Truman Dropped the Bomb," points out that history research is often a process. The revisionist, military-antagonistic history of WWII that began in the 1960s frequently criticized the dropping of two atomic bombs on Japan as unnecessary. Frank points out that all historical research is, in fact and substance, revisionist, and points out that it is more correct to term those who argue against the necessity of the bombs as critics rather than revisionists. Frank summarizes the common criticisms as follows:

The critics share three fundamental premises. The first is that Japan's situation in 1945 was catastrophically hopeless. The second is that Japan's leaders recognized that fact and were seeking to surrender in the summer of 1945. The third is that thanks to decoded Japanese diplomatic messages, American leaders knew that Japan was about to surrender when they unleashed needless nuclear devastation.

Frank draws conclusions from de-classified WWII "Magic" radio traffic to point out that most of these anti-bomb arguments are based on incomplete information (often earlier "Magic" record releases that were incomplete). The information that Truman actually had to work with suggests that the atomic bombs did, in fact, save millions of lives at the cost of the over one hundred thousand who died in (and after) those two explosions.
Frank points out that the US command did make some errors, but not the errors that critics accuse them of making.
Austin Bay's Blog has some more commentary on Frank's article. Among the comments is this little bit of information, that I had never known:
Comment #7:

When the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, Japanese physicists performed analysis.
They determined that there were reaction products of Uranium 235. They knew from their own weapons program that separation of U235 was difficult. They reported that the destruction of Hiroshima was a bad miracle, a catastrophe, but because of the difficulty in separating U235 from U238, it could not practically be accomplished again. Because of that report, the Japanese cabinet decided to fight on. Their strategy was to continue resistance to get the US to negotiate. With the 30 to 1 exchange rate of Okinawa, the Japanese Cabinet estimated that 30 million Japanese would have to die fighting, to inflict 1 million casualties on the US. They were willing to pay that price.
The US read their response because the US was reading Japanese diplomatic codes. The Soviet Union’s invasion of Manchuria began. The addition of Soviet manpower to the equation made their strategy invalid. As that was being digested, the Nagasaki attack occured. It was also analyzed. The Japanese found the reaction products from Plutonium 239. Since Plutonium can be chemically separated, there was now no limit to the bombs that could be produced. The Japanese cabinet reported this to Emperor Hirohito. The Emperor directed that the Japanese government surrender.
He sent members of the Imperial family to remaining centers of resistance.
It should be noted that the Nagasaki bomb was planned for the center of the residential sector, but was actually dropped on the industrial center. Based on German experience at Schweinfurt, the Japanese had move as much of their industry into residential areas. The Nagasaki bomb “only” killed some 25,000 people, compared to the 78,000 some odd at Hiroshima.
Because of the bombs, the Soviet Union did not have an occupation sector in Japan. We know what happened when they had occupation sectors in Germany, China, and Korea. At least Japan was saved that.
Comment by Don Meaker — 7/31/2005 @ 8:52 pm

The process of history continues--information is more trustworthy than ideology.

UPDATED:
Read Plunge Pontificates' whole series of articles on the bomb for a concise overview of the complexity involved.

How IT makes us think about things differently

2005-08-01T11:37:00.000-07:00

Matthew B. Crawford writes about the unexpected influence of IT (Information Technology) on the academy. He points out that on one hand, IT liberalizes the academy, giving voices to the voiceless. But he points out how easily that is abused, by giving equal weight to all voices (and thus the rise and abuse of web "services" like RMP (Rate My Professor), which merely counts checkboxes rather than building a case for whether Professor X is really bad, or boring, or whether the student who is clicking the boxes is just a bad student, or bored.

I especially like what Crawford says about the effects of all this information and how it has moved the academy towards commerciality. In other words, butts in seats, and what classes "sell." He points out the dilemma towards what classes are offered, and the subsequent "evening out" of the PC curriculum, in this way:

Ideally, a teacher’s judgment about what is good for you is not colored by what is immediately pleasant for you. But increasingly, what is good for the teacher (professionally) is determined by what is immediately pleasant for the student.

Thus, professors are encouraged to do what the students like, rather than do what may be, in the professor's judgment, best for the student. Not a good place to go, if you ask me.
Read the entire article.

Who's not wild about Harry (Potter)? Terry Pratchett...

2005-08-01T00:59:00.000-07:00

In this article, Terry Pratchett points out something that I observed also.

Pratchett, one of the UK's most successful novelists with 40 million books sold, said the media [by focusing on the Potter books and their runaway success] ignores the achievements of other fantasy authors.

At first, one might think this is mere professional jealousy, until one realizes that Pratchett himself is a very successful writer. He isn't actually criticizing Rowling for much, except for wondering why, as she said in a recent interview, she didn't think Harry Potter was actually a fantasy novel.

His full response to Rowling's admission that she did not think Harry Potter was fantasy as she was writing it, was:
"I would have thought that the wizards, witches, trolls, unicorns, hidden worlds, jumping chocolate frogs, owl mail, magic food, ghosts, broomsticks and spells would have given her a clue?"

As the article mentions, in a recent interview with Time magazine, Rowling said she was "not a huge fan of fantasy" and was trying to "subvert" the genre. Time magazine also said Rowling reinvented fantasy fiction, which was previously stuck in "an idealised, romanticised, pseudofeudal world, where knights and ladies morris-dance to Greensleeves".
Clearly, the writer at Time hasn't been following fantasy fiction very closely.

But this is just the kind of attitude towards fantasy fiction that Pratchett is actually criticizing. As the article says, Pratchett has complained that the status of Harry Potter author JK Rowling is being elevated "at the expense of other writers".

And he's right--there is so much out there that isn't Potter, even in the Young Adult fiction areas. Yet so much marketing muscle and bookstore space is devoted to Potter, that Diana Wynne Jones, and Susan Cooper (two writers who I think are better than Rowling yet are overshadowed by the sheer marketing success of Pottemania), and many others are completely overlooked.
It's the same problem that faced Madonna's attempts at writing children's books--if it weren't her name on the books, they would have to compete with books by better writers, and who would be overshadowed by the sheer volume of fame and media blitz that accompanies a big name. Not to mention the fact that beginning children's book and fantasy authors are often ignored in favor of the cash (media?) cow of the moment.

Who believed there was a link between Saddam and Bin Laden's Al Qaeda?

2005-07-15T22:56:00.000-07:00

According to this article, even the Clinton administration, way back in 1998, knew that bin Laden was collaborating with Saddam on weapons of mass destruction.
But, of course, many of us have chosen to ignore or forget this, in our zeal to reinforce our anti-Bush ideology.

Max Boot points out that appeasement is nothing new...and still doesn't work.

2005-07-15T00:39:00.000-07:00

In his L.A. times op-ed piece, Max Boot points out the obvious--well, what seems to be obvious to people who believe in looking at things through the light of history rather than the dubious light of ideology or the silly light of trying desperately not to offend anybody by saying that all people just want to feel good/understood/accepted/etc.:

Appeasement did not end with the German invasion of Poland in 1939. Even afterward, many in Britain (and even more in the U.S.) opposed active resistance. Conservative worthies like Lord Halifax sought a negotiated settlement. Fascists like Sir Oswald Mosley sought to bring Nazism to Britain. And communists and their fellow travelers opposed fighting Stalin's ally until Hitler invaded Russia.

It is evident to me that even in America, even after Pearl Harbor made us realize we were no longer insulated from the war or reprisal, there were people like these who believed that any war was much worse than a war fought to repel facism. As the old saying goes, if we don't learn our history, we are doomed to repeat it. The immediate question then becomes this: what are we learning instead of our history? Multi-culturalism? Revisionist studies? Our semi-intelligentsia run into the same problem that George Orwell observed, as Max Boot continues:

Even in January 1942, when German armies were at the gates of Moscow, George Orwell wrote in Partisan Review that "the greater part of the very young intelligentsia are anti-war … don't believe in any 'defense of democracy,' are inclined to prefer Germany to Britain, and don't feel the horror of Fascism that we who are somewhat older feel."
As if to illustrate Orwell's point, a pacifist poet named D.S. Savage wrote a reply in which he explained why he "would never fight and kill for such a phantasm" as "Britain's 'democracy.' " Savage saw no difference between Britain and its enemies because under the demands of war both were imposing totalitarianism: "Germans call it National Socialism. We call it democracy. The result is the same."

Surely they jested. Surely they knew that there was a cognitive, measurable distance. But then again, if in our modern world elected Congress-critters from the USA can't tell their gulag from a hole in the ground, why should we blame our young intelligentsia, who are just following their leaders? As Boot reports:

When applied to the embodiment of pure evil, the usual liberal tropes about "understanding" not "condemnation" have an air of Monty Python about them. Yet there are uncomfortable echoes of Savage's sermonizing in the attitude of many modern-day intellectuals toward the Islamo-fascist threat.

Ok, just how do we sit down and understand people who blow up children, and civilians? Usually, of course, what the (inevitably) leftists mean when they talk about such things is gazing into the mirror of themselves. And while we are navel gazing, who will watch our backs while these degenerate humans plant more bombs? "Wait," we cry, "we haven't understood you or your needs yet, but we do know that it was our faul----"

The BBC now refuses to refer to the London terrorists as "terrorists." They are to be known by the more neutral term "bombers," lest the public be deceived by "the careless use of words which carry emotional or value judgments." Value judgments about blowing up innocent commuters? How gauche!

Enlightened opinion ranging from Amnesty International to Dick Durbin joins in this moral relativism by suggesting that the United States has become no better than its enemies through the actions it has taken to prevent terrorism. Just as 1940s pacifists could see no difference between Nazi concentration camps and British wartime curtailments of civil liberties, so today's doppelgangers equate the abuses of renegade guards at Abu Ghraib with the mass murder carried out by Stalin or Pol Pot.

Moral relativism--intellectual posturing rather than boots on the ground. The solution to every problem lies in impressing people to death with our mental calisthenics.

There is also an enduring tendency to blame the victim. George Galloway, Saddam Hussein's favorite member of Britain's Parliament, suggests that Londoners "paid the price" for their government's "attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq." The implication is that Al Qaeda has reasonable grievances and if only we could satisfy them — by, for instance, exiting Iraq — we would have peace. The same thing was said about Hitler, who complained that Germany had been wronged by the Treaty of Versailles.

And this, of course, gave him every excuse to target his own civilians and slaughter them. But again, avoiding war is an admirable goal, and is to be sought at all costs, right?
But then there comes this problem, that Boot mentions:

The problem was that Hitler's stated demands were a pretext for his maniacal ambitions. He was unappeasable. So is Osama bin Laden, who wants to avenge centuries of humiliation supposedly suffered by Muslims at Christian hands and who dreams of establishing a Taliban-style caliphate over all the lands once dominated by Muslims, from western China to southern Spain. Pulling out of Iraq would only whet his insatiable appetite for destruction, just as giving up the Sudetenland encouraged Hitler to seek more.

Orwell's words, written in October 1941, ring true today: "The notion that you can somehow defeat violence by submitting to it is simply a flight from fact. As I have said, it is only possible to people who have money and guns between themselves and reality."

It is so easy to criticize the war from so far away, protected by the very acts of violence we abhor and excoriate. "Not in my name!" we cry, as if that absolves us of guilt by association, and will prevent further deaths (including our own). Violence is a last resort--but against violent people who are repeatedly irrational, it is a matter of survival for those who choose violence temporarily in order to preserve a peaceful society to return to later on.

Yes, these people are "freedom fighters," and we would do exactly the same thing...

2005-07-13T14:07:00.000-07:00

BAGHDAD -- A suicide bomber in an explosives-laden SUV killed at least 27, including an American soldier, late this morning in the deadliest insurgent attack in more than two months....
Many, if not most of the dead, were children loitering and playing near U.S. soldiers at an impromptu checkpoint in Baghdad al-Jadida, a lower-middle class residential district populated by Shiites, Sunnis and Christians.

Yes, these "brave heroes" and martyrs for their cause are merely fighting for the freedom of "their" country. I am sure that these people are open to negotiation and are ready to stop fighting when their demands are met.

Feh....

No connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda?

2005-07-13T13:53:00.000-07:00

Claudia Rosett, in her opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal online, indicates otherwise:

Actually, there were many connections, as Stephen Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn, writing in the current issue of the Weekly Standard, spell out under the headline "The Mother of All Connections." Since the fall of Saddam, the U.S. has had extraordinary access to documents of the former Baathist regime, and is still sifting through millions of them. Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn take some of what is already available, combined with other reports, documentation and details, some from before the overthrow of Saddam, some after. For page after page, they list connections--with names, dates and details such as the longstanding relationship between Osama bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Saddam's regime.
Messrs. Hayes and Joscelyn raise, with good reason, the question of why Saddam gave haven to Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the men who in 1993 helped make the bomb that ripped through the parking garage of the World Trade Center. They detail a contact between Iraqi intelligence and several of the Sept. 11 hijackers in Malaysia, the year before al Qaeda destroyed the twin towers. They recount the intersection of Iraqi and al Qaeda business interests in Sudan, via, among other things, an Oil for Food contract negotiated by Saddam's regime with the al-Shifa facility that President Clinton targeted for a missile attack following the African embassy bombings because of its apparent connection to al Qaeda. And there is plenty more.

You can read the original article by Hayes and Joscely, "The Mother of all Connections," online by clicking on the title.
They make this conclusion:

We know from these IIS documents that beginning in 1992 the former Iraqi regime regarded bin Laden as an Iraqi Intelligence asset. We know from IIS documents that the former Iraqi regime provided safe haven and financial support to an Iraqi who has admitted to mixing the chemicals for the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. We know from IIS documents that Saddam Hussein agreed to Osama bin Laden's request to broadcast anti-Saudi propaganda on Iraqi state-run television. We know from IIS documents that a "trusted confidante" of bin Laden stayed for more than two weeks at a posh Baghdad hotel as the guest of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.
We have been told by Hudayfa Azzam, the son of bin Laden's longtime mentor Abdullah Azzam, that Saddam Hussein welcomed young al Qaeda members "with open arms" before the war, that they "entered Iraq in large numbers, setting up an organization to confront the occupation," and that the regime "strictly and directly" controlled their activities. We have been told by Jordan's King Abdullah that his government knew Abu Musab al Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war and requested that the former Iraqi regime deport him. We have been told by Time magazine that confidential documents from Zarqawi's group, recovered in recent raids, indicate other jihadists had joined him in Baghdad before the Hussein regime fell. We have been told by one of those jihadists that he was with Zarqawi in Baghdad before the war. We have been told by Ayad Allawi, former Iraqi prime minister and a longtime CIA source, that other Iraqi Intelligence documents indicate bin Laden's top deputy was in Iraq for a jihadist conference in September 1999.
All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it. Just two weeks ago, President Bush gave a prime-time speech on Iraq. Among his key points: Iraq is a central front in the global war on terror that began on September 11. Bush spoke in very general terms. He did not mention any of this new information on Iraqi support for terrorism to make his case. That didn't matter to many journalists and critics of the war....
We know that in the context of a decade-long confrontation with the United States, addam reached out to al Qaeda on numerous occasions. We know that the leadership of al Qaeda reciprocated, requesting assistance in its endeavors. We know that ports of meetings, offers of safe haven, and collaboration persisted. What we do not know is the full extent of the relationship. But we know enough to know that there was one. And we know enough to know it was a threat.

So, can we put this ideological stance that is based only on anti-war ideology rather than actual evidence (or non-evidence) to a well-deserved rest?

Hoh Hoh Hoh, to the rain forest we go!

2005-07-10T14:23:00.000-07:00

I have lived most of my life in the Pacific Northwest. Mountains and trees are in my blood, you could say. When was young, I saw pictures of the temperate rain forests preserved on the west side of Olympic National Park, and knew that I had to go there someday to pay homage to these unique trees.
Well, I finally made it there, after 30 years of waiting. Trees are patient, though, and didn't mind.
I went with my wife and baby daughter, accompanying a friend who was visiting a relative in a work camp in the area.
I had been to Port Angeles before (to take the ferry over to beautiful Victoria, the capital of the Canada's British Columbia), but never beyond. Soon after leaving the city limits, highway 101 plunges into the mountains, heading west. The large tracts of lowland forests were some of the first resources used by the white man in the region, and many are more tree farms than forests. Constant reminders of logging are all around--old stumps, new stumps, signs telling when the region was first cut, when planted, and when the next cut will be. We ate lunch in one of these forests, marvelling at the tangled forest floor and the huge stumps.
These forests once used to be part of the long string of coastal rain forests stretching from California up to Alaska. I love the redwood country, where my father grew up, and this reminded me a lot of that part of the world.
As we ate, I learned how to identify a Sitka Spruce (they don't grow where I am from), and we ate a few nearby salmon berries as we slapped some mosquitoes (standing water is everywhere in these forests--be warned!).
And then we headed up the road to the Hoh rain forest, perhaps the most famous of the three that are features in the park: Hoh, Quinalt, and Queets. (In reality, all of the western facing river valleys in the Olympics are rain forests, including the Bogachiels.) The Hoh is the most easily accessible, though, and is likely the most crowded. The road sometimes runs by the Hoh river. We could see old logging, and new logging, and old plantings, right up to the park's edge, where suddenly the stumps disappear.
The parking lot has an information center (closes at 4 pm, don't forget!), and three trails: a very short paved trail, and two longer loop trails. The parking lot is also the main trailhead for access up the Hoh valley to Mount Olympus itself, a long and demanding multi-day hike/climb.
But we were only here to spend a short time with the trees, and so we did.
The trees were magnificent--huge and lovely. I have never seen trees to rival the redwoods before, yet here they were. (The difference is that down in coastal redwood country, *all* the trees are huge, and some are more huge.) The light was soft and green, and though we had driven through sunlight at the valley head, it was suddenly raining hard--only to stop raining after 15 minutes. The clouds stayed, though--I would like to come back in the sunlight, although it is very hard to find a dry day in this part of the world.
And yet as I looked at the trees, I realized that most people think this rain forest is found only here, or that parking lot, or that one. It used to be one long, unbroken chain, and here we see the last untouched bit.
I have never seen the full extent--it was gone long before I was born, and it is endangered even now further north in Canada and Alaska, where it is still a wild forest and not a park at the end of a paved road. But what I have seen will be preserved for my daughter to see when she is older, and for her future children as well. That, at least, is a good thing.

Looking at maps of the Pacific Northwest, my eyes keep wandering out to the Queen Charlotte Islands, to the Haida Gwai'i. It's a long ways away, but surely I can get there, too...

How to Appease Terrorists...and Like It

2005-07-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

Here is an excellent argument on Strategy Page as to why the 'strategy' of appeasement won't work against terrorists. Sure, it is a very short-term solution, but it is more of an ideology than an actual strategy.
I will quote it in full here:

INFORMATION WARFARE: Selling Appeasement to Europeans

July 8, 2005: Al Qaeda, and Islamic radicals, would not be a world terrorism problem were it not for global Islamic media, and media coverage that treated the goals of the Islamic radicals with seriousness and respect. For decades, Islamic radicalism played in its own backyard, trying to replace Islamic tyrants with Islamic religious dictatorships. These Islamic terrorists didn’t get much publicity, and what they did get was mostly negative. Most Islamic nations were dictatorships, with the local media tightly controlled. That changed, for a while, in the 1980s, when the fight between Moslem Afghans, and atheist Russians, was given ample, and positive, publicity by the media in most Moslem nations, and throughout the Western world. The battle in Afghanistan was considered a jihad (Holy War) by Moslems, and what good Moslem could refuse to heap praise on that. The thousands of Moslems who went to Afghanistan (Pakistan, actually, which was where the Afghan rebels rested between missions), were considered heroes when they returned home. Many of these “Afghanis” soon ended up in jail, for spouting off about how great it would be to have a little Islamic revolution at home. Moslem countries went to war with their Islamic radicals in the 1990s, an event largely unnoticed in the West. There was always some unpleasant violence going on in Moslem countries. Either religion or politics would set things off, and this wasn’t news in the West.

That changed in 1996, when al Jazeera, an international satellite news network began. Now the millions of Moslems in the West could get news delivered using modern, compelling methods, but with a Moslem slant. That slant was quite different from the view of the Moslem, especially Arab, world provided by Western news. The biggest difference was how Israel, and Islamic terrorism, was explained. To Moslems, Israel was a great crime inflicted by the West on the Arab world. To the Arab media, Israel did not deserve to exist, and any Western nations that supported Israel, especially the United States, were enemies of Islam. Extreme stuff, but the sort of line you had to run with if you wanted to succeed as a journalist in the Arab, and Moslem world. This line was supported by most Arab governments, because if took attention away from the fact that most Arab governments were corrupt dictatorships that had never done much for the Palestinian people the Israelis were accused of oppressing.

The only large scale opposition to Moslem corruption and dictators was Islamic radicals, especially in the form of al Qaeda. But this opposition failed in the 1990s, and al Qaeda decided to turn its attention to targets in the West. According to al Qaeda, the ultimate cause of all the problems in the Moslem world (the corruption, the poverty, the dictatorships) was Western influence. Decadent Western media, and political influence in the form of Western support for Israel and current Moslem governments, must be destroyed before al Qaeda could clean things up in the Moslem world. Once the Moslem world was “purified” and united under one religious dictator, the rest of the world could be converted to Islam, and a planet wide Islamic religious government establishment. This is what al Qaeda wants. Does anyone believe they have any chance of achieving it? No one does, except millions of Moslems mesmerized by the al Qaeda message, and the thousands of al Qaeda warriors ready to die for the cause. Many of these al Qaeda supporters were in Moslem communities in the West. Thanks to al Jazeera, the Internet, and other satellite based media, the twisted logic of al Qaeda, was presented as news. The rabid anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic reporting so common in Arab media, but absent in the West, was now available anywhere in the world.
This created an enormous “expatriate patriot” effect. This is what happens when expatriates become more enthusiastic about violent solutions than the folks back home. This was seen rather vividly among Irish immigrants to the United States in the 19th century, where these Irish patriots formed armed groups, and engaged in terrorist acts in North America, in support of liberating Ireland from British rule. After this happened in the 1920s, the expatriate Irish still maintained the most anti-British attitudes. In the 1970s, when Irish terrorism began again, in Northern Ireland, which was still under British rule, much of the monetary support came from Irish overseas. The Irish in Ireland were much less enthusiastic about Irish terrorism than were the Irish overseas. The same thing is now happening with Moslem support for Islamic terrorism. In Moslem nations that have suffered from Islamic terrorists, places like Algeria, Egypt and Iraq, al Qaeda is hated. But among Moslem communities in Europe, there is a rather more idealized and romantic view of these Moslem “martyrs.” Recruiting is easier in Europe, as is raising money. While only a small minority of the expatriate Moslems support the terrorists, that amounts to over a million supporters, and thousands of volunteers for suicide attacks and terrorism.

There is another problem, particularly with Europe. When confronted with a growing Moslem minority, and its enthusiastic adoption of al Jazeera’s breathless coverage of Islamic terrorists, and the usual anti-Semitic coverage of Israel, Europe blinked. Rather than resisting this, Europe again went for appeasement. This didn’t work with the fascists in the 1930s, or the Soviets during the Cold War. But appeasement is a very popular policy in Europe. It isn’t working with Islamic radicals who, like the nazis and communists, want to conquer the world, and are willing to kill millions to get the job done. Appeasement is deeply embedded in the European psyche. Even after the nazis made it clear what they were all about, and had conquered much of Europe, many Europeans preferred to collaborate with the new tyranny. Even after the Cold War was over, many Europeans are nostalgic for the “failed experiment” of Soviet communism. If only someone else could come back and try it again, and do it right this time. This same twisted logic is being applied to al Qaedas mad march towards world conquest.

Al Qaeda lives on Moslem frustration at not being able to deal with cultural, economic and political problems at home. Moslem media, especially the international networks that reach the expatriate community, prosper on reporting al Qaedas propaganda as news, rather than nonsense. Al Qaeda killers are often described as “martyrs” and defenders of Islam. The Arab networks, like al Jazeera, also play international politics. For example, al Jazeera persists in describing Islamic terrorists in Iraq as “freedom fighters,” trying to liberate Iraq from foreign (U.S.) occupation. What al Jazeera won’t admit is that Iraq is mainly a battle between Shia Arabs who, by and large, are seen as allies of Shia Iran and enemies of the Sunni Arab world of the Persian Gulf and Middle East. Officially, Shia and Sunni Moslems get along. Unofficially, Sunni Arab governments (all Arab governments, except Iraq, are run by Sunnis) are terrified of Iran, the most powerful Shia Moslem government in the world, and a traditional enemy of Arabs. Iraqis know that al Qaeda is allied with the Sunni Arab minority trying to regain power, but to al Jazeera, this battle between Sunni and Shia in Iraq does not exist.

While no government on the planet officially supports al Qaeda, the terrorist organization still has the support of several percent of the Moslem population. Al Qaeda maintains the loyalty of those Moslems, especially the wealthier and better educated expatriate Moslems, via the relatively favorable reporting in the international Moslem media like al Jazeera. You can’t shut down this media, which includes the Internet, but you can’t ignore it either if you expect to deal with the terrorism. There are many historical examples of this kind of terrorism, and the only way to deal with it is to infiltrate the terrorist networks, hurt them as much as possible, and wait a decade or more until popular support for the killing fades away. It will be back, under a different banner. But that’s something for future generations to worry about.

--------------
I think the writers are right on the money--it worked for the North Vietnamese, after all, and Al Qaeda has had years to study the Western Media to learn how to work the system.

"We Will Never Surrender..." -- Britain, and Terror Bombings

2005-07-08T09:27:00.000-07:00

Here is a comment on a post about the recent terrorist bombings in London from the Sound Politics blog. I include it in full here:

I am angry.

I am angry at a lot of people, so read on, because this could mean you.

First and foremost, I am angry at Islamic fundamentalists and their desire to kill innocent people in the name of their god and their ideology. I am angry at a group that cannot allow others to believe differently then they, who feel the need to demonize their enemies, who marginalize others in their belief that their way is superior and that those who don't follow their way are contemptible. I am angry that they believe children are expendable.

I am also angry at those on this board who, in their anger advocate or speak out in favor of inhumane responses to such actions. I am angry that they cannot see that it is critical that we maintain a higher moral standard despite the cost. We ARE better than these "creatures". I am angry that someone would even suggest that they would prefer terrorists to bomb their political opposites as a punishment for political views. I am angry that anyone would suggest mass killings of innocents in efforts to get the perpetrators. We don't defeat this enemy be becoming like them, we defeat them by being intolerant to what they do. However, we respond in a dignified and moral way. Yes, that includes war, attacking another nation if that is what it comes to, and detaining and interrogating the prisoners. It means that we do capture them, not kill them outright. It means that we treat them AS prisoners, but we treat them humanely. It means that we DO use coercive tactics but we do not torture them. If we were at war with a nation, there would be no debate as to our right to collect prisoners of that nation for detention. Since our enemy knows no flag and adheres to no rules of war, we are forced to use tactics outside of the normal scope, but while we are at war with a borderless enemy, we must neutralize him, for the duration if necessary. This enemy declared war on us a long time ago but we did not "accept" this "declaration" because it did not come from a "nation". That was a mistake. These people consider themselves as a nation and we need to change our perception and treat them as such. If they act as infiltrators and spies, we treat them no differently than captured KGB agents.

Finally, I am angry at those who undermine our efforts to conduct this war. I am angry at people, who through their words, and efforts contribute to the injury and death of our soldiers, who provide encouragement to the enemy, who weaken our efforts and prolong the war, who, for political gain put our soldiers, our people, and our nation at greater risk.

There is a LOT of anger going on. Many times it is inappropriately acted upon. Islamists are angry, so they blow up people. Conservatives are angry so they advocate indiscriminate retaliation. Liberals are angry so they advocate undermining the war. All this anger is misdirected. We can see how the killing of innocents is wrong, but sometimes we cannot see how allowing innocents to be killed is wrong. One should seriously consider the impacts of certain types of dissention in this country before embarking on said dissentious course.

I have many issues with the war in Iraq, but I will focus on just a couple. When President Bush pronounced to the world that he would defeat terrorism, he made a promise. He promised that he would not only pursue the terrorists wherever they may be, but he promised to go after the countries that enable those terrorists. When the UN made resolution after resolution against Iraq those too were promises. The difference comes in whether one follows up a promise or not. You see, no one embarks on a major undertaking with the expectation of losing. The choices any person or group are almost always predicated on the fact that the reward exceeds the price or risk. Hitler would not have invaded Czechoslovakia unless he though he could get away with it. He would not have invaded Poland unless he though he could get away with it. The success of those events and reaction of Europe convinced him that he could press on and take all of Europe. Saddam would not have invaded Kuwait unless he thought he could get away with it. He would not have defied the UN unless he though he could get away with it. In those cases, the acting party decided that they could attain their goals using the methods employed. The same thing goes for the terrorists. They methods they employ are based on the expectation of ultimate success. The methods they employ are also based on their own capabilities, capabilities that stem from the support of governments both passive and active, the support of moneyed benefactors, and the support of powerful influencers such as media and high profile personalities. This brings me back to promises made. Part of the reason these terrorists became so bold is that there were few significant reprisals for their actions. In the same way Hitler moved on Poland and Hussein defied the UN, Al Qaeda flew planes into our buildings. Ultimately it was because they could and that the reprisals had insufficient deterrent effect. Now, when President Bush announced that he would pursue the nations that supported terrorism, he basically set the stage for action. The choice was, rattle the saber and hope it is enough, or draw the saber and demonstrate our commitment to living up to our promises. It is fair to debate whether Iraq was the best choice for an operation, but the stage had also been set there as well. With promises being made at the UN, the choice was to continue to prove that promises meant nothing or to prove that they did. I believe that the lack of consequences in the past was a key factor in the terrorist activity leading up to and including 9/11. Without the resolve to back up our promises, our enemies will be emboldened to act. It does not get any simpler than that.

Iraq was a promise kept. Now, some people want us to renege on that promise and others. That is a dangerous position to be advocating. The thing is, the debate about Iraq belongs BEFORE we took action. And that debate DID occur. It occurred BEFORE the war. And the result was overwhelmingly in FAVOR of action. The congress granted President Bush the authority to act. The fact that they did not like his decision is moot. If they did not trust his ability to act, they were wrong to have given him the authority to do so. NOW they are wrong for challenging his decision after the fact. That brings us back to the concept of one's expectation of the results of one's actions. In many cases throughout history, the winner of a conflict was not always the one with the bigger army, the better equipment, and the best trained, or any of those factors. The winner quite often was the one with the greater will to win. Wars are won by will in far greater weight then in anything else. I would say that will is THE determining factor in success in any conflict. Obviously will is not enough. A greater force can sap the will of another army, but not always. The revolutionary war was won by will, not by military might. Vietnam was lost by will not by military might. And, Iraq will be won or lost by will alone. The consequences of this outcome will have long lasting impacts on the security of our nation. At this point, it does not matter whether we should have gone into Iraq. The fact is we are there now. We either complete the job and fulfill our promises to rebuild that nation and leave it with a stable and free society or we cut and run and have the world know with certainty that our word is null and void and that we have no resolve. That is the stakes. That is the goal of the terrorists: to prove they have resolve, to prove that we do not. Their victory will ensure increased attacks on all nations because the terrorists will have unimpeachable proof that their tactics will ultimately succeed. Bombings, beheadings, gross atrocities will be the weapons of choice in the future. Tactics that have been proven to bring down the mighty.

If will is the factor that determines the outcome, then will is the place where we must consider here and now. As far as our enemy is concerned, we MUST make them believe that they cannot succeed. We MUST make them sure that WE will prevail. We MUST prove to them that their tactics are ineffectual. There is a down side to that. Once an enemy realizes their tactics are not succeeding, they will change them. With an enemy of this nature, that could result in greater atrocities than we have yet seen. Yet, even then we must prevail. We must continue to demonstrate OUR resolve and OUR willingness to see this to the end and DEFEAT them. Since they have shown little regard for decency and life, since they have shown that our very existence is provocation to them, no amount of diplomacy or concessions will achieve an end satisfactory to our nation. The only solution is the demonstration of our willingness to defeat them despite their tactics.

Our goal is to defeat the will of the enemy. His goal is to defeat ours. Any indication that the enemy's will is faltering will bolster our own will. However, the opposite is true as well. Any indication that our will is faltering will embolden the enemy's will. Unfortunately, from the very first minute of this conflict, parts of our country have shouted from the very mountain tops just how little will they have to win the war. They demonstrate clearly for our enemies that we don't want to fight. They give clear indication that enemy tactics are successful. In effect, they give aid and comfort to the enemy and spur them on to continued fighting because they tell the enemy in clear messages that if they continue in their tactics, the United States will be defeated.

As I said before, the debate about whether we go to war is over. We are now at war, and the ONLY debate we should have is on what tactics are most appropriate for prosecuting that war. It is marginally fair to state that you are unhappy about our decision to go to war, but beyond that, anything else will embolden the enemy. Think very long and about what is at stake here. It is almost IMPOSSIBLE to be pro America while actively dissenting on ongoing conflict. It is bordering on treason for a public official to undermine the war effort, the Commander in Chief and the military publicly for all the world to see. We have started down this path, and there are but two choices: to win or to lose. There is no "suing for peace" with this enemy. Now, that does not mean you have to become militaristic and be a war monger. You can be a peacenik, but you need to consider that unless you want to see the United States harmed, you should cease criticism of the war itself until after it is won. There is plenty of time to castigate the people who made what you perceive as errors AFTER we have finished the job. However, if you persist in presenting disunity and a weakened resolve to the enemy, you take direct responsibility for the lives of all Americans, Iraqis and foreign terrorists that will die subsequently. The quickest way to end the war is to be united, to demonstrate unshakable resolve, and to have the enemy surrender. Or, YOU can surrender to the enemy. Anything else will just prolong the killing. This goes infinitely more so for our public leaders. What they do for political gain is completely unconscionable.
Posted by Eyago at July 8, 2005 08:28 AM

I think this is very succint, and right on the money. There is no appeasement wanted by this enemy, and if all people around the world who react in horror to the aims and practices of these people do not band together in purpose (if not method), then these bombings and deaths will continue.
They don't ask if you are muslim, or democrat, or a Bush-hater, or American, before the bombs explode.

Ward Churchill--Professor, Indian, Artist or Plagiarist?

2005-02-24T07:44:00.000-08:00

Perhaps the famous scholar/activist/victim Prof. Churchill made a mistake when he tried to create his own art...as the original story goes,

An exclusive report by CBS4 News indicates embattled University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill may have broken copyright law by making a mirror image of an artist's work and selling it as his own.Placing Churchill's work beside that of renowned artist Thomas E. Mails and the two look like mirror images. But one is a copyrighted drawing. The other is an autographed print by Churchill.When BS4 News reporter Raj Chohan tried to talk to Churchill about a possible copyright infringement, he received an angry response.

Um....err....whoops. Perhaps it's time for "Professor"Churchill to swallow his towering pride (and rage) and quietly retire.

Food of the Month--Cuban Mojito

2005-02-06T15:24:00.000-08:00

We are quite fond of our nearby Trader Joe's. Until a couple of months ago the closest one was 20 minutes away by freeway--too far for regular visits. But now there is one very close to us, about 4 minutes away. So now we can go more regularly and stock up on goodies like the topic of this entry--Trader Joe's Cuban Mojito Simmer Sauce.

I don't know much about Cuban food other than the one Cuban restaurant I used to go to from time to time in college (all you can eat lunch buffet...mmm!). But this mojito is good!
According to the jar, it is a "tangy citrus sauce and marinade." In the jar is a coludy mixture of orange and lime juice, containing finely chopped onions, garlic, olive oil, cilantro, vinegar, cumin and oregano. I have tried this on chicken--superb! I have tried this on pork chops--lovely! I have tried this in black beans--excellent! When I open the jar and sniff it, I almost want to eat it straight out of the jar--no kidding! I have become very fond of Mexican Mole sauces recently, and this reminds me of a mole in its richness, but not the heat. This isn't a hot sauce (like many Jamaican sauces tend to be) but it is spicy.

The citrus and spices together make it a tangy sauce with a touch of sunny Caribbean tropical sweetness. I will have to try some more of this in the summer grilling season. It should prove to be fantastic.
I will have to try more of their sauces and give a report on them.

Making a Statement about Iraq

2005-02-02T16:57:00.000-08:00

I met a young college-age girl the other day who was talking about Iraq. She was somewhat upset by the fact that Americans were bombing people in Iraq (apparently for no reason), and so it was only right that the beleagured Iraqis should rise up against these vicious soldiers. I engaged her in a brief conversation that went something like this:
"So all Iraqis are against the United States occupation?"
"Yes!" she said.
"Do you know what "Sunni" and "Shi'ite" mean?"
She looked at me blankly and said, "Ummm...no."
I then proceeded to tell her the difference, and why it pertains to events in Iraq.
I then asked her, "Do you know where these insurgents are coming from?"
She quickly replied, "Iraq, of course!"
I asked, "You heard the name Zarqawi, the current "ringleader" in Iraqi terrorist circles?"
She nodded.
"Did you know he is not an Iraqi?"
She had not known that.
I then proceeded to explain that many insurgent/terrorists/homicidal maniacs do not come from Iraq at all (although many do.) Thus, I pointed out, "How can these people be fighting for the occupation of their country if they aren't even citizens of that country?"
She didn't really have a reply, other to say that war just wasn't fair, and that because it wasn't fair, we shouldn't be over there killing Iraqis.
I told her about the story I read about an Iraqi man who was going to join the insurgents. This was the unlucky fellow who got his house searched by American troops. They found his stash of contraband cheesecake magazines (not porn, but close) and stacked them on his bed (possibly next to his Koran, or possibly not.) That wasn't so embarassing, but this guy's mother found out about this. After the Americans left, without stealing anything, without arresting anyone, without blowing anything up or killing anybody, this slime starts beating on his mother to make sure that she won't tell anybody about his girly magazines. It is this that made this true son of Islam want to join the insurgents.
I asked the girl, "So, what did the Americans do to this guy that justifies him making a bomb and blowing up some Americans and some unlucky fellow Iraqis?"
She mumbled something about how we would feel if somebody invaded our house, and how it isn't fair.
Anyway, she had to head off to class, so the conversation ended there.

But I thought it was an amazing thing--how can you condemn something about which you know so little? But of course, in America the most important thing you can do (as indicated by most celebs, pop singers, and other celebs) is "make a statement." That's the American way--free speech, to say whatever I want, and thus to prove to the rest of the world that I am an idiot (and I'm so sorry, and whatever I feel good about is good, and whatever I feel bad about is bad.)
Where do kids learn this?

Human Shields in Iraq

2005-01-28T01:15:00.000-08:00

An interesting thought--
There were a bunch of folks who were clamoring to be "human shields" around certain targets in Iraq before the US invasion. The idea, I suppose, would be that Americans would hesitate to attack or bomb certain buildings or targets, knowing that innocents would be killed.

Would they volunteer to be "human shields" around voting booths in Iraq at the moment? The idea, I suppose, would be that Insurgents/Terrorists would hesitate to attack or bomb certain buildings or targets, knowing that innocents would be killed.

So...anybody heard of people heading over to Iraq to become human shields in the name of freedom, liberty and democracy? (I nominate Michael Moore--a guy his size ought to be able to cover a couple voting booths and absorb a rocket or two without any problems.)

The resounding silence says volumes.

January in Puget Sound

2005-01-26T23:09:00.000-08:00

I saw a tree today that was budding.
Seriously--the buds had broken open and I could see the leaves start to stretch out. The heather that grows alongside the sidewalk is blooming, and smells...well, heathery. It's foggy, and misty, with a bit of rain, but it's January, and some of the trees are budding.
Winter is easy in this part of the world, if you can stand the grey.
And I can.
Some people look at grey skies as depressing, as the clouds close in and blot out the blue sky and the yellow sun (often for days at a time). But I grew up in semi-arid regions of Southern Oregon, where infrequent rain was a welcome surprise, that brought a wet note of sage and dust into the air. I loved to go the wetter side and see the thousand shades of green, the riot of plants and the wet air. I learned that grey was not the main color. I had to learn to look around the grey, and learn that grey skies intensify the other colors.
The car that drives by in the sunshine is dull in color. But under grey skies, or in the rain, it glistens, and the colors become richer.
The trees in the sunshine lift up leaves and needles to the sun, seeming to forget all else. But in the rain, they seem to glow, giving off the light they stored up.
Flowers against a backdrop of blue sky and bright light are fine. But put against a backdrop of grey skies, they are no longer overshadowed by the sunlight.
The ocean and grey skies seem to blend together, either (to me) doubling the amount of ocean, or doubling the amount of sky.
In the grey season, drops of water hang off the long needles of pine trees like Christmas ornaments, glowing with diffused light. Sounds are diffused like the light. The world becomes like the inside of a cathedral, lit by an indirect source that can't be placed, but you can sense its presence. Temperatures and light are moderated, and extremes are banished to other places, like fabled sunny California, or snow-covered Rainier (on the few days you can see it in the wintertime.)
And when the clouds drift away, and the sun comes out, it is glorious. That's January on the Puget Sound, when the trees start to bud and the long, exuberant spring often begins.

In the Beginning...

2005-01-26T22:53:00.000-08:00

In the beginning, there was the Internet. I remember in the early 70s, in Southern Oregon, when my elementary school had a single computer teletype hook-up to some university somewhere. I was fascinated by this remote machine that you could command, and it would obediently type out a word in Pltword, or play golf, or play Star Trek...
I was too young and in too small of towns to know about machines like the Altair, or the original Apples. I was never rich enough to own an Apple II (back when a floppy drive alone cost 500 dollars), but they were the first computers I actually got to mess with at my high school. I tried to figure out machine language, shape tables, apple basic, and some other fun stuff.
In the early 80s, not being rich enough for an IBM or an Apple, or even for the TRS80, I purchased my first computer, a Commodore 64. 64 whopping kilobytes of memory! Color capability! Sound chip! Sprite animation! Wow! Who could ask for more? I learned a bit about programming (and Poking, and Peeking), but I didn't have a reason for a modem at the time.
Not until later, on my 386 (16 screaming Mhz) , did I start exploring the BBS world (ah, the days of Random Lunacy.)
And then suddenly, I realized that there were things out there on the internet that were more than just programmer stuff, and I began to learn HTML, and put up my own websites. I was never really a programmer, so I never learned C, or Perl, or Java, or the real geek stuff. I've always been a fringe geek, I suppose. I never really got interested in computers and programming for the sake of its geekiness, but only when it related to my other interests.
Besides, to be a real geek took a lot more money than I ever had.
And so, now I am on the blogosphere.
I never imagined such a thing, way back when.