Just updated my blogroll again. This could be a bad thing, knowing how to edit the site. I'm afraid Andrea's right - it's an addiction. Next thing you know, there'll be daily changes...
We'll hope not. Don't hesitate to send me infuriated emails yelling WILL YOU STOP IT ALREADY!
That's probably it for now, though. You hope.
(And for all of those panting to increase my 2003 blog profit margin from zero to anything else, I also put back the Amazon and Paypal buttons [shockingly, actually at the request of a reader]. FYI, Paypal takes out less as its cut. I also have an Amazon wishlist. And my birthday is August. However, just so you know, I do now have lightbulbs. But thanks for the thought.)
Keith Olbermann is a commentator on WABC radio who's career is mainly in sports coverage, but whose Speaking of Everything radio monologues often branch out into the news of the day. Today the two merged.
Last December, the NY Post gossip column, Page Six, coyly suggested that baseball great Sandy Koufax is gay and doesn't want people to know. It's caused quite a stir, and finally last week Koufax ended his 48 year association with the Dodgers because Rupert Murdoch, who owns the NY Post, also owns the Dodgers. On February 22, the Page Six column ran an apology - a rarity in any newspaper. Here's are details from a NY Daily News article.
Olbermann berated the NY Post on the air for its sleazy rumor-mongering, and announced that he will cancel his contract with a Murdoch company to write a book on sports - he even tore up the advance check he'd received for it. That was it until today - when Michelangelo Signorile, a gay rights advocate and writer, laid into all those who objected to the original Page Six piece in a Newsday column, accusing all and sundry of homophobia.
In his monologue this evening, Olbermann gave a summary of the situation and then one of Signorile's column. Then Olbermann very bluntly said that Signorile didn't know what he was talking about - the issue was one of privacy, Olbermann said, not sexual orientation. He ended with (paraphrased):
"The person obssessed with homosexuality is Signorile. He might want to consider that there are other important things in this life besides sexuality."
Bravo! Olbermann irritates me fairly frequently, but this just won him a very long forbearance - both that he didn't let money stop him from standing on principle, and that he put Signorile in his place.
Estrada for Senate in 2004? Steven Malanga at City Journal says Miguel Estrada should move back to New York State and run against Charles Schumer for Senate if he's turned down for judicial appointment by the Senate.
Janeane Garofalo has been an anti-American idiot for a long time, as is obvious from this article from about 1993 found by Lane Core at Weblog from the Core. If anything, she's softened a little (and isn't that frightening). Listen to Her Brilliance:
"Our country is founded on a sham: our forefathers were slave-owning rich white guys who wanted it their way. So when I see the American flag, I go, 'Oh my G[-]d, you're insulting me.' That you can have a gay parade on Christopher Street in New York, with naked men and women on a float cheering, 'We're here, we're queer!' -- that's what makes my heart swell. Not the flag, but a gay naked man or woman burning the flag. I get choked up with pride."
I wonder why she's now doing all she can to preserve a regime that would not just burn the flag, but burn the prancing naked gay men. Oh, that's right - because she's an idiotarian.
[Thanks to Henry of CROOOOW blog for the link]
While I miss the opportunity to visit The Spoons Experience, since Chris has abandoned it, I confess that having him sending me links all the time is a great consolation. This week he's hit on two problems over at Fox News that show either bias or incompetence - I'm leaning toward the latter.
The first is in an article on Russia's probable vote on the new Security Council resolution. Spoons said all that needs saying:
I've often thought FoxNews's website was shockingly incompetent, but this article really takes the cake. If you read the body of the article, you'll learn that "Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian Parliament's upper house... said he doubts the Russian ambassador to the United Nations would cast Russia's veto power in the Security Council. "Okay, fair enough. But then read how Fox characterized it in the boldface story intro: "While Moscow has said it wants more time for inspections to work in Iraq, a Russian lawmaker visiting Capitol Hill Wednesday said that doesn't mean the country would object to a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing force."
Hmmm. While the body says that Russia, might not veto such a resolution, the intro goes much further and claims that Russia might not OBJECT -- a HUGE difference, as I'm sure you'll agree.
It's even worse if you read the headline: "Russian Official: Country Will Back Second U.N. Resolution", or the link on the main page: "Russian Official: Moscow Will Back Second Resolution"
Stop the Presses! You start out with one Russian legislator saying he doesn't think Russia would automatically veto a second resolution, and Fox turns that into a story claiming that Russia now SUPPORTS the U.S. position on Iraq.
Who do they have working over there, monkeys?
--Spoons
Well, you know what they say, get enough monkeys together with keyboards...
And there's more. In this article, the FoxNews writer showed how effective the Democrats have been in creating their public image. The College Republicans at the University of California -Berkeley held a bake sale where those of different races and ethnicities were charged different prices for the same cookies, with the goal of encouraging discourse on campus about racially preferential admissions policies. Of course the Democrat organizations on campus were incensed and snottily superior about it. The FoxNews writer was right to get opposing views, but tucked away in the midst of it is this little explanatory sentence interjected by the writer:
The Democratic Party has largely supported affirmative action policies due to its voter base.
Seems innocent enough, doesn't it? But think about the assumptions necessary to make this statement not as a claim by the party, but an explanation by the journalist. It's saying that the support for affirmative action is due to the mix of races in the Democratic voter base, not ideology at all. This presupposes that all minority voters in the US are for affirmative action as a natural condition of their race, with as much power as saying that a libertarian is for freedom of individual choice. It assumes an almost "by definition" status. If you believe that, it's reasonable to extrapolate that any party with a similar voter base is going to support such policies. And in the final analysis, this little statement supports the Democrat party's efforts to paint itself as THE party of minorities, with policies that represent minorities almost organically - which isn't true, but apparently it's something the writer believes.
As Spoons says, "I hate to see stuff like this... (i)n a NEWS story. That's awful."
Shanti Mangala of the always excellent Dancing with Dogs has moved her blog to the new domain she's set up with friends to support women bloggers. Her new address is http://madhoo.realwomenonline.com . Check it out!
The Skyline Network got out to find the truth at an anti-war protest, with some befuddled results. Too funny. There are photos.
[Thanks to Henry of CROOOOW blog for the link]
Earlier this week I posted a parody of The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, which was a leftie political screed. Now Stephen of Doggerel Pundit has written a clever response that rhymes and everything. A snippet:
Who decides when consumption's excessive and mindless?
Do sharpen your mind, to know better your blindness.
Is it you there, or you? Central planning's the worst,
Every time it is tried several millions die cursed.
The ideas and acts of lone women and men
Make our system work fine—they know best what and when.
It's a much much better job than I could have done.
Israpundit has an interesting - in a sad, infuriating way - juxtaposition of two posts today. First is an exclusive interview with former NSA Analyst James J Welsh, who says Arafat ordered the killing of two US diplomats 30 years ago - and the US covered up the connection. According to Welsh, tapes were made of Arafat giving the orders, messages that were intercepted before the killings took place. In the interview, Welsh says:
...tapes were made of Yasser Arafat planning, directing and finally ordering the executions of [Cleo] Noel and [George Curtis] Moore. On an emotional level, I have never forgotten the way in which the screw-up in notifying Khartoum was dealt with. To protect those who questioned our analysis, the whole affair became a non-event, ostensibely for security reasons. No one at State or NSA who was involved in the downgrading of the warning message ever suffered any consequences. When I asked to speak with the persons responsible for the decision, I was refused. Conversely, due to my heated criticisms of those responsible, I was subjected to a lowered score on my next military evaluation. The message became very clear at that point: enlisted NCOs do not question civilian GS-16s.
The possibility of coverup is definitely something to think about, in the wake of 9/11 and the repeated evidence that the CIA, FBI and NSA are tangled up in ego and bureaucracy more than is healthy for the nation - a situation that is apparently of long standing and thoroughly institutionalized. I don't know much about the assassination of these two diplomats, but I encourage you to read the interview conducted by Joseph Alexander Norland and consider its implications.
And in another post on Israpundit above the Welsh interview, we learn this:
"Arafat placed No. 6 on a list [in Forbes magazine] of world leaders in the "kings, queens, and despots" category. Saudi Arabia's King Fahd topped the list at $20 billion, and Saddam Hussein was fourth with $2b.Forbes wrote that Arafat has "feasted on all sorts of funds flowing into the PA, including aid money, Israeli tax transfers, and revenue from a casino and Coca-Cola bottler. Much of the money appears to have gone to pay off others. New Finance Minister Salaam Fayad is cleaning up the PA's finances, cutting off much of Arafat's cash flow."
Sometimes murder does pay.
I'm sorry to say that I watched the last three episodes of Joe Millionaire. What's more, I enjoyed them. It's a sad sad commentary on my life.
Evan Marriott, Mr. Joe Millionaire himself, did not do it for me. He had that flat-back-of-the-head thing going, he was much too muscle-y, and just a bit too engaging for my tastes. I won't be so cruel as to mention that his elevator doesn't reach the top floor. However, I was puzzled about why he struck me as fake - besides the fact that he was. What was my clue? Other than, of course, that he's the kind of guy who'd wear this shirt.
But none of that was enough to make me edgy. Tonight I figured out what did:
His angst over his feelings.
Now, I like it when I can get down into a man's psyche and tinker around, figuring out how things work. It's a difficult task, and dangerous at times, and you never know when you'll find a petrified peanut butter sandwich or a lint-fuzzed ancient attitude mucking up the works. But you know that if you've actually gotten them to talk about feelings at all, one of three things is happening: They want to impress you, you're really good friends and they hate to tell you to shut yer yap before they shut it for you, or some major trauma like wrecking their Mercedes convertible right after losing their job happened just yesterday. Or this afternoon. You see, guys don't dish about emotions. Can you imagine it?
Guy 1: Dude, I was so upset last night.Guy 2: Oh no! What happened? Tell, tell!
Guy 1: Well, I was beginning to think that Marsha was opening up to me, that I was touching her heart, but she was so cold. I cried all the way home.
Guy 2: Get out! You should have called me, I would have cried with you!
See? Very scary. But during each show (at least the ones I saw), Evan dished. And dished. And anguished about his Big Lie. And talked about the way the different women made him feel - above the waist. By the end of the series, I was thinking, this is not a man. I do not trust this man!
I know he got paid for emoting, but think about it: How many men of your acquaintance, no matter how gooshy they are with their spouse or Involved Person, would get on national television to emote? Even if they got outrageous sums to do it? I'm thinking of a few who not only wouldn't, but couldn't. They wouldn't know what to say. It's not that they aren't emotional, that they can't be romantic, that they're losers in the great relationship stakes. They just don't go on and on and on about it, and their mind travels on such different paths that they'd be as befuddled as I would be if asked to talked seriously about batting stats for five minutes.
There's nothing of great moment that I'm saying here. It's just been puzzling me why he made me edgy. And that's it. A good match is yin-yang, not yin-yin.
Of course, this could have just been an elaborate excuse for posting a link to Evan Marriott in a sheer shirt.
Well, that was fast - I've set up an email address for this effort, so if you know of any employers who are paying full salaries or differential salaries to our reservist soldiers, please send their name, their website link if they have one, and how you know they're doing this, to: thegoodguys2003-at-hotmail.com.
And once the list is up, keep checking it to see what employers you need to support.
UPDATE: I've set up a temporary page here, but another (much better at this stuff) blogger has donated both hosting space and MT design assistance, so something better will be up soon. Only two employers listed thus far. I'm going to research this online and by doing some calling around, so more should go up soon. Any assistance you can provide would be excellent.
So if a boycott means you don't buy something from a particular person or place, is a campaign to encourage people to buy things from someone called a "girlcott"?
I just saw on FoxNews that several employers are paying the full salaries of reserve soldiers called up for this war, and several others are paying the difference between their regular salaries and the military salary. That's fantastic, precisely what should be happening, and I think we should show our approval by opening our pocketbooks or in other ways supporting those companies. I know Sears was one of those - paying the salary difference - and there were two others mentioned. If any of you see a list somewhere, or know yourself of a company, I'm going to set up a "Supporting Our Soldiers" page for a master list. Then, if you're looking for something to replace that French wine, German camera, or Belgian chocolates, you'll have an easy place to go.
UPDATE: Actually the update is: scroll up a post for more information. The temporary site is Supporting Our Soldiers on blogspot; will be moving it hopefully next week to a more stable, attractive home.
Here's an article at FoxNews about the ruckus in Maine over accusations that some teachers said anti-war things to the children of deployed National Guardsmen.
The state school superintendent "fire(d) off" a letter telling teachers to use "sensitivity" with the children. I'm thinking he should tell teachers caught doing it that they'll get time out - as in suspended - at the very least. Firing should be an option, and I don't mean firing off a letter.
I'm glad to see that FoxNews talked to Joe Katzman, who's Winds of Change site kept hammering the issue. Good job, Joe.
Why is it that when I haven't posted all day, there's still a slew of people who have 5-6 page views when they're on the site? Haven't they been here in days? Am I so engaging they MUST have reruns? Or are there darker reasons, some nefarious intent in searching my archives?
Just so you know, I'm taking the 5th whether or not I did whatever it is you're looking for. Even if I didn't do it, denying anything is a bad idea. If I did this: "deny deny deny 5th deny deny", I might as well say this: "deny deny deny YES I DID IT WHAT'S IT TO YOU! deny deny". So - always deny everything. It's easier that way.
Oh, and if you're going to be around that much, could you please remember to remind me tomorrow to buy light bulbs before going home? I'm getting tired of showering by kerosene lamp.
I detest the new design for the World Trade Center.
But then I've never liked modern - even, really, the first set of towers in terms of design.
My boss just got back from a trip to London, and I asked him what the word about the war was there. He said an Arab woman was standing outside a theater where they were going to see a play, handing out flyers saying "Maddog Bush" and other nastiness. He went up to her and said:
Until you've pulled bodies from a burning building hit by radical Arabs, don't come talking around me about Maddog Bush!"
Oh, and he used variants of "f***" to modify most of the words in the sentence.
He was at Ground Zero just hours after the buildings came down. He saw the devastation, he helped locate body parts. He doesn't have much patience with the anti-war types.
UPDATE: My boss brought us all back little metal police officer keychains. He's a friendly looking, smiling police officer, with his domed bobby hat, a shoulder radio, v-neck sweater with a tie under it, handcuffs, mace (or whatever chemical they carry), and a nightstick. But... no gun. Interesting.
Kevin Parrott says all the usual reasons for legalizing marijuana are nonsense, but he thinks it should be legalized anyway. I definitely agree with his conditions for legalization.
On the other hand, you don't want me deciding about legalization because I'd outlaw not just the usual suspects, but alcohol and tobacco too. No vices for anybody! None! Except, of course, me - you will face death if you come between me and my chocolate.
And those of you who agree with me on the rest, don't even start on how chocolate isn't as bad as the others - after all, nobody's wiped out an entire family while driving under the influence of chocolate. The point is, if your concern is vice and not harm, then remember that gluttony's right up there with the rest of the sins, and we're not going to claim we ever eat chocolate in moderation. Right? Right? And can you say "clogged arteries and early death"? Excuse me now, I'm off to develop a hierarchical scale of harm justifying graduated restrictions on various vices so chocolate comes in as least-harm.
(Just tryin' to keep us all honest.)
[Thanks to Andrea for the heads up on this most excellent link]
Saddam vows death before exile
I encourage him to make that sooner rather than later.
On a more personal note, under the category of seriously weird, it's always odd to me when I see a photograph or video of Saddam. He looks very like my mom's dad (who died when I was 16) and quite a bit like her brother. Let me hasten to add that neither of them is (or was) a maniacally evil mass murderer, although my grandfather had times when he did very bad things. And my mom's brother is one of the nicest men you'd ever meet, hilarious, kind, friendly, upstanding citizen, tightly tied to his Baptist faith. So it's kind of freaky to look up at the TV when I've been distracted a few minutes and think, "Oh, that looks like Uncle Johnny!" followed quickly by "Ack! It's Saddam Hussein!"
I'm happy to report that my uncle does not have 36,000 photos of himself in or on his house, there are no mosques or churches bearing his image anywhere on his property, nor does he have any huge billboards extolling his virtues alongside the main road. To my knowledge he has never killed anyone.
UPDATE: Scrappleface has more on Saddam's new proposal.
I just tried to make my calls for the Virtual March on Washington, and got that message repeatedly.
*BEEEP*! We're sorry, all circuits are busy now.
So it's happening. I'll keep trying to get my dissenting voice heard, though.
Two guys from New Jersey started Monday on a run across the US. They aren't planning to pay for lodging, and they aren't taking a support car - they're just packing up backpacks and hauling out. The subtitle of their site is "We're going for a run... Can we crash at your place?" I like these guys.
What they are doing is keeping a weblog about the experience. Here's the guys, here's the plan, here's the route, here's the news, and here's where I got the link. I like this quote:
We think that we'd be crazy for not attempting this run. Craziness is not chasing a dream when given the chance. At 25-years old, no strings attached, and in a world where tomorrow is not a guarantee........this is our chance.
Very cool.
I'm just glad they're not making some kind of anti-war statement. Then I would be forced to make a comparison between a 25-year-old who can take six months off to run across the country free-loading, and an 18-year-old who's putting his life on the line for America in the Middle East. Right now I can just be intrigued and cheer them on.
Salam at Where is Raed? has photos of Baghdad and another city on his site - and these aren't tourist shots. Two bits of information he shares caught my attention particularly:
It is not allowed to take photographs in the streets just like that; we were working on a site in the area and were given a permit to photograph the site. Lucky for us the paper did not specify the exact location where we are allowed to photograph G. never overlooks an opportunity like that, these are some of the photographs he has taken.
Can't take photographs in a public street without a written permit? And our journalists get testy because while they're embedded with the military and uncensored during an active operation, they can't have unrestricted access to classified military information. You know, I'm beginning to understand how people can say that the US government is worse than Iraq's, can't you?
You know the boxes you have everywhere asking you to donate clothes for third world countries? That is a swindle, well, not all the way. The first part is probably all very much in the spirit of kindness and things are really donated to some organization in the “third world”. There things get a bit dirtier, there is a huge international market dealing with these “donations”. Things are sorted out and sold from when country to the next, Iraq gets most of the stuff from Turkey and Syria. It is such a problem here in Iraq the government had to make rules what sort of second-hand clothes you are allowed to import. Underwear is a no-go. I am not saying that it is no use donating these clothes to third-world-aid organization, actually these clothes are the only affordable clothes many people can buy and this has created a sort of income to people who would have ended up with no income at all. Besides, it always makes me smile when I see someone wearing a Cliff Richards concert T-shirt, at least this kind of makes up for the atrocities against taste he has committed.
Curious. Now I'm itching to know what those organizations are.
The buildings in the photographs don't look very fire-safe. I wonder if one side effect of bombing Baghdad would be starting fires difficult to stop because of tinder-box conditions. That makes even precision bombing more dangerous for the general population.
It's that time again! Carnival of the Vanities puts up its tent this week at Kesher Talk.
John Loftus is on WABC 770's Batchelor & Alexander show right now, and they're discussing Sami Al Arian, the University of South Florida professor arrested recently for leading an Islamic terrorist organization. Loftus, a lawyer and former intelligence agent, has been tracking Al Arian since 1989, and has urged the federal government to indict him for years. According to Loftus, one of the pieces of evidence against Al Arian is the transcript of a telephone call - made from Florida - where he is yelling at someone in Palestine because Hamas or Hezbollah was getting credit for kills funded by his organization. He raised the money, he needed the publicity or his fundraising would be compromised! Chilling. Again according to Loftus, Al Arian's activities were funded by the same Saudi banks that funded Al Qaeda terrorists. Now, why is it again we don't turn Saudi Arabia into a sheet of glass?
If this is proven against Al Arian, and Loftus cites very damning evidence, then he should be executed. Soon. He and his whole cadre.
I also got a chill when they mentioned where Al Arian lives - Temple Terrace, FL, a suburb of Tampa which is very close to USF and, incidentally, also the town where I attended junior college. A bunch of my friends went to school at USF, about the time Al Arian was getting into town. It's a small world, not always in a nice way.
You can listen to Batchelor & Alexander live until 1 a.m. Apparently the whole show is with Loftus.
An unusual snowstorm has locked up Israel and Palestine, bringing people out into the snow to play instead of fight.
Lance Gentry has a corny but very cute parody of the Beverly Hillbillies theme song - only his version features Saddam. Here's the link - swallow that drink while the page loads, then scroll past the Eccelesiates quote to The Ballad of Saddam.
Apparently teachers in Maine who are anti-war are making it their business to tell the children of deployed National Guardsmen that their daddies are bad for fighting in a war.
I guess their usual "It's For The Children ™" means only "children whose parents agree with us or can't make their voices heard because they're under the jackboot of a totalitarian dictator".
Oh, most of the kids were between 7 and 9. Nice.
UPDATE: Trent Telenko] and Joe Katzman have the details.
UPDATE: Mike at Cold Fury rants on the teachers too. I want a copy of his insults thesaurus; he's much more colorful than me.
I think we have to be careful about letting the left define what qualifies as "dissent". What those teachers did is not dissent, it's harassment. Period.
Here's a transcript of an interview of Bias author and journalist Bernard Goldberg by Chris Matthews. Pretty interesting, and a nice summary of Goldberg's points if you've not read the book.
I was amused at what was deleted from the transcript, which I'm sure was because of broadcasting restrictions and not the show engaging in self-censoring. Anyway, compare these:
...it didn’t shock me that a newsperson was being smart (EXPLETIVE DELETED). I mean, it would shock me if a newsperson wasn’t being smart (EXPLETIVE DELETED).
I'm thinking that expletive was "ass", not "aleck". Now this:
MATTHEWS: I like guys who put their balls on the line like you do.GOLDBERG: Well I appreciate that.
Now, I don't know about you, but if I was scoring vulgarities on a scale of 1-10, I'd rate "smartass" and "balls" about equal. Who makes these lists? Someone needs a refresher course in modern slang.
[Thanks to Henry of Croooow blog for the link]
A Texas man has cut a plea deal involving his sleeping in a doghouse for 30 nights. The man was charged with child abuse for, among other things, forcing his 11 year old stepson to sleep in a doghouse during all kinds of weather.
I'm sure a man like that is already used to it. I think the punishment should also include a choke collar and a rolled up newspaper.
[Thanks to Ty Clevenger for the link]
If your only knowledge about religion was television, you'd think all preachers were either robed priests, bearded rabbis or red-faced fundamentalist screamers raining verbal hellfire and brimstone on their swaying followers. If you expanded it to coverage in the local media, you'd learn that religious people are either warm-hearted love-everyone liberals, stern social obstructionists or just people who eat a lot in the church basement. David Shaw in his LA Times' Media Matters column reviewing Doug Underwood's recent book From Yahweh to Yahoo!: The Religious Roots of the Secular Press, finds that journalists don't bring knowledge to covering religion, and don't generally understand the impact it has on people's lives:
"Members of the faith community are on target," Underwood writes, "when they complain about the incapacity or the unwillingness of journalists to take seriously the importance of the spiritual dimension in the lives of so many people."Indeed, media coverage of not just religion but also of politics, science, psychology and technology, among other subjects, would be "much better if journalists better understood the role religion plays as a motivating force in so many areas of society," says Underwood, a former reporter, who's an associate professor of communications at the University of Washington.
This is especially true now, of course, when the threat of terrorism and the seemingly intractable hostilities in the Mideast have their roots, at least partially, in religion.
Although Underwood says journalists' moral and social justice values often spring from the same motivation as those 64% of Americans who say they attend weekend worship services at least once a month, most journalists tend to be less traditionally religious.
Surveys show that Americans are among the most devout people in the world, and spirituality is routinely cited as one of the most important forces in their lives. But Robert Bellah, a professor of sociology at UC Berkeley, once told me that most journalists are "simply blind to religion. They think it's ... something only ignorant and backward people really believe in.
"This is not necessarily a conscious judgment," Bellah said, just part of most journalists' "general worldview."
Shaw notes that journalism has both a mission and obligation to be contrarian, to look analytically at all institutions without giving favor because religion is involved - and I agree that this is a good thing. As we've learned from recent revelations of Catholic priests sexually abusing young children in their ministerial sphere, religious organizations are not always very good at either policing their own or protecting others from them when they behave criminally or legally but reprehensibly. It's by no means limited to Catholics - look at the antics of Jesse Jackson and Jim Bakker - nor to Christians, as shown by the arrest this past week of a prominent New Jersey rabbi for soliciting sex with a minor online. And we need little reminder of the damage caused by those who absorb only the potential for hate in their chosen religious doctrine - 9/11 will forever serve that purpose in the minds of Americans. I think it's important for the media to cover these things.
In addition, it's imperative for the media to add their oversight to that of private and government groups in the intersection of government and religion in the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives. While I have a number of problems with that program, I do think there is potential for great good there - and tremendous harm. The media can help keep the door open to those programs when the zealous would hide the harm for fear of lessening the good.
The problem, as both Shaw and Underwood point out, is that most members of the media not only don't understand what it means to live your life according to a religious creed, they actively think it's either quaint, odd, silly or ignorant - or a mix of those. It would be like having only communists covering our federal government. The very notion that someone would choose that path is antithetical to their approach to life. (And yes, there are very devout religionists who are excellent journalists, but we're talking a preponderance, not the exceptions.) This is a foundational bias that operates from the deepest levels - in choosing what to cover and approaching it from a narrow perceptual frame - to the shallowest invoking of stereotypes in religious writing. It's definitely an area where the bias is skewed liberal to a startling degree.
There needs to be a widespread acknowledgement that the media cover religion poorly - news media especially need to change, but it wouldn't hurt the entertainment media to find a nuance or two as well. I'm not saying that journalists need to start believing in the various religions, or that only believers should cover religion; in fact, I'd say that would be a definite mistake. What I am saying is that the media needs to recognize that religion is a genuine force in people's lives, and it makes a difference. As Shaw's column quotes:
"Whether we consciously recognize it or not, religion has a lot to do with how we think about a whole range of political and social issues, ranging from abortion to welfare," [Diane Winston, a former religion writer who is the program officer for religion at the Pew Charitable Trusts,] says. "We need to figure out how to have someone in the newsroom think beyond today's headlines and recognize religion as a social force in both our individual lives and the life of our society.
We look endlessly at how sex and relationships affect our lives, how our children impact us, how our jobs and bosses and make of car tweek our decision-making processes. We don't look at closely at the role of religion, and I agree one major reason is the skepticism of the media about the whole realm of faith. But you don't have to agree with someone's belief system to document how it affects her life. And if we have greater knowledge of the role all different types of religion have in the lives of their adherents, we'll be better prepared to deal reasonably as a society with dangerous aberrations like sexual predators in clerical garb, or mass murderers sacrificing innocents to Allah.
[Link from Media Minded, who has thoughtful comments on the topic as well.]
A friend forwarded this to me, so probably a lot of you have seen it. I'm not sure* where it originated, so if you do let me know and I'll post it. The poem is a rewrite of Dr. Seuss's The Grinch Who Stole Christmas, and it's so leftie-squishy that you can just about feel it between your toes. And no, it's not a parody. Someone wrote this not just with a straight face, but likely with a sincere belief that he would touch people's hearts.
Fortunately, mine's already shriveled and hardened beyond leftie redemption. And I'm happy about that.
UPDATE: The Binch is in MORE
The Whos down in Whoville liked this country a lot, But the Grinch in the White House most certainly did not. He didn't arrive there by the will of the Whos, But stole the election that he really did lose. Vowed to "rule from the middle," then installed his regime. (Did this really happen or is it just a bad dream?)He didn't listen to voters, just his friends he was pleasin'
Now, please don't ask why, no one quite knows the reason.
It could be his heart wasn't working just right.
It could be, perhaps, that he wasn't too bright.
But I think that the most likely reason of all,
Is that both brain and heart were two sizes too small.In times of great turmoil, this was bad news,
To have a government that ignores its Whos.
But the Whos shrugged their shoulders, went on with their work,
Their duties as citizens so casually did shirk.
They shopped at the mall and watched their T.V.
They drove their gas guzzling big S.U.V.Oblivious to what was going on in D.C.
Ignoring the threats to democracy.
They read the same papers that ran the same leads,
Reporting what only served corporate needs.
(For the policies affecting the lives of all nations
Were made by the giant U.S. Corporations.)Big business grew fatter, fed by its own greed,
And by people who shop for the things they don't need.
But amidst all the apathy came signs of unrest,
The Whos came to see we were fouling our nest.
And the people who cared for the ideals of this nation
Began to discuss and exchange information.The things they couldn't read in the corporate-owned news
Of FTAA meetings and CIA coups.
Of drilling for oil and restricting of rights.
They published some books, and created Websites
Began to write letters and use their e-mail
(Though Homeland Security might send them to jail!)What began as a whisper soon grew to a roar,
These things going on that they couldn't ignore.
They started to rise up and fight City Hall
As their voices were heard, others rose to the call,
To vote, to petition, to gather, dissent,
To question the policies of the "President."As greed gained in power and power knew no shame
The Whos came together, sang "Not in our name!"
One by one from their sleep and their slumber they woke
The old and the young, all kinds of folk,
The black, brown and white, the gay, bi- and straight,
All united to sing, "Feed our hope, not our hate!Stop stockpiling weapons and aiming for war!
Stop feeding the rich, start feeding the poor!
Stop storming the deserts to fuel SUV's!
Stop telling us lies on the mainstream T.V.'s!
Stop treating our children as a market to sack!
Stop feeding them Barney, Barbie-Ken and Big Mac!Stop trying to addict them to lifelong consuming,
In a time when severe global warming is looming!
Stop sanctions that are killing the kids in Iraq!
Start dealing with ours that are strung out on crack!"
A mighty sound started to rise and to grow,
The old way of thinking simply must go!No more God versus Allah, Muslim vs. Jew
With what lies ahead, it simply won't do.
No American dream that cares only for wealth
Ignoring the need for community health.
The rivers and forests are demanding their pay,
If we're to survive, we must walk a new way.No more excessive and mindless consumption
Let's sharpen our minds and garner our gumption.
The ideas are simple, but the practice is hard,
And not to be won by a poem on a card.
It needs the ideas and the acts of each Who,
So let's get together and plan what to do!"And so they all gathered from all 'round the Earth
And from it all came a miraculous birth.
The hearts and the minds of the Whos grew and grew,
Three sizes to fit what they felt and they knew.
While the Grinches all shrank from their hate and their greed,
Bearing the weight of their every foul deed.From that day onward the standard of wealth,
Was whatever fed the Whos spiritual health.
The schools taught their children co-operation and caring,
Respect and tolerance, acceptance and sharing.
They gathered together to revel and feast,
And worked with each other to conquer their beast.For although our story pits Grinches 'gainst Whos,
The true battle lies in what we daily choose.
For inside each Grinch is a tiny small Who,
And inside each Who is a tiny Grinch too.
One thrives on love and one thrives on greed.
Who will win out? It depends who you feed!
Personally, I want schools to teach math and English, but then I'm a Grinch. What do I know? There's just too much there to take point by point - the easiest thing to do is count how many cliches and liberal lies someone managed to fit into one short and admittedly catchy poem.
How many did you find?
* I did find it on this Wiccan site, and also here, and it gives a copyright of David Goodkin 2002. So we'll go with that for now.
------------
My friend Desiree sent this, reminding me that it made its rounds after 9/11 - could it have inspired this latest manifestation? Another reader provides a link in comments.
The Binch
Every U down in Uville liked U.S. a lot,
But the Binch, who lived Far East of Uville, did not.
The Binch hated U.S! the whole U.S. way!
Now don't ask me why, for nobody can say,
It could be his turban was screwed on too tight.
Or the sun from the desert had beaten too bright
But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.
But, Whatever the reason, his heart or his turban,
He stood facing Uville, the part that was urban.
"They're doing their business," he snarled from his perch.
"They're raising their families! They're going to church!
They're leading the world, and their empire is thriving,
I MUST keep the S's and U's from surviving!"
Tomorrow, he knew, all the U's and the S's,
Would put on their pants and their shirts and their dresses,
They'd go to their offices, playgrounds and schools,
And abide by their U and S values and rules,
And then they'd do something he liked least of all,
Every U down in U-ville, the tall and the small,
Would stand all united, each U and each S,
And they'd sing Uville's anthem, "God bless us! God bless!"
All around their Twin Towers of Uville, they'd stand,
and their voices would drown every sound in the land.
"I must stop that singing," Binch said with a smirk,
And he had an idea--an idea that might work!
The Binch stole some U airplanes in U morning hours,
And crashed them right into the Uville Twin Towers.
"They'll wake to disaster!" he snickered, so sour,
"And how can they sing when they can't find a tower?"
The Binch cocked his ear as they woke from their sleeping,
All set to enjoy their U-wailing and weeping,
Instead he heard something that started quite low,
And it built up quite slow, but it started to grow--
And the Binch heard the most unpredictable thing...
And he couldn't believe it--they started to sing!
He stared down at U-ville, not trusting his eyes,
What he saw was a shocking, disgusting surprise!
Every U down in U-ville, the tall and the small,
Was singing! Without any towers at all!
He HADN'T stopped U-Ville from singing! It sung!
For down deep in the hearts of the old and the young,
Those Twin Towers were standing, called Hope and called Pride,
And you can't smash the towers we hold deep inside.
So we circle the sites where our heroes did fall,
With a hand in each hand of the tall and the small,
And we mourn for our losses while knowing we'll cope,
For we still have inside that U-Pride and U-Hope.
For America means a bit more than tall towers,
It means more than wealth or political powers,
It's more than our enemies ever could guess,
So may God bless America! Bless us! God bless!
I just heard on the news that a Black Hawk helicopter has gone down in Kuwait and four soldiers have died. No more information available now, although their manner didn't indicate a suspicion that the crash was the result of an attack.
Say a prayer for the families of these soldiers, and for all the coalition soldiers standing at the ready to make the world a safer place.
Hollywood apparently has a solution to the Iraq crisis. It involves Babs and a hirsute man.
Journalists will be allowed to go into battle zones with troops during any incursion into Iraq, a significant change in the military's recent approach to media access during active operations. You'd think the media would find it a very good thing, but Editor & Publisher keeps picking and poking at it. Here is a piece from a few days ago; the headline is a good summary:
Why Is Pentagon Inviting Press to Accompany Troops? Military Wants Its Own Story Told
Are you horrified yet? The military wants its own story told! Journalism may be under attack! Look at the first graph:
Often missing in the coverage of the Pentagon's "ground rules" for embedded reporters who will travel with U.S. forces in the event of a war with Iraq is the military's official explanation for why they are doing it. Pentagon officials have described some of the reasons but in the ground rules distributed to media with embedded reporters last week (first described by E&P) there exists a long introductory passage, labeled #2A, that states those reasons in revealing terms, but this has been overlooked in reporting about the release:
Other media outlets have "missed" this important bit of information, but E&P is right there to make sure you get the "revealing" terms of giving media this unprecedented access. Do they have to pass all material through a censor? Are they excluded from doing interviews? Are they barred from sending any material out to their bosses while action is going on? There should be something with potential to strike at the heart of journalistic integrity to warrant this concern. So let's see - here's the offending section from the official release:
"The Department of Defense (DOD) policy on media coverage of future military operations is that media will have long-term, minimally restrictive access to U.S. air, ground, and naval forces through embedding. Media coverage of any future operation will, to a large extent, shape public perception of the national security environment now and in the years ahead. This holds true for the U.S. public; the public in allied countries whose opinion can affect the durability of our coalition; and publics in countries where we conduct operations, whose perceptions of us can affect the cost and duration of our involvement."Our ultimate strategic success in bringing peace and security to this region will come in our long-term commitment to supporting our democratic ideals. We need to tell the factual story -- good or bad -- before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do. Our people in the field need to tell our story -- only commanders can ensure the media get to the story alongside the troops. We must organize for and facilitate access of national and international media to our forces, including those forces engaged in ground operations, with the goal of doing so right from the start."
Oh, no, we're becoming a communist dictatorship! First stop, military embedding, next stop Castro's Cuba! Oops, sorry, channeling media hysteria there for a minute. What precisely is the military saying they want to do? Here's the pertinent part, in my view:
We need to tell the factual story -- good or bad -- before others seed the media with disinformation and distortions, as they most certainly will continue to do.
There you go. The Evil Military want the journalists to tell the truth! How shocking! Does Howell Raines know about this? It can't be good for the industry. I don't understand why this hasn't been on the front page of every newspaper. Why did it take the vigilant E&P to get to the bottom of this?
And that's not all they found lurking in the murky depths of that Misleadingly Open-Seeming Document:
Close examination of one of the final sections of ground rules for embedded reporters traveling with U.S. forces recently distributed by the Pentagon reveals potential limits on reporting of "sensitive" material in any attack on Iraq. It also discloses how disputes with the media over review of their material, and restrictions on coverage, will be handled and decided...In a copy of the ground rules obtained by E&P, section 6 concerns "Security." Like the rest of the ground rules, most of this section sounds reasonable on the surface but the potential for severe restrictions on reporting becomes apparent under closer examination. In fact, it includes provisions for "security review" and the removal of "sensitive" information by the military. Also, reporters who do not agree to such review in advance may be denied access to certain information. [emphasis mine - ed.]
This time it sounds really serious. There are going to be limits! Limits are not allowed! Journalists are commanded by the Constitution to have every single bit of information they think is pertinent! Okay, so that's not a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but that's what it meant. Right?
So let's look at those scary limitations. You can go to the article for the full details; I'm just pulling out the main points:
Security at the source will be the Rule. U.S. military personnel shall protect classified information from unauthorized or inadvertent disclosure. Media provided access to sensitive information, information which is not classified but which may be of operational value to an adversary or when combined with other unclassified information may reveal classified information, will be informed in advance by the unit commander or his/her designated representative of the restrictions on the use or disclosure of such information. When in doubt, media will consult with the unit commander or his/her designated representative...If media are inadvertently exposed to sensitive information they should be briefed after exposure on what information they should avoid covering. In instances where a unit commander or the designated representative determines that coverage of a story will involve exposure to sensitive information beyond the scope of what may be protected by prebriefing or debriefing, but coverage of which is in the best interests of the [Department of Defense], the commander may offer access if the reporter agrees to a security review of their coverage. Agreement to security review in exchange for this type of access must be strictly voluntary and if the reporter does not agree, then access may not be granted.
"If a security review is agreed to, it will not involve any editorial changes; it will be conducted solely to ensure that no sensitive or classified information is included in the product. If such information is found, the media will be asked to remove that information from the product and/or embargo the product until such information is no longer classified or sensitive.
...Media products will not be confiscated or otherwise impounded. If it is believed that classified information has been compromised and the media representative refuses to remove that information notify the ... [Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense/Public Affairs] as soon as possible so the issue may be addressed with the media organization's management.
Note first that the article is written with a voice of doom. The writer, Greg Mitchell, says the guidelines sound "reasonable on the surface". This is not very sophisticated code for "They're trying to fool you! Don't be duped! It's a ruse! It's really not reasonable at all!" He says the "potential for severe restrictions... becomes apparent under closer examination" - code for "See?! They're trying to hide it!" And finally, "reporters who do not agree" to security reviews "may be denied access". It sounds really shocking, doesn't it?
So look at the guidelines. What's the truth? The military will protect classified or sensitive information - i.e. information the journalists would not normally have access to anyway. The media will be told when something is off-limits. If they accidently see something classified, then they'll be told that it is classified. If the commander of the unit the journalist is embedded with determines that it would serve the purposes of the military to share a story usually outside the scope of what the journalist can see, then he'll let the journalist have it if the journalist agrees to a security review. No agreement, no information. Remember this is information the journalist would never get otherwise. All the military wants is to review the information to make sure that nothing that can cause risk to the military or their goal is released. But they make it very clear that even if they do find classified information in an article, they won't confiscate the material or obstruct the journalist, but rather take it up the next level by letting the military commanders negotiate about it with the journalist's editors or publishers.
It's true that the journalists won't be turned lose to do whatever they please, but it's also true that they will have an unprecedented access. Naturally the military isn't blind to the benefits of allowing journalists in, because of not only the reason they said - because the enemy will always send out disinformation (can you say "Jenin"?) - but because seeing the truth of how the military does its job will build confidence and appreciation both in America and abroad. It's hypocritical for Mitchell to imply that this ulterior motive is sneaky, tarnishing the value of the access. This is, remember, the media that shows up in droves for photo ops of popular figures, which prints press releases with little or no editing, which slavishly covers every twitch of anti-war Hollywood. Why is Sean Penn's foray into Baghdad, wined and dined by a mass murderer, somehow more honest than the military opening up their operations to journalists with very few restrictions?
It's a good idea to make sure that journalists are aware of all the restrictions on them, and that the public as well understands that the journalists cannot share everything they see. But nonetheless there will be a time when what they see will not be classified, and they will not be limited in their ability to write on that. There's nothing onerous there, nor is journalistic integrity threatened. Quite the opposite. E&P needs to back off their own bias and cover the story objectively.
One year ago today, on a late Sunday night, I registered with Blogspot and set up cut on the bias. I posted a little paragraph of nothing - a notice that I was going to look at media bias - then let it sit two days before putting up anything of substance. But I exploded on the scene on that Tuesday when I got my very first Instalanche for a post on Michael Bellesiles, Doris Kearns Goodwin and legal pads. That same day I also posted about Daniel Pearl.
It's been just a wonderful year, beyond my expectations. I've met some fascinating people, both online and off, and made friends I think will be a part of my life for a while, hopefully a long while. I've gotten back into the habit of writing daily, one of my goals when I started this. I've been quoted in The LA Times and The Washington Post. And best of all, I have hundreds of readers who come back day after day to see what I have to say. There are people out there who read my blog more than my mom does! How cool is that?
I have a lot of people to thank. Dodd Harris of Ipse Dixit for inviting me to become a part of his Blogfodder family last June, which included a rather torturous redesign of my site in Moveable Type (torturous because I kept saying things like, "I'd like another 1/4 inch of white space... no, no, now I see I meant 1/2 inch..."); it's been a wonderful experience, and he's a great guy. Page of The Last Page for her patient and lovely redesign of my site last fall, and for her encouragement. Glenn Reynolds for linking me on his site, and then linking me on MSNBC, and generally for being the unofficial Mentor of the Blogosphere through his encouragement of us all, his voracious linking, and his touting of other bloggers including me when journalists call wanting to write about him. He's a gentleman in the true sense. And finally my non-bloggish friends Melody, who encourages me, comments on posts before they go up, challenges me with new ideas and is always enthusiastic about the blog; and Desiree, who sends me links, comments on posts, and always has an unusual and thoughtful insight into things that I hadn't thought of myself.
And most of all those of you who read every day, and comment. You're the biggest blessing in all this, and I hope to keep this reciprocal relationship going for another year. Thank you very much!
Things are looking up in Australia. At least, they are if you're not Margo Kingston.
A Bettie Page lookalike gyrated in a slave girl costume on the television high in one corner; the crowd pushed and shoved to pack in tighter, the air redolent of leather, hair grease and smoke. At least half the crowd looked airlifted in from the 1950s, the kind of tough crowd your momma said not to tangle with: women with coal black hair and Bettie Page bangs, wearing dark red lipstick and snug sweaters; guys with slicked back pompadours and leather jackets with chains. They packed still tighter in a long narrow room with walls half chinked log and half exposed brick; gold Christmas garland draped over a horned steer skull on one wall, just below a string of bright red jalapeno lights. Mexican blankets hung behind the stage, vying for wall space with a Cattle Xing sign and a white lace dressmaker’s bust wearing a gold metal cone bra.
Two guys pushed their way from the old horse trailer doing duty as a bar, carrying red plastic cups over their heads and shouting, We have to get to the stage! A few minutes later, as one tuned a bass and the other tapped on the drums, two more guys shoved through the crowd from the bar in the other room, greased pompadours in harmony with the mood of the night. In short order, the four men who make up The Belmont Playboys took the stage, and carried the audience with them on a three hour journey into the heart of rockabilly.
It was a lovefest between rockers and the rocked.
The sound was loud enough to peel the paint off the metal Texas flag covers on the overhead speakers, but good enough that you didn’t care. The songs shifted from old standards to original Belmont Playboys tunes from their CDs, some vocal and some just hot hot guitar and bass licks; the bass guitar player braced his legs wide, closed his eyes and played, one thick chunk of hair breaking free from the pompadour to hang in his face. The lead singer showed he wasn’t all about words, riffing through instrumentals that you didn’t want to end. The bass player attacked his bass like he was fighting with a lover, the drummer causing such heat he finally came out of his shirt. The audience rocked along, cheering, clapping; sometimes a girl would pop up near the stage and do some gyrations of her own. One of the occasional dancers was a curvy woman in a tight black skirt and a pink jacket covered with short swingy pink fringe, her black bustier showing lots of high cleavage in front. As the evening drew to a close – broken only by a brief break between sets and a couple of wild turns on stage by other rockers – the Belmont’s lead singer said, I need a chorus for this last song… a Drunk Bastards Chorus! Two greased and leathered guys from the audience took over the center mic, and the pink fringed woman owned the one on the side, growling her way through a rendition of “Switchblade Pompadour” that rocked the house.
At 2 a.m. the music stopped for good and the Playboys headed back to the horse trailer bar to take the edge off the adrenalin, honoring the showman’s creed: Always leave them panting for more.
UPDATE: Here's Mike's tale of his weekend.
What an amazing weekend, bloggishly speaking! Friday night I talked to Dodd for over two hours, and that was very cool. Actually, Dodd is very cool. I now know all kinds of things that I can threaten to mention if I need more bandwidth or something on Blogfodder. Later that night I got to talk to Jim Bowen (briefly!), as well as several other bloggers (and I didn't mean to diss Christopher Johnson - we had a bad connection!). Yesterday I met my non-blogger friend Ben for a while at the Rodeo Bar, and he had barely left before Diane E. of Letter From Gotham showed up to eat dinner with me. We had a great time trash-talking over chips and salsa for about an hour before going into the live music room; it was very packed, and she wasn't feeling well, so she went home before the show began. The Belmont Playboys, with Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury up front, gave an excellent show that was truly one of the best live music shows I've seen in both talent and energy. Yes, Mike, I can see why it takes it out of you. Mike is as much a mix of Southern gentleman and bad-ass rocker in person as he seems on his blog. For more on the show, see the post above.
It was such a good weekend that standing in the rain in Manhattan trying to catch a cab at 2 a.m. seemed just a part of the fun. When I reached the PATH, it was a bonus to sit across from an Army National Guardsman in full camoflauge uniform, on his way home to Jersey from a stint as an armed guard in the city's subways. I thanked him for his service, and that of his active duty comrades in arms overseas, and we got into a several-way conversation with other PATH train riders as we sped through the tunnels going home.
I'm about recovered from the late night and a bout of not feeling too good today (no details; be thankful). Tomorrow is work. I think I'll take my Belmont Playboys CD with me.
Among the criticisms that the peacemongers have of the United States' handling of the current Iraq situation is that a) the US at one point considered Saddam an ally; b) the US has had a long time to deal with him and hasn't; and c) the US didn't do anything constructive to stop Saddam in 1988 when he gassed the Kurds in Northern Iraq. These are all, in my judgment, valid criticisms.
The problem is, the peacemongers are being dishonest when they cite them. The implication is that the US should not have made Saddam an ally; that the US should have dealt with him sooner; and probably no later than 1988 when he gassed the Kurds. It actually sounds like a remarkably hawkish position from the peacemongers: "What have you been doing! This man should have been dead decades ago!" That isn't, of course, what they actually mean. What they mean is, "The US is evil to have done business with him in the past! The fact that the US hasn't done anything up until now says he wasn't that great of a threat before OR now and it's all about oil! Evil evil US!" In other words, the "criticisms" are actually accusations, and unanswerable ones at that.
This is not news to any of you. It's just occurred to me several times lately, in the course of thinking about the shallowness, naivity and dishonesty of much of the "peace movement", so I thought I'd make it official by blogging about it.
And on the matter of gassing the Kurds, Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air interviewed Peter Galbraith, former U.S. ambassador to Croatia and now professor of national-security studies at the National War College in Washington, D.C. He was for a time an assistant in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations back in the late 1980s, and he spent time investigating what was happening in Iraq - actually spending a lot of time there. He was one of the ones who alerted the US about the attack on the Kurds by Saddam (here is the original post). One pertinent thing he noted was that the US did express their anger at the gassing of the Kurds and it stopped. The US didn't smash Saddam over it, but they did make it stop. And I think that counts for something. In fact, isn't that what the peacemongers would have advocated at the time? A diplomatic solution? So why aren't they happy now?
Oh, yeah. They aren't happy until everyone is holding hands and singing "All you need is love".
I just spent more than two hours watching Mike Hendrix and the Belmont Playboys playing live at the Rodeo Bar & Grille in Manhattan. I only have one thing to say:
The man is a rockabilly god.
I was going to dismember an article on human shields in the NY Times on Thursday, but between the self-parody of the "shields" and the truth from Iraq blogger Salam, there's not much for me to say. First, imagine the shock of this:
Others have become aware of the sinister side of what some say they naïvely interpreted as a kind of extraordinary war protest. "I think the Iraqi government is potentially putting us in a dangerous position," said a young Australian who said he had decided to leave.
Huh. Who would have thought an egomaniacal totalitarian despot would use well-meaning people so? I'm shocked, shocked! And compare the view of the HS with the view of a genuine Iraqi.
In the Times, a HS responding to Rumsfeld saying they were being "used" and their actions could be a "war crime":
"That is ridiculous," said Ken Nichols O'Keefe, a 33-year-old gulf war Marine veteran who initiated the idea. "They are not using me. I am here voluntarily. What is Saddam Hussein supposed to say? `No, they can't do it'? "
Well, yes, actually he could if he didn't think they were useful idiots - he's a dictator - but who am I to criticize and call them useful idiots? Better from Salam, in Baghdad:
what really got my goat this time was finding out that they get food coupons worth 15,000 dinars per meal, 3 for every day.fifteen thousan.Do you know how much the monthly food ration for a 4 person family is worth, for a whole month not per meal (real cost, not subsidized) ? 30,000 dinars, if you get someone to buy the bad rice they give you for a decent price. 15,000. What are they eating? A whole lamb every meal? Let's put this within context. Today in the morning Raed, our friend G. and I went for a late big breakfast we had 2 tishreeb bagilas (can't explain that, you have to be an Iraqi to get it otherwise it sounds inedible) and a makhlama (which is an omelet with minced meat), tea, fizzy drinks and argila afterwards (the water-pipe-thingy) all for 4,750 dinars, and we were not going super cheap. A lunch in any above-average restaurant will not be more than 8,000 dinars and that includes everything. 15,000 thousand is a meal in a super expensive restaurant in Arasat Street, in one of those places that really almost have an "only foreigners allowed, no Iraqis welcome unless you are UN staff" sign on it. I will stop calling them tourist when they stop taking all this pampering from the Iraqi government.
Not much to add to that, is there?
One of the most infuriating aspects of the peacemongering movement is the craven and despicable use of God and Jesus as cudgels to beat the Bush administration and any of those who support military means to disarm Saddam. Religionists who find in their own spiritual walk a strong distaste for war despite almost any circumstances make every effort to cloak themselves in righteousness as they tell the rest of us that we're godless wretches for believing war is the right thing to do. I haven't any problem with their decision to oppose it, even on religious grounds. I object vehemently to their pseudopiety in saying that their position is supported by Jesus, as if they have some latter-day revelation.
The examples are many, ranging from Pope John Paul II to the minister who identifies himself as the Bishop of the church where President Bush goes, in an anti-war commercial for the National Council of Churches. It's not unusual or inappropriate for people with strong religious zeal to go against what they believe is wrong. But when ministers and other religious types step forward to oppose the war condemning it in God's name it is, in my opinion, a sinful invoking of God and Jesus as if they carry the weight of God's word behind them They do not. They only carry the weight of a firm conviction fueling a human opinion. Because, in the final analysis, the Bible does not speak to the Iraq issue.
This finally boiled over for me when I received an email from Ty Clevenger, a Christian who obtained his law degree from Stanford. Ty is a member of a Stanford-related listserv, and forwarded a link to this column by Dan Clendenin, a theology PhD who works with the InterVarsity Christian Faculty Fellowship at Stanford. He begins with a brief discussion of the book by Charles Sheldon that became the "What Would Jesus Do?" book. He then jumps off to explain how he opposes the war in Iraq. Here is an excerpt:
Each of the 38 chapters presents a sort of ethical dilemma and ends with the question: what