I've always had a tendency toward the macabre, starting with my addiction to old Echo comics (at least, I think it was Echo) where people were murdered in horrible ways and washed up on the bank with their faces washed off - I was 8 when I started reading those, mind you. Over the years this has manifested itself in various (legal and moral) ways, including a taste for macabre humor. No one does that better than Edward Gorey, a true gothic master and one of my favorite artists. A number of years ago I purchased a great poster which was (don't read this if you're a sensitive sort) a poster of Victorian children um, "passing on" in a variety of poetic and unusual ways, in alphabetical order - also published as a book, called The Gashlycrumb Tinies. I still have the poster, but I've never had it framed or hung it up because I've been, yes, afraid of giving offense. Now, isn't that silly? Anyway, here's a link to the images from the poster, if you're twisted in the same way I am. My favorite is, "N is for Neville who died of ennui". I think he was French.
I spend far too much time online, and part of that time I'm mining through my referrer logs, other people's referrer logs and just rambling about thither and yon. To gift you with the fruits of my oh so strenuous labours, here are a few of the sites I've come across, some you may have seen, some not. Worth a little time on your holiday weekend while you wait for the guys to get over there with the barbeque.
The Misanthropyst – about motorcycles, politics and stupidity (oh, wait, those last two are the same!)Andrew Olmstead.com - a blog on politics, movie reviews and commentary, which somehow has survived without linking me.
dcthornton.com – another eponymous blog, political commentary mostly with a bizarre tendency to take weekends off from posting. Clearly a man with amazing strength of will (and good taste - he links me)
The Liberty Log – a group blog out of the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. Buncha libertarians. WARNING! Do not assume "libertarian" and "conservative" are synonymous.
Out of the Frying Pan – slice of life, religion and some commentary. Love the name and the header graphic.
A letter from the Olde Countrie – Steve Bail, in the guise of Group Captn. Lionel Mandrake, commenting on American politics with a British bent.
Alas, a blog - !!warning!warning!! a feminist! Well, okay, also some interesting commentary from a different perspective, plus excellent cartoons. Not always cartoons I agree with, but often acerbically funny and worth some time in the archives.
Caffeinspiration – Bobby Allison-Gallimore, a law student in Kansas, mainlining America’s drug of choice while providing insight into politics and whatever else trips his fancy.
Callahan Online – not a blog, but great cartoons. Today's made me laugh out loud.
Evil GOP Bastards – I know I’ve linked this before, but it’s just so cool to find staunch leftists with a sense of humor. Even if they are sadly, pathetically and irredeemably wrong.
Popcorn Pundit – this is George, who named his truck Frodo. He moved to New Mexico and has now threatened to quit blogging. Actually, he claims to have already. We must gang up on him and pull him back into the fold. We must! How else will we continue to find out about things like the sign outside a military base that read, “300 slut machines inside”? (We’re hoping, like George, that it was a typo.)
Lying in Ponds – a scorecard and a little commentary about which professional pundits are the most partisan (try saying that 10 times fast!). An excellent site for browsing, for checking out who’s dissing who, and for figuring out how you go about figuring out who’s partisan anyway.
There you have it. Now stop saying I never do anything for you. I do have a life, you know.
Brent at The Ville, someone I read every day who always has something to catch the mind and emotions - a smile, a laugh, a "yah, what he said!" - has posted his views on the Israel-Palestinian situation. We're in pretty close agreement on it. The kicker to the piece is a brief video showing what happens to Palestinians suspected of collaboration with Israel - it's not for the sensitive.
David Mecklenburg has a new blog with a cool name - Sabertooth Journal - and he's working to take from you the burden of searching the Web. He's posted a roundup of links with brief summaries that should keep you busy linking for a while.
And check out the rest of the blog while you're there.
Just Thursday, in response to the goofy new CBS series "Real Beverly Hillbillies", I suggested "The Upper East Side Kentuckians". Apparently Fox TV was watching:
Fox reality guru Mike Darnell has a message for CBS: Keep Beverly Hills, just give me that countryside! Just days after news broke that the Eye was planning a reality-skein revival of "The Beverly Hillbillies," execs at Fox Broadcasting, 20th Century Fox TV and Bunim-Murray Prods. confirmed they're developing a nonfiction laffer that mirrors another Paul Henning hickfest: "Green Acres."
Hmmmm!! Slick of them to claim they already had it in the works. Here's a little more on it.
The new show will join Fox's already strong lineup, known for its uncompromisingly artistic, high brow approach to television. For example, here's another show which will take to the air soon - Celebrity Boot Camp:
Celebrities often partake in grueling exercise regimes and strict diets, but apparently some of them are gluttons for punishment.Several entertainers have signed up to get their butts kicked a la basic training in Fox's new show, Celebrity Boot Camp.
Former Brady Bunch brother Barry Williams, Renegade star Lorenzo Lamas, one time pop idol turned Playboy bunny Tiffany, Baywatch actress Traci Bingham and former Milli Vanilli member Fabrice Morvan are among a bunch of celebs who have enlisted -- at least temporarily.
Good to see they've mined the ranks of top-notch current celebrities for their recruits. No has-beens here! Uh uh! I just hope they make sure that when Milli-Villi Morvan sings for his supper that he doesn't have a tape player in his shirt and is just lip syncing.
Now, can someone tell me again why we're watching TV these days?
[Thanks to Caleb for the heads up on this!]
From a recent telephone conversation:
When he says that, I just want to take the words out of his mouth, make them into a baseball bat, and beat him with it!
And no, I'm not telling you the context.
(But she's talking about one of you.)
Bryan Preston thinks Usama is dead, and that the conflicting reports regarding his demise have more to do with the political needs of the countries making the claims than with the facts.
Remember the other day that I mentioned hearing an American Palestinian comedian talking on the Curtis & Kuby show? Well, Bill Dennis of Bill’s Content blogged an article about the comedian, Ray Hanania, being dropped from a comedy club program because Jackie Mason, a comedian who is Jewish, didn’t want him opening the show. Mason denies that he complained.
It certainly raises an interesting question, because Hanania does tell jokes about the Jewish/Palestinian conflict. He had me cracking up as I was driving to work that morning. Apparently his wife is Jewish, and the joke I remember was primarily about how his relatives had to get passes to get within a mile of his house (in the US) while his wife’s family could just come on in anytime. Trust me, it was funny to hear him tell it. He said nothing about the conflict that appeared to place Israel in a negative light, nor did he mention or joke about suicide bombings or deaths.
So the question is – should he be welcomed in comedy clubs, even – or especially – when a Jewish comedian is headlining, since those types of jokes are a permanent part of his repertoire? I personally think that humor is a great way to defuse tensions and put things in their proper perspective, but at the same time the tensions and deaths over in Israel make humor about the situation a very touchy thing. Then again, he’s here, he’s American, he’s certainly got nothing against Jews, he doesn’t joke about the worst things. Couldn’t this be a good move?
I’m leaning, reluctantly, toward saying that it probably was not the right venue for him and those jokes at that time, although I think a different audience might be more acceptable. Bill Dennis says, “…leave the conflicts back in the old country”, and let the man perform. I would be interested to know what you think.
UPDATE: Al Barger is furious that Jackie Mason is taking hits for this, with accusations of racism. I do agree that's unfair, but I don't know that Barger's characterization of Hanania is fair either.
This excellent article looks at the McKinney-Majette race from the perspective of the black electorate. The money quote:
The bitter truth is that guilt tainted racial appeals by black politicians for black solidarity and voter registration caravans and buses into black neighborhoods are not going to make blacks dash to the polls to vote for politicians who wage media-grabbing empty fights over issues that many black voters regard as remote and foreign to their needs and interests. But many will rush to the polls to vote for someone they think can better deliver the goods.The voter turnout in Georgia's 4th Congressional district was the highest of any major race in that state, and many black voters rushed to vote for Majette. To them, she, not McKinney, represented that someone who can best represent them.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson, a writer for The Black World Today website, walks his readers through the changes that are happening in the political focus of the traditionally-Democrat black constituency. It's encouraging, not so much because more blacks are moving to right although I applaud that, but because they are increasingly refusing to allow themselves to be swept into the Democrats corner and left there ignored. They're voting on issues, framing the debate themselves rather than leaving it up to "black leaders" who have their own agendas, and demanding a true voice in policy rather than being satisfied merely to have someone of similar appearance in office. It is, in my mind, a maturing of political voice, a very healthy thing.
Michael Barone comes to some similar conclusions in his piece on the lessons from the McKinney race, although his discussion is more narrowly focused.
Cornel West, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, enjoy your here and now, because your future will be different.
[Barone link via Instapundit]
Three Justices of the Supreme Court have indicated that they think it's time to reconsider the question of whether juveniles convicted of heinous crimes should be executed. Their reasoning?
"Given the apparent consensus that exists among the states and in the international community against the execution of a capital sentence imposed on a juvenile offender," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in the dissent, "I think it would be appropriate to revisit the issue at the earliest opportunity."Justice Stevens, who dissented when the court last considered the issue in 1989, said he remained convinced that it is unconstitutional to execute people for crimes committed when they are younger than 18.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer, also dissented. They did not say how they would rule, but they added that reconsideration of the constitutionality of the execution of inmates for capital crimes committed when they were juveniles was warranted, given the court's ruling in June barring the execution of the mentally retarded.
According to the NY Times article, of the 80 people on death row who committed their crimes as juveniles:
About three-quarters of them were 17 when they committed their crimes; the rest were 16.
So we're not talking 12 year olds here - we're talking young people who are ostensibly of age to drive and to have abortions without parental consent. And the number of juveniles on death row throughout the country already indicates that the penalty is applied with restraint. However, I don't really object to their revisiting it, as long as the law is what is considered, not this:
The United States is practically alone in sanctioning the execution of juveniles. The only other nations that permit them are Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.Justice Stevens appears correct in his reference to a consensus "in the international community."
Thank goodness - yet again - for Chief Justice William Rehnquist:
"I fail to see," Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote in his dissent in the Atkins case, "how the views of other countries regarding the punishment of their citizens provide any support for the court's ultimate determination."
That's right. International trends should have no impact on what we as a country decide to do. Our decisions should be made based on our Constitution, our law and our own internal sense of what is right. Looking to Europe and other countries will only lead us to become as wishy-washy, morally ineffectual, politically convoluted and irrelevant as most EUweenies are. And, quite frankly, I also don't think what Britian and its former colonies do is germane either.
I think we need the option of executing older juveniles, although I wouldn't object to a higher bar on aggravating factors in the crime. And I really don't care what the rest of the world thinks about it.
UPDATE: John O'Sullivan has a strong piece on capital punishment in NRO. It's a good succinct summary of the argumentation for the death penalty. This in particular caught my attention:
Last year, a trio of economists from Emory University, Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul Rubin, and Joanna Melhop Shepherd, released a study — "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect?" — that concluded on the basis of careful statistical analysis of the recent (i.e. since the restoration of capital punishment in the 1970s) evidence that there was a very significant deterrent effect.Summarizing their conclusions, the statistician Iain Murray of the Statistical Assessment Service in Washington reported that "each execution deters other murders to the extent of saving between eight and twenty-eight innocent lives-with a best-estimate average of eighteen lives saved per execution." On this reasoning, if the 3,527 prisoners now on death row in the U.S. were to be executed, then something like 63,000 lives would be saved! Even if we scale down these estimates sharply, we are left with a very strong argument for capital punishment derived from social concern for the lives of potential victims and the distress of their families.
That's new data that I wasn't aware of. He also identifies one of the arguments I used to make to my Corrections class when we discussed the death penalty:
...there is another strong argument for capital punishment. It is known technically as the argument from incapacitation (i.e., dead men commit no murders.) And that argument alone is more than adequate justification for capital punishment.
I always stated this as, What correctional response to criminality has the lowest recidivism rate? The death penalty. As O'Sullivan says, dead men don't kill.
And what is my position on it? Well, if you've not figured it out yet, the title of my position paper in the semester-long class on the death penalty I took in my master's program may help you out:
The Death Penalty: A Moral Imperative
I've seen nothing in the past 13 years to make me change my mind.
I've mentioned different kinds of bias in various posts, including framing and selection bias. Sometime soon I'll write a post focusing on the different kinds of bias and how to identify them. But in the meantime, Freedom and Whiskey's David Farrer has a great example of framing bias here. Good catch, David!
Okay, I know I yelled. But really! This is such insanity!!
I hate what is happening to perfectly fine words and numbers in this society. I personally think 88 is a lovely number, has a nice symmetry, and if some people use it obscurely as a nasty little signal, the best way to pull its poison is to saturate the market with other uses for the same number - ask the owner of any brand name that's become public domain through use. The Target people in the article are all nut cases - they should have told Joseph Rodriguez "thank you very much", given him a gift certificate to Target, and ordered more 88 hats. And sent the police over to confiscate his VCR and cable box.
I've always been annoyed that the lovely word "gay" now means a male who is attracted to other males. I think it's pathetic that the word "niggardly" is considered racist because some people are so clueless about word origins that they hadn't ought to be allowed around words unattended. It reminds me of that silly elementary school "in crowd" game where a certain group imbued an innocuous word with hidden meaning, then would all laugh hysterically when a person not "in" on it said the word. "She said NOTEBOOK! Hahahahaha!"
I know language shifts, and meanings come in and out of vogue. I've read several books on language origins - fascinating. But this kind of egregious PCism isn't about shifts over time, it's about stupidity, plain and simple.
I vote we kidnap Rodriguez, tie him down and tattoo an "88"... somewhere. Right beside a tattoo that says, "Get a life, already!"
[Link via Trojan Horseshoes]
UPDATE: FoxNews has an article on this now. I went to the Southern Poverty Law Center's Tolerance.org site to check it out, and they had photos of a pair of boxers from the collection. The hat, from what I could see, was innocent enough, but the boxers have grinning skulls all over them with EIGHT EIGHT emblazoned in blood red. That's a little different from just "88" on merchandise, and it's ridiculous to characterize the issue as just an "88" - it's the design as a whole, which give the use of the number more sinister impact. I still object to their saying that "88" is by itself a wicked thing to use. That's like saying that I shouldn't use white sheets on my bed because some people make robes and hoods from them. Please.
UPDATE: Fritz Schranck realizes that he's been harboring that self-same number - and intends to continue doing so.
Just because I'm an egotistical masochist, I have two sites set up for non-bloggish writings of mine - a poetry site, inside my mind (a truly scary place), and a fiction site called, cleverly enough, short fiction. That last one I kind of sneaked into my lineup without fanfare, because I've not written much fiction in a while and some of my older stuff isn't, shall we say, ready for The Atlantic. (My new stuff isn't either, thank you for pointing that out. :P)
Well, I've been exposed. The wonderful John Braue of Rat's Nest has not only discovered my fiction, not only read the first story there, but soundly denounced it as a "slice of life" piece where nobody goes anywhere new. Sheesh. So it's treacly! So sue me!
I actually wrote the story as part of an online competition by Dream Forge, an e-zine I used to submit to a few years ago when I was a member of a writer's chat room on Undernet. We were given a list of things to include, and sent off to our corners to write. The list included a pregnant woman and Santa Claus, soooo... there you have it. The other short short piece there was based on a similar list in writing class.
John says I may now kick him until he bleeds for not liking my story. No, John, I wouldn't do that to you. Santa will just ignore you this year. Nyah.
One thing I hammer on here is that everyone is biased - yes, including your Revered Site Hostess. What's important is identifying and understanding the bias so you can reason your way through to the facts underneath, thus being better equipped to form your own opinions.
Media Minded, always on top of the game, today has an excellent post busting The Weekly Standard for busting The Washington Post for bias. Interesting in itself, it's also illustrative of the need to carry the same skepticism into your reading of a critique that you bring to the reading of the work under consideration. It often brings its own brand of bias into the mix - at the very least, a selection bias.
You must read John Hawkins' interview with Middle East expert Daniel Pipes; there's too much good there to summarize. I will give one excerpt, though, that contained my favorite quote:
John Hawkins: There seems to be a belief among many Europeans that if they don't stand with the United States in the war on terrorism, it'll make them less likely to be hit with terrorist attacks. In the long-run do you believe they're right or wrong?Daniel Pipes: Well the United States is the great power and the Europeans have really chosen not to invest in their militaries and are basically secondary powers. The enemies of the West are aware of that and therefore target the United States. It might be true that they would open themselves up to more retaliation if they join us but it's also true that they're freeloaders if they don't. They're benefitting from our military and financial commitment without carrying their due proportion.
There are meatier things in the piece, which really can't be effectively excerpted. But I just liked the imagery of this - Europe as freeloaders if they don't get behind the US. Absolutely.
And congratulations to John for an excellent interview.
The United States Olympic Committee has narrowed down to two the cities vying to bid for the 2012 Olympics from the US - it's now between New York City and San Francisco. I think NYC is certainly a fine place to host thousands of people for the Games, in terms of having things for them to do when not watching the Games, but one of the concerns the Olympic Committee has is one that I think is central:
One major concern has been transportation, with members of the Olympic Committee saying they are worried about the feasibility of moving tens of thousands of athletes and spectators around the city. “Athletes will never have to be on the roads,” the executive director of NYC 2012, Jay Kriegel, said. “Every location in our plan will be reachable by ferry or train. We are prepared to move people smoothly and quickly.”
Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Yeah right. All those other derisive noises I could make. If they do manage to "smoothly and quickly" move the athletes from venue to venue, it's going to make nightmarish traffic problems for the rest of the metro area. My commute to work this morning took an additional 20 minutes because of a medium-level rainstorm. Can you imagine what it would be like with all that influx of additional people, who would be getting priority in moving about the city? Crazy making.
OTOH, maybe winning this bid would give NYC the wherewithal to revamp its transportation systems, thereby making things much easier for NYC area residents in the long run. That's the only silver lining in this cloud.
Bryan Preston says that Europe is in the same position the US was in just prior to Pearl Harbor. Interesting. What do you think?
[CBS] will soon begin casting for a weekly half-hour series that will follow the adventures of a rural, lower-middle class family -- yes, there will be a granny -- as they are transplanted from their humble digs to a Beverly Hills mansion. The project is tentatively titled "Real Beverly Hillbillies."…Cameras will watch their every move as the rural clan attempts to fit in with folks who eat at the Grill rather than use a grill, or who shop at Harry Winston instead of Wal-Mart. And while the series will focus on a group of five or six, it's expected their extended family will also stop by for a visit sometime during their stay in the mansion.
CBS vice president of alternative programming Ghen Maynard said the series will have a humorous tone, though with a respect for the family and some elements of drama.
"It's a great fish-out-of-water story," he told Daily Variety. "A lot of it will be funny, but a lot of it will be real. We want to fnd a family that's different from what most people know but still relatable, a family that loves each other a lot."
Yeah, I’d say even people who “loved each other a lot” would find that kind of thing a strain. I just have a few questions: Are they going to be allowed to bring their guns? And the hound dogs? Will they wear their own clothes like the original BH did or will they be encouraged/allowed to “fit in” clothes-wise? And how precisely will they be treated “respectfully” when the whole point is to laugh at them? Just asking, is all.
It appears one of the people who pitched the story is named Dub Cornett. I venture to say that Dub is one of those rich Cornetts, not one of my people. Back home, there were two sets of Cornetts in the county – us average folk and those rich ones. We pronounce our last name “CORE-nit”; whenever someone said they knew a “core-NET”, we always said it must be one of those rich Cornetts. The pronunciation, by the way, is rare enough so that when I introduced myself to Louisville Courier Journal columnist John Ed Pearce, he immediately asked, “Which county in eastern Kentucky are you from?”
At any rate, I thought this might be a good opportunity to pitch some other “fish-out-of-water” reality shows:
The Real World Summit: Watch as several environmental activists spend a year with a small African tribe in a remote sub-Saharan setting. Chuckle with the activists as they attempt to bring Sustainable Energy to the tribe. See them waste away as the caviar, steak and pate’ from the Summit become a dim memory. Join the fun as you phone in suggestions to the activists; the suggestions will be airlifted to the site and dropped each week on camera. Observe their disappointment that the packet contains suggestions like how to build windmills out of cow dung, but no batteries for their Walkman, or even a small tin of foie gras.Singer in the Rain: Bioethicist Peter Singer will be set up in a rainforest for a year to communicate with the biodiversity there. Watch Peter interact with the sentient creatures of the forest, evaluating each based on its consciousness of self. Chuckle as he discovers the moral vacuity of snakes. Admire his intellectual honesty as he informs an alligator that he is essentially the same as the reptile only tastier. Share the poignant moment when, as the alligator eats Singer, the renowned bioethicist gasps out that as he is now incapable of fending for himself (because he’s being eaten) the alligator was right to use him as food. Note: This show may end mid-season. A replacement is being prepared in that eventuality: The Cellist and the Cutie, where we follow Britney Spears on a world tour with YoYo Ma.
The Upper East Side Kentuckians: A liberal family from the Upper East Side of Manhattan – a producer of reality-television shows, his NY Times editorial writer wife, their two private-school teenagers, and a granny (we're not sure whose) – will spend a year living outside Manchester, Kentucky. Watch as they learn to grill squirrel rather than go to The Grill for pheasant. Share in their confusion as they try to understand the difference between hominy, grits and sweet corn. Laugh with them – not at them – as they are confronted with an actual vegetable in the ground, facing the dilemma of how to extract it, dress it and eat it. Watch the family rediscovering how to compromise as they realize their entire clothing budget for the year is less than he used to spend on one suit. Feel the tension build as we watch granny finish the table wine and go searching for moonshine. And don't miss the NY Times editorial writing wife try to explain down at the VFW why Bill Clinton was a good president.
They will be given a four-room house with an added on bathroom, an already planted garden, a 10-year-old used car, a tobacco base and jobs at Wal-mart.
“It will be a sweet show as we see the locals struggling to understand what they want when they ask for ‘coe-ah-fee’, and watch the community pull together when the editorial-writing wife breaks a fingernail,” the producer said.
Look for these and others coming to a cable channel near you. If you’d like to pitch a reality show, please feel free to do so in Comments!
UPDATE: Well, Caleb has taken up the challenge, though he didn't do it in Comments. Caleb, the answer is - government would screech to a halt. Although it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.
From an article about North Korean leader Kim on a jaunt through Russia:
Last year, when Viktor Popov, Russia's Far Eastern railway director, commented about a growing drug problem in the region, Mr. Pulikovsky recalls the North Korean leader saying: "Mr. Popov, if you find Koreans in Khabarovsk who deal with drugs, you can shoot them. I give you permission. We have a huge population, so there shouldn't be any problems even if we shoot many people."
You like to see a leader valuing the rule of law and the lives of his people. Now, if he'd said, "Shoot the criminals, we don't need them preying on the people", I could see a little reason there, although not enough to say that's a good approach. But to say it's okay to shoot people because we have so many, it wouldn't be a problem? Sounds to me like a man committed to serving the best interests of the populace.
(the continuation of this post has been removed.)
Setting: 20 cars back on the 1&9 approach to the Holland Tunnel. On the way to work. Traffic stopped for red light.
Conversation:
Me: (crocheting quietly while listening to Curtis & Kuby yak with a American Palestinian comedian who is married to a Jewish woman. Thinking about blogging it. Car windows down.)
Unintelligible voice overrides radio slightly. I turn to the left, some guy in a maroon Saab convertible with the top up is obviously speaking to me. I turn down the radio
Saab guy: I’ve seen people shaving, putting on makeup, talking on the cell phone – that’s the first time I’ve seen anyone crocheting in traffic!
Me: Yeah! (holding up crocheting)
Saab guy: What are you making?
Me: Baby afghan. (holding up the whole thing, about a 3’ strip of quadruple crochet in bright white boucle)
Saab guy (laughing): Did you just start it today?
Me: Nope, traffic’s not been that bad today.
Saab guy (as light changes 20 cars away): What do you do, drive with your knees?
Me: Nope. Only crochet when we’re at a stop.
Saab guy (laughing): (drives away)
Me: (puts down crochet, drives rest of the way to work)
Fritz Schranck digs through a US District Court judgment to find a rather hilarious cops-and-miscreant story.
Hint: None of them cover themselves in glory.
How, I bet you're wondering, did those three get in a headline together? It's all Bryan's fault. He has several excellent posts, including how Condi Rice views faith (I like it a lot), why he's happy Lance of 'N Sync is heading toward the real stars, and, not least, his former-military-man's view on whether only military types can opine about entering another war.
It's been a good but very long day that's not over yet. I rolled out of bed this morning before 4 a.m., was at work by 5:30, on my way to an out of town meeting by 7:30, and by 5:30 p.m. had driven 3 hours and worked 9. Yes, I know, it's nothing like this (but then I don't have the CD yet, so mighten the rest of the tale be suspect?). I have no qualms admitting to wimpdom - all that on four hours sleep did me in. So it was home, a nap, and now more work. Why do you care? Thanks for asking. You care because that's why I've not posted anything since this morning. However, if you hold your mouth just right that may change before 10. Then again, I saw that smirk, so it could be tomorrow.
If you read this blog very much, you know I'm a bit testy with Darwin. But I have to say that when it comes to eliminating unworthies from the gene pool, he begins to prove his worth. Take this, for example.
Well, actually, guys, don't take it - I know my readers need to stay in the gene pool.
[Link lifted, with much amusement (and some sympathy), from Silflay Hraka]
Dr. Cornel West, that flower of black scholarship, is stumping in New York for Andrew Cuomo, the son of Mario Cuomo, who is currently running for governor. Cuomo's only opposition in the Democratic primary is H. Carl McCall, the current comptroller of the state, who is black. West, who has made a career out of black solidarity, is Cuomo's man for trashing McCall:
Mr. Cuomo visited a few black churches and stood by as the scholar Cornel West, who is black, called Mr. McCall "timid and hesitant" on issues important to blacks.Dr. West, a Princeton University professor and best-selling author on black America, continued a pattern in which Mr. Cuomo does not criticize Mr. McCall at Cuomo campaign events, but his supporters do. Dr. West's criticism came at a news conference after a visit to Memorial Baptist Church, when he was asked to assess Mr. McCall.
"I think Carl McCall is a decent man, he is a good man," Dr. West said, as Mr. Cuomo looked on. "But he is a timid and hesitant man. We need an aggressive progressive."
I don't really care who wins the Democratic primary, as long as current Governor George Pataki (liberal as he is) wins the general election. But I find it... amusing? that West, with all his talk of "black man" this, and "solidarity" that, is serving as a white candidate's front man to disconnect a black politician from the black constituency.
Personally, I'd prefer it if they showed respect for all voters, regardless of race, and ran on the issues instead of color. But that's just lil ole Southern conservative me. Who am I to question the Great Party Of Diversity?
UPDATE: John Rosenberg has a few good questions for West too.
Meryl Yourish does it right. But then of course she does. We expect that from her.
And we also aren't surprised to see Reuters leaning toward support of Palestine in its "objective" news content.
Steven Den Beste has a good essay about how the US military is different from that of other countries, most specifically the British. He keys off an email from an American military officer in Germany, so the topic swings into general politics too. Worth reading, but there were two things that caught my attention.
First, this:
America is a nation built of mongrels; and to some extent we glory in that...
This is exactly how I see it. Yes, I trace one line of my ancestry to pre-Revolutionary War times, but what about the dozens of other lines? They likely go off in all kinds of directions, and I'd say the vast majority of my ancestors were working class. Fine with me. What's important is that I'm an American, not how I got that way. I think ultimately the best of our military feel the same way, and that cheerful mongrelism withstands a lot of guff from those full of themselves for what their 36-times-removed grand-daddy did. Or three times removed, for that matter.
Randy, the military officer, wrote in his email:
Americans are, for the most part, optimists and we love to solve problems regardless of their intricacies. Therefore, we think (perhaps naively sometimes) we can solve most any problem that comes along. Moreover, our frame of reference is one of "freedom of choice" and that greatly influences our decision process because we think in terms of multiple options or parallel solutions. From my experience, Europeans are pessimists, in general, that do indeed react to situations with canned responses. They expect the worst and quite often are not disappointed....My point to all of this is that I think it stems from the differences in our time horizons. We have difficulty in carrying on a conversation (much less a relationship) because Europeans remember the past too easily and Americans don't seem to remember it past last Tuesday!
...[Also,] (t)he Europeans move at a slower more deliberate pace while Americans are zooming around on anything and everything that will move at the speed of electrons.
This is one of the clearest reasons I've seen to do things the American way, rather than all the other ways out there. Quite simply, when faced with a problem we collectively tend to approach it with a full range of options and the future in mind. Den Beste notes:
We're less afraid of uncertainty, I think, because we're more used to improvising. The unexpected isn't a disaster, it's just something that has to be dealt with.One of the major arguments being made in Europe to our plans to attack Iraq is that it could destabilize the entire region and that it's impossible to predict what might happen. The American reaction to that has been, more or less, "And your point is?"
In my job, we frequently run up against slowdowns, deliberate or unintentional mistakes, and other problems. While it's useful to know how the problem occurred, to help prevent it from occurring again, the focus is, "This is where we are now. What do we need to do to get where we need to be?"
I think that's one reason many Americans, especially conservative Americans and those liberals who have no truck with the victim classes, have a difficult time with understanding the resistance to change in the Middle East. Of course there are vested interests in the here and now, but there seems such a strong element of "we were disrespected 500 years ago, we must have vengeance!" that is so antithetical to who we are as a people. I just wonder, in the long run, if understanding and trying to ameliorate that tendency on the part of the Middle Eastern nations is the right way to go.
It's difficult to learn from history when you're shackled by it; I don't really think there's a common ground to be found. We can't concede that their age old grievances have meaning in today's world. This is where we are now - how do we make it better? I think that's the question.
(And I think Cheney has the next right answer.)
I just took the "are you hooked on the Internet" test from USA Weekend and... I'm not. Just a little problem, my score said. Might want to consider things. But no need to worry, call your psychiatrist, go on disability, join Internet Users Anonymous...
So that's a good thing. But...
...there are people worse?
[Link lifted from The Last Page. She has more email accounts than me but not many.]
You like to see things like this:
LOUISVILLE - The two painting companies who made secret recordings for an FBI investigation of bribe-taking on an Ohio River bridge project have been told they cannot use the tapes in their civil suit against the state of Kentucky.Federal prosecutors say they can't surrender the tapes because their release might violate the privacy of third parties mentioned on the recordings.
"We sincerely appreciate the assistance of these employees, but we have to comply with the federal Privacy Act," said Hancy Jones, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Louisville.
Who do you believe here?
Hedley also said that early in the criminal investigation, the companies were told that the tapes would be turned over to them once the investigation was concluded.Jones said he could find "no information that any such promise was made." David Beyer, a spokesman for the FBI in Kentucky, said the bureau never made such a pledge.
Setting:
Somewhere in Jersey City. Girls night in, tofu stirfry and chocolate sorbet. Two liberals and a conservative.
Overheard:
Conservative: What’s this?
Liberal 1: A dog squeaky toy
Conservative: It looks like Hillary
Liberal 1: It’s supposed to.
Liberal 2: She’s not that fat.
Conservative: Yes she is.
Conservative: (squeezing toy)
Toy Hillary: WHEEZ SQUEAK!
Conservative: That’s the most intelligent thing I’ve ever heard her say.
E.L. Core has a long, fascinating excerpt from a newspaper article on just who was behind the reparation march in Washington. Can you say "felons and has-beens"?
People, I'm just beyond words. I started hoping to raise $175 for my Race for the Cure walk on Sept. 15 in Manhattan. Well, as of this morning, $385 has been pledged and that's not including what's been promised by a couple of emails. Wow, I'm just... well... speechless. Pretty bad for a blogger, ain't it? I've upped my goal to $500, and it's already over 75% met.
If you can, I do appreciate the donations. No amount is too little - every penny counts where it matters. And even if you can't donate now (I've been there!), if you have someone in your life who has survived breast cancer, or lost their fight with it, send me their name and I'll wear it proudly. Woman or man, because, yes, men get breast cancer too.
If you want to donate, go here.
This is one of the sweetest things I've ever read. You'll do, Chris, you'll do.
In case you missed it at the end of my original TrueMajority post below, Dodd busts the TM crowd. And now, Kevin McGehee delivers a further whack.
I think it's so heartwarming when us conservative types join hands to advance Truth, Justice and The American Way - don't you?
In the mid 1990s I lost two friends - a college classmate, and the sister of one of my best friends - to breast cancer. They were both in their early 30s, far too young to lose their lives. As a woman, I feel the spector of breast cancer hovering, a quiet darkness, at the side of my consciousness. It's one disease of many that kill, but it's one that's touched me personally, so I've chosen over the years to find ways to support breast cancer research when I can. And research on breast cancer helps all research on cancer.
This year I'm going to do the Race for the Cure in Manhattan on September 15. I would appreciate any donations you would like to make toward my fundraising goal of $175. I know most of you likely have charities you donate to already, but your support in this instance would be fantastic.
The Race for the Cure will be, for me, a 3.1 mile walk. Trust me, I could use it! I'm excited about the opportunity, and plan to wear the names of my lost friends during the walk. If anyone who contributes would like to add a name - or even if you want to add a name without contributing - send it to me via email. I'll wear names of those lost as well as survivors. Each is a celebration of a life - lost or saved.
UPDATE: Well, now I'm almost going to cry. I just posted this a few hours ago and already three people have pledged a total of $110. THANK YOU! Anyone else who is interested, any amount $1, $5, $25, whatever (hey, if you want to sell your car and donate $5,000 that's good too), will bring us closer to the goal. Not my goal - I'm pretty confident now I'll meet that - but the goal of finding a cure for cancer.
I'll post a list of those who donated the weekend of the Race. Of course, it's available at the link above anytime. If you use initials at the donor site, or don't wish your name to be used on the blog, let me know.
And, while my goal is to raise $175, I'm not limited to that. I'm just saying, is all.
In case you were unsure of how to commemorate 9/11, just in time for the one-year anniversary Amazon.com will be selling an English translation of Thierry Meyssan's book claiming it was a US government plot, not those scapegoated al Qaeda types at all.
The NY Daily News (linked above) is steaming about it. The NY Press says, hey, get over it! The book's been thoroughly debunked, and we have a right to see the book in English so we can scoff at and deride Meyssan more effectively.
I really have no problem with the book being available. I do think it's pretty poor judgment/taste/whatever to sync (deliberately or not) its English release in the US with the anniversary of the national horror it dismisses.
This lovely article in The (UK) Telegraph goes into some detail about how the NY Times is engaging in active bias against the Bush administration and the possibility of attacking Iraq. It's not a scientific study, but they do give compelling examples. Here's a favorite passage (but the whole thing is great):
By convention, American newspapers have opinionated editorial pages while the news pages are supposed to be "objective", though in practice most big city newspapers reflect a faint liberal bias.
I wouldn't say faint, but that's just me.
[Thanks to reader Ty Clevenger for the heads up on the article.]
Eric Lindholm has the September Smarter Harper's Index posted, and it's a fine one. Don't miss it. Here's Harper's magazine online, but the September issue isn't up yet. So you're ahead of the curve!
Last Monday David Horowitz was on Nightline talking about the course at UNC requiring that students read the Koran. In this article he takes you through how the interview was conducted, and then edited, so that Koppel's view was the one shown to the best advantage.
Quite a damning treatise on how bias shows through agenda setting and framing issues.
[Link via The Ville Thanks, Brent!]
As a long-time online chatter, I was fascinated to see that new technology integrating law enforcement and emergency services across jurisdictions will include an instant messaging feature. Knowing cops as I do, I'm not quite sure how long it would take for it to be generally accepted, and certainly there's security bugs to be worked out. But it's exceptionally cool nonetheless:
The CapWIN network will let law enforcement agencies and others do three things: communicate with one another over a secure instant messaging network; search multiple databases; and permit better coordination between different agencies or officers responding to an emergency.A police officer arriving at an emergency, for example, could enter a chat area to get a current summary of the situation while others at distant locations could run licence plate checks with different state and federal agencies on vehicles leaving the scene.
The CapWIN system, with a contract just awarded to IBM, will be an integration of systems in Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia. I've been working with my department to upgrade communications for a couple of years - mobile computers, laptops, handhelds and better systems overall - and of course I'm always a voice for more more more technology (and more more more training to get the cops to use it, not that they listen). I'll be pulling for this to work, and to spread. We shall see.
More information here, here and here. Original link from Moreover.
Banana Counting Monkey has some very interesting thoughts about welfare states, immigration and grandkids. In summary: Don't come cryin' to me.
[BCM keys off a Colby Cosh piece for his riff. Cosh's post on Art (scroll a tiny bit) is also worth reading. I would link the post directly but apparently that isn't possible on his site. BTW, Colby - I love Monet. Amongst others. Nyah.]
Just to help out you guys who want a good time but aren't quite on the marriage track yet:
THE FROY MARRIAGE TEST Taken from How To Avoid Matrimony by Herald Froy (1957)
My self-assessment returned a solid minus score. Oops.
[Lifted from Nick Denton]
If you've not already read Claire Berlinski's proposal for dealing with the Middle East, you must immediately. I've linked it at LGF, where I found it, but it's also at Vodkapundit and Samizdata.
When you're finished there, check out her article on the real reasons why the CIA is a pathetic shadow of its purported self.
UPDATE: I read the comments on Claire's piece at LGF and VP, and something occurred to me that hadn't, really, before. All of you will snort and go, yeah, where has YOUR head been? But it just amazed me when the full implications hit.
We protect the Middle East from itself.
Without us, US, it would be anarchy, chaos, bloodletting on an even grander scale, the tigers fighting each other like in the story of Little Black Sambo that is now PC'd into obscurity. Nothing left but a few tufts of fur.
Not, really, a bad outcome.
Yeah, yeah, I know. I don't want all the innocents caught up in it either. But it strikes me that it's similar to how we the hawks have made sure that the dovish leftists have a country to denigrate. We the US have made it possible for the Middle East to have enough stability to lie back on their piles of cushions and lambast the US. We cradle them in just sufficient stability to preserve their countries, yet without really demanding a whole lot in return. Can you imagine if we were not involved? If we sent no foreign aide, if we bought nothing from them or sold nothing to them? That's what the mullahs and the imams say they want. The result would be truly horrific, I believe. And you know what? If we did pull out completely, and the inevitable horrors occurred, they would blame us again. There really isn't anything we can do to please them except give them all our money, convert to Islam and meekly allow the superior Arab race to rule the world.
Honey, that ain't gonna happen. So I wonder, why are we even trying to help? It's like the old saying - be careful what you pray for, you just might get it.
So why not fulfill their prayer of US withdrawal?
UPDATE: Yes, I'm late to the party and of course I'd even read these other posts, but sometimes things just take a while to sink in. John Hawkins at Right Wing News kicked it off here, then Andrea Harris at Spleenville picked up the flow, and finally Toren at The Safety Valve added his bit. It's nice to know that if I have to be late to the party, at least I'm joining some mighty fine folks when I get there.
My mind is still percolating about this. Sorry. Some of us are a bit dense.
This afternoon I was walking to the bank from work, thinking more about what to get for lunch, since it was already 2 p.m., than what was around me. As I stopped at an intersection to wait for the light to change, I glanced up and saw... a green and yellow porcupine caught in mid-metamorphosis into a non-descript white sedan. Huh? Yikes! Little pegs, looking about 2" long, were stuck into (emerging out of?) the body of the car, all over. ALL over. Yellow on the right side, where I was, and on the passenger door in green pegs it said, "TRUE".
True what?
This of course took only a few seconds to see, since the car was driving past, which was good because it gave me time to absorb the next thing - a large van-sized pink pig pulling a smaller pig which was... pulling a still smaller pig. I began wondering if I shouldn't skip lunch and go straight for the heavy drugs. Or maybe that was the problem. Just what was in that yogurt I had for breakfast?
Then, enlightenment: Across the, um, hams of the last little pig was stenciled:
truemajority.com
AHHHH..! A public relations campaign! I put down the public phone book, where I'd been perusing "psychiatrists", and instead jotted down the website. I wondered, who might this majority be? Given that money was sticking out of the top of the largest pig (not a real pig, you know. one of those van conversions gone ugly), I thought - it's either a no-taxes citizens group or some buncha liberals. And since the driver of the bristly porcupine non-descript sedan was some young whippersnapper, I decided - buncha liberals.
So just now, I went to the site. And... it's a buncha liberals.
BIGGGGGGG liberals. Leftists, even.
Ben&Jerry's ice cream and Ted Turner leftists.
It's apparently a new "grassroots" (pig shit?) effort to provide "a brand new channel for bringing individual citizens' influence to bear on Congress." (Ha.) They know you don't have much time, so they'll "be your eyes and ears." They'll "track the debates and compromises and bills that will shape the world." And, when they've warned you of the horrific activities going on in Washington, "with just one click, we'll generate a fax to your Congressperson on your behalf".
So generous.
Here's their mission statement, known as The Truemajority Ten Principles:
TrueMajority’s underlying philosophy is contained in the TrueMajority Principles, a positive blueprint for moving forward in the post 9/11 world. These principles reflect the American values of compassion, charity and justice – the same values we must adhere to in order to build a safer, more secure home and world.
Oh, oh, oh, you're hurting me! I can feel something... dove-ish just lurking, just...
These principles are also revenue-neutral, meaning the investments proposed are entirely funded by reductions in unnecessary spending on Cold War-era weapons that no longer contribute to our national security.
See? There you've gone and done it! In this post-9/11 war, we need charity, we need compassion, we don't need those silly ole bombs. Why, if we had spent that defense budget money on the Middle East all along, 9/11 may never have happened! It was our fault, after all. But there's still time... we can fix it...
Here's the 10 Principles:
1. Attack poverty and world hunger as if our life depends on it. It does.2. Champion the rights of every child, woman & man.
3. End our obstructionism to the world's treaties.
4. Reduce our dependence on oil and lead the world to an age of renewable energy.
5. Close the book on the Cold War and end the nuclear nightmare forever.
6. Renounce Star Wars and the militarization of space.
7. Make globalization work for, not against, working people.
8. Ensure equal treatment under law for all.
9. Get money out of politics.
10. Close the gap between rich and poor kids at home.
I can't say I disagree with all of these. But I'm thinking my version of them and their version would be... different. Let's see... let's pick one and look at the full description. No. 2 is one that, on principle, I could support:
2. Champion the Rights of Every Child, Woman and Man.
But what does it mean to them? I don't think, somehow, that it was a statement of their tendency toward libertarianism:
Make America stand for justice, not expediency. Stop turning a blind eye to governments that abuse their own people. Ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. If punishing a foreign tyrant means, in actual practice, punishing the women and children who are his victims, desist, and find another path.
Ouch. There's nothing I can say that won't get me in trouble with the preacher on Sunday. So let's look at who "we", the Truemajority, are:
TrueMajority’s principles are endorsed by Greenpeace, Rock the Vote, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Peace Action, the National Head Start Association, Global Exchange, The Interfaith Alliance, The Nation magazine, Sojourners, Rainforest Action Network, the United Nations Association/USA, Women's Action for New Directions (WAND), Service Employees International Union (SEIU), National Council of La Raza, and a long and growing list of Americans.
Wait, there's more:
TrueMajority was founded by Ben Cohen, Co-founder, Ben and Jerry’s...[and] is comprised of the following four entities:Military Advisory Committee:
a dozen distinguished military analysts and experts on the subject of excess Pentagon spending...
Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities:
a group of 500 corporate leaders...
Religious Leaders for Sensible Priorities:
leading religious leaders of denominations representing 30 million Americans, including the Presbyterians, Methodists, Jews, Buddhists National Baptists, and American Muslims, as well as a host of individual clerics.
Entertainers for Sensible Priorities:
world-renowned leaders from the creative community, including Paul Newman, Ted Turner, and others.
That entertainer category would provide endless fisking opportunities all by itself. But, no, that's not my favorite part. What is? This lovely bit of drivel, from the 10 Principles full description:
9. Get Money out of Politics.Curtail the vast corrupting influence of corporate campaign contributions, which make Congress beholden to private interests. Enact public campaign financing--we can fund it entirely by closing a single offshore corporate tax loophole!
That's right! Those nasty 500 corporate leaders who've signed onto our organization! If we could just stop one of their shenanigans, we could elect all kinds of people! Like Cynthia McKinney! Join today!
A-hem. Getting carried away. It really is a marvelous piece of leftish dove-herding. Check it out.
And the Large Pink Pig, and the Yellow Green Porcupine Non-descript Sedan? Two of the four-vehicle TrueMajority parade - don't miss the cartoon version on their website. They're the best thing there.
UPDATE: Andrea Harris (we must get together when I'm in Florida this winter) bites True Majority as well, then Mr. Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler pummels them soundly. If that wasn't enough, Charles Austin continues the beating in The Rottweiler's comments, which Mr. Misha pulls out here.
Have I mentioned lately that I love the Internet?
The WarBlogosphere - Where No Idiotarian Goes Unpummeled
UPDATE: Dodd lists Ten Principles for a real "true majority".
Yeah, they sound right to me.
I just heard a teaser for tonight's news on Channel 4 in NYC. Today two construction workers died when their elevator dropped 19 floors in a freefall. Sad, tragic even, and certainly family members of the two men must live in the NYC metro area. So what was the lead comment from the anchor? Was it, "Two men die in elevator freefall"? Was it "Elevator fall causes deaths"? Either would be expressive yet... relatively gentle.
Did they use something like that?
No, of course not, or I wouldn't be blogging it. The anchoress, in a very dramatic voice, said:
The Death Plunge!
Yeah, it's not entertainment, it's news.
The Last Page and her long-suffering boyfriend (who must be a blogger? hmmmm...) are struggling to find things to blog about. She solved it by taking notes on their conversation. He solved it by hittin' the bottle. Not that I'd comment.
At first I thought Page had sneakily recorded one of my conversations, until I realized that I don't have a bf anywhere nearby and thus have only had that conversation in my head. Which worried me. I'm going to go lie down a while now.
This gives you the perfect opportunity to see what Page had to say, what her bf puts up with and - BONUS TIME! - take the time to tell her why you blog.
I'm good to you, I know. Always things to do, to read. No, no, don't thank me. Just send chocolates. Godiva. With caramel centers.
Express mail.
Tony Woodlief reflects on change and the importance of faith in moving forward.
{{Tony}}
We'll be waiting when you're settled in the new place. And she'll be waiting when you reach the final place.
Three Palestinians try to sneak into an Israeli settlement. Two are killed by Israeli military. The Al Aqsa Martyr's Brigade says it was their people - the intent was obviously to kill innocent families.
This is the photograph chosen to illustrate the article.
Now, what was that about media fairness? No pro-Palestinian bias? No moral equivalence?
UPDATE: As of 11:55 a.m. EST, this photo of Israeli soldiers was with the same article - the earlier one was no longer linked. Interesting. Are they trying to give "equal time"?
Bigwig says what needs to be said about Georgia Rep. Billy McKinney's racist remarks toward Jews. He's exactly right. Thank you, BW.
Mike at Cold Fury, who pointed me to BW's fine post, has a few important things to say himself.
UPDATE: John Rosenberg has interesting thoughts as well, with reason for encouragement.
Mark Steyn, as always, nails it - this time pointing out that the war we fight is as much about culture as anything else.
Here's the extremist Islamic culture:
Radical Islamists aren’t tolerant of anybody: they kill Jews, Hindus, Christians, babies, schoolgirls, airline stewardesses, bond traders, journalists. They use snuff videos for recruitment: go on the Internet and a couple of clicks will get you to the decapitation of Daniel Pearl. You can’t negotiate with them because they have no demands — or at least no rational ones. By ‘Islam is peace’, they mean that once the whole world’s converted to Islam there will be peace, but not before. Other than that, they’ve got nothing they want to talk about. It takes up valuable time they’d rather spend killing us.
And here's the Western liberal's guilt culture:
And, of course, let us not forget Britain’s great comic figure, Baroness Kennedy of the Shaws, QC, who thinks that it’s too easy to go on about ‘Islamic fundamentalists’. ‘What I think happens very readily,’ she said, ‘is that we as Western liberals too often are fundamentalist ourselves. We don’t look at our own fundamentalisms.’ And what exactly does Lady Kennedy mean by Western liberal fundamentalism? ‘One of the things that we are too ready to insist upon is that we are the tolerant people and that the intolerance is something that belongs to other countries like Islam. And I’m not sure that’s true.’If I follow correctly, Lady Kennedy is suggesting that our tolerance of our own tolerance is making us intolerant of other people’s intolerance. To complain about Islamic fundamentalism is to ignore how offensive others must find our own Western fundamentalisms — votes, drivers’ licences for women, no incentives to mass murder from the pulpit of Westminster Cathedral.
And what is Bush doing to stem this culture bleed-out?
I thought the clumsy multicultural pandering of the Bush campaign was a superb joke, but with hindsight it foreshadowed the rhetorical faintheartedness of the last year. Bush, we were told in 2000, would do the right thing, even if he talked a lot of guff...George W. Bush had a rare opportunity after 11 September. He could have attempted to reverse the most toxic tide in the Western world: the sappy multiculturalism that insists all cultures are equally valid, even as they’re trying to kill us. He could have argued that Western self-loathing is a psychosis we can no longer afford. He could have told the teachers’ unions that there was more to the second world war than the internment of Japanese-Americans, and it’s time they started teaching it to our children. A couple of days after 11 September, I wrote in these pages, ‘Those Western nations who spent last week in Durban finessing and nuancing evil should understand now that what is at stake is whether the world’s future will belong to liberal democracy and the rule of law, or to darker forces.’ But a year later, after a brief hiccup, the Western elites have resumed finessing and nuancing evil all the more enthusiastically, and the ‘compassionate conservative’ shows no stomach for a fight at least as important as any on the battlefield. The Islamists are militarily weak but culturally secure. A year on, the West is just the opposite. There’s more than one way to lose a war.
He's absolutely right. Read it all.
[Thanks to Claire Berlinski for a heads-up on the link.]
Here's a fascinating article about Bob Ickes, an editor at Details magazine who's left under a seriously weird cloud:
Bob Ickes, the man at the center of the bogus Kurt Andersen story in the August issue of Details, has an unusual past - infuriating editors across the media landscape and leaving a trail of question marks going back to the mid-1990s...In the spring of 2000, when young Bob was laboring for the media watchdog magazine Brill's Content, he requested time off because his father died. He was given several weeks off, around the time that a controversial piece involving Grace Mirabella was being finalized...
By the spring of 2001, Ickes had moved to Details, a fashion magazine published by Fairchild Publications - and Ickes' father had apparently made a remarkable recovery. Bob told Details people at the time that he needed time off because his father had a stroke and had to be moved to a rehab facility in New York from Philadelphia, said several insiders.
Robert Ickes Jr. is alive and well and living in the Philadelphia area, said sources.
Not surprising, then, that Ickes also has a track record of accusations that he falsified quotes in articles and used published sources to write a supposed "interview" article with a celebrity.
What's notable is the ease with which he moved through the media world - moving from job to prestigious job despite that. If this kind of wholesale disinformation slips by for so long, what little disinformations happen regularly, with a large cumulative effect?
Certainly we're all familiar with Janet Cooke, a Washington Post reporter who had to return her Pulitzer in 1981 after admitting that she made up the central figure in her winning article on "Jimmy", an 8-year-old herion addict. From my own experience, I've mentioned here before about the editor I worked with who seeded rumors during an election cycle and went back later to do an article about those rumors he started, after they'd had a while to percolate. And just yesterday, I spoke to a former journalist friend who mentioned one of her editors who had been forced out when it was revealed that he had lied for years by writing about his family in his weekly column - when he had never been married nor had children. Incidently, the newspaper never informed his readers they had been snookered.
I know these cases are varying levels of extreme, but behaviors in any context tend to be on a continuum. A lot of journalists are on the other extreme - their integrity is intact and closely guarded. But there's also, in my opinion, a lot in the middle who fudge this way and that, little "harmless" things such as putting in quotes what's actually a paraphrase, sometimes maybe making an allusion that is more dramatic than the strict truth but not whole-cloth lying. It all adds up, and I don't think the environment of the average newsroom makes either catching or punishing that behavior likely. In fact, it may implicitly encourage it.
Bias comes from many directions, from a worldview that limits the ability to see the other side so fairness is virtually impossible, to a feeling that the important thing is getting a good story, not necessarily the right story. The case of Bob Ickes is instructive and, quite frankly, a bit frightening, to think of how easily he buffaloed veteran journalists who are supposedly trained to sniff out discrepancies and lies. If they can't see it or dig it out in their own midst, how can we trust them to do so amongst the politicians, the academics, the normal everyday flow of life?
The fact that Ickes finally did get the boot, and that this article so clearly identifies why, is encouraging, but I think we'll all have a greater respect for the media when we feel they are assidiously digging out such people, and creating an environment where fairness and honesty are highly valued.
I'll hold my breath.
[Ickes link via Romenesko]
President Bush has proposed more cutting in our forests to prevent fires. Dodd at Ipse Dixit explains why that's a good thing.
Blog ranking and relational tools are popping up everywhere now. I just checked out Blogstreet, where I entered my URL to get a list of blogs related to mine. Very interesting - I was familiar with most of the 316 listed, and saw some others I need to check out. I don't know, though, precisely how they set the rankings, either as a whole or in relation to mine. My overall ranking is 163, out of about 7,000, which is quite gratifying until you realize that The Weekly Standard is 214. Maybe it's a function of how many people link to me? And USS Clueless is the #1 blog on my list. Why? Certainly Den Beste is very good, and he's on my permalink list, but I don't refer to him very often in my blog. How did he get to be above, say, Cold Fury or Media Minded, both of whom I've linked, and who have linked me, far more?
Some day when I have all the time in the world I'll go read how they set up their list. Meantime, I'm just happy I'm on it, and that on the real blog ranking list, I'm a Large Mammal. (And yes, still Never on the First Date, sorry.)
Cynthia McKinney falls again, this time by the pen of the Poet Laureate of the Warbloggers, Will Warren.
... apparently liberals don't mind when they work together, if it advances the proper agenda - like preventing another "scandalous" presidential election:
A 36-city NAACP bus tour traveled through the South this summer to increase awareness about the vital importance of voting. It’s as grassroots as grassroots can get, a face-to-face effort of going into neighborhoods with a bullhorn on top of a car and yelling at people to vote, sending speakers to high schools, getting DJ’s on urban radio stations to urge voter registration during evening drive-time. Anything and everything that serves the black community is becoming involved. And in all areas of the country, but especially the South, this means churches. The Missionary Baptist Church in Tennessee alone consists of 400 churches with 300 to 6,000 people per church, all taking their marching orders from the national NAACP, all fighting to register, to educate, and to get out the vote...Regardless of how this may make some people feel about issues such as the separation of church and state, the fact remains that the state isn’t going to do what it should....
So we see the conditions under which it's ok (apparently when it's textbooks involving evolution it's not ok). Of course, as this is AlterNet, we know what they think anyway. But the way the argument is structured and supported is interesting. Let's see who they quote as an expert:
Mary Frances Berry, chairperson of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, [has said] that the upcoming 2002 election is a "mini-disaster waiting to happen."
Our dear centrist friend, that defender of rights, Mary Frances Berry. Not heard of her? Check this out.
All this dismay is because:
An untold number of votes were never counted in [the 2000 presidential] election. An unknown number more could never be cast as ex-felons were purged from voter rolls, police blockades kept African-Americans from voting and Departments of Motor Vehicles mysteriously lost and mishandled voter records and applications. Polling places moved without notifying anybody. Poll books inexplicably disappeared.Allegedly, voters were turned away from polls in many states because of their race, told they couldn’t vote at a polling place because they had NAACP stickers on their cars, ordered to get to the back of the line, and even told to get behind white voters. In Florida alone, ballots cast by blacks were rejected at a rate almost eight times higher than those cast by whites. And similar allegations to every one of the above occurred in 22 states.
It's comforting to see that these allegations are solidly supported by evidence. (Can you be an ex-felon for voting purposes?)
And just what is the author, Catherine Danielson, saying here?
Unless your ancestors came over on the Mayflower and owned significant property after they landed on Plymouth Rock, someone bled and died so that you could go to the polls and cast that vote.
Actually, I think anyone who lives in this country and has the priviledge of the vote has it because someone died for them to get it. First the soldiers in the American Revolution, then all those who came after to protect all our freedoms. But we want to make sure it's clear that the wealthy, landed white people have always been special, don't we?
Ms. Danielson's website, by the way, is called nashvilleinsanity.com. Pretty appropriate. I won't mention that she wrote a book called Fascist Redux. That would just be too easy.
UPDATE: Caleb opined in Comments that some felons can vote. He's right - in Maine and Vermont, even people in prison can vote. Hmmmm.... At any rate, here's a little more about it, and here's an article on efforts to nationalize felon voting rules from earlier this year. I must say I'm glad to see that, for the time at least, this is still being decided on the state level.
I offer this with little comment:
MARIETTA, Ga. — The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to force the Cobb County school board to remove disclaimers on evolution from thousands of middle and high school textbooks.The suit was filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Atlanta, just one day before the board was to discuss whether teachers should be allowed to teach faith-based ideas along with evolution as explanation for the variety of life.
The stickers, placed in new science books this month after requests from parents opposed to evolution on religious grounds, say evolution is a theory, not fact, and should be critically considered.
Jeffrey Selman, the father of an elementary school pupil, initiated the lawsuit. He said placing advisories in science texts is an attempt to inject religion into public schools.
"It singles out evolution from all the scientific theories out there," Selman said. "Why single out evolution? It has to be coming from a religious basis, and that violates the separation of church and state."
Um, no, it doesn't have to be coming from a religious basis. And even if it was, in this form it's not against the Constitution.
But we'll see what the courts say, won't we?
* Title harkens back to the recent evolution-as-theory discussion.
Allen Myerson, 47, an assistant business editor for the NY Times, has died in a fall from the 15th floor of the Times building in Times Square. Police suspect it's suicide.
What would cause a man of his age and status in life to jump? While, like many people, I've had dark times where walking into a river or driving into that bridge abutment seemed - very briefly - appealing, I don't fully understand suicide. It's not just that you've ended all hope of good in your own life, but you're willing to snatch away the happiness of the people who love you, perhaps forever. Although I believe in an afterlife, I'm grateful for every hour I have in this one.
For those of you who pray, add Myerson's wife, family and coworkers to your list. For those of you who don't, send a wish for peace. I think it'll be hard to come by for all of them.
UPDATE: It's always difficult to know how to write about things like this. I want to be sympathetic to the family, because no matter who it is, someone is sad at their death, and their grief very real. On the other hand, sympathy sometimes comes with a "yes, but..." clause. Apparently this is one of those times.
I didn't know Myerson, nor had I read his work. But he once lived in Lexington, KY, where I did before moving here, and recently had lived in Glen Ridge, NJ, where I go to church now. Odd.
Ever wonder if things really do go crazy during a full moon? Caleb Brown of Quae Nocent Docent checks it out in his article in this month's SNITCH magazine, online here. Check out the cover too - it's pretty cool.
In response to my post on terrorists, A.C. Douglas linked in the comments this article by Lee Harris in Policy Review. It's lengthy (worth the read, though), but Harris's basic premise is that the Islamic extremists are acting out a real-life play for their own benefit, constructing and then populating their own elaborate fantasy of life where the audience is their fellow Islamists. Americans and Jews are just so much stage dressing - involuntary actors, if you will, and the 9/11 attacks less about hurting us than proving something to al Qaeda's Islamic audience. Harris connects this with Mussolini and Hitler, great dramas about self where they pull an entire people into their drama and engage in things - like invading Ethiopia, on Italy's part - to advance the drama rather than any pragmatic purpose.
Certainly Harris's premise adds insight into the interior landscape of social phenomena that are difficult for non-members to understand. I agree that many times actions are taken by people caught up in their own vision of themselves, or their people, that make sense only as stage dressing for the vision. However, I think the full articulation of Harris's premise is an overlay rather than an elucidation. I'm not a big fun of the whole dramaturgical view of life and society, although I think it has some explanatory value. Harris seems, to me, to be forcing events and behaviors into compartments that fit his theory. And I don't see where he explains the why of it all.
I don't think that Harris's basic ideas - about fantasy and acting out - are antithetical to my views on sociopathy. I think the terrorists in either scenario are disconnected from their compassion, objectifying those they want to harm. If anything, the sociopathy is a necessary corollary to Harris's idea - the reason behind the drama, the underlying character study for the lead character, the fatal flaw that causes both success and failure.
Harris's article is deserving of a full critique - I think it fails on several points, although overall a good theory. In particular, I think he uses "the Clausewitzian war" as a straw man to knock down in the process of proving his case, setting up a false dichotomy. And I think he also dismisses religion as a form of dramaturgy, seeing it as itself a fantastical thing rather than the underpinning for flights of fantasy. But I'll have to save that for later. Meanwhile, take the time to read it.
UPDATE: Media Minded links the same essay, with a short summary of his own.
In response to a post on Cold Fury about the videotape of the dogs being gassed by al Qaeda operatives, I left this comment:
I've really kind of struggled with the reaction to the dogs being gassed. I know it's bad, and that it shows the cold cruelty of the terrorists. But I just can't quite get why everyone is so hysterical about it when we have a videotape of Daniel Pearl's throat being slit (which I've not watched, btw). When we have video, audio, of people jumping from a building hit by those terrorists - the ripe wet bursting sound of those bodies hitting the ground went much deeper inside me than the dogs yowling, hard as that was. You know what these terrorists remind me of? The circa 1970s serial killers in California who picked up teenage girls and tortured them in their Murder Van, using stripped electrical wires, pliers and other such things. Those two men recorded the torture, then jacked off to it later. These terrorists enjoy what they're doing, and I don't think the average person can quite get their mind around it. I think the Palestinian terrorists do too. They get off on it. People like that need to be killed like, well, a rabid dog in the street. Their evil has metastasized, there are no evil-free cells in their bodies. I didn't cry for the dogs. My tears are all shed. All I want now is for those men to die. Soon. Hard. I don't need more evidence.
Afterward, I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and decided to expand on it. For those of you who don’t know, I study criminal justice. I presented a paper at a conference once on serial killer Ted Bundy, the subject of my master’s thesis was mass murderers, and I once read widely about serial killers. I haven’t spent as much time studying other types of killers – paid mafia hitmen, for example, or terrorists – but I know enough to draw some conclusions, and make connections I don’t see being made as often as they should, in my judgment.
Here’s my explanation of al Qaeda and the core of Palestinian terrorists, because I believe at their center they’re the same thing.
Too many Americans begin their consideration of the terrorists by projecting their own possible motives onto them. You know what I mean – you do it when you think someone is angry at you because if you acted that way, you would be angry. We do it collectively when we try to understand what motivated Andrea Yates to kill her children by coming up with scenarios where we think it would be possible for us to do the same. And we do it on a far greater level when we wrap the terrorists – be they al Qaeda or Palestinian – in our worldview and project motives that make sense to us onto their actions. You know what? Most of us will be completely wrong.
A friend of mine recently sent me an email “psychology test” which supposedly elicits similar answers from serial killers, and different ones from those who are not. The scenario was: At her mother’s funeral, a girl meets a man she decides is the man of her dreams. Two days later, she kills her sister. Your task: figure out her motive. I’ll wait………………………………Ok. What did you come up with? My ideas were that she thought her sister killed her mother, or that her sister had gotten involved with the man. What was the “right” answer, the sociopath’s answer? She killed her sister because she thought the man would then show up at her sister’s funeral, and she wanted to see him again. Can you connect with that kind of motivation? Probably not. But then, you’re not a sociopath. You’re not a serial killer. And you’re not a terrorist either. You’re likely to be just as wrong when you try to project your own motivations onto them.
Sociopaths are people who have no true emotional connection with others; they experience life as one long effort to meet their goals without any concern about harm to others. Some manage to merge with society fairly well – you’ll find them amongst top politicians and top CEOs, amongst motorcycle gangs and street gangs, in boardrooms and courtrooms. The names of the deadly sociopaths - who like to kill, who enjoy it -are familiar to us: Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, Edmund Kemper. Killing people is their hobby, like skydiving or white water rafting might be yours. Typically, serial killers also are sexually aroused by their killing, especially the ones who enjoy torture. They get off on it, literally. Here’s a little about the two I mentioned in the Cold Fury comment:
Bittaker and Norris kept their latest hostages alive for nearly two days. They kept an audiotape of their rape and torture. Among other things, the tape captured Norris raping Jackie Gilliam, demanding that she play the role of a cousin who was the object of some of his sexual fantasies.…Bittaker repeated his trick with the ice pick, stabbing Gilliam in both ears. As with Andrea Hall, it made her scream but failed to kill her, so the rapists took turns strangling Jackie to death. Afterward, they turned on Lamp, Bittaker squeezing her throat while Norris pounded her head seven times with a sledgehammer. They pitched their victims off a cliff, with the ice pick still imbedded in Jackie Gilliam’s skull.
Charming, isn’t it? And as I mentioned before, the two men would replay the tape and masturbate, listening to the girls’ tortured and dying screams. I’ve wondered just what those terrorists who killed Pearl did with their copy of the tape they sent back to us.
Sociopaths have no “tender feelings” that you and I would recognize, even though some of them fake it fairly well – Ted Bundy, for example, was engaged twice during the time he was sexually torturing and killing women. You need to understand all this because the men who lead al Qaeda, the men who lead the Palestinian killer cults, are just that kind of sociopath. They enjoy killing. It’s about power, it’s about playing a game, it’s about one-upmanship and feeling the rush of knowing that you will not stop even at murder – society’s greatest taboo. The people who die at their hands are so much cattle, fodder for their ideological slaughterhouse. They don’t shrink at blood, people, they revel in it. Seeing an Israeli street scattered in body parts, hearing the sound of an American businessman’s body bursting into jelly on a New York City public plaza, gives these men a hard-on. Do you get it? Do you understand? They are not human as we know human. What’s more, they cannot be. CANNOT BE. Never. Ever. Period. End of story. Here is what a psychiatrist said about Bittaker, one of the serial killers above. Think about a whole cadre of men about whom the same applies, men bound by blood lust and a feverish sense of rightness about their behavior:
Forensic psychiatrist Dr. Robert Markman examined Bittaker before trial and … warned that Bittaker was … “a highly dangerous man, with no internal controls over his impulses, a man who could kill without hesitation or remorse.”
And here’s his partner in crime, Roy Norris:
Norris’ [intake interviewer said he]…“appears compulsive in his need and desire to inflict pain and torture upon women. The defendant himself acknowledged ...that in the commission of rape upon a woman it was not the sex that was important but the domination of the woman. In considering the defendant’s total lack of remorse about the plight of the victims, he can realistically be regarded as an extreme sociopath, whose depraved, grotesque pattern of behavior is beyond rehabilitation. The magnitude and the enormity of the defendant’s heinous, nightmarish criminal behavior is beyond the comprehension of this probation officer.”
Bittaker and Norris were two-bit California killers, with no money, little help and innocent, unsuspecting vulnerable victims. Think about them with 20-30 more points on the IQ scale, more organization, endless pots of money, an unwavering sense of self-righteousness and crowds cheering them on, even from the hospitals where the torn victims are carried.
So sociopathic terrorists, you say, are the core. Maybe you will admit to a few really bad people spearheading the efforts, but what about all the followers? What about those trampled-on average Palestinians? What about the poor Middle Eastern countries that the United States has all but destroyed with their ruthless…whatever, fill in the blank, it changes with the leftist wind: corporate abuse, environmental abuse, refusing to let them kill each other in peace, the creeping hegemonic trend of the month?
The crowds who came to witness the games were a different matter altogether. Sometimes they became worked up into a frenzy of hate. They considered the Christians to be antisocial scum and clamored for a painful death for them in the arena, being mauled and torn apart by wild beasts or forced to fight gladiators who killed them for a public spectacle.
Make a few changes, and it might seem more familiar than Rome in the first century:
The crowds who came to witness the carnage were a different matter altogether. Sometimes they became worked up into a frenzy of hate. They considered the Jews to be heretic scum and clamored for a painful death for them in the streets and in their homes, being mauled and torn apart by bombs or forced to contend with terrorists who killed them for a public spectacle.
Now try this:
The crowds who came to witness the carnage were a different matter altogether. Sometimes they became worked up into a frenzy of hate. They considered the Americans to be non-religious scum and clamored for a painful death for them in their own cities, being mauled and torn apart by bombs under their buildings and beside their military ships, or forced to contend with terrorists who killed them for a public spectacle.
My, my, there is historical precedent for large elements of a population to cheer on the death of innocents, isn’t there? Yes, you may say, but in the ancient Roman times, the oppressors were the ones in power. Well, in ancient Rome, the ones being oppressed did not fight back, and their oppression was surely greater than that of modern day Palestinians. To say that the behavior of Palestinian “militants”, and their people clamoring for blood in the streets, is a necessary consequence of their condition, flies in the face of history. It is more the French Revolution than the American Revolution, filled with hate and viciousness rather than a desire to be free and self-ruled. And what do you think those Romans clamoring for the horrifically bloody death of innocent Christians did when they weren’t at the arena? Well, they cooked. They conducted business. They got married. They had babies, they fell in love, they laughed, told jokes, even helped friends in need. Then they went for a little afternoon diversion – seeing a man shredded, screaming, by a lion. Charming, isn’t it? Just so normal, so like the Palestinians today. People who allow, even encourage, horrific things don’t have to be slavering maniacs all the time, even much of the time. They are caught up in their own blood lust, their own prejudices, and “normal” life can continue alongside.
Grisly death as a part of the regular flow of life is not limited to the Romans:
Human and animal sacrifices were an integral part of Aztec religion…...the men or women who were t