Thursday, August 04, 2005
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
My final thoughts on "Intelligent" Design...
"Well Mr B., due to this occiptal ridge crossing both your undersized eyesockets and merging in the center of your forehead, and the erm... outsized formation of your ears, I'm afraid that the only job we'll ever be able to place you in is sanitation engineer."
Good grief, the rightwing is getting stupider with every passing moment.
The Algerian Connection
Red Meat Special
Double shot of Tech Central
Michael Fumento thinks Frist was wrong on expanding funding of embryonic stem cell research – and makes some good points.
Tuesday, August 02, 2005
"No spin - the GOP is on the run"
As an Oklahoma State football fan, I'm very familiar with moral victories - and that you can rely on them for years.
I'm not sure how it happened
Monday, August 01, 2005
Austin Bay notices that our stance on human rights got us kicked out of Uzbekistan
Tigerhawk notes: “The next time somebody tells you that the United States
operates without principle, remind them that the Bush Administration walked away
from an important base in central Asia because it stood up for political liberty
in one of the most isolated places on the planet.”
Congrats to the cookie duster!
"I'll never talk to a reporter again!"
"We were just talking -- I was ranting -- and he wrote about it. That isn't
right. We all say stuff we don't want printed," Thomas said.
BTW - I never realized her resemblence to Ozzie Osborne.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
James Lileks had a good rant
over the recent Hugh Hewitt interview with CAIR spokesman, Hussam Ayloush, and Frank Gaffney (radio blogger transcript here). The following is an excerpt from the interview:
HH: And do you agree that Israel was wrongfully attacked in 1948, and in
1973, by Arab states on their borders?
HA: You know what, Hugh? It offends me
when I get...to have to ask...to be asked these questions, as an American. I'm
not a representative of the PLO...
HH: No, I'm just asking...
HA: I'm an American. For me to question...
HH: ...but this...I'm asking you...
HA: No. You know what?
HH: Don't filibuster me, Hussam.
HA: That's not...
HH: This is a very easy question.
HA: No, I'm not doing that. What I'm doing is, I'm being offended because from day one, since the beginning of this show, and even yesterday, every question had to do with Israel and Palestine. Can't we be seen as Americans?
HH: Yes, we can, but...
HA: What do we have to do to be seen as Americans today?
HH: I talk about Israel, I talk about Israel with everyone that comes on this show, and just before we went to break, I think you accused me of being a tool of the Israel government.
HA: No, no. I was talking about Frank.
HH: Well, I don't think Frank's...Frank's my friend. I don't think he's a tool of the Israeli government, either. And so, I wanted to just know if we could agree. Was Israel wrongly attacked in 1948, and 1973?
HA: I'm not an expert on the...
HH: This is not hard stuff, Hussam.
HA: No, it is hard stuff for me. I mean, ask me about American history. I can answer you...
HH: No, I mean 1948, five Arab states attempted to drive Israel into the sea. That was wrong, wasn't it?
HA: I think anybody who tries to attack any other country wrongfully is wrong. If
you...
HH: Can you not bring yourself to say that 1973 was an attack upon...an unprovoked attack by Egypt and Jordan and Syria upon Israel? Because that's why, I think, you don't have...it's trouble getting credibility, because everybody knows it was an unprovoked...an unjust attack on Israel.
HA: I'm interested in gaining credibility as an American. I'm not an expert on the
Middle East. And you know, I could have been born in Pakistan without any
knowledge about the Middle East. Would that make me less of a patriotic
American?
HH: Frank...I mean Hussam, any American who comes on this show, I
don't care if they're Irish Catholic like me, or a Presbyterian or whatever, and
the can't realize that '48 and '73 were horrible attacks upon Israel, that's
wrong.
Red meat language aside, this article captures the current landscape
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Stephen Hayes wonders why the CIA has changed its assessment of the Saddam/Sudan relationship
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Leading a bureaucracy into the next millennium
That he’s done so much while we are also at war is pretty impressive.
“Rumsfeld may be remembered as one of the boldest bureaucratic reformers of hisMy guess is that he will be considered one of the greatest secretaries of war.
generation. Whether he will also go down in history as one of the greatest
secretaries of defense remains to be seen.”
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Did Dr. Mabuse dispatch Ms. Coulter to run yesterday's column
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
Iraq invasion may be creating more terrorists than we are killing and capturing
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Christian terrorism punished
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Bush's tax cuts have created tax revenue
The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that the deficit for the
full fiscal year, which reached $412 billion in 2004, could be "significantly
less than $350 billion, perhaps below $325 billion."
Of course, critics are talking in circles to shrug off the good news, pointing out that big fiscal problems are still over the horizon - namely Medicare and Social Security.
"Future presidents and future Congresses," said Senator Kent Conrad of North
Dakota, the ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee, "are going to be faced
with pressure to drastically cut Social Security and Medicare because of the
decisions being made now."
Would he be referring to the Dems' decision to stonewall Bush's efforts to fix social security?
I thought CEOs had Bush in their back pockets....
The frilled lizard effect
That anyone is in jail for this whole silly affair is pretty darn ridiculous – but I would put the blame for Miller’s incarceration at the feet of those who cried for an investigation in the first place. And it’s a little ironic that the left uses a moment of candor from Dr. Mabuse, when he apparently alluded to Cooper that Mrs. Plame was the reason Joe Wilson was assigned to cover uranium in Niger, as a reason for the evil doctor to be fired. Aren’t these the same people that think the administration is too secretive? Yet, when the administration loosens it lips, even a little, these same folks try to use that candor against them. And counter to what the left believes – Rove has turned out to be the honest one, while Wilson is the proven liar. This “scandal” is so contrived that even Wonkette says there is nothing there (did I just link to Wonkette for something that wasn't potty humor?) – but it’s all the left has anymore. As I've said before, the real outrage is that Joe Wilson was sent by the CIA to Africa in the first place.
Thursday, July 07, 2005
Assessing the London bombings
The offensive operations (Afghanistan, Iraq) the U.S. has taken since 9/11 prevented this from occurring on U.S. soil.
The defensive operations taken since 9/11 prevented this from occurring in the U.S.
Iraq is the new training ground for terrorists, giving them real-world experience in blowing stuff up.
No matter what preventative measures you take, if your enemy wants to hit you badly enough, he will.
Virgin Radio out of the U.K. is real solemn this afternoon. You can check it out on iTunes Radio under Alt/Modern Rock.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
The President's speech was dead on
Have I missed it?
"Everything we heard about operations there in the past, we'd have to say, was negative. What we saw firsthand was something different" - Sen. Nelson
China confiscates Japanese textbooks headed for Japanese School in China
Monday, June 27, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
It shouldn’t be too hard to tell which side I meant.
By “crapping on” I wasn’t referring to the people who are leading an imperfect war, which we are winning. Rather, I was talking about the people who seem incapable of uttering the word Iraq without also bringing up Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or the litany of negatives directed at the Commander in Chief. You know, the ones who seem hellbent on losing Vietnam all over again – not because the want to see our soldiers suffer, but because they want to see the President fail. Troop levels and body armor are legitimate points of debate, but when Senator x harps on troop numbers and then wants to know when the troops will be coming home – or when Senator’s x, y, z use stories of prisoner abuse to say we’ve lost moral authority – their interests in winning the war become suspect to me. The main problem for these people is that they actually believe the previously linked cartoon is accurate.
Re: the Rumsfeld story. Although he miscalculated the longevity of the Baathist’s resistance, he was right about one thing: they are part of a dying cause. What would be the appropriate response from a Defense Secretary at that time? His response was the right one to make.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
I couldn't tell by the "crapping" headline which side you meant
Speaking of which, I thought this was a nifty little cartoon.
Boy does my colon feel a lot cleaner now that I got that out of my system.
Friday, June 24, 2005
How is the recent Supreme Court decision not a violation of the Bill of Rights?
Stevens
Kennedy
Souter
Ginsburg
Breyer
Against:
O'Connor
Scalia
Thomas
Rehnquist
Thursday, June 23, 2005
It is hard to take someone seriously when they crap on the war effort for 2 years
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Congressional tears are rarely moving and are usually an embarrassment
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
How times have changed
"He said, 'I wish things were like when Ronald Reagan was still
president,"' said one of the soldiers who guarded him....
President Bush and his father, former President George H. W. Bush, are "no
good," while former President Bill Clinton was "OK," Saddam told his
captors.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Invasion in Iraq more popular with Iranian people than Americans
Senator shows astonishing lack of sense
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing
what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly
believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad
regime -- Pol Pot or others -- that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that
is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their
prisoners."
The system works - checks and balances alive and well
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Yasukuni Shrine
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Advocates of a Downing Street Memo Investigation are humbugs trying to be bugbears
I’m guessing that when the Downing Street Memo site highlights something in red, it means I’m supposed to raise an outraged eyebrow and demand answers.
In talking about the shift in the administration’s attitude during the summer of 2002 the conspiracy theorists underline a phrase they feel is damning to the president:
Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam,
through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But
the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
But what does that mean, fixed? Nothing else in the memo suggests that the word “fixed” would imply changing data or creating evidence – so it is more than reasonable to assume that it simply means that they were gathering available evidence to support their position, carving raw intelligence to form an argument. This is what every good diplomat, CEO, project manager….in short, anyone trying to achieve anything, would do.
Another point in the memo that is highlighted in red and partially underlined:
It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if
the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not
threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya,
North Korea or Iran.
….the case was thin. The statement means little on its own, less when taken in context. Out of context, it implies that the case was weak. After all, the intelligence we had was circumstantial (exiles telling their stories, satellite photos or very suspicious Iraqi phone conversations) or old (previous WMD that are still unaccounted for). For a leader, lack of information over a specific problem does not mean that inaction is the best course or even an option. And the evidence that did exist pointed to one responsible conclusion: that Saddam had had, probably still had and seeked more WMDs. It also showed that he had ties to terror and was a bad influence on the region. Taking Saddam out was essential in defeating Islamic terrorism. No other assessment on the president’s part would be reasonable. In context, the memo goes on:
Saddam was not threatening his neighbors
This is a misleading statement that differs from some hard facts at the time (2002). First, Saddam was funding terrorism – no doubts there. The extent of his ties can be debated, but he did support terror. Second, one reason that he was not threatening the Kurds or Kuwaitis is that we maintained a purse draining No Fly Zone over those areas, in which Iraqis exchanged fire with US forces on a pretty routine basis. It’s like we were holding the arm of a threatening man behind his back. He’s temporarily disabled but better not let him go, lest he become a threat again. Meanwhile, the containment effort was slowly eroding, thanks, in part, to French influence (and others) which pressed to lift sanctions for the better part of 12 years. To these folks, it seems that the Kurds were of no concern.
….and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.
This point undercuts the Bush-lied-about-WMDs because it assumes that Saddam had them. Otherwise, the memo wouldn’t say his WMD capability was less than the others, but would say something like, while Iraq has no WMDs….these other countries do, etc. The reason for highlighting this portion of the memo is to suggest the following: country A has less WMD than country B, C, or D. Therefore, country A is the lesser threat. Now that is not necessarily so, but let’s assume for a moment that it is. The subsequent conclusion seems to be: since countries B,C, & D are greater threats than country A, no action should be taken against country A (or action should first be taken against B,C, D before A). This argument is used again and again by anti-Bush factions. Yet, it is over simplistic and makes for poor foreign policy. First, it assumes that the only difference in each problem is in terms of the level of danger, not the nature of the danger. In reality, the aims and ambitions of Libya are different than Iran or N. Korea or Iraq. Therefore, the way that each country would use their WMD programs will vary in accordance with those aims. The simplistic argument also assumes that each problem posed by countries A – D are completely isolated from each other, which is certainly not the case. Action taken on any one of these countries will affect the other countries, since they all have some level of relations with each other. The point is, attacking the greatest threat first is not necessarily wise.
As an aside, consider this often used argument: 15 of the highjackers were Saudi, why didn’t we invade them? Well, there are several reasons (which I’ve cited before): Saudi Arabia, as bad as their government is, is solidly within the community of nations. If its UN support your after, good luck getting that resolution to topple the house of Saud. Also, and I’m not believer in the Arab street, but if you did take action against Saudi Arabia, what better way to mobilize Arabs against America than invading the country with the most sacred Muslim sites, include the very big Kabba Stone? You’d be attacking the only country that receives millions and millions of pilgrims each year. Whereas going after Saddam splits Muslims, confuses the Arab Street and keeps jihad at bay. Arabs have hated Saddam for so long that it’s hard to rise up in his defense regardless of what they think about the US. Sometimes attacking the direct root of a problem is not the best course. Surround it, isolate it – make it change. And we’ve seen the beginning of change in the Middle East. Can you imagine Saudis arguing for the women suffrage in 2001, 2002 or even 2003?
In regards to threats of Libya, Iran and N. Korea – as previously mentioned, the administration rightly recognizes that they are each different in nature, as is stated in an un-highlighted portion of the memo:
There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran.
We’ve seen progress in Libya. Iran and N. Korea are tougher nuts to crack and the Iraqi approach is necessarily adequate. These problems will be resolved in time.
Another point that is highlighted in the memo is this statement:
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base
for military action.
The scope of the Attorney-General’s assessment is narrow and focuses merely on legalities. The un-highlighted sentence that follows reveals just how legal the war was:
There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention,
or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.
Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might
of course change.
And change it did, especially in regards to the relevant UNSC resolutions. Self-defense issues are defined by our elected leaders. If Bush failed, then the people would not have reelected him. Mass graves alone back up the humanitarian justification for the war, and so does the massive Oil for Fraud scandal. Finally, 1441, however spun, justifies the war because Saddam did not comply with it and subsequently faced “serious consequences” as called for in the resolution. For Bush supporters, he achieved 3 out of 3 of the criteria for a legal war. For Bush haters, they are deceiving themselves if they don’t grant Bush 2 out 3 (in a fit of generosity, I’ll not include the self defense reason). If the criteria for a just war as set in this memo are accepted, then the memo justifies the war.
The rest of the highlighted portions deal with the difference between approaches. The US did not want to go the U.N. route. That was clear enough at the time. Bush correctly saw problems in doing so. Blair wanted diplomatic cover. Neither felt that Hussein would ever comply with the U.N. resolutions – which turned out to be a dead on prediction. One reason why Bush was already resolved towards going to war is that he knew that Saddam could and would not change his ways. That doesn’t betray a thick-skull shortcoming on the part of Bush, but does towards Saddam. Even the Brits in the memo acknowledge that Saddam wouldn’t even accept inspections unless he felt the military threat was real. In this case, it was very real. If you’re going to blame the war on bad leadership, then Saddam is your man, not Bush.
But of this difference between Blair and Bush with ultimatums and diplomacy, one thing is strikingly clear: Bush’s willingness to compromise and listen. Bush didn’t want to go the U.N. route because it would slow everything down, but he did so. And it slowed things down. In fact, Bush has a record of accommodating differing points of view: he went to congress and the UN even though he didn’t care to do either. He started the Dept. of Homeland Security amidst Dem cries that we need a new department (I still don’t like that one), he allowed for the 9/11 Commission, and so on and so forth.
But back to the memo.
One of the most interesting portions of the memo was not highlighted by the conspiracy theorists:
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if
Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could
also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
Again, its clear that the Administration did believe Saddam had WMDs. So much so that they even worried about it.
And then there’s this underlined part raising questions about the administration’s timing in the march to war:
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to
put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the
most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January,
with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
Within 30 days of US Congressional elections? Egad! An elected official factoring in elections with his policy – the outrage! It’s a vague statement, but lets apply the worst possible motive – that Bush wanted a majority in Congress for the war and his domestic agenda. Is that wrong? Woe to the democratically elected official (and all his efforts) if he doesn’t consider the politics of it all. Of course, if we lived in the theocracy that so many Bush haters think we do, he could’ve simply postponed or discarded elections and paid little heed to political implications – you know, like Saddam would do.
One would think that with the left’s recent experiences with memos that they’d be gunshy about this one. This particular memo is interesting because it shows a delicate issue debated and handled in a professional way. It also shows that while Bush is open minded to the views of Blair, he was also resolved to handle Iraq – from start to finish. But Bush opponents are so overwhelmed with the desire to see the man destroyed that they would endeavor to petition for a full investigation of the facts in and around this memo. Think of the consequences if they achieved their wildest aim – that somehow Bush was found to use false pretenses for the war. Not only would it compromise support for the Commander in Chief, it would undermine the whole War on Terror. Our military would hemorage morale and our enemies will be further emboldened to continue the war. Trying to bring Bush down, no matter how much you hate him, would hurt the U.S. (and U.S. credibility) in so many ways. This war is hard enough to fight as it is, we don’t need such a development. In reality, such an investigation would merely be a waste of tax dollars that go to create (or add to) a perception of wrongdoing where none exists.
Monday, June 13, 2005
It's just a Sissy Slap glove!
A couple of takes on China
Steyn also quickly points out that while Philip Bennett, the Washington Post's managing editor, says that if he were a young career seeking journalist, he'd go to China because that's where the exciting stuff is, China has the record of arresting the more journalists than any other nation. That's including NYTimes journalist, Zhao Yan, who's been held without trial since September (I don't think he qualifies as an enemy combatant). As with all Steyn columns, it is worth a read.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Krauthammer on Original meaning and Supreme Court Precedent
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Austin Bay talks about the porous Syrian border and the flypaper effect of invading Iraq & how that put al Qaeda in a dire predicament
Their goal, he [Abu Ibrahim] said, is restoration of the Islamic caliphate, the
system that governed Muslims before the rise of nation states. Abu Ibrahim said
he regarded Afghanistan during the Taliban rule as one of the few true Islamic
governments since the time of Muhammad.
And there’s a few other longing references to the Ottoman Empire. You’d think that if any memories of the Ottoman rule were passed down at all there’d be absolutely no pan-Muslim traction. The pre-colonial days were just as bad, if not worse than the colonial/nation-state days. The Turks provided a leadership that epitomized decadence and incompetence in a way no elected western official could never do. Strange, since Osama uses western decadence as a rallying cry. For centuries, that Muslim empire was the sick man of Europe and provided complete ineffectual leadership for the region. Far from destroying the Ottoman Empire, the West propped it up long past its rightful collapse because they feared the vacuum such a collapse would cause. That fear is the same one that has made the west prop up the current dictatorships for so long. Bottom line: artificial stability is bad, bad all around.
Oh yeah, and the innocence destroyed at various bombed out weddings? Well, it was not so innocent:
Afterward, Abu Qaqaa was arrested by the Syrian authorities, but he was released
within hours. By 2002 the anti-American festivals were running twice weekly,
often wrapped around weddings or other social gatherings. Organizers called
themselves The Strangers of Sham, using the ancient name for the eastern
Mediterranean region known as the Levant, and began freely distributing the CDs
of the cleric's sermons.
And other destruction of innocence:
"Once the Americans bombed a bus crossing to Syria. We made a big fuss and said
it was full of merchants," Abu Ibrahim said. "But actually, they were
fighters."
For once, I believe a terrorist. Both Austin’s post and the Washington Post story of Abu Ibrahim are worth reading.
Monday, June 06, 2005
I am now an adult....
- the hardware was pretty cool & I liked the evolutionary aspect connecting Episode 3 to Episode 4 – good design work in all the movies
- As with 1 & 2, the space battle scenes were too busy and it was difficult to see some stuff
- Anakin’s acting did not detract from the movie, but ironically Ewan McGregor’s performance was flat – though there’s only so much an actor can do with flat dialogue
- There was no reason to make one of the wookies Chewbacca
- I thought Obi Wan told Luke that Darth Vader hunted down and killed the Jedi, which wasn’t true for the bulk of Jedi (not according to Plan 66)
- Jedis do not respond well to treachery
- The Jedi Council is not very likeable (Palpatine had some good lines of criticism about them)
- Apparently the Dark Side gives Yoda indigestion
- The final fight scene should have been on a volcano, not a volcano planet
- I wish the Christopher Lee character played a bigger role in both movies
- Both Yoda and Samuel Jackson improved their saber fighting skills, which was not impressive in Episode II
- I guess it took 20 years to make the first Death Star and about 5 to make the second – an unnecessary shot in the end
- So C3PO and R2’s memory was erased in Episode 3, what about Darth’s? since he didn’t have any memory of either robot or didn’t sense any disturbance in the Force when he was interrogating Leia or sending out search parties on Tatooine
- Whereas Episode 4 & 5 allowed you to follow the story, Episodes 2 & 3 jumped around so much that the time perspective was awkward
- Cool to see the production lines of the proto-star destroyers because it gave some perspective to the size of the ships
- Frankenstein Darth yelling "Noooooo!" was hammy
- When the movie takes us to the pure white corridors in a CR90 Blockade Runner, it's like going back home again
Friedman's not alone in wanting to close down GITMO
Also Sunday, Sen. Joseph Biden (news, bio, voting
record), D-Del, said in Washington the United States should move toward
shutting down the military prison camp in Cuba, calling it "the greatest
propaganda tool that exists for recruiting of terrorists around the world."
Hmm, I thought liberating Iraqis was the biggest propoganda tool for recruiting terrorist. I just don't get this urge to appease anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
Urine on the Koran? Don't blame the Pentagon, blame those window stickers...
From Austin Bay: Terrorist Win, 15 to 5 - When it comes to desecrating Korans, nobody beats a Muslim. They’re good at it. For anyone wanting to exonerate Newsweek's story, well don't bother because the Koran flushing turned out to be the work of a (incontinent? manipulative?) detainee. Hardly surprising since the Koran corresponds with the terrorists’ other toiletries. I’m glad to see that Austin's commenters recall when Palestinian terrorists in Bethlehem were held up in the Church of the Nativity and how they squeezed the Holy Bible like it was Charman and soiled its pages as they pooed in the pews and made a mess out the place.
Tim Blair has the best take on the matter. I'm thinking that if Louis Black was the edgy and envelop-pushing comic that he pretends to be, then the cover of Nothing Sacred would have such funny art.
Meanwhile, Matthew Yglesias doesn't go for "the other side is worse" argument. I'm not sure why not. When an American guard does something bad to the Koran, the military has investigations. Indeed, the amount of incidents at GITMO reveal and incredible pattern - that of respect and deference towards the Koran. Meanwhile, in the Muslim world, there seems to be an open season on Korans, whether they are confiscated and destroyed outside Mecca's Wahabi gates, incinerated in a targeted Mosque or defiled by killing the bodies of Muslims that carried them. If Matthew refuses to see the difference, who can change his mind? It's not a situation where we are bad, but not as bad as the other side, but rather that at least we are trying to do the right thing while the other side is indiscriminately and remorselessly killing people (and Korans) Of course, I'd be out of line if I expressed outrage at a urine spritzed Koran or even a kicked one. While I don't particularly have an urge to tamper with anyone's holy book, I'm still an advocate of burying every dead terrorist with a ham hock; it's the Ethan Edwards in me.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Lee Harris has an extremely impressive essay in Policy Review
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
What the GOP has done to destroy America, according the the most popular liberal blog
To further nitpick on his misguided rage:
The GOP led House passed the expansion of government funded stem cell research. If Bush is going to veto that measure, then he still isn’t preventing stem cell research, just preventing the expansion of government funding for embryonic stem cell research. It seems that the slightest complexity to Bush’s policies confuses Kos, no end. No doubt he would have been hopelessly lost in the vortex of Kerry’s nuanced spin (assuming there was a center to Kerry's rhetoric).
The GOP tried to interfere in the Schiavo case, but the courts ignored them. No meddling actually took place and Schiavo was starved to death, so Kos should be satisfied.
“Violate Senate rules to destroy historical protections for minority rights” – hmm, maybe I don’t know what he’s referring to, but the GOP did nothing (so far) with the filibuster stand off.
"Change ethics rules so DeLay can be as corrupt as he wants." And what changes were made to the Ethics Committee? The GOP gave in there, too. Besides, the way Kos has talked about DeLay, wouldn't he believe that DeLay would want to be far more corrupt than the law would ever allow?
Finally, where is Kos comprehension of what separation of powers actually means? He doesn’t seem to have a clue - which, judging by his rhetoric.
If Kos believes that the DNC is headed for majority status in 2006, then so be it. I guess it will take multiple pricks to bust his reality bubble.
All the manure that the GTMO detainees have been spreading
Monday, May 30, 2005
Saturday, May 28, 2005
Tom Friedman is back to being squishy
I am convinced that more Americans are dying and will die if we keep the GitmoI’m not sure how he comes to the conclusion that more Americans are dying. Has he done an accurate cost/benefit assessment between the negative perception of the abuse allegations and the intelligence we have been able to get? It’s doubtful. Friedman seems more worried about our reputation:
prison open than if we shut it down. So, please, Mr. President, just shut it
down.
If you want to appreciate how corrosive Guantánamo has become for America'sDon’t forget the NY Times, Tom.
standing abroad, don't read the Arab press. Don't read the Pakistani press.
Don't read the Afghan press. Hop over here to London or go online and just read
the British press! See what our closest allies are saying about Gitmo. And when
you get done with that, read the Australian press and the Canadian press and the
German press.
Google the words "Guantánamo Bay and Australia" and what comes up is an Australian ABC radio report that begins: "New claims have emerged that prisoners at Guantánamo Bay are being tortured by their American captors, and the claims say that Australians David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib are among the victims."Sure, and Google the word Halliburton and you’ll get a smorgasbord of Mother Jones grade vitriol about corruption and conspiracy. Should we quit using Halliburton to do valuable work for us because of mostly baseless allegations?
Friedman says that Guantánamo is serving as a recruitment tool for the terrorists, and he’s certainly right, but as we’ve seen with the Koran flushing story, anything will be used as a recruitment tool against us, whether its truth or fiction, major or minute. In that sense, the only way to take away those recruitment talking points is to withdraw from the war on terror completely – but then the terrorists would be flushed with victory and emboldened to take even more aggressive action everywhere, including the U.S. Also, showing such weakness would provide a recruitment tool more valuable than all that negative press rolled together. No, better to let them scream jihad as much as they want while we keep methodically plowing away at the al Qaeda leadership and keep rebuilding Iraq.
Why care? It's not because I am queasy about the war on terrorism. It is becauseI’m sure he does want to win the war, but war is a nasty business and I’m afraid he is quite queasy to that fact. Surely perception is as major element in this war, and if the U.S. is perceived as resolute despite shrill cries of prisoner abuse, shrieks of jihad and car bombs, it will completely go against what the terrorists are trying to do.
I want to win the war on terrorism.
Boy howdy, China's going to blow a gasket when they catch wind of this
Thursday, May 26, 2005
Suzuki
Underworld Beauty (1958)
Youth of the Beast (1963)
Kanto Wanderer (1963)
Tattooed Life (1965)
Tokyo Drifter (1966)
Fighting Elegy (1966)
Branded to Kill (1967)
Pistol Opera (2001)
With the exception of Tattooed Life, the earlier films tended to be better than the subsequent movies in an almost linear fashion, though each film was briskly paced and entertaining up until Pistol Opera. The story lines fell into one or two of the following categories: 1) an ex-con gets out of jail and has a score to settle before there’s redemption (funny how serving a jail sentence never settles anything in a movie); 2) a yakuza hit man tries to go straight but his past won’t let him (plot 27A, make it glossy….not much for the message boys); 3) hit men compete for the number one spot (who’s the best hit man you ever saw?); 4) the main character tries to do right unto his a) ex-partner or b) younger brother. Mix and match these, shake and bake, serve over rice and you’ve got the gist of the each movie.
Yet, despite this environmentally friendly recycling, Suzuki displays an admirably wide range. He is an inventive and playful director. Here’s a period piece, over there is a starkly shot black and white feature, and just beyond that is a vibrantly colorful film and in between is a mixture of both. He’s not afraid to make awkward cuts or unconventional time lapses, and he tends to be a wise guy with the double exposure. If I was nonplused before, I was very much plused this time around, even with a soiled diaper.
Underworld Beauty is straight noir and is considered to be before Suzuki hit his stride. Though it isn’t quite as stylistically thick as his later efforts, it is a solid movie and it’s hard think Suzuki wasn’t already hitting on all cylinders. I’m guessing that his studio was not yet offering him free reign by 1958 and Underworld Beauty is thus tempered. To me, this film is evidence that some restrictions on artistic freedom can actually benefit the final product. Underworld Beauty draws from the noir well and is a pure representation of the genre. Storylines 1 & 4 are used.
Youth of the Beast is Suzuki’s first collaboration with Jo Shoshido, a popular actor with remarkably big jawbones. I’m thinking this movie launched his popularity and he did countless other Suzuki pictures. By 1963, Suzuki’s style was pretty well defined and this film sports some impressive set designs that approach a James Bond level originality, if not budget. Look for storyline 4.
Kanto Wanderer chronicles the rivalry between two yakuza families who deal in gambling and the slave trade. The latter element is unnerving because the film treats the sex trade amorally and we witness the ruin of a pretty young and innocent girl without any narrative remorse. However, the movie as a whole is no downer.
Tattooed Life impressed me a great deal and is somewhat of a departure for Suzuki being set in the 20’s and in a village instead of Tokyo, though it’s still about the yakuza world (thus the title). Storylines 2 and 4 are in evidence here. Suzuki wisely resists over stylizing the period, but has enough details to make the feeling of the movie authentic. If Japanese textbooks shy away from Japan’s imperialist past, its art does not, as this movie proves with various allusions to Manchuria and the grand Japanese liberation of Asia. But this is hardly the focus of the picture, its merely some texture and the film deals more with yakuza rivalries than Japanese nationalism. This picture also has the hottest kimono clad girls in it as well (what a Hawks girl is doing behind the bar of the Sea of Japan, I don’t know).
Tokyo Drifter turned out to be better than what I had remembered. Though it is not as tight as the previous films, it’s repeating title song (still stuck in my head) helped maintain a common thread. By this time, Suzuki’s stylistic flourishes had taken over and outstripped his stories and the movies have less depth as a result. Still, the sets are good, the location shots are rich and the pace is fast enough to keep everything interesting. There are two main characters in Tokyo Drifter…the drifter and his fabulously baby blue suit! Storyline 2.
I’m at a loss to say anything about Fighting Elegy. It’s more story driven than Tokyo Drifter before it or Branded to Kill after it, and it doesn’t fit neatly into the Suzuki repertoire. It’s about a teenager in the 30s caught between his love for a girl and the fighting “code” he’s committed himself to. There’s some awkwardness in that all the high school aged kids are Suzuki regulars and look closer to their mid 30’s than they do to adolescence. I must admit that I watched most of the movie with my head cocked like a puppy trying to make sense of it all (something about the masturbation humor wasn’t quite clicking for me). Storyline 3 is used loosely (young man trying to prove himself).
Branded to Kill continues the evolution of Suzuki from evenly balance story teller to over-stylized director. Whereas certain elements in Tokyo Drifter made that movie cohesive, this film was pretty scattered using storyline 3. Shishido is back in this one as an ace killer that likes the smell of rice a little too much (really). Will he become the #1 killer? Will it matter? Not really. There’s enough in the movie to make it interesting, but that doesn’t include the story itself. The spirit of the film reminded me of Tarantino in that it is often clever, but when you boil it all down it is reduced to mere vapors. Also of note were a few specific instances that Jim Jarmusch lifted and used in Ghost Dog, namely, a butterfly thwarting an assassination attempt (I think it was a bird in Ghost Dog) and a scene where Jo Shishido shoots a man through a sink drain. This film is also generous with the nudity. Incidentally, something about this movie and Tokyo Drifter made the Japanese film industry blackball Suzuki for about ten years or so – though I’m sketchy on the details.
Jump to 2001 with Pistol Opera – actually, you jump ahead, I'll hang out in the mid sixties for awhile more. Pistol Opera.....great title, nice credit sequence, but the rest of it was a mess. It’s a sorta loose remake of Branded to Kill, but it’s longer and lacks virtually anything interesting. The film is boldly colorful at points, yet the direction is so contrived that it is awkward and almost unwatchable. What little story exists (storyline 3) is hare-brained at best and makes little sense when scrutinized. As adventurous as Suzuki is through all of his movies, he’s generally straightforward in his narrative, but this movie jumps around so much and holds some scenes to the point where I, the viewer, felt like I was being jerked around. Strangely enough, this film was shot in 4:3 ratio (it may have been made for television, though I’m not sure). I'm simply at a loss at what Suzuki was thinking. But who knows, I may think this film was worthless now, but bury it for a few thousand years and it will become priceless.
All in all I was overjoyed with these movies and I'm glad that I took the time to get to know Suzuki a little better. Of course, what I covered was only a fraction of his body of work.
Next on the agenda, other yakuza films, including: Afraid to Die (staring the famously dead novelist, Yukio Mishima), Blind Beast, Blackmail Is My Life, Street Mobster, Black Tight Killers and Bloody Territories. Down the pike is a mysterious 6 DVD set called the Yakuza Papers. Will this be the Godfather of yakuza entertainment? Doubtful, but it should be fun nonetheless.
Remember when Bush's budget was going to starve the states to death?
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Monday, May 23, 2005
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Guard sees detainee's Koran out of the corner of eye, detainee screams bloody murder
Speaking of Newsweek: Riding Sun has a interesting post about their covers overseas (via Instapundit). Two different markets, I guess. One of the things that surprised me was how many American celebrities, that would never do a advertisement in the states, were doing them in Japan. I wonder what Jodie Foster knows about Japanese temp agencies, yet, there she was, a life size cuttout, promoting one.
Friday, May 20, 2005
Kofi warns US not to stop paying our dues
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Double Nutter Wednesday!
From the Mailer skull bubble: Norman Mailer is the first loony leftie to suggest the Newsweek story is the product of the Bush Administration. He took Intelligence 101A, you know. I'm sure he could get a job writing the next Oliver Stone screenplay.
The Newsweek Koran story is not another Memogate
Also, I don't think the lesson should have much to do with the accuracy of the story or the use of anonymous sources. While it's a good idea to describe the nature of a source (is it a single source, is it reliable or just part of the rumor mill - all of that is fit for print with the proper disclaimers), the troubling thing for me is that Isikoff chose to cite details of the flushing at all. Even if the story was true, why report it? What good will it do? How is it newsworthy? If the aim is to simply chisel away at the military's creditbility and make its job a harder, then that is clear enough. If the aim is to inform the public that an investigation or report on alleged abuses is in process or due to release, why mention specifics about treatment to the Koran? Especially when there's an online terror manual floating around which says point blank that such information is to be exploited? I certainly don't feel that I have a better understanding of the situation with petty details like that.
Monday, May 16, 2005
Apparently the body count over the Newsweek story is not high enough for Mr. Isikoff
"Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important
to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here,"
[Isikoff] said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the
Pentagon ample opportunity to comment...We're going to continue to investigate
what remains a very murky situation."
And so, with the "murky situation" not fully investigated, Newsweek chose to apologize for it by working in other baseless allegations about abuse to the Koran. Here's an idea, if Newsweek can't simply run a retraction/apology (they haven't retracted anything yet) without stirring up more Islamic hatred, then perhaps they could at least keep their trap shut while the US government cleans up the mess Isikoff made.
The initial report was irresponsible even if the source was not anonymous or the allegations true, given the negative repercussions that should have been predictable after the murder of Theo van Gogh and the shrill cries of jihad at the drop of a Koran. Also predictable, is that the retraction has been rejected by the muslim community. So there's no way Newsweek can undo the damage done.
All that said, the lion's share of outrage should be reserved towards the muslims that are so bent out of shape by Koran desecration, in the first place. Isikoff may have been ignorant in what he was doing, but regardless of his error, he didn't kill 16 people. Not that it matters, but I wonder how many Korans would have to be incinerated to match the number of American flags that have been burned, if each page was equal to each flag. Toss in the beheaded aid workers and no doubt that plume of smoke could be seen for miles and miles.
In trying to understand Islamic intolerance over abuse to the Koran, I was reminded of a recent Lee Harris article in which he talked about the nature of the Koran:
The Koran, however, differed radically from other sacred books. They were
inspired by God, but the Koran was the very word of God, and in the language
that God clearly spoke when he was by himself, namely, Arabic. Islam would never
have been such a challenge to the earlier faiths if it had claimed to have
discovered a new god; but it didn't. It claimed to be centered on the same god
of the Jews and Christians -- only the Koran represented this god correctly.....
Nor was this the only stumbling block posed by the Koran. For the Koran does
not claim simply to have been inspired by God, the way that Jews and Christians
have traditionally interpreted their scripture; rather it is understood as
having been quite literally dictated by God, word by word. Or, more precisely,
Arabic word by Arabic word.
By this I don't mean that Allah
reveals his Word and that this Word is then encoded into Arabic, as it might
have been encoded into any other language; I mean that, according to Islam,
Allah's Word is itself Arabic. The Koran is co-eternal with Allah; it always
existed, and always will exist; and it has always been in Arabic.
This stands in profound contrast to the Christian concept of
inspiration as symbolized by the Feast of the Pentecost in The Book of Acts.
Here we find an explicit recognition of a God whose Word may be equally well
expressed in a multitude of tongues, so that no particular language can be
singled out as the language of God Himself. Divine thought transcends all human
language, and yet can be articulated in all human languages.
Austin Bay also had a good post on the issue.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Darth Vader's blog
In search of Arafat's money
Thursday, May 12, 2005
If a neocon applauded a Tom Friedman article and nobody heard him, would he make a sound?
Jonah on Conservatism
Comfort with contradiction
I mean this in the broadest
metaphysical sense and the narrowest practical way. Think of any leftish
ideology and at its core you will find a faith that circles can be closed,
conflicts resolved. Marxism held that in a truly socialist society,
contradictions would be destroyed. Freudianism led the Left to the idea that the
conflicts between the inner and outer self were the cause of unnecessary
repressions. Dewey believed that society could be made whole if we jettisoned
dogma and embraced a natural, organic understanding of the society where
everyone worked together. This was an Americanized version of a Germany idea,
where concepts of the Volkgeist — spirit of the people — had been elevated to
the point where society was seen to have its own separate spirit. All of this
comes in big bunches from Hegel who, after all, had his conflicting thesis and
antithesis merging into a glorious thesis. (It’s worth noting that Whittaker
Chambers said he could not qualify as a conservative — he called himself a “man
of the right” — because he could never jettison his faith in the dialectical
nature of history.)
But move away from philosophy and down to earth. Liberals and leftists are
constantly denouncing “false choices” of one kind or another. In our
debate, Jonathan Chait kept hinting, hoping, and haranguing that — one day — we
could have a socialized healthcare system without any tradeoffs of any kind.
Environmentalists loathe the introduction of free-market principles into the
policy-making debate because, as Steven Landsburg puts
it, economics is the science of competing preferences. Pursuing some good
things might cost us other good things. But environmentalists reject the very
idea. They believe that all good things can go together and that anything
suggesting otherwise is a false choice.Listen to Democratic politicians when they wax righteous about social policy. Invariably it goes something like this: “I simply reject the notion that in a good society X should have to come at the expense of Y.” X can be security and Y can be civil liberties. Or X can be food safety and Y can be the cost to the pocketbook of poor people. Whatever X and Y are, the underlying premise is that in a healthy society we do not have tradeoffs between good things. In healthy societies all good things join hands and walk up the hillside singing I’d like to buy the world a coke.
Think about why the Left is obsessed with hypocrisy and authenticity. The former is the great evil, the latter the closest we can get to saintliness. Hypocrisy implies a contradiction between the inner and outer selves. That’s a Freudian no-no in and of itself. But even worse, hypocrisy suggests that others are wrong for behaving the way they do. Hypocrites act one way and behave another. Whenever a conservative is exposed as a “hypocrite” the behavior — Limbaugh’s drug use, Bennett’s gambling, whatever — never offends the Left as much as the fact that they were telling other people how to live. This, I think, is in part because of the general hostility the Left has to the idea that we should live in any way that doesn’t “feel” natural. We must all listen to our inner children.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
What's wrong with this statement?
As we mark a victory of six days ago -- six decades ago, we are mindful of a
paradox. For much of Germany, defeat led to freedom. For much of Eastern and
Central Europe, victory brought the iron rule of another empire. V-E Day marked
the end of fascism, but it did not end oppression. The agreement at Yalta
followed in the unjust tradition of Munich and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Once
again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was
somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of
stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in
Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of
history.
Bush seems to be lamenting the agreement and using its results as a warning against similar agreements in the future. I've noticed that when Yglesias tries to defend FDR by saying that there was no alternative, he admits that Yalta was not an ideal agreement for postwar Europe. The latter is pretty much what Bush said. Just because Soviet occupation over Eastern Europe may've been unavoidable does not mean Yalta was not a Faustian deal that, instead of liberating Eastern Europe, put it under the Soviet yoke. So where's the revisionism?
Monday, May 09, 2005
Japanese trains offering women-only cars
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Upon seeing several Ozu movies recently
Well, that’s changed somewhat, thanks to Netflix, and I’ve been able to rent pretty much everything that is available on DVD (in the US, anyway) – though that only represents a fraction of the 30 or so films of his that have survived out of the 50 or so he made.
It doesn’t take much exposure to Ozu to realize the basics: his camera is always at eye level to someone sitting on a tatami floor, the camera rarely moves, the opening credits are always over a burlap background, the story centers around the Japanese family (or, as described by Richie, the extended familial relationships one has at work or school), and he revisits the same handful of themes time and again (generational differences, the single daughter that needs to get married off, etc.). He's often called the most Japanese of Japan’s directors because he’s a such a traditionalist. The latter is peculiar when you consider the modern nature of his medium.
Despite his moniker as the most Japanese of all directors, and despite his obsession with depicting the Japanese family, his movies are most universal.
In Ozu’s world, the younger generations rarely appreciate or understand the sacrifice and love of their elder generation. Meanwhile, the older generation finds some level of meaning and solace through their offspring, even if they may recognize that their offspring is oblivious to their presence or has grown up to be selfish and mean. This theme permeates Tokyo Story. There’s particularly vivid scene where the grandmother is taking her youngest grandchild on a walk on top of a grassy hill. The child seems unaware of his grandmother nearby and is busy picking grass, while the grandmother watches the child in amazement, wondering aloud to herself (since the child isn’t paying attention) what his future may hold. Other scenes in Tokyo Story show how the grandmother’s children feel that their obligation to their parents during the parents trip to Tokyo is a nuisance. Yet, these middle-aged children don’t come across as bad or even unlikable mainly, I think, because they take their obligations seriously enough to fulfill them. In essence, they are so real that they don’t succumb to character types you see in most movies.
Part of the reason Ozu is able to create such realistic characters (or the main reason, according to Donald Richie’s book) is that their development is not driven by plot. This freedom allows the characters to develop in ways that would be impossible or even incoherent if the action of the film had to support a plot. And the characters in Ozu's films are never defined in terms of good or bad or antagonist and protagonists. They aren't created to represent one thing or another. They simply exist.
However, as seen in Tokyo Story and several of Ozu’s post war films, the actress Setsuko Hara consistently plays wholesome, overly loyal daughter (always named Noriko). In the films where there’s a daughter that needs to be married off, it is usually her. Of all the Ozu characters, Noriko comes the closest to being artificial. She’s usually so selflessly devoted to her family that she does not care to marry (a particularly untraditional situation in mid twentieth century Japan). In Early Summer, she’s the single daughter that is more or less the glue that keeps the extended family together, though they all know she needs to marry for the sake of her own future and they all try to get her to so throughout the story. When she finally decides to marry and move to the country, the audience knows that the large family living in the house will subsequently dissipate. Such is life. In Late Spring, Noriko lives with her widowed father who, in an effort to get her to marry, pretends that he, himself, plans to remarry. In Tokyo Story, she’s the widowed daughter-in-law (her husband having been killed during the war) who, ironically, is the only person that genuinely appreciates the company of her in-law parents. I’m guessing that Ozu was infatuated with the idea of a character like Noriko (his version of a Hawks woman) . Setsuko Hara became a sort of icon and mentor for young Japanese girls at the time and was immensely popular. Yet, iconic as her Noriko characters was, selfless people like her exist, if only rarely, so it’s not entirely accurate to think of her as artificial.
Another reoccurring theme in Ozu’s pictures that is universal is the relationship between tradition and modernity. This relationship is particularly evident in Japan’s quick modernization, but exists throughout the rest of the world, too. Ozu has a way of including shots of trains and power lines and other forms of technology on a frequent basis – usually to contrast the traditional things in Japan. Tokyo Story draws this relationship by showing the rural grandparents marveling at the size of Tokyo. The film, Good Morning, shows the influence of television on traditional family life. The two main children in Good Morning spend most of the film trying to get their parents to buy a TV and, in interim, frequently go to the one house in the neighborhood that has one so they can watch sumo (along with all the other kids in the neighborhood). Good Morning is a loose remake of Ozu’s silent I Was Born But...which uses radio instead of television. Anyone who can remember the first Atari on their block or the first VCR can relate to the living room full of kids. Ozu does not betray a preference for either tradition or modernity in his films and remains somehow detached between the two; as do his characters, especially the older ones. Instead, they fully accept the ways of the world.
Ozu is rare in that he celebrates bourgeous life unapologetically. His postwar Japan isn't the same one you'd find in Kurosawa's Stray Dog or like something you'd see in a De Sica film. You won't find much in the way of poverty or black markets, but it captures a specific time and place, just the same.
Generally speaking, if you are searching for a sense of humanity in a film, you can do no better than Japanese classic cinema. This is particularly true of Ozu. On a personal level, I’ve never seen a director that depicts a family as similar to my own as well as Ozu does on a consistent basis – though there’s an ocean of difference between his culture and mine. His movies certainly are not for everyone, but if my fellow Liverputtians are interested, here’s a list of his stuff currently available on DVD:
Story of Floating Weeds (1935) – an acting troupe passes through a village, various dramas unfold. This film is remarkable because the acting is surprisingly low key for a silent movie. Remade as Floating Weeds in the 1959.
Early Summer (1949)
Tokyo Story (1953)
Good Morning (1959) - Warning: contains repititve flatulence humor.
Floating Weeds (1959) – usually included as a set with Story of Floating Weeds. The village in this version is on the coast, whereas the village in the original is in the mountains.
Some of his other films are available on VHS. (If you happen to be named Mat and live in Chicago, you can find several Ozu movies at Facets and should seize the opportunity!)
Ozu movies are best served with sushi, miso, Asahi and sake.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
The new Star Wars movie
UPDATE: Variety has very positive buzz here.
.jpg)
