Sunday, August 31, 2003
SAME WAR, SAME PEOPLE, ONLY IN A DIFFERENT PLACE
Most of the "anti-war" people who opposed the Iraq campaign -- because "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism" -- similarly disapproved of the Afghan campaign, even though the Afghan government (to use the expression very loosely) of the time was overtly involved in the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
The AP reports:
Two American soldiers were killed Sunday in a firefight with suspected Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan, while hundreds of Taliban poured into remote southern mountains to join a week-long battle with Afghan forces and their U.S. allies. . .
Yet just as this and this demonstrate -- again -- that they are indeed just the "western" and "eastern" theaters of the same, overall conflict. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 31, 2003
Most of the "anti-war" people who opposed the Iraq campaign -- because "Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism" -- similarly disapproved of the Afghan campaign, even though the Afghan government (to use the expression very loosely) of the time was overtly involved in the attacks on the U.S. on September 11, 2001.
The AP reports:
Two American soldiers were killed Sunday in a firefight with suspected Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan, while hundreds of Taliban poured into remote southern mountains to join a week-long battle with Afghan forces and their U.S. allies. . .
Yet just as this and this demonstrate -- again -- that they are indeed just the "western" and "eastern" theaters of the same, overall conflict. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 31, 2003
HE DID IT AGAIN
Last weekend, I cut my back on the kitchen hatch door.
Well, Yours truly managed to top that yesterday.
Carrying a ladder downstairs, I managed to miss the last step or two (painting the new house, still), and badly sprained my left ankle. I did the ice thing, and took standard painkillers on Saturday evening. This morning, though, the ankle started swelling again, and it was very tender. Deciding to take no chance, we went to A & E at a hospital nearby -- and we discovered pleasantly that the best time to go to emergency is probably Sunday mornings at around 9 AM. I've been in doctor's offices that were busier. I was checked in, and half an hour or so later I got to see the nurse. She examined my ankle and told me that it was indeed just a bad sprain. No ligament damage.
That was a close one.
This new house may end up being the death of me! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 31, 2003
Last weekend, I cut my back on the kitchen hatch door.
Well, Yours truly managed to top that yesterday.
Carrying a ladder downstairs, I managed to miss the last step or two (painting the new house, still), and badly sprained my left ankle. I did the ice thing, and took standard painkillers on Saturday evening. This morning, though, the ankle started swelling again, and it was very tender. Deciding to take no chance, we went to A & E at a hospital nearby -- and we discovered pleasantly that the best time to go to emergency is probably Sunday mornings at around 9 AM. I've been in doctor's offices that were busier. I was checked in, and half an hour or so later I got to see the nurse. She examined my ankle and told me that it was indeed just a bad sprain. No ligament damage.
That was a close one.
This new house may end up being the death of me! ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 31, 2003
Saturday, August 30, 2003
JUST WORTH REFLECTING UPON. . .
General Abizaid.
General Sanchez.
It is a wonderful fact that as Americans we are indeed now more than ever before being judged "by what we do, not by who our father was."
Magnificent. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 30, 2003
General Abizaid.
General Sanchez.
It is a wonderful fact that as Americans we are indeed now more than ever before being judged "by what we do, not by who our father was."
Magnificent. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 30, 2003
AN HORRIFIC FRIDAY
The bombing in Najaf outside a particularly holy mosque does bring forth this thought: Remember when it seemed half the world wanted the U.S. to "pause" the entire Afghan battle (as if the fighting were in the 18th century and the opposing generals needed a few days off) "out of respect" for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan?
That despite the reality that when it came to Afghan mosques themselves, U.S. and coalition forces treated them with great respect, and considered them decidedly off limits. And now those very same "rules of engagement" are being followed by U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq.
Yet isn't it fascinating that some Muslims don't consider mosques (and on a Friday, no less) as being outside of battle bounds, and instead consider them great places to store weapons, and, when they deem fit, even to attempt to blow up?
However, it is the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan and Iraq (and when there were larger numbers of troops there, in Saudi Arabia) who were and are always supposedly being "insensitive" to Islam. . .
What a laugh.
Muslims clearly have to straighten out Muslims, when it comes to certain behaviors.
"Infidels" certainly can't do it. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 30, 2003
The bombing in Najaf outside a particularly holy mosque does bring forth this thought: Remember when it seemed half the world wanted the U.S. to "pause" the entire Afghan battle (as if the fighting were in the 18th century and the opposing generals needed a few days off) "out of respect" for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan?
That despite the reality that when it came to Afghan mosques themselves, U.S. and coalition forces treated them with great respect, and considered them decidedly off limits. And now those very same "rules of engagement" are being followed by U.S. and coalition troops in Iraq.
Yet isn't it fascinating that some Muslims don't consider mosques (and on a Friday, no less) as being outside of battle bounds, and instead consider them great places to store weapons, and, when they deem fit, even to attempt to blow up?
However, it is the U.S. and its allies in Afghanistan and Iraq (and when there were larger numbers of troops there, in Saudi Arabia) who were and are always supposedly being "insensitive" to Islam. . .
What a laugh.
Muslims clearly have to straighten out Muslims, when it comes to certain behaviors.
"Infidels" certainly can't do it. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 30, 2003
Friday, August 29, 2003
THE BBC HAD BETTER NOT MISUNDERSTAND CAMPBELL'S DEPARTURE
The Beeb "reports":
Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell is to step down, it has been announced.
Mr Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications and strategy, said his family had paid a heavy price for the "real and intense" pressures of his job and it was "time to move on and do other things".
He will be succeeded by David Hill, Labour's communications chief in the 1997 general election and former press aide to ex-Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley.
A date for Mr Campbell's departure has not been set, though he said he would leave Downing Street - along with partner Fiona Millar, who works for Cherie Blair - in "a few weeks".
Downing Street said Mr Hill would operate within a new communications structure, details of which will be announced next week.
Mr Campbell said his resignation was not related to the Hutton inquiry into the death of government weapons expert Dr David Kelly, saying he had agreed in April with Mr Blair that he would leave his post this year.
He told the BBC he wanted "to get a life back for me and my family". . .
Most of "PM" (the hour long 5 PM news round-up on Radio 4) seemed to consist of Andrew Marr pontificating on the significance of Campbell having been a run-of-the-mill "Fleet Street" editor who for most of the past decade has somehow managed to be Tony Blair's communications point man.
Jealous, Andrew?
Many in the media actually believe that Campbell was either the third (after Gordon Brown), or even the second most powerful person in Britain! That was nonsense. Campbell was actually much closer to being Blair's version of Ari Fleischer on steroids.
On "PM", Conservative spokesperson Theresa May purported to be shocked that Blair had broken with tradition and decided to have Campbell, Blair's appointee (and not a civil servant, as press officials had always been before Campbell), serve as the prime minister's communications director.
And listeners must have lost count of the number of times Marr, May and all the other talking heads used some form of the word "spin" to define Campbell.
All the rancor and carryings on was just further proof that Campbell's presence at Blair's side forever drove the likes of May and Marr crazy.
Campbell as Blair's communications chief was not unlike Joe Kennedy as F.D.R.'s choice to head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). F.D.R. put the very man who knew every Wall Street trick in the book in charge of catching trading thieves. As a former "Fleet Street" editor for the Mirror, Campbell knew what British journalists -- even those for "prestigious" media, such as the BBC -- were all about. Campbell knew their methods by heart. And Tony Blair knew that in Campbell he had someone who knew how best to handle the emerging "24-7" news cycle information beasties.
So Campbell wasn't afraid of the BBC. On Iraq, Campbell knew that whatever the ins and outs of the ongoing WMD search in Iraq -- and every major intelligence agency (not just Britain's and America's) on the planet believed Iraq had them -- when it came to his narrower arena of expertise (the media), it was the BBC which had done the "sexing up."
It was the BBC's Andrew Gilligan who noted in the now infamous "sexing up" report that the then unnamed Dr Kelly helped write the dossier (Kelly didn't), and that the then unnamed Dr Kelly was a prominent official (Kelly wasn't). So with the game in his hands, Campbell went right back at the BBC, demanding satisfaction from the BBC brass. In another century, Campbell might even have challenged Gilligan to a meeting on the field of honor.
Campbell must have known full well that the Beeb would never admit what he wanted admitted in the form which he demanded it. But in the end, that didn't really matter. The BBC stumbled right into what might be termed Campbell's sucker punch: the BBC ended up having to defend its outrageous assertions anyway. Before long Andrew Gilligan's name became well-known to American news viewers, and millions of others worldwide. And in the end Andrew Gilligan and not Tony Blair ended up on the hottest seat. Campbell had done his job well -- yet again.
For Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell was worth his weight in media-savvy gold.
And the BBC didn't chase Campbell out of town. He left when he wanted to, and left on his own terms. And those facts also drive the BBC bonkers.
They never got him.
Although he probably didn't mean for it to sound this way, when asked today about whether he was the "ruthless hatchet man" of his reputation, Campbell responded that he never considered himself "ruthless."
Beautiful. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
The Beeb "reports":
Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell is to step down, it has been announced.
Mr Campbell, Tony Blair's director of communications and strategy, said his family had paid a heavy price for the "real and intense" pressures of his job and it was "time to move on and do other things".
He will be succeeded by David Hill, Labour's communications chief in the 1997 general election and former press aide to ex-Labour deputy leader Roy Hattersley.
A date for Mr Campbell's departure has not been set, though he said he would leave Downing Street - along with partner Fiona Millar, who works for Cherie Blair - in "a few weeks".
Downing Street said Mr Hill would operate within a new communications structure, details of which will be announced next week.
Mr Campbell said his resignation was not related to the Hutton inquiry into the death of government weapons expert Dr David Kelly, saying he had agreed in April with Mr Blair that he would leave his post this year.
He told the BBC he wanted "to get a life back for me and my family". . .
Most of "PM" (the hour long 5 PM news round-up on Radio 4) seemed to consist of Andrew Marr pontificating on the significance of Campbell having been a run-of-the-mill "Fleet Street" editor who for most of the past decade has somehow managed to be Tony Blair's communications point man.
Jealous, Andrew?
Many in the media actually believe that Campbell was either the third (after Gordon Brown), or even the second most powerful person in Britain! That was nonsense. Campbell was actually much closer to being Blair's version of Ari Fleischer on steroids.
On "PM", Conservative spokesperson Theresa May purported to be shocked that Blair had broken with tradition and decided to have Campbell, Blair's appointee (and not a civil servant, as press officials had always been before Campbell), serve as the prime minister's communications director.
And listeners must have lost count of the number of times Marr, May and all the other talking heads used some form of the word "spin" to define Campbell.
All the rancor and carryings on was just further proof that Campbell's presence at Blair's side forever drove the likes of May and Marr crazy.
Campbell as Blair's communications chief was not unlike Joe Kennedy as F.D.R.'s choice to head of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). F.D.R. put the very man who knew every Wall Street trick in the book in charge of catching trading thieves. As a former "Fleet Street" editor for the Mirror, Campbell knew what British journalists -- even those for "prestigious" media, such as the BBC -- were all about. Campbell knew their methods by heart. And Tony Blair knew that in Campbell he had someone who knew how best to handle the emerging "24-7" news cycle information beasties.
So Campbell wasn't afraid of the BBC. On Iraq, Campbell knew that whatever the ins and outs of the ongoing WMD search in Iraq -- and every major intelligence agency (not just Britain's and America's) on the planet believed Iraq had them -- when it came to his narrower arena of expertise (the media), it was the BBC which had done the "sexing up."
It was the BBC's Andrew Gilligan who noted in the now infamous "sexing up" report that the then unnamed Dr Kelly helped write the dossier (Kelly didn't), and that the then unnamed Dr Kelly was a prominent official (Kelly wasn't). So with the game in his hands, Campbell went right back at the BBC, demanding satisfaction from the BBC brass. In another century, Campbell might even have challenged Gilligan to a meeting on the field of honor.
Campbell must have known full well that the Beeb would never admit what he wanted admitted in the form which he demanded it. But in the end, that didn't really matter. The BBC stumbled right into what might be termed Campbell's sucker punch: the BBC ended up having to defend its outrageous assertions anyway. Before long Andrew Gilligan's name became well-known to American news viewers, and millions of others worldwide. And in the end Andrew Gilligan and not Tony Blair ended up on the hottest seat. Campbell had done his job well -- yet again.
For Tony Blair, Alastair Campbell was worth his weight in media-savvy gold.
And the BBC didn't chase Campbell out of town. He left when he wanted to, and left on his own terms. And those facts also drive the BBC bonkers.
They never got him.
Although he probably didn't mean for it to sound this way, when asked today about whether he was the "ruthless hatchet man" of his reputation, Campbell responded that he never considered himself "ruthless."
Beautiful. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
ISRAEL WILL STRIKE IN STRENGTH
The New York Post reports that a "moment of truth" is about to arrive in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"If the Palestinians do not take steps against the hard-core terror organizations in the Gaza Strip, Israel will have to do it," said Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, commander of Israel's armed forces. . .
. . . We will have to act with all means at our disposal to prevent these acts in the future," said Zalman Shoval, an Israeli government spokesman. . .
So get ready. In coming days we may see Israeli actions on a scale not seen in a while.
And it's about time.
How long would Americans tolerate a situation where they could not get aboard a bus to go to work, church or shopping, without fearing some maniac will step aboard and blow himself up?
Not long.
So, why do we ask Israelis to "act with restraint" when Americans wouldn't?
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
The New York Post reports that a "moment of truth" is about to arrive in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
"If the Palestinians do not take steps against the hard-core terror organizations in the Gaza Strip, Israel will have to do it," said Lt. Gen. Moshe Ya'alon, commander of Israel's armed forces. . .
. . . We will have to act with all means at our disposal to prevent these acts in the future," said Zalman Shoval, an Israeli government spokesman. . .
So get ready. In coming days we may see Israeli actions on a scale not seen in a while.
And it's about time.
How long would Americans tolerate a situation where they could not get aboard a bus to go to work, church or shopping, without fearing some maniac will step aboard and blow himself up?
Not long.
So, why do we ask Israelis to "act with restraint" when Americans wouldn't?
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
IS THIS A SURPRISE?
The Washington Times reports:
Members of the U.N. Security Council reacted cooly yesterday to the Bush administration's willingness to accept a wider U.N. role in Iraq, with France saying that only a genuine power-sharing arrangement would be acceptable.
"The eventual [security] arrangements cannot just be the enlargement or adjustment of the current occupation forces," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said.
"We have to install a real international force under a mandate of the United Nations Security Council," Mr. de Villepin told the annual meeting of French ambassadors in Paris. . .
Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News's "Special Report with Brit Hume" on Wednesday that the U.S. essentially ought to be blunt to the U.N. -- support the U.S. on Iraq's reconstruction, because if the U.N. doesn't then the U.S. will have to withdraw all its troops from Bosnia.
Interesting idea. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
The Washington Times reports:
Members of the U.N. Security Council reacted cooly yesterday to the Bush administration's willingness to accept a wider U.N. role in Iraq, with France saying that only a genuine power-sharing arrangement would be acceptable.
"The eventual [security] arrangements cannot just be the enlargement or adjustment of the current occupation forces," French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said.
"We have to install a real international force under a mandate of the United Nations Security Council," Mr. de Villepin told the annual meeting of French ambassadors in Paris. . .
Charles Krauthammer said on FOX News's "Special Report with Brit Hume" on Wednesday that the U.S. essentially ought to be blunt to the U.N. -- support the U.S. on Iraq's reconstruction, because if the U.N. doesn't then the U.S. will have to withdraw all its troops from Bosnia.
Interesting idea. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 29, 2003
Thursday, August 28, 2003
HAPPY ANNIVERSARY!
4 years ago today, my wife and I got married.
I love her even more now. And she keeps telling me she loves me even more! (People who said that sort of thing made me ill -- until I became one of them.)
See, everyone: I can't be all that bad! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 28, 2003
4 years ago today, my wife and I got married.
I love her even more now. And she keeps telling me she loves me even more! (People who said that sort of thing made me ill -- until I became one of them.)
See, everyone: I can't be all that bad! ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 28, 2003
BLAIR HITS BACK
The BBC tops all previous "reporting" on itself with this "report" on Tony Blair's appearance before the Hutton inquiry:
Tony Blair has told the Hutton inquiry he would have been forced to resign if the claims about the government "sexing up" its Iraq dossier had been true. . .
Just bear in mind that the "sexing up" expression was originally the BBC's -- Andrew Gilligan's, specifically -- and not Tony Blair's. And considering what has emerged about Gilligan's "reporting" techniques, the "sexing up" might very well be said to be the BBC's.
And in a remarkable parade of cluelessness, the BBC "reports" as well:
In other developments:
Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith accused the prime minister of "underhand" and "shameful" treatment of Dr Kelly
Not that the BBC has any stake in reporting such, of course.
That aside, when Duncan Smith makes such comments one doesn't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for him. He and his party supported the war. (In many ways, they were even more hawkish than the Blair government itself.) Yet Smith and his sorry excuse for an "official" opposition have been trying desperately to gain political points somehow over the "failure" or the "lying" surrounding Tony's war. What a pathetic group.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said trust in the prime minister had been undermined and he questioned whether, "knowing what we know now", MPs would vote for war with Iraq
So, let's be blunt: Charles Kennedy would prefer that Saddam Hussein were still running Iraq, still in charge of one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, still involved in heaven knows what sort of goings on, all because Dr Kelly apparently couldn't take the heat when someone in Blair's government may have decided to point him out as the one who spoke to the BBC. And Kennedy aspires to be prime minister?
BBC chairman of governors Gavyn Davies defended the corporation's right to broadcast the claim that the Iraq weapons dossier was "sexed up"
Gavyn Davies is not a reporter. Nor is he is an opposition politician. He is running a tax-supported, broadcasting service. Yes, the BBC was of course within its rights to use the phrase "sexed up." But it is purely the BBC's opinion -- or was it the opinion of the late Dr Kelly? or was/is it the opinion of a BBC employee (Andrew Gilligan)? -- that it was.
Inescapable is this: in making such a charge -- essentially labelling Blair and his government liars -- Gilligan and and the BBC fully deserved to face a reasoned response. And first Alastair Campbell, and now Blair, have given them just such responses.
How the BBC hates being questioned.
The BBC can dish it out, but the BBC can't take it.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 28, 2003
The BBC tops all previous "reporting" on itself with this "report" on Tony Blair's appearance before the Hutton inquiry:
Tony Blair has told the Hutton inquiry he would have been forced to resign if the claims about the government "sexing up" its Iraq dossier had been true. . .
Just bear in mind that the "sexing up" expression was originally the BBC's -- Andrew Gilligan's, specifically -- and not Tony Blair's. And considering what has emerged about Gilligan's "reporting" techniques, the "sexing up" might very well be said to be the BBC's.
And in a remarkable parade of cluelessness, the BBC "reports" as well:
In other developments:
Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith accused the prime minister of "underhand" and "shameful" treatment of Dr Kelly
Not that the BBC has any stake in reporting such, of course.
That aside, when Duncan Smith makes such comments one doesn't know whether to laugh or feel sorry for him. He and his party supported the war. (In many ways, they were even more hawkish than the Blair government itself.) Yet Smith and his sorry excuse for an "official" opposition have been trying desperately to gain political points somehow over the "failure" or the "lying" surrounding Tony's war. What a pathetic group.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said trust in the prime minister had been undermined and he questioned whether, "knowing what we know now", MPs would vote for war with Iraq
So, let's be blunt: Charles Kennedy would prefer that Saddam Hussein were still running Iraq, still in charge of one of the most oppressive regimes on earth, still involved in heaven knows what sort of goings on, all because Dr Kelly apparently couldn't take the heat when someone in Blair's government may have decided to point him out as the one who spoke to the BBC. And Kennedy aspires to be prime minister?
BBC chairman of governors Gavyn Davies defended the corporation's right to broadcast the claim that the Iraq weapons dossier was "sexed up"
Gavyn Davies is not a reporter. Nor is he is an opposition politician. He is running a tax-supported, broadcasting service. Yes, the BBC was of course within its rights to use the phrase "sexed up." But it is purely the BBC's opinion -- or was it the opinion of the late Dr Kelly? or was/is it the opinion of a BBC employee (Andrew Gilligan)? -- that it was.
Inescapable is this: in making such a charge -- essentially labelling Blair and his government liars -- Gilligan and and the BBC fully deserved to face a reasoned response. And first Alastair Campbell, and now Blair, have given them just such responses.
How the BBC hates being questioned.
The BBC can dish it out, but the BBC can't take it.
¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 28, 2003
Wednesday, August 27, 2003
A BBC STAPLE: COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES
The BBC reports:
US President George W Bush has said there will be no retreat from Iraq or from the war against terror.
Mr Bush was speaking to US military veterans as the number of American deaths since the end of major combat operations on 1 May surpassed the number killed during the war. . .
One good thing is that -- at last! -- a BBC report uses the phrase "major combat operations" correctly.
But they fudged things -- as usual. Notice the misleading point, buried within the vital phrase "the number of American deaths".
This Washington Post article on August 25 is much more accurate on the total American deaths:
With the death yesterday of another U.S. soldier in Iraq, the number of U.S. troops who have died there since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, rose to 138 -- the same number as perished during the six weeks of fighting that marked the fall of Baghdad and its immediate aftermath, according to Pentagon records.
The figure of 138 includes not only those killed by enemy fire -- called "hostile" deaths by the Pentagon -- but also those who died as a result of vehicle accidents, drowning, medical problems or other factors unrelated to combat. Yesterday's casualty, for instance, involved an unidentified soldier from the Army's 130th Engineer Brigade who suffered a "non-hostile gunshot wound" -- a phrase that can mean suicide or the accidental discharge of a weapon.
Although the 62 deaths from hostilities since May 1 remain well below the 115 that occurred in March and April, the combat death rate has been averaging one soldier about every other day since Bush flew to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
However, the Post then goes on to conjecture, BBC-style:
If that trend continues through the end of the year, those killed in action after May 1 will outnumber those killed in action before then. . .
Indeed, yes, that will be the case.
And that will mean exactly what?
Well, that the war isn't over. . .
Which, interestingly, is exactly what Bush said when he declared "major combat operations" had been completed.
So, just what's the insightful story here?
P.S. And it is also worth bearing in mind that . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 27, 2003
The BBC reports:
US President George W Bush has said there will be no retreat from Iraq or from the war against terror.
Mr Bush was speaking to US military veterans as the number of American deaths since the end of major combat operations on 1 May surpassed the number killed during the war. . .
One good thing is that -- at last! -- a BBC report uses the phrase "major combat operations" correctly.
But they fudged things -- as usual. Notice the misleading point, buried within the vital phrase "the number of American deaths".
This Washington Post article on August 25 is much more accurate on the total American deaths:
With the death yesterday of another U.S. soldier in Iraq, the number of U.S. troops who have died there since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, rose to 138 -- the same number as perished during the six weeks of fighting that marked the fall of Baghdad and its immediate aftermath, according to Pentagon records.
The figure of 138 includes not only those killed by enemy fire -- called "hostile" deaths by the Pentagon -- but also those who died as a result of vehicle accidents, drowning, medical problems or other factors unrelated to combat. Yesterday's casualty, for instance, involved an unidentified soldier from the Army's 130th Engineer Brigade who suffered a "non-hostile gunshot wound" -- a phrase that can mean suicide or the accidental discharge of a weapon.
Although the 62 deaths from hostilities since May 1 remain well below the 115 that occurred in March and April, the combat death rate has been averaging one soldier about every other day since Bush flew to the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln and announced that "major combat operations in Iraq have ended."
However, the Post then goes on to conjecture, BBC-style:
If that trend continues through the end of the year, those killed in action after May 1 will outnumber those killed in action before then. . .
Indeed, yes, that will be the case.
And that will mean exactly what?
Well, that the war isn't over. . .
Which, interestingly, is exactly what Bush said when he declared "major combat operations" had been completed.
So, just what's the insightful story here?
P.S. And it is also worth bearing in mind that . . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 27, 2003
AND STILL THEY REMAIN SHAMELESS
On what should be an inquiry into why the BBC is so badly run, but is instead apparently about how scandalized we are all supposed to be that some government official, or officials, might have dared publicly to disclose the name of another government official after that official had already mouthed off to a BBC reporter, the BBC, er, "reports":
Dr David Kelly's admission that he had spoken to a BBC reporter was an "opportunity" to crack down on leaks by Ministry of Defence staff, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has suggested.
Mr Hoon told the Hutton inquiry into Dr Kelly's death that his first reaction on hearing that Dr Kelly had come forward to admit his discussions with Andrew Gilligan was that it could lead to disciplinary proceedings.
But he said he did not think Dr Kelly should be publicly named because he wasn't convinced he was the sole source of Mr Gilligan's reports.
The defence secretary is being grilled about how Dr Kelly came to be publicly named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming a government dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up" to make the case for war. . .
And notice what the BBC calls "key questions for Hoon":
- Why did the defence secretary over-rule his top civil servant and say Dr Kelly should appear before MPs for a public grilling
- Why did his ministry publicise the fact an unnamed official had come forward to say he might be the BBC's dossier source
- Why did the MoD then decide to let journalists know they would confirm the source's identity if the correct name was put to them
- How much pressure was put on Mr Hoon by Downing Street
This is beyond silly. Overall, it is based on an assumption that is just plain wrong. For it makes not the slightest difference if Geoff Hoon had paid for a neon light to be displayed in Piccadilly Circus announcing "Yep, Kelly's the guy!" David Frum has perhaps said it best:
. . .The Blair government had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of anybody involved in the Kelly/Gilligan story. As a consultant to the Ministry of Defense, it was Dr. Kelly who owed a duty of secrecy to the government, not the other way around.
If Dr. Kelly's own mental state was too fragile to bear the glare of publicity triggered by the pseudo-scandal he himself set in motion, that is very sad. . .
Oh, and, yes, and I will once again point out that the BBC continues to report shamelessly on a story in which it is an active participant, not a third party observer. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 27, 2003
On what should be an inquiry into why the BBC is so badly run, but is instead apparently about how scandalized we are all supposed to be that some government official, or officials, might have dared publicly to disclose the name of another government official after that official had already mouthed off to a BBC reporter, the BBC, er, "reports":
Dr David Kelly's admission that he had spoken to a BBC reporter was an "opportunity" to crack down on leaks by Ministry of Defence staff, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon has suggested.
Mr Hoon told the Hutton inquiry into Dr Kelly's death that his first reaction on hearing that Dr Kelly had come forward to admit his discussions with Andrew Gilligan was that it could lead to disciplinary proceedings.
But he said he did not think Dr Kelly should be publicly named because he wasn't convinced he was the sole source of Mr Gilligan's reports.
The defence secretary is being grilled about how Dr Kelly came to be publicly named as the suspected source of a BBC report claiming a government dossier on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction was "sexed up" to make the case for war. . .
And notice what the BBC calls "key questions for Hoon":
- Why did the defence secretary over-rule his top civil servant and say Dr Kelly should appear before MPs for a public grilling
- Why did his ministry publicise the fact an unnamed official had come forward to say he might be the BBC's dossier source
- Why did the MoD then decide to let journalists know they would confirm the source's identity if the correct name was put to them
- How much pressure was put on Mr Hoon by Downing Street
This is beyond silly. Overall, it is based on an assumption that is just plain wrong. For it makes not the slightest difference if Geoff Hoon had paid for a neon light to be displayed in Piccadilly Circus announcing "Yep, Kelly's the guy!" David Frum has perhaps said it best:
. . .The Blair government had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of anybody involved in the Kelly/Gilligan story. As a consultant to the Ministry of Defense, it was Dr. Kelly who owed a duty of secrecy to the government, not the other way around.
If Dr. Kelly's own mental state was too fragile to bear the glare of publicity triggered by the pseudo-scandal he himself set in motion, that is very sad. . .
Oh, and, yes, and I will once again point out that the BBC continues to report shamelessly on a story in which it is an active participant, not a third party observer. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 27, 2003
Tuesday, August 26, 2003
THAT TIRED!
Re: previous post, last line:
. . . Almost too tried to blog!
Yep, that tired -- that I couldn't even spell "tired" correctly!
Night all. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Re: previous post, last line:
. . . Almost too tried to blog!
Yep, that tired -- that I couldn't even spell "tired" correctly!
Night all. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 26, 2003
WHEW. . .
After a long weekend in our new house of painting, fixing up and in general hurting myself -- I managed even to cut my back nicely on our kitchen hatch door, when I forgot it was open, stood up and caught myself on the door edge, as I finished painting a part of wall just below it -- I've had it for the moment.
See what dangers await us, "anti-congestion" lords, even IN our home!
The father-in-law is coming 'round for dinner later.
And, frankly, I'm just dead tired.
. . . Almost too tried even to blog! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 26, 2003
After a long weekend in our new house of painting, fixing up and in general hurting myself -- I managed even to cut my back nicely on our kitchen hatch door, when I forgot it was open, stood up and caught myself on the door edge, as I finished painting a part of wall just below it -- I've had it for the moment.
See what dangers await us, "anti-congestion" lords, even IN our home!
The father-in-law is coming 'round for dinner later.
And, frankly, I'm just dead tired.
. . . Almost too tried even to blog! ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 26, 2003
Monday, August 25, 2003
YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE
This August bank holiday weekend (today is a holiday in most of the U.K.), there have been major delays because of repairs to major rail lines that head northeast, northwest and west from London. (Towards the southwest is about the only direction that is not impacted.) Naturally, the roads have been jammed, too; many people who might have taken a train someplace have opted to jump into their cars.
One suggestion I heard made was that people should actually stay home, and see what delights England has to offer right in one's own neighborhood.
So, that's the solution: the return to feudalism.
Don't laugh. As Britainexpress.com tells us about Feudalism:
Feudalism in practice meant that the country was not governed by the king but by individual lords, or barons, who administered their own estates, dispensed their own justice, minted their own money, levied taxes and tolls, and demanded military service from vassals. Usually the lords could field greater armies than the king. In theory the king was the chief feudal lord, but in reality the individual lords were supreme in their own territory. Many kings were little more than figurehead rulers.
Increasingly, it is made difficult to get there, or we are simply taxed in attempts to prevent us from getting there -- wherever there happens to be.
Most drastically, supposedly in the name of appeasing the great god "no congestion", people in central London are being made to pay direct tolls on ALL public roads. In a bald-faced assault on the ideal of modern, liberal society, the "Congestion Charge" web site has the nerve to state that:
Congestion charging is a way of ensuring that those using valuable and congested road space make a financial contribution.
That despite the fact that taxes have already paid for those common roads, and taxes continue to maintain them.
And of course plans are afoot eventually to expand the "congestion zone" to include nearly all of London.
And of course other cities have suddenly noticed their own "congestion" problems and are eyeing up London's money grab, in the hopes of justifying their own local cut of the "no congestion" pie.
It's all much like the tolls of old, as at medieval city gates.
Who needs modernity anyway.
But why stop at car users? Why not just implant a micro chip into the head of every person, so everyone pays a "societal congestion" fee the very instant every person steps out of a front door into the public streets each day? After all, just as on the roads, every one of us who ventures into public is -- in the words of the "no congestion" lords -- "using valuable and congested space", so one would think every single person also should "make a financial contribution" to the costs of policing, other emergency services, litter collection, electric lighting in public areas, and so on and so forth.
Increasingly, we are being urged and taxed to stay local, with the lords of "anti-congestion" proclaiming it is just too "congested" on trains, on buses, on roads and at airports. Essentially, we are told by those who can afford "congestion charging," etc., that too many of us "commoners" just aren't content to stay on our local manor or in our local village.
Speaking of villages, Britainexpress.com notes that the medieval version:
. . .consisted of from 10-60 families living in rough huts on dirt floors, with no chimneys or windows. Often, one end of the hut was given over to storing livestock. Furnishings were sparse; three legged stools, a trestle table, beds on the floor softened with straw or leaves. The peasant diet was mainly porridge, cheese, black bread, and a few home-grown vegetables.
Peasants had a hard life, but they did not work on Sundays or on the frequent saints' days, and they could go to nearby fairs and markets. . .
Ah, in the opinion of today's lords -- especially local mayors out to make money, "environmental activists" who wish we all lived in just such "natural" environs as those above, and national government officials too silly or thick to appreciate that they are increasingly finding themselves in the role of weak, feudal kings -- those were apparently the good ol' days. After all, there was no such thing as highway (in Britain, motorway) congestion problems, overstressed railways, airport noise, "greenhouse gases", and central city traffic jams back then.
Unfortunately, there was also not much of an economy, or a decent life for the mass of the people back then either. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 25, 2003
This August bank holiday weekend (today is a holiday in most of the U.K.), there have been major delays because of repairs to major rail lines that head northeast, northwest and west from London. (Towards the southwest is about the only direction that is not impacted.) Naturally, the roads have been jammed, too; many people who might have taken a train someplace have opted to jump into their cars.
One suggestion I heard made was that people should actually stay home, and see what delights England has to offer right in one's own neighborhood.
So, that's the solution: the return to feudalism.
Don't laugh. As Britainexpress.com tells us about Feudalism:
Feudalism in practice meant that the country was not governed by the king but by individual lords, or barons, who administered their own estates, dispensed their own justice, minted their own money, levied taxes and tolls, and demanded military service from vassals. Usually the lords could field greater armies than the king. In theory the king was the chief feudal lord, but in reality the individual lords were supreme in their own territory. Many kings were little more than figurehead rulers.
Increasingly, it is made difficult to get there, or we are simply taxed in attempts to prevent us from getting there -- wherever there happens to be.
Most drastically, supposedly in the name of appeasing the great god "no congestion", people in central London are being made to pay direct tolls on ALL public roads. In a bald-faced assault on the ideal of modern, liberal society, the "Congestion Charge" web site has the nerve to state that:
Congestion charging is a way of ensuring that those using valuable and congested road space make a financial contribution.
That despite the fact that taxes have already paid for those common roads, and taxes continue to maintain them.
And of course plans are afoot eventually to expand the "congestion zone" to include nearly all of London.
And of course other cities have suddenly noticed their own "congestion" problems and are eyeing up London's money grab, in the hopes of justifying their own local cut of the "no congestion" pie.
It's all much like the tolls of old, as at medieval city gates.
Who needs modernity anyway.
But why stop at car users? Why not just implant a micro chip into the head of every person, so everyone pays a "societal congestion" fee the very instant every person steps out of a front door into the public streets each day? After all, just as on the roads, every one of us who ventures into public is -- in the words of the "no congestion" lords -- "using valuable and congested space", so one would think every single person also should "make a financial contribution" to the costs of policing, other emergency services, litter collection, electric lighting in public areas, and so on and so forth.
Increasingly, we are being urged and taxed to stay local, with the lords of "anti-congestion" proclaiming it is just too "congested" on trains, on buses, on roads and at airports. Essentially, we are told by those who can afford "congestion charging," etc., that too many of us "commoners" just aren't content to stay on our local manor or in our local village.
Speaking of villages, Britainexpress.com notes that the medieval version:
. . .consisted of from 10-60 families living in rough huts on dirt floors, with no chimneys or windows. Often, one end of the hut was given over to storing livestock. Furnishings were sparse; three legged stools, a trestle table, beds on the floor softened with straw or leaves. The peasant diet was mainly porridge, cheese, black bread, and a few home-grown vegetables.
Peasants had a hard life, but they did not work on Sundays or on the frequent saints' days, and they could go to nearby fairs and markets. . .
Ah, in the opinion of today's lords -- especially local mayors out to make money, "environmental activists" who wish we all lived in just such "natural" environs as those above, and national government officials too silly or thick to appreciate that they are increasingly finding themselves in the role of weak, feudal kings -- those were apparently the good ol' days. After all, there was no such thing as highway (in Britain, motorway) congestion problems, overstressed railways, airport noise, "greenhouse gases", and central city traffic jams back then.
Unfortunately, there was also not much of an economy, or a decent life for the mass of the people back then either. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 25, 2003
Sunday, August 24, 2003
WHEN YOU ARE INEPT, BLAME THE OPPOSITION
In Slate, Timothy Noah whinges:
Al Sharpton, who is a lousy presidential candidate but an excellent phrase-maker, calls the GOP’s strategy, “Let’s do it again until I win.”
Is the criticism fair? To answer that, let’s break the accusation down into two parts:
1) Republicans are subverting democracy to unseat the opposition.
and
2) They’re doing this more than the Democrats. . .
And then of course after all the article's various meanderings, Noah finishes with the firm wobble that, yes, Republicans are indeed electoral thieves. Nothing like appearing to be torn and indecisive as cover for being flat out decisive:
. . .Would the removal of Davis and his replacement by a Republican affect the presidential contest in 2004? Possibly. But that’s fairly speculative. And the ways in which a governor can influence a presidential vote are sufficiently indirect that, were the recall to install a Republican in the nation’s most populous state, I would still hesitate to call that a subversion of democracy in the next presidential election.
So, in assessing the components of the Clinton-Davis message, we have one yes, one maybe, one yes and no, and one mostly yes. The chair therefore rules Republicans more or less guilty as charged of conducting “an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.”
"Stealing" means accusing someone of illegal activities. "Subversion" in this context means extra-legal efforts are afoot to undercut legality and threaten democracy.
But just where are Republicans doing anything illegal in the examples Noah gives? And where is something as serious as "subversion" taking place?
Noah badly misses the point: the core problem is with the Democrats. And making charges like these is yet another reason they are in their current disarray. (By the way, why is it a surprise that Clinton, Gore, Davis and Democratic state legislators cry "foul?" After all, they have lost, or might very well lose.)
The bottom line is Democrats cannot escape from the fact that they have managed to be thoroughly inept in the cases Noah cites -- Clinton, Gore, redistricting, and Gray Davis -- and have been handing impeachments and elections to Republicans on silver platters.
Think on this:
1) Republicans would not have been able to spearhead the impeachment of Clinton had the president not behaved, frankly, like a jerk. And the country, deep down, knows that.
Impeachment is in the U.S. Constitution, and Clinton gave his opponents the rope by which to hang himself. So just where is the Republican "subversion" there? That Clinton was elected twice is irrelevant. Being elected to office does not provide cover from inquiries into apparent misbehaviors.
2) There would be no recall effort directed at Gray Davis if he were an even half-effective governor. To term the recall effort "anti-democratic" is preposterous and insulting, given that the provisions for it are found in the California state constitution.
"Recall" is a mechanism voters may resort to when they feel they have no other choice. Clearly, enough Californians feel strongly that such is precisely the case. It is their legal right to try to recall Davis, and they are now exercising that right.
3) All "nuanced" arguments about "democracy on steroids" aside, redistricting is the perogative of state legislatures, pure and simple. Democrats don't like when Republicans do it, and Republicans don't like when Democrats do it. But now Democrats are moaning that Republicans are being meaner than Democrats are when Democrats redistrict? Oh, grow up. The law allows such redistricting, and Republicans are doing what they are legally entitled to do.
4) Vice President Gore managed to lose the election of 2000 mostly because his campaign was dreadful. Indeed, he was lucky he did not lose more decisively than he did. Blaming the Electoral College for Bush's election over Gore is like blaming the weather for ruining the picnic. Rain falls on all heads indiscriminately. In elections, the rules are the same for everyone. Had Gore been a better candidate, and run a better campaign, he would have won Florida outright -- and would now be president. But he wasn't a good candidate, ran poorly, and lost a close election. Defeat happens in politics.
It is curious that when Bill Clinton was not winning 50 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, Democrats were not then calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. . .
The Electoral College, as imperfect as it may be, is in the U.S. Constitution and in general has served America well for over 200 years. If some really think (as Noah does) that popular vote presidential elections are the better way to go, they should be forewarned: it is worth remembering that in France -- which is probably the best example of a country with a relatively long history of democracy while having a nationwide, popular vote for an executive president -- popular vote presidential elections (which have taken place since only 1965) have almost never been straightforward affairs either. Swapping America's Electoral College for a French-style popular vote mostly because Gore ran a poor campaign in 2000 is simply absurd. (And you just know that if it were scrapped, at some point years from now these same sorts of Democrats would be moaning about how elections are being decided only in the largest states, with smaller states getting scant attention, and with many minorities being ignored, etc., and so on.)
The best solution to close elections and a divided electorate and Republicans determined to win elections (Imagine that? A political party that wants to win office? Disgraceful, those Republicans!) is right under Democrats' noses: stop moaning about Republican "machinations" and instead nominate electable people who actually run decent campaigns, and after they win actually do a decent job when holding office.
Oh, and winners should also be warned to keep their hands off interns. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 24, 2003
In Slate, Timothy Noah whinges:
Al Sharpton, who is a lousy presidential candidate but an excellent phrase-maker, calls the GOP’s strategy, “Let’s do it again until I win.”
Is the criticism fair? To answer that, let’s break the accusation down into two parts:
1) Republicans are subverting democracy to unseat the opposition.
and
2) They’re doing this more than the Democrats. . .
And then of course after all the article's various meanderings, Noah finishes with the firm wobble that, yes, Republicans are indeed electoral thieves. Nothing like appearing to be torn and indecisive as cover for being flat out decisive:
. . .Would the removal of Davis and his replacement by a Republican affect the presidential contest in 2004? Possibly. But that’s fairly speculative. And the ways in which a governor can influence a presidential vote are sufficiently indirect that, were the recall to install a Republican in the nation’s most populous state, I would still hesitate to call that a subversion of democracy in the next presidential election.
So, in assessing the components of the Clinton-Davis message, we have one yes, one maybe, one yes and no, and one mostly yes. The chair therefore rules Republicans more or less guilty as charged of conducting “an ongoing national effort to steal elections Republicans cannot win.”
"Stealing" means accusing someone of illegal activities. "Subversion" in this context means extra-legal efforts are afoot to undercut legality and threaten democracy.
But just where are Republicans doing anything illegal in the examples Noah gives? And where is something as serious as "subversion" taking place?
Noah badly misses the point: the core problem is with the Democrats. And making charges like these is yet another reason they are in their current disarray. (By the way, why is it a surprise that Clinton, Gore, Davis and Democratic state legislators cry "foul?" After all, they have lost, or might very well lose.)
The bottom line is Democrats cannot escape from the fact that they have managed to be thoroughly inept in the cases Noah cites -- Clinton, Gore, redistricting, and Gray Davis -- and have been handing impeachments and elections to Republicans on silver platters.
Think on this:
1) Republicans would not have been able to spearhead the impeachment of Clinton had the president not behaved, frankly, like a jerk. And the country, deep down, knows that.
Impeachment is in the U.S. Constitution, and Clinton gave his opponents the rope by which to hang himself. So just where is the Republican "subversion" there? That Clinton was elected twice is irrelevant. Being elected to office does not provide cover from inquiries into apparent misbehaviors.
2) There would be no recall effort directed at Gray Davis if he were an even half-effective governor. To term the recall effort "anti-democratic" is preposterous and insulting, given that the provisions for it are found in the California state constitution.
"Recall" is a mechanism voters may resort to when they feel they have no other choice. Clearly, enough Californians feel strongly that such is precisely the case. It is their legal right to try to recall Davis, and they are now exercising that right.
3) All "nuanced" arguments about "democracy on steroids" aside, redistricting is the perogative of state legislatures, pure and simple. Democrats don't like when Republicans do it, and Republicans don't like when Democrats do it. But now Democrats are moaning that Republicans are being meaner than Democrats are when Democrats redistrict? Oh, grow up. The law allows such redistricting, and Republicans are doing what they are legally entitled to do.
4) Vice President Gore managed to lose the election of 2000 mostly because his campaign was dreadful. Indeed, he was lucky he did not lose more decisively than he did. Blaming the Electoral College for Bush's election over Gore is like blaming the weather for ruining the picnic. Rain falls on all heads indiscriminately. In elections, the rules are the same for everyone. Had Gore been a better candidate, and run a better campaign, he would have won Florida outright -- and would now be president. But he wasn't a good candidate, ran poorly, and lost a close election. Defeat happens in politics.
It is curious that when Bill Clinton was not winning 50 percent of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996, Democrats were not then calling for the abolition of the Electoral College. . .
The Electoral College, as imperfect as it may be, is in the U.S. Constitution and in general has served America well for over 200 years. If some really think (as Noah does) that popular vote presidential elections are the better way to go, they should be forewarned: it is worth remembering that in France -- which is probably the best example of a country with a relatively long history of democracy while having a nationwide, popular vote for an executive president -- popular vote presidential elections (which have taken place since only 1965) have almost never been straightforward affairs either. Swapping America's Electoral College for a French-style popular vote mostly because Gore ran a poor campaign in 2000 is simply absurd. (And you just know that if it were scrapped, at some point years from now these same sorts of Democrats would be moaning about how elections are being decided only in the largest states, with smaller states getting scant attention, and with many minorities being ignored, etc., and so on.)
The best solution to close elections and a divided electorate and Republicans determined to win elections (Imagine that? A political party that wants to win office? Disgraceful, those Republicans!) is right under Democrats' noses: stop moaning about Republican "machinations" and instead nominate electable people who actually run decent campaigns, and after they win actually do a decent job when holding office.
Oh, and winners should also be warned to keep their hands off interns. . . ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 24, 2003
Saturday, August 23, 2003
AH, KYOTO AND THE EPA
It must be late summer. The Guardian is all over -- for 18,496th time -- the Bush administration over Kyoto. Unfortunately, the paper still has no clue about how the U.S. government actually functions:
Two points. First, let's remember Kyoto.
The Bush administration announced in March 2001 that it would not observe the Clinton-negotiated (but at that time unratified by the Senate) Kyoto treaty on reducing "greenhouse gases", saying it would be economically ruinous for the U.S. to have tried to do so.
That was where Bush made his big public relations misstep; he was too straightforward in saying "non!". (The Guardian loves "non" only so long as French presidents say it, evidently.) The likes of the Guardian much prefer Clinton/Gore administration two-facedness about the treaty, even though, had Gore been elected president, President Gore would in all likelihood be doing almost EXACTLY the same thing policywise as is Bush -- except Gore would not have made the mistake Bush did of telling everyone he didn't support the treaty.
The U.S. Senate, with its Republican and what the Guardian would consider "anti-environmental" majority under Clinton and now Bush, was and is about as likely to ratify Kyoto as it is to support giving the Congressional Medal of Freedom to Osama bin Laden.
And actually, when it signed the treaty in 1997, the Clinton administration had already negotiated in bad faith. Why? Well, curious why it never went before the Senate prior to Clinton's leaving office in January 2001? That was because from 1997-2001, the administration knew full well that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it.
Second. The Guardian article is convoluted -- nothing new about that -- so it is hard to be sure from the story text itself to which EPA regulations review the writer is specifically referring. The Guardian claims to have "seen the draft report" which was "leaked" to the Guardian, and an agency spokesman would not comment. (In the Guardian's world, the spokesperson was probably just bought off by the "evil Cheney and his energy fiend allies".)
Well, the Guardian story has links all over the place, but none, interestingly, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web site. If one simply clicks over to the EPA, one also finds these EPA notes in the Executive Summary on the Draft Report on the Environment:
It must be late summer. The Guardian is all over -- for 18,496th time -- the Bush administration over Kyoto. Unfortunately, the paper still has no clue about how the U.S. government actually functions:
The Bush administration plans to open a huge loophole in America's air pollution laws, allowing an estimated 17,000 outdated power stations and factories to increase their carbon emissions with impunity.Apparently, the Guardian doesn't use electricity to create its "newspaper."
Critics of draft regulations due to be unveiled by the US environmental protection agency next week say they amount to a death knell for the Clean Air Act, the centrepiece of US regulation.
The rules could represent the biggest defeat for American environmentalists since the Bush administration abandoned the Kyoto Treaty on global warming two years ago. But the energy industry welcomed them, saying they were essential for maintaining coal-fired power stations.
The regulations are being challenged by 13 states including New York. If adopted, they would represent a multi-million dollar victory for energy corporations, most of whom are significant Republican contributors, and who were consulted in the drafting of the administration's energy plan by vice-president Dick Cheney in 2001.
The US accounts for a quarter of the world's carbon emissions, 10% more than all of western Europe combined. Environmentalists fear that, by relaxing its controls even further, America could undermine attempts to persuade other countries to stick to the targets laid out by Kyoto. . .
Two points. First, let's remember Kyoto.
The Bush administration announced in March 2001 that it would not observe the Clinton-negotiated (but at that time unratified by the Senate) Kyoto treaty on reducing "greenhouse gases", saying it would be economically ruinous for the U.S. to have tried to do so.
That was where Bush made his big public relations misstep; he was too straightforward in saying "non!". (The Guardian loves "non" only so long as French presidents say it, evidently.) The likes of the Guardian much prefer Clinton/Gore administration two-facedness about the treaty, even though, had Gore been elected president, President Gore would in all likelihood be doing almost EXACTLY the same thing policywise as is Bush -- except Gore would not have made the mistake Bush did of telling everyone he didn't support the treaty.
The U.S. Senate, with its Republican and what the Guardian would consider "anti-environmental" majority under Clinton and now Bush, was and is about as likely to ratify Kyoto as it is to support giving the Congressional Medal of Freedom to Osama bin Laden.
And actually, when it signed the treaty in 1997, the Clinton administration had already negotiated in bad faith. Why? Well, curious why it never went before the Senate prior to Clinton's leaving office in January 2001? That was because from 1997-2001, the administration knew full well that the U.S. Senate would never ratify it.
Second. The Guardian article is convoluted -- nothing new about that -- so it is hard to be sure from the story text itself to which EPA regulations review the writer is specifically referring. The Guardian claims to have "seen the draft report" which was "leaked" to the Guardian, and an agency spokesman would not comment. (In the Guardian's world, the spokesperson was probably just bought off by the "evil Cheney and his energy fiend allies".)
Well, the Guardian story has links all over the place, but none, interestingly, to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency web site. If one simply clicks over to the EPA, one also finds these EPA notes in the Executive Summary on the Draft Report on the Environment:
The nation's air is much cleaner today than it was 30 years ago. Remarkably, this progress has occurred even while, during the same 30-year period, the U.S. Gross Domestic Product increased 161 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 149 percent. Notwithstanding this progress, challenges remain in attaining health based-standards for ozone and particulate matter, in improving visibility, and in understanding the nature and magnitude of issues posed by indoor air pollution. . .A Cheney-created environmental armageddeon is not in the making. But if you read only the Guardian, it is easy to see why one might think it is. What we do know is that 50 million people were without power recently. It is up to the Bush administration to sort out energy policy, whether the Guardian likes it or not. If Americans think that "polluters" are being given an easy ride, well, then Bush will answer to Americans at the polls. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 23, 2003
. . .Emissions of the six principal air pollutants have decreased. Over the last 30 years, total emissions of six principal air pollutants have decreased by nearly 25 percent, resulting in lower concentrations of these pollutants in ambient air. . .
Air toxics emissions have declined. The National Toxics Inventory, which tracks 188 toxic pollutants, estimates that nationwide air toxics emissions decreased almost 24 percent from baseline levels (1990-1993) to 4.7 million tons annually in 1996. . .
One of the major components of acid rain, wet sulfate deposition, has declined. Wet sulfate deposition levels for 1999-2001 showed reductions of 20 to 30 percent compared to levels for 1989-1991 over widespread areas in the Midwest and the eastern U.S., where acid rain has had its greatest impact. Wet nitrogen deposition decreased slightly in some areas of the eastern U.S. but increased in others, including those with significant agricultural activity. . .
Friday, August 22, 2003
MORE REPORTING ON ITSELF. . .
This morning, many U.K. newspapers' front pages have variations on the theme that "Dr Kelly predicted his own death."
Obviously, the spirit of investigative journalism is not dead.
But unfortunately, since Kelly did away with himself after all, one would think that his own prediction of his own death hardly passes muster as the basis for "dramatic prediction come true" headlines.
Anyway. . .
Continuing to report on a story in which it is an active player, and apparently still having about zero qualms about doing so, the BBC reports:
Dr David Kelly told a UK diplomat he would probably be "found dead in the woods" if the UK invaded Iraq, the Hutton inquiry has heard.
David Broucher, the UK's permanent representative on the disarmament conference in Geneva, said the scientist made what at the time he regarded as a "throwaway remark" in February.
It was only when he heard that Dr Kelly had been found dead in Oxfordshire woodland last month that Mr Broucher thought the comment might be more significant.
Mr Broucher said the remark was made after Dr Kelly had explained to him that he had assured senior Iraqi officials that if they cooperated with United Nations weapons inspections they would have nothing to fear.
"The implication was that if the invasion went ahead, that would make him a liar and he would have betrayed his contacts, some of whom might be killed as a direct result of his actions," he said.
"I asked him what would happen then. He replied, in a throwaway line, he would probably be found dead in the woods."
Mr Broucher said he had thought Dr Kelly was talking about possible Iraqi vengeance. . .
Interesting. Notice that it actually crossed the mind of a U.K. disarmament official that vengeance by members of a foreign government might well lead to the murder of a U.K. civil servant.
And that government was a government which, we were told by "anti-war" people, we could supposedly do business?
Who cares, right? After all, the BBC has Alastair Campbell (tabloid journalist turned prime ministerial right hand man, which apparently drives many other journalists absolutely bananas) in its "journalistic crosshairs," near the very top of its "bring 'em down hard" hit list.
At the very top of the hit list is of course Tony Blair himself, whom the BBC would dearly love to see chased out of 10 Downing Street -- especially if it were the BBC that caused him to go. The ultimate fantasy, BBC headline: "Blair resigns! Humbled P.M. cites BBC journalistic prowess as reason." ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 22, 2003
This morning, many U.K. newspapers' front pages have variations on the theme that "Dr Kelly predicted his own death."
Obviously, the spirit of investigative journalism is not dead.
But unfortunately, since Kelly did away with himself after all, one would think that his own prediction of his own death hardly passes muster as the basis for "dramatic prediction come true" headlines.
Anyway. . .
Continuing to report on a story in which it is an active player, and apparently still having about zero qualms about doing so, the BBC reports:
Dr David Kelly told a UK diplomat he would probably be "found dead in the woods" if the UK invaded Iraq, the Hutton inquiry has heard.
David Broucher, the UK's permanent representative on the disarmament conference in Geneva, said the scientist made what at the time he regarded as a "throwaway remark" in February.
It was only when he heard that Dr Kelly had been found dead in Oxfordshire woodland last month that Mr Broucher thought the comment might be more significant.
Mr Broucher said the remark was made after Dr Kelly had explained to him that he had assured senior Iraqi officials that if they cooperated with United Nations weapons inspections they would have nothing to fear.
"The implication was that if the invasion went ahead, that would make him a liar and he would have betrayed his contacts, some of whom might be killed as a direct result of his actions," he said.
"I asked him what would happen then. He replied, in a throwaway line, he would probably be found dead in the woods."
Mr Broucher said he had thought Dr Kelly was talking about possible Iraqi vengeance. . .
Interesting. Notice that it actually crossed the mind of a U.K. disarmament official that vengeance by members of a foreign government might well lead to the murder of a U.K. civil servant.
And that government was a government which, we were told by "anti-war" people, we could supposedly do business?
Who cares, right? After all, the BBC has Alastair Campbell (tabloid journalist turned prime ministerial right hand man, which apparently drives many other journalists absolutely bananas) in its "journalistic crosshairs," near the very top of its "bring 'em down hard" hit list.
At the very top of the hit list is of course Tony Blair himself, whom the BBC would dearly love to see chased out of 10 Downing Street -- especially if it were the BBC that caused him to go. The ultimate fantasy, BBC headline: "Blair resigns! Humbled P.M. cites BBC journalistic prowess as reason." ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 22, 2003
Thursday, August 21, 2003
GOT ANOTHER ONE!
Owing to the "fog of war," we had thought he was killed. But he wasn't. Instead, even better: they've managed to grab "Chemical Ali" alive. Centcom says simply:
ANOTHER "IRAQI TOP 55" IN COALITION CUSTODY
MACDILL AFB, Tampa - GEN Ali Hasan al-Majid "Chemical Ali" has been captured and is in custody of Coalition Forces.
Ali Hasan al-Majid was the former Revolutionary Command Council Commander and he is listed as #5 on the U.S. Central Command "Iraqi Top 55."
Coalition forces will continue to work at apprehending former members of Saddam Hussein's regime.
One by one they are being rounded-up.
Some "quagmire". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Owing to the "fog of war," we had thought he was killed. But he wasn't. Instead, even better: they've managed to grab "Chemical Ali" alive. Centcom says simply:
ANOTHER "IRAQI TOP 55" IN COALITION CUSTODY
MACDILL AFB, Tampa - GEN Ali Hasan al-Majid "Chemical Ali" has been captured and is in custody of Coalition Forces.
Ali Hasan al-Majid was the former Revolutionary Command Council Commander and he is listed as #5 on the U.S. Central Command "Iraqi Top 55."
Coalition forces will continue to work at apprehending former members of Saddam Hussein's regime.
One by one they are being rounded-up.
Some "quagmire". ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
WHY THE HECK NOT
Just how do you think those who disbelieve various "ape" theories of evolution will feel about THIS?!
Leave it to the BBC, of course. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Just how do you think those who disbelieve various "ape" theories of evolution will feel about THIS?!
Leave it to the BBC, of course. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
OF COURSE. . .
Dave did make me laugh. . .
Why am I not surprised that this "explosive" Berlin airport story names Ryanair?!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Dave did make me laugh. . .
Why am I not surprised that this "explosive" Berlin airport story names Ryanair?!
¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
KUCINICH, OSAMA AND ILLINOIS
Some months ago, I noted that if the choice came down only to Osama or Dennis Kucinich, I'd prefer Kucinich.
Well, now it is increasingly emerging that there is little to choose between Osama and Dennis. So I don't really consider them a mutually exclusive choice anymore.
However, if the worst happened and I did have to choose between the two, I couldn't.
I'd probably just have to head for the hills.
And then I read this.
And remember when I had previously written this.
And realize yet again why we had better remain aware of such goings on. . .
. . .quite possibly for the rest of our lives.
I'm gonna go read Dave now. I need some laughs. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Some months ago, I noted that if the choice came down only to Osama or Dennis Kucinich, I'd prefer Kucinich.
Well, now it is increasingly emerging that there is little to choose between Osama and Dennis. So I don't really consider them a mutually exclusive choice anymore.
However, if the worst happened and I did have to choose between the two, I couldn't.
I'd probably just have to head for the hills.
And then I read this.
And remember when I had previously written this.
And realize yet again why we had better remain aware of such goings on. . .
. . .quite possibly for the rest of our lives.
I'm gonna go read Dave now. I need some laughs. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
WHY IS ONE TERROR BUT NOT THE OTHER?
Biased BBC notes that while the BBC termed the attack on the Baghdad UN headquarters "terror", the Beeb just can't bring itself to call the Jerusalem bus attack "terror".
Typical. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Biased BBC notes that while the BBC termed the attack on the Baghdad UN headquarters "terror", the Beeb just can't bring itself to call the Jerusalem bus attack "terror".
Typical. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
CNN reports:
Protesters were arrested at an Alabama state judicial building after the U.S. Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block a lower court's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the building.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore will technically be in contempt of court if the monument is not removed by 12:01 a.m. CT (1:01 a.m. ET).
Moore vowed after the Supreme Court decision to continue the fight and said he expects to be vindicated.
"If we do not acknowledge God we do not know where our rights come from. We are standing for the law," he told CNN'S 'Newsnight.'
In a statement immediately after the ruling, Moore said: "The U.S. Supreme Court denial of a stay today will not deter me from continuing to fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our law. . .
The problem is Moore won't be vindicated. He can't win this argument in the manner he has chosen. It's been tried time and again, and ALWAYS fails to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Naturally, Americans have been arguing over the meaning of that for the last 200 plus years. Even the people who composed the 1st Amendment, and agreed to it, weren't of one mind as to what it meant in everyday detail. Some were fervent Christians, some weren't. Today, it is generally interpreted by most courts as strongly limiting overt (and sometimes not so overt) religious expressions by government.
So if Moore is really interested in keeping the Ten Commandments monument in place, he clearly must at least attempt to "secularize" it. For instance, he might look into making sure some variation of the following were posted in LARGE lettering atop the monument itself, to make it a some sort of "secular" learning display:
"HISTORIANS GENERALLY BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD'S THREE GREAT MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS -- JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM -- HAVE ROOTS IN THIS TEXT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN A PRODUCT OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. MUCH OF THE WESTERN LEGAL TRADITION IS DERIVED FROM IT."
Some such wording might get Moore off the hook, and allow him to keep the monument in place. Otherwise, it is probably as good as gone. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
CNN reports:
Protesters were arrested at an Alabama state judicial building after the U.S. Supreme Court refused Wednesday to block a lower court's order to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the building.
Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore will technically be in contempt of court if the monument is not removed by 12:01 a.m. CT (1:01 a.m. ET).
Moore vowed after the Supreme Court decision to continue the fight and said he expects to be vindicated.
"If we do not acknowledge God we do not know where our rights come from. We are standing for the law," he told CNN'S 'Newsnight.'
In a statement immediately after the ruling, Moore said: "The U.S. Supreme Court denial of a stay today will not deter me from continuing to fight for the right of our state to acknowledge God as the moral foundation of our law. . .
The problem is Moore won't be vindicated. He can't win this argument in the manner he has chosen. It's been tried time and again, and ALWAYS fails to stand up to constitutional scrutiny. The U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Naturally, Americans have been arguing over the meaning of that for the last 200 plus years. Even the people who composed the 1st Amendment, and agreed to it, weren't of one mind as to what it meant in everyday detail. Some were fervent Christians, some weren't. Today, it is generally interpreted by most courts as strongly limiting overt (and sometimes not so overt) religious expressions by government.
So if Moore is really interested in keeping the Ten Commandments monument in place, he clearly must at least attempt to "secularize" it. For instance, he might look into making sure some variation of the following were posted in LARGE lettering atop the monument itself, to make it a some sort of "secular" learning display:
"HISTORIANS GENERALLY BELIEVE THAT THE WORLD'S THREE GREAT MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONS -- JUDAISM, CHRISTIANITY AND ISLAM -- HAVE ROOTS IN THIS TEXT, WHICH IS CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN A PRODUCT OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. MUCH OF THE WESTERN LEGAL TRADITION IS DERIVED FROM IT."
Some such wording might get Moore off the hook, and allow him to keep the monument in place. Otherwise, it is probably as good as gone. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 21, 2003
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
WE NEED TO DO EVEN MORE?
Joe Lieberman's official reaction to the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad:
"The bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad is a powerful reminder that terrorism is not directed at the United States alone, but against the world community of freedom-loving peoples," Lieberman said. "It should also explode the illusions of post-war progress and stability the Bush Administration continues to cling to. To achieve victory and a lasting peace in Iraq, we must directly involve the United Nations and commit greater force, more resources and stronger leadership."
Read this closely: Joe thinks Bush is not being tough enough.
Wow!
On the other hand, notice that although the wannabe appeaser-in-chief offers the trade standard "it's a tragedy" reaction, even he can't avoid sounding a little muscular:
. . ."Today's bombing appears to be an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting in the reconstruction of Iraq. We cannot allow terrorists to thwart efforts to internationalize the rebuilding process and the U.S. must redouble its efforts to recruit other countries to participate."
Oh, my goodness. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Joe Lieberman's official reaction to the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad:
"The bombing of UN headquarters in Baghdad is a powerful reminder that terrorism is not directed at the United States alone, but against the world community of freedom-loving peoples," Lieberman said. "It should also explode the illusions of post-war progress and stability the Bush Administration continues to cling to. To achieve victory and a lasting peace in Iraq, we must directly involve the United Nations and commit greater force, more resources and stronger leadership."
Read this closely: Joe thinks Bush is not being tough enough.
Wow!
On the other hand, notice that although the wannabe appeaser-in-chief offers the trade standard "it's a tragedy" reaction, even he can't avoid sounding a little muscular:
. . ."Today's bombing appears to be an effort to dissuade other members of the international community from assisting in the reconstruction of Iraq. We cannot allow terrorists to thwart efforts to internationalize the rebuilding process and the U.S. must redouble its efforts to recruit other countries to participate."
Oh, my goodness. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
MARS ATTACKS?
Dave tells us it's okay. Mars won't hurt us.
Whew. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Dave tells us it's okay. Mars won't hurt us.
Whew. . . ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
IT JUST AIN'T ISLAMIC
Writing in the National Post, Amir Taheri says that western courts and governments had better realize that the hijab (women's head cover) is not really Muslim. It is actually "neo-Islamist." And there is a HUGE difference between the two:
France's Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a committee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French "church" of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin's government last spring. Germany is facing its own hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for "religious discrimination" because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear. In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.
All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.
That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.
This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community. . .
. . .Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.
This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. . .
Duly noted. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Writing in the National Post, Amir Taheri says that western courts and governments had better realize that the hijab (women's head cover) is not really Muslim. It is actually "neo-Islamist." And there is a HUGE difference between the two:
France's Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin has just appointed a committee to draft a law to ban the Islamist hijab (headgear) in state-owned establishments, including schools and hospitals. The decision has drawn fire from the French "church" of Islam, an organization created by Raffarin's government last spring. Germany is facing its own hijab problem, with a number of Islamist organizations suing federal and state authorities for "religious discrimination" because of bans imposed on the controversial headgear. In the United States, several Muslim women are suing airport-security firms for having violated their First Amendment rights by asking them to take off their hijab during routine searches of passengers.
All these and other cases are based on the claim that the controversial headgear is an essential part of the Muslim faith and that attempts at banning it constitute an attack on Islam.
That claim is totally false. The headgear in question has nothing to do with Islam as a religion. It is not sanctioned anywhere in the Koran, the fundamental text of Islam, or the hadith (traditions) attributed to the Prophet.
This headgear was invented in the early 1970s by Mussa Sadr, an Iranian mullah who had won the leadership of the Lebanese Shiite community. . .
. . .Muslim women could easily check the fraudulent nature of the neo-Islamist hijab by leafing through their family albums. They will not find the picture of a single female ancestor of theirs who wore the cursed headgear now marketed as an absolute "must" of Islam.
This fake Islamic hijab is nothing but a political prop, a weapon of visual terrorism. It is the symbol of a totalitarian ideology inspired more by Nazism and Communism than by Islam. . .
Duly noted. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
"BUSH GOOD, SADDAM BAD"
In the WSJ, Lance Cpl. John Guardiano writes:
"Bush good, Saddam bad!" many Iraqis tell us emphatically--and repeatedly. I'm not sure how George W. Bush is faring with the American public, but he's got a lock on Al Hillah.
Iraqis routinely ask me to "thank Mr. Bush for freeing us of Saddam" and tell me, "We are very grateful, because you have freed us of our worst nightmare, Saddam Hussein." (A lot of Iraqis speak surprisingly good English because most studied it in primary and secondary school.)
It all reminds me of my experience a decade ago in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Most ordinary Russians, Poles and Czechs hailed Ronald Reagan as a hero for bringing down the "evil empire" when few people had the courage even to call it that. . .
. . .As my experience in Al Hillah shows, most ordinary Iraqis are in no way disillusioned with the U.S. What they want--and need--is greater help. This will necessitate a sustained military presence here until the seeds for economic growth and development have taken root.
For that I know the men, women and children of my Arab street are grateful. As Zaid has told me, "It will take 10 to 15 years for Iraq to become a normal country. It is important during that time that the United States be here to help us." Semper fidelis, Zaid.
Do click over and read the entire thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
In the WSJ, Lance Cpl. John Guardiano writes:
"Bush good, Saddam bad!" many Iraqis tell us emphatically--and repeatedly. I'm not sure how George W. Bush is faring with the American public, but he's got a lock on Al Hillah.
Iraqis routinely ask me to "thank Mr. Bush for freeing us of Saddam" and tell me, "We are very grateful, because you have freed us of our worst nightmare, Saddam Hussein." (A lot of Iraqis speak surprisingly good English because most studied it in primary and secondary school.)
It all reminds me of my experience a decade ago in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. Most ordinary Russians, Poles and Czechs hailed Ronald Reagan as a hero for bringing down the "evil empire" when few people had the courage even to call it that. . .
. . .As my experience in Al Hillah shows, most ordinary Iraqis are in no way disillusioned with the U.S. What they want--and need--is greater help. This will necessitate a sustained military presence here until the seeds for economic growth and development have taken root.
For that I know the men, women and children of my Arab street are grateful. As Zaid has told me, "It will take 10 to 15 years for Iraq to become a normal country. It is important during that time that the United States be here to help us." Semper fidelis, Zaid.
Do click over and read the entire thing. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
ANOTHER JERUSALEM BUS SUICIDE BOMBING
CNN reports:
. . Tuesday night's attack killed at least 20 people, including a number of children. Of the more than 130 wounded, 50 remained hospitalized Wednesday, 13 in serious to very serious condition. . .
Here we have a perfect example of the difference between the morally superior, democratic state of Israel v. the depravity of its enemies.
The Israelis are in a death struggle with vicious enemies who fight under no rules of engagement whatsoever. No attempt is made to discern if a target is military or civilian. No gut-wrenching, self-examining, Geneva Convention worries appear in Palestinian media. No considerations are voiced as to whether weaponry is being used appropriately. Simply, whatever explodes best, with whatever the attacker sees fit to attach to it (be it nails or whatnot), which will do even further damage to the unfortunates within the blast range is just fine. Just mayhem. Just killing. Whoever is within reach, whoever happens to be in the immediate line of fire gets it right in the head -- men, women, children.
Yet these same people are supposed to be entitled to a recognized state, when they can't even recognize a bus?
If Israelis fought with even a fraction of this disregard for the "rules of war", we would never hear the end of it. After all, we well know the yelping we hear from the "peace movement" and from the "international community" if so much as a couple of tired Israeli soldiers fail to manage to flash toothy grins as 14 year olds hurl bricks in their direction.
I know this is not original, but it always comes to mind at times like these: We continue to await "human shields" deploying themselves on Israeli buses. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
CNN reports:
. . Tuesday night's attack killed at least 20 people, including a number of children. Of the more than 130 wounded, 50 remained hospitalized Wednesday, 13 in serious to very serious condition. . .
Here we have a perfect example of the difference between the morally superior, democratic state of Israel v. the depravity of its enemies.
The Israelis are in a death struggle with vicious enemies who fight under no rules of engagement whatsoever. No attempt is made to discern if a target is military or civilian. No gut-wrenching, self-examining, Geneva Convention worries appear in Palestinian media. No considerations are voiced as to whether weaponry is being used appropriately. Simply, whatever explodes best, with whatever the attacker sees fit to attach to it (be it nails or whatnot), which will do even further damage to the unfortunates within the blast range is just fine. Just mayhem. Just killing. Whoever is within reach, whoever happens to be in the immediate line of fire gets it right in the head -- men, women, children.
Yet these same people are supposed to be entitled to a recognized state, when they can't even recognize a bus?
If Israelis fought with even a fraction of this disregard for the "rules of war", we would never hear the end of it. After all, we well know the yelping we hear from the "peace movement" and from the "international community" if so much as a couple of tired Israeli soldiers fail to manage to flash toothy grins as 14 year olds hurl bricks in their direction.
I know this is not original, but it always comes to mind at times like these: We continue to await "human shields" deploying themselves on Israeli buses. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
GUESS WHO THE BBC BLAMES?
The apparent suicide truck bombing on the UN headquarters in Baghdad is worst attack on a UN headquarters ever. The BBC reports:
The search for survivors in the rubble of the United Nation's headquarters in Baghdad has been scaled down after Tuesday's devastating bomb attack, which killed at least 17 people, including the UN special representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
More than 100 people were injured in Tuesday's blast, which brought down three floors of the concrete building as a UN press conference on mine clearance was being held.
The wounded are to be evacuated to Amman in Jordan - Baghdad's hospitals have struggled to cope.
The US military said the blast was caused by a bomb in a cement truck and was possibly a suicide attack. The truck was parked just outside de Mello's office when the device went off at about 1640 (1240GMT).
It is believed to be the most devastating attack on a UN civilian complex in the body's 58-year-old history. . .
And -- surprise, surprise -- guess at whom the BBC points a finger:
. . .The UN compound was guarded by American troops. . .
That is not accurate. By accounts, the UN compound had been under the loose control of U.S. forces. However, the UN did not want overt, visible American protection, fearful that just this sort of thing would happen as a result. Instead, UN guards provided the immediate ring of security. (Obviously, that tactic left something to be desired. It is useful to remember that no U.S. military headquarters -- being ferociously guarded, in a war zone -- has been a similar target.) Fox News quotes a UN spokesman:
. . .Except for a newly built concrete wall, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused the sort of heavy security that the U.S. military has put up around some sensitive civilian sites. The United Nations "did not want a large American presence outside," [U.N. spokesman Salim Lone] said. . .
The BBC continues:
. . .The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says the attackers may have targeted the UN building because they considered the world body to be America's junior partner in the occupation of Iraq. . .
That is pure conjecture. Actually, one could also conjecture that given the UN's overt opposition to the U.S. led liberation of Iraq, that the Baathists (and foreign jihadists) would see the UN as something of an ally. But since the last ditchers cannot get at U.S. headquarters' easily, what is most likely is that they simply want to try to scare NGOs (which are of course eminently more "scareable" than coalition military forces) into leaving Iraq, in order to undermine the creation of a reasonable government and a rational state. If the UN goes, they will be helping the Baathists (and foreign jihadists) do just that, thus wasting the lives of de Mello and the other dead.
For the UN, this is another sad example -- unfortunately, apparently the worst ever -- of attempting to do neither this nor that, and quickly coming to grief. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
The apparent suicide truck bombing on the UN headquarters in Baghdad is worst attack on a UN headquarters ever. The BBC reports:
The search for survivors in the rubble of the United Nation's headquarters in Baghdad has been scaled down after Tuesday's devastating bomb attack, which killed at least 17 people, including the UN special representative for Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello.
More than 100 people were injured in Tuesday's blast, which brought down three floors of the concrete building as a UN press conference on mine clearance was being held.
The wounded are to be evacuated to Amman in Jordan - Baghdad's hospitals have struggled to cope.
The US military said the blast was caused by a bomb in a cement truck and was possibly a suicide attack. The truck was parked just outside de Mello's office when the device went off at about 1640 (1240GMT).
It is believed to be the most devastating attack on a UN civilian complex in the body's 58-year-old history. . .
And -- surprise, surprise -- guess at whom the BBC points a finger:
. . .The UN compound was guarded by American troops. . .
That is not accurate. By accounts, the UN compound had been under the loose control of U.S. forces. However, the UN did not want overt, visible American protection, fearful that just this sort of thing would happen as a result. Instead, UN guards provided the immediate ring of security. (Obviously, that tactic left something to be desired. It is useful to remember that no U.S. military headquarters -- being ferociously guarded, in a war zone -- has been a similar target.) Fox News quotes a UN spokesman:
. . .Except for a newly built concrete wall, U.N. officials at the headquarters refused the sort of heavy security that the U.S. military has put up around some sensitive civilian sites. The United Nations "did not want a large American presence outside," [U.N. spokesman Salim Lone] said. . .
The BBC continues:
. . .The BBC's Middle East analyst Roger Hardy says the attackers may have targeted the UN building because they considered the world body to be America's junior partner in the occupation of Iraq. . .
That is pure conjecture. Actually, one could also conjecture that given the UN's overt opposition to the U.S. led liberation of Iraq, that the Baathists (and foreign jihadists) would see the UN as something of an ally. But since the last ditchers cannot get at U.S. headquarters' easily, what is most likely is that they simply want to try to scare NGOs (which are of course eminently more "scareable" than coalition military forces) into leaving Iraq, in order to undermine the creation of a reasonable government and a rational state. If the UN goes, they will be helping the Baathists (and foreign jihadists) do just that, thus wasting the lives of de Mello and the other dead.
For the UN, this is another sad example -- unfortunately, apparently the worst ever -- of attempting to do neither this nor that, and quickly coming to grief. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 20, 2003
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
THINK ON THIS. . .
I continue to be troubled by how people like this Liberian crave our help, and yet as a nation we are not exactly jumping to their assistance:
I continue to be troubled by how people like this Liberian crave our help, and yet as a nation we are not exactly jumping to their assistance:
Notice, he's not burning James Monroe's portrait. . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Monday, August 18, 2003
IT'S MISSING THE AMERICANS
Europe's increasingly finding that American tourists are becoming far fewer. Instapundit has this (originally in the Christian Science Monitor):
In Britain - the most popular destination for American tourists to Europe - figures for the first half of 2003 show an 11 percent decline in US visitors. In Italy, it's more than 20 percent, while in France, it's even worse: an estimated 26 percent drop this year. . .
Steven Den Beste had a lengthy post on this the other day.
With all the chatter about missing Americans, things must indeed be getting a bit tense out there.
The drop off to Britain is more troubling. Hopefully, it has more to do with a general unwillingness to travel and an uncertain economy than with anything else. If there is one place which Americans should not avoid, it is the U.K. The British (aside from sections of the media, leftist activists -- who no more represent the mass of British opinion than the Howard Dean crowd represent the views of most Americans -- and some high-profile left-wing, and even some right-wing, politicians opposed to Blair) have been firmly up to their necks in this with us.
So if you've never been to Europe, don't shy away from Britain. It is a beautiful country, with sights and places you'll never forget. Best of all it is inhabited by (mostly) wonderful people, with whom you can probably have a non-phrase book conversation! ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 18, 2003
Europe's increasingly finding that American tourists are becoming far fewer. Instapundit has this (originally in the Christian Science Monitor):
In Britain - the most popular destination for American tourists to Europe - figures for the first half of 2003 show an 11 percent decline in US visitors. In Italy, it's more than 20 percent, while in France, it's even worse: an estimated 26 percent drop this year. . .
Steven Den Beste had a lengthy post on this the other day.
With all the chatter about missing Americans, things must indeed be getting a bit tense out there.
The drop off to Britain is more troubling. Hopefully, it has more to do with a general unwillingness to travel and an uncertain economy than with anything else. If there is one place which Americans should not avoid, it is the U.K. The British (aside from sections of the media, leftist activists -- who no more represent the mass of British opinion than the Howard Dean crowd represent the views of most Americans -- and some high-profile left-wing, and even some right-wing, politicians opposed to Blair) have been firmly up to their necks in this with us.
So if you've never been to Europe, don't shy away from Britain. It is a beautiful country, with sights and places you'll never forget. Best of all it is inhabited by (mostly) wonderful people, with whom you can probably have a non-phrase book conversation! ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 18, 2003
FAR MORE WORRISOME IS. . .
Writing in the New York Post, the always insightful and apparently darn near fearless Ralph Peters points out:
. . .even when the last Ba'athist bullies are rounded up and foreign terrorists tire of achieving martyrdom at our hands, one mighty enemy will remain in Iraq: Ignorance.
It's a foe we cannot defeat with the finest of armies.
Addicted as we are to the buzz of daily developments, it's hard to stand back and recognize that the most powerful long-term threat to success in Iraq doesn't come from gunmen, but from the inability of many Iraqis to interpret events accurately.
We take for granted the ability to separate fact from fiction, to identify that which looks, feels and smells reasonably like the truth. Yet the long Western struggle to view the world objectively is culturally unique. Especially in the Arab world, myth, comforting lies and cynical rumors trump facts that seem undeniable to us.
It makes things tough for our soldiers, who come from a Joe Friday, "just the facts, ma'am" civilization, yet must bring order to an Alice In Wonderland culture in which nothing is quite what it seems and things just grow "curiouser and curiouser."
Even in relatively "Western" countries, such as Russia or Greece, I've been astonished at the patently lunatic conspiracy theories to which even elites subscribe. Indeed, one of the many politically incorrect questions that needs to be asked is simply this: Is there a direct correlation between our appetite for accurate data and the success of American civilization? The answer seems obvious, but don't try raising that question at Columbia. . .
. . .this deficient realism worked against us in the first days of the occupation and still troubles us today: Iraqis were disappointed that gold-plated manna failed to fall from the heavens immediately after the arrival of our troops. Their sense of America's wealth and capabilities had been formed by fabulous legends, by Hollywood films and by expectations exaggerated in the re-telling.
It seemed impossible to Iraqis that we couldn't bring electricity, clean water and winning lottery tickets to every one of them overnight. When services lagged or the lights failed to come on, it had to be a conspiracy. America, the all-powerful, could do whatever it wanted. Power shortages meant that America wanted to keep Iraq poor. . .
. . .The Iraqis are frightened - not by our troops, but by change itself, by the collapse of the order they knew, no matter how vile its practices. Their world has been shattered and they truly do not know what we intend or what the future holds.
Turning on the electricity is a minor challenge compared to turning on the light of reason. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 18, 2003
Writing in the New York Post, the always insightful and apparently darn near fearless Ralph Peters points out:
. . .even when the last Ba'athist bullies are rounded up and foreign terrorists tire of achieving martyrdom at our hands, one mighty enemy will remain in Iraq: Ignorance.
It's a foe we cannot defeat with the finest of armies.
Addicted as we are to the buzz of daily developments, it's hard to stand back and recognize that the most powerful long-term threat to success in Iraq doesn't come from gunmen, but from the inability of many Iraqis to interpret events accurately.
We take for granted the ability to separate fact from fiction, to identify that which looks, feels and smells reasonably like the truth. Yet the long Western struggle to view the world objectively is culturally unique. Especially in the Arab world, myth, comforting lies and cynical rumors trump facts that seem undeniable to us.
It makes things tough for our soldiers, who come from a Joe Friday, "just the facts, ma'am" civilization, yet must bring order to an Alice In Wonderland culture in which nothing is quite what it seems and things just grow "curiouser and curiouser."
Even in relatively "Western" countries, such as Russia or Greece, I've been astonished at the patently lunatic conspiracy theories to which even elites subscribe. Indeed, one of the many politically incorrect questions that needs to be asked is simply this: Is there a direct correlation between our appetite for accurate data and the success of American civilization? The answer seems obvious, but don't try raising that question at Columbia. . .
. . .this deficient realism worked against us in the first days of the occupation and still troubles us today: Iraqis were disappointed that gold-plated manna failed to fall from the heavens immediately after the arrival of our troops. Their sense of America's wealth and capabilities had been formed by fabulous legends, by Hollywood films and by expectations exaggerated in the re-telling.
It seemed impossible to Iraqis that we couldn't bring electricity, clean water and winning lottery tickets to every one of them overnight. When services lagged or the lights failed to come on, it had to be a conspiracy. America, the all-powerful, could do whatever it wanted. Power shortages meant that America wanted to keep Iraq poor. . .
. . .The Iraqis are frightened - not by our troops, but by change itself, by the collapse of the order they knew, no matter how vile its practices. Their world has been shattered and they truly do not know what we intend or what the future holds.
Turning on the electricity is a minor challenge compared to turning on the light of reason. . .
Absolutely. ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 18, 2003
Sunday, August 17, 2003
HUSSEINITE/FOREIGNER SABOTEURS
CNN reports:
The U.S. military is investigating eyewitness reports that another oil pipeline in Iraq is in flames, and may have been sabotaged, military officials told CNN Sunday.
U.S. Central Command said pilots reported the fire northwest of the city of Mosul, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
U.S. and Iraqi administrators are now investigating the report to determine if this is another act of sabotage to Iraq's oil infrastructure.
This news comes just one day after another oil pipeline was sabotaged and set aflame, apparently by supporters of the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein. . .
This sort of thing is actually not a big deal. It is sabotage, true. But in the end, most of the populace does not support them, so those perpetrating such attacks are ultimately on the road to nowhere, in the same manner as the Nazi "Werewolves" of 1944-1947. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 17, 2003
CNN reports:
The U.S. military is investigating eyewitness reports that another oil pipeline in Iraq is in flames, and may have been sabotaged, military officials told CNN Sunday.
U.S. Central Command said pilots reported the fire northwest of the city of Mosul, according to the officials who spoke on condition of anonymity.
U.S. and Iraqi administrators are now investigating the report to determine if this is another act of sabotage to Iraq's oil infrastructure.
This news comes just one day after another oil pipeline was sabotaged and set aflame, apparently by supporters of the deposed regime of Saddam Hussein. . .
This sort of thing is actually not a big deal. It is sabotage, true. But in the end, most of the populace does not support them, so those perpetrating such attacks are ultimately on the road to nowhere, in the same manner as the Nazi "Werewolves" of 1944-1947. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 17, 2003
Saturday, August 16, 2003
AND THE LEFT'S "ONE MAN'S TERRORIST IS ANOTHER MAN'S FREEDOM FIGHTER" OF THE WEEK IS:
This has been a difficult week in which to choose just one, as there have been several good choices. But, all things considered, this "freedom fighter" wins! The BBC reports:
The man suspected of being a top terrorist leader was planning to attack a meeting of world leaders in Bangkok, Thailand's prime minister has said.
Hambali, an Indonesian whose real name is Riduan Isamuddin, was arrested on Monday in the Thai city of Ayutthaya following a tip-off.
He is suspected of being the operations chief for Jemaah Islamiah (JI), a group allegedly linked to al-Qaeda and blamed for last year's Bali bombing as well as other attacks. . .
Congratulations to our lucky winner! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
This has been a difficult week in which to choose just one, as there have been several good choices. But, all things considered, this "freedom fighter" wins! The BBC reports:
The man suspected of being a top terrorist leader was planning to attack a meeting of world leaders in Bangkok, Thailand's prime minister has said.
Hambali, an Indonesian whose real name is Riduan Isamuddin, was arrested on Monday in the Thai city of Ayutthaya following a tip-off.
He is suspected of being the operations chief for Jemaah Islamiah (JI), a group allegedly linked to al-Qaeda and blamed for last year's Bali bombing as well as other attacks. . .
Congratulations to our lucky winner! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
U.K. STYLE
With the all the home fixing up we're doing right now, we have become regular viewers of -- no laughing, please -- U.K. Style.
If you are doing repairs, looking for gardening advice, trying to sell, looking to buy, looking to buy to rent, among other things, it is well worth taking a little time to check it out.
Gosh, how old am I getting?! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
With the all the home fixing up we're doing right now, we have become regular viewers of -- no laughing, please -- U.K. Style.
If you are doing repairs, looking for gardening advice, trying to sell, looking to buy, looking to buy to rent, among other things, it is well worth taking a little time to check it out.
Gosh, how old am I getting?! ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
HE IS FINALLY DEAD, YES
Like General Franco, who adamantly refused to expire but eventually did so, Idi Amin too is finally, at last, thank goodness, dead. The BBC reports it (so of course it, uh, must be true; it helps that there is no sign of Andrew Gilligan's fingerprints on the confirmation -- no "sexing up" Amin's death and all):
Former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin has died of multiple organ failure in hospital in Saudi Arabia. . .
Yes, dead.
Absolutely.
Finally.
100 percent.
No coming back.
No kidney transplant possibilities.
Dead. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
Like General Franco, who adamantly refused to expire but eventually did so, Idi Amin too is finally, at last, thank goodness, dead. The BBC reports it (so of course it, uh, must be true; it helps that there is no sign of Andrew Gilligan's fingerprints on the confirmation -- no "sexing up" Amin's death and all):
Former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin has died of multiple organ failure in hospital in Saudi Arabia. . .
Yes, dead.
Absolutely.
Finally.
100 percent.
No coming back.
No kidney transplant possibilities.
Dead. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 16, 2003
Friday, August 15, 2003
THE LIGHTS WILL BE BACK
On the blackout, The New York Post reports:
A massive blackout crippled New York City yesterday as monster power outages swept through the Eastern United States and Canada.
More than half of New York state's 19 million residents were left without power when the lights went out at 4:11 p.m.
Gov. Pataki declared a state of emergency and called out the National Guard to help with emergency services and prevent looting.
Federal officials said the failure, which affected an estimated 50 million people and may be the biggest outage in history, was "not an act of terrorism, but a natural occurrence" - although many people initially thought two words: Sept. 11.
The outage was initially thought to have begun with a massive grid failure at a Niagara Mohawk power plant near Niagara Falls - possibly due to lightning.
But late last night officials at the plant said they had no outages whatsoever - leaving the cause a mystery.
Whatever the root problem, generators across the Northeast and Canada fell like dominoes yesterday afternoon.
Last night, President Bush said: "At this moment we have the resources to handle it. I want to thank the people for their calm response. I'm grateful for that.
"Slowly but surely, we're coping with this massive national problem."
He added: "This was not a terrorist act."
He said the nation's power grids may have to be upgraded to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. . .
. . .The Big Apple is a veteran of two of the nation's biggest blackouts - in November 1965 and July 1977.
On Long Island, LIPA (the Long Island Power Authority) managed to restore power locally by removing Long Island from the troubled grid, and relying on LIPA's own generating resources for a time. So my parents' lights went on and off several times from about 7.30 PM ET yesterday. But because the Island had intermittent power, their food in the fridge stayed cold. My Mom now has nothing put praise for LIPA's response. Their lights finally went on and stayed on about 7.30 AM ET (12.30 PM U.K. time) this morning.
Of course, to get that information, I did exactly what one was probably not supposed to do today -- I called them. Owing to the heavy network usage, it took about half a dozen tries to get through to New York at around 1 PM (U.K. time) today.
No one does anything bigger than New York -- even blackouts. Of course, NYC had to be part of the biggest one ever. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 15, 2003
On the blackout, The New York Post reports:
A massive blackout crippled New York City yesterday as monster power outages swept through the Eastern United States and Canada.
More than half of New York state's 19 million residents were left without power when the lights went out at 4:11 p.m.
Gov. Pataki declared a state of emergency and called out the National Guard to help with emergency services and prevent looting.
Federal officials said the failure, which affected an estimated 50 million people and may be the biggest outage in history, was "not an act of terrorism, but a natural occurrence" - although many people initially thought two words: Sept. 11.
The outage was initially thought to have begun with a massive grid failure at a Niagara Mohawk power plant near Niagara Falls - possibly due to lightning.
But late last night officials at the plant said they had no outages whatsoever - leaving the cause a mystery.
Whatever the root problem, generators across the Northeast and Canada fell like dominoes yesterday afternoon.
Last night, President Bush said: "At this moment we have the resources to handle it. I want to thank the people for their calm response. I'm grateful for that.
"Slowly but surely, we're coping with this massive national problem."
He added: "This was not a terrorist act."
He said the nation's power grids may have to be upgraded to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. . .
. . .The Big Apple is a veteran of two of the nation's biggest blackouts - in November 1965 and July 1977.
On Long Island, LIPA (the Long Island Power Authority) managed to restore power locally by removing Long Island from the troubled grid, and relying on LIPA's own generating resources for a time. So my parents' lights went on and off several times from about 7.30 PM ET yesterday. But because the Island had intermittent power, their food in the fridge stayed cold. My Mom now has nothing put praise for LIPA's response. Their lights finally went on and stayed on about 7.30 AM ET (12.30 PM U.K. time) this morning.
Of course, to get that information, I did exactly what one was probably not supposed to do today -- I called them. Owing to the heavy network usage, it took about half a dozen tries to get through to New York at around 1 PM (U.K. time) today.
No one does anything bigger than New York -- even blackouts. Of course, NYC had to be part of the biggest one ever. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 15, 2003
AND THEY ARE SURPRISED?
French tourist officials are actually puzzled at a dramatic drop-off in American tourism in recent months. Steven Den Beste is amazed that they are shocked, shocked to discover that "gambling is going on in here." Referring to a letter "to our American friends," published on the French government's tourist office site by Patrick Goyet, Steven writes:
. . .The French never seem to tire of using our war dead buried in France to somehow show the depth of the commitment that must exist between our nations. But that shows our commitment to them. It doesn't demonstrate that they have one to us. And he doesn't seem to think it necessary to comment on the politically-motivated desecration of Allied war cemeteries in France in recent months. (And just because we think of Omaha Beach as hallowed ground, that doesn't mean that all the French do.)
In any case, all of that is misdirection intended to avoid the real issue. Monsieur Goyet's letter tries to pretend that Americans are staying away from France because they're apprehensive. He is trying to deny the possibility that Americans are staying away from France because they're pissed off. He doesn't really want to admit that Americans have decided that they'll be damned if they'll reward hypocrisy and backstabbing. . .
Indeed. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 15, 2003
French tourist officials are actually puzzled at a dramatic drop-off in American tourism in recent months. Steven Den Beste is amazed that they are shocked, shocked to discover that "gambling is going on in here." Referring to a letter "to our American friends," published on the French government's tourist office site by Patrick Goyet, Steven writes:
. . .The French never seem to tire of using our war dead buried in France to somehow show the depth of the commitment that must exist between our nations. But that shows our commitment to them. It doesn't demonstrate that they have one to us. And he doesn't seem to think it necessary to comment on the politically-motivated desecration of Allied war cemeteries in France in recent months. (And just because we think of Omaha Beach as hallowed ground, that doesn't mean that all the French do.)
In any case, all of that is misdirection intended to avoid the real issue. Monsieur Goyet's letter tries to pretend that Americans are staying away from France because they're apprehensive. He is trying to deny the possibility that Americans are staying away from France because they're pissed off. He doesn't really want to admit that Americans have decided that they'll be damned if they'll reward hypocrisy and backstabbing. . .
Indeed. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 15, 2003
Thursday, August 14, 2003
POWER FAILURE IN U.S./CANADA IS NOT ISLAMIST TERRORISM -- THIS TIME
CNN reports:
A major power outage simultaneously struck dozens of cities in the United States and Canada late Thursday afternoon.
Cities affected include New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Toronto, Ontario; and Ottawa, Ontario. The power outage occurred shortly after 4 p.m.
State officials said the Niagara-Mohawk power grid was overloaded. The grid provides power for New York and stretches into Canada. The officials said the outage is a natural occurrence and not related to terrorism.
Much of Midtown Manhattan and Wall Street were shut down. All area airports and the Long Island Railroad were also affected. The airports were operating on back-up power and operations were reported to be normal, officials said.
The New York City Police Department said they were trying to determine what happened.
Thousands of people could be seen leaving buildings and walking into the streets. New York subways were reported stopped and people were trapped in the cars.
I first noticed this story a little while ago -- at about 10 PM U.K. time. Things will clearly be developing during the European overnight. But from what is happening, it seems to be just what Mayor Bloomberg of NYC claims -- a large power failure. And the northeast U.S. and southeast Canada has had these before.
But what they haven't had before is Islamism, which has had, and probably does still have, "fifth columnists" in the U.S. scoping out potential targets. We are in a struggle with an enemy that, Christopher Hitchens eloquently warns, "has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. we must fight with all that is reasonable at our disposal." We must not forget that.
Thus today is (hopefully) a lesson in what could happen. Most of the time, a power failure is indeed just a power failure. But someday, it could be yet another act of war.
Just worth bearing in mind. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
CNN reports:
A major power outage simultaneously struck dozens of cities in the United States and Canada late Thursday afternoon.
Cities affected include New York; Boston, Massachusetts; Cleveland, Ohio; Detroit, Michigan; Toronto, Ontario; and Ottawa, Ontario. The power outage occurred shortly after 4 p.m.
State officials said the Niagara-Mohawk power grid was overloaded. The grid provides power for New York and stretches into Canada. The officials said the outage is a natural occurrence and not related to terrorism.
Much of Midtown Manhattan and Wall Street were shut down. All area airports and the Long Island Railroad were also affected. The airports were operating on back-up power and operations were reported to be normal, officials said.
The New York City Police Department said they were trying to determine what happened.
Thousands of people could be seen leaving buildings and walking into the streets. New York subways were reported stopped and people were trapped in the cars.
I first noticed this story a little while ago -- at about 10 PM U.K. time. Things will clearly be developing during the European overnight. But from what is happening, it seems to be just what Mayor Bloomberg of NYC claims -- a large power failure. And the northeast U.S. and southeast Canada has had these before.
But what they haven't had before is Islamism, which has had, and probably does still have, "fifth columnists" in the U.S. scoping out potential targets. We are in a struggle with an enemy that, Christopher Hitchens eloquently warns, "has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. we must fight with all that is reasonable at our disposal." We must not forget that.
Thus today is (hopefully) a lesson in what could happen. Most of the time, a power failure is indeed just a power failure. But someday, it could be yet another act of war.
Just worth bearing in mind. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
HITCHENS SAYS NO TO PIPES
Writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens thinks the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the United States Institute of Peace is a decidedly bad idea:
. . .I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him. . .
Hitchens goes on to raise what might be considered valid concerns. But, overall, this seems a little like lamenting that Jefferson's Declaration wasn't understanding enough of the British perspective.
In the end, Pipes is an advocate of something, just like all advocates -- be they Islamist or anti-Islamist. If Pipes is a tad too strident, he is certainly far more restrained and rational in his arguments than the anti-Semitic, "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!" nut jobs with whom he most often crosses intellectual swords.
Curiously, Hitchens at one point slaps Pipes's sometime use of facts about the childhood of Palestinian advocate Edward Said:
. . .I heard recently, Pipes has maintained that professor Edward Said of Columbia University is not really a Palestinian and never lost his family home in Jerusalem in the fighting of 1947-48. I have my own disagreements with Said, but this is a much-discredited libel that undermines the credibility of anybody circulating it. . . .
Given the "angry left's" embrace of Islamist oppression, Hitchens' strong stance against Islamism is courageous and commendable. But in defending Said on this, Hitchens hasn't chosen the best ground -- no pun intended. There is ample evidence that Said has not been entirely candid regarding his childhood. Yes Said was born in Jerusalem geographically speaking. But Said is about as much "of Palestine" as a certain Saudi born in the U.S. is "of Louisiana". Said grew up mostly in well-to-do quarters in Cairo. He was in British Palestine on the odd occasion, yes. Wriggle. Wriggle. The bottom line is, given Said's personal experiences, attempts by himself and others to position him as a "displaced Palestinian" is stretching credibility well beyond the breaking point. And it isn't Daniel Pipes who is doing that. It's Said himself, along with his supporters.
Hitchens concludes that his objection to Pipes is because he is a man:
. . .who confuses scholarship with propaganda and who pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity.
. . .The funny thing is, those charges ironically also well describe the antics and, for many, the "scholarship" of the rock throwing Professor Said. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
Writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens thinks the appointment of Daniel Pipes to the United States Institute of Peace is a decidedly bad idea:
. . .I am not myself a pacifist, and I believe that Islamic nihilism has to be combated with every weapon, intellectual and moral as well as military, which we possess or can acquire. But that is a position shared by a very wide spectrum of people. Pipes, however, uses this consensus to take a position somewhat to the right of Ariel Sharon, concerning a matter (the Israel-Palestine dispute) that actually can be settled by negotiation. And he employs the fears and insecurities created by Islamic extremism to slander or misrepresent those who disagree with him. . .
Hitchens goes on to raise what might be considered valid concerns. But, overall, this seems a little like lamenting that Jefferson's Declaration wasn't understanding enough of the British perspective.
In the end, Pipes is an advocate of something, just like all advocates -- be they Islamist or anti-Islamist. If Pipes is a tad too strident, he is certainly far more restrained and rational in his arguments than the anti-Semitic, "Death to Israel!", "Death to America!" nut jobs with whom he most often crosses intellectual swords.
Curiously, Hitchens at one point slaps Pipes's sometime use of facts about the childhood of Palestinian advocate Edward Said:
. . .I heard recently, Pipes has maintained that professor Edward Said of Columbia University is not really a Palestinian and never lost his family home in Jerusalem in the fighting of 1947-48. I have my own disagreements with Said, but this is a much-discredited libel that undermines the credibility of anybody circulating it. . . .
Given the "angry left's" embrace of Islamist oppression, Hitchens' strong stance against Islamism is courageous and commendable. But in defending Said on this, Hitchens hasn't chosen the best ground -- no pun intended. There is ample evidence that Said has not been entirely candid regarding his childhood. Yes Said was born in Jerusalem geographically speaking. But Said is about as much "of Palestine" as a certain Saudi born in the U.S. is "of Louisiana". Said grew up mostly in well-to-do quarters in Cairo. He was in British Palestine on the odd occasion, yes. Wriggle. Wriggle. The bottom line is, given Said's personal experiences, attempts by himself and others to position him as a "displaced Palestinian" is stretching credibility well beyond the breaking point. And it isn't Daniel Pipes who is doing that. It's Said himself, along with his supporters.
Hitchens concludes that his objection to Pipes is because he is a man:
. . .who confuses scholarship with propaganda and who pursues petty vendettas with scant regard for objectivity.
. . .The funny thing is, those charges ironically also well describe the antics and, for many, the "scholarship" of the rock throwing Professor Said. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
BAM TO SPAM!
Slate's Jonathan Rauch has a solution to spam: Make the spammers pay.
Nice. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
Slate's Jonathan Rauch has a solution to spam: Make the spammers pay.
Nice. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
AND HOW MANY MORE?
BBC television reported this morning that this nut lives in Hendon. That's right, in Hendon, north London.
I spend lots of time there, but I'm not nuts. Really! The New York Post reports:
An arms dealer who boasted that Osama bin Laden "did a good thing" planned to smuggle 50 missiles into the United States to attack jetliners and destroy America's economy on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, federal prosecutors charged yesterday.
Bin Laden "straightened them all out," Hemant Lakhani allegedly said during one of more than 150 conversations secretly taped by investigators. . .
Oh, yeh, he straightened us out: Now, we see right through the gameplaying, the fake smiles, the deceptions. . .
. . ."The Americans are bastards," the Indian-born Londoner went on. . .
Now, now -- language, please. Good grief.
And surprise, surprise, the BBC nearly messed up the whole thing. . .
. . .Top Justice Department officials intended to keep Lakahni's arrest hush-hush and "quickly flip" him, so that he could serve as their undercover agent and penetrate al Qaeda with the promise of arms, the magazine said.
But after the feds learned the BBC was about to report the arrest, they dropped the plan to recruit Lakhani and drew up criminal charges instead. . .
Question: And where was Andrew Gilligan? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
BBC television reported this morning that this nut lives in Hendon. That's right, in Hendon, north London.
I spend lots of time there, but I'm not nuts. Really! The New York Post reports:
An arms dealer who boasted that Osama bin Laden "did a good thing" planned to smuggle 50 missiles into the United States to attack jetliners and destroy America's economy on the second anniversary of Sept. 11, federal prosecutors charged yesterday.
Bin Laden "straightened them all out," Hemant Lakhani allegedly said during one of more than 150 conversations secretly taped by investigators. . .
Oh, yeh, he straightened us out: Now, we see right through the gameplaying, the fake smiles, the deceptions. . .
. . ."The Americans are bastards," the Indian-born Londoner went on. . .
Now, now -- language, please. Good grief.
And surprise, surprise, the BBC nearly messed up the whole thing. . .
. . .Top Justice Department officials intended to keep Lakahni's arrest hush-hush and "quickly flip" him, so that he could serve as their undercover agent and penetrate al Qaeda with the promise of arms, the magazine said.
But after the feds learned the BBC was about to report the arrest, they dropped the plan to recruit Lakhani and drew up criminal charges instead. . .
Question: And where was Andrew Gilligan? ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 14, 2003
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
OUR OWN ENLIGHTENMENT MAY BE OUR GREATEST BURDEN
Victor Hanson writes in the National Review that:
. . .because we are products of an affluent and leisured West, we have a special burden to remember how tenuous and fragile civilization remains outside our suburbs.
Most of us don't fear much from the fatwa of a murderous mullah, and few have had our sisters shredded before our eyes in one of Uday's brush chippers — much less ever seen chemical-warfare trucks hosing down our block, as cropdusters fogged our backyards.
Instead, we have the leisure to engage in utopian musing, assured that our economy, or our unseen soldiers, or our system working on autopilot, will always ensure us such prerogatives. And in the La-La Land of Washington and New York, it is especially easy to forget that we are not even like our own soldiers in Iraq, now sleeping outside without toilets and air conditioners, eating dehydrated food, and trying to distinguish killers from innocents.
What does all this mean? Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms — even when those enemies were grim Macedonians or Germans. Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success, and an intellectual arrogance that for some can be the unfortunate byproduct of an enlightened society. . .
. . .We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mindset — and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our own are rarely overrun. They simply implode — whining and debating still to the end, even as they pass away.
Indeed, we must be extremely careful that our own enlightenment does not lead to our ultimate undoing.
Do read his whole piece. It's well worth your time. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Victor Hanson writes in the National Review that:
. . .because we are products of an affluent and leisured West, we have a special burden to remember how tenuous and fragile civilization remains outside our suburbs.
Most of us don't fear much from the fatwa of a murderous mullah, and few have had our sisters shredded before our eyes in one of Uday's brush chippers — much less ever seen chemical-warfare trucks hosing down our block, as cropdusters fogged our backyards.
Instead, we have the leisure to engage in utopian musing, assured that our economy, or our unseen soldiers, or our system working on autopilot, will always ensure us such prerogatives. And in the La-La Land of Washington and New York, it is especially easy to forget that we are not even like our own soldiers in Iraq, now sleeping outside without toilets and air conditioners, eating dehydrated food, and trying to distinguish killers from innocents.
What does all this mean? Western societies from ancient Athens to imperial Rome to the French republic rarely collapsed because of a shortage of resources or because foreign enemies proved too numerous or formidable in arms — even when those enemies were grim Macedonians or Germans. Rather, in times of peace and prosperity there arose an unreal view of the world beyond their borders, one that was the product of insularity brought about by success, and an intellectual arrogance that for some can be the unfortunate byproduct of an enlightened society. . .
. . .We should take stock of this dangerous and growing mindset — and remember that wealthy, sophisticated societies like our own are rarely overrun. They simply implode — whining and debating still to the end, even as they pass away.
Indeed, we must be extremely careful that our own enlightenment does not lead to our ultimate undoing.
Do read his whole piece. It's well worth your time. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 13, 2003
OF COURSE, JUST WHAT MANHATTAN GEM DEALERS REQUIRE, RIGHT?
The BBC reports:
A Briton has been charged in the US with aiding terrorism and weapons-smuggling over an alleged plot to smuggle a Russian surface-to-air missile.
Hekmat Lakhani appeared at a federal court in Newark, New Jersey. Two alleged accomplices face an unspecified charge.
The sting operation, in which the Briton allegedly tried to sell an Igla missile to an FBI agent, has increased concern that commercial aircraft could be targeted by terrorists. . .
. . .A charge was also read out against a New York jeweller and a Malaysian national. The latter reportedly only arrived in the US on Tuesday to take part in the arms dealing.
Mr Lakhani was arrested on Tuesday at a Newark hotel after collecting a crate allegedly containing the missile, the BBC revealed earlier.
He had allegedly bought the missile for $85,000 (£50,000) and then tried to sell it to an undercover FBI agent who was posing as an Islamic militant.
The other two suspects were later picked up at a New York gem dealership. . .
Mr Lakhani is alleged to be an established arms dealer and is believed to be a middle-aged, married man of Indian origin, who lives in London. . .
This is what has changed since September 11, 2001. We are watching these sorts of actions very closely. And the sort of stuff that once just never made the radar now sets off alarm bells.
A SAM, and in Manhattan no less? Sorry, but we are not as stupid or gullible as we were on September 10, 2001.
And, once again, we have someone with a U.K. passport involved. I am beginning to agree with Mark Steyn: it is the Western passport holding jihadists whom we REALLY have to keep under close scrutiny. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 13, 2003
The BBC reports:
A Briton has been charged in the US with aiding terrorism and weapons-smuggling over an alleged plot to smuggle a Russian surface-to-air missile.
Hekmat Lakhani appeared at a federal court in Newark, New Jersey. Two alleged accomplices face an unspecified charge.
The sting operation, in which the Briton allegedly tried to sell an Igla missile to an FBI agent, has increased concern that commercial aircraft could be targeted by terrorists. . .
. . .A charge was also read out against a New York jeweller and a Malaysian national. The latter reportedly only arrived in the US on Tuesday to take part in the arms dealing.
Mr Lakhani was arrested on Tuesday at a Newark hotel after collecting a crate allegedly containing the missile, the BBC revealed earlier.
He had allegedly bought the missile for $85,000 (£50,000) and then tried to sell it to an undercover FBI agent who was posing as an Islamic militant.
The other two suspects were later picked up at a New York gem dealership. . .
Mr Lakhani is alleged to be an established arms dealer and is believed to be a middle-aged, married man of Indian origin, who lives in London. . .
This is what has changed since September 11, 2001. We are watching these sorts of actions very closely. And the sort of stuff that once just never made the radar now sets off alarm bells.
A SAM, and in Manhattan no less? Sorry, but we are not as stupid or gullible as we were on September 10, 2001.
And, once again, we have someone with a U.K. passport involved. I am beginning to agree with Mark Steyn: it is the Western passport holding jihadists whom we REALLY have to keep under close scrutiny. ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
WHAT MAKES A LIBERAL
Dennis Prager asks "What makes a liberal?":
How. . .can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.
A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.
"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?. . .
It is important to understand that while Dennis raises valid issues, even Newt Gingrich credits liberals with, for example, helping end segregation. So the notion that there is something inherently deranged about liberalism as a whole is as far-fetched as this silly "investigation" of the "conservative psyche."
Unfortunately, anyone who has been anywhere near a university well appreciates Dennis's last point. And the problem is clearly getting worse. We used to look upon university professors as serious people, who knew their business. Nowadays, as we read and hear on a daily basis, they are indeed showing themselves to be increasingly bizarre and childish people. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Dennis Prager asks "What makes a liberal?":
How. . .can decent and often very smart people hold liberal positions?
At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook.
A second naive liberal belief is that because people are basically good, talking with people who do evil is always better than fighting, let alone killing, them. "Negotiate with Saddam," "Negotiate with the Soviets," "War never solves anything," "Think peace," "Visualize peace" -- the liberal mind is filled with naive cliches about how to deal with evil.
Indeed, the very use of the word "evil" greatly disturbs liberals. It shakes up their child-like views of the world, that everybody is at heart a decent person who is either misunderstood or led to do unfortunate things by outside forces.
"Child-like" is operative. The further left you go, the less you like growing up. That is one reason so many professors are on the left. Never leaving school from kindergarten through adulthood enables one to avoid becoming a mature adult. It is no wonder a liberal professor has recently argued that children should have the vote. He knows in his heart that he is not really an adult, so why should he and not a chronologic child be allowed to vote?. . .
It is important to understand that while Dennis raises valid issues, even Newt Gingrich credits liberals with, for example, helping end segregation. So the notion that there is something inherently deranged about liberalism as a whole is as far-fetched as this silly "investigation" of the "conservative psyche."
Unfortunately, anyone who has been anywhere near a university well appreciates Dennis's last point. And the problem is clearly getting worse. We used to look upon university professors as serious people, who knew their business. Nowadays, as we read and hear on a daily basis, they are indeed showing themselves to be increasingly bizarre and childish people. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 12, 2003
OH, BILL WHERE ARE YOU?
From the department of Can I Stop Laughing Yet?, some genius at the Guardian (one of the silliest newspapers ever) devised this headline:
"Democrat leaders to woo single women"
No further comment is necessary.
Oh, and I have finally stopped laughing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 12, 2003
From the department of Can I Stop Laughing Yet?, some genius at the Guardian (one of the silliest newspapers ever) devised this headline:
"Democrat leaders to woo single women"
No further comment is necessary.
Oh, and I have finally stopped laughing. ¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 12, 2003
Monday, August 11, 2003
UPDATE: AND IT'S STILL HOT HERE
There is nothing more to say on this. Just see these previous posts: here, here and here. ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
There is nothing more to say on this. Just see these previous posts: here, here and here. ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
THE SCANDAL THAT IS THE NON-SCANDAL
David Frum, at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that the "scandal" in Britain is not about the government. It's about the media, and how far off the rails it can all go:
Everybody seems to agree that the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the British defense analyst, is a prelude to a scandal--but nobody can quite seem to decide whose scandal it is. The Blair government's? The BBC's? That of Kelly himself?
For an American audience, the scandal is especially hard to understand, because it originated in a British media culture that is unlike anything that exists on this continent. There's no American equivalent of the BBC, which created the scandal. The BBC is like CBS, CNN, NPR, Comedy Central, Time magazine, and every local market's top news station all rolled into one gigantic bureaucracy, paid for out of taxes and tilting to the far left.
The scandal was then sustained by the Daily Mail newspaper. There's no equivalent of it either--a right-leaning national tabloid famous for its hatred of the Blair government, its accusatory style, and its very British assumption that every grief or woe that occurs anywhere in the British Isles is the national government's fault and responsibility. . .
. . .the same antiwar British media that (wrongly) attacked the Blair government for broadcasting untruths is savagely attacking it for catching the media in an untruth. The media that falsely presented themselves as the champions of truth are now the champions of the right to lie anonymously.
The Blair government had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of anybody involved in the Kelly/Gilligan story. As a consultant to the Ministry of Defense, it was Dr. Kelly who owed a duty of secrecy to the government, not the other way around.
If Dr. Kelly's own mental state was too fragile to bear the glare of publicity triggered by the pseudo-scandal he himself set in motion, that is very sad. But journalists who hurl the most appalling abuse at officials of the government are not well placed to act pious when that abuse redounds upon their sources. How can it be acceptable journalistic practice to call a prime minister a liar--and then call him a bully when he seeks to prove that he is not? How can it be acceptable to charge a government with falsifying the case for war--and then to wax indignant when the actual falsifers are exposed?
If there's a scandal here, it is not Blair's. If there is blood on anybody's hands, it is on those of the BBC--and its abettors elsewhere.
Absolutely.
¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
David Frum, at the American Enterprise Institute, notes that the "scandal" in Britain is not about the government. It's about the media, and how far off the rails it can all go:
Everybody seems to agree that the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the British defense analyst, is a prelude to a scandal--but nobody can quite seem to decide whose scandal it is. The Blair government's? The BBC's? That of Kelly himself?
For an American audience, the scandal is especially hard to understand, because it originated in a British media culture that is unlike anything that exists on this continent. There's no American equivalent of the BBC, which created the scandal. The BBC is like CBS, CNN, NPR, Comedy Central, Time magazine, and every local market's top news station all rolled into one gigantic bureaucracy, paid for out of taxes and tilting to the far left.
The scandal was then sustained by the Daily Mail newspaper. There's no equivalent of it either--a right-leaning national tabloid famous for its hatred of the Blair government, its accusatory style, and its very British assumption that every grief or woe that occurs anywhere in the British Isles is the national government's fault and responsibility. . .
. . .the same antiwar British media that (wrongly) attacked the Blair government for broadcasting untruths is savagely attacking it for catching the media in an untruth. The media that falsely presented themselves as the champions of truth are now the champions of the right to lie anonymously.
The Blair government had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of anybody involved in the Kelly/Gilligan story. As a consultant to the Ministry of Defense, it was Dr. Kelly who owed a duty of secrecy to the government, not the other way around.
If Dr. Kelly's own mental state was too fragile to bear the glare of publicity triggered by the pseudo-scandal he himself set in motion, that is very sad. But journalists who hurl the most appalling abuse at officials of the government are not well placed to act pious when that abuse redounds upon their sources. How can it be acceptable journalistic practice to call a prime minister a liar--and then call him a bully when he seeks to prove that he is not? How can it be acceptable to charge a government with falsifying the case for war--and then to wax indignant when the actual falsifers are exposed?
If there's a scandal here, it is not Blair's. If there is blood on anybody's hands, it is on those of the BBC--and its abettors elsewhere.
Absolutely.
¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
ON THE GUBERNATOR
As you all know by now, Arnold is running for governor of California. And you know he announced it on the Tonight Show -- which is shown in Britain each night (on a 24 hour delay) at 10 PM on SKY channel 256. (Gosh, my life is thrilling, eh?) And you may also have known that Mark Steyn would be powerless to resist this. The Democrats have already shown their "anti-Arnold" strategy. And frankly, it's pathetic. (There's a flippin' surprise.) As Mark writes in the Telegraph:
. . .On Wednesday's Tonight Show, he announced that he was in. Something is rotten in the State of California - and Arnie is takin' out the trash! Collyvurnja, here he comes!. . .
. . .Arnold has wanted to be Governor of California for two decades, but October 7 represents his best shot. For one thing, there's no primary election in a recall campaign. In a normal election, Arnie wouldn't stand a chance of getting his watered-down "moderate Republicanism" past the death-before-electability crowd who dominate GOP primaries in California. He's unsound on almost everything that matters to them. On the other hand, that supposedly puts him closer to the average voter. As the commentator Andrew Sullivan put it, "Yay! A pro-gay, pro-choice, hard-ass Republican!". . .
. . .When candidates run as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", the former invariably buckles under the attendant costs of the latter. Arnold is married to Maria Shriver - a niece of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, and a daughter of George McGovern's running mate - and, as in many mixed marriages, the Democrat seems to have the upper hand ideologically.
But even a RINO - Republican In Name Only - can drive Democrats crazy, and, in desperation to find an attack angle, Dem operatives are currently testing three themes:
1. Arnold is a Nazi. . .
. . .Sorry, folks, you'll have to do better than that. The more you bring up the "son of a Nazi" line, the more you remind voters of what Arnold is: an immigrant who escaped and transcended his past. You can't saddle a man who chose to be American with the baggage he left behind in the old country. . .
Make sure you read the rest. The ending is the best! ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
As you all know by now, Arnold is running for governor of California. And you know he announced it on the Tonight Show -- which is shown in Britain each night (on a 24 hour delay) at 10 PM on SKY channel 256. (Gosh, my life is thrilling, eh?) And you may also have known that Mark Steyn would be powerless to resist this. The Democrats have already shown their "anti-Arnold" strategy. And frankly, it's pathetic. (There's a flippin' surprise.) As Mark writes in the Telegraph:
. . .On Wednesday's Tonight Show, he announced that he was in. Something is rotten in the State of California - and Arnie is takin' out the trash! Collyvurnja, here he comes!. . .
. . .Arnold has wanted to be Governor of California for two decades, but October 7 represents his best shot. For one thing, there's no primary election in a recall campaign. In a normal election, Arnie wouldn't stand a chance of getting his watered-down "moderate Republicanism" past the death-before-electability crowd who dominate GOP primaries in California. He's unsound on almost everything that matters to them. On the other hand, that supposedly puts him closer to the average voter. As the commentator Andrew Sullivan put it, "Yay! A pro-gay, pro-choice, hard-ass Republican!". . .
. . .When candidates run as "fiscally conservative but socially liberal", the former invariably buckles under the attendant costs of the latter. Arnold is married to Maria Shriver - a niece of Jack, Bobby and Ted Kennedy, and a daughter of George McGovern's running mate - and, as in many mixed marriages, the Democrat seems to have the upper hand ideologically.
But even a RINO - Republican In Name Only - can drive Democrats crazy, and, in desperation to find an attack angle, Dem operatives are currently testing three themes:
1. Arnold is a Nazi. . .
. . .Sorry, folks, you'll have to do better than that. The more you bring up the "son of a Nazi" line, the more you remind voters of what Arnold is: an immigrant who escaped and transcended his past. You can't saddle a man who chose to be American with the baggage he left behind in the old country. . .
Make sure you read the rest. The ending is the best! ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 11, 2003
Sunday, August 10, 2003
AND NOW IT'S EVEN HOTTER
Today was the hottest day ever recorded in the U.K. -- over 37 C.
In real temperature terms, that's just over 100 F.
I have never been in a hotter house in my entire life.
But this too shall pass away. Before we know it, I'm sure we'll all be complaining about the rain.
One thing I do think we'll be spared is anyone mouthing off about how "we didn't have a summer."
Interestingly, over the last week employers have been busily reminding their sweating employees that there is no legal highest, office workplace temperature. (A/C in British offices and workplaces is nowhere near as common as in the States. For instance, my wife said that the Allied Carpets store she visited on Friday -- a retail establishment, which you would think would hope that at least the CUSTOMERS were comfortable -- was so disgustingly hot it was close to impossible to concentrate on carpet shopping.)
Way to go! They've educated us . . .
. . .so there will probably be a law creating a "highest workplace temperature" introduced in the next parliament. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 10, 2003
Today was the hottest day ever recorded in the U.K. -- over 37 C.
In real temperature terms, that's just over 100 F.
I have never been in a hotter house in my entire life.
But this too shall pass away. Before we know it, I'm sure we'll all be complaining about the rain.
One thing I do think we'll be spared is anyone mouthing off about how "we didn't have a summer."
Interestingly, over the last week employers have been busily reminding their sweating employees that there is no legal highest, office workplace temperature. (A/C in British offices and workplaces is nowhere near as common as in the States. For instance, my wife said that the Allied Carpets store she visited on Friday -- a retail establishment, which you would think would hope that at least the CUSTOMERS were comfortable -- was so disgustingly hot it was close to impossible to concentrate on carpet shopping.)
Way to go! They've educated us . . .
. . .so there will probably be a law creating a "highest workplace temperature" introduced in the next parliament. ¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 10, 2003
Saturday, August 09, 2003
BUT THE NHS IS SUPPOSED TO BE SHORT OF MONEY?
The BBC reports:
. . .The government body that recommends which drugs and treatments should be available on the health service is considering extending free IVF treatment to all infertile women under 40. . .
Yet at the same time, the BBC reports also:
Ministers are tightening the rules which say who gets free NHS treatment to prevent "significant abuse" by foreign visitors. Hospitals have complained that a steady stream of foreign nationals are arriving in the UK with serious medical conditions that need urgent treatment.
Now the Department of Health has launched a clampdown and says that in future, failed asylum seekers and business travellers will no longer be eligible for free care. . .
Particularly serious is the fact that many with AIDS see Britain as a place where they can get care.
The NHS (National Health Service) has no direct U.S. equivalent. It is socialized medicine, pure and simple. We are registered with a doctor, and if we need to see him we make an appointment (presuming of course, we can get past the "gatekeeper nurse" who tries to fend off unnecessary appointments), and we go in, he does what is necessary, and we leave. No forms. No fuss. In fact, when my wife recently had a terrible allergic reaction to a pain-killer, and she could barely move (and I was thinking it was about time for an ambulance), my mother-in-law told me the doctor would make a house call, if we made it clear that my wife could not leave the house. Sure enough, the doctor came around several hours later. I have never in my life experienced a house call. But there was our doctor, knocking on our front door.
Naturally, it is blisteringly expensive. But the British people as a whole love the NHS, and are willing to be heavily taxed to pay for it. None of the major political parties believes the NHS should be privatized.
The question is, can they afford to pay for everyone who needs a doctor (especially if they have care needs as expensive as is required if they have AIDS), regardless of whether or not they have a right to reside here, or have a job here?
. . . And it's a valid question. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 09, 2003
The BBC reports:
. . .The government body that recommends which drugs and treatments should be available on the health service is considering extending free IVF treatment to all infertile women under 40. . .
Yet at the same time, the BBC reports also:
Ministers are tightening the rules which say who gets free NHS treatment to prevent "significant abuse" by foreign visitors. Hospitals have complained that a steady stream of foreign nationals are arriving in the UK with serious medical conditions that need urgent treatment.
Now the Department of Health has launched a clampdown and says that in future, failed asylum seekers and business travellers will no longer be eligible for free care. . .
Particularly serious is the fact that many with AIDS see Britain as a place where they can get care.
The NHS (National Health Service) has no direct U.S. equivalent. It is socialized medicine, pure and simple. We are registered with a doctor, and if we need to see him we make an appointment (presuming of course, we can get past the "gatekeeper nurse" who tries to fend off unnecessary appointments), and we go in, he does what is necessary, and we leave. No forms. No fuss. In fact, when my wife recently had a terrible allergic reaction to a pain-killer, and she could barely move (and I was thinking it was about time for an ambulance), my mother-in-law told me the doctor would make a house call, if we made it clear that my wife could not leave the house. Sure enough, the doctor came around several hours later. I have never in my life experienced a house call. But there was our doctor, knocking on our front door.
Naturally, it is blisteringly expensive. But the British people as a whole love the NHS, and are willing to be heavily taxed to pay for it. None of the major political parties believes the NHS should be privatized.
The question is, can they afford to pay for everyone who needs a doctor (especially if they have care needs as expensive as is required if they have AIDS), regardless of whether or not they have a right to reside here, or have a job here?
. . . And it's a valid question. ¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 09, 2003
Friday, August 08, 2003
THE ARCHBISHOP'S BLUES
CNN reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has called together world Anglican Church leaders for a summit to discuss the fallout from the affirmation of an openly gay bishop in the United States.
"I am clear that the anxieties caused by recent developments have reached the point where we will need to sit down and discuss their consequences," Archbishop Rowan Williams said in a statement Friday.
"I hope that in our deliberations we will find that there are ways forward in this situation which can preserve our respect for one another and for the bonds that unite us.". . .
Williams, who has a reputation -- or at least he did -- of being a liberal, has not yet come out -- no pun intended -- in favor of gay priests. But that's probably only because most Anglicans outside of Europe and North America angrily oppose the idea.
Well, it seems the Archbishop is suddenly more conservative than he had thought he was. Indeed, he seems to have the makings of a good, old fashioned schism on his hands.
Nothing like bringing people together. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 08, 2003
CNN reports:
The Archbishop of Canterbury has called together world Anglican Church leaders for a summit to discuss the fallout from the affirmation of an openly gay bishop in the United States.
"I am clear that the anxieties caused by recent developments have reached the point where we will need to sit down and discuss their consequences," Archbishop Rowan Williams said in a statement Friday.
"I hope that in our deliberations we will find that there are ways forward in this situation which can preserve our respect for one another and for the bonds that unite us.". . .
Williams, who has a reputation -- or at least he did -- of being a liberal, has not yet come out -- no pun intended -- in favor of gay priests. But that's probably only because most Anglicans outside of Europe and North America angrily oppose the idea.
Well, it seems the Archbishop is suddenly more conservative than he had thought he was. Indeed, he seems to have the makings of a good, old fashioned schism on his hands.
Nothing like bringing people together. . . ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 08, 2003
YES, IT'S STILL HOT
It remains amazingly hot here. Stinkingly hot. This country doesn't handle hot well.
They've even slowed down the trains (afraid the tracks will explode, I guess) and if you are unlucky enough to have been on the Tube, well, you deserve the sympathy of all reasonable people. (Astrid has some good stuff on the heat. And on John and Ulrika, too. Click over and have a read.)
Myself, I spent a good part of today painting ceilings in the new house. It doesn't get more thrilling than that. But despite the fact that I might need a new back, the ceilings came out looking pretty darn good. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 08, 2003
It remains amazingly hot here. Stinkingly hot. This country doesn't handle hot well.
They've even slowed down the trains (afraid the tracks will explode, I guess) and if you are unlucky enough to have been on the Tube, well, you deserve the sympathy of all reasonable people. (Astrid has some good stuff on the heat. And on John and Ulrika, too. Click over and have a read.)
Myself, I spent a good part of today painting ceilings in the new house. It doesn't get more thrilling than that. But despite the fact that I might need a new back, the ceilings came out looking pretty darn good. ¶ by Robert, Friday, August 08, 2003
Thursday, August 07, 2003
DID HE REALLY WRITE THAT?
I noted recently that underlying all the chatter about "the ends not justifying the means" (mostly used regarding Iraq), is how Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" that "the ends justify the means."
But there is just one problem with that: He didn't.
The oft-misquoted paragraph -- which has taken on a life of its own, in the manner of millions believing Bogart said "Play it again, Sam," when Bogart's "Casablanca" character actually never said any such thing -- is apparently misunderstood due to a wide acceptance of a poor translation.
As translated into English in "The Portable Machiavelli," Machiavelli wrote:
Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are, and those few do not dare to contradict the opinion of the many who had the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result.
The last portion, again according to "The Portable Machiavelli", appears in Machiavelli's original as "si guarda al fine", which is not nearly the same thing as "the ends justify the means."
So one should never assume. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 07, 2003
I noted recently that underlying all the chatter about "the ends not justifying the means" (mostly used regarding Iraq), is how Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" that "the ends justify the means."
But there is just one problem with that: He didn't.
The oft-misquoted paragraph -- which has taken on a life of its own, in the manner of millions believing Bogart said "Play it again, Sam," when Bogart's "Casablanca" character actually never said any such thing -- is apparently misunderstood due to a wide acceptance of a poor translation.
As translated into English in "The Portable Machiavelli," Machiavelli wrote:
Everyone sees what you seem to be, few perceive what you are, and those few do not dare to contradict the opinion of the many who had the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, where there is no impartial arbiter, one must consider the final result.
The last portion, again according to "The Portable Machiavelli", appears in Machiavelli's original as "si guarda al fine", which is not nearly the same thing as "the ends justify the means."
So one should never assume. . . ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 07, 2003
GAY MARRIAGE AND HIGH-PROFILE CATHOLICS
Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) is part of what is perhaps the best known "Roman Catholic" (they are really Catholics in name only) family in the U.S.
CNS reports that he believes that people opposed to gay marriage are practicing "discrimination":
. . .Rep. Kennedy, the son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, was quoted as saying, "I see the policy of opposing same-sex marriages or unions, whatever you call it, as bigotry or discrimination."
He said the law should treat people equally. "I don't see where the church or anyone else dictates what the policy is going to be with respect to treating people equally," the newspaper quoted him as saying. Kennedy supports same-sex unions.
Kennedy also admitted he doesn't agree with the Catholic Church on many other issues. "The very foundation of the church is about love," The Providence Journal quoted him as saying. "This notion of discrimination is so far afield of what Jesus' life was all about.". . .
It is eminently possible that one can oppose gay marriage, and not be "discriminatory." Simply, being opposed to "gay marriage" is not any more "discriminatory" than being opposed to polygamy or supporting the enforcement of an age of consent.
However, Kennedy's biggest immediate concern is clearly the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to "gay marriage."
Look at it this way: it is well-known that Rome does not even so much as approve women priests or married heterosexual priests. The notion that it could condone gay marriage before allowing women or married straight priests is, frankly, idiotic. One would think that Kennedy would realize that.
In the end, no one is forcing the Kennedys -- or anyone else -- to be Roman Catholics, or members of any other denomination or faith that opposes "gay marriage." If one is in favor of gay priests, supports the concept of gay marriage, or has other problems with the 2,000 year old teachings of the Church of Rome, here's a radical suggestion: Join the Episcopal Church. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 07, 2003
Patrick Kennedy (D-Rhode Island) is part of what is perhaps the best known "Roman Catholic" (they are really Catholics in name only) family in the U.S.
CNS reports that he believes that people opposed to gay marriage are practicing "discrimination":
. . .Rep. Kennedy, the son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, was quoted as saying, "I see the policy of opposing same-sex marriages or unions, whatever you call it, as bigotry or discrimination."
He said the law should treat people equally. "I don't see where the church or anyone else dictates what the policy is going to be with respect to treating people equally," the newspaper quoted him as saying. Kennedy supports same-sex unions.
Kennedy also admitted he doesn't agree with the Catholic Church on many other issues. "The very foundation of the church is about love," The Providence Journal quoted him as saying. "This notion of discrimination is so far afield of what Jesus' life was all about.". . .
It is eminently possible that one can oppose gay marriage, and not be "discriminatory." Simply, being opposed to "gay marriage" is not any more "discriminatory" than being opposed to polygamy or supporting the enforcement of an age of consent.
However, Kennedy's biggest immediate concern is clearly the Roman Catholic Church's opposition to "gay marriage."
Look at it this way: it is well-known that Rome does not even so much as approve women priests or married heterosexual priests. The notion that it could condone gay marriage before allowing women or married straight priests is, frankly, idiotic. One would think that Kennedy would realize that.
In the end, no one is forcing the Kennedys -- or anyone else -- to be Roman Catholics, or members of any other denomination or faith that opposes "gay marriage." If one is in favor of gay priests, supports the concept of gay marriage, or has other problems with the 2,000 year old teachings of the Church of Rome, here's a radical suggestion: Join the Episcopal Church. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, August 07, 2003
Wednesday, August 06, 2003
BRITAIN DOESN'T GET HOTTER
It hit 40 C -- according to that metric measurement thing -- on the car thermometer a little while ago.
That's Riyadh heat, not London heat.
Officially, its not really that hot. But does it matter? Everyone wandering around today has this, "oh, my god it's really hot" look about them.
And this is supposed to continue -- although tomorrow is supposed to be a "little cooler."
This country does not do 90-100 F. . .
. . . it just doesn't! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 06, 2003
It hit 40 C -- according to that metric measurement thing -- on the car thermometer a little while ago.
That's Riyadh heat, not London heat.
Officially, its not really that hot. But does it matter? Everyone wandering around today has this, "oh, my god it's really hot" look about them.
And this is supposed to continue -- although tomorrow is supposed to be a "little cooler."
This country does not do 90-100 F. . .
. . . it just doesn't! ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 06, 2003
JOE OBVIOUSLY READS THIS BLOG
CNN reports:
Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman warned Monday that his Democratic rivals threaten to send the party "into the political wilderness" with a return to big-government programs and less-than-strong stands on national security.
Determined to persuade Democrats that he is the only candidate capable of defeating President Bush, the Connecticut senator said the party must focus on strengthening America's security and economy and will, in turn, win over moderate voters.
"Some Democrats, on the contrary, still prefer the old, big government solutions to our problems," Lieberman said in a speech to the National Press Club. "But, my friends, with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that.". . .
Um, I said that very same sort of thing just the other day.
Ah, proof that there is a Democrat we can point to and remark, "Yes, and he is actually sane." ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 06, 2003
CNN reports:
Presidential candidate Joe Lieberman warned Monday that his Democratic rivals threaten to send the party "into the political wilderness" with a return to big-government programs and less-than-strong stands on national security.
Determined to persuade Democrats that he is the only candidate capable of defeating President Bush, the Connecticut senator said the party must focus on strengthening America's security and economy and will, in turn, win over moderate voters.
"Some Democrats, on the contrary, still prefer the old, big government solutions to our problems," Lieberman said in a speech to the National Press Club. "But, my friends, with record deficits, a stalled economy and Social Security in danger, we can't afford that.". . .
Um, I said that very same sort of thing just the other day.
Ah, proof that there is a Democrat we can point to and remark, "Yes, and he is actually sane." ¶ by Robert, Wednesday, August 06, 2003
Tuesday, August 05, 2003
MASARYK ON DICTATORS
Here is a thought I stumbled on today:
"Dictators always look good until the last minute." -- Tomas Masaryk (1850-1937), Czechoslovak liberator.
Some problems never go away, it seems . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Here is a thought I stumbled on today:
"Dictators always look good until the last minute." -- Tomas Masaryk (1850-1937), Czechoslovak liberator.
Some problems never go away, it seems . . .
¶ by Robert, Tuesday, August 05, 2003
Monday, August 04, 2003
CHANGES
I got tired of the look of the site. So, I decided to change it.
So please bear with me in coming days, as I get things moved around, my links repositioned, etc. and so on. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 04, 2003
I got tired of the look of the site. So, I decided to change it.
So please bear with me in coming days, as I get things moved around, my links repositioned, etc. and so on. . . ¶ by Robert, Monday, August 04, 2003
MARGARET THATCHER IS HAVING A TOUGH TIME
Has anyone at the Times of London ever witnessed what happens to the surviving spouse, shortly after that survivor has just lost a life love of some 50 years? The surviving spouse usually gets -- at the very least! -- the blahs, and perhaps worse. Sometimes much worse.
Reading this idiocy, you'd think that a woman's being saddened by her husband's passing, as well as her own frail health, and reflecting on where her life took her, is somehow abnormal. . .
Just wait until the people who write dumb stories like these find themselves in a similar position.
Oh, and they will. . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, August 04, 2003
Has anyone at the Times of London ever witnessed what happens to the surviving spouse, shortly after that survivor has just lost a life love of some 50 years? The surviving spouse usually gets -- at the very least! -- the blahs, and perhaps worse. Sometimes much worse.
Reading this idiocy, you'd think that a woman's being saddened by her husband's passing, as well as her own frail health, and reflecting on where her life took her, is somehow abnormal. . .
Just wait until the people who write dumb stories like these find themselves in a similar position.
Oh, and they will. . .
¶ by Robert, Monday, August 04, 2003
Sunday, August 03, 2003
WE CONTINUE TO PAINT. . .
Well, today we got lots done. But there's lots still to do.
You might want to pop over and visit Astrid, another somewhat insane New Yorker currently living in Britain. (Warning: She is NOT a Howard Stern-free zone.)
And I'll be back on Monday.
Take care!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 03, 2003
Well, today we got lots done. But there's lots still to do.
You might want to pop over and visit Astrid, another somewhat insane New Yorker currently living in Britain. (Warning: She is NOT a Howard Stern-free zone.)
And I'll be back on Monday.
Take care!
¶ by Robert, Sunday, August 03, 2003
Saturday, August 02, 2003
DURING OUR "THIS OLD HOUSE" IMPERSONATION
As we are house painting, filling plaster holes, fixing things, etc., and so on at our new house, posting will be sporatic over the weekend.
And it is shaping up to be a beautiful weekend here.
Take care for now. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 02, 2003
As we are house painting, filling plaster holes, fixing things, etc., and so on at our new house, posting will be sporatic over the weekend.
And it is shaping up to be a beautiful weekend here.
Take care for now. . .
¶ by Robert, Saturday, August 02, 2003
Friday, August 01, 2003
IS ISRAEL ALWAYS RIGHT?
To the guy who emailed me that he is put out by the fact that I think Israel is "always right":
No, actually I don't think that. No one and no society is always right on everything.
But by definition of being a democracy which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and even allows the practice of homosexuality (that last activity elsewhere in the Middle East could at the very least lead to one having a certain item sliced off), Israel is always "righter" than the unfree and all too often thoroughly demented societies which surround it.
That's all. Simple, really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
To the guy who emailed me that he is put out by the fact that I think Israel is "always right":
No, actually I don't think that. No one and no society is always right on everything.
But by definition of being a democracy which protects freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and even allows the practice of homosexuality (that last activity elsewhere in the Middle East could at the very least lead to one having a certain item sliced off), Israel is always "righter" than the unfree and all too often thoroughly demented societies which surround it.
That's all. Simple, really.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
YOU CAN GENERALLY BEND GENDER JUST SO FAR
Children are simply refusing to play their assigned parts in the construction of a genderless world. This is especially true of little boys. Christina Hoff Somers writes:
. . .Activities deemed “safe” by the gender equity experts and the teachers they inspire include quilting, games without scores, and stories about brave girls and boys who learn to cry. The goal is to resocialize boys, freeing them from male stereotypes, and, ultimately, to promote genuine equality between the sexes—which for the reformers means sameness. But decades of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, genetics, and developmental psychology, strongly suggest that masculine traits are hard-wired. There are exceptions, but here are the rules: Males have better spatial reasoning skills, females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk-takers, females are more nurturing. Boys like action, competitive rough-housing, and inanimate objects, and they are the one group of Americans who do not spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. . .
. . .We have a set of proven social practices for raising young men. The traditional approach is through character education to develop a young man’s sense of honor and help him become a considerate, conscientious human being. Sociologists make an important distinction between pathological and healthy masculinity. Boys who exhibit aberrational masculinity define their manhood through anti-social and destructive acts; instead of protecting the vulnerable, they exploit them. Healthy masculinity is the opposite. Males who possess it—the vast majority of American boys and men—strive to be helpful and to achieve. They sublimate their natural aggression into sports, hobbies, and work. They build rather than destroy. And they do not exploit women and children, they protect them.
Efforts to civilize boys with honor codes, character education, manners, and rules of good sportsmanship are necessary and effective, and fully consistent with their masculine natures. Efforts to feminize them with dolls, quilts, non-competitive games, girl-centered books, and feelings exercises will fail; though they will succeed in making millions of boys quite unhappy. Dissident feminist Camille Paglia is one of the few scholars who values maleness: “Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. When I cross…any of America’s great bridges, I think—men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry.”
This sublime poetry has been unappreciated in American society for more than a quarter of a century. But that appears to be changing. The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors. But fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects. . .
Worth considering. . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
Children are simply refusing to play their assigned parts in the construction of a genderless world. This is especially true of little boys. Christina Hoff Somers writes:
. . .Activities deemed “safe” by the gender equity experts and the teachers they inspire include quilting, games without scores, and stories about brave girls and boys who learn to cry. The goal is to resocialize boys, freeing them from male stereotypes, and, ultimately, to promote genuine equality between the sexes—which for the reformers means sameness. But decades of research in neuroscience, endocrinology, genetics, and developmental psychology, strongly suggest that masculine traits are hard-wired. There are exceptions, but here are the rules: Males have better spatial reasoning skills, females better verbal skills. Males are greater risk-takers, females are more nurturing. Boys like action, competitive rough-housing, and inanimate objects, and they are the one group of Americans who do not spend a lot of time talking about their feelings. . .
. . .We have a set of proven social practices for raising young men. The traditional approach is through character education to develop a young man’s sense of honor and help him become a considerate, conscientious human being. Sociologists make an important distinction between pathological and healthy masculinity. Boys who exhibit aberrational masculinity define their manhood through anti-social and destructive acts; instead of protecting the vulnerable, they exploit them. Healthy masculinity is the opposite. Males who possess it—the vast majority of American boys and men—strive to be helpful and to achieve. They sublimate their natural aggression into sports, hobbies, and work. They build rather than destroy. And they do not exploit women and children, they protect them.
Efforts to civilize boys with honor codes, character education, manners, and rules of good sportsmanship are necessary and effective, and fully consistent with their masculine natures. Efforts to feminize them with dolls, quilts, non-competitive games, girl-centered books, and feelings exercises will fail; though they will succeed in making millions of boys quite unhappy. Dissident feminist Camille Paglia is one of the few scholars who values maleness: “Masculinity is aggressive, unstable, combustible. It is also the most creative cultural force in history. When I cross…any of America’s great bridges, I think—men have done this. Construction is a sublime male poetry.”
This sublime poetry has been unappreciated in American society for more than a quarter of a century. But that appears to be changing. The awesome display of masculine courage shown by the firefighters and policemen at Ground Zero, the heroic soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, the focused determination and exemplary leadership of President Bush,Vice President Cheney, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and General Tommy Franks, have rekindled in Americans an appreciation for masculine virtues. Many courageous and even heroic women took part in all these endeavors. But fighting enemies and protecting the nation are overwhelmingly male projects. . .
Worth considering. . .
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
KOBE BRYANT
Right now, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case is dominating "celeb crime news" in the U.S. Daniel Henninger, writing in the WSJ, tells us:
If familiarity and frequency of usage confer legitimacy on new words, then new editions of dictionaries, under "K," will some day include the "kobebryantcase." It's a word heard 24/7 these days.
Kobe Bryant is one of America's biggest personalities. If you have managed to live in America cocooned from the fact that Mr. Bryant is a very famous professional basketball superstar, well, you know now. Celebrities, of course, pass in and out of center stage every day in our fair land. We can be certain that the one person on her knees each night thanking the media gods for the kobebryantcase is Martha Stewart; like Roxie Hart in "Chicago," she became yesterday's news overnight. . .
. . .Is Kobe guilty? Should we ID his accuser? Twinkle, twinkle, little stars. I'll be rooting for Judge Gannett, whose Eagle County Court issues decorum orders. The kobebryantcase won't show you much of that. But it's nice to know someone's still trying.
There is always one case that dominates the media scene. The media can't seem to cover more than one major, celebrity case at a time. Indeed, it's almost as if the media can't walk and chew gum at the same time. . .
. . . Well, upon further reflection, they've repeatedly proven -- be it O.J. or Scott Peterson, and now Kobe -- that they can't.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
Right now, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case is dominating "celeb crime news" in the U.S. Daniel Henninger, writing in the WSJ, tells us:
If familiarity and frequency of usage confer legitimacy on new words, then new editions of dictionaries, under "K," will some day include the "kobebryantcase." It's a word heard 24/7 these days.
Kobe Bryant is one of America's biggest personalities. If you have managed to live in America cocooned from the fact that Mr. Bryant is a very famous professional basketball superstar, well, you know now. Celebrities, of course, pass in and out of center stage every day in our fair land. We can be certain that the one person on her knees each night thanking the media gods for the kobebryantcase is Martha Stewart; like Roxie Hart in "Chicago," she became yesterday's news overnight. . .
. . .Is Kobe guilty? Should we ID his accuser? Twinkle, twinkle, little stars. I'll be rooting for Judge Gannett, whose Eagle County Court issues decorum orders. The kobebryantcase won't show you much of that. But it's nice to know someone's still trying.
There is always one case that dominates the media scene. The media can't seem to cover more than one major, celebrity case at a time. Indeed, it's almost as if the media can't walk and chew gum at the same time. . .
. . . Well, upon further reflection, they've repeatedly proven -- be it O.J. or Scott Peterson, and now Kobe -- that they can't.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
SO WHAT ABOUT THE WMD?
Axis of Weasels has this on WMD:
. . . Not one of the European nations opposed to the war in Iraq ever at any time deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Not France, not Germany, none of them. Tony Blair confronted the leaders of the EU nations prior to the war and challenged them to say that their intelligence agencies didn't have evidence of these weapons. The room remained quiet.
While the loony left and EUnunchs take joy in the lack of weapons discovery, we should all be concerned. Unless Saddam destroyed these weapons in the two weeks prior to the war, they're still out there. Somewhere.
Damned good thing we've got 150,000 of the finest weapons inspectors on Earth in Iraq to search for them. And do remember, when a "weapon of mass destruction" is properly defined, we've already taken care of two of the three big ones. . .
Just worth thinking about.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
Axis of Weasels has this on WMD:
. . . Not one of the European nations opposed to the war in Iraq ever at any time deny the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Not France, not Germany, none of them. Tony Blair confronted the leaders of the EU nations prior to the war and challenged them to say that their intelligence agencies didn't have evidence of these weapons. The room remained quiet.
While the loony left and EUnunchs take joy in the lack of weapons discovery, we should all be concerned. Unless Saddam destroyed these weapons in the two weeks prior to the war, they're still out there. Somewhere.
Damned good thing we've got 150,000 of the finest weapons inspectors on Earth in Iraq to search for them. And do remember, when a "weapon of mass destruction" is properly defined, we've already taken care of two of the three big ones. . .
Just worth thinking about.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
IS THE F.B.I. PROFILING?
Fox News reports:
The FBI on Thursday said that it is reissuing a "Be On The Lookout" advisory for suspected terrorist Abderraouf Jdey, who is to be "considered extremely dangerous.". . .
. . . In January, Jdey was identified as one of five individuals depicted on videotapes recovered from the destroyed residence of Usama bin Laden's military chief, Muhammad Atef. Officials say Atef was killed by a U.S. airstrike in November.
Attorney General John Ashcroft then identified Jdey, who also goes by the name Al Rauf Bin Al Habib Bin Yousef Al-Jiddi, as a 36-year-old Canadian citizen born in Tunisia.
The videos depict the individuals, including Jdey, apparently stating their "last will" and their intent to become martyrs, according to the FBI. One of the men was shown cradling a rifle and another, hailing from Yemen, was suspected of being intended for the Sept. 11 attacks. . .
So here we have yet another [cough, cough] Canadian unfairly "profiled" by the evil Ashcroft:
Fox News reports:
The FBI on Thursday said that it is reissuing a "Be On The Lookout" advisory for suspected terrorist Abderraouf Jdey, who is to be "considered extremely dangerous.". . .
. . . In January, Jdey was identified as one of five individuals depicted on videotapes recovered from the destroyed residence of Usama bin Laden's military chief, Muhammad Atef. Officials say Atef was killed by a U.S. airstrike in November.
Attorney General John Ashcroft then identified Jdey, who also goes by the name Al Rauf Bin Al Habib Bin Yousef Al-Jiddi, as a 36-year-old Canadian citizen born in Tunisia.
The videos depict the individuals, including Jdey, apparently stating their "last will" and their intent to become martyrs, according to the FBI. One of the men was shown cradling a rifle and another, hailing from Yemen, was suspected of being intended for the Sept. 11 attacks. . .
So here we have yet another [cough, cough] Canadian unfairly "profiled" by the evil Ashcroft:
BBC REPORTING ON ITSELF
The BBC reports:
The judge investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of the UK Government weapons expert Dr David Kelly is holding his first hearing.
Lord Hutton will explain how he will conduct the inquiry, including when he will start taking evidence. . .
. . .Dr Kelly was at the centre of a row between the government and the BBC over claims about Iraq's weapons capability. . .
. . . Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said he did not believe that the inquiry could look into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death without considering the broader question of how intelligence on Iraq was used.
"If Lord Hutton is to fulfil his remit, as set down, he is inevitably - to satisfy himself and wider opinion as to the causes that led to this personal strategy - going to have to ask pertinent, searching questions about possible contributory factors," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. . .
This sort of "reporting" is incestuous. Indeed, in the U.S. it would probably be viewed as bordering on infomercial.
All BBC reporting on this inquiry should be treated with the same sort of skepticism one would approach claims made by those trying to peddle a "Stairmaster 2000".
The BBC is in a confrontation with the Government. It has a decided interest in the outcome of this inquiry.
Yet here we have a BBC report -- and this is just one among many that have started appearing on this subject on its many TV and radio channels -- that it has produced for its own web site, in which it cites the 3rd party Liberal Democratic leader like a celebrity doing a product endorsement, on yet another BBC service, Radio 4, about how the inquiry must consider "the broader question of how intelligence on Iraq was used".
How convenient of Kennedy to say that. And how oh, so, disinterested and journalistically honest of the BBC to allow him to say that on one of the BBC's own radio programs.
Next the BBC will be telling us, "But wait! There's more!". . .
At least the people who want us to buy their "Stairmaster" admit they have an interest in us buying it. In contrast, the BBC plods along pompously, presuming it is perfectly entitled both to make news and report on it.
Nuh, uh. Things don't work that way.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
The BBC reports:
The judge investigating the circumstances surrounding the death of the UK Government weapons expert Dr David Kelly is holding his first hearing.
Lord Hutton will explain how he will conduct the inquiry, including when he will start taking evidence. . .
. . .Dr Kelly was at the centre of a row between the government and the BBC over claims about Iraq's weapons capability. . .
. . . Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said he did not believe that the inquiry could look into the circumstances of Dr Kelly's death without considering the broader question of how intelligence on Iraq was used.
"If Lord Hutton is to fulfil his remit, as set down, he is inevitably - to satisfy himself and wider opinion as to the causes that led to this personal strategy - going to have to ask pertinent, searching questions about possible contributory factors," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. . .
This sort of "reporting" is incestuous. Indeed, in the U.S. it would probably be viewed as bordering on infomercial.
All BBC reporting on this inquiry should be treated with the same sort of skepticism one would approach claims made by those trying to peddle a "Stairmaster 2000".
The BBC is in a confrontation with the Government. It has a decided interest in the outcome of this inquiry.
Yet here we have a BBC report -- and this is just one among many that have started appearing on this subject on its many TV and radio channels -- that it has produced for its own web site, in which it cites the 3rd party Liberal Democratic leader like a celebrity doing a product endorsement, on yet another BBC service, Radio 4, about how the inquiry must consider "the broader question of how intelligence on Iraq was used".
How convenient of Kennedy to say that. And how oh, so, disinterested and journalistically honest of the BBC to allow him to say that on one of the BBC's own radio programs.
Next the BBC will be telling us, "But wait! There's more!". . .
At least the people who want us to buy their "Stairmaster" admit they have an interest in us buying it. In contrast, the BBC plods along pompously, presuming it is perfectly entitled both to make news and report on it.
Nuh, uh. Things don't work that way.
¶ by Robert, Friday, August 01, 2003
