Thanks to Tim Blair, my beagle knows what she wants for Christmas this year already...
Viking Pundit is channeling Harry Reid - scary!...
Mike at Grendel's Dragon has the scoop on an open letter from Dennis Kucinich to Howard Dean...recommended (the post, not the letter!)...
In a rare display of bipartisanship, the Kossacks are reaching across the aisle in mutual disdain of...well, see for yourself...
Carpe Bonum is still looking for your ideas on hostages...
Jayson at PoliPundit has some thoughts on a strict constructionist, and some advice for dissenters...
If you're in the mood for juicy gossip, Power Line has got you covered...
...the bewitching bebere boasts of Bush in the Baltics - beautiful!...
Saturday, May 07, 2005
Weekly Jackass Number Twenty-Two: Maggie Gyllenhaal
I've previously commented on Maggie Gyllenhaal's ill-conceived comments about 9/11, but in case you missed them, here's an encore (see also Don Feder's take):
My niece suggested I make Maggie my Weekly Jackass and I agreed because I want to address this 'responsibility' argument head on. America's role in the world is overwhelmingly positive. It is America that largely funds the United Nations, that organization full of America-haters. It was America that provided the bodies to liberate France on the shores of Normandy; and it was American money that resurrected Europe in the aftermath of World War II. It was America that occupied Japan, as it now occupies Iraq, long enough for the building of democratic institutions that would allow it to become one of the world's economic engines.
Yes, slavery was once allowed in America; it was Americans who ended it, themselves. It took four years and an ocean of blood, but we wiped away the horrendous practice by the grace of God. Yes, we were excessively ruthless in colonizing the West; if our current policies towards Native Americans are not sufficient to relieve us of the responsibility, at least we hope there is some mitigation. It was America that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, but despite having by a large margin the most devestating arsenal in the history of mankind, we have not dropped another in the 60 intervening years.
In short, it is American bodies, American dollars, American ideas, and American culture that permeate the increasingly transparent, democratic world that we live in. We didn't accomplish these things alone; we accomplished them with the help of allies like Australia and England. The Poles, the French, and the Canadians have shed more than just a little blood by our side; the day may come when they will be called to do so again. Temporary spats between the Western Europeans and our current administration aren't enough to break bonds forged in the fires of Hitler's Hell.
Even if the above were not true, though, the larger problem with an argument like Gyllenhaal's is its implied acceptance of terrorism as political dialogue. The proper response to an abominable atrociy like the one visited upon us that frightful day is speedy, aggresive mobilization. It was a call to war, not a call to a negotiating table. Osama bin Laden is not pursuing a ceasefire through diplomatic back channels; he is attempting to glorify a radical brand of anachronistic religious rule, such as that practiced by the Taliban, by striking at the very symbolic heart of capitalism and modernization. That is not a war that can be solved through diplomacy; it is a war to the death, and it is a war we cannot fail to win.
Gyllenhaal is young, and she is in the heart of Hollywood, the land of fuzzy political thinking, so perhaps she can be forgiven her thoughtlessness. It does not honor the victims of 9/11 to validate the feelings of their murderers; indeed, it is the worse insult possible.
"I think America has done reprehensible things and is responsible in some way and so I think the delicacy with which it's dealt [in the film The Great New Wonderful] allows that to sort of creep in...9/11 was a terrible tragedy and of course it goes without saying that I grieve along with every American for everyone who suffered and everyone who died in the catastrophe...[B]ut for those of us who were spared, it was also an occasion to be brave enough to ask some serious questions about America's role in the world."It's an encouraging sign that the comments triggered a firestorm of controversy; perhaps the American people have grown weary of examining 'our role in the world' to please the anti-capitalists and Bush-haters.
My niece suggested I make Maggie my Weekly Jackass and I agreed because I want to address this 'responsibility' argument head on. America's role in the world is overwhelmingly positive. It is America that largely funds the United Nations, that organization full of America-haters. It was America that provided the bodies to liberate France on the shores of Normandy; and it was American money that resurrected Europe in the aftermath of World War II. It was America that occupied Japan, as it now occupies Iraq, long enough for the building of democratic institutions that would allow it to become one of the world's economic engines.
Yes, slavery was once allowed in America; it was Americans who ended it, themselves. It took four years and an ocean of blood, but we wiped away the horrendous practice by the grace of God. Yes, we were excessively ruthless in colonizing the West; if our current policies towards Native Americans are not sufficient to relieve us of the responsibility, at least we hope there is some mitigation. It was America that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yes, but despite having by a large margin the most devestating arsenal in the history of mankind, we have not dropped another in the 60 intervening years.
In short, it is American bodies, American dollars, American ideas, and American culture that permeate the increasingly transparent, democratic world that we live in. We didn't accomplish these things alone; we accomplished them with the help of allies like Australia and England. The Poles, the French, and the Canadians have shed more than just a little blood by our side; the day may come when they will be called to do so again. Temporary spats between the Western Europeans and our current administration aren't enough to break bonds forged in the fires of Hitler's Hell.
Even if the above were not true, though, the larger problem with an argument like Gyllenhaal's is its implied acceptance of terrorism as political dialogue. The proper response to an abominable atrociy like the one visited upon us that frightful day is speedy, aggresive mobilization. It was a call to war, not a call to a negotiating table. Osama bin Laden is not pursuing a ceasefire through diplomatic back channels; he is attempting to glorify a radical brand of anachronistic religious rule, such as that practiced by the Taliban, by striking at the very symbolic heart of capitalism and modernization. That is not a war that can be solved through diplomacy; it is a war to the death, and it is a war we cannot fail to win.
Gyllenhaal is young, and she is in the heart of Hollywood, the land of fuzzy political thinking, so perhaps she can be forgiven her thoughtlessness. It does not honor the victims of 9/11 to validate the feelings of their murderers; indeed, it is the worse insult possible.
Why I'm Not Worried About 2008, Reason #412
Our opposition's idea of intelligent rhetoric (from a post entitled Republican Pond Scum - and it's NOT from the Daily Kos):
John Stuart Mill was wrong. The conservative party is not the stupid party. The conservative party is the bizarro mind-numbingly extreme stupid party.Ha, HAA, ha, ha, ha - HA!...such wit; such intelligence! It should be noted that DeLong is considered to be one of the better liberal bloggers; appropriately enough, he has filed the post under the category 'Utter Stupidity'...
That MoDo MoJo: No Retreat, Baby, No Surrender
If, like me, you harbor hopes that we could get over this endless debate over religion in politics being played out in the NY Times editorial pages, you'll be disappointed to know Maureen Dowd is determined to endlessly run variations on that same theme. The latest: a warning that...
...a spine-tingling he-monster with the power to drag us back into the pre-Darwinian dark ages is slouching around Washington. It's a fire-breathing creature with the head of W., the body of Bill Frist and the serpent tail of Tom DeLay.My God, but that's simply awful - please, Maureen, you're embarrassing yourself. It is our Islamic extremist enemies, not the Republicans, who are fighting for a return to the Dark Ages...unless you consider a democratic Middle East 'pre-Darwinian'.
Kossacks: Hitler Mentioned Christianity, Too...
...as if that had anything to do with anything. This piece is also noteworthy for referring to �ber-liberal cartoonist Ben Sargent (from my own hometown's pathetic rag of a newspaper) as a 'convervative', apparently for merely questioning the do-nothing stance of Democrats on the Social Security issue.
Candidate Profile Seventeen: George Allen
Virginia is a hot state, politically, at the moment; some excellent politicians on both sides of the aisle are running for state and national offices, or being talked up as presidential or vice-presidential candidates in 2008. At the moment, no one's hotter than Virginia GOP Senator George Allen, who was recently the champ in a poll of Washington insiders.
George Felix Allen - official bio
John Behan's Commonwealth Conservative is always a good source of info on Allen buzz (his own dream matchup is Condi-Allen) [CORRECTION 05/07/05 - that's the dream ticket of Will Vehrs, posted at Commonwealth Conservative - John prefers to see Allen at the top of the ticket].
Resume - U.S. Senator from Virginia; 67th governor of Virginia (1994-1998); former member of the U.S. and Virginia House; Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee; son of coaching legend and Pro Football Hall-of-Famer George Allen
Let's stipulate up front that Allen has some very attractive things going for him - superficially, he's tall and boyishly handsome; he's from the South (and at least a FORMER Southern governor); and he has a solid history of winning elections. Those who know him say he's got a bit of Bill Clinton's 'common man' touch. So how seriously should we take him, at this point?
First, a look at where he stands on the issues. Education is one of his stated priorities, but curiously, education issues never seem to offer much traction in presidential races. He's a solid pro-lifer; his voting record is pretty strong re: fiscal conservatism; and he's very pro-business. In other words, those who might be looking for an alternative to the perceived social liberalism of some of the GOP frontrunners should have no problem with Allen.
As for negatives, some apparently see his folksy demeanor as a sign of lack of intellect (hmm, where have I heard that before? - maybe that's not such a negative); senators don't have a great track record on presidental runs; and he's perceived by the liberals as a hardcore 'winger' (again, is that really a negative? Maybe in the general campaign, but not in the primaries).
I'm inclined to say Allen's a strong dark horse candidate in the middle of the pack with Mike Huckabee and Mark Sanford. His lack of name recognition outside of Virginia keeps me from putting him with the frontrunners, but I think the man's got a real outside shot, at least at a VP slot. He's definitely laying the groundwork for a run; two important things to watch for Allen and other up-and-comers are (1) how the campaign staff starts to shape up, and (2) the money, honey, always the money. Allen's worth keeping an eye on.
CURRENT ODDS: 20-1
UPDATE 07/24/2005 10:56 p.m.:
CURRENT ODDS: 14-1: see here...
George Felix Allen - official bio
John Behan's Commonwealth Conservative is always a good source of info on Allen buzz (his own dream matchup is Condi-Allen) [CORRECTION 05/07/05 - that's the dream ticket of Will Vehrs, posted at Commonwealth Conservative - John prefers to see Allen at the top of the ticket].
Resume - U.S. Senator from Virginia; 67th governor of Virginia (1994-1998); former member of the U.S. and Virginia House; Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee; son of coaching legend and Pro Football Hall-of-Famer George Allen
Let's stipulate up front that Allen has some very attractive things going for him - superficially, he's tall and boyishly handsome; he's from the South (and at least a FORMER Southern governor); and he has a solid history of winning elections. Those who know him say he's got a bit of Bill Clinton's 'common man' touch. So how seriously should we take him, at this point?
First, a look at where he stands on the issues. Education is one of his stated priorities, but curiously, education issues never seem to offer much traction in presidential races. He's a solid pro-lifer; his voting record is pretty strong re: fiscal conservatism; and he's very pro-business. In other words, those who might be looking for an alternative to the perceived social liberalism of some of the GOP frontrunners should have no problem with Allen.
As for negatives, some apparently see his folksy demeanor as a sign of lack of intellect (hmm, where have I heard that before? - maybe that's not such a negative); senators don't have a great track record on presidental runs; and he's perceived by the liberals as a hardcore 'winger' (again, is that really a negative? Maybe in the general campaign, but not in the primaries).
I'm inclined to say Allen's a strong dark horse candidate in the middle of the pack with Mike Huckabee and Mark Sanford. His lack of name recognition outside of Virginia keeps me from putting him with the frontrunners, but I think the man's got a real outside shot, at least at a VP slot. He's definitely laying the groundwork for a run; two important things to watch for Allen and other up-and-comers are (1) how the campaign staff starts to shape up, and (2) the money, honey, always the money. Allen's worth keeping an eye on.
CURRENT ODDS: 20-1
UPDATE 07/24/2005 10:56 p.m.:
CURRENT ODDS: 14-1: see here...
Postcards From Lebanon
Michael Totten has already shared with us some of Lebanon's beauty...here's some great images of another kind altogether...
Friday, May 06, 2005
Miscellanea: Put A Sock In It, Harry Edition
Betsy Newmark has a suggestion for Harry Reid; I concur wholeheartedly (here's more from Captain Ed)...
From the Kossacks: Ronald Reagan caused 9/11 (don't miss the sequel, Herbert Hoover responsible for Bay of Pigs) (hat tip to Little Green Footballs)...
If Margaret Thatcher is for John Bolton, that's good enough for me...
Only the Minuteman could take a riff on whether Vietnam vets were spit on and turn it into a post this compelling...
If Viking Pundit is right, I better add Joe Biden to the candidate profile list...
I'm beginning to think Lawrence O'Donnell is a complete raving lunatic...
From the Kossacks: Ronald Reagan caused 9/11 (don't miss the sequel, Herbert Hoover responsible for Bay of Pigs) (hat tip to Little Green Footballs)...
If Margaret Thatcher is for John Bolton, that's good enough for me...
Only the Minuteman could take a riff on whether Vietnam vets were spit on and turn it into a post this compelling...
If Viking Pundit is right, I better add Joe Biden to the candidate profile list...
I'm beginning to think Lawrence O'Donnell is a complete raving lunatic...
Two Physicists, Two Moving Stories
Jacques Distler has a reflective post up on life as the child of a Holocaust surviver; Lubos Motl, on the liberation of his hometown by General Patton. You should read both without delay...
Kim Jong-Il Won't Back Down
That's the message of this piece in today's Washington Post by David Ignatius, echoing the views of a former top CIA analyst. Ignatius gives a short history of North Korea's nuclear ambitions, then explains why there is virtually no chance Kim Jong-Il will give up on those ambitions. George W. Bush is entirely right that the correct solution here is multilateral; Jong-Il may rattle his saber at the Americans, but it's the Japanese and Chinese (and, needless to say, the South Koreans) who stand to lose the most if Kim is not contained. In the end, my gut says, it is Beijing that will ultimately decide how the cards play out.
Nothing Funny About This...
...and, seemingly, not a helluva lot we can do about it, either...This is why we can't let Iran join the nuclear club...once a country has the bomb, they're virtually impossible to stop. What a mess...
Newsweek on the Huffington Post
From a web-only article on the venture to start Monday:
Does this mean that blogs are ready for prime time ... or does it signal that the fad is in its death throes?What an insulting way of putting things...first of all, to assume that any 'celebrity' venture into the blogosphere will result in anything more worthwhile than the vast diversity of excellent sites that already exist (though it's sure to give smart-alecks like me a lot of material), but also to assume that (1) blogs aren't ready for prime time already, or (2) that blogs are a 'fad'. What does the Huffington Post mean for the vast majority of bloggers? Squat, that's what...
How Does A Teenager Become the Chair of a Non-Profit?
That's the question I have after reading the comments of Amnesty International Board Chairman Chip Pitts at a recent Austin appearance:
AIUSA Board Chair Chip Pitts made it known that AI is more relevant that ever. Saying human rights were "bleaker than they've ever been in my lifetime," Pitts marveled at the Bush administration putting torture back on the table.If this is true, then Pitts is an incredibly young man; otherwise, I would be forced to conclude that Pitts believes the human rights situation now is worse than during the times of (in increasing order of likelihood considering his probable age):
- Joseph Stalin's 20,000,000 + murder spree;
- Adoph Hitler's reign of terror and the Holocaust;
- Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution;
- Saddam Hussein's Iraq; and
- the rule of the Taliban in Afghanistan.
A Well-Deserved Milestone
I know you'll join me in congratulating the great Arthur Chrenkoff on his 2 millionth visit...in a world where the Daily Kos gets 400,000 per day, Chrenkoff should be getting 2 million a week...and if there's justice in the world, someday he will. Well done!
The AP Buries the Lede
If you're looking for word from the Associated Press that John Bolton's UN nomination was endorsed by former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, a potentially deal-sealing development, you'll have to read all the way to the end. Contrast this to the coverage given to Powell's misgivings (hat tip to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit)...
The Lineup Is Out
Just an case any of my readers are considering a trip to my fair city for the Austin City Limits Festival this year (September 23-25, 2005), the lineup is out, and it's the usual deep, eclectic mix. The big headliners this year are Coldplay, Widespread Panic, and Oasis, and the current ticket price is $105 for a three-day pass (this year there is a limit on the number of daily attendees - it's capped at 60,000 to ease last year's overcrowding, so it will sell out!). Check out the whole lineup here...
Strictly in the Interest of Promoting Cross-Cultural Understanding...
...I am recommending this gallery of protest babes from Michael Totten. It's a purely intellectual exercise...really...(hat tip to the Instapundit)...
Two Must-Reads To Start Off Your Friday
Author Ron Chernow discusses the current battle over the judiciary in the context of Marbury v. Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and Thomas Jefferson, while the Wall Street Journal argues somewhat counterintuitively that the accusations of a whitewash will keep the Volcker Commission from doing its job (unfortunately, free registration may be required for both)...
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Miscellanea: Why We Must Remain Vigilant Edition
Don't get too comfortable in your daily routine, we need your attention: the Sullivan Freak-Out Advisory System has been raised to 'Nauseated'...
With the hat tip to Punditish, here's a neat graphical representation of 'the party of the wealthy'...
A thoughtful post at the Bernoulli Effect on Margaret Thatcher and Julie Burchill - recommended...
Fargus is not exactly impressed with Andy Card's outreach efforts...
Meanwhile, J.A. Gillmartin seconds that emotion re: Michelle Malkin and Laura Bush...
Betsy Newmark has the 411 on 616...
Our good friend Suzanne ponders the price of fame...
Pam Meister has some thoughts on the smoking debate. I quit smoking June 21, 2004, at 9:30 p.m (10 1/2 months now!) after about 18 years. Still, I am against draconian anti-smoking legislation, such as the extreme anti-smoking initiative to be decided in my fair city this very Saturday. More thoughts, perhaps, on this later...
With the hat tip to Punditish, here's a neat graphical representation of 'the party of the wealthy'...
A thoughtful post at the Bernoulli Effect on Margaret Thatcher and Julie Burchill - recommended...
Fargus is not exactly impressed with Andy Card's outreach efforts...
Meanwhile, J.A. Gillmartin seconds that emotion re: Michelle Malkin and Laura Bush...
Betsy Newmark has the 411 on 616...
Our good friend Suzanne ponders the price of fame...
Pam Meister has some thoughts on the smoking debate. I quit smoking June 21, 2004, at 9:30 p.m (10 1/2 months now!) after about 18 years. Still, I am against draconian anti-smoking legislation, such as the extreme anti-smoking initiative to be decided in my fair city this very Saturday. More thoughts, perhaps, on this later...
Coming Attractions and A Plug for the Beeb
If you want to follow the British election results, the BBC has a simply splendid interface set up, it's really worth a look...
Looking ahead to the weekend, I'm setting a rather ambitious schedule; if I don't get to all of it, it is, of course, Karl Rove's fault. Here's what I want to get posted: profiles on Evan Bayh and George Allen, a special celebrity edition of Weekly Jackass, and sometime soon, my beagle is just itching to spill the beans on the results of her special investigation...
Looking ahead to the weekend, I'm setting a rather ambitious schedule; if I don't get to all of it, it is, of course, Karl Rove's fault. Here's what I want to get posted: profiles on Evan Bayh and George Allen, a special celebrity edition of Weekly Jackass, and sometime soon, my beagle is just itching to spill the beans on the results of her special investigation...
Am I Suffering From a Persecution Complex?
George Will takes many Republicans to task (hat tip to the Instapundit) for overplaying the 'victim' angle over supposed persecution of people of faith. No doubt if he reads this blog, and I'm quite sure he doesn't, he would include me in that crowd. Let me just say two things to my readers: (1) I don't think Christians are being 'persecuted', in the classic sense, and (2) I'm perfectly willing to drop all the religion talk entirely (for now) if the New York Times editorial board will just quit already on the theocracy columns. I'm finding the whole thing a bit tedious, and I wholeheartedly agree with David Brooks, as discussed earlier: there's a secular voice in America, and a religious voice...both are legitimate, and both are appropriate to different circumstances. I wish I could say that is that...MoDo? Frank Rich? Can we get over this thing already?...
Paris Hilton On Blogs
Says the brilliant young 'actress':
UPDATE 3:18 p.m.: The great Mickey Kaus has graciously linked to me, but (not surprisingly) I like his take better...
No word on what effect this will have on the proposed Simple Life V featuring the madcap antics of Paris and Glenn Reynolds...Q: Do you read blogs?
HILTON: What's that?
Q: Um, they're these things on the Internet where people write about news and stuff.
HILTON: No, I don't really read anything on the Internet except my AOL mail. I don't like people who sit on computers all day long and write about people they don't know anything about.
UPDATE 3:18 p.m.: The great Mickey Kaus has graciously linked to me, but (not surprisingly) I like his take better...
...And You Shall Know Them By The Columnists They Quote Approvingly
Very interesting pair of posts (you can jump off here) by John Hawkins at Right Wing News detailing the favorite columnists of some prominent left- and right-wing bloggers. Very intriguing...some surprises, and many just exactly as you would suspect. Check it out (hat tip to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit)...
Brooks On Religion and Politics - Yeah, What HE Said
The timing of this editorial by David Brooks in today's NY Times (may require free registration) could not be more appropriate to the discussion going on here about the role of religion in civic life. Brooks recalls Lincoln's statement to his cabinet that God had landed on the side of the slaves, and that, if handed a victory at Antietam, he would issue the Emancipation Proclamation. The key passage, and one that reflects, I suspect, the current state of affairs quite accurately, is this:
Just so...Today, a lot of us are stuck in Lincoln's land. We reject the bland relativism of the militant secularists. We reject the smug ignorance of, say, a Robert Kuttner, who recently argued that the culture war is a contest between enlightened reason and dogmatic absolutism. But neither can we share the conviction of the orthodox believers, like the new pope, who find maximum freedom in obedience to eternal truth. We're a little nervous about the perfectionism that often infects evangelical politics, the rush to crash through procedural checks and balances in order to reach the point of maximum moral correctness.
Those of us stuck here in this wrestling-with-faith world find Lincoln to be our guide and navigator. Lincoln had enough firm conviction to lead a great moral crusade, but his zeal was tempered by doubt, and his governing style was dispassionate....
One lesson we can learn from Lincoln is that there is no one vocabulary we can use to settle great issues. There is the secular vocabulary and the sacred vocabulary. Whether the A.C.L.U. likes it or not, both are legitimate parts of the discussion.
Hitchens Takes On The Religious Right
If you follow this blog, you know I love the work of Christopher Hitchens. If you follow Hitchens, you know he hates religion and faith with a passion. At least he's articulate about it, but his powers of reasoning, usually so incisive, sometimes fail him here. Such is the case with this Wall Street Journal article. No one who reads Hitchens can doubt that he has a strong moral compass, despite his atheism, and he's right that secularism and atheism are not equivalent; but here, Hitchens is flailing against a straw man.
Who among us takes their marching orders from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Who among us wants a theocracy? If such people exist, their numbers are small indeed. To fight against intolerance is a noble cause when applied to homosexuals, minorities, and the disabled; why are the religious exempt from this? Hitchens speaks as if Americans of faith want religious rule imposed on America, in the manner of the Taliban; nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect the vast majority just want an America that acknowledges the important role religion has always played in its affairs, regardless of how painful that may be to our good friend Christopher. To be continued, no doubt...
Who among us takes their marching orders from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell? Who among us wants a theocracy? If such people exist, their numbers are small indeed. To fight against intolerance is a noble cause when applied to homosexuals, minorities, and the disabled; why are the religious exempt from this? Hitchens speaks as if Americans of faith want religious rule imposed on America, in the manner of the Taliban; nothing could be further from the truth. I suspect the vast majority just want an America that acknowledges the important role religion has always played in its affairs, regardless of how painful that may be to our good friend Christopher. To be continued, no doubt...
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
A Proposal for Ground Zero
Today it was announced (free registration required) that, almost four years after terrorists destroyed the most visible symbols of American commerce, the signature building planned for that sacred ground is again on hold. Having just read the harrowing 102 Minutes, believe me when I say that I have no quarrels with the stated cause of the delay, security concerns. What I do have a problem with is that we are having this conversation now, still, four years later. In the timespan of America's entire 'official' participation in World War II, we have not even broke ground; hell, we haven't even signed off on the plan!
Where do I get the nerve to say we? After all, Larry Silverstein has the lease, the Port Authority owns the land, I'm not on the board of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, and I don't even live in New York State, much less NYC itself.
I say we because it is we that own that land. Ground Zero is now as much a part of every American as the blood-soaked fields of Gettysburg, the majestic Grand Canyon, or the breathtakingly solemn Lincoln Memorial. For better or worse, our national identity is contained in every square inch of that ground. We own it, all of us, New Yorker or not, and we own it in a more fundamental way than mere dollars can convey.
So let's make it official. Let's buy it, all of us, and take Silverstein and the insurance companies off the hook. Real estate experts are questioning the need for office space in that part of Manhattan, and security concerns are causing potential tenants to shy away from even being near the new site. The current redevelopment plan envisions a cost of $12 billion. Silverstein is owed $4.6 billion by the insurance companies. They've payed him $1.9 billion.
So we give the insurers an even $2 billion for their troubles, $3 billion to Silverstein (he'll be quite happy, I suspect), and spend another $7 billion converting the area into the 9/11 Memorial National Park. The War in Iraq will probably cost $200 billion, at least, before all is said and done. I'm not saying it isn't worth it; I believe it is. $12 billion is not a lot of money in an economy the size of the United States. In fact, if we divide that by a low estimate of 200 million taxpayers, it's $60 a pop. $60, to make this holy ground a sanctuary for generations to come.
Where do I get the nerve to say we? After all, Larry Silverstein has the lease, the Port Authority owns the land, I'm not on the board of the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation, and I don't even live in New York State, much less NYC itself.
I say we because it is we that own that land. Ground Zero is now as much a part of every American as the blood-soaked fields of Gettysburg, the majestic Grand Canyon, or the breathtakingly solemn Lincoln Memorial. For better or worse, our national identity is contained in every square inch of that ground. We own it, all of us, New Yorker or not, and we own it in a more fundamental way than mere dollars can convey.
So let's make it official. Let's buy it, all of us, and take Silverstein and the insurance companies off the hook. Real estate experts are questioning the need for office space in that part of Manhattan, and security concerns are causing potential tenants to shy away from even being near the new site. The current redevelopment plan envisions a cost of $12 billion. Silverstein is owed $4.6 billion by the insurance companies. They've payed him $1.9 billion.
So we give the insurers an even $2 billion for their troubles, $3 billion to Silverstein (he'll be quite happy, I suspect), and spend another $7 billion converting the area into the 9/11 Memorial National Park. The War in Iraq will probably cost $200 billion, at least, before all is said and done. I'm not saying it isn't worth it; I believe it is. $12 billion is not a lot of money in an economy the size of the United States. In fact, if we divide that by a low estimate of 200 million taxpayers, it's $60 a pop. $60, to make this holy ground a sanctuary for generations to come.
A Nobel Peace Prize For Bush and Blair?
...I have a better chance of winning. I like the suggestion by John Hughes in the Christian Science Monitor, though, and it would be the most well-deserved prize of recent decades. Precisely why it won't happen, of course...a prize that honors peace that includes among its recipients a fellow by the name of Arafat has as much credibility as a Human Rights Commission that includes the Sudan among its members.
The Legacy of Tony Blair
Many is the insult that has been thrown Tony Blair's way; he has been called Bush's poodle, and many see his legacy as tarnished by his stance on Iraq (see this Time Europe article). You won't hear that kind of talk from these quarters. I know no man is without fault, and I don't pretend to be an expert on internal British politics. I do know this: on the largest issue, without question, of our era (I'm talking, of course, of the War on Terror), Blair's England, along with Howard's Australia, has been steadfast, strong, and the best of allies. I can forgive a lot of a man who gets the big questions right; regardless of the outcome of the election, I think we all owe Tony Blair a debt of gratitude for his service.
Are Newspapers Going the Way of the Dinosaur?
It's entirely possible, depending on your conception of newspaper. There will always be a place for the local paper, with stories about weddings and community events, but to put out a paper like the New York Times or the Washington Post is a tremendously expensive proposition. This is because of talent and the need for original, non-local reporting (i.e., bureaus). Simply put, talent (at least, well-known talent - there's plenty of talented unknowns that can be had for the cheap) costs big bucks (I think of the excellent Atlantic Monthly and reports that it is losing millions annually), and so does the maintenance of bureaus.
I bring this up because there's been a bit of a blogstorm lately regarding new figures that show a steep decline in newspaper readership (1.9% in the last six months). Power Line and The Bernoulli Effect, among others, have been considering the reasons, as has the Wall Street Journal. (Jeff at T.B.E. has a good mini-discussion in his post about why you can almost be certain that most of the left's conspiracy theories are false, and it's a view I've always subscribed to myself - in short, if they were true, the MSM would be over them like flies on - well, on that stuff flies like to get on).
The Power Liners attribute part of the drop to more conscientious recordkeeping to avoid scandal, and that certainly seems sensible when you consider the wide disparity between the drops at different papers. I must say, though, that I think there's a lot to the notion of the WSJ and Rupert Murdoch that the Internet may do to the newspaper what cars did to the horse-and-buggy industry.
As I alluded to earlier, I don't see papers completely going away, just becoming more local, or, for the ones that need a national presence, more reliant on wire services, piecework, and perhaps less frequent publication. As strange as it may seem, a viable business model for, say, a Wall Street Journal might be a one section daily (headlines, stock quotes, editorial, but no in-depth features - and no real 'marquee' journalists), with a large amount of supplemental subscription-only web material (which they're already moving towards), and a weekend only section that contains all the splashy, 'name' reporting.
While you can see part of this transition already taking place, it's painfully obvious to me that the big-time papers can't conceive of getting rid on the 'daily' - yet, in my view, it's the daily print paper that they can't afford to keep, at least not in its present state. If I were an investor in print publications, I'd be looking to diversify - and quickly.
I bring this up because there's been a bit of a blogstorm lately regarding new figures that show a steep decline in newspaper readership (1.9% in the last six months). Power Line and The Bernoulli Effect, among others, have been considering the reasons, as has the Wall Street Journal. (Jeff at T.B.E. has a good mini-discussion in his post about why you can almost be certain that most of the left's conspiracy theories are false, and it's a view I've always subscribed to myself - in short, if they were true, the MSM would be over them like flies on - well, on that stuff flies like to get on).
The Power Liners attribute part of the drop to more conscientious recordkeeping to avoid scandal, and that certainly seems sensible when you consider the wide disparity between the drops at different papers. I must say, though, that I think there's a lot to the notion of the WSJ and Rupert Murdoch that the Internet may do to the newspaper what cars did to the horse-and-buggy industry.
As I alluded to earlier, I don't see papers completely going away, just becoming more local, or, for the ones that need a national presence, more reliant on wire services, piecework, and perhaps less frequent publication. As strange as it may seem, a viable business model for, say, a Wall Street Journal might be a one section daily (headlines, stock quotes, editorial, but no in-depth features - and no real 'marquee' journalists), with a large amount of supplemental subscription-only web material (which they're already moving towards), and a weekend only section that contains all the splashy, 'name' reporting.
While you can see part of this transition already taking place, it's painfully obvious to me that the big-time papers can't conceive of getting rid on the 'daily' - yet, in my view, it's the daily print paper that they can't afford to keep, at least not in its present state. If I were an investor in print publications, I'd be looking to diversify - and quickly.
More On Star Wars: A Fable Against Capitalism?
Jim Geraghty at TKS is amazed that the king of commercialization would lecture us on the evils of technology and the capitalist mindset (hat tip to the Instapundit). Indeed, everything that is wrong with the first trilogy (at least I and II) can be summarized in Lucas's decision to make the Empire arise from trade disputes. The Simpsons lampooned this mercilessly and accurately. The greatness of the first movies (well, Episode IV and V, anyway) was their allegorical pitting of good vs. evil. Darth Vader, the Dark Lord, versus the gee-whiz, everyday boy next door Luke Skywalker - it was every schoolboy's fantasy come to life.
Lucas has drained all the fun from the franchise. Too bad he didn't just turn the reins over to, say, Peter Jackson, who made his Lord of the Rings trilogy a work of genuis by reverently rendering characters, and throwing out plot points where necessary (see the great extended features on the DVDs for examples). Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo were people, flesh and blood, tangible and believable - now, there are no characters to speak of, just plot points to get to the next set piece. Episode III will have to be just nearly perfect to make up for what has preceded it. It'll make a ton of money, but will it live in the imagination? No one cares for intergalactic trade wars...but everyone wants to see Han Solo get the girl.
Lucas has drained all the fun from the franchise. Too bad he didn't just turn the reins over to, say, Peter Jackson, who made his Lord of the Rings trilogy a work of genuis by reverently rendering characters, and throwing out plot points where necessary (see the great extended features on the DVDs for examples). Princess Leia, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo were people, flesh and blood, tangible and believable - now, there are no characters to speak of, just plot points to get to the next set piece. Episode III will have to be just nearly perfect to make up for what has preceded it. It'll make a ton of money, but will it live in the imagination? No one cares for intergalactic trade wars...but everyone wants to see Han Solo get the girl.
That MoDo Mojo - What???
I've looked through the latest Maureen Dowd, and I can't find a single shot at any Bush administration official - a new world record. There is a reference to Al Gore and John Kerry as 'hapless', and a lot of talk about how the world favors tall, handsome or pretty people over short ugly ones - well, tell me something I don't know. Not much meat on this bone, so I've very little to chew on...
Today's Must-Read: More Signs That Kerry Will Run
Alexander Bolton has a good piece in The Hill (hat tip: RealClearPolitics) pointing to further signs that Kerry is definitely going to make the 2008 run, including the securing of the services of high-powered operatives, tapping into the 3 million strong voter contact database he has compiled, and an attempt to push through legislation to counter Campaign 2004 criticism that he had no accomplishments in the Senate. To say that a Kerry candidacy is not welcome by all would be the understatement of the year; here are some highlights:
Kerry has drawn criticism from many Democrats who say he did not have a clear, compelling message during his campaign and had difficulty connecting with voters...�I think he proved he cannot connect with people,� said Joe Cari, who served as national finance director of the DNC in 2000 and who estimated that he had raised about $100,000 for Kerry�s presidential campaign. �I don�t see his candidacy going anywhere. You tell me people in the Democratic Party are going to live, eat and breath John Kerry again. I don�t see it. I don�t see any fervor.�Wow. Indeed.
�He really angered a lot of people by keeping all the money that he did,� Cari said, referring to close to $17 million left unspent in Kerry�s campaign account after the election.
�I wrote and asked for my money back,� said Cari, who gave $2,000 to John Kerry for President Inc. and $2,000 to Kerry-Edwards 2004 Inc., the general-election legal fund. �When you hold back $17 million, there�s no way that you can say that �I gave it my best shot.��...Michael Bauer, a fundraiser and activist based in Chicago who gave to more than 30 Democratic candidates for the 2004 election, said he also asked the Kerry campaign for a refund after the race. Bauer, who gave $2,000 to John Kerry for President Inc. and $1,000 to Kerry�s general-election legal and accounting-compliance fund, said he threatened to sue for misrepresentation because Kerry left a substantial portion of his money unspent.
�I think he was woefully inadequate,� Bauer said. �He was an amazingly lousy candidate. He worked hard to lose that election.�
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Debunking the NY Times (Again)
You may recall a post from the other day about a Bob Herbert column in the New York Times that I and many others took at less than face value. It would appear that our skepticism was warranted; for the details, I refer you to Power Line, PoliPundit, Michelle Malkin, and there's plenty more linkage in their posts...this blogging thing can be fun sometimes...
Quick Shots: Michelle Malkin and Star Wars
Michelle Malkin answers her critics and simultaneously gives a Malk-a-lanche to our buddy the Therapist...
All right, there's a new Star Wars flick. Ehh, I can take it or leave it, though I will see it. Here's the deal, though...I grew up with Star Wars. I was nine years old when the first one came out, and I ate it up, completely. And I DON'T CARE what George Lucas says now, there were 9 movies planned. Lucas now claims there were always only six, but I KNOW, George, I WAS THERE! Why would he lie about something like this? Beats me, but if anyone else that grew up about that time remembers the 9 movie statements from Lucas, I would appreciate a comment...I'm not crazy, I swear!...
All right, there's a new Star Wars flick. Ehh, I can take it or leave it, though I will see it. Here's the deal, though...I grew up with Star Wars. I was nine years old when the first one came out, and I ate it up, completely. And I DON'T CARE what George Lucas says now, there were 9 movies planned. Lucas now claims there were always only six, but I KNOW, George, I WAS THERE! Why would he lie about something like this? Beats me, but if anyone else that grew up about that time remembers the 9 movie statements from Lucas, I would appreciate a comment...I'm not crazy, I swear!...
Our First Weekly Jackass Update: Checkin' In On Babs
It stands to reason, doesn't it, that just because our honorees have reached the pinnacle and been proclaimed 'Weekly Jackasses', they don't just stop being jackasses, right? One of our early honorees, Babs Streisand, has broken her long silence, and let us know once again...well, I'm getting ahead of the story. Let's listen in on dear Barbra, shall we?
America was profoundly changed after the September 11 attacks. We went from a country motivated by hope to a country controlled by fear. For the last several years, feeling neither safe nor secure, Americans have lived in extreme anxiety of another impending terrorist attack. I think that as a result, most Americans sought out their faith and reaffirmed their conviction in God.
In all honesty, do you live in fear? Do you know anyone who does? Do you think that it was extreme anxiety that drove Americans to be more open about faith, or was it, perhaps, the cesspool of a culture created by hacks like Babs and her Hollywood buddies, and the moral relativism of the 'progressive' Left?
President Bush and the Religious Right's greatest political weapon has been perpetuating fear. Because of the heightened climate of anxiety coupled with religious fervor, they have been successful in stripping Americans of their personal freedoms, suppressing dissent and winning elections based on moral values. I also think the unfathomable fear of being a victim of another terrorist attack has allowed for the crumbling of the wall between church and state, which is a vital part of our historical, legal and political heritage.
Let me play dumb again, because that's the best way to reason with a mental titan like this. Have you been stripped of your personal freedoms? Is dissent being supressed in a world where tens of thousands of whacked-out Kossacks can discuss the First Lady in crude sexual situations? Do you know a single, A SINGLE, person in America who has been jailed because of opposition to the Bush Administration? Now watch this next sentence closely, 'cause it's a doozy:
By allowing personal religious beliefs to infiltrate our political framework, we have enabled this administration to wage a war on women's reproductive rights, squelch scientific advancement, take away our freedom of speech and fill important positions within government and possibly the nation's highest courts with religious extremists.
Oooohhh, I'm sorry, Barbra, you just flunked American History 101. Notice the choice of words: 'by allowing personal religious beliefs to infiltrate our political framework'. People, that's not what separation of church and state is about, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Clearly, no matter how many revisionist historians we have around today, America was not founded on the principle that religion should play no part in civic life. Rather, the principle being affirmed was that no particular religion should be favored by the state, nor freedom of worship (including the choice not to) infringed upon.
Would Barbra be upset if I were to cry out against 'allowing personal moral beliefs' on, say, the matter of allowing a woman 'the right to choose' to 'infiltrate our political framework'? How about slavery? Was the War Between the States purely a 'political' affair? Civil rights? No, Barbra, and this is why you are and will remain a jackass, that's not the problem. Indeed, it would be a sad state of affairs if people DID NOT allow their moral, and yes, religious beliefs to infiltrate our political framework.
How Far is Too Far? Ask David Korn
Our good friend Suzanne is all a-tingle after getting mentioned in Today's Blogs at Slate. The topic? David Korn of The Nation and his faux concern about whether our national character can endure in a world where the First Lady jokes about milking a horse...way to go, Suzanne - and please pay her a visit if you haven't made it by yet...
How Michael Moore and Disney Fleeced the Public With A Fake Controversy
There's finally a reason to read Slate again besides Mickey Kaus and Christopher Hitchens. Edward Jay Epstein's The Hollywood Economist has been excellent in every installment thus far. His latest blows the cover off of Michael Moore's censorship charade that fueled the initial publicity for Fahrenheit 9/11, and also shows how Disney made a fat profit by 'rejecting' the film. I've blogged before on how much of a financial triumph Moore's film was, regardless of its artistic merit. The man may be a jackass, but he's a pretty good businessman.
Malkin on Bush: Wonkette-ization?
I'm usually in agreement with Michelle Malkin on most things, but I have to say I can't see how she can refer to a couple of slightly risque jokes at the White House Correspondents Dinner as 'Wonkette-ization'. Ana Marie Cox is a pretty good writer, and usually quite funny, but her taste in humor is often explicit and pornographic. What Mrs. Bush did was simply to use the incongruity of her public persona and the notion that she would tell a daring joke to make the humor all the more real and spontaneous. They're people, after all, the President and First Lady. Laura Bush was fantastic, funny, and very appealing; this is much ado about nothing...
No Chance of Recovery?
A brain-damaged firefighter has recovered after 10 years. Hmm...remind me again why it was so important to starve Terry Schiavo to death?
UPDATE 11:17 a.m. central: Clint, in the comments, asks if I mean to imply an equivalency between very disparate circumstances. I do not. I merely think, with the benefit of hindsight, and totally acknowledging how completely over the top the rhetoric of both sides of the Schiavo debate became, that perhaps it was a mistake to starve her to death with at least some loved ones opposed and no living will. That's all.
UPDATE 2 1:51 p.m. central: Thanks to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit for the link; like myself, Lorie is careful not to draw an explicit parallel - it just gives one pause when you think of the certainty so many showed that she could never recover...
UPDATE 11:17 a.m. central: Clint, in the comments, asks if I mean to imply an equivalency between very disparate circumstances. I do not. I merely think, with the benefit of hindsight, and totally acknowledging how completely over the top the rhetoric of both sides of the Schiavo debate became, that perhaps it was a mistake to starve her to death with at least some loved ones opposed and no living will. That's all.
UPDATE 2 1:51 p.m. central: Thanks to Lorie Byrd at PoliPundit for the link; like myself, Lorie is careful not to draw an explicit parallel - it just gives one pause when you think of the certainty so many showed that she could never recover...
Comparing Decision '08 and the Pros
Presidential odds for 2008 are up at Sportsbook.com (apparently you have to be a member to get the full list), and I have some comparisons between the betting community and Decision '08. Of the five candidates listed at Taegan Goddard's Political Wire and already profiled by me, here are the relevant stats:
UPDATE 2:34 p.m. - Reader Andrew S. rightly points out in the comments that the Sportsbook.com odds are apparently for winning the election, while mine are for the nomination. The upshot - I'm not as on target as I thought...well, it wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated myself...Thanks for the clarification, Andrew!
- Hillary Clinton: Sportsbook.com 6-1, D'08 8-1
- Rudy Giuliani: Sportsbook.com 10-1, D'08 10-1
- Jeb Bush: Sportsbook.com 35-1, D'08 22-1
- Condi: Sportsbook.com 15-1, D'08 14-1
- Barack Obama: Sportsbook.com 30-1, D'08 27-1
UPDATE 2:34 p.m. - Reader Andrew S. rightly points out in the comments that the Sportsbook.com odds are apparently for winning the election, while mine are for the nomination. The upshot - I'm not as on target as I thought...well, it wouldn't be the first time I've overestimated myself...Thanks for the clarification, Andrew!
CNN: How The Mighty Have Fallen
Well, North Korea's testing missiles, U.S. troops are in a war zone, Iran is rattling the nuclear sabre, Bush is pushing hard to reform Social Security, and CNN's top story is....the runaway bride crap. 'The most trusted name in news' has become the world leader in infotainment. We salute you, Jonathan Klein! It's almost enough to make you nostalgic for Eason Jordan, isn't it?
Aljazeera, The Networks, and The Value of Propaganda
Hot on the heels of Carpe Bonum's suggestion that we infiltrate Aljazeera comes this piece by James Pinkerton at Newsday, who takes to task both the Arab network and the U.S. media for essentially selling their souls for some good video footage. Read it and decide for yourself...
Monday, May 02, 2005
Scott Ritter, Defying Laws of Physics, Travels Back 40 Years in Time
From that bastion of fair and balanced reporting, Aljazeera, comes former UN Weapons Inspector turned full-time Bush critic Scott Ritter with a blindingly brilliant analysis of the situation in Iraq: it's Vietnam. Says Ritter:
In the months that have passed since Iraq's much-hyped democratic elections, one word keeps creeping into my mind as I assess the tragic events unfolding in Mesopotamia today: Vietnam.If there's a bigger hack than Scott Ritter around...oh, wait, I forgot about Maureen Dowd...well, if there's a second bigger hack than Scott Ritter around...ahh, what's the use? Who can argue against a mind like that?
You know, when I reflect on the much-hyped career of one Scott Ritter, one word keeps creeping into my mind: lunatic.
The American press and punditry, intimidated and compensated into slavishly reporting on Iraq solely along lines that will not overly alienate them from the powers that be inside the administration of George W Bush, have long ago foregone drawing comparisons between the ongoing conflict in Iraq and the one America lost in Southeast Asia some three decades in the past.
That's the American press in a nutshell, isn't it? Never wanting the alienate the all-powerful chimp Bush, the press has kept Americans in the dark about insurgent attacks, judicial gridlock, and faltering efforts at Social Security reform. You fools - don't you know you're being played like a fiddle by the imperialist stormtroopers?
The lack of a basis for direct comparison makes accomplishing the denigration of any such correlation between conflicts all-too-easy for the uninformed consumer of what passes for "news" in America today: the terrain is different, the scale of violence is different, the Cold War is over, and, of course, everything changed after 9/11.
Folks, you've just read the single most meaningless sentence ever put down on paper. 'The lack of a basis for direct comparison', everything is different - why, goodness, Scott, if one didn't know better, one might think you were throwing away your whole argument!
Miscellanea: Thinking the Unthinkable Edition
The great Christopher Hitchens shows why he earns that adjective with this harrowing look at North Korea...be sure to check out the satellite photo he refers to, it's positively spooky....
My niece reminds me of a powerful collection of 9/11 photos; it's hard to look at, and hard to look away. What a calamity...
Here are a couple of iteresting blogs you should check out: EuphoricReality bills itself as the rants of two female American vets, and they have extensive coverage of the case of Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, a U.S. Marine charged with murder on what appears to be a pretty flimsy pretext...on a lighter note, check out the addictive blend of topics on display in The View Through the Windshield...
Arthur Chrenkoff has more thoughts on the cretinous article I discussed earlier...
Holy guacamole, Power Line passed its 25 millionth visitor today...congrats, it's well deserved...
There's more on CNN's ridiculous Jonathan Klein (and a cameo by yours truly) at kausfiles...
Fans of the great work of Eric Lindholm will not be surprised to find the MSM gets its best ideas from him...
The Auto Prophet has noticed some very uncapitalistic words from financial guru Suze Orman...
Be sure to stay tuned, because, very soon, Decision '08 will proudly unveil its first ever Weekly Jackass Update...
My niece reminds me of a powerful collection of 9/11 photos; it's hard to look at, and hard to look away. What a calamity...
Here are a couple of iteresting blogs you should check out: EuphoricReality bills itself as the rants of two female American vets, and they have extensive coverage of the case of Second Lieutenant Ilario Pantano, a U.S. Marine charged with murder on what appears to be a pretty flimsy pretext...on a lighter note, check out the addictive blend of topics on display in The View Through the Windshield...
Arthur Chrenkoff has more thoughts on the cretinous article I discussed earlier...
Holy guacamole, Power Line passed its 25 millionth visitor today...congrats, it's well deserved...
There's more on CNN's ridiculous Jonathan Klein (and a cameo by yours truly) at kausfiles...
Fans of the great work of Eric Lindholm will not be surprised to find the MSM gets its best ideas from him...
The Auto Prophet has noticed some very uncapitalistic words from financial guru Suze Orman...
Be sure to stay tuned, because, very soon, Decision '08 will proudly unveil its first ever Weekly Jackass Update...
Hostages: What Is To Be Done?
Carpe Bonum has had a strong response to the great work of the good Dr. Shackleford in interviewing the family of American hostage Roy Callums. Specifically, Craig was moved by Roy's daughter Carrie's feeling that there has to be more to a hostage rescue operation than saying 'we don't negotiate with terrorists'. He presents a list of alternatives (please read his post for more), and invites comments.
Let me begin by saying my heart goes out the family of Roy Callums and all other families facing such a horrible ordeal. My initial reaction when faced with a hostage situation is, I imagine, similar to the one facing the firefighters at Ground Zero: hopelessness and despair. Nothing can be done, in other words...but of course, something can and must be done. So, like those firefighters, we have to fight through the despair and realize that some things are worth dying for, and we can't just let our own citizens rot in captivity.
Craig suggests making hostages a responsibility of the military rather than the State Department. I'll agree with him there; it doesn't make sense, when you say no negotiations, to send in diplomats. Essentially, we're talking a rescue operation here. What that means, of course, and what is hard to swallow, is that there is a substantial risk that the hostage(s) will die. I think even the hostages themselves would rather take that risk, though, then face the never-ending torment of waiting for....well, what?...Not knowing would be part of the torment.
I must disagree with my good friend on his suggestion of infiltrating Aljazeera, tempting though it may be (and his other ideas on media disruption and cyber-espionage are uniformly excellent). When Craig talks of the propaganda value of hostages, I can't help but think the propaganda value of discovering a U.S. mole in the Aljazeera ranks would be through the roof.
Obviously, I've only scratched the surface of the issue...I once again recommend the post at Carpe Bonum to you for further reading; it's obvious Craig put a lot of thought and effort into it. I want to go into this deeper at some point, hopefully, after I have more time to digest it and go back and look at the history of some of the more famous hostage rescue attempts. The one thing I'm sure we can all agree on, though, is that we mustn't forget these citizens of ours just because they're not always front-page news. To be continued...
Let me begin by saying my heart goes out the family of Roy Callums and all other families facing such a horrible ordeal. My initial reaction when faced with a hostage situation is, I imagine, similar to the one facing the firefighters at Ground Zero: hopelessness and despair. Nothing can be done, in other words...but of course, something can and must be done. So, like those firefighters, we have to fight through the despair and realize that some things are worth dying for, and we can't just let our own citizens rot in captivity.
Craig suggests making hostages a responsibility of the military rather than the State Department. I'll agree with him there; it doesn't make sense, when you say no negotiations, to send in diplomats. Essentially, we're talking a rescue operation here. What that means, of course, and what is hard to swallow, is that there is a substantial risk that the hostage(s) will die. I think even the hostages themselves would rather take that risk, though, then face the never-ending torment of waiting for....well, what?...Not knowing would be part of the torment.
I must disagree with my good friend on his suggestion of infiltrating Aljazeera, tempting though it may be (and his other ideas on media disruption and cyber-espionage are uniformly excellent). When Craig talks of the propaganda value of hostages, I can't help but think the propaganda value of discovering a U.S. mole in the Aljazeera ranks would be through the roof.
Obviously, I've only scratched the surface of the issue...I once again recommend the post at Carpe Bonum to you for further reading; it's obvious Craig put a lot of thought and effort into it. I want to go into this deeper at some point, hopefully, after I have more time to digest it and go back and look at the history of some of the more famous hostage rescue attempts. The one thing I'm sure we can all agree on, though, is that we mustn't forget these citizens of ours just because they're not always front-page news. To be continued...
A 'Progressive' Response to the Iraq War
This is the biggest load of crap I've read in quite some time (and remember, I've been spending time at the Daily Kos!). I suggest you read it to see just how the Far Left (not all Democrats, and not all of the Left, mind you - for this is surely the fringe) views America and the contempt it holds for the Iraqis it supposedly wants to help. Remember, while reading this, that the insurgency is killing Iraqi civilians at a staggering pace, murdering Americans, engaging in barbaric executions, and acting against the will of the vast majority of the Iraqi populace. Then chew on this sentence from the author:
The disparate Iraqi resistance is the legitimate manifestation of a national liberation movement. Its success is imperative to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination; ideals that are revered in the Declaration of Independence.Kind of makes you sick, doesn't it? (hat tip to Little Green Footballs)...
U.S. News: Kerry Definitely In For '08
In an absolutely delicious piece of news for those of us who had despaired of continuing to make fun of the pompous, arrogant junior Senator from Massachusetts, Washington Whispers is saying that Kerry is definitely making the 2008 run. The prospect of Hillary and JFK II tearing each other up in the primaries has me all but salivating. Thanks, John, for making my Monday a little brighter - I'm positively giddy at the thought (hat tip to Daly Thoughts)...
Today's Must Read: Barone Says Things Are Not As Hopeless As They Appear
Tired of hearing nothing but bad news about Bush's second term, and the cracks in the Republican facade? The inestimable Michael Barone takes 'the glass is half full approach', while reminding us of the historical trends that are heading the Republican way. Barone is fast turning into one of my favorite writers; he has a good track record on spotting details that others miss (hat tip to Betsy Newmark)...
Bob Herbert - American Troops On Violent Rampage
That seems to be the message, at least, in his latest column (hat tip to J. McIntyre of RealClearPolitics). Herbert spends the bulk of the column repeating the allegations of a conscientious objector (that "gratuitous violence...is routinely inflicted by American soldiers on ordinary Iraqis"), but to what end? Some of the allegations ring true, others do not; I have no problem believing that something went terribly wrong at Abu Ghraib; after all, we've all seen the pictures. I have a very hard time believing U.S. soldiers are abusing civilians, especially children. Herbert needs to understand that allegations of widespread abuse should not be thrown around lightly without further proof than one man, who is admittedly against the war, and his assertions.
Curiously, Herbert makes the damaging accusations, then cuts and runs. Is he merely enlightening us? Does he maintain that the military units in Iraq are in need of better discipline? Or does he think these unsubstantiated allegations damage the honor of the U.S. military to the point that we should bring everyone home and convert our military bases into vegan restaurants? You'll find no answers in his columns, only slanders without corrobaration...
Curiously, Herbert makes the damaging accusations, then cuts and runs. Is he merely enlightening us? Does he maintain that the military units in Iraq are in need of better discipline? Or does he think these unsubstantiated allegations damage the honor of the U.S. military to the point that we should bring everyone home and convert our military bases into vegan restaurants? You'll find no answers in his columns, only slanders without corrobaration...
Novak: Delay At Peak of Powers
Robert Novak says Tom Delay is in much better shape than his critics would have you believe. Novak, who seems to have quite a stable of insider contacts, says the passage of the recent budget was a little-noticed triumph for Delay, and also considers any mistakes he's made fairly minor. Worth a read...
Sunday, May 01, 2005
And Michael Moore Is...
...not worth walking across the street to spit on, according to a whopping 46% of you. It was the best poll yet, in number of votes (no doubt helped along by the links from some of the big dogs on the block). Once again, I salute your acumen, that is indeed what I would have chosen. A distant second and third were irrelevant, and under the control of Karl Rove, respectively.
A note about the new poll: yes, I know I left Kennedy off...he's not the only one. I know he was very well liked and died tragically, but I don't think his brief presidency deserved to make the short list. Some will cry foul, particularly since Nixon is on there, but Nixon's presidency was full of drama, even without Watergate. So, if you want Kennedy, I'll assume that most of the none of the above were probably meant for him. Enjoy your week and don't work too hard...
A note about the new poll: yes, I know I left Kennedy off...he's not the only one. I know he was very well liked and died tragically, but I don't think his brief presidency deserved to make the short list. Some will cry foul, particularly since Nixon is on there, but Nixon's presidency was full of drama, even without Watergate. So, if you want Kennedy, I'll assume that most of the none of the above were probably meant for him. Enjoy your week and don't work too hard...
Miscellanea: Missing Candidate Profile Edition
I had hoped to get a candidate profile up of Senator Allen of Virginia this weekend, but (I'll spare you the gory details) I got violently ill last night and haven't felt up to much in the way of research (yes, even pajama-wearing Google research) today. So, soon...in the meantime, here's some good linkage:
There's a lot of concern on the right and gloating (yes, gloating) on the left over a leaked document that appears to contain classified information on troop positions and the like in Iraq. Here's the definitive analysis from Austin Bay...
The Bernoulli Effect reminds us that more than Social Security needs reforming...
Americans For Rice is a 527 political organization supporting Condi in '08 - check 'em out...
Leigh at the House of Wheels isn't overly impressed with Paul Krugman...
a4g at Point Five has the scoop on Al Gore's latest trickery...
Prof Bainbridge quotes Jack Kelly approvingly on the subject of poor Republican leadership in Congress (and I agree)...
Suzanne Wood is having a little fun at her own expense over her first milestone...hang in there, Suzanne, we like you around these parts! Someday, when you're getting 1,000 hits an hour, we'll be able to say...oh, yeah, I remember that blog from back in the day...
There's a lot of concern on the right and gloating (yes, gloating) on the left over a leaked document that appears to contain classified information on troop positions and the like in Iraq. Here's the definitive analysis from Austin Bay...
The Bernoulli Effect reminds us that more than Social Security needs reforming...
Americans For Rice is a 527 political organization supporting Condi in '08 - check 'em out...
Leigh at the House of Wheels isn't overly impressed with Paul Krugman...
a4g at Point Five has the scoop on Al Gore's latest trickery...
Prof Bainbridge quotes Jack Kelly approvingly on the subject of poor Republican leadership in Congress (and I agree)...
Suzanne Wood is having a little fun at her own expense over her first milestone...hang in there, Suzanne, we like you around these parts! Someday, when you're getting 1,000 hits an hour, we'll be able to say...oh, yeah, I remember that blog from back in the day...
102 Minutes: A Hellish Journey
I often make the remark (I'm sure it didn't originate with me) that 9/11 is the most documented event in human history. I don't really think there's a close second. Still, as nightmarish as the images are (and I have dreamed about them - someday, perhaps, in another post, I'll get into that), we have a very sanitized collection of film, for the most part. The great documentary by the French brothers Jules and Gedeon Naudet intentionally turned the camera away when presented with burning bodies coming out of the elevators, nor did the cameras record the mangled remains of the dozens of people who jumped from windows of the towers when the heat became too much to bear.
Enter 102 Minutes, by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. By focusing solely on the events at Ground Zero, Dwyer and Flynn present a harrowing tale of what was going on inside the towers between the impact of the jets and the unthinkable collapse of the buildings. From the story as told here, we can surmise that perhaps 500 people in the towers died mercifully instantly from the impact; another 2,400 or so had horrible, horrible deaths indeed, slowly suffocating, burning to death, or leaping to their dooms to avoid the the flames and smoke.
Of the people above the impact zones of the two airplanes, a mere 18, all from the South Tower, made it out alive. There are tales of heroism here, such as the two civilian men who saved dozens by looking for and freeing those who were trapped (they didn't make it out themselves), and there are tales of grief (the last phone calls from people who know they are about to die, the man in the wheelchair and his friend who stayed with him on the 27th floor - they didn't make it, either), and there are tales of incompetence (the fireproofing was untested and woefully inadequate, and there was nearly no communication between the police and fire departments).
After reading this tale, several thoughts stayed with me. If the towers had stood, they would have had to tear them down, it seems to me, as the safety features were clearly not adequate; for the same reason, those who wanted the towers rebuilt were misguided. The other thought is how difficult it will be to find tenants for the towers' replacement(s). A great book about a horrible, horrible day - highly recommended.
Enter 102 Minutes, by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn. By focusing solely on the events at Ground Zero, Dwyer and Flynn present a harrowing tale of what was going on inside the towers between the impact of the jets and the unthinkable collapse of the buildings. From the story as told here, we can surmise that perhaps 500 people in the towers died mercifully instantly from the impact; another 2,400 or so had horrible, horrible deaths indeed, slowly suffocating, burning to death, or leaping to their dooms to avoid the the flames and smoke.
Of the people above the impact zones of the two airplanes, a mere 18, all from the South Tower, made it out alive. There are tales of heroism here, such as the two civilian men who saved dozens by looking for and freeing those who were trapped (they didn't make it out themselves), and there are tales of grief (the last phone calls from people who know they are about to die, the man in the wheelchair and his friend who stayed with him on the 27th floor - they didn't make it, either), and there are tales of incompetence (the fireproofing was untested and woefully inadequate, and there was nearly no communication between the police and fire departments).
After reading this tale, several thoughts stayed with me. If the towers had stood, they would have had to tear them down, it seems to me, as the safety features were clearly not adequate; for the same reason, those who wanted the towers rebuilt were misguided. The other thought is how difficult it will be to find tenants for the towers' replacement(s). A great book about a horrible, horrible day - highly recommended.
Mark Steyn: Blair Will Win, But Will We?
I haven't blogged much on the upcoming British election for the quite good reason that I don't know much about it (I hear a voice in the back: "That's never stopped you before!" - quiet, you!). Mark Steyn does, though, and he has a rather alarming view of the future. The bottom line: the fate of the Anglo-American special relationship, as Hitchens would say, is in the hands of...the French. Read on to find out why...
Organizing Against Religion
Casual readers of this blog may think I have overblown the hostility of certain elements of the Left toward religion. It's certainly possible for a reasonable person to conclude that some of the recent Republican congressional activity has been over the top in its religious trappings; however, the hostility is there, and it's organized. If you doubt it, read this piece by Captain Ed...
Ay Caramba! Bart Turns 350
Don't have a cow, man, but my favorite TV show is celebrating its 350th episode tonight. There are those who think the Simpsons has 'jumped the shark', but I still enjoy each and every week. I hope they stay around for another 350. I can just imagine my reaction if I were to hear the show got cancelled - I think it would go something like this: D'oh! Nice going, guys...
In Praise of Bush, by - Michael Kinsley????
A confession here, up front. I like Michael Kinsley. I think he's one of the smarter, wittier pundits on the lefthand side of the aisle. I don't agree with everything he says, but then, I don't agree with everything the great Hitchens says, either. Kinsley (hat tip to RealClearPolitics) has just written a positively gushing review of Bush's news conference last week in the Washington Post. He give high marks to the President for his honesty on Social Security, the progressivity of his latest reform plan, his take on the judicial nominations, and his handling of the faith question.
Read Kinsley's piece, then take another look at the vile garbage at the Daily Kos, and see how big a divide there is in today's Democratic party. Today, the Kossacks are tearing up Laura Bush after her wonderful performance at the Correspondents Dinner, taking her very funny shots at Bush at face value (apparently they are unfamiliar with the concept of a 'roast'), and making explicit sexual references towards the first lady. I've been too easy on the Kos - as we get nearer to 2008, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on the antics at his website, and remind those elected officials who take money from him and post at his site what they are associating with. The divide between a Kinsley and a Kos is quite simple - it's the difference between a man and a boy.
Read Kinsley's piece, then take another look at the vile garbage at the Daily Kos, and see how big a divide there is in today's Democratic party. Today, the Kossacks are tearing up Laura Bush after her wonderful performance at the Correspondents Dinner, taking her very funny shots at Bush at face value (apparently they are unfamiliar with the concept of a 'roast'), and making explicit sexual references towards the first lady. I've been too easy on the Kos - as we get nearer to 2008, I'm going to shine a bigger and bigger spotlight on the antics at his website, and remind those elected officials who take money from him and post at his site what they are associating with. The divide between a Kinsley and a Kos is quite simple - it's the difference between a man and a boy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)