The abject cowardice with which the Mohammedan jihadists wage their terror campaign against the Israeli people is a sight to behold. Were it not for the internet, they in all likelihood would win, yet again, the propaganda war against Israel. But times have changed, and technology has caught up with them; stories a compliant, left-wing, anti-Israeli press would suppress can no longer be quashed. This link, complete with pictures, tells the story. The three pictures attached to this story see Hezbollah fighters, dressed not as combatants of any kind, but in casual civilian-wear, and carrying out their operations in residential neighborhoods. Being fully aware that the retribution from the IDF and the IAF will target their position, they seek to maximize the civilian casualty numbers, then play it off as if the Israelis are responsible and are deliberately targeting Lebanese civilians. This couldn't be further from the truth. Additionally, Hezbollah is specifically targeting Israeli civilians with their indiscriminate shelling of Israeli cities. I eschew Nazi comparisons normally, but as someone who happens to know more about Nazis than most, I can tell you that these are Nazi tactics. During the London Blitz, Hitler pounded London for 57 straight nights, even though London had no strategic significance. The operation was strictly to maximize civilian casualty figures and break the morale of the English. However, I can find no trace of Hitler ever preventing German (or French, or Belgian, or any other) civilian populations from getting the hell out of a combat zone in areas that were under German control. The Mohammedans have no such principles.
As for Kofi Annan and his eruption of Jew hatred (claiming that the IDF deliberately killed four U.N. observers in Lebanon), I think it is high-time that Annan:
a.) Apologize to Israel for the slander, and
b.) Resign and retire on his oil-for-food kickbacks.
What Kofi Annan neglected to say was that the U.N. "observers" and Hezbollah have been chummy for a every long time and inhabit the same acreage in Lebanon. No doubt, Hezbollah had to have known that if they shelled Israel from these positions, there was an off chance that the IDF/IAF would strike back at that position. Thus, the best possible outcome occurred:
The Israelis killed four U.N. observers, thus ensuring a PR nightmare for Israel.
Of course, when you see a photo of Annan and Hezbollah leader Nasrallah getting cozy with each other, it all makes sense, doesn't it....
Then there is Iran, who are probably smiling from ear to ear over their proxy army's fight with Israel. This conflagration between Hezbollah and Israel has taken their nuke program off the front pages for the last two weeks. This is no coincidence.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
Oh Well....
"The truth is — let me say this clearly — we didn't even expect (this) response ... that (Israel) would exploit this operation for this big war against us," said deputy chief of the Hezbollah's political arm, Mahmoud Komati.
He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.
In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.
He said Hezbollah had expected "the usual, limited response" from Israel.
In the past, he said, Israeli responses to Hezbollah actions included sending commandos into Lebanon, seizing Hezbollah officials and briefly targeting specific Hezbollah strongholds in southern Lebanon.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
A Window of Opportunity
The war against the terror masters redux.
By Michael Ledeen
9/11 happened when Osama bin Laden looked at us, and thought we were ready to be had. We were politically divided, and squabbling over everything. We clearly were not prepared to take casualties in direct combat. The newly elected president seemed unable to make a tough decision. And so Osama attacked, expecting to deliver a decisive blow to our national will, expecting we would turn tail and run, as we had in Somalia, and expecting he would then be free to concentrate his energies on the defeat of local apostates, the creation of his caliphate, and the organization of Muslim revenge for the catastrophes of past centuries.
Within a few months he was driven out of Afghanistan, his organization was shattered, the Arab street he had hoped to mobilize was silenced by the shock and awe of the total victory of the Americans, and he became an instrument of forces greater than himself. If he still lives, he is the servant of the Shiite mullahs, making propaganda movies and audiotapes to bolster the morale of the constantly shrinking number of his admirers, while the mullahs order his followers to martyr themselves against Iraqi civilians.
He had earned his humiliation by misunderestimating his enemy.
He would no doubt recognize the similarities between his own disastrously wrong analysis, and the Iranian blunders leading up to the sequence of events in Gaza and northern Israel. As on 9/11, we, along with our Israeli allies, were internally divided, indeed far more so than in 2001. As on 9/11, there was broad and deep public opposition to war, and both our and Israeli leaders had seemingly lost the will to fight, talking openly about exit strategies and negotiated settlements.
In Israel, the hated Sharon was on life support, gone forever from public life, and succeeded by a man of lesser charisma and limited military experience. The political class drifted from withdrawal to withdrawal. Hezbollah lobbed missiles into northern Israel, totally without response in kind, and Olmert proclaimed yet further withdrawals.
In America, the hated Bush was at record lows in public opinion, daily excoriated by the major media, and constantly criticized by European leaders buoyed by polls showing their electors’ utter contempt for America and the American president. Indeed, the Europeans had protected Iran from any possibility of American action against the regime in Tehran by playing along with a patently phony negotiating strategy.
Who could imagine a forceful response against most any escalation in the mullahs’ long war against the infidels and crusaders? There was not even a rhetorical response to the daily panegyrics from Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Larijani and the others, calling for death to the Jews, death to the Americans, death to the Iraqi collaborationists, death to the apostate Muslims wherever they were.
The auguries — and the Persians are a superstitious people — were generally good. In some cases, spectacularly good. Fanatics with Iranian support, for example, had overrun Somalia,, and there was good reason to believe the new government would constitute a valuable staging base for terrorists and for Iranian military operations against the American fleet in the Gulf. Throughout the Muslim world, Ahmadinejad was like a rock star, drawing huge crowds wherever he went, even so far away as Indonesia. A demonstration of strength against the greater and lesser Satans in the Middle East would greatly enhance his appeal. And the legions of death now amounted to 23 terrorist groups, plus the obedience of their Syrian puppet, Bashir Assad.
Moreover, escalation was required to address some annoying problems. Demonstrations continued to break out across Iran itself, involving virtually all elements of the country’s diverse population. A show of strength, and above all of American impotence, would weaken the resolve of the mullahs’ enemies. Elsewhere, Hamas was having a tough time in Palestine, and the hasty migration of top leaders to Damascus — obviously concerned about their physical well-being — was not the sort of triumphal message one wanted sent to the Islamist masses. Then there was Iraq, where most of the people were openly hostile to Tehran, and where Ayatollah Sistani continued to exercise a substantial gravitational pull on millions of Iranians. Despite several efforts, the mullahs had been unable to have him assassinated. Nor had the thousands of intelligence agents and military officers sent from Iran to Iraq been able to catalyze a civil war, despite spreading around millions of dollars and hundreds of martyrs among all the ethnic and religious groups.
Finally, there was the Divine Message, the promise that the End of Days would soon be upon mankind, and the Hidden Imam would emerge from the bottom of his well, lead the believers to victory, and command the planet. The description of the moment of his return was well known: a time of chaos and suffering, that could be accelerated by the faithful if they were brave enough.
Not, then, the tactical thinking described by so many — distracting world attention from the nuclear standoff, now headed for the U.N. — but something of an entirely greater order of magnitude. Omar, the insightful blogger at “Iraq the Model,” sees it in the streets of Baghdad:
We are seeing some signs here that make us think that Iran and its tools in Iraq are trying to provoke the rise of the imam through forcing the signs they believe should be associated with that rise. One of the things that do not feel right is the sudden appearance of new banners and writings on the walls carrying religious messages talking specifically of imam Mehdi. These messages are getting abundant in Baghdad and in particular in the eastern part of the capital where Sadr militias are dominant and a special number can be seen in the area of the interior ministry complex.
The interesting part is that these banners appeared within less than 24 hours after Hizbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Coincidence? I don't think so.
And so they struck, first in Gaza, then in northern Israel, and, as always, in Iraq and Afghanistan and India. They imagined, just as Osama had prophesied five years earlier (almost to the Muslim day; according to their calendar Wednesday the 19th was the anniversary of our 9/11), that the regional assault would bring our allies and us to our knees. We would lose our will to fight, and abandon the battlefield to the army of Allah, and Hamas, and Moqtada, and the Badr brigades, and all the others.
It’s the same misunderestimation as before, for tyrants have always been unable to imagine the remarkable ability of free people to respond to challenge, and to organize quickly, voluntarily, and effectively to fight their enemies. Hwzbollah now risks rout, and Assad, sensing his peril, is whispering promises of betrayal in order to ensure his own survival. The Iranians still threaten Armageddon, but, so far at least, have been unable to demonstrate the capacity to provoke it.
A fine line separates charisma from buffoonery, and, instead of spreading revolutionary hegemony over the region, the mullahs risk being seen as unacceptably dangerous clowns. Never before have Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis spoken so forcefully against the terrorists (Hamas and Hezbollah, Sunni and Shiite) and their state sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. Instead of driving us from the battlefield, they now must contend with the very real danger that their former prey will unite against the mullahs and the Baathist remnant.
The terror masters risk the same terrible humiliation and defeat as befell Osama, and as things stand, only we can save them from the logical and moral consequences of their folly.
Stranger things have happened, and powerful forces within this peculiar administration are striving mightily to preserve the Iranian and Syrian regimes. To be sure, they do not exactly put it that way. They sing the chorus of crackpot realism: Preserve stability; focus on the immediate problem (Hezbollah); let the professionals do their diplomatic work. Then there are the brief stanzas set aside for the mellow voices of the CIA (joined on this occasion by Thomas Friedman, chanting yet another peace-initiative-for-the-innocents): Syria has always helped us; Assad is young; he will improve; we have friends in Damascus; if he falls the terrorists will take over; let us work with him.
It now lies to President Bush to decide. We must hope that he is not charmed. If he can now recall what he said after 9/11, that the world must make the stark choice of being with us or against us, and that those who support the terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves, then the deadly logic of their failed attack will close around the throats of the terror masters. The battle against Hezbollah is part of the broader war, as the mullahs well understood when they unleashed Nasrallah and Mughniyah against the Israelis. Israel is now conducting that battle; it is up to us to prosecute the rest of the war.
Now is the time to tell our soldiers in Iraq that “hot pursuit” is okay, that the terrorist training camps on both sides of Iraq are legitimate targets, to be attacked in self-defense. Now is the time to tell the Iraqi government to come forward with the abundant evidence of Iranian evil-doing, and that we will support a fight against the mullahs’ foot soldiers in Iraq. These actions will signal the next stage of the war against the terror masters, which is the vigorous support of the pro-democracy forces in Syria and Iran.
It is a wondrous window of opportunity. As so often in our history, it was opened by our enemies. Let’s go for it.
Now, please. It may not open again for quite a while.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
By Michael Ledeen
9/11 happened when Osama bin Laden looked at us, and thought we were ready to be had. We were politically divided, and squabbling over everything. We clearly were not prepared to take casualties in direct combat. The newly elected president seemed unable to make a tough decision. And so Osama attacked, expecting to deliver a decisive blow to our national will, expecting we would turn tail and run, as we had in Somalia, and expecting he would then be free to concentrate his energies on the defeat of local apostates, the creation of his caliphate, and the organization of Muslim revenge for the catastrophes of past centuries.
Within a few months he was driven out of Afghanistan, his organization was shattered, the Arab street he had hoped to mobilize was silenced by the shock and awe of the total victory of the Americans, and he became an instrument of forces greater than himself. If he still lives, he is the servant of the Shiite mullahs, making propaganda movies and audiotapes to bolster the morale of the constantly shrinking number of his admirers, while the mullahs order his followers to martyr themselves against Iraqi civilians.
He had earned his humiliation by misunderestimating his enemy.
He would no doubt recognize the similarities between his own disastrously wrong analysis, and the Iranian blunders leading up to the sequence of events in Gaza and northern Israel. As on 9/11, we, along with our Israeli allies, were internally divided, indeed far more so than in 2001. As on 9/11, there was broad and deep public opposition to war, and both our and Israeli leaders had seemingly lost the will to fight, talking openly about exit strategies and negotiated settlements.
In Israel, the hated Sharon was on life support, gone forever from public life, and succeeded by a man of lesser charisma and limited military experience. The political class drifted from withdrawal to withdrawal. Hezbollah lobbed missiles into northern Israel, totally without response in kind, and Olmert proclaimed yet further withdrawals.
In America, the hated Bush was at record lows in public opinion, daily excoriated by the major media, and constantly criticized by European leaders buoyed by polls showing their electors’ utter contempt for America and the American president. Indeed, the Europeans had protected Iran from any possibility of American action against the regime in Tehran by playing along with a patently phony negotiating strategy.
Who could imagine a forceful response against most any escalation in the mullahs’ long war against the infidels and crusaders? There was not even a rhetorical response to the daily panegyrics from Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Larijani and the others, calling for death to the Jews, death to the Americans, death to the Iraqi collaborationists, death to the apostate Muslims wherever they were.
The auguries — and the Persians are a superstitious people — were generally good. In some cases, spectacularly good. Fanatics with Iranian support, for example, had overrun Somalia,, and there was good reason to believe the new government would constitute a valuable staging base for terrorists and for Iranian military operations against the American fleet in the Gulf. Throughout the Muslim world, Ahmadinejad was like a rock star, drawing huge crowds wherever he went, even so far away as Indonesia. A demonstration of strength against the greater and lesser Satans in the Middle East would greatly enhance his appeal. And the legions of death now amounted to 23 terrorist groups, plus the obedience of their Syrian puppet, Bashir Assad.
Moreover, escalation was required to address some annoying problems. Demonstrations continued to break out across Iran itself, involving virtually all elements of the country’s diverse population. A show of strength, and above all of American impotence, would weaken the resolve of the mullahs’ enemies. Elsewhere, Hamas was having a tough time in Palestine, and the hasty migration of top leaders to Damascus — obviously concerned about their physical well-being — was not the sort of triumphal message one wanted sent to the Islamist masses. Then there was Iraq, where most of the people were openly hostile to Tehran, and where Ayatollah Sistani continued to exercise a substantial gravitational pull on millions of Iranians. Despite several efforts, the mullahs had been unable to have him assassinated. Nor had the thousands of intelligence agents and military officers sent from Iran to Iraq been able to catalyze a civil war, despite spreading around millions of dollars and hundreds of martyrs among all the ethnic and religious groups.
Finally, there was the Divine Message, the promise that the End of Days would soon be upon mankind, and the Hidden Imam would emerge from the bottom of his well, lead the believers to victory, and command the planet. The description of the moment of his return was well known: a time of chaos and suffering, that could be accelerated by the faithful if they were brave enough.
Not, then, the tactical thinking described by so many — distracting world attention from the nuclear standoff, now headed for the U.N. — but something of an entirely greater order of magnitude. Omar, the insightful blogger at “Iraq the Model,” sees it in the streets of Baghdad:
We are seeing some signs here that make us think that Iran and its tools in Iraq are trying to provoke the rise of the imam through forcing the signs they believe should be associated with that rise. One of the things that do not feel right is the sudden appearance of new banners and writings on the walls carrying religious messages talking specifically of imam Mehdi. These messages are getting abundant in Baghdad and in particular in the eastern part of the capital where Sadr militias are dominant and a special number can be seen in the area of the interior ministry complex.
The interesting part is that these banners appeared within less than 24 hours after Hizbollah kidnapped the Israeli soldiers. Coincidence? I don't think so.
And so they struck, first in Gaza, then in northern Israel, and, as always, in Iraq and Afghanistan and India. They imagined, just as Osama had prophesied five years earlier (almost to the Muslim day; according to their calendar Wednesday the 19th was the anniversary of our 9/11), that the regional assault would bring our allies and us to our knees. We would lose our will to fight, and abandon the battlefield to the army of Allah, and Hamas, and Moqtada, and the Badr brigades, and all the others.
It’s the same misunderestimation as before, for tyrants have always been unable to imagine the remarkable ability of free people to respond to challenge, and to organize quickly, voluntarily, and effectively to fight their enemies. Hwzbollah now risks rout, and Assad, sensing his peril, is whispering promises of betrayal in order to ensure his own survival. The Iranians still threaten Armageddon, but, so far at least, have been unable to demonstrate the capacity to provoke it.
A fine line separates charisma from buffoonery, and, instead of spreading revolutionary hegemony over the region, the mullahs risk being seen as unacceptably dangerous clowns. Never before have Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Kuwaitis, and Iraqis spoken so forcefully against the terrorists (Hamas and Hezbollah, Sunni and Shiite) and their state sponsors in Tehran and Damascus. Instead of driving us from the battlefield, they now must contend with the very real danger that their former prey will unite against the mullahs and the Baathist remnant.
The terror masters risk the same terrible humiliation and defeat as befell Osama, and as things stand, only we can save them from the logical and moral consequences of their folly.
Stranger things have happened, and powerful forces within this peculiar administration are striving mightily to preserve the Iranian and Syrian regimes. To be sure, they do not exactly put it that way. They sing the chorus of crackpot realism: Preserve stability; focus on the immediate problem (Hezbollah); let the professionals do their diplomatic work. Then there are the brief stanzas set aside for the mellow voices of the CIA (joined on this occasion by Thomas Friedman, chanting yet another peace-initiative-for-the-innocents): Syria has always helped us; Assad is young; he will improve; we have friends in Damascus; if he falls the terrorists will take over; let us work with him.
It now lies to President Bush to decide. We must hope that he is not charmed. If he can now recall what he said after 9/11, that the world must make the stark choice of being with us or against us, and that those who support the terrorists will be treated as terrorists themselves, then the deadly logic of their failed attack will close around the throats of the terror masters. The battle against Hezbollah is part of the broader war, as the mullahs well understood when they unleashed Nasrallah and Mughniyah against the Israelis. Israel is now conducting that battle; it is up to us to prosecute the rest of the war.
Now is the time to tell our soldiers in Iraq that “hot pursuit” is okay, that the terrorist training camps on both sides of Iraq are legitimate targets, to be attacked in self-defense. Now is the time to tell the Iraqi government to come forward with the abundant evidence of Iranian evil-doing, and that we will support a fight against the mullahs’ foot soldiers in Iraq. These actions will signal the next stage of the war against the terror masters, which is the vigorous support of the pro-democracy forces in Syria and Iran.
It is a wondrous window of opportunity. As so often in our history, it was opened by our enemies. Let’s go for it.
Now, please. It may not open again for quite a while.
— Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. He is resident scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Unintentional Funny Quote of the Day
Courtesy of Howard Dean, the man who can rightly be called "the gift that just keeps on giving":
"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
"If you think what's going on in the Middle East today would be going on if the Democrats were in control, it wouldn't, because we would have worked day after day after day to make sure we didn't get where we are today. We would have had the moral authority that Bill Clinton had when he brought together the Northern Irish and the IRA, when he brought together the Israelis and the Palestinians.”
Who Came First....Ron Burgundy Or Dan Rather?
Dan Rather, obviously. But if you read this article, you get the idea that Will Ferell's Ron Bergundy character in Anchorman was inspired, in no small part, by the likes of Dan Rather. Here's a snippet to whet your whistle (too funny for words):
“Sometimes I’ve had people tell me, ‘Dan, this is not healthy for your career,’” he added. “Well, my answer to that is, to hell with the career. I didn’t get into journalism as a careerist. I’m not going to go out of journalism as a careerist. So yes, I’m biased about doing independent journalism. And you bet I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced toward reporters — and America is filled with reporters who want to do the right thing...News, real news, is a wake-up call, not a lullaby. And I’m not in the lullaby business.”
Oooh....Dan. You're so brave, sticking your neck out there all these years! Of course, Rather still claims that the Bush National Guard documents (which were a fraud) haven't been proven to be forgeries, so his hoary pronouncements about his independence and his crusading news style all dovetail nicely into his pompous character.
Read the article. 'Tis a hoot.
“Sometimes I’ve had people tell me, ‘Dan, this is not healthy for your career,’” he added. “Well, my answer to that is, to hell with the career. I didn’t get into journalism as a careerist. I’m not going to go out of journalism as a careerist. So yes, I’m biased about doing independent journalism. And you bet I’m prejudiced. I’m prejudiced toward reporters — and America is filled with reporters who want to do the right thing...News, real news, is a wake-up call, not a lullaby. And I’m not in the lullaby business.”
Oooh....Dan. You're so brave, sticking your neck out there all these years! Of course, Rather still claims that the Bush National Guard documents (which were a fraud) haven't been proven to be forgeries, so his hoary pronouncements about his independence and his crusading news style all dovetail nicely into his pompous character.
Read the article. 'Tis a hoot.
Sunday, July 09, 2006
Since I Happen To Be Talking About Drummers....
....I figured I'd share with you a funny anecdote.
My friend Evan, a great drummer in his own right, was living in Virginia for a time. He had several drum students. One of whom he had was a 13 yr. old kid who, though he was technically proficient and diligent in his drum studies, hit the drums "like a p**ssy". (His words.) Communicating this issue to me over the phone, I asked Evan if this kid eats red meat. He said he didn't know (how would he?), but he'd ask. I told him he could probably fix this problem with his student if he got him on a red meat diet. (Better to amp up male aggression, didn't you know?) Evan mentioned to this kid's father that he should get his kid to eat more red meat, as it would help him with his drumming.
Week or two later, the kid comes in for his lesson. He's beating the crap out of the drums. The difference in attack is palpable. Evan asks the kid what he's doing differently. The kid says nothing. Evan asks him about his diet. The kid says his father is making him eat steak and hamburger every night, and he doesn't understand why.
Still the best piece of advice I ever gave someone.
My friend Evan, a great drummer in his own right, was living in Virginia for a time. He had several drum students. One of whom he had was a 13 yr. old kid who, though he was technically proficient and diligent in his drum studies, hit the drums "like a p**ssy". (His words.) Communicating this issue to me over the phone, I asked Evan if this kid eats red meat. He said he didn't know (how would he?), but he'd ask. I told him he could probably fix this problem with his student if he got him on a red meat diet. (Better to amp up male aggression, didn't you know?) Evan mentioned to this kid's father that he should get his kid to eat more red meat, as it would help him with his drumming.
Week or two later, the kid comes in for his lesson. He's beating the crap out of the drums. The difference in attack is palpable. Evan asks the kid what he's doing differently. The kid says nothing. Evan asks him about his diet. The kid says his father is making him eat steak and hamburger every night, and he doesn't understand why.
Still the best piece of advice I ever gave someone.
Drummers
I attended a house party last night with a friend in Red Hook, Brooklyn. Featured at this party were two bands, one of whom I arrived too late to have seen (I heard they were awful). But I did catch the second band. Not terribly compelling, this second band did have some sense of melody and an ever-so-slight trace of imagination. But one thing they didn't have was a good drummer. The guy they had playing was awful. Later in the night I spoke to a fellow who was involved with the aforementioned band at one point, but no longer was. He said that he was actually a drummer himself, but was playing keyboards with them (for some reason). When their original drummer left, he wanted to switch to his natural instrument, but the band said they wanted to bring in their friend instead. Their friend, it so happens, had no training on the drums at all. As of last night, he'd only been playing for six months. Supposedly, he'd made "great progress" over the last six months. Not enough for me. He was awful in every way: behind the beat, unimaginitve, no feel. He was excrutiating to listen to.
I make no bones about the fact that I'm a music snob. I come from the school of thought that you should have some semblance of self-awareness regarding your capabilities before you go out in public and perform. I'm not condemning in totality the punk rock movement of the late 70's, but it did do something thoroughly detrimental to the musical ethos that said that you should master your instrument before venturing out into performance. The punk rock philosophy was essentially that the better you are, the more disgusting you are. The original bass player of the Sex Pistols, Glen Matlock, got himself kicked out of the band (despite being the author of all of their songs) because he was "too good....he knew all these fancy chords and he liked the Beatles". The long-term damage this attitude has done to live music is palpable, and it was on display last night at this party. I didn't need to talk to the band members in question to know that they probably had the attitude that their "art" was more important than having proficiency on their instruments. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have brought their "friend" into the band to play drums. They would've gotten themselves a competent player instead.
A few years back it dawned on me that almost every band that I love has a highly competent, imaginitive drummer as their rhythmic lynchpin: The Who, The Police, Rush, Yes (both drummers, though I like Bruford better), ELP, Genesis, Kansas, to name a few. Even Ringo Starr of The Beatles, no Buddy Rich he, had tremendous imagination. (Listen to "Ticket to Ride" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" for examples of this; those beats are COOL, imaginitive, and highly original.) Another example of this would be the Smashing Pumpkins, who's drummer (Jimmy Chamberlain) was a steamroller of a drummer: technically proficient, energetic, strong, if not terribly innovative.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but it seems as if the day of the kick-ass drummer is over, or at least dormant. Between drum machines and this punk attitude pervading up-and-coming bands, I'm not hearing alot out there, either in the clubs or on the radio.
Where have you gone, Keith Moon? The rock and roll nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
I make no bones about the fact that I'm a music snob. I come from the school of thought that you should have some semblance of self-awareness regarding your capabilities before you go out in public and perform. I'm not condemning in totality the punk rock movement of the late 70's, but it did do something thoroughly detrimental to the musical ethos that said that you should master your instrument before venturing out into performance. The punk rock philosophy was essentially that the better you are, the more disgusting you are. The original bass player of the Sex Pistols, Glen Matlock, got himself kicked out of the band (despite being the author of all of their songs) because he was "too good....he knew all these fancy chords and he liked the Beatles". The long-term damage this attitude has done to live music is palpable, and it was on display last night at this party. I didn't need to talk to the band members in question to know that they probably had the attitude that their "art" was more important than having proficiency on their instruments. If they didn't think that, they wouldn't have brought their "friend" into the band to play drums. They would've gotten themselves a competent player instead.
A few years back it dawned on me that almost every band that I love has a highly competent, imaginitive drummer as their rhythmic lynchpin: The Who, The Police, Rush, Yes (both drummers, though I like Bruford better), ELP, Genesis, Kansas, to name a few. Even Ringo Starr of The Beatles, no Buddy Rich he, had tremendous imagination. (Listen to "Ticket to Ride" or "Tomorrow Never Knows" for examples of this; those beats are COOL, imaginitive, and highly original.) Another example of this would be the Smashing Pumpkins, who's drummer (Jimmy Chamberlain) was a steamroller of a drummer: technically proficient, energetic, strong, if not terribly innovative.
I hope I'm wrong about this, but it seems as if the day of the kick-ass drummer is over, or at least dormant. Between drum machines and this punk attitude pervading up-and-coming bands, I'm not hearing alot out there, either in the clubs or on the radio.
Where have you gone, Keith Moon? The rock and roll nation turns its lonely eyes to you....
Proof (Yet Again) That Supply-Side Economics Works
The New York Times must've caused themselves a great deal of agita going to print with this headline:
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
Ouch! You mean you can actually take in more money by having lower taxes than higher ones?!? What a novel concept! Well....not to those of us who know the hows and whys of supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down economics"). Let me explain to those of you who aren't quite clear how this works:
Businessman A owns a Subchapter S corporation (which means that all the company's profits are counted as his personal, direct income) and makes $500,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax brackets, he got taxed federally at 39.5%, not counting state and local taxes. Then, in 2001, his income tax is lowered from 39.5% to 35%, meaning he gets to keep more of his income...$22,500 more, to be exact. What is businessman A going to do with this money, you ask? Well, he could do a few things. He could a.) invest it back into his company, meaning he'd have buy some more stuff, which creates revenues for another company that he does business with, since he's buying their merchandise, b.) hire a new employee, which would create more tax revenues for the federal government, since that employee will get taxed as well, c.) invest it personally, either into a CD (which creates taxable interest), or even a mutual fund (which also creates capital gains and interest income, all of which are taxed). The only place that Businessman A could put the money where it WOULDN'T create more tax revenues for the government is in a safe-deposit box or under his mattress.
That, my friends, is supply-side economics in a nutshell. The more money you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more somebody gets taxed.
However, the geniuses at the Times (note the underlying sarcasm) seemed genuinely amazed that such a concept actually works. To wit:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."
"Unexpected"? Not to this guy.
Someone should force Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and their resident "economist" Paul Krugman to read Milton Friedman, because obviously, they still don't have even the slightest clue as to how economics work, particularly supply-side, Laffer Curve economics.
Duh.
Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit
Ouch! You mean you can actually take in more money by having lower taxes than higher ones?!? What a novel concept! Well....not to those of us who know the hows and whys of supply-side economics (also known as "trickle down economics"). Let me explain to those of you who aren't quite clear how this works:
Businessman A owns a Subchapter S corporation (which means that all the company's profits are counted as his personal, direct income) and makes $500,000 a year. Under the Clinton tax brackets, he got taxed federally at 39.5%, not counting state and local taxes. Then, in 2001, his income tax is lowered from 39.5% to 35%, meaning he gets to keep more of his income...$22,500 more, to be exact. What is businessman A going to do with this money, you ask? Well, he could do a few things. He could a.) invest it back into his company, meaning he'd have buy some more stuff, which creates revenues for another company that he does business with, since he's buying their merchandise, b.) hire a new employee, which would create more tax revenues for the federal government, since that employee will get taxed as well, c.) invest it personally, either into a CD (which creates taxable interest), or even a mutual fund (which also creates capital gains and interest income, all of which are taxed). The only place that Businessman A could put the money where it WOULDN'T create more tax revenues for the government is in a safe-deposit box or under his mattress.
That, my friends, is supply-side economics in a nutshell. The more money you keep, the more you spend. And the more you spend, the more somebody gets taxed.
However, the geniuses at the Times (note the underlying sarcasm) seemed genuinely amazed that such a concept actually works. To wit:
"An unexpectedly steep rise in tax revenues from corporations and the wealthy is driving down the projected budget deficit this year, even though spending has climbed sharply because of the war in Iraq and the cost of hurricane relief."
"Unexpected"? Not to this guy.
Someone should force Arthur Sulzberger Jr., Bill Keller, and their resident "economist" Paul Krugman to read Milton Friedman, because obviously, they still don't have even the slightest clue as to how economics work, particularly supply-side, Laffer Curve economics.
Duh.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Fun Fourth of July Facts
Though the Fourth is generally regarded as the day the Declaration of Independence was ratified and signed, this is not the case. The motion for independence was ratified on July 2nd, whereas the final document was ratified on July 4th. All the necessary signatories didn't add their names to it until weeks after. John Adams, more responsible than any other colonial delegate for the ultimate vote to break away from Great Britain, wrote this in one of his letters to his wife, Abigail:
"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Thomas Jefferson's original draft was cut down and/or changed significantly by approximately 25%, according to author David McCullough. Sitting next to Benjamin Franklin on July 3 and 4 as Franklin removed or changed significant pieces of the document, Jefferson "is not known to have uttered a word in protest, or in defense of what he had written. Later he would decribe the opposition to his draft as being like 'the ceaseless action of gravity weighing upon us night and day'."
Jefferson's original draft actually blamed George III for the slave trade, which was promptly extricated for any number of reasons, among them that a.) Jefferson himself owned a plethora of slaves, b.) a large amount of the Continental Congress owned slaves, and c.) George IIII didn't start slavery, and it was silly to say that he did, particularly in so important a document. That said, the slavery issue hung over the revolutionary delegates' heads. In the end, they punted on the issue. The roots of the abolition movement can be traced to before the Declaration of Independence, but the time for abolition had not come. Eighty years later, it would.
John Adams was also intimately involved in the editorial process of the Declaration. Gone from the document, vis-a-vis Adams, were Jeffersonian flights of bathos, such as: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren...we must endeavor to forget our former love for them. We might've been a free and great people together". But the one phrase, mostly Jeffersonian, but with small touches from Adams, was this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Happy Independence Day.
"The second day of July 1776 will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations from one end of this continent to the other from this time forward forever more."
Thomas Jefferson's original draft was cut down and/or changed significantly by approximately 25%, according to author David McCullough. Sitting next to Benjamin Franklin on July 3 and 4 as Franklin removed or changed significant pieces of the document, Jefferson "is not known to have uttered a word in protest, or in defense of what he had written. Later he would decribe the opposition to his draft as being like 'the ceaseless action of gravity weighing upon us night and day'."
Jefferson's original draft actually blamed George III for the slave trade, which was promptly extricated for any number of reasons, among them that a.) Jefferson himself owned a plethora of slaves, b.) a large amount of the Continental Congress owned slaves, and c.) George IIII didn't start slavery, and it was silly to say that he did, particularly in so important a document. That said, the slavery issue hung over the revolutionary delegates' heads. In the end, they punted on the issue. The roots of the abolition movement can be traced to before the Declaration of Independence, but the time for abolition had not come. Eighty years later, it would.
John Adams was also intimately involved in the editorial process of the Declaration. Gone from the document, vis-a-vis Adams, were Jeffersonian flights of bathos, such as: "These facts have given the last stab to agonizing affection, and manly spirit bids us to renounce forever these unfeeling brethren...we must endeavor to forget our former love for them. We might've been a free and great people together". But the one phrase, mostly Jeffersonian, but with small touches from Adams, was this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
Happy Independence Day.
World Cup
I made an effort, perhaps for the first time in my life, to watch a World Cup match end-to-end. I've never been much of a soccer fan, but I figured, as I've been compelled to do by various pro-soccer advocates, to give it a chance. I did....and the same gripes that I've had about the game since I was a kid (too slow, not enough scoring chances, etc.) all came back to me. But I also came another conclusion about soccer: the utter lack of sportsmanship exhibited amongst the players. Let me explain....
Having grown up watching mostly baseball and hockey, there is a certain etiquette that goes along with winning. There's also a certain behavior that should be observed when it comes to injuries, both minor and major. Soccer has none of them. For example, whilst watching the Portugal/England match, I noticed that almost every player that went down due to a legal or illegal trip writhed in agony as if having been shot. I consequently found myself screaming at the television, "Get the f**k up, you f**king p**y!!!" after a while. (My latent crudities come to the surface whilst watching sports; I otherwise attempt to keep them in check.) In hockey, this is called "diving", and it is looked down upon with contempt. Before the wave of Europeans invaded North American hockey, this type of behavior was rare, and a "diver" was an object of derision throughout the league, even on his own team. European players, perhaps schooled in the soccer ethos predicated on making the most minor of collisions appear as abject acts of evil (with excrutiating physical agony the end result), brought this ethos into the sport. Thirty years after Swedish defenseman Borje Salming entered into the NHL as the first European player in North American professional hockey, the NHL has instituted a two-minute minor penalty for diving. This would've never had to have been implemented during the Rocket Richard/Gordie Howe era, but there you go. I can't say that all European players are guilty of this type of behavior, as there are some genuinely tough ones that follow the North American hockey ethos of playing 'til you need to go to the hospital, but unfortunately there are too many Europeans that cry over minimal contact. In soccer, that's not only not penalized, it's rewarded. Ugh.
Having grown up watching mostly baseball and hockey, there is a certain etiquette that goes along with winning. There's also a certain behavior that should be observed when it comes to injuries, both minor and major. Soccer has none of them. For example, whilst watching the Portugal/England match, I noticed that almost every player that went down due to a legal or illegal trip writhed in agony as if having been shot. I consequently found myself screaming at the television, "Get the f**k up, you f**king p**y!!!" after a while. (My latent crudities come to the surface whilst watching sports; I otherwise attempt to keep them in check.) In hockey, this is called "diving", and it is looked down upon with contempt. Before the wave of Europeans invaded North American hockey, this type of behavior was rare, and a "diver" was an object of derision throughout the league, even on his own team. European players, perhaps schooled in the soccer ethos predicated on making the most minor of collisions appear as abject acts of evil (with excrutiating physical agony the end result), brought this ethos into the sport. Thirty years after Swedish defenseman Borje Salming entered into the NHL as the first European player in North American professional hockey, the NHL has instituted a two-minute minor penalty for diving. This would've never had to have been implemented during the Rocket Richard/Gordie Howe era, but there you go. I can't say that all European players are guilty of this type of behavior, as there are some genuinely tough ones that follow the North American hockey ethos of playing 'til you need to go to the hospital, but unfortunately there are too many Europeans that cry over minimal contact. In soccer, that's not only not penalized, it's rewarded. Ugh.
Monday, July 03, 2006
Churchill On Secrecy During Wartime
"The truth is to be protected by a bodyguard of lies."
[How far we strayed, eh?]
[How far we strayed, eh?]
An Excerpt From Stephen Ambrose's "D-Day"
Ike had these leak problems, too. Difference then was that the Stateside press didn't paste it on the front page. (Think this would be the case today?):
In April [1944], Maj. Gen. Henry Miller, chief supply officer of the U.S. Ninth Air Force and a West Point classmate of Eisenhower's, went to a cocktail party at the Claridge Hotel [London, England]. He began talking freely, complaining about his difficulties in getting supplies but adding that his problems would end after D-Day, which he declared would be before June 15. When challenged on the date, he offered to take bets. General Eisenhower learned of the indiscretion the next morning and acted immediately. He ordered Miller reduced to his permanent rank of colonel and sent him back to the States-the untimate disgrace for a career soldier. Miller protested. Eisenhower insisted, and back he went.
There was another flap in May ['44] when a U.S. Navy officer got drunk at a party and revealed details of impending operations, including areas, lift, strenght, and dates....that officer too was sent back to the States.
In April [1944], Maj. Gen. Henry Miller, chief supply officer of the U.S. Ninth Air Force and a West Point classmate of Eisenhower's, went to a cocktail party at the Claridge Hotel [London, England]. He began talking freely, complaining about his difficulties in getting supplies but adding that his problems would end after D-Day, which he declared would be before June 15. When challenged on the date, he offered to take bets. General Eisenhower learned of the indiscretion the next morning and acted immediately. He ordered Miller reduced to his permanent rank of colonel and sent him back to the States-the untimate disgrace for a career soldier. Miller protested. Eisenhower insisted, and back he went.
There was another flap in May ['44] when a U.S. Navy officer got drunk at a party and revealed details of impending operations, including areas, lift, strenght, and dates....that officer too was sent back to the States.
More On The Seditious Ol' Gray Lady
I pulled this excerpt from Pajamasmedia.com. I think it speaks volumes about the utter arrogance of the mainstream media and their blithe ignorance of the damage and death they facilitate:
KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.
“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.
But such cooperation can prove problematic, as her newspaper’s former editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee, has recounted.
In 1986, after holding for weeks at government request a scoop about an N.S.A. tap on a Soviet undersea communications cable, The Post learned that the Russians knew all about it already from an N.S.A. turncoat named Ronald Pelton. NBC beat The Post on its own report.
Michelle Malkin boils down this attitude better than I could possibly. To wit:
"Nothing lays out their priorities better. The risk of them going ahead is our lives, and the risk to them for not going ahead is they may get scooped. The article clearly shows why the media should not be allowed to decide what classified programs to expose. It is an attempt to show how seriously they take their job. But what is shows me is how deadly their arrogant mistakes can be to others. The media now has a self documented history of getting people killed by exposing details they did not understand, or appreciate the implications surrounding these details. Their ignorance and arrogance is a deadly combination, as they have now reported in the NY Times."
KATHARINE GRAHAM, the publisher of The Washington Post who died in 2001, backed her editors through tense battles during the Watergate era. But in a 1986 speech, she warned that the media sometimes made “tragic” mistakes.
Her example was the disclosure, after the bombing of the American embassy in Beirut in 1983, that American intelligence was reading coded radio traffic between terrorist plotters in Syria and their overseers in Iran. The communications stopped, and five months later they struck again, destroying the Marine barracks in Beirut and killing 241 Americans.
“This kind of result, albeit unintentional, points up the necessity for full cooperation wherever possible between the media and the authorities,” Ms. Graham said.
But such cooperation can prove problematic, as her newspaper’s former editor, Benjamin C. Bradlee, has recounted.
In 1986, after holding for weeks at government request a scoop about an N.S.A. tap on a Soviet undersea communications cable, The Post learned that the Russians knew all about it already from an N.S.A. turncoat named Ronald Pelton. NBC beat The Post on its own report.
Michelle Malkin boils down this attitude better than I could possibly. To wit:
"Nothing lays out their priorities better. The risk of them going ahead is our lives, and the risk to them for not going ahead is they may get scooped. The article clearly shows why the media should not be allowed to decide what classified programs to expose. It is an attempt to show how seriously they take their job. But what is shows me is how deadly their arrogant mistakes can be to others. The media now has a self documented history of getting people killed by exposing details they did not understand, or appreciate the implications surrounding these details. Their ignorance and arrogance is a deadly combination, as they have now reported in the NY Times."
Sunday, July 02, 2006
The Battle of the Somme, 1916
Yesterday marked the 90th anniversary of the beginning of the Battle of the Somme, which was a five-month bloody slog during the First World War that ended with no clear victor. Not a big deal in the States (we hadn't entered WWI yet), it is one of the most solemn occasions in Great Britain, where on the first day alone (July 1, 1916), the British took 60,000 casualties, with 20,000 killed-in-action. By the end of the five month battle, the British, encompassing Aussies, New Zealanders, Canadians, Newfoundlanders, South Africans, as well as English, Scots, Welsh, and Irish, lost a total of 400,000 men, 100,000 of which were KIA. The French lost 200,000, with 50,000 KIA. The Germans lost anywhere from 450,ooo to 600,000, with 160,000 KIA.
It is a source of lasting annoyance to me that the Europeans remain soft in their views regarding the impending takeover of the Islamists on their continent. But when one puts it into context, any time the Europeans used war as an instrument of change in the 20th century, it has had disasterous consequences. Sadly, the one time when they're needed to stand up for Western Civilization, they can't muster the courage anymore. If one needs to have some idea why, look up the story of the Somme.
It is a source of lasting annoyance to me that the Europeans remain soft in their views regarding the impending takeover of the Islamists on their continent. But when one puts it into context, any time the Europeans used war as an instrument of change in the 20th century, it has had disasterous consequences. Sadly, the one time when they're needed to stand up for Western Civilization, they can't muster the courage anymore. If one needs to have some idea why, look up the story of the Somme.
Miscellany 7/2/06
Work has been the source of much fatigue, thus the paucity of entries. That said, I've had my eyes fixated on the prevalent stories of the day, none of which make me particularly amused. So....here's my take on all, or at least, most of 'em.
- So the liberals on the Supreme Court think that al Qaeda is now a signatory on the Geneva Conventions, even though they're not a sovereign nation, have no uniform/rank/serial number, and adhere to none of the statutes....yet the United States has to treat them as such. Mark Steyn delves into this ridiculousness here. About the only saving grace regarding this ruling is that it leaves open the prospect that the president can force through legislation giving himself the already existing right to put these rabid animals through the military tribunal process. Make no mistake, folks. The left want this country to lose in every way, on every level.
- The New York Times once again can't stop their preternatural tendency towards treason, this time revealing that terrorist international bank transactions are being monitored by a central hub in Belgium called SWIFT. Despite the fact that the Times itself has said that the program is legal, editor Bill Keller wrote that the secrecy of the program was outweighed by the public's "right to know". Keller's default position since this outrage has been that, "...hundreds, if not thousands, of people know about this," and thus publishing what was already widely known was no big deal. Well, if that's the case, why did James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, the authors of the SWIFT story, say the "[SWIFT program] was a closely held secret"? Sounds like they haven't gotten their stories straight. Look....I work in finance. I know that transactions are closely monitored, and were monitored even before 9/11. I clearly remember attending a lecture by a federal district attorney where she said flat out that she would prosecute any one of us if it was proven that we had facilited an act of money laundering, even if unknowingly. The problem with the Times piece, then, is that it gave away the particulars of the SWIFT system and how it is used. Everyone might've known that banking transactions were monitored....they just didn't know HOW. In 1944, everyone knew that there would be an invasion of the Western Europe by the Allies, they just didn't know where or when. Giving up those particulars wouldn't be defensible by claiming that everyone knew it was coming. Axis Sally and Tokyo Rose were convicted for less than what the Times is clearly guilty of.
- Boy, the Finnish sure make awful music. But their choreography is tops. See here.
- There's a new documentary out called "Who Killed the Electric Car?" Of course, the guilty parties are big oil, Republicans, and various other greedy, unethical capitalists. One problem that the electric car had that the documentarians didn't get into was that it takes four hours to recharge the battery per 100 miles driven. That's problematic, no? Read all about the real reason the electric car got "killed" here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)