And stuff. See you in 2006. Thanks for reading this blog!
Propino fibi salutem!
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Wednesday, December 28, 2005
Random Thoughts 12/28/05
It has been an interesting year in the world of Spitfire's Hurricane. Just to recap for the masses: got laid off in February by the multinational financial conglomerate I had been working for for more than 3/4s of a decade, got a nice severance as well as stock options, took six months off, went to Costa Rica and communed with poisonous snakes, flying toucans (had no idea they could fly!), and monkeys that use their crap as a weapon (if you get too close to them, that is; they'll crap on cue and chuck it at you). I also wound up crossing paths with a lunatic from Virginia that, due to his intake of psychotropic medication in combination with prodigious consumption of alcohol, went completely wild in the hotel room next to mine, wholly destroying his room in the process. (He was subsequently deported, so it was rumored.) Came back to NYC, went to the gym a lot, started to get bored with my early retirement, then went back to work in September for different multinational financial conglomerate. As for reading, it seems that I've gotten through a record nine books this year, and I'm about a third of the way through a tenth. (Unemployment does have its perks, I guess.) Not small ones, either. The bio on Hamilton was almost eight-hundred pages, and Paul Johnson's epic "History of the American People" clocked in at slightly under one-thousand. At the rate that I'm going, I think I might be intellectually strong enough to tackle Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". I'm currently reading "Rubicon-The Last Years of the Roman Republic", by Tom Holland. Fun, fun, fun.
___________________________________________________________________
In times of crisis, New York has a tendency of being a very interesting place to be in. I've written about 9/11 and its aftermath, but one time I wasn't in New York (meaning Manhattan, that is) was when we had a blackout in the summer of 2003. From what I've been told, it was great fun to be in Manhattan at that time. (I'm kind of sorry I was living in Queens at the time.) I did, however, manage to experience the transit strike last week. Yes, it was kind of a pain in the ass to get around, particularly in light of the fact that it took me two hours each day to get from Queens to Brooklyn by car each day of the strike. (Normally, it is a 20-minute ride by car.) It also kind of sucked that it cost me anywhere from $10-$15 a day to park near the Brooklyn Bridge. And the cold weather made it all that much more challenging. All that can't be disputed. But you know what? I rather enjoyed going across the Brooklyn Bridge every morning. To me, there is no more beautiful bridge than the Brooklyn Bridge, and there's no better view of the east side of Manhattan or downtown Manhattan than from the Brooklyn Bridge. Frankly, I can think of much less visually striking paths with which to walk to work to and from. I'm not going to say it was a wholly enjoyable experience, but it wasn't a wholly unpleasant one, either. The American Red Cross was giving out hot chocolate every night on the Brooklyn side of the bridge; I thought that was cool. I also thought it was cool that Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz was on a bullhorn every night welcoming Manhattan commuters back to Brooklyn. I'm not a fan of Markowitz per se, particularly since he's a lib and he once said he was going to take down a portrait of George Washington from Borough Hall because he "wanted to get rid of all the pictures of dead white guys" (typical lib thing to say), but he won some semblance of my respect for being out there in the cold like the rest of us.
___________________________________________________________________
Saw the Johnny Cash biopic "Walk The Line" about a week back. Decent flick; Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon both did a creditable job.
___________________________________________________________________
Here's a real random thought: How weird does the three-martini lunch seem these days? I was speaking to a co-worker who's about two decades older than I, and according to this fellow, this now-extinct institution was de rigeur up until the mid-to-late 80's, but was particularly common in the 60's and 70's. How weird does the three-martini lunch seem now? About as weird as seeing someone smoking indoors in a public building, I guess.
___________________________________________________________________
I think the taste of most vegetables is awful. I've had people tell me that they like the taste of green vegetables. Bullsh*t, I say. I eat vegetables, but I usually need some kind of topping on them to make them even remotely palatable. No one REALLY likes green vegetables. Anyone who says that they do isn't telling you the truth. I know I'm right on this.
___________________________________________________________________
I've 'ad enough. I'll see y'all tomorrow...or the next day.
Monday, December 26, 2005
Happy Boxing Day
To those in Great Britain, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, I wish you all a Happy Boxing Day. And remember....use your jab, don't let 'em keep you on the ropes, and be sure to stick and move.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Bertie Felstead And The Christmas Of 1915
Bertie Felstead passed away in July of 2001 at the age of 107, Royal Welch Fusiliers, British Expeditionary Force. He was the last known survivor of the Christmas Truces of 1915, the last Christmas truce of the Great War (WWI). I was quite moved when I read Andrew Stuttaford's piece on his passing four and a half years back; I still find it so. It's worth the read, if only to remember that sometimes, despite the most brutally malevolent circumstances, some shred of peace can be achieved, albeit temporarily.
Read it here. Enjoy.
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.
Read it here. Enjoy.
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Wall Street Journal On Wiretapping
Thank You for Wiretapping
Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.
The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)
The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.
All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.
In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.
What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing--to the extent they've even thought much about it--is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could--terrorists could--exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.
As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.
Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second-guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.
Why the Founders made presidents dominant on national security.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold wants to be President, and that's fair enough. By all means go for it in 2008. The same applies to Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who's always on the Sunday shows fretting about the latest criticism of the Bush Administration's prosecution of the war on terror. But until you run nationwide and win, Senators, please stop stripping the Presidency of its Constitutional authority to defend America.
That is the real issue raised by the Beltway furor over last week's leak of National Security Agency wiretaps on international phone calls involving al Qaeda suspects. The usual assortment of Senators and media potentates is howling that the wiretaps are "illegal," done "in total secret," and threaten to bring us a long, dark night of fascism. "I believe it does violate the law," averred Mr. Feingold on CNN Sunday.
The truth is closer to the opposite. What we really have here is a perfect illustration of why America's Founders gave the executive branch the largest measure of Constitutional authority on national security. They recognized that a committee of 535 talking heads couldn't be trusted with such grave responsibility. There is no evidence that these wiretaps violate the law. But there is lots of evidence that the Senators are "illegally" usurping Presidential power--and endangering the country in the process.
The allegation of Presidential law-breaking rests solely on the fact that Mr. Bush authorized wiretaps without first getting the approval of the court established under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978. But no Administration then or since has ever conceded that that Act trumped a President's power to make exceptions to FISA if national security required it. FISA established a process by which certain wiretaps in the context of the Cold War could be approved, not a limit on what wiretaps could ever be allowed.
The courts have been explicit on this point, most recently in In Re: Sealed Case, the 2002 opinion by the special panel of appellate judges established to hear FISA appeals. In its per curiam opinion, the court noted that in a previous FISA case (U.S. v. Truong), a federal "court, as did all the other courts to have decided the issue [our emphasis], held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information." And further that "we take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President's constitutional power."
On Sunday Mr. Graham opined that "I don't know of any legal basis to go around" FISA--which suggests that next time he should do his homework before he implies on national TV that a President is acting like a dictator. (Mr. Graham made his admission of ignorance on CBS's "Face the Nation," where he was representing the Republican point of view. Democrat Joe Biden was certain that laws had been broken, while the two journalists asking questions clearly had no idea what they were talking about. So much for enlightening television.)
The mere Constitution aside, the evidence is also abundant that the Administration was scrupulous in limiting the FISA exceptions. They applied only to calls involving al Qaeda suspects or those with terrorist ties. Far from being "secret," key Members of Congress were informed about them at least 12 times, President Bush said yesterday. The two district court judges who have presided over the FISA court since 9/11 also knew about them.
Inside the executive branch, the process allowing the wiretaps was routinely reviewed by Justice Department lawyers, by the Attorney General personally, and with the President himself reauthorizing the process every 45 days. In short, the implication that this is some LBJ-J. Edgar Hoover operation designed to skirt the law to spy on domestic political enemies is nothing less than a political smear.
All the more so because there are sound and essential security reasons for allowing such wiretaps. The FISA process was designed for wiretaps on suspected foreign agents operating in this country during the Cold War. In that context, we had the luxury of time to go to the FISA court for a warrant to spy on, say, the economic counselor at the Soviet embassy.
In the war on terror, the communications between terrorists in Frankfurt and agents in Florida are harder to track, and when we gather a lead the response often has to be immediate. As we learned on 9/11, acting with dispatch can be a matter of life and death. The information gathered in these wiretaps is not for criminal prosecution but solely to detect and deter future attacks. This is precisely the kind of contingency for which Presidential power and responsibility is designed.
What the critics in Congress seem to be proposing--to the extent they've even thought much about it--is the establishment of a new intelligence "wall" that would allow the NSA only to tap phones overseas while the FBI would tap them here. Terrorists aren't about to honor such a distinction. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," before 9/11 "our intelligence agencies looked out; our law enforcement agencies looked in. And people could--terrorists could--exploit the seam between them." The wiretaps are designed to close the seam.
As for power without responsibility, nobody beats Congress. Mr. Bush has publicly acknowledged and defended his decisions. But the Members of Congress who were informed about this all along are now either silent or claim they didn't get the full story. This is why these columns have long opposed requiring the disclosure of classified operations to the Congressional Intelligence Committees. Congress wants to be aware of everything the executive branch does, but without being accountable for anything at all. If Democrats want to continue this game of intelligence and wiretap "gotcha," the White House should release the names of every Congressman who received such a briefing.
Which brings us to this national security leak, which Mr. Bush yesterday called "a shameful act." We won't second-guess the New York Times decision to publish. But everyone should note the irony that both the Times and Washington Post claimed to be outraged by, and demanded a special counsel to investigate, the leak of Valerie Plame's identity, which did zero national security damage.
By contrast, the Times' NSA leak last week, and an earlier leak in the Washington Post on "secret" prisons for al Qaeda detainees in Europe, are likely to do genuine harm by alerting terrorists to our defenses. If more reporters from these newspapers now face the choice of revealing their sources or ending up in jail, those two papers will share the Plame blame.
The NSA wiretap uproar is one of those episodes, alas far too common, that make us wonder if Washington is still a serious place. Too many in the media and on Capitol Hill have forgotten that terrorism in the age of WMD poses an existential threat to our free society. We're glad Mr. Bush and his team are forcefully defending their entirely legal and necessary authority to wiretap enemies seeking to kill innocent Americans.
Al Qaeda's Advocates
CIVIL LIBERTIES & SECURITY: DEMS FOR TERROR
By DICK MORRIS
ANYONE who wonders whether the Democratic Party in general and Sen. Hillary Clinton in particular are really tough on terror — or are just posing for the cameras — needs to look at the vote by the entire Democratic Senate delegation (excepting only Nebraska's Ben Nelson and South Dakota's Tim Johnson) to prevent closure of their filibuster against the Patriot Act extension.
While the legislation President Bush proposed extends the entire act, certain key provisions are set to expire at year's end. (The rest of the act is good until September 2007.) By voting to allow these provisions to lapse, the Democrats have shown a total disregard for national security.
It is particularly galling that Sens. Clinton and Chuck Schumer — whose New York constituents are in the terrorists' bull's-eye — voted to let these vital protections expire.
How galling? One of the key provisions due to expire in two weeks is one that President Bill Clinton presented as the cornerstone of his response to the escalation of terrorism in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The measure allows "roving wiretaps" — so that the FBI can tap all phones a suspect uses, rather than just one specific number. Hillary's vote to let this provision expire is incredible.
Back in the '90s, the Republican-controlled Congress refused to enact the legislation promptly — and the Clintons excoriated the GOP for dragging its feet on this vital proposal.
After 9/11, the measure became law in the Patriot Act; it it remains a centerpiece of the War on Terror. Yet now Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic Party in the Senate are voting to kill it, by preventing a vote on the measure to extend it.
As a further Christmas anti-present to New Yorkers, Clinton, Schumer & Co. are also killing the Patriot Act provision that demolishes the infamous wall — erected by Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick — between those who investigate terrorism and those who prosecute suspects.
The goal was to avoid tainting criminal prosecutions, by avoiding the collection of evidence without a full search warrant. But the result was to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand was doing when it came to preventing acts of terrorism.
Like the 9/11 attacks.
As a result of the wall, the FBI was unable to access the personal computer of Zacarias Moussaoui when it had him in custody before 9/11; that laptop reportedly contained the names of other hijackers.
The feds seized Moussaoui a full month before 9/11 — but could not follow up on the leads his laptop would have highlighted because of the pernicious wall that Senate Democrats are now fighting to restore.
Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they'd do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.
In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were "too hot" on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)
Why didn't Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn't looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off.
In criminal investigations, one can target a suspect and get a warrant to investigate him. But this deductive approach is a limited instrument in fighting terror. An inductive approach, in which one gathers a mass of evidence and looks for patterns, is far more useful.
But, if the Democrats are to be heeded, it will no longer be possible.
Bye-bye, bridge.
By DICK MORRIS
ANYONE who wonders whether the Democratic Party in general and Sen. Hillary Clinton in particular are really tough on terror — or are just posing for the cameras — needs to look at the vote by the entire Democratic Senate delegation (excepting only Nebraska's Ben Nelson and South Dakota's Tim Johnson) to prevent closure of their filibuster against the Patriot Act extension.
While the legislation President Bush proposed extends the entire act, certain key provisions are set to expire at year's end. (The rest of the act is good until September 2007.) By voting to allow these provisions to lapse, the Democrats have shown a total disregard for national security.
It is particularly galling that Sens. Clinton and Chuck Schumer — whose New York constituents are in the terrorists' bull's-eye — voted to let these vital protections expire.
How galling? One of the key provisions due to expire in two weeks is one that President Bill Clinton presented as the cornerstone of his response to the escalation of terrorism in the wake of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
The measure allows "roving wiretaps" — so that the FBI can tap all phones a suspect uses, rather than just one specific number. Hillary's vote to let this provision expire is incredible.
Back in the '90s, the Republican-controlled Congress refused to enact the legislation promptly — and the Clintons excoriated the GOP for dragging its feet on this vital proposal.
After 9/11, the measure became law in the Patriot Act; it it remains a centerpiece of the War on Terror. Yet now Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer and the rest of the Democratic Party in the Senate are voting to kill it, by preventing a vote on the measure to extend it.
As a further Christmas anti-present to New Yorkers, Clinton, Schumer & Co. are also killing the Patriot Act provision that demolishes the infamous wall — erected by Clinton-era Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick — between those who investigate terrorism and those who prosecute suspects.
The goal was to avoid tainting criminal prosecutions, by avoiding the collection of evidence without a full search warrant. But the result was to keep the left hand from knowing what the right hand was doing when it came to preventing acts of terrorism.
Like the 9/11 attacks.
As a result of the wall, the FBI was unable to access the personal computer of Zacarias Moussaoui when it had him in custody before 9/11; that laptop reportedly contained the names of other hijackers.
The feds seized Moussaoui a full month before 9/11 — but could not follow up on the leads his laptop would have highlighted because of the pernicious wall that Senate Democrats are now fighting to restore.
Equally irresponsible is the criticism Democrats are leveling at President Bush for his use of National Security Agency wiretaps to catch terrorists. Before Clinton and Schumer criticize this policy, they'd do well to reflect on the fact that the Brooklyn Bridge might well be rubble, with thousands dead, if Bush did not use these wiretaps.
In 2002, the feds (presumably the NSA) picked up random cellphone chatter using the words "Brooklyn Bridge" (which apparently didn't translate well into Arabic). They notified the New York Police Department, which flooded the bridge with cops. Then the feds overheard a phone call in which a man said things were "too hot" on the bridge to pull off an operation. Later, an interrogation of a terrorist allowed by the Patriot Act led cops to the doorstep of this would-be bridge bomber. (His plans would definitely have brought down the bridge, NYPD sources told me.)
Why didn't Bush get a warrant? On who? For what? The NSA wasn't looking for a man who might blow up the bridge. It had no idea what it was looking for. It just intercepted random phone calls from people in the United States to those outside — and so heard the allusions to the bridge that tipped them off.
In criminal investigations, one can target a suspect and get a warrant to investigate him. But this deductive approach is a limited instrument in fighting terror. An inductive approach, in which one gathers a mass of evidence and looks for patterns, is far more useful.
But, if the Democrats are to be heeded, it will no longer be possible.
Bye-bye, bridge.
Monday, December 19, 2005
U.S. Code, Title 50, Section 1802
In case any one of you are actually interested in reading the legality of POTUS' right to wiretap without court order, feel free to read the following passage from the aforementioned U.S. Code, Title 50:
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title
Read the whole thing here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html
Section 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order; certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees; transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court
(a)(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the
Attorney General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a
court order under this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General
certifies in writing under oath that -
(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at -
(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications
transmitted by means of communications used exclusively between
or among foreign powers, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2),
or (3) of this title; or
(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than
the spoken communications of individuals, from property or
premises under the open and exclusive control of a foreign
power, as defined in section 1801(a)(1), (2), or (3) of this
title
Read the whole thing here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/50/chapters/36/subchapters/i/sections/section_1802.html
Sunday, December 18, 2005
Next Time You Read About Casualties In Iraq, Remember This Quote
"Utter ignorance of history enables any war with any casualties to be depicted in the media as an unmitigated disaster."
--Thomas Sowell
--Thomas Sowell
Saturday, December 17, 2005
One Word For It: Sedition
“This is a highly classified program that is crucial to our national security. Its purpose is to detect and prevent terrorist attacks against the United States, our friends and allies. Yesterday the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports, after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have, and the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies, and endangers our country.”
--President George W. Bush, December 17, 2005
--President George W. Bush, December 17, 2005
Friday, December 16, 2005
AT WAR (From Yesterday's Wall Street Journal)
Very interesting article. Worth reading:
Mightier Than the Pen
Why I gave up journalism to join the Marines.
BY MATT POTTINGER
Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:01 a.m.
When people ask why I recently left The Wall Street Journal to join the Marines, I usually have a short answer. It felt like the time had come to stop reporting events and get more directly involved. But that's not the whole answer, and how I got to this point wasn't a straight line.
It's a cliché that you appreciate your own country more when you live abroad, but it happens to be true. Living in China for the last seven years, I've seen that country take a giant leap from a struggling Third World country into a true world power. For many people it still comes as a surprise to learn that China is chasing Japan as the second-largest economy on the globe and could soon own a trillion dollars of American debt.
But living in China also shows you what a nondemocratic country can do to its citizens. I've seen protesters tackled and beaten by plainclothes police in Tiananmen Square, and I've been videotaped by government agents while I was talking to a source. I've been arrested and forced to flush my notes down a toilet to keep the police from getting them, and I've been punched in the face in a Beijing Starbucks by a government goon who was trying to keep me from investigating a Chinese company's sale of nuclear fuel to other countries.
When you live abroad long enough, you come to understand that governments that behave this way are not the exception, but the rule. They feel alien to us, but from the viewpoint of the world's population, we are the aliens, not them. That makes you think about protecting your country no matter who you are or what you're doing. What impresses you most, when you don't have them day to day, are the institutions that distinguish the U.S.: the separation of powers, a free press, the right to vote, and a culture that values civic duty and service, to name but a few.
I'm not an uncritical, rah-rah American. Living abroad has sharpened my view of what's wrong with my country, too. It's obvious that we need to reinvent ourselves in various ways, but we should also be allowed to do it from within, not according to someone else's dictates.
But why the Marines?
A year ago, I was at my sister's house using her husband's laptop when I came across a video of an American in Iraq being beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The details are beyond description here; let's just say it was obscene. At first I admit I felt a touch of the terror they wanted me to feel, but then I felt the anger they didn't. We often talk about how our policies are radicalizing young men in the Middle East to become our enemies, but rarely do we talk about how their actions are radicalizing us. In a brief moment of revulsion, sitting there in that living room, I became their blowback.
Of course, a single emotional moment does not justify a career change, and that's not what happened to me. The next day I went to lunch at the Council on Foreign Relations where I happened to meet a Marine Corps colonel who'd just come back from Iraq. He gave me a no-nonsense assessment of what was happening there, but what got to me most was his description of how the Marines behaved and how they looked after each other in a hostile world. That struck me as a metaphor for how America should be in the world at large, and it also appealed to me on a personal level. At one point I said half-jokingly that, being 31 years old, it was a shame I was too old to serve. He sat back for a second and said, "I think I've still gotcha."
The next morning I found myself roaming around the belly of the USS Intrepid, a World War II aircraft carrier museum moored a few blocks from Times Square, looking for a Marine recruiting station and thinking I'd probably lost my marbles. The officer-selection officer wasn't impressed with my age, my Chinese language abilities or the fact that I worked for one of the great newspapers of the world. His only question was, "How's your endurance?"
Well, I can sit at my desk for 12 hours straight. Fourteen if I have a bag of Reese's.
He said if I wanted a shot at this I'd have to ace the physical fitness test, where a perfect score consisted of 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches in two minutes, and a three-mile run in 18 minutes. Essentially he was telling me to pack it in and go home. After assuring him I didn't have a criminal record or any tattoos, either of which would have required yet another waiver (my age already required the first), I took an application and went back to China.
Then came the Asian tsunami last December.
I was scrambled to Thailand, where thousands of people had died in the wave. After days in the midst of the devastation, I pulled back to Thailand's Utapao Air Force Base, at one time a U.S. staging area for bombing runs over Hanoi, to write a story on the U.S.-led relief efforts. The abandoned base was now bustling with air traffic and military personnel, and the man in charge was a Marine.
Warfare and relief efforts, as it turns out, involve many skills in common. In both cases, it's 80% preparation and logistics and only a small percent of actual battle. What these guys were doing was the same thing they did in a war zone, except now the tip of the spear wasn't weapons, but food, water and medicine. It was a major operation to save people's lives, and it was clear that no other country in the world could do what they were doing. Once again, I was bumping into the U.S. Marines, and once again I was impressed.
The day before I left Thailand I decided to do my first physical training and see what happened. I started running and was winded in five minutes. The air quality in downtown Bangkok didn't help, but the biggest problem was me. I ducked into Lumpini Park in the heart of the city where I was chased around by a three-foot monitor lizard that ran faster than I did. At one point I found a playground jungle gym and managed to do half a pull-up. That's all.
I got back to Beijing and started running several days a week. Along the way I met a Marine who was studying in Beijing on a fellowship and started training with him. Pretty soon I filled out the application I'd taken from New York, got letters of recommendation from old professors and mentors, and received a letter from a senior Marine officer who took a leap of faith on my behalf.
I made a quick trip back to New York in April to take a preliminary physical fitness test with the recruitment officer at the USS Intrepid. By then I could do 13 pull-ups, all my crunches, and a three-mile run along the West Side Highway in a little under 21 minutes, all in all a mediocre performance that was barely passable. When I was done, the officer told me to wipe the foam off my mouth, but I did him one better and puked all over the tarmac. He liked that a lot. That's when we both knew I was going for it.
Friends ask if I worry about going from a life of independent thought and action to a life of hierarchy and teamwork. At the moment, I find that appealing because it means being part of something bigger than I am. As for how different it's going to be, that, too, has its appeal because it's the opposite of what I've been doing up to now. Why should I do something that's a "natural fit" with what I already do? Why shouldn't I try to expand myself?
In a way, I see the Marines as a microcosm of America at its best. Their focus isn't on weapons and tactics, but on leadership. That's the whole point of the Marines. They care about each other in good times and bad, they've always had to fight for their existence--even Harry Truman saw them as nothing more than the "Navy's police force"--and they have the strength of their traditions. Their future, like the country's, is worth fighting for. I hope to be part of the effort.
Mr. Pottinger, until recently a Journal correspondent in China, is scheduled to be commissioned a second lieutenant tomorrow. He spent the last three months at Officer Candidates School in Quantico, Va. As of early December, his three-mile run was down to 18 minutes and 15 seconds.
Mightier Than the Pen
Why I gave up journalism to join the Marines.
BY MATT POTTINGER
Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:01 a.m.
When people ask why I recently left The Wall Street Journal to join the Marines, I usually have a short answer. It felt like the time had come to stop reporting events and get more directly involved. But that's not the whole answer, and how I got to this point wasn't a straight line.
It's a cliché that you appreciate your own country more when you live abroad, but it happens to be true. Living in China for the last seven years, I've seen that country take a giant leap from a struggling Third World country into a true world power. For many people it still comes as a surprise to learn that China is chasing Japan as the second-largest economy on the globe and could soon own a trillion dollars of American debt.
But living in China also shows you what a nondemocratic country can do to its citizens. I've seen protesters tackled and beaten by plainclothes police in Tiananmen Square, and I've been videotaped by government agents while I was talking to a source. I've been arrested and forced to flush my notes down a toilet to keep the police from getting them, and I've been punched in the face in a Beijing Starbucks by a government goon who was trying to keep me from investigating a Chinese company's sale of nuclear fuel to other countries.
When you live abroad long enough, you come to understand that governments that behave this way are not the exception, but the rule. They feel alien to us, but from the viewpoint of the world's population, we are the aliens, not them. That makes you think about protecting your country no matter who you are or what you're doing. What impresses you most, when you don't have them day to day, are the institutions that distinguish the U.S.: the separation of powers, a free press, the right to vote, and a culture that values civic duty and service, to name but a few.
I'm not an uncritical, rah-rah American. Living abroad has sharpened my view of what's wrong with my country, too. It's obvious that we need to reinvent ourselves in various ways, but we should also be allowed to do it from within, not according to someone else's dictates.
But why the Marines?
A year ago, I was at my sister's house using her husband's laptop when I came across a video of an American in Iraq being beheaded by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The details are beyond description here; let's just say it was obscene. At first I admit I felt a touch of the terror they wanted me to feel, but then I felt the anger they didn't. We often talk about how our policies are radicalizing young men in the Middle East to become our enemies, but rarely do we talk about how their actions are radicalizing us. In a brief moment of revulsion, sitting there in that living room, I became their blowback.
Of course, a single emotional moment does not justify a career change, and that's not what happened to me. The next day I went to lunch at the Council on Foreign Relations where I happened to meet a Marine Corps colonel who'd just come back from Iraq. He gave me a no-nonsense assessment of what was happening there, but what got to me most was his description of how the Marines behaved and how they looked after each other in a hostile world. That struck me as a metaphor for how America should be in the world at large, and it also appealed to me on a personal level. At one point I said half-jokingly that, being 31 years old, it was a shame I was too old to serve. He sat back for a second and said, "I think I've still gotcha."
The next morning I found myself roaming around the belly of the USS Intrepid, a World War II aircraft carrier museum moored a few blocks from Times Square, looking for a Marine recruiting station and thinking I'd probably lost my marbles. The officer-selection officer wasn't impressed with my age, my Chinese language abilities or the fact that I worked for one of the great newspapers of the world. His only question was, "How's your endurance?"
Well, I can sit at my desk for 12 hours straight. Fourteen if I have a bag of Reese's.
He said if I wanted a shot at this I'd have to ace the physical fitness test, where a perfect score consisted of 20 pull-ups, 100 crunches in two minutes, and a three-mile run in 18 minutes. Essentially he was telling me to pack it in and go home. After assuring him I didn't have a criminal record or any tattoos, either of which would have required yet another waiver (my age already required the first), I took an application and went back to China.
Then came the Asian tsunami last December.
I was scrambled to Thailand, where thousands of people had died in the wave. After days in the midst of the devastation, I pulled back to Thailand's Utapao Air Force Base, at one time a U.S. staging area for bombing runs over Hanoi, to write a story on the U.S.-led relief efforts. The abandoned base was now bustling with air traffic and military personnel, and the man in charge was a Marine.
Warfare and relief efforts, as it turns out, involve many skills in common. In both cases, it's 80% preparation and logistics and only a small percent of actual battle. What these guys were doing was the same thing they did in a war zone, except now the tip of the spear wasn't weapons, but food, water and medicine. It was a major operation to save people's lives, and it was clear that no other country in the world could do what they were doing. Once again, I was bumping into the U.S. Marines, and once again I was impressed.
The day before I left Thailand I decided to do my first physical training and see what happened. I started running and was winded in five minutes. The air quality in downtown Bangkok didn't help, but the biggest problem was me. I ducked into Lumpini Park in the heart of the city where I was chased around by a three-foot monitor lizard that ran faster than I did. At one point I found a playground jungle gym and managed to do half a pull-up. That's all.
I got back to Beijing and started running several days a week. Along the way I met a Marine who was studying in Beijing on a fellowship and started training with him. Pretty soon I filled out the application I'd taken from New York, got letters of recommendation from old professors and mentors, and received a letter from a senior Marine officer who took a leap of faith on my behalf.
I made a quick trip back to New York in April to take a preliminary physical fitness test with the recruitment officer at the USS Intrepid. By then I could do 13 pull-ups, all my crunches, and a three-mile run along the West Side Highway in a little under 21 minutes, all in all a mediocre performance that was barely passable. When I was done, the officer told me to wipe the foam off my mouth, but I did him one better and puked all over the tarmac. He liked that a lot. That's when we both knew I was going for it.
Friends ask if I worry about going from a life of independent thought and action to a life of hierarchy and teamwork. At the moment, I find that appealing because it means being part of something bigger than I am. As for how different it's going to be, that, too, has its appeal because it's the opposite of what I've been doing up to now. Why should I do something that's a "natural fit" with what I already do? Why shouldn't I try to expand myself?
In a way, I see the Marines as a microcosm of America at its best. Their focus isn't on weapons and tactics, but on leadership. That's the whole point of the Marines. They care about each other in good times and bad, they've always had to fight for their existence--even Harry Truman saw them as nothing more than the "Navy's police force"--and they have the strength of their traditions. Their future, like the country's, is worth fighting for. I hope to be part of the effort.
Mr. Pottinger, until recently a Journal correspondent in China, is scheduled to be commissioned a second lieutenant tomorrow. He spent the last three months at Officer Candidates School in Quantico, Va. As of early December, his three-mile run was down to 18 minutes and 15 seconds.
Thursday, December 15, 2005
Tired
Apologies for failure to blog. Too mentally exhausted to come up with anything remotely creative this week. Hopefully I'll regenerate some semblance of creativity over the weekend.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzz.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Match The Personality To The President
Which one of these two characters from Roman history, Cato and Caesar, draw similarities to which president? Makes for interesting reading, and also shows that there's not much difference between the behaviors of men of power two thousand years ago and today. Have fun analyzing:
Caesar was esteemed for the many kind services he rendered and for his lavish generosity; Cato, for the consistent uprightness of his life. The former was renowned for his humanity and mercy; the latter had earned respect by his strict austerity. Caesar won fame by his readiness to give, to relieve, to pardon; Cato, by never offering presents. The one was a refuge for the unfortunate, and was praised for his good nature; the other was a scourge for the wicked, admired for his firmness. Finally, Caesar had made it a rule to work hard and sleep little; to devote himself to the interests of his friends and to neglect his own; to be ready to give people anything that was worth the giving. For himself he wanted a high command, an army, and a war in some new field where his gifts could shine in all their brightness. Cato's taste was for restraint, propriety, and, above all, austerity...he was more concerned to be a good man than to be thought one; and so the less he courted fame, the more did it attend his steps unsought." Sallust, 54, the Conspiracy of Cataline
Caesar was esteemed for the many kind services he rendered and for his lavish generosity; Cato, for the consistent uprightness of his life. The former was renowned for his humanity and mercy; the latter had earned respect by his strict austerity. Caesar won fame by his readiness to give, to relieve, to pardon; Cato, by never offering presents. The one was a refuge for the unfortunate, and was praised for his good nature; the other was a scourge for the wicked, admired for his firmness. Finally, Caesar had made it a rule to work hard and sleep little; to devote himself to the interests of his friends and to neglect his own; to be ready to give people anything that was worth the giving. For himself he wanted a high command, an army, and a war in some new field where his gifts could shine in all their brightness. Cato's taste was for restraint, propriety, and, above all, austerity...he was more concerned to be a good man than to be thought one; and so the less he courted fame, the more did it attend his steps unsought." Sallust, 54, the Conspiracy of Cataline
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Lennon
Surely everyone has a "where were you?" moment when it comes to when they were informed that John Lennon had been murdered. I certainly have mine, and remember it quite vividly, as I was twelve at the time and already deep into my love affair with music. I will say that while I personally found and continue to find John Lennon's politics and beliefs utterly objectionable and terribly hypocritical, I also must admit that he was probably the author of more of my favorite Beatles songs than any other Beatle. My favorite Beatle song of all time is "I Am The Walrus", which could be the weirdest Beatles' song in their catalog, followed closely by "Day In A Life", and the mind-bending "Tomorrow Never Knows". (What can I say...I like weird music.)
I'm sure the encomiums will come rolling in about what a wonderful guy John Lennon was, how he was all about peace, non-violence, and social justice (etc., etc., blah...blah...blah...). I'm sure Rolling Stone, published by perhaps the worst rock star suck-up/sycophant on the planet, Jan Wenner, will give the full force of its journalistic hackery to promote, yet again, this meme. Those in the know are well aware that this was BS. John Lennon beat both his wives, abandoned his first son, and was capable of tremendous verbal cruelty. (Peter Brown, in probably the best book written on The Beatles (titled "The Love You Make"), recounted that when the gay manager of The Beatles, Brian Epstein, asked for suggestions about what the title of his autobiographical book should be whilst riding in an elevator with John Lennon and ghostwriter Derek Taylor, John Lennon suggested Epstein call his book "queer Jew". By the end of the elevator ride, Epstein had his face in his hands crying hysterically, while Lennon grinned sardonically at his cruel, verbal handiwork.) He was a habitual substance abuser, touted worldwide communism ("Imagine no possessions/heaven/countries, etc...etc...) whilst living in high luxury, and hung with ultra-violent Black Panther types. If the contradictions amongst all of us were and are extreme, those in Lennon were exponentially worse than even the most contradictory personalities. John Lennon spoke about peace, love, and caring, but he did very little of what he preached; if anything, Paul McCartney lived and practiced these concepts, whereas Lennon merely spoke of them.
In the end, and this is merely my opinion, I think Lennon was a dreamer because his reality was so terribly unhappy. A sad childhood such as Lennon's manifested itself in many ways: while he was a utopian, he also did everything in his power to make the lives of the people he loved more difficult. He wanted a better world, but more than anything, what he really wanted was peace of mind; he seemed to lash out and hurt those around him when he failed to get it. Whether or not he got it in the years preceding his demise is subject to debate. What Lennon represents to me is earnestness coupled with deep disappointment. Afflicted with the terrible sadness that a dysfunctional family life brings, he was both hopeful, yet discontent. He wanted a better world because his personal world was such a mess. Perhaps his politics, misguided though they were, were a projection of that sentiment.
Most of his solo stuff wasn't worth much, as I'm of the opinion that George Harrison put out, in all likelihood, the best post
Beatles solo album ("All Things Must Pass"). Some was good, some was not, none of it great. But his output within the context of The Beatles was stellar, particularly his later work with the group. It was cutting edge because he was cutting edge, both musically and psychologically. All things being equal, John Lennon was a creative giant.
I'm sure the encomiums will come rolling in about what a wonderful guy John Lennon was, how he was all about peace, non-violence, and social justice (etc., etc., blah...blah...blah...). I'm sure Rolling Stone, published by perhaps the worst rock star suck-up/sycophant on the planet, Jan Wenner, will give the full force of its journalistic hackery to promote, yet again, this meme. Those in the know are well aware that this was BS. John Lennon beat both his wives, abandoned his first son, and was capable of tremendous verbal cruelty. (Peter Brown, in probably the best book written on The Beatles (titled "The Love You Make"), recounted that when the gay manager of The Beatles, Brian Epstein, asked for suggestions about what the title of his autobiographical book should be whilst riding in an elevator with John Lennon and ghostwriter Derek Taylor, John Lennon suggested Epstein call his book "queer Jew". By the end of the elevator ride, Epstein had his face in his hands crying hysterically, while Lennon grinned sardonically at his cruel, verbal handiwork.) He was a habitual substance abuser, touted worldwide communism ("Imagine no possessions/heaven/countries, etc...etc...) whilst living in high luxury, and hung with ultra-violent Black Panther types. If the contradictions amongst all of us were and are extreme, those in Lennon were exponentially worse than even the most contradictory personalities. John Lennon spoke about peace, love, and caring, but he did very little of what he preached; if anything, Paul McCartney lived and practiced these concepts, whereas Lennon merely spoke of them.
In the end, and this is merely my opinion, I think Lennon was a dreamer because his reality was so terribly unhappy. A sad childhood such as Lennon's manifested itself in many ways: while he was a utopian, he also did everything in his power to make the lives of the people he loved more difficult. He wanted a better world, but more than anything, what he really wanted was peace of mind; he seemed to lash out and hurt those around him when he failed to get it. Whether or not he got it in the years preceding his demise is subject to debate. What Lennon represents to me is earnestness coupled with deep disappointment. Afflicted with the terrible sadness that a dysfunctional family life brings, he was both hopeful, yet discontent. He wanted a better world because his personal world was such a mess. Perhaps his politics, misguided though they were, were a projection of that sentiment.
Most of his solo stuff wasn't worth much, as I'm of the opinion that George Harrison put out, in all likelihood, the best post
Beatles solo album ("All Things Must Pass"). Some was good, some was not, none of it great. But his output within the context of The Beatles was stellar, particularly his later work with the group. It was cutting edge because he was cutting edge, both musically and psychologically. All things being equal, John Lennon was a creative giant.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Hamilton On Public Opinion
In The Federalist 71, Alexander Hamilton expounded upon the fickle undercurrents of public opinion, and the need for the chief executive to forge public consensus, not bow to it. The essence of leadership, lost on those on the left who feel that the president should shift course with the mercurial whims of the hoi polloi, is to chart a course and navigate that course, no matter what gale winds may blow. Acquiescing to the whims of opinion polls is not leadership; it is spinelessness, (Manifestly displayed in the person of Bill Clinton, a man more concerned with being popular than being principled. Then again, when you have no principles, I guess it comes with the terroritory.) Once again, the prescient words of the great Alexander Hamilton echo into the modern day:
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation. But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted. The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests. It is a just observation, that the people commonly INTEND the PUBLIC GOOD. This often applies to their very errors. But their good sense would despise the adulator who should pretend that they always REASON RIGHT about the MEANS of promoting it. They know from experience that they sometimes err; and the wonder is that they so seldom err as they do, beset, as they continually are, by the wiles of parasites and sycophants, by the snares of the ambitious, the avaricious, the desperate, by the artifices of men who possess their confidence more than they deserve it, and of those who seek to possess rather than to deserve it. When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection. Instances might be cited in which a conduct of this kind has saved the people from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes, and has procured lasting monuments of their gratitude to the men who had courage and magnanimity enough to serve them at the peril of their displeasure.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
You Blow Out A Candle, But You Can't Blow Out A Fire
Strange, isn't it...all these demostrations for self-determination and democracy, eh? Lebanon, Ukraine...and now Hong Kong. It's spreading, and it is no coincidence that these demonstrations are becoming more and more commonplace at this juncture in history. More proof (as if we needed more) that the words that are uttered from the leader of the free world resonate with a power unlike no other throughout the globe.
Read up on it below:
Huge Democracy Rally Held in Hong Kong
Tens of Thousands Urge Timetable for Universal Suffrage
By K.C. Ng
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, December 5, 2005; A17
HONG KONG, Dec. 4 -- Tens of thousands of people marched through Hong Kong on Sunday to protest the slow pace of democratic reform in this former British colony, but the territory's Beijing-backed leader again rejected demands to set a timetable for achieving universal suffrage.
Police and protest organizers gave sharply conflicting estimates of the size of the march, but the demonstration appeared to be the largest in Hong Kong since the huge anti-government rallies in 2003 and 2004 that drew crowds of more than 500,000 people into the streets demanding the right to elect the city's leaders.
Organizers said more than a quarter-million people participated in Sunday's protest, which was intended to pressure the Chinese government and the man it picked to run Hong Kong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, to modify a proposed package of limited political reforms. Police said about 63,000 participated in the protest.
Tsang's plan would add seats to the legislature and expand the committee that China uses to name the chief executive, but the pro-democracy opposition has condemned it as inadequate and vowed to block the proposal when it comes to a vote later this month.
Speaking at a news conference Sunday night, Tsang struck a conciliatory tone and said he would "see what I can do to perfect the package." But he said the march had not persuaded him to make significant changes, and he rejected the opposition's main demand for a timetable for introducing general elections.
Instead, Tsang said, he would work on producing a timetable after his plan was enacted. "I am 60 years of age. I certainly want to see universal suffrage taking place in Hong Kong in my time," Tsang said. "My feeling and my wish is the same as most other people participating in the rally today."
China has ruled out direct elections in 2007 and 2008 to choose the territory's next leader and all its legislators, and has refused to say when it will fulfill a long-standing promise to allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong.
Pro-democracy lawmakers called on Tsang to overhaul his proposal in light of the size of the protest. "Any responsible government should make a positive response to this march," an independent legislator, Ronny Tong, told reporters.
A small group of protesters began a sit-in outside government headquarters after Tsang's news conference, and march organizers said they were considering staging another large demonstration next weekend if Tsang refused to offer concessions.
In a development that could give a boost to the democracy movement, one of Hong Kong's most popular politicians -- a career civil servant who has not participated in similar demonstrations in the past -- joined the march Sunday.
"I feel that there are moments in one's life when one has to stand up and be counted, and for me, I believe this is one of these moments," said Anson Chan, who stepped down as the territory's number two official in 2001 and is often described as "Hong Kong's conscience."
Chan said she decided to march in the protest after a hastily convened meeting that Chinese officials held with pro-democracy legislators and community leaders this past week. At the meeting, Chinese officials declared that it would be unlawful to set a timetable for achieving universal suffrage.
On Sunday, Chan's voice was quickly drowned out by applause and cheers when she was spotted in the crowd. Analysts consider Chan a potential candidate in any future election to lead Hong Kong and say the government might be forced to offer a compromise if the public rallied around her.
Stanley Ho, a casino tycoon in nearby Macau who is a power broker in the region and serves as an adviser to the Chinese government, dismissed the protest as "insignificant" and warned the public against angering Beijing. "If 500,000 people came out, the government might need to do something," he told reporters.
Bernard Chan, a member of Tsang's council of advisers, also said the government would not offer any concessions, adding that only the people of Hong Kong would suffer if the limited reforms that Tsang has proposed were rejected.
The reforms would double the size of the 800-member Election Committee that chooses the chief executive and add 10 seats to the legislature. Analysts say that would introduce a measure of greater representation to the political system but keep the government firmly under Beijing's control.
Tsang has campaigned aggressively for the proposal, and he delivered an unprecedented televised address on Wednesday to answer his critics, arguing that the reforms were the best that Hong Kong could currently win from nervous Chinese leaders.
But many in the crowd of demonstrators -- who wore black T-shirts and waved banners saying "We want direct elections!" -- demanded faster change.
"We are not anti-China. We are here to fight for the rights we should have as citizens," said Tang Bok-man, 74. "I probably cannot see full democracy in Hong Kong in my life, but I hope my children and grandchildren can enjoy it."
Correspondent Philip P. Pan in Beijing contributed to this report.
Read up on it below:
Huge Democracy Rally Held in Hong Kong
Tens of Thousands Urge Timetable for Universal Suffrage
By K.C. Ng
Special to The Washington Post
Monday, December 5, 2005; A17
HONG KONG, Dec. 4 -- Tens of thousands of people marched through Hong Kong on Sunday to protest the slow pace of democratic reform in this former British colony, but the territory's Beijing-backed leader again rejected demands to set a timetable for achieving universal suffrage.
Police and protest organizers gave sharply conflicting estimates of the size of the march, but the demonstration appeared to be the largest in Hong Kong since the huge anti-government rallies in 2003 and 2004 that drew crowds of more than 500,000 people into the streets demanding the right to elect the city's leaders.
Organizers said more than a quarter-million people participated in Sunday's protest, which was intended to pressure the Chinese government and the man it picked to run Hong Kong, Chief Executive Donald Tsang, to modify a proposed package of limited political reforms. Police said about 63,000 participated in the protest.
Tsang's plan would add seats to the legislature and expand the committee that China uses to name the chief executive, but the pro-democracy opposition has condemned it as inadequate and vowed to block the proposal when it comes to a vote later this month.
Speaking at a news conference Sunday night, Tsang struck a conciliatory tone and said he would "see what I can do to perfect the package." But he said the march had not persuaded him to make significant changes, and he rejected the opposition's main demand for a timetable for introducing general elections.
Instead, Tsang said, he would work on producing a timetable after his plan was enacted. "I am 60 years of age. I certainly want to see universal suffrage taking place in Hong Kong in my time," Tsang said. "My feeling and my wish is the same as most other people participating in the rally today."
China has ruled out direct elections in 2007 and 2008 to choose the territory's next leader and all its legislators, and has refused to say when it will fulfill a long-standing promise to allow universal suffrage in Hong Kong.
Pro-democracy lawmakers called on Tsang to overhaul his proposal in light of the size of the protest. "Any responsible government should make a positive response to this march," an independent legislator, Ronny Tong, told reporters.
A small group of protesters began a sit-in outside government headquarters after Tsang's news conference, and march organizers said they were considering staging another large demonstration next weekend if Tsang refused to offer concessions.
In a development that could give a boost to the democracy movement, one of Hong Kong's most popular politicians -- a career civil servant who has not participated in similar demonstrations in the past -- joined the march Sunday.
"I feel that there are moments in one's life when one has to stand up and be counted, and for me, I believe this is one of these moments," said Anson Chan, who stepped down as the territory's number two official in 2001 and is often described as "Hong Kong's conscience."
Chan said she decided to march in the protest after a hastily convened meeting that Chinese officials held with pro-democracy legislators and community leaders this past week. At the meeting, Chinese officials declared that it would be unlawful to set a timetable for achieving universal suffrage.
On Sunday, Chan's voice was quickly drowned out by applause and cheers when she was spotted in the crowd. Analysts consider Chan a potential candidate in any future election to lead Hong Kong and say the government might be forced to offer a compromise if the public rallied around her.
Stanley Ho, a casino tycoon in nearby Macau who is a power broker in the region and serves as an adviser to the Chinese government, dismissed the protest as "insignificant" and warned the public against angering Beijing. "If 500,000 people came out, the government might need to do something," he told reporters.
Bernard Chan, a member of Tsang's council of advisers, also said the government would not offer any concessions, adding that only the people of Hong Kong would suffer if the limited reforms that Tsang has proposed were rejected.
The reforms would double the size of the 800-member Election Committee that chooses the chief executive and add 10 seats to the legislature. Analysts say that would introduce a measure of greater representation to the political system but keep the government firmly under Beijing's control.
Tsang has campaigned aggressively for the proposal, and he delivered an unprecedented televised address on Wednesday to answer his critics, arguing that the reforms were the best that Hong Kong could currently win from nervous Chinese leaders.
But many in the crowd of demonstrators -- who wore black T-shirts and waved banners saying "We want direct elections!" -- demanded faster change.
"We are not anti-China. We are here to fight for the rights we should have as citizens," said Tang Bok-man, 74. "I probably cannot see full democracy in Hong Kong in my life, but I hope my children and grandchildren can enjoy it."
Correspondent Philip P. Pan in Beijing contributed to this report.
Friday, December 02, 2005
Reagan Vindicated (As If There Was Any Doubt At This Point)
Truth Out of Poland
New York Sun Staff Editorial
November 29, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/23684
When President Reagan described the Soviet Union in 1983 as "an evil empire," he was widely denounced as a warmonger. The British historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose bestselling history of the 20th century, "Age of Extremes," has become a standard text on many campuses, reckoned that in the "Second Cold War" that began in 1979 when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, American democracy was "more dangerous" than Soviet totalitarianism. "The hysteria in Washington was not, of course, based on realistic reasoning.... There was absolutely no evidence, or likelihood, that the USSR wanted a war...let alone that it was planning a military attack on the West. The feverish scenarios of nuclear attack which came from the mobilized Western cold warriors and government publicity in the early 1980s were self-generated," he wrote. Historians of the 21st century, he predicted, "remote from the living memories of the 1970s and 1980s, will puzzle over the apparent insanity of this outburst of military fever...."
Well, the 21st century is here and it turns out that it is not the Cold Warriors but the "peace movement" that in retrospect looks insane. That is the meaning of the the Warsaw Pact map of Europe covered in nuclear mushroom symbols that was disclosed last week by the new Polish defense minister, Radek Sikorski, and reproduced on our foreign page yesterday. Mr. Sikorski is the Polish patriot who has made it his mission to teach his countrymen the truth about communism. He was recently based at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., until he was elected to the Polish Senate and joined the new government as head of the armed forces. Historians who, unlike Mr. Hobsbawm, do not have a record of lifelong support for communism now have a duty to examine the evidence that is emerging.
Mr. Sikorski's recent press conference, our Daniel Johnson wrote us from London, marked the first time that the Warsaw Pact archives have been opened for public scrutiny. Mr. Sikorski unveiled a battle plan dating from 1979. The Soviet led alliance was then poised for a massive tactical nuclear strike against forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, paving the way for the occupation of Western Europe. Much of Germany, Denmark, and Belgium would have been obliterated, including hundreds of thousands of American military and civilian personnel. This scenario was based on the assumption that NATO would retaliate with its own tactical nuclear weapons against a line of targets in Poland along the Vistula. The Kremlin was cynical enough to expect its Polish ally to launch an unprovoked offensive against the West in the full knowledge that millions of Polish civilians would be sacrificed.
It turns out that many of those who are today's leading European anti-Americans were the same individuals who, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is now clear that the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles by NATO, bitterly opposed by the so-called peace movement, was decisive in deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Yet not only communists and fellow travelers but leftists on both sides of the Atlantic insisted throughout that America, not the Soviet Union, was the greater threat to world peace, especially once the Reagan administration halted the period of decline that followed the Vietnam War. Wouldn't it be something to have been a fly on the wall when President Putin, the erstwhile KGB colonel who is now leading Russia, clicked on his television to watch Mr. Sikorski, who spent the years of Soviet-imposed martial law in Poland in exile?
The editors of these columns have long been for an Eastern European lustration. But the historical record will be a good start, particularly if other other governments of former Warsaw Pact countries will have the courage to follow Poland's lead and throw open their archives, too. They should ignore not only the Kremlin, but also the hypocritical complaints of those who say that old wounds are being reopened. For these disclosures - and there will be more, once historians have sifted through the documents - have vital lessons for the present. Once again, America is being depicted as an aggressor for standing up to a tyranny that thinks nothing of genocide. Once again, Europe is in danger of losing its nerve. Once again, an administration that refuses to appease the foe is accused of hysteria. Only this time the enemy is not communist but Islamist. The threat that an "Islamic bomb" will be developed and used, either by Iranian mullahs or by terrorists, is real and imminent. It is good that President Bush and veterans of the Cold War, such as Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, are in a position to ensure that these lessons are learned, not forgotten.
New York Sun Staff Editorial
November 29, 2005
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/23684
When President Reagan described the Soviet Union in 1983 as "an evil empire," he was widely denounced as a warmonger. The British historian Eric Hobsbawm, whose bestselling history of the 20th century, "Age of Extremes," has become a standard text on many campuses, reckoned that in the "Second Cold War" that began in 1979 when the Russians invaded Afghanistan, American democracy was "more dangerous" than Soviet totalitarianism. "The hysteria in Washington was not, of course, based on realistic reasoning.... There was absolutely no evidence, or likelihood, that the USSR wanted a war...let alone that it was planning a military attack on the West. The feverish scenarios of nuclear attack which came from the mobilized Western cold warriors and government publicity in the early 1980s were self-generated," he wrote. Historians of the 21st century, he predicted, "remote from the living memories of the 1970s and 1980s, will puzzle over the apparent insanity of this outburst of military fever...."
Well, the 21st century is here and it turns out that it is not the Cold Warriors but the "peace movement" that in retrospect looks insane. That is the meaning of the the Warsaw Pact map of Europe covered in nuclear mushroom symbols that was disclosed last week by the new Polish defense minister, Radek Sikorski, and reproduced on our foreign page yesterday. Mr. Sikorski is the Polish patriot who has made it his mission to teach his countrymen the truth about communism. He was recently based at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C., until he was elected to the Polish Senate and joined the new government as head of the armed forces. Historians who, unlike Mr. Hobsbawm, do not have a record of lifelong support for communism now have a duty to examine the evidence that is emerging.
Mr. Sikorski's recent press conference, our Daniel Johnson wrote us from London, marked the first time that the Warsaw Pact archives have been opened for public scrutiny. Mr. Sikorski unveiled a battle plan dating from 1979. The Soviet led alliance was then poised for a massive tactical nuclear strike against forces of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, paving the way for the occupation of Western Europe. Much of Germany, Denmark, and Belgium would have been obliterated, including hundreds of thousands of American military and civilian personnel. This scenario was based on the assumption that NATO would retaliate with its own tactical nuclear weapons against a line of targets in Poland along the Vistula. The Kremlin was cynical enough to expect its Polish ally to launch an unprovoked offensive against the West in the full knowledge that millions of Polish civilians would be sacrificed.
It turns out that many of those who are today's leading European anti-Americans were the same individuals who, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, demanded unilateral nuclear disarmament. It is now clear that the deployment of Cruise and Pershing missiles by NATO, bitterly opposed by the so-called peace movement, was decisive in deterring a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. Yet not only communists and fellow travelers but leftists on both sides of the Atlantic insisted throughout that America, not the Soviet Union, was the greater threat to world peace, especially once the Reagan administration halted the period of decline that followed the Vietnam War. Wouldn't it be something to have been a fly on the wall when President Putin, the erstwhile KGB colonel who is now leading Russia, clicked on his television to watch Mr. Sikorski, who spent the years of Soviet-imposed martial law in Poland in exile?
The editors of these columns have long been for an Eastern European lustration. But the historical record will be a good start, particularly if other other governments of former Warsaw Pact countries will have the courage to follow Poland's lead and throw open their archives, too. They should ignore not only the Kremlin, but also the hypocritical complaints of those who say that old wounds are being reopened. For these disclosures - and there will be more, once historians have sifted through the documents - have vital lessons for the present. Once again, America is being depicted as an aggressor for standing up to a tyranny that thinks nothing of genocide. Once again, Europe is in danger of losing its nerve. Once again, an administration that refuses to appease the foe is accused of hysteria. Only this time the enemy is not communist but Islamist. The threat that an "Islamic bomb" will be developed and used, either by Iranian mullahs or by terrorists, is real and imminent. It is good that President Bush and veterans of the Cold War, such as Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld, are in a position to ensure that these lessons are learned, not forgotten.
Monday, November 28, 2005
A Few More Observations On Downtown Manhattan
Working in downtown Manhattan has pluses and minuses. The minuses are that it is kind of a pain in the ass to get to, though in my new digs it is actually a shorter commute than it was from my former digs. The area is very incongruent, as this area of Manhattan was built, or at least the streets were, in the 1600's, which means that there's no rhyme or reason to the roadways. (Remember, it was only in the last two hundred plus years that the machinery necessary for filling in lakes and ponds, blasting away rocks, hills, and/or mountains became available for use in civic planning. Manhattan north of Canal Street is laid out as a grid and is easy to navigate; downtown Manhattan south of Canal has no such ease of navigation.) The streets are unusually narrow, and while the area possesses many tall buildings, the sunlight barely gets through to the street as a result of this narrowness. This can lead to a certain sense of light deprivation. Sadly, the only place where one can see the sky unobstructed is where the World Trade Center once stood, but as this area is still the source of much anger for me, I try to avoid it if I can. One day the anger will subside, but not this day.
On the other hand, downtown Manhattan is steeped in the history of pre-revolutionary America, as well as immediately post-revolutionary America. It's a pretty special thing, particularly since there are only two other cities that have this kind of historical mark on them (Boston and Philadelphia). Federal Hall is one block away from my current place of employment, and during the warmer months it is actually quite thrilling for me, even after all these years, to sit on the same steps where Washington took his oath of office as the first American president (under the Contitution of 1789, that is). Across from Federal Hall are the former headquarters of J.P. Morgan, which were built only four or five stories high, deliberately so; it seems that Morgan wanted the world to know that he was so powerful financially that he didn't need to build a skyscraper. He possessed the air rights above this squat building, and while everyone was clamoring for space all over downtown Manhattan at the time, Morgan was content to take up valuable air space with....nothing. One day in 1921, a horse drawn wagon pulled up in front of the House of Morgan and exploded at a quarter to twelve. The New York Stock Exchange, which was directly across the street from the House of Morgan, hadn't let out its traders for lunch at that point, but six people still lost their lives. Federal Hall, perpendicular to the House of Morgan, still has shards of wood embedded in its walls from that singular act of latter-day terrorism.
Down the block and to the left, if you walk down Broadway towards Battery Park, you run into Bowling Greeen, an oval-shaped park with a fountain in the middle of it. In 1776, Bowling Green was slightly different than it is today. For one, they actually did bowl on Bowling Green (it was kind of like bocce ball, which they still play in Central Park in specially designed "bowling" areas), and a statue of George III stood where the fountain now is. As I wrote previously, zealous patriots dragged down the statue of George III and turned the metal into musket balls. But the most interesting thing about Bowling Green is that the fence that surrounds it today is the same iron-wrought fence that ringed it in 1776, and on the same day that colonial revolutionaries hauled down the statue of George III, they also knocked the imperial crown ornaments off the fence posts. Go there today, feel the tops of the posts, and they're still rough to the touch, jagged and uneven. In some small way, you feel as if you're connecting with history. Good stuff.
Anyway, those are my little downtown Manhattan observations. Nothing controversial today. That said, if any of you happen to find yourself in Old New York, these are the little things that you'll key in on, and they'll make your experience a bit more interesting.
On the other hand, downtown Manhattan is steeped in the history of pre-revolutionary America, as well as immediately post-revolutionary America. It's a pretty special thing, particularly since there are only two other cities that have this kind of historical mark on them (Boston and Philadelphia). Federal Hall is one block away from my current place of employment, and during the warmer months it is actually quite thrilling for me, even after all these years, to sit on the same steps where Washington took his oath of office as the first American president (under the Contitution of 1789, that is). Across from Federal Hall are the former headquarters of J.P. Morgan, which were built only four or five stories high, deliberately so; it seems that Morgan wanted the world to know that he was so powerful financially that he didn't need to build a skyscraper. He possessed the air rights above this squat building, and while everyone was clamoring for space all over downtown Manhattan at the time, Morgan was content to take up valuable air space with....nothing. One day in 1921, a horse drawn wagon pulled up in front of the House of Morgan and exploded at a quarter to twelve. The New York Stock Exchange, which was directly across the street from the House of Morgan, hadn't let out its traders for lunch at that point, but six people still lost their lives. Federal Hall, perpendicular to the House of Morgan, still has shards of wood embedded in its walls from that singular act of latter-day terrorism.
Down the block and to the left, if you walk down Broadway towards Battery Park, you run into Bowling Greeen, an oval-shaped park with a fountain in the middle of it. In 1776, Bowling Green was slightly different than it is today. For one, they actually did bowl on Bowling Green (it was kind of like bocce ball, which they still play in Central Park in specially designed "bowling" areas), and a statue of George III stood where the fountain now is. As I wrote previously, zealous patriots dragged down the statue of George III and turned the metal into musket balls. But the most interesting thing about Bowling Green is that the fence that surrounds it today is the same iron-wrought fence that ringed it in 1776, and on the same day that colonial revolutionaries hauled down the statue of George III, they also knocked the imperial crown ornaments off the fence posts. Go there today, feel the tops of the posts, and they're still rough to the touch, jagged and uneven. In some small way, you feel as if you're connecting with history. Good stuff.
Anyway, those are my little downtown Manhattan observations. Nothing controversial today. That said, if any of you happen to find yourself in Old New York, these are the little things that you'll key in on, and they'll make your experience a bit more interesting.
Thursday, November 24, 2005
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
The Environment
I never really bought into the theory that America is the world's single greatest polluter and is the world environment's greatest enemy. I will say that I've read no impartial statistic that backs me up on that, but I do think that with the Environmental Protection Agency and several environmental non-governmental watchdog groups about, America probably is more environmentally sensitive than it is given credit for. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocols, which were voted down by a margin of 95-0 in the US Senate in 1997 (more on this later), weren't written so much for the good of the planet, but were rather an underhanded way for Western European nations to put a muzzle on the roaring United States economy. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocols left open huge exemptions for perhaps the two biggest polluters in the world, China and India. Today in the news was a story that show that China has a major environmental problem on their hands. We'll see how it all hashes out, but I don't have a good feeling about the outcome. You can read about it here: http://news.ft.com/cms/s/a99bb0f0-5c54-11da-af92-0000779e2340.html
Anyway, as far as the Kyoto Protocols were concerned, President Clinton sent it up for ratification to the Senate, only to have it turned down by 95-0. Losing a vote like that by that kind of margin can mean only one thing: Clinton never picked up the phone and made one phone call to get even one vote. No fool, that Clinton. He knew what it would mean to the American economy to try to fit such a draconian cap on American industry, and he wasn't going to destroy the biggest advantage he had with the public, mainly, the booming American economy at that time. Al Gore goes around these days blabbering like a loon about how the Bush Administration pulled the plug on Kyoto, but the blame for its demise falls not with Bush, who merely stated the obvious (that the treaty was dead, that is), but with Clinton, who did less than nothing to get it through Congress. (I give him credit for this little act of sophistry, by the way.) Whereas I'm sure that America does its fair share of eco-damage vis-a-vis carbon emissions, what I also know is that there are huge swathes of the interior of America that are undeveloped and have more vegetation per acre than both Europe and Asia. And what do all these trees and plants absorb? Carbon emissions, of course! And what do plants and trees expell after they take in carbon emissions? Oxygen! So it stands to reason that despite the massive amounts of people driving cars in America, there is ample vegetation from New York to California to absorb the emissions. This was hardly accounted for in the one-size-fits-all Kyoto Protocols, which though they were ratified by all the western European nations, these same European nations didn't even implement the onerous regulations themselves.
I'm not one of those people who think that everything is hunky dory with the world eco-system. Quite the contrary. But having traveled a fair amount in my adult life (been to South and Central America, as well as Central Europe), I can tell you that of all the developed countries in the world, or even semi-developed, America seems to be the most mindful of its emissions. In Hungary, they still drive cars (Trabant) made in the former East Germany that emit black soot; I joked at the time that these little Trabants in all likelihood emit more carbon monoxide than three New York City buses. And these Trabants are all over Central and Eastern Europe. In Brazil, there's an unbelievable stench that blows onto the beach every afternoon. The stench in question? Raw sewage being dumped into the Atlantic. One can only imagine what the pollution in places like China and Russia must be like. I shudder to think, and unlike here, there's no EPA, Greenpeace, or Al Gore to wail about it.
I'm not in the business of wholly exonerating America from its environmental duties, but if enviro-nuts like Al Gore and the obnoxious wife of Laurie David (who tools around in a private jet) want to make the world a safer place for humanity, they'd be better off attacking the worst offenders in the world. But that'd be hard work, and I have a sneaking suspicion that its not world-wide results they're after, but rather bashing America, and in particular, Bush. Yuck.
Anyway, as far as the Kyoto Protocols were concerned, President Clinton sent it up for ratification to the Senate, only to have it turned down by 95-0. Losing a vote like that by that kind of margin can mean only one thing: Clinton never picked up the phone and made one phone call to get even one vote. No fool, that Clinton. He knew what it would mean to the American economy to try to fit such a draconian cap on American industry, and he wasn't going to destroy the biggest advantage he had with the public, mainly, the booming American economy at that time. Al Gore goes around these days blabbering like a loon about how the Bush Administration pulled the plug on Kyoto, but the blame for its demise falls not with Bush, who merely stated the obvious (that the treaty was dead, that is), but with Clinton, who did less than nothing to get it through Congress. (I give him credit for this little act of sophistry, by the way.) Whereas I'm sure that America does its fair share of eco-damage vis-a-vis carbon emissions, what I also know is that there are huge swathes of the interior of America that are undeveloped and have more vegetation per acre than both Europe and Asia. And what do all these trees and plants absorb? Carbon emissions, of course! And what do plants and trees expell after they take in carbon emissions? Oxygen! So it stands to reason that despite the massive amounts of people driving cars in America, there is ample vegetation from New York to California to absorb the emissions. This was hardly accounted for in the one-size-fits-all Kyoto Protocols, which though they were ratified by all the western European nations, these same European nations didn't even implement the onerous regulations themselves.
I'm not one of those people who think that everything is hunky dory with the world eco-system. Quite the contrary. But having traveled a fair amount in my adult life (been to South and Central America, as well as Central Europe), I can tell you that of all the developed countries in the world, or even semi-developed, America seems to be the most mindful of its emissions. In Hungary, they still drive cars (Trabant) made in the former East Germany that emit black soot; I joked at the time that these little Trabants in all likelihood emit more carbon monoxide than three New York City buses. And these Trabants are all over Central and Eastern Europe. In Brazil, there's an unbelievable stench that blows onto the beach every afternoon. The stench in question? Raw sewage being dumped into the Atlantic. One can only imagine what the pollution in places like China and Russia must be like. I shudder to think, and unlike here, there's no EPA, Greenpeace, or Al Gore to wail about it.
I'm not in the business of wholly exonerating America from its environmental duties, but if enviro-nuts like Al Gore and the obnoxious wife of Laurie David (who tools around in a private jet) want to make the world a safer place for humanity, they'd be better off attacking the worst offenders in the world. But that'd be hard work, and I have a sneaking suspicion that its not world-wide results they're after, but rather bashing America, and in particular, Bush. Yuck.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Alfred Anderson
Scotland's last veteran of the Great War, Alfred Anderson, passed away at the age of 109. He is noteworthy not only because he was but one of ten surviving members of the British Expeditionary Force that was deployed during the First World War in Western Europe, but also because he was the last known survivor of the Christmas Truces of 1914.
Stretched over a 500 mile front, members of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies breached "no-man's land", the mile (or so) space between the fortified trenches, to meet their nemeses, the French and the British, on Christmas Eve. Exchanging smokes, singing Christmas carols, and kicking a soccer ball around, mortal enemies met in the spirit of Christmas that December 24, 1914. The British top brass were none too pleased to get wind of this kind of "fraternization with the enemy", and declared the next year (1915) that anyone who breached the trenches and went into no-man's land to pal around with the Hun would face still disciplinary action. For the most part, the orders stuck. However, one part of the British line defied the order. The last known survivor of the 1915 Christmas Truce, Bertie Felstead, passed in 2002. I'll write more about him as Christmas gets closer. (Hey...have to have a good holiday story to tell!)
In the interim, you can read about Alfred Anderson here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1866966,00.html. His story is a touching one, and melancholy at points. Eighty seven years after the end of the Great War, Alfred Anderson still suffered from "survivor's guilt"; he suffered from it 'til the end of his long life.
Rest in peace, Mr. Anderson. It comes none too soon.
Stretched over a 500 mile front, members of the German and Austro-Hungarian armies breached "no-man's land", the mile (or so) space between the fortified trenches, to meet their nemeses, the French and the British, on Christmas Eve. Exchanging smokes, singing Christmas carols, and kicking a soccer ball around, mortal enemies met in the spirit of Christmas that December 24, 1914. The British top brass were none too pleased to get wind of this kind of "fraternization with the enemy", and declared the next year (1915) that anyone who breached the trenches and went into no-man's land to pal around with the Hun would face still disciplinary action. For the most part, the orders stuck. However, one part of the British line defied the order. The last known survivor of the 1915 Christmas Truce, Bertie Felstead, passed in 2002. I'll write more about him as Christmas gets closer. (Hey...have to have a good holiday story to tell!)
In the interim, you can read about Alfred Anderson here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1866966,00.html. His story is a touching one, and melancholy at points. Eighty seven years after the end of the Great War, Alfred Anderson still suffered from "survivor's guilt"; he suffered from it 'til the end of his long life.
Rest in peace, Mr. Anderson. It comes none too soon.
Rome
Don't know how many of you folks watch the HBO series 'Rome', but it was one heck of a season. As usual, the finale was anti-climactic, but the second to last episode of the season was one of the best episodes I've ever seen of any HBO series. If any of you have HBO On Demand, I strongly suggest that you tap into the second to last episode, which had one of the most brutal (but exhilarating) gladiator scenes this side of 'Gladiator'. If at all possible, I also suggest that you watch the entire season. One reviewer called it 'I Claudius' for the Sopranos generation. (Clever description.) It brought history alive, in all of its Machiavellian, Hobbesian glory, resplendent with skullduggery, power plays, and a lot of internal conflicts.
Great stuff. HBO has really stepped up the last few years, and whereas I still dig 'The Sopranos', I have to say that I'm more impressed with 'The Wire' and 'Rome' more than any other show they have in their roster.
Great stuff. HBO has really stepped up the last few years, and whereas I still dig 'The Sopranos', I have to say that I'm more impressed with 'The Wire' and 'Rome' more than any other show they have in their roster.
Saturday, November 19, 2005
And What Of The Album Cover?
I used to love album covers, and more than that, the entire act of buying an LP. If you were lucky, you got a cool piece of artwork, and if you were really lucky, you'd get one that opened like a book. Usually lyrics came with it, but not always. And as you spent hours and hours listening to your LPs, you could also read the lyrics, the liner notes, and sometimes an accompanying storyline. Somehow it made the music more in-depth. It was awesome.
Then CDs made their appearance in the mid to late 80's. The album cover had to be reduced to approximately 1/5th of its size, and the romance of it all seemed reduced as well. But at least you got the liner notes, the lyrics, and maybe a storyline. It wasn't quite the same, but it was still there.
Now we're in the age of the MP3. I think the MP3 is great, but the mysticism that comes with a cool piece of artwork is lost as a result. So in a fit of nostalgia, I've decided to list a few of my favorite album covers:
Brain Salad Surgery, Emerson, Lake & Palmer
This amazing piece of artwork came courtesy of H.R. Giger, one of the most bizarre, unnerving, and compelling artists I've personally ever seen. Giger was an obscure Zurich artist that somehow hooked up with ELP, and the artwork he created for the band went hand-in-glove with the material that ELP was working on, particularly the thoroughly diabolical Toccata piece. If one looks closely, one can see the outline of a phallus ever so close to the lips of the woman's face. This was the source of much consternation for ELP's record company, so it was airbrushed before it was put into print. Giger was not happy about this, but his work with ELP got him world-wide attention. He consequently went on design the phlegm-encrusted reptilian extra-terrestrial beings in Alien.
Court of the Crimson King, King Crimson
Done by a very young fellow by the name of Gary Godber, King Crimson's first album still stands as one of the most compelling pieces of artwork in rock history. The album is great, too. You can view it here.
Quadrophenia, The Who
Great album with great artwork, effectively capturing the protagonist of the concept album, Jimmy the Mod, in a moody cover photo. I love everything about it. The four members of the band can be seen in the rearview mirrors of Jimmy the Mod's scooter. I have a full size framed print of this on my apartment wall.
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall
The former pretty much captured the mood of the album, and I'm sure served as a great facilitator for many a kid to pick the seeds out of his buds. The latter, a treatise on the abject misery of being a rich rock star with paternal, female, and alienation issues, also captured the mood of the music. The calligraphy and illustrations were both disturbing and appealing.
Then CDs made their appearance in the mid to late 80's. The album cover had to be reduced to approximately 1/5th of its size, and the romance of it all seemed reduced as well. But at least you got the liner notes, the lyrics, and maybe a storyline. It wasn't quite the same, but it was still there.
Now we're in the age of the MP3. I think the MP3 is great, but the mysticism that comes with a cool piece of artwork is lost as a result. So in a fit of nostalgia, I've decided to list a few of my favorite album covers:
Brain Salad Surgery, Emerson, Lake & Palmer
This amazing piece of artwork came courtesy of H.R. Giger, one of the most bizarre, unnerving, and compelling artists I've personally ever seen. Giger was an obscure Zurich artist that somehow hooked up with ELP, and the artwork he created for the band went hand-in-glove with the material that ELP was working on, particularly the thoroughly diabolical Toccata piece. If one looks closely, one can see the outline of a phallus ever so close to the lips of the woman's face. This was the source of much consternation for ELP's record company, so it was airbrushed before it was put into print. Giger was not happy about this, but his work with ELP got him world-wide attention. He consequently went on design the phlegm-encrusted reptilian extra-terrestrial beings in Alien.
Court of the Crimson King, King Crimson
Done by a very young fellow by the name of Gary Godber, King Crimson's first album still stands as one of the most compelling pieces of artwork in rock history. The album is great, too. You can view it here.
Quadrophenia, The Who
Great album with great artwork, effectively capturing the protagonist of the concept album, Jimmy the Mod, in a moody cover photo. I love everything about it. The four members of the band can be seen in the rearview mirrors of Jimmy the Mod's scooter. I have a full size framed print of this on my apartment wall.
Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon, The Wall
The former pretty much captured the mood of the album, and I'm sure served as a great facilitator for many a kid to pick the seeds out of his buds. The latter, a treatise on the abject misery of being a rich rock star with paternal, female, and alienation issues, also captured the mood of the music. The calligraphy and illustrations were both disturbing and appealing.
Faux Utopia
During the last two presidential election cycles, we've been treated to various celebrities caterwauling about the state of America, how it's has decayed, "how this isn't the America I know!" and various other cries of indignation. Alec Baldwin said he'd move to France if Bush won in 2000, but never made good on the promise. Johnny Depp and Pierre Salinger did. Salinger is dead now, but Depp is alive and well. He's also leaving France due to the riots. I'm a fan of his work, but I think as a person he's a jerk-off. I also think he's a weak-ass American. But I'm sure he'll find his way back to Malibu or Tribeca soon enough. Ugh.
One of the ancillary benefits of the recent riots in France is that it has revealed that the socialist paradise of France is nothing more than an illusion. In the last two years, France has endured a heatwave that killed well over 10,000 elderly citizens of its republic, and more recently, went through a two-week violent gyration, courtesy of its disenfranchised North African (and mostly muslim) youth, who are currently enduring an unemployment rate of 30 plus percent for those under the age of 30. More than anything, what these two events have underlined is that socialism does not and cannot work. As for the first event, it has proven Alexis de Tocqueville's theory that, "once one becomes dependent on the government for survival, he is already dead". In the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of senior citizens that live in Florida and Arizona, and like the heatwave that swept across France in the summer of 2003, temperatures routinely reach upwards of 100 degrees. But unlike France, everyone has an air conditioner, and thus do not fry to death. Why don't they have air conditioners in France? Chances are because a.) they don't have them in great supply because they're a protectionist government and don't allow a great deal of competition in their markets, thus curtailing emergency access to a large supply of them, and b.) their populace has grown so dependent on their government that they were rendered useless to themselves when their government couldn't come through for them. (Sidenote: It is still a source of amazement that this story didn't make headlines here in the States. If this isn't an example of liberal bias in the print press, I don't know what is.)
As for the riots, I applaud the muslim youths for their acts. It's high time somebody stuck it to the French, who can rightly be called the most racist society in Europe. Once again, protectionism and anti-free market policies have rendered jobs scarce in the private sector, and government jobs go to caucasian French, not North African ones. Proof once again that free enterprise is the most democratic mechanism in the world. France is dying, as is the rest of Western Europe. If they want to get themselves off life support and on their feet, they should abandon this ridiculous European Union idea, turn Europe into a free trade zone, destroy all the protectionism regulations, and open up their markets to foreign competition. Needless to say, they won't do that, but that's fine for us, so long as we don't have to bail them out a third (fourth, if you count the Cold War) time with our own blood and treasure.
One of the ancillary benefits of the recent riots in France is that it has revealed that the socialist paradise of France is nothing more than an illusion. In the last two years, France has endured a heatwave that killed well over 10,000 elderly citizens of its republic, and more recently, went through a two-week violent gyration, courtesy of its disenfranchised North African (and mostly muslim) youth, who are currently enduring an unemployment rate of 30 plus percent for those under the age of 30. More than anything, what these two events have underlined is that socialism does not and cannot work. As for the first event, it has proven Alexis de Tocqueville's theory that, "once one becomes dependent on the government for survival, he is already dead". In the United States, there are hundreds of thousands of senior citizens that live in Florida and Arizona, and like the heatwave that swept across France in the summer of 2003, temperatures routinely reach upwards of 100 degrees. But unlike France, everyone has an air conditioner, and thus do not fry to death. Why don't they have air conditioners in France? Chances are because a.) they don't have them in great supply because they're a protectionist government and don't allow a great deal of competition in their markets, thus curtailing emergency access to a large supply of them, and b.) their populace has grown so dependent on their government that they were rendered useless to themselves when their government couldn't come through for them. (Sidenote: It is still a source of amazement that this story didn't make headlines here in the States. If this isn't an example of liberal bias in the print press, I don't know what is.)
As for the riots, I applaud the muslim youths for their acts. It's high time somebody stuck it to the French, who can rightly be called the most racist society in Europe. Once again, protectionism and anti-free market policies have rendered jobs scarce in the private sector, and government jobs go to caucasian French, not North African ones. Proof once again that free enterprise is the most democratic mechanism in the world. France is dying, as is the rest of Western Europe. If they want to get themselves off life support and on their feet, they should abandon this ridiculous European Union idea, turn Europe into a free trade zone, destroy all the protectionism regulations, and open up their markets to foreign competition. Needless to say, they won't do that, but that's fine for us, so long as we don't have to bail them out a third (fourth, if you count the Cold War) time with our own blood and treasure.
Friday, November 18, 2005
A Few Random Thoughts
It's been a down and up week for me business-wise (as opposed to "up and down", as the week started slow and ended up well), and as tonight is the first free night that I've had this week to actually write/blog with any sense of real energy, I figured I might as well take the opportunity to do so before my limited reserves crap out altogether. So here goes:
- I'm up to page 700 in Paul Johnson's masterwork, "The History of the American People", a 1000 plus page comprehensive opus of the United States from its earliest beginnings. Every once in a while it is good to read stuff like this, as it puts into proper context the amazing story of this truly unique nation. Never before has a nation such as the United States existed, a nation predicated (for the most part) on merit, as opposed to birth. The United States was and is the first nation ruled by those with ability and guts, versus noble birth. As a result, America has managed to have great men (and women) attain leadership positions in government, business, law, and academia (well, maybe not so much in the latter of late) based on merit and not some kind of patrician or royal bearing. Sure, there's plenty of cronyism, but it gets found out sooner or later. (See Michael Brown at FEMA.) Americans demand competence; they usually get it. In Johnson's book, he makes the point that one of the reasons the American colonies were able to win the war of independence was that the British suffered from poor leadership both in the military and in the British government. Quoth Johnson: "George III employed second-raters and creatures of his own making, mere court-favorites or men whose sole merit was an ability to manage a corrupt House of Commons". Contrasting mediocrities like Lord North and George Grenville, Lord Townshend, Gens. Howe and Corwallis with Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin, and it becomes readily apparent that all the ability and brainpower was on the side of the colonial rebellion. Interesting stuff.
- "Pioneering don't pay", said Andrew Carnegie, and I have to agree. Carnegie achieved unbelievable heights as a businessman and innovator, coming from nothing as a poor Scottish immigrant to the wealthiest man in the world once he sold Carnegie Steel to J.P. Morgan, who in turn turned into U.S. Steel. But what Carnegie meant by this observation didn't have to do with the westward expansion of the United States at the time, but rather inventing. Thus this quote made me think of two "pioneers" in the world of technology: Shawn Fanning and Bob Moog. The former was a college kid who found a way to reduce music from a CD to a digitally transmittable file, thus sparking a conflagration in the music world over whether file sharing of intellectual property was legal or not. Inevitably Fanning and his company Napster lost, and we haven't heard much from Fanning since. But one must give credit to the kid for coming up with a technological breakthrough that has changed the music industry forever. Mores the pity that he'll never profit from it, but such is the lot of the inventor and/or scientist who makes the breakthrough but can't navigate the business end of things. Similarly, Bob Moog invented the synthesizer, but went out of business in the early 70's, unable to properly mass market the unweildy and wildly expensive Moog IIIC to the consumer. Pioneering may not pay, as Carnegie rightly said, but where would we be without pioneers all the same?
- "If I have an apple and you have an apple, and we trade apples, we still only have one apple a piece. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we trade ideas, now we both have two ideas"--George Bernard Shaw
- Jennifer Aniston officially irritates me. Okay, she got dumped by Brad Pitt. Big deal, happens to the best of us. I wish she'd show some class, keep a stiff upper lip, and quit yakkin' about it to every celebrity magazine and talk show out there. She's a mildly attractive girl, but not even close to Angelina Jolie when it comes to sex appeal. But she really could've shown a great deal more class, and gone up the scale of appeal, if she hadn't endeavored to talk to anyone and everyone about getting thrown over the side by Brad Pitt. Shaddap, shud-n-up, Jen. Spare us the victim role. You're looking increasingly pathetic. Angie Dickinson slept with JFK (which I find infinitely more interesting and salacious than Brad cheating on Jen) but she hasn't said a word about it to the press over four decades. It may not have been the classiest thing to do, but it certainly showed a great deal of class for her not to open her mouth about it all these years. But behavior like that has gone the way of the horse and buggy. Sad.
I'm officially crapped out. G'night, y'all.
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Monday, November 14, 2005
Friday, November 11, 2005
In Flanders Fields
The last stanza of "In Flanders Fields", by Lt. Colonel John McCrae, medic, Royal Canadian Army, written at the Battle of Ypres, Belgium, 1915:
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
McCrae died of pneumonia whilst still on active duty during the war, France, 1918. His poem, originally discarded, was picked up by another Canadian soldier, and subsequently became the best known poem of the Great War, now known as World War I.
Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
McCrae died of pneumonia whilst still on active duty during the war, France, 1918. His poem, originally discarded, was picked up by another Canadian soldier, and subsequently became the best known poem of the Great War, now known as World War I.
Lest We Forget
Armistice Day in Great Britain, Remembrance Day in Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, and Veteran's Day here in the U.S. Let's take a moment to remember all that have served, all that have fallen, and all that continue to serve with distinction, in defense of freedom. Let us also remember what, and who, gave us this day.
It all started, and in another sense ended, on November 11, 1918, at 11:00 pm.
It all started, and in another sense ended, on November 11, 1918, at 11:00 pm.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Ralph Peters On The Uprising In France
Is he right? Read and judge for yourself:
Paralyzed French officials complain of "unfair" media attention (welcome to the reality club, Pierre). Yet, hardly two months ago the French media celebrated the suffering in New Orleans — ignoring the brave response of millions of Americans to Hurricane Katrina to concentrate exclusively on the Crescent City's lower 9th ward and one nutty, incompetent mayor. Utterly devoid of self-awareness, the French cherish their image of America as racist. But minorities in the United States have opportunities for which their French counterparts would risk their lives. Our problem is that demagogues convince the poorest of our poor to give up on getting ahead. In France, the non-white poor never have a chance of any kind. France has no Colin Powell or Condi Rice, no minority heading the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company, no vibrant minority political culture. When Americans who adore la vie en France go to Paris (the intelligentsia's Orlando), they don't visit the drug-and-crime-plagued slums. If tourists encounter a Moroccan or a Senegalese "Frenchman," he's cleaning up the sidewalks after the dogs of the bourgeoisie. Willfully blind to reality, liberals continue to praise the racist culture of France by citing the Parisian welcome for Josephine Baker or the Harlem jazz musicians in the 1920s. But the French regarded those few as exotic pets. The test is how they treat the millions of immigrant families whose members don't play trumpets in bars or sell their flesh in strip clubs. There is no Western country more profoundly racist than France. …Does anyone really believe that the country that enthusiastically handed over more of its Jewish citizens to the Nazis than the Nazis asked for is going to treat brown or black Muslims as equals? Meanwhile, the Chirac government is stunned. Its members truly believed that supporting Arab and African dictators and defying America's efforts to liberate tens of millions of Muslims would buy safety from the 5 million immigrants and their children who have not the slightest hope of a decent future. … Desperate apologists for France's apartheid system claim that the present uproar is merely about youthful anger, that Muslim fundamentalism isn't in play. Just wait. Islamist extremists aren't stupid. Thrilled by this spontaneous uprising, they'll move to exploit the fervor of the young to serve their own ends. Expect terror. Whether the current violence ebbs tonight or lasts for weeks to come, the uprising of the excluded and oppressed in the streets of France has only begun.
Paralyzed French officials complain of "unfair" media attention (welcome to the reality club, Pierre). Yet, hardly two months ago the French media celebrated the suffering in New Orleans — ignoring the brave response of millions of Americans to Hurricane Katrina to concentrate exclusively on the Crescent City's lower 9th ward and one nutty, incompetent mayor. Utterly devoid of self-awareness, the French cherish their image of America as racist. But minorities in the United States have opportunities for which their French counterparts would risk their lives. Our problem is that demagogues convince the poorest of our poor to give up on getting ahead. In France, the non-white poor never have a chance of any kind. France has no Colin Powell or Condi Rice, no minority heading the equivalent of a Fortune 500 company, no vibrant minority political culture. When Americans who adore la vie en France go to Paris (the intelligentsia's Orlando), they don't visit the drug-and-crime-plagued slums. If tourists encounter a Moroccan or a Senegalese "Frenchman," he's cleaning up the sidewalks after the dogs of the bourgeoisie. Willfully blind to reality, liberals continue to praise the racist culture of France by citing the Parisian welcome for Josephine Baker or the Harlem jazz musicians in the 1920s. But the French regarded those few as exotic pets. The test is how they treat the millions of immigrant families whose members don't play trumpets in bars or sell their flesh in strip clubs. There is no Western country more profoundly racist than France. …Does anyone really believe that the country that enthusiastically handed over more of its Jewish citizens to the Nazis than the Nazis asked for is going to treat brown or black Muslims as equals? Meanwhile, the Chirac government is stunned. Its members truly believed that supporting Arab and African dictators and defying America's efforts to liberate tens of millions of Muslims would buy safety from the 5 million immigrants and their children who have not the slightest hope of a decent future. … Desperate apologists for France's apartheid system claim that the present uproar is merely about youthful anger, that Muslim fundamentalism isn't in play. Just wait. Islamist extremists aren't stupid. Thrilled by this spontaneous uprising, they'll move to exploit the fervor of the young to serve their own ends. Expect terror. Whether the current violence ebbs tonight or lasts for weeks to come, the uprising of the excluded and oppressed in the streets of France has only begun.
Hello, Dalai
Bush meets Tibet's leader in exile, The Dalai Lama, and the Chinese get pissed.
These are the little things that make a big difference. When the President of the United States stands for democratic principle over cynical realpolitik, it sends a wave of hope throughout the repressed peoples of the world.
These are the little things that make a big difference. When the President of the United States stands for democratic principle over cynical realpolitik, it sends a wave of hope throughout the repressed peoples of the world.
When Moose Attack
No, this isn't from The Onion. Two drunken moose in Sweden went on a rampage through a home for the elderly.
The apocalypse is at hand.
The apocalypse is at hand.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Bag Checks For Me, But Not For Thee!
From an editorial in the New York Sun:
Hypocrisy is on show in a Manhattan courtroom today. The New York Civil Liberties Union will argue for the second day before Judge Richard Berman that the city's subway bag search policy is an "unjustifiable erosion of the privacy rights of the American public." Yet take a walk into the NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. One of the city's lawyers, Jay Kranis, pointed this out yesterday in court while cross-examining a witness. Either the NYCLU believes its headquarters are at greater risk of a terrorist threat than the city's subway system, or it believes ordinary New Yorkers don't deserve the same safety precautions that they do.
Hypocrisy is on show in a Manhattan courtroom today. The New York Civil Liberties Union will argue for the second day before Judge Richard Berman that the city's subway bag search policy is an "unjustifiable erosion of the privacy rights of the American public." Yet take a walk into the NYCLU's Manhattan headquarters - which it shares with other organizations - and you'll find a sign warning visitors that all bags are subject to search. One of the city's lawyers, Jay Kranis, pointed this out yesterday in court while cross-examining a witness. Either the NYCLU believes its headquarters are at greater risk of a terrorist threat than the city's subway system, or it believes ordinary New Yorkers don't deserve the same safety precautions that they do.
And The Violence Continues....
Winston Churchill once said that appeasement is the rough equivalent to feeding your friends to the crocodiles in the hopes that you'll be eaten last. In France's case, it looks as though they're about to be eaten first, and boy, did they ever have it coming. But unlike WWII, France is being eaten from the inside by a populace they willingly took in but failed to assimilate for fear of offending their culture. Idiots.
We're now going on day 11 of nationwide violence in France, with the muslim populace now in open revolt. How did this happen? It's a simple equation. France let too many people into their borders but didn't have the wherewithal to absorb them into their society. They couldn't provide jobs for them because they're an anti-free enterprise nation (and thus have a stagnant economy as a result), and they didn't insist that their way of conducting themselves adhere to "French-ness". Once again, multi-culturalism has proven to be an utter failure.
The blunt fact about Europe is this: it isn't rigged for immigration. America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are all immigrant-founded nations. The only thing that binds people in these nations is not ethnicity or religion, but language, and more important than anything else, a belief system founded on Anglo-Saxon premises, which have proven to be more equitable than any in history. It accepts all people of all nations, whatever their religion, race, or language, provided they work hard, speak the language, adhere to and pay deference to the constitutions of said countries.
(Some of the feedback that I've received for my last post had a subtext to it that inferred that I was condemning the premises for the muslim revolt in France. I was not. What I was condemning was the French system, and by extension, the western European systems of socialism. So for the record, I will state in the most economical manner possible why this is happening: socialism begets protectionism, which begets a hostile climate for venture capital and entrepeneurilism, which begets little to no job creation. And it's not just the muslim population that has high unemployment. France has 10% plus unemployment and 30% plus amongst its under 30 population. Combine that with 30% unemployment amongst the muslims, and it is very hard to say there are any "best" parts of France's arrangement.)
We're now going on day 11 of nationwide violence in France, with the muslim populace now in open revolt. How did this happen? It's a simple equation. France let too many people into their borders but didn't have the wherewithal to absorb them into their society. They couldn't provide jobs for them because they're an anti-free enterprise nation (and thus have a stagnant economy as a result), and they didn't insist that their way of conducting themselves adhere to "French-ness". Once again, multi-culturalism has proven to be an utter failure.
The blunt fact about Europe is this: it isn't rigged for immigration. America, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia are all immigrant-founded nations. The only thing that binds people in these nations is not ethnicity or religion, but language, and more important than anything else, a belief system founded on Anglo-Saxon premises, which have proven to be more equitable than any in history. It accepts all people of all nations, whatever their religion, race, or language, provided they work hard, speak the language, adhere to and pay deference to the constitutions of said countries.
(Some of the feedback that I've received for my last post had a subtext to it that inferred that I was condemning the premises for the muslim revolt in France. I was not. What I was condemning was the French system, and by extension, the western European systems of socialism. So for the record, I will state in the most economical manner possible why this is happening: socialism begets protectionism, which begets a hostile climate for venture capital and entrepeneurilism, which begets little to no job creation. And it's not just the muslim population that has high unemployment. France has 10% plus unemployment and 30% plus amongst its under 30 population. Combine that with 30% unemployment amongst the muslims, and it is very hard to say there are any "best" parts of France's arrangement.)
Saturday, November 05, 2005
The Beginning Of The End
France's sizeable muslim population, which numbers up to 10% of the total population, is in a state of (near) revolution. Nine straight days of rioting, clashing with police, and acts of arson have paralyzed the country. How strange is it, that France, the paragon of all that American liberals hold dear, with its universal healthcare and its cradle to grave entitlements, would have such a situation on its hands? The "socialist utopia" also has 30% unemployment for citizens under the age of 25, not to mention 11% plus percent unemployment amongst the general populace. Their GDP is virtually non-existent....and yet, given these factors, we have people like Michael Moore and the rest of the limo-libs telling us we should be more like....France. No thanks. I have no interest in living in a nation that enables over 10,000 of its elderly to die of heat exhaustion, as France did in August of 2003.
I'm stating this for the record. France's failure, as well as Western Europe's, to integrate their muslim populations into their culture, and their failure to insist that these peoples adopt some semblance of "French-ness" or "European-ess" will result in more and more situations such as what France is enduring now. And as these riots and murders (remember Theo Van Gogh?) continue to occur, you will see a backlash amongst the indigenous Europeans at the polls. Nationalist candidates, preaching hatred and expulsion, will begin to gain traction politically in Europe. The EU will splinter and die. And people not unlike Hitler (they already exist in the persons of Jorg Haider and Jean Marie Le Pen, in Austria and France respectively) will gain tremendous power, if not total power, over their home countries. A race and religious war between the indigenous Europe and its muslim inhabitants is not out of the question. And it could be bloody.
Don't think it can't happen. People in Germany laughed at Hitler and his goofy little mustache in the 1920's and '30's. But when things went awry, the man they laughed at was the man they turned to. Ditto Mussolini. (Although it is apocryphal that he was democratically elected chancellor. It was actually a coup d'etat; I'll delve into this another time.) Europe has a history of this type of behavior for hundreds, nay, thousands of years. You can look it up.
I'm stating this for the record. France's failure, as well as Western Europe's, to integrate their muslim populations into their culture, and their failure to insist that these peoples adopt some semblance of "French-ness" or "European-ess" will result in more and more situations such as what France is enduring now. And as these riots and murders (remember Theo Van Gogh?) continue to occur, you will see a backlash amongst the indigenous Europeans at the polls. Nationalist candidates, preaching hatred and expulsion, will begin to gain traction politically in Europe. The EU will splinter and die. And people not unlike Hitler (they already exist in the persons of Jorg Haider and Jean Marie Le Pen, in Austria and France respectively) will gain tremendous power, if not total power, over their home countries. A race and religious war between the indigenous Europe and its muslim inhabitants is not out of the question. And it could be bloody.
Don't think it can't happen. People in Germany laughed at Hitler and his goofy little mustache in the 1920's and '30's. But when things went awry, the man they laughed at was the man they turned to. Ditto Mussolini. (Although it is apocryphal that he was democratically elected chancellor. It was actually a coup d'etat; I'll delve into this another time.) Europe has a history of this type of behavior for hundreds, nay, thousands of years. You can look it up.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Roe V. Wade....Killing The Democratic Party
Contrary to the idea that the defense of "reproductive rights" (there's a deceptive euphemism if there ever was one) is a feather in the cap of the Democratic Party, it has gone a long way towards severely damaging the Democrats as a national party. Traditionally, the Democratic Party consisted of the following coalition of constituencies: Italians, Jews, Irish, Roman Catholics, unions, Hispanics, Afro-Americans. Of course, there were others that subscribed to the Democratic Platform, but historically, this is what the coalition has been made up of. Unions still are very much in the Democratic camp, but are clearly on the wane, as the United States makes the transition from an industrial-based to a service-based economy; that leaves civil service unions to pick up the slack where private sector unions once were, and they can't. Afro-Americans will, in all likelihood, never abandon the Democrats, although their unwavering fealty to the party has probably cost them more than it has benefited them. (After all, why make political concessions to a voting bloc when they're going to vote for you anyway?) That leaves Jews, Hispanics, Italians, and Irish. 3/4th of this coalition are....Roman Catholics. Whereas Roman Catholics made up a large portion of the former industrial workforce in this country (and therefore were union-men and women), they're also predominantly and vehemently pro-life. This religiously conservative, flag-waving, beer-drinking, football watching, steel-worker type can't be overly pleased with the staunch defense of abortion on demand by their party. At the same time, their jobs and their industries (steel, automotive, etc.) are either downsizing and/or moving their operations overseas, while nary a word of disapproval from their natural Democratic representatives in Congress. What does make the Democrats go into a frenzy is the mere mention of overturning Roe v. Wade. Who can blame the Rust-Belt voter for voting against them, or at best, being lukewarm about Democratic candidates? Pennslyvania is a good example of this phenomenon. Pennslyvania has a Democratic governor, has two Republican senators (one liberal, one conservative), and barely went for the Democratic presidential candidate in the last election. You don't get a much more blue collar state than Pennslyvania. Michigan is another example. Industrial, unionized, and blue-collar, Michigan turned for Kerry, but just barely. What is hurting the Democrats so much that they have to fight for states they should have to spend little to no money on to score electorally? There are other factors in play, not the least of which is the national Democratic party playing footsie with America-hating subversives like Michael Moore. (Lest we forget Moore occupying a seat of honor in the presidential box on the first night of the DNC next to Jimmy Carter?) The old-school, flag-waving union man, who goes to church every Sunday, works in a steel mill, and believes in the greatness of America and takes umbrage at the mere thought that America is anything remotely approaching what the Chomskyites claim it to be, couldn't be thrilled that the party that he thought represented the working man, the union man, HIM, has been taken over by these same Chomskyite types. But I digress.
So here we are, thirty two years after Justice Blackmun found an unwritten constitutional right to abortion on demand. Where has it gotten the Democratic Party? Well, for one, it has destroyed the probability that any Catholic and/or pro-life Democratic candidate can make a serious run at the Democratic nomination. (Iowa's Tom Vilsack comes to mind.) Secondly, it has alienated its Roman Catholic support, which it has relied on since before the Civil War. And thirdly, it has put the Democrats in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible. If you don't believe me, read the following excerpt from a recent interview with Howard Dean on Chris Matthews' Hardball:
MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period?
DEAN: The government…
MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.
DEAN: No, my party respects everybody’s views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives.
MATTHEWS: But you’re a pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you’re against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?
DEAN: I’m not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long, for a long time, who met with the pro-life Democrats…
MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party because of its record supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?
DEAN: The position we support is, a woman has a right to make, and a family has a right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.
MATTHEWS: That’s pro-choice.
DEAN: , A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That’s our position.
MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate to use the phrase “pro-choice”?
DEAN: Because I think it’s often misused. If you’re pro-choice it implies you’re not pro-life — that’s not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?
DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of personal, of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That’s what I believe.
MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position…
DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in making personal decisions.
MATTHEWS: Okay, I’m learning things here about a hesitancy I didn’t know about before.
In conclusion, if the party chairman of the Democratic National Committee can't articulate his postion on abortion out of fear of being pigeonholed (correctly, might I add), how can you possibly make a moral argument in favor if it? And if you can't, how do you expect people to be convinced in the rightness of your party's position when, in essence, you come off like you're not even convinced in the rightness of it yourself? And beyond that, how can you possibly bring the Roman Catholic vote, of which a large chunk of the Hispanic, Italian, Slavic, Polish, and Irish voters are, to vote for you when one of the central planks of your party is so significantly offensive to their beliefs? Democrats keep scratching their heads as to why blue-collar workers in traditionally unionized states are voting against, by their analysis, their own interests. Their rabid defense of Roe v. Wade goes a long way in explaining why. And one needn't look too much further than that. Far from having a deleterious effect on the Democrats, the best thing that can happen to them is to have Roe v. Wade overturned, the abortion issue revert back to the states, and to cut the radical feminist plank out of their national platform. In the end, it will help them considerably more than hurt them.
So here we are, thirty two years after Justice Blackmun found an unwritten constitutional right to abortion on demand. Where has it gotten the Democratic Party? Well, for one, it has destroyed the probability that any Catholic and/or pro-life Democratic candidate can make a serious run at the Democratic nomination. (Iowa's Tom Vilsack comes to mind.) Secondly, it has alienated its Roman Catholic support, which it has relied on since before the Civil War. And thirdly, it has put the Democrats in the unenviable position of having to defend the indefensible. If you don't believe me, read the following excerpt from a recent interview with Howard Dean on Chris Matthews' Hardball:
MATTHEWS: So the Democrats are the pro-choice party, period?
DEAN: The government…
MATTHEWS: The Democrats, your party, is the pro-choice party.
DEAN: No, my party respects everybody’s views, but my party firmly believes that the government should stay out of people’s personal lives.
MATTHEWS: But you’re a pro-choice party, are you not? You sound like you’re against them for being pro-life. Are you pro-choice?
DEAN: I’m not against people for being pro-life. I actually was the first chairman who met for a long, for a long time, who met with the pro-life Democrats…
MATTHEWS: This is a complicated thing for people. The people believe the Republican party because of its record supports the pro-life position. Does your party support the pro-choice position?
DEAN: The position we support is, a woman has a right to make, and a family has a right to make up their own mind about their health care without government interference.
MATTHEWS: That’s pro-choice.
DEAN: , A woman and a family have a right to make up their own minds about their health care without government interference. That’s our position.
MATTHEWS: Why do you hesitate to use the phrase “pro-choice”?
DEAN: Because I think it’s often misused. If you’re pro-choice it implies you’re not pro-life — that’s not true. There are a lot of pro-life Democrats. We respect them, but we believe the government should…
MATTHEWS: Do you believe in abortion rights?
DEAN: I believe the government should stay out of personal, of the personal lives of families and women. They should stay out of our lives. That’s what I believe.
MATTHEWS: I find it interesting that you have hesitated to say what the party has always stood for, which is the pro-choice position…
DEAN: The party believes the government does not belong in making personal decisions.
MATTHEWS: Okay, I’m learning things here about a hesitancy I didn’t know about before.
In conclusion, if the party chairman of the Democratic National Committee can't articulate his postion on abortion out of fear of being pigeonholed (correctly, might I add), how can you possibly make a moral argument in favor if it? And if you can't, how do you expect people to be convinced in the rightness of your party's position when, in essence, you come off like you're not even convinced in the rightness of it yourself? And beyond that, how can you possibly bring the Roman Catholic vote, of which a large chunk of the Hispanic, Italian, Slavic, Polish, and Irish voters are, to vote for you when one of the central planks of your party is so significantly offensive to their beliefs? Democrats keep scratching their heads as to why blue-collar workers in traditionally unionized states are voting against, by their analysis, their own interests. Their rabid defense of Roe v. Wade goes a long way in explaining why. And one needn't look too much further than that. Far from having a deleterious effect on the Democrats, the best thing that can happen to them is to have Roe v. Wade overturned, the abortion issue revert back to the states, and to cut the radical feminist plank out of their national platform. In the end, it will help them considerably more than hurt them.
Quote Of The Day
File this one under "singing a different tune":
"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
--Joe Wilson in 2004, in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating pre-war assertions that Iraq attempted to by uranium from Niger.
"I never claimed to have 'debunked' the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
--Joe Wilson in 2004, in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigating pre-war assertions that Iraq attempted to by uranium from Niger.
Monday, October 31, 2005
David Corn On Alito
Despite the obviously bigoted "Scalito" moniker being affixed to Sam Alito by the title of this article, David Corn, perhaps the last semi-sane columnist on the Left (if you don't believe me, go check out www.huffingtonpost.com or Eric Alterman's blog on www.msnbc.com) weighs in on the emerging senate battle over confirmation of Bush's latest SCOTUS nominee.
Alito's Credentials
I saw Schumer on CNBC earlier this afternoon, and he seemed plenty pissed about Bush's new SCOTUS nominee. Ergo, one must conclude that Alito's got the goods. Here are his credentials. (Considerably better than Miers, no?) Some have concluded that Alito is more accomplished than Roberts.
Alito, Samuel A. Jr.
Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.
Education:Princeton University, A.B., 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Alito, Samuel A. Jr.
Born 1950 in Trenton, NJ
Federal Judicial Service:U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Nominated by George H.W. Bush on February 20, 1990, to a seat vacated by John Joseph Gibbons; Confirmed by the Senate on April 27, 1990, and received commission on April 30, 1990.
Education:Princeton University, A.B., 1972
Yale Law School, J.D., 1975
Professional Career:Law clerk, Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, 1976-1977Assistant U.S. attorney, District of New Jersey, 1977-1981Assistant to the U.S. solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1981-1985Deputy assistant U.S. attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 1985-1987
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, 1987-1990
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
Give That Man A Nobel Prize!
Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said that "if we were permitted to hang two or three persons, the problems with the stock exchange would be solved for ever." For the record, and for those of you that don't follow Iran closely (I do, btw.), the Teheran Stock Market has dropped 20% in the last week, following the most recent government statement of foreign policy, which pronounced that Iran would eradicate Israel and the U.S. off the map. This is an unprecedented announcement, which exceeds even the rhetoric of the Khomenei government. Two questions: Can there be any doubt at this point that Ahmadinejad was the guy identified in the photo from the Iranian hostage crisis in '79, and was cited by former hostages as one of their most cruel captors? And secondly, why hasn't this guy been nominated for a Nobel Prize? After all, he has all the qualifications: vehemently anti-American, anti-Israel, indulges in terrorrism, and clearly understands economics in a manner that few can.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
An Eye For The Macabre
I've been listening to ELP's seminal Brain Salad Surgery album as of late, which I consider to be one of the greatest albums ever made, and certainly one of the top five progressive rock albums of all time. ELP always had a weakness when it came to lyrics, but on BSS, singer Greg Lake teamed up with fellow King Crimson alumnus Pete Sinfield (who now writes lyrics for the likes of Celine Dion (Hey, the guys got to make a living!)) , and the collaboration yielded some excellent wordplay. I was particularly struck by the words in Karn Evil 9, First Impression, which makes some very astute observations on the human condition in regards to the general public's obsession with watching the miseries of others. One need only to go to the local supermarket and read the tabloids and celebrity magazines to get an idea of how true this observation is. Actually, one need only pick up any newspaper to see it, at this point. (Sidenote: this tune is frequently used on sports show intros. I guess it is midly funny that it is, considering the subject matter.)
Step inside! hello!
we’ve the most amazing show
You’ll enjoy it all, we know
Step inside! step inside!
We’ve got thrills and shocks,
supersonic fighting cocks.
Leave your hammers at the box
Come inside! come inside!
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Left behind the bars, rows of bishops’ heads in jars
And a bomb inside a car
Spectacular! spectacular!
If you follow me there’s a speciality
Some tears for you to see
Misery, misery,
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Next upon the bill in our house of vaudeville
We’ve a stripper in a till
What a thrill! what a thrill!
And not content with that,
with our hands behind our backs,
We pull jesus from a hat,
Get into that! get into that!
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend
Come inside! come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
Be careful as you pass.
Move along! move along!
Come inside, the show’s about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart
Rest assured you’ll get your money’s worth
The greatest show in heaven, hell or earth.
You’ve got to see the show, it’s a dynamo.
You’ve got to see the show, it’s rock and roll
....Soon the gypsy queen in a glaze of vaseline
Will perform on guillotine
What a scene! what a scene!
Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
To Alexander’s Ragtime Band
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Performing on a stool we’ve a sight to make you drool
Seven virgins and a mule
Keep it cool. keep it cool.
We would like it to be known the exhibits that were shown
Were exclusively our own,
All our own. all our own.
Come and see the show! come and see the show!
Step inside! hello!
we’ve the most amazing show
You’ll enjoy it all, we know
Step inside! step inside!
We’ve got thrills and shocks,
supersonic fighting cocks.
Leave your hammers at the box
Come inside! come inside!
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Left behind the bars, rows of bishops’ heads in jars
And a bomb inside a car
Spectacular! spectacular!
If you follow me there’s a speciality
Some tears for you to see
Misery, misery,
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Next upon the bill in our house of vaudeville
We’ve a stripper in a till
What a thrill! what a thrill!
And not content with that,
with our hands behind our backs,
We pull jesus from a hat,
Get into that! get into that!
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends
We’re so glad you could attend
Come inside! come inside!
There behind a glass is a real blade of grass
Be careful as you pass.
Move along! move along!
Come inside, the show’s about to start
Guaranteed to blow your head apart
Rest assured you’ll get your money’s worth
The greatest show in heaven, hell or earth.
You’ve got to see the show, it’s a dynamo.
You’ve got to see the show, it’s rock and roll
....Soon the gypsy queen in a glaze of vaseline
Will perform on guillotine
What a scene! what a scene!
Next upon the stand will you please extend a hand
To Alexander’s Ragtime Band
Roll up! roll up! roll up!See the show!
Performing on a stool we’ve a sight to make you drool
Seven virgins and a mule
Keep it cool. keep it cool.
We would like it to be known the exhibits that were shown
Were exclusively our own,
All our own. all our own.
Come and see the show! come and see the show!
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Greatest Movie Ever Made?
The voters of Total Film Magazine have voted Goodfellas the greatest movie ever made. Great movie, no doubt. But the greatest ever made? Jeez, I don't even think it's the greatest gangster flick ever made, never mind the greatest film. For my money, The Godfather is still tops as far as gangster flicks are concerned, and it is arguably the best ever made. After repeated viewings of The Godfather year in and year out, I've never detected a flaw in it. Complex, compelling, and intelligent, The Godfather is a stellar piece of filmmaking. Goodfellas? Great, but not better. I'm not even sure Goodfellas is even better than Casino.
Tuesday, October 25, 2005
Rock Isn't Dead. It's Just Old And Tired.
Stevie Van Zandt, Bruce Springsteen's lead guitar player, makes some interesting points in this article regarding the state of rock and roll. I agree with most of what he says, but I'm not convinced that rock is a viable creative entity anymore. In the end, all musical idioms run their course. For my money, I think that the apex of rock was between 1967 to 1975. There's been some great stuff since then, but most of it, even the great stuff, is derived from the template set down by the likes of The Who, The Beatles, The Beach Boys, The Yardbirds (and by extension, Cream, The Jeff Beck Group, and Led Zeppelin), ELP, Yes, Gabriel-era Genesis, King Crimson, David Bowie, The Stooges, Procol Harem, Frank Zappa, Creedence, The Doors, and a few others that don't come to mind immediately. Can anyone really come up with something completely original in rock and roll anymore? I don't think so. In the last two and a half decades, the only bands that I've heard that sounded 100% original and exciting were the grunge bands (Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, and Alice In Chains), The Clash, U2, and Van Halen. I'm not discounting that there's an undiscovered band out there capable of knocking everyone out with their originality, but even if there is, when you consider that most of the bands that I listed above were by-and-large contemporaries of each other (or close to it), will there ever be that many great acts out at the same time toiling within the rock and roll idiom? Highly doubtful.
Proof That Dorks Rule the World
Here's a picture of the Microsoft braintrust, circa 1978. Use your best judgement in figuring out which one is Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer. Of them, incidentally, three are in the top ten of the Forbes 400.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Will On Miers
The new George Will column on Bush's pick for SCOTUS is up....and it's a humdinger.
A few words of my own on this Miers pick:
I normally don't like to jump into the fray when it comes to topics which are covered by-and-large by the mass media or countless other blogs. There are plenty of opinions, well thought- out and not-s0-well-thought-out out there, and I often feel that adding my opinion into the public discourse on widely covered issues is the equivalent of spitting into the ocean: it has no impact on the sea level one way or another. That said, I've been supremely disappointed with Bush's judgement on this one. It reflects a lazy mindset, perhaps a weary one. Bush has been under a great deal of strain from the beginning of his presidency to now. I shed no tears for him on this note, mind, as that is the nature of the office. (Kennedy, a year into his own presidency, once exclaimed in private to one of his staff, "I hate this sh*t! You want my position? You can have it!) But the wear of the last five plus years has revealed itself with this pick. Simply, I think Bush is a mentally exhausted man at the moment.
I'm going to go on record with this Miers pick and say that I think that she'll be withdrawn. I don't think she has the intellectual firepower, a la John Roberts, to withstand Senate scrutiny. Bush can beat the liberals, but he can't beat them without the conversatives behind him. Liberals are only semi-partial to Miers because conservatives hate her (and rightly so). But in this instance, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy might wind up being a Pyhrric one for the Dems. If she gets on the bench, everyone loses. It is not merely enough for me as a conservative to have someone say, "I'm against Roe v. Wade". I want someone who can successfully argue, based on profound constitutional reasoning, why they think it is unconstitutional. To paraphrase George Will's statement in the above linked article, to say that the ruling is wrong without the proper legal philosophical reasoning is as bad as the ruling itself, which arrived at a different ruling based on the same shoddy thought pattern.
A few words of my own on this Miers pick:
I normally don't like to jump into the fray when it comes to topics which are covered by-and-large by the mass media or countless other blogs. There are plenty of opinions, well thought- out and not-s0-well-thought-out out there, and I often feel that adding my opinion into the public discourse on widely covered issues is the equivalent of spitting into the ocean: it has no impact on the sea level one way or another. That said, I've been supremely disappointed with Bush's judgement on this one. It reflects a lazy mindset, perhaps a weary one. Bush has been under a great deal of strain from the beginning of his presidency to now. I shed no tears for him on this note, mind, as that is the nature of the office. (Kennedy, a year into his own presidency, once exclaimed in private to one of his staff, "I hate this sh*t! You want my position? You can have it!) But the wear of the last five plus years has revealed itself with this pick. Simply, I think Bush is a mentally exhausted man at the moment.
I'm going to go on record with this Miers pick and say that I think that she'll be withdrawn. I don't think she has the intellectual firepower, a la John Roberts, to withstand Senate scrutiny. Bush can beat the liberals, but he can't beat them without the conversatives behind him. Liberals are only semi-partial to Miers because conservatives hate her (and rightly so). But in this instance, the "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy might wind up being a Pyhrric one for the Dems. If she gets on the bench, everyone loses. It is not merely enough for me as a conservative to have someone say, "I'm against Roe v. Wade". I want someone who can successfully argue, based on profound constitutional reasoning, why they think it is unconstitutional. To paraphrase George Will's statement in the above linked article, to say that the ruling is wrong without the proper legal philosophical reasoning is as bad as the ruling itself, which arrived at a different ruling based on the same shoddy thought pattern.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)