Those were the words spoken to Saddam Hussein when he was discovered in his spider hole.
Considering the circus his trial is becoming..would it have been better if a grenade had followed that greeting?
So far we have had to watch the treasonous and insane Ramsey Clark prance and pontificate and rave for the cameras. Saddam is acting like a homicidal child. Kind of reminds me of that kid in The Bad Seed. {Give me those shoes, give me those shoes right now!} shiver.
And of course the witnesses are every bit as afraid as any witness testifying against a drug dealer or a Mafia Don could ever be. Maybe the Iraqis need their own version of the Witness Protection Plan.
So would it have been better if Saddam had met the same fate as his sons?
Does the inability to control Saddam and the proceedings make the Court and the new Iraqi government appear weak in the eyes of the Iraqi people?
Or is this chaos cathartic for the Iraqi people?
I am not sure, but I worry that his could turn into the Iraqi version of the Milosovic trial at the Hague. Maybe they should turn him over to the Kurds. That would be justice.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
"If it didn't happen, the people who testified are a bunch of jerks"
Chicago Boyz:
"A special Congressional hearing was held today to determine if the slow response in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was due to racism.
The evacuees who gave testimony got pretty intense when describing their ordeal. They said that American troops aimed guns at young girl's heads, living in temporary shelters was deadly, and that they're victims of a crime as big as the Holocaust.
Uh huh. The US government set up death camps and shoveled millions of black residents into the ovens. Got it.
That surely happened because, if it didn't, then the people who testified are nothing but a bunch of jerks who are trying to game the system for their own gain."
PJM funded by Satan
As some of our dozens of readers know, we at Flares came together originally as a bunch of similar-minded commenters on Roger L Simon's blog. Roger, along with Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, have started a new startup called Pajamas Open Source Pajamas Media, which is intended to provide a business model through which bloggers can realize some income from the page views they receive, other than tips and BlogAds.
Now, we at Flares have been purposefully silent on PJM. There have been a lot of different controversies on the topic, and it turns out that various of us have friends on all sides, so we just saw it as the better part of valor.
Nor do I intend to post anything about PJM, its business model, the principals or their substantive critics, or its business practices now, and as on some previous topics, attempts to start that argument in comments will be summarily and mercilessly deleted. With cackles of great glee.
This, however, is just too delicious to miss:
I hope Roger et al have a good collection department. CIA is a notorious slow payer.
Now, we at Flares have been purposefully silent on PJM. There have been a lot of different controversies on the topic, and it turns out that various of us have friends on all sides, so we just saw it as the better part of valor.
Nor do I intend to post anything about PJM, its business model, the principals or their substantive critics, or its business practices now, and as on some previous topics, attempts to start that argument in comments will be summarily and mercilessly deleted. With cackles of great glee.
This, however, is just too delicious to miss:
Yup, you got it. PJM is funded by the CIA.so to review:
1. we have an administration that has been caught corrupting every branch of the media
2. the department of defense being advised to pay off foreign alternative news sources including blogs
3. a group of hawkish bloggers who for some reason believe that propaganda is otay
4. a sloppy semi-international group of mostly bush loyalists with $3.5 million in funding
from a warchest of $600+ million for access to their side bars and all their ad space
5. major conservative bloggers balking or backing out once theyve seen the evil up close
6. current pajamas-wearers not denying that im wrong, but instead calling me names
7. the co-founder of the project gleefully admiting that his venture is indeed
in the propaganda business and target is the US citizens... not Iraqis
8. the angel investor of Pajamas Media, Aubrey Chernick
has deep ties to BushCo most recently in
crisis management readiness
the emperor has no clothes but his flunkies are sellouts in pjs
I hope Roger et al have a good collection department. CIA is a notorious slow payer.
Dear Soldier
Dear Soldier:
Have a great time into he war and have a great time dieing in the war
from
Solider Miguel
P.S. DIE
Isn't that touching? I wonder where he learned that kind of talk?
This is the card wounded soldier Joshua Sparling got while in the hospital.
Send this young man a real card or note letting him know this is not the way America treats her fighting men and women.
Joshua Sparling
C/O Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001
via: Brian Kilmeade at Fox
Have a great time into he war and have a great time dieing in the war
from
Solider Miguel
P.S. DIE
Isn't that touching? I wonder where he learned that kind of talk?
This is the card wounded soldier Joshua Sparling got while in the hospital.
Send this young man a real card or note letting him know this is not the way America treats her fighting men and women.
Joshua Sparling
C/O Walter Reed Army Medical Center
6900 Georgia Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20307-5001
via: Brian Kilmeade at Fox
Exorcise the spooks
It seems the CIA is at again.
I am with John Hinderacker at Powerline. It is time to consider shutting down the CIA. Their latest leak to ABC news concerning the detention of 11 Al Qaida terrorists in Eastern Europe is a breach of national security and in light of the entire Plame fiasco, it would seem to be a crime.
So when can we expect subpoenas? It seems there are elements within the CIA who are determined to undermine an elected government. Rendition is not a new policy, nor is interrogation of terrorist suspects something that began when George Bush took office. And yet it seems it is left to Condi Rice to defend the CIA. Why?
Shut it down. It is corrupt, self destructive, political, incompetent and is becoming a foreign policy impediment. I say we tell those spooks to go toward the light and shut down this freak show.
I am with John Hinderacker at Powerline. It is time to consider shutting down the CIA. Their latest leak to ABC news concerning the detention of 11 Al Qaida terrorists in Eastern Europe is a breach of national security and in light of the entire Plame fiasco, it would seem to be a crime.
So when can we expect subpoenas? It seems there are elements within the CIA who are determined to undermine an elected government. Rendition is not a new policy, nor is interrogation of terrorist suspects something that began when George Bush took office. And yet it seems it is left to Condi Rice to defend the CIA. Why?
Shut it down. It is corrupt, self destructive, political, incompetent and is becoming a foreign policy impediment. I say we tell those spooks to go toward the light and shut down this freak show.
Shifting Sands - 11 Months 'til Kickoff
Jay Cost pf The Horse Race Blog (currently dormant) is writing articles for Real Clear Politics. His current piece is a really excellent analysis of the state of play regarding current polling results. In particula, his reasoning concerning the quality of candidates being recruited merits close attention.
I agree with Jay's conclusion that, at this point, the '06 election is going to be status quo. I reserve the right to change my mind by the end of February because I believe that the President has the ability to shift public opinion rather significantly. The past two weeks have seen a marked shift in the President's personal numbers but that is not the area that is worthy of focus. What is worthy of focus and could turn out to be very significant for next fall's elections is the administration's push to establish Iraq as a success in the minds of the American people.
The Democrat's current 'cut n' run' tack is almost as incompetent as the previous 'those sharp Republicans suckered us into voting for the Iraq war, so vote for us again'. Americans do not hold dumb losers in particularly high esteem - which is why centrist Democrats cringe and whimper whenever the names Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy or Kerry are even whispered. It's truly amazing to watch the leftist fringe drive the party into the ground.
If the administration plays off of the Iraqi elections in December, followed by the hanging of Saddam and his top Baathist henchmen and the beginning of the withdrawal of US forces based upon Iraqi security forces continuing to prove their ability to offer protection to the Iraqi people, then the American public is going to start feeling pretty chipper about Iraq. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that American's feeling concerning the battle in Iraq could undergo a very significant change by March 1st. Should that change occur, it would not bode at all well for the Democrats in the fall.
Follow up: I've previously posted on Dean's failure to swell Dem coffers. The numbers for October (latest month reported) showed a decline of cash on hand of $700K for the DNC. He better start working on his rain dance if he wants to keep the job past November.
I agree with Jay's conclusion that, at this point, the '06 election is going to be status quo. I reserve the right to change my mind by the end of February because I believe that the President has the ability to shift public opinion rather significantly. The past two weeks have seen a marked shift in the President's personal numbers but that is not the area that is worthy of focus. What is worthy of focus and could turn out to be very significant for next fall's elections is the administration's push to establish Iraq as a success in the minds of the American people.
The Democrat's current 'cut n' run' tack is almost as incompetent as the previous 'those sharp Republicans suckered us into voting for the Iraq war, so vote for us again'. Americans do not hold dumb losers in particularly high esteem - which is why centrist Democrats cringe and whimper whenever the names Dean, Pelosi, Kennedy or Kerry are even whispered. It's truly amazing to watch the leftist fringe drive the party into the ground.
If the administration plays off of the Iraqi elections in December, followed by the hanging of Saddam and his top Baathist henchmen and the beginning of the withdrawal of US forces based upon Iraqi security forces continuing to prove their ability to offer protection to the Iraqi people, then the American public is going to start feeling pretty chipper about Iraq. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that American's feeling concerning the battle in Iraq could undergo a very significant change by March 1st. Should that change occur, it would not bode at all well for the Democrats in the fall.
Follow up: I've previously posted on Dean's failure to swell Dem coffers. The numbers for October (latest month reported) showed a decline of cash on hand of $700K for the DNC. He better start working on his rain dance if he wants to keep the job past November.
The union of a true bitch and a genuine bully.
No, not them - Bill was no bully. I don't know enough about him to care about Forgetting Edmund Wilson (an article in Commentary about Mary McCarthy and Edmund Wilson) but I clicked in to see what Arts & Letters Daily had up and spotted that wonderful little "a true bitch and a genuine bully" line. I'm compelled to read any article that contains lines like:
McCarthy always mistook her snobbery for morality; Wilson mistook life for literature. Dabney, summing up this wretched partnership, writes: “American letters has not seen another alliance so flawed and so distinguished.” So flawed and so distinguished—what a way to characterize the union of a true bitch and a genuine bully.
A Parent's Right to Know
Op-ed, by Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, in today's USA Today. Since I find it easy to agree with Professor Turley on this matter I wouldn't mind hearing from those who disagree.
Burnin' Down the House
These are photos of the former residence of Bishop Rodger Moran in New Orleans. He lived across the street from Notre Dame Seminary on Carrolton Ave. His house was looted and set ablaze in the aftermath of Katrina. He lost everything in the fire except his chalice, which he was able to retrieve when combing through the wreckage. I wonder if those bishop's vestments come in handy in some way to the looters.
Stepping Up
Much of the blogosphere’s appeal derives from the real-time dialogue made possible by reader comments. Many bloggers, however, do not allow comments because they fear exposure to lawsuits. For example, one of blogging’s leading lights, law professor Hugh Hewitt, sees comment sections as “defamation/copyright time bombs waiting to go off,” with site operators as likely litigation targets. Hewitt even worries that ‘dirty tricksters’ might post defamatory or copyrighted material via blog comments in order to burden targeted blogs with crippling lawsuits. See Hewitt Quote
Arguably, bloggers are protected from liability for comments posted on their sites under the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), which confers immunity on an Internet “provider” or “user” that republishes statements made by third parties. Last year, though, a California Court of Appeal held otherwise in the closely related area of usenets. According to the court, section 230 does not immunize the publisher of a usenet from liability for reposting, and failing to remove, a third-party’s defamatory statements about another individual; rather, because the publisher had notice that the material may be defamatory, the Court found she was just as liable as if she had written or published the material herself. The California Supreme Court, in BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL, Case No.S122953, has now decided to review that decision and determine for itself whether section 230 bars liability “where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet.” It seems likely that the state supreme court’s decision will apply equally to blogs.
The potential impact of the case has drawn widespread attention. For example, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group focused on defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and online consumer rights, has submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to interpret the statute as providing blanket immunity for bloggers in order to avoid chilling blog speech. (See here, for example, at pp 19-20: EFF Amicus Brief)
To many fans of the blogosphere – especially those who view it as an important and essential antidote to the failings of legacy media – EFF’s position may seem obviously correct. Yet there are reasons why a more cautious approach may be better.
For example, granting blanket immunity even when a blogger knows or has reason to know that the comments are defamatory ignores the fact that defamation and copyright infringement can be serious issues with pernicious and even devastating consequences for the affected individual. In the Barrett case, for example, two physicians were publicly accused of “stalking” and participating in a “criminal conspiracy” in more than 200 messages to various newsgroups posted by the director of a center for alternative medicine. In such circumstances, a reputation built over a lifetime may disappear overnight.
Moreover, advocating blanket immunity in those circumstances may have the unintended effect of marking the blogosphere and its exponents as fundamentally un-serious, thereby diminishing the credibility and heft of blogs relative to other media. Some proponents of blanket immunity tacitly acknowledge this problem, and seem content to present it as a feature, not a bug. For example, in its amicus, the EFF takes the position that blogs and their comments should be immune from legal liability because everything written on a blog should be taken with a large pinch of salt. See here, for example, at pp 19-20: EFF Amicus Brief. And, as recent coverage of the Wikipedia issue has made clear, the ‘inherent unreliability’ of the blogosphere is one meme that the mainstream media is more than happy to run with. See Wikipedia article.
In this case, then, advocating an absolutist approach to the issue of blog immunity – albeit with the admirable aims of promoting free speech and further democratizing the marketplace of ideas – is likely to produce a short-term tactical victory at the cost of a long-term strategic one.
Law cannot solve all such problems, of course, and a single court decision interpreting a statute arguably enacted to address a different set of issues cannot resolve these important conflicting policies. But between absolute immunity and common law liability there may be an opportunity to mitigate some of the harms of extreme positions with a more carefully calibrated approach – at least for those online “publishers,” such as bloggers, who have the capacity to edit the comments on their sites. For example, Congress could amend the law to require that bloggers earn immunity from liability by posting clear disclaimers distancing themselves from the content of comments posted on their sites (or, if the Court finds the statute does not apply to usenets and blogs, it could change the common law rules to impose such a requirement). While far from perfect, such a disclaimer may limit the damage because the impact of a defamatory comment depends a great deal on the gravitas of its source. Being accused of criminal malpractice by an anonymous commenter on a site that expressly disavows responsibility for the content of its comments may reduce the damaging impact of a comment that otherwise seems to be endorsed by the site.
Many citizens of the blogosphere prefer not to refer to the “mainstream media” as such, because, they believe, old media does not deserve to monopolize (or even hold) the rank of “mainstream.” But if that is so, we must increasingly ask whether the blogosphere is ready to assume a more mainstream role? To be taken seriously by others, the blogosphere ought to consider taking itself seriously enough to develop, and express, habits of thought and standards of practice that harmonize the competing interests of free speech and freedom from defamation. Further, if it is true that law can provide only partial solutions, greater reliance on social norms and self-policing may be required.
(To keep an eye on the Barrett case, see here: Barrett Case)
Arguably, bloggers are protected from liability for comments posted on their sites under the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230), which confers immunity on an Internet “provider” or “user” that republishes statements made by third parties. Last year, though, a California Court of Appeal held otherwise in the closely related area of usenets. According to the court, section 230 does not immunize the publisher of a usenet from liability for reposting, and failing to remove, a third-party’s defamatory statements about another individual; rather, because the publisher had notice that the material may be defamatory, the Court found she was just as liable as if she had written or published the material herself. The California Supreme Court, in BARRETT v. ROSENTHAL, Case No.S122953, has now decided to review that decision and determine for itself whether section 230 bars liability “where the provider or user knows or has reason to know of the defamatory character of a statement it republished on the Internet.” It seems likely that the state supreme court’s decision will apply equally to blogs.
The potential impact of the case has drawn widespread attention. For example, the Electronic Freedom Foundation (EFF), a non-profit group focused on defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and online consumer rights, has submitted an amicus brief urging the Court to interpret the statute as providing blanket immunity for bloggers in order to avoid chilling blog speech. (See here, for example, at pp 19-20: EFF Amicus Brief)
To many fans of the blogosphere – especially those who view it as an important and essential antidote to the failings of legacy media – EFF’s position may seem obviously correct. Yet there are reasons why a more cautious approach may be better.
For example, granting blanket immunity even when a blogger knows or has reason to know that the comments are defamatory ignores the fact that defamation and copyright infringement can be serious issues with pernicious and even devastating consequences for the affected individual. In the Barrett case, for example, two physicians were publicly accused of “stalking” and participating in a “criminal conspiracy” in more than 200 messages to various newsgroups posted by the director of a center for alternative medicine. In such circumstances, a reputation built over a lifetime may disappear overnight.
Moreover, advocating blanket immunity in those circumstances may have the unintended effect of marking the blogosphere and its exponents as fundamentally un-serious, thereby diminishing the credibility and heft of blogs relative to other media. Some proponents of blanket immunity tacitly acknowledge this problem, and seem content to present it as a feature, not a bug. For example, in its amicus, the EFF takes the position that blogs and their comments should be immune from legal liability because everything written on a blog should be taken with a large pinch of salt. See here, for example, at pp 19-20: EFF Amicus Brief. And, as recent coverage of the Wikipedia issue has made clear, the ‘inherent unreliability’ of the blogosphere is one meme that the mainstream media is more than happy to run with. See Wikipedia article.
In this case, then, advocating an absolutist approach to the issue of blog immunity – albeit with the admirable aims of promoting free speech and further democratizing the marketplace of ideas – is likely to produce a short-term tactical victory at the cost of a long-term strategic one.
Law cannot solve all such problems, of course, and a single court decision interpreting a statute arguably enacted to address a different set of issues cannot resolve these important conflicting policies. But between absolute immunity and common law liability there may be an opportunity to mitigate some of the harms of extreme positions with a more carefully calibrated approach – at least for those online “publishers,” such as bloggers, who have the capacity to edit the comments on their sites. For example, Congress could amend the law to require that bloggers earn immunity from liability by posting clear disclaimers distancing themselves from the content of comments posted on their sites (or, if the Court finds the statute does not apply to usenets and blogs, it could change the common law rules to impose such a requirement). While far from perfect, such a disclaimer may limit the damage because the impact of a defamatory comment depends a great deal on the gravitas of its source. Being accused of criminal malpractice by an anonymous commenter on a site that expressly disavows responsibility for the content of its comments may reduce the damaging impact of a comment that otherwise seems to be endorsed by the site.
Many citizens of the blogosphere prefer not to refer to the “mainstream media” as such, because, they believe, old media does not deserve to monopolize (or even hold) the rank of “mainstream.” But if that is so, we must increasingly ask whether the blogosphere is ready to assume a more mainstream role? To be taken seriously by others, the blogosphere ought to consider taking itself seriously enough to develop, and express, habits of thought and standards of practice that harmonize the competing interests of free speech and freedom from defamation. Further, if it is true that law can provide only partial solutions, greater reliance on social norms and self-policing may be required.
(To keep an eye on the Barrett case, see here: Barrett Case)
Monday, December 05, 2005
Apologies!
All the Blogger blogs seem to have been down for some hours. We're just now getting back online. We regret any inconvenience this may have caused. We at Flares are discussing the possibility of moving to a new hosting service, with a new look on the front page. We're thinking of making it look a little more like a traditional newspaper site. Please comment below on any thoughts or feedback you might have on this.
Winter Soldier, Yet Again
James Taranto's Best of the Web Today brings us this little tidbit from John F. Kerry (from "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer)
Taranto, generally a funny guy, get's one of his classic snarks in:
And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs. Whether you like it or not--Schieffer: Yeah.
Kerry: --Iraqis should be doing that.
Taranto, generally a funny guy, get's one of his classic snarks in:
Terrorizing kids and children and breaking sort of the customs! Didn't "Jenjis Khan" used to do stuff like that in Vietnam? Note, too, that Kerry isn't against this per se; he just thinks Iraqis should be doing it.Does JFKerry ever miss an opportunity to be stupid?
Fire for Effect
Don Rumsfeld sure did.
We have arrived at a strange time in this country where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world -- often with little context and little scrutiny -- let alone correction or accountability after the fact. Speed it appears is the critical determinant. Less so, context.
We have arrived at a strange time in this country where the worst about America and our military seems to so quickly be taken as truth by the press and reported and spread around the world -- often with little context and little scrutiny -- let alone correction or accountability after the fact. Speed it appears is the critical determinant. Less so, context.
The Longest Hatred
The longest hatred is phrase coined by historian Robert S. Wistrich to describe antisemitism.
I would say it is back, but the truth is it never left. From the Black Death to the Great Depression to Islamic radicalism, hatred of the Jewish people excuses and placates bigots of all stripes.
It also seems that it is catching, now the Americans are the new Jews and some people have wondered if the Iraqis might be the next Other, to be shunned and despised.
Recently I noticed that David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan has joined ranks with Cindy Sheehan in his screed Cindy Sheehan is Right. The villain? Well of course it is the Jew and his desire for world domination.
I read some of the ravings of the early Nazis in Wistrich's Hitler and the Holocaust and I could not help but notice the same kind of unreasoning hatred, mindless bigotry and affinity for paranoia which seems to be so much a part of the the antiwar movement. The Nazis were able to do the things they did because they believed they were saving the world, they too were convinced of the essential rightness of their insane Final Solution.
Today much of that same hatred can be seen in the left, both here and in Europe. People will deny this, but answer this..if the young people rioting in France had been Jewish, would people have hesitated to name their race or religion or creed? Or would it have been considered proof of their nefarious intent to take over Europe?
UPDATE: According to an editorial by Ralph Peters in the New York Post sunni insurgents have made a point of expressing their "love" for Cindy Sheehan and her kind. Imagine that, her son's murderers love her. I bet Casey would be so proud.
I would say it is back, but the truth is it never left. From the Black Death to the Great Depression to Islamic radicalism, hatred of the Jewish people excuses and placates bigots of all stripes.
It also seems that it is catching, now the Americans are the new Jews and some people have wondered if the Iraqis might be the next Other, to be shunned and despised.
Recently I noticed that David Duke of the Ku Klux Klan has joined ranks with Cindy Sheehan in his screed Cindy Sheehan is Right. The villain? Well of course it is the Jew and his desire for world domination.
I read some of the ravings of the early Nazis in Wistrich's Hitler and the Holocaust and I could not help but notice the same kind of unreasoning hatred, mindless bigotry and affinity for paranoia which seems to be so much a part of the the antiwar movement. The Nazis were able to do the things they did because they believed they were saving the world, they too were convinced of the essential rightness of their insane Final Solution.
Today much of that same hatred can be seen in the left, both here and in Europe. People will deny this, but answer this..if the young people rioting in France had been Jewish, would people have hesitated to name their race or religion or creed? Or would it have been considered proof of their nefarious intent to take over Europe?
UPDATE: According to an editorial by Ralph Peters in the New York Post sunni insurgents have made a point of expressing their "love" for Cindy Sheehan and her kind. Imagine that, her son's murderers love her. I bet Casey would be so proud.
Dr. Sanity: WYSIWYG
There's a reason she's called 'Dr Sanity':
Bush does not pretending to be intellectually superior and can easily make fun of himself. Nor does it seem to matter much to him that everyone doesn't totally adore him. He tackles hard problems head on (which most politicians lack the courage to do) and perseveres in trying to fix them. He indeed "muddles along", misspeaks, and even screws up from time to time; but he presses on and actually gets things done.
That is what matters most to me.
He has achieved far more in the 5 years of his presidency (which still has 3 years to go) than either his father or Bill Clinton did in 12 years.
Trust, but Verify
A rarity: The New York Times ran a piece that was actually thought-provoking, as it picked up on the Wikipedia/Seigenthaler controversy today. John Seigenthaler, Sr., is a 78-year old journalist with distinguished MSM credentials, who was mortified to find the following passage in his own Wikipedia entry:
“For a brief time, he was thought to have been directly involved in the Kennedy assassinations of both John, and his brother, Bobby. Nothing was ever proven."Outraged at this and other false claims, Seigenthaler penned an op-ed for USA Today, blasting the unverified and anonymous posting practices of Wikipedia (and by extension, the Internet in general):
And so we live in a universe of new media with phenomenal opportunities for worldwide communications and research — but populated by volunteer vandals with poison-pen intellects.The NY Times’ Kat Seelye seems to want to push the shopworn MSM meme:
Still, the question of Wikipedia, as of so much of what you find online, is: Can you trust it?Despite herself, she stumbles into a number of good quotes from people who understand the dynamic of the new media:
Indeed, Esther Dyson, editor of Release 1.0 and a longtime Internet analyst, said Wikipedia may, in that sense, be better than real life. "The Internet has done a lot more for truth by making things easier to discuss," she said. "Transparency and sunlight are better than a single point of view that can't be questioned."
Now, I have never been a huge fan of Wikipedia, and I think its MSM-style claims to neutrality and authoritativeness have in some ways brought this trouble onto itself. However, I think this story is indicative of a deeper point that underlies the MSM-blog wars. To put it bluntly, most people have been trained to seek answers from authoritative sources, thus bypassing the need to actually, you know, think. Septuagenarian Seigenthaler probably thought he was trafficking in those answers when he edited The Tennessean, and you can see similar cognitive styles from any number of MSM-based defenders of CBS (cf Marvin Kalb’s recent interview with Dan Rather at Harvard).
Many of us here may already take for granted the paradigm shift of open source and massively distributed information, as it is ego-syntonic (ie, agreeable to our cognitive style). However, it is equally incumbent upon us to address some of the social problems that arise in the transition from a top-down, gatekeeper-based knowledge economy to a distributed knowledge economy. Some of the issues are discussed on the Wikipedia discussion page concerning the Seigenthaler controversy. (See also here and here for some axe-grinding that is specific to Wikipedia).
A larger issue that has been affecting me (and perhaps many of us here?) directly regards time management in the face of information overload. How do you know when a piece of information has been sufficiently vetted and contextualized? How do we build, and gauge, social trust on the internet? How can I stop myself from clicking just one more link to find out more?
Even more broadly: How is our democracy affected by vast (and growing) disparities in knowledge (and ways of knowing) between citizens?
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Why We Cannot Set a Timetable for Withdrawal
Most people I've heard who are against setting a timetable for our withdrawal say it is because it will give a signal to our enemies they only have to bide their time until we leave. Then they can take over.
A signal to the enemy is only a part of it. And probably the smaller part. It's the signal to our potential allies among the Iraqi people that is more important. How can we gain their trust if they know we will go poof before the work is complete? Iraq is a nation of tribes, and the sunni tribes are the most important to win over in order to end the insurgency (and defeat the al Qaeda terrorists there because without the support of the local tribes, foreign terrorists are ratted out too).
The work that is going on under the radar to create jobs and strengthen the Iraqi economy and thus better the lives of its people is dependent on the good will and cooperation of tribal leaders. More and more are working with the coalition forces but if a town has split loyalites our job is harder and often compromised.
What we've been seeing in Iraq is a steady increase in the number of sunni tribes that are deciding to at minimum join the political process and at best help defeat the insurgents and terrorists in their towns. It has taken time for us to gain their trust. But it is not just the goodwill of Americans that wins them over, it is often the savagery and cruelty of the insurgents and terrorists themselves.
Here is an AP report about how the assassination of a tribal leader in Samarra backfired on the insurgents. (h/t Austin Bay).
But it's not enough to turn tribes against the insurgency, they must also have something to turn towards. And right now it's the Americans and their soldiers and civil affairs people that fill that niche. It is also not enough to have the Iraqi military be able to handle the fighting. The Iraqi government and fledgling institutions must also help to create jobs, get small businesses off the ground, and maintain/upgrade infrastructure. Thus Iraq's political process is every bit as important as its military progress.
And we cannot leave until both are ready to completely fill our shoes.
And that is Bush's plan. When Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down. And Bush is not just talking about the Iraqi military. Though reading between the lines, I think Bush has quite a bit of confidence in Iraq's political progress.
So I simply cringed when I heard Barbara Boxer today say that Bush has no plan and we have to tell the Iraqi people to fight for their own country. Barbara, you are either naive, ill-informed, or stupid. Take your pick.
A signal to the enemy is only a part of it. And probably the smaller part. It's the signal to our potential allies among the Iraqi people that is more important. How can we gain their trust if they know we will go poof before the work is complete? Iraq is a nation of tribes, and the sunni tribes are the most important to win over in order to end the insurgency (and defeat the al Qaeda terrorists there because without the support of the local tribes, foreign terrorists are ratted out too).
The work that is going on under the radar to create jobs and strengthen the Iraqi economy and thus better the lives of its people is dependent on the good will and cooperation of tribal leaders. More and more are working with the coalition forces but if a town has split loyalites our job is harder and often compromised.
What we've been seeing in Iraq is a steady increase in the number of sunni tribes that are deciding to at minimum join the political process and at best help defeat the insurgents and terrorists in their towns. It has taken time for us to gain their trust. But it is not just the goodwill of Americans that wins them over, it is often the savagery and cruelty of the insurgents and terrorists themselves.
Here is an AP report about how the assassination of a tribal leader in Samarra backfired on the insurgents. (h/t Austin Bay).
But it's not enough to turn tribes against the insurgency, they must also have something to turn towards. And right now it's the Americans and their soldiers and civil affairs people that fill that niche. It is also not enough to have the Iraqi military be able to handle the fighting. The Iraqi government and fledgling institutions must also help to create jobs, get small businesses off the ground, and maintain/upgrade infrastructure. Thus Iraq's political process is every bit as important as its military progress.
And we cannot leave until both are ready to completely fill our shoes.
And that is Bush's plan. When Iraqi's stand up, we'll stand down. And Bush is not just talking about the Iraqi military. Though reading between the lines, I think Bush has quite a bit of confidence in Iraq's political progress.
So I simply cringed when I heard Barbara Boxer today say that Bush has no plan and we have to tell the Iraqi people to fight for their own country. Barbara, you are either naive, ill-informed, or stupid. Take your pick.
The Wall Street Journal Goofs Up---and Quickly Issues a Retraction
The following assertion is patently false:
“This puts him ahead of a press corps that still focuses on past failures. In the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007619
I am the one who alerted James Fallows to the error committed by the WSJ. He immediately made sure that the editors of this esteemed publication printed a retraction. They have done so:
“(Correction: Due to inaccurate information from a source, this editorial misstated information about James Fallows's reporting for his essay in the Atlantic Monthly, "Why Iraq Has No Army." While Mr. Fallows did not go to Iraq, as we reported correctly, he did interview U.S. military officers involved in training Iraqi forces by phone and email, including Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, then-head of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq.)”
Thankfully, the WSJ has far more integrity than the New York Times. By the way, has the latter publication returned the Pulitzer Prize awarded to liar Walter Duranty?
“This puts him ahead of a press corps that still focuses on past failures. In the latest issue of The Atlantic Monthly, for example, James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime during at least the past nine months.”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007619
I am the one who alerted James Fallows to the error committed by the WSJ. He immediately made sure that the editors of this esteemed publication printed a retraction. They have done so:
“(Correction: Due to inaccurate information from a source, this editorial misstated information about James Fallows's reporting for his essay in the Atlantic Monthly, "Why Iraq Has No Army." While Mr. Fallows did not go to Iraq, as we reported correctly, he did interview U.S. military officers involved in training Iraqi forces by phone and email, including Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, then-head of the Multinational Security Transition Command in Iraq.)”
Thankfully, the WSJ has far more integrity than the New York Times. By the way, has the latter publication returned the Pulitzer Prize awarded to liar Walter Duranty?
Sign, Sign Everywhere a sign...
The intersections of many New Orleans and Jefferson Parish streets are filled with signs. For a while this was the only means of communicating available services. There is talk of making this illegal now. Slowly but surely the market begins to make something happen. Now is a good time to work at Wendy's, as you can see (if you have a place to live).
Water Lines
This is from a section of New Orleans known as Lakeview (even though there isn't really a view of the lake). Street after street looks like this. The houses are standing, but they are uninhabitable. I figure most of this gets bulldozed with a need to start over or allow parts of this area to serve as a safety valve. There is a ghost town quality to much of this area. There were hardly any cars on the street except for some people trying to salvage something from their houses or some disaster tourists taking pictures.
The Ultimate Information Warfare Tactic
OSM summarizes reports on the Ramadi "uprising". Bill Roggio says:
The underlying story appears to be this: someone distributed film of a few insurgents of some stripe walking down a road and firing a few mortar rounds, along with a story about how the insurgents had taken back the city of Ramadi. This story ran on the major networks. The problem is that when asked about it, the US military in Ramadi said, basically, "what attacks? We've got some operations of our own running, but that didn't happen." As Cori Dauber points out,
The usual rant here would be to talk about the apparent seditionist leanings of the legacy media — which I'll leave as an exercise for the interested reader — but instead I want to note something else.
This war has apparently gotten to the point that the insurgents don't need to actually do military operations at all in order to produce the information warfare effects they want. It's infinitely much less taxing if you can get coverage of your "massive assault" by producing some home movies that don't even show combat. Or at least, it's much less taxing if you can depend on someone deciding the footage is "too good to check."
I think truepeer's point is made, once again, by this story: there is an information war going on; for whatever reasons, it looks increasingly like the legacy media is on one side, and the people who hope for victory in Iraq and liberty for the Middle East are on the other.
The reported “mini-Tet offensive” in Ramadi has turned out to be less than accurate. In fact, it has been anything but. The Associated Press reported a massive citywide insurgent attack, and Reuters and other news outlets quickly picked up on the story.
Captain Jeffery Pool, Public Affairs Officer for the 2nd Marine Division, disputed the claims in the harshest of terms, and rebuked the media for its mis characterization of events. “Today I witnessed inaccurate reporting, use of unreliable sources, media using other media as sources, an active insurgent propaganda machine, and the pack journalism at its worse.”
The underlying story appears to be this: someone distributed film of a few insurgents of some stripe walking down a road and firing a few mortar rounds, along with a story about how the insurgents had taken back the city of Ramadi. This story ran on the major networks. The problem is that when asked about it, the US military in Ramadi said, basically, "what attacks? We've got some operations of our own running, but that didn't happen." As Cori Dauber points out,
Tonight CBS's new glamour girl, Lara Logan, has a piece centered around (well, actually, exclusively composed of) their exclusive acquisition of combat footage from Ramadi, in Anbar province. The footage is from mid-November, and we're told it's from a date when Congressman Murtha was in Iraq (although whether he was in Ramadi, or ever aware of this particular engagement is left ambiguous.) What we aren't told orally (I don't think, I was writing pretty furiously at the time) but what is quickly flashed on the screen is that the source of the footage is Time magazine's Michael Ware.(Emphasis mine.)
....
But the other reason the story was of interest to me is that it seemed to me that the introduction to the piece (again, ambiguous) was a reference to the bold action taken by insurgents on the streets of Ramadi today. What makes this particularly ironic is that the story on CBS's web site regarding Ramadi is already updated to account for DOD claims (as reported on Fox, but not on their web site that I can see) that the footage available earlier in the day of insurgents brazenly walking about the city streets, and the reports that went with it that they had successfully attacked government buildings, appear now to have been a hoax.
The usual rant here would be to talk about the apparent seditionist leanings of the legacy media — which I'll leave as an exercise for the interested reader — but instead I want to note something else.
This war has apparently gotten to the point that the insurgents don't need to actually do military operations at all in order to produce the information warfare effects they want. It's infinitely much less taxing if you can get coverage of your "massive assault" by producing some home movies that don't even show combat. Or at least, it's much less taxing if you can depend on someone deciding the footage is "too good to check."
I think truepeer's point is made, once again, by this story: there is an information war going on; for whatever reasons, it looks increasingly like the legacy media is on one side, and the people who hope for victory in Iraq and liberty for the Middle East are on the other.
Instapundit and LGF under atttack
There was a noteworthy post and comment at Belmont Club the other day; I hope it bears repeating, as an invitation to discuss our ambitions for the blogosphere.
Wretchard is frustrated that a proper understanding, in his view, of the reality on the ground in Iraq - i.e. that the US is making sure military advances and that reasons for hope remain - is being undermined by an MSM narrative that seeks to make Iraq fit the mold of the narrative that the left created out of Vietnam. Wretchard writes:
In response, "Voltimand" writes:
Discuss.
Wretchard is frustrated that a proper understanding, in his view, of the reality on the ground in Iraq - i.e. that the US is making sure military advances and that reasons for hope remain - is being undermined by an MSM narrative that seeks to make Iraq fit the mold of the narrative that the left created out of Vietnam. Wretchard writes:
Blackfive says that the results of fighting on the ground are foregone: what remains is the 'battle of the narrative'. But how do you win a 'battle of the narrative' except with words? Ironically the sheer success of the US Armed Forces in keeping the [US] civilian population from a direct experience of war ensures they will only learn about it through vicarious means: network news, the major newspapers and magazines. Movies. And in that department the OPFOR has Blue radically outnumbered. Any rational observer calculating the correlation of words would have to say that in that battle, Blackfive's narrative hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell. The side with the most power over words has determined that Iraq is a defeat. And yet...
The problem with using words to trump reality is that it wagers everything on a monumental bluff. The mesmerist must carry all before him or be humiliated. A King must be obeyed or lose the throne. There is no middle ground. Personally I think the repeated conjury of the master-spell of 'Vietnam' and the endless repetition of "we have been defeated" is a strained attempt to achieve what used to be accomplished effortlessly; almost as a background process. Now the spell is being used altogether too often to be convincing, like a lion-tamer who must repeatedly shout at the mountain of snarling flesh before him to sit down. One of the characteristics of the collapse of an illusion is the suddenness with which it comes. The Soviet Union; the EU superstate; the notion of an advanced, enlightened and progressive France, were like Atlantis separated from glory and oblivion by a single night and day. I would be careful about Vietnam because the '60s, like Vaudeville, may never come again.
In response, "Voltimand" writes:
As a retired and aging literary critic and theorist my inclination is to say war is always "narrative," even in the making. None of which belies the fact that human flesh and humanly-constructed implements of war confront real death, evaded at any given moment, or not.
What any commander does at any given moment must be relayed through a complex series of filters, all of which are composed of words or other encoded signs plus the rules of their placement in texts. How you react to the bomb down the street is determined by the particular "narrative" you place that bomb within so as to give it intelligibility.
One could call this a "post-modern" viewpoint, and go on to say that the MSM has tacitly taken it over, and is in the business of using it to do what it does best--spinning out verbal narratives--as a way of thumbing its nose at the US military, Bush, and Al-Quaeda, all at the same time.
And this would be true. The argument of the present post holds--correctly, of course--to the notion that when the shrapnel hits the flesh, it's a "trans-verbal" injury that occurs.
How you get the inside curve on a narrative you disagree with is with another narrative. And here, I submit that the only force on this planet that can do this or is doing this with success is the blogosphere. At its best it has the intelligence, it has the freedom from constraining threats, and perhaps most important, it has the will to go for the jugular.
The Mapes fiasco shows that the MSM and the liberals fear what the blogs say about them. And frankly, in a world where, as W. has pointed out before, leftist writers enjoy the freedom to write against their defenders only as long as the defenders do what the leftists criticize them for, namely defend them and do is successfully, the real fear is of the written word used sharply, incisively against them.
It is time, I think, for the blogs and their aiders and abettors, among whom I count myself, to move from a defensive posture, and start calculatedly constructing narratives that deliberately challenge world lefistism where it hurts. That means no more complaints about their moral deliquency. What we need is serious attacks on their intelligence and their ignorance.
E. G., it seems to me time to start pointing out that they talk about Vietnam because that's the only war they know anything about, and that knowledge is quite slim. In brief, they are completely--and vulnerably--ignorant of military history. The essence of true ignorance is ignorance of that ignorance, and this fact needs to be iterated with numbing and absolutely destructive purpose and intent.
In the U. S., there is the general grumble among those who, like myself, have voted Democratic all their lives until the 1990s, that Republicans don't know how to slit throats, verbally speaking. That's because Republicans are finally not interested in politics, because they're not interested in government save as something to be controlled.
IOW, they're entirely too nice.
What the people W. cites at the beginning of this post can't possibly stand up to is a direct, elaborated, and detailed attack on their every word.
This is indeed a propaganda war, with the continued existence of western culture at stake. I believe that the blogosphere needs to take a deep breath and recognize that it is only it that is going to reduce the MSM spinmeisters to silence.
For this reason I think we ought (1) ditch Instapundit and its ilk, who as a law professor still thinks we live in a world where polite debate means anything; (2) say "thanks, but no thanks to the type of blog represented by "Little Green Footballs," that specializes in "just one outrage after another," since it doesn't verbalize a serious critique, plus generating a lot of name-calling. No more name-calling.
And we need to get serious political and military thinkers out in front, those who sniff the blood in the wind, and who have a taste for the jugular. In place of name-calling, I envision--I've done it myself personally as the occasion warrants and earned lasting enmity from my victims, which shows that it works--relentless, pulverizing refutation and destruction of every argument, every verbal fast shuffle, every ignorance. It requires work, it requires the bloggers to get out of their pajamas and put their work-clothes on, because this sort of thing requires research--Wretchard is a prime example in a blogosphere where way too many shoot from the hip--and expenditure of time and care.
I can, e.g., imagine a blog which does nothing but go after the New York Times, every day of the week. Better, a series of blogs that sub-divide the task. The result would be a Times staff that knows every time anyone puts a word down that goes to press, they're going to suffer. And the suffering of our enemies in this war is what we should be after.
Discuss.
Jeff Goldstein on the US placing pro-US stories in Iraq
Because there is nothing ethically problematic or even remarkable about the use of [pro-US stories] ... the only ostensible value the story has is twofold: to render the program useless; and to embarrass the administration and the military. Which means either the MSM didn’t do its homework, or else editorial decisions to run with this story were grounded in something quite other than “objectivity.”
Me, I’m for whatever works to save soldiers’ lives and make the war less bloody. Which is why it is ironic that a dissenting voice in the Pentagon and our own press—among with the flood of sanctimonious second guessers claiming to be OUTRAGED over an oft-used tool of warfare—will be the ones who can lay claim to making it more difficult to end the fighting.
Protein Wisdom
[posted with ecto]
More Katrina
Considering that it appears the Army Corps of Engineers sort of goofed on the floodwalls, I thought this picture from the aftermath might best express the sentiments of some of the residents of the area. This was taken on West End Blvd. not too far from the now infamous 17th Street Canal. This was taken the day after Thanksgiving.
Bush Poisoning Iraqi Media Against Insurgency, Democrats
When they're right, they're right:
BlameBush!: Bush Poisoning Iraqi Media Against Insurgency, Democrats
The old right-wing canard about having to pick up a Baghdad paper to read something positive about the war has proved as bogus and contrived as the reasons for invading Iraq in the first place.
Suspicious over reports of actual progress in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times launched an investigation and was shocked to discover that the Pentagon had been paying the Iraqi media to publish articles that “while factually correct, presented a positive view of the conditions in Iraq”. As they descended further down the rabbit hole, the Times learned that many of the planted reports were penned by U.S. troops stationed in Iraq, most of whom don’t even have journalism degrees and therefore cannot accurately describe the pointless futility of an illegal and immoral war for oil. According to the Times, the stories would often “praise the efforts of U.S. and Iraqi troops, denounce terrorism and promote the country's reconstruction efforts”, a total contradiction what the Los Angeles Times has been printing for over two years.
I guess this will put to rest the radical right’s constant attacks on the integrity of the mainstream press. Say what you will about the New York Times, but you certainly couldn’t pay the Old Gray Lady to write anything positive about the troops.
BlameBush!: Bush Poisoning Iraqi Media Against Insurgency, Democrats
[posted with ecto]
A solid double, if not a home run
The Corner on National Review Online
Tim Russert asked John McCain this morning: We send kids to boot camp and send them to Iraq to fight. Why can’t we do the same with Iraqi kids?
McCain’s answer was good – he noted that Iraqi kids are indeed being trained and sent out to fight and are doing better and better -- but he left this out: We send kids to West Point for four years – and we graduate them as lieutenants, not generals.
The problem with Iraqi forces -- as was explained me at CENTCOM (Central Command) recently -- is not training troops who can acquire a target and fire a rifle. The problem is training a new generation of military leaders with the skills and judgment people in the U.S. military take decades to develop.
[posted with ecto]
Recent US Political and Military History and the War on Terror
Searchlight Crusade Recent US Political and Military History and the War on Terror
It would appear that truepeers isn't the only one thinking along these lines.
But if you really love this country, appreciate everything she has done for this world (a long laundry list in her short history), and want it to continue to help the world be its best, informing yourself is not enough. You must also refuse to allow those who ally themselves with our country's enemies to control the discussion. Do not allow them to spread their lies, misinformation, and propaganda. They are counting upon the average citizen's unwillingness to confront them, the meme of tolerance that they have twisted to mean the silence of their opposition while they spout their poison - while they regularly turn around and censor the same opposition who allowed them to speak, heaping abuse and allegations of "insensitivity" and "offensive speech" and just plain sarcasm, but rarely debating the actual issues.
It would appear that truepeers isn't the only one thinking along these lines.
[posted with ecto]
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution
Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution
Hong King’s unique history has made it distinctly suited for being at the forefront of the battle for human rights and democracy, from British influence on common law traditions to thousands of refugees fleeing the communist mainland in the 1940s. They are Chinese people born and raised in the tradition of openness. They are a beacon for their brothers who were never given the liberties that they are entitled. This march, and others like it, will serve as an example for activists in Beijing and elsewhere who are preparing — even now — to challenge the government and take their rights back.
[posted with ecto]
The Fantasy World of Steven Spielberg
"I'm always in favor of Israel responding strongly when it's threatened. At the same time, a response to a response doesn't really solve anything. It just creates a perpetual-motion machine," ( Steven) Spielberg says. "There's been a quagmire of blood for blood for many decades in that region. Where does it end? How can it end?"
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
Why do so many people like Steven Spielberg prefer to overcomplicate matters that are actually quite easy to comprehend? Why this silly insistence that the truth is allegedly somewhere in the middle and ultimately everybody is equally guilty? This phony attempt to be fair minded perverts a true understanding of the situation. The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians nihilists will not end until the latter are killed or jailed. The radical Palestinians wrongly perceive themselves to be victims of Jewish imperialism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely self pitying racist jerks motivated by both secular leftism and Islamic extremism. The Israelis have gone out of their way to be fair and helpful toward the Palestinians. In return, they have been targeted for abuse and ultimately expulsion from the Middle East. Let’s make it real simple for everybody: the Israelis are mostly the good guys and the Palestinians are moral monsters. End of story. Is that sufficiently nuanced and open minded for everybody?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4.htm
Why do so many people like Steven Spielberg prefer to overcomplicate matters that are actually quite easy to comprehend? Why this silly insistence that the truth is allegedly somewhere in the middle and ultimately everybody is equally guilty? This phony attempt to be fair minded perverts a true understanding of the situation. The conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians nihilists will not end until the latter are killed or jailed. The radical Palestinians wrongly perceive themselves to be victims of Jewish imperialism. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely self pitying racist jerks motivated by both secular leftism and Islamic extremism. The Israelis have gone out of their way to be fair and helpful toward the Palestinians. In return, they have been targeted for abuse and ultimately expulsion from the Middle East. Let’s make it real simple for everybody: the Israelis are mostly the good guys and the Palestinians are moral monsters. End of story. Is that sufficiently nuanced and open minded for everybody?
The whole Christmas thing
I'm not a big fan of Christmas. I just want that understood.
I kind of like the presents, but through at least my later childhood, and certainly most of my adult life, Christmas is been, in main part, a pain. As a Buddhist/Stoic (someday I'll write about the similarities) I don't feel much religious connection to the holiday; the Christmas shopping panic is annoying; as someone who suffers from some Seasonal Affective Disorder, it comes at a time when the lack of sunlight is getting me down, and making me more curmudgeonly than usual (as difficult as that might be to imagine.)
None the less, I don't find people saying "Merry Christmas" all that annoying. I'll even say it myself, or reply "and you" if someone says it to me.
On the other hand, however, there has been quite a bit of fuss --- driven by people like John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly --- about a supposed conspiracy to eliminate Christmas, the evidence being that they can find a few aggressive atheists who complain about crèches, and they've discovered that Wal-Mart is saying (horrors!) "Happy Holidays!". I believe they're also pushing boycotts of places that don't have the right Christmas greetings and sayings.
What they've done with this is to convince me that there really is an exclusionary aspect to their pressure about the right observation of Christmas. Last night, I heard an interview (I think it was O'Reilly, but I'm not sure) with someone who is organizing one of those boycotts, and who turned out to own a Christian bookstore, and who was saying that they wouldn't be satisfied until our government once again "recognized God".
To be frank, there is nothing that could push me onto the side of the ACLU and their fellows than to have a big push to insist on explicit Christian observance of Christmas by those of us who aren't Christians. In other words, I've got no objection to Christians being Christian at Christmas; attempting to compel people and corporations to observe Christmas in a particular Christian way is unacceptable.
(On the other hand, Foamy the Squirrel rants an admirable rant for the other side of the argument. Don't take a sip of coffee before starting it if you value your monitor.)
I kind of like the presents, but through at least my later childhood, and certainly most of my adult life, Christmas is been, in main part, a pain. As a Buddhist/Stoic (someday I'll write about the similarities) I don't feel much religious connection to the holiday; the Christmas shopping panic is annoying; as someone who suffers from some Seasonal Affective Disorder, it comes at a time when the lack of sunlight is getting me down, and making me more curmudgeonly than usual (as difficult as that might be to imagine.)
None the less, I don't find people saying "Merry Christmas" all that annoying. I'll even say it myself, or reply "and you" if someone says it to me.
On the other hand, however, there has been quite a bit of fuss --- driven by people like John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly --- about a supposed conspiracy to eliminate Christmas, the evidence being that they can find a few aggressive atheists who complain about crèches, and they've discovered that Wal-Mart is saying (horrors!) "Happy Holidays!". I believe they're also pushing boycotts of places that don't have the right Christmas greetings and sayings.
What they've done with this is to convince me that there really is an exclusionary aspect to their pressure about the right observation of Christmas. Last night, I heard an interview (I think it was O'Reilly, but I'm not sure) with someone who is organizing one of those boycotts, and who turned out to own a Christian bookstore, and who was saying that they wouldn't be satisfied until our government once again "recognized God".
To be frank, there is nothing that could push me onto the side of the ACLU and their fellows than to have a big push to insist on explicit Christian observance of Christmas by those of us who aren't Christians. In other words, I've got no objection to Christians being Christian at Christmas; attempting to compel people and corporations to observe Christmas in a particular Christian way is unacceptable.
(On the other hand, Foamy the Squirrel rants an admirable rant for the other side of the argument. Don't take a sip of coffee before starting it if you value your monitor.)
Miserable Donuts
I spotted the link to Miserable Donuts: An Army Broken? at Instapundit. I wasn't going to bother obeying Professor Reynold's standard admonition to read the whole thing but changed my mind and did so. I encourage anyone who cares about our service men and women, but especially any idiot who doesn't know the first thing about them, to do the same.
In the article "Major John" of the Illinois National Guard takes Rep. Murtha (D-PA) to task for his "Many say the Army is broken" and "has done all it can" comments beginning with the words "Unmitigated crap." Major John goes on, a bit later in his article, to "tell you about how far we have had to come" throughout the course of his National Guard career. In his words:
Major John continues on to deal with Murtha's claim that the troops are living hand to mouth:
As I said above, IMO Major John's entire article is well worth reading. He concludes, and rightly so:
My sincere thanks to "Major John" who will likely forever remain unknown to me at a personal level. And the same to you, Major Craig, whom I have known well and personally through a timeframe even longer than what Major John tells us about. The vast majority of your fellow citizens know not what you've done. Fortunately their recognition is not the prize you sought or continue to seek. Among those of us who do know what you've done, this fellow citizen stands in awe and holds you in the deepest respect.
In the article "Major John" of the Illinois National Guard takes Rep. Murtha (D-PA) to task for his "Many say the Army is broken" and "has done all it can" comments beginning with the words "Unmitigated crap." Major John goes on, a bit later in his article, to "tell you about how far we have had to come" throughout the course of his National Guard career. In his words:
What really infuriates me is that someone like Rep. Murtha knows better. Ask any veteran who served between 1975-1982/3 what the Army (or the rest of the Armed Forces for that matter) were like. Drugs everywhere, low pay, morale was non-existent, equipment was falling behind or scarce, there was no great sense of mission or purpose. (Emphasis in the original.)I can personally attest to that statement. I served in what may well have been the most "immediate reaction ready" brigade, aside from airborne units and the guys on the DMZ in Korea, of the active US Army during a portion of the timeframe mentioned. We would have been hard pressed to accomplish even the exercise Major John goes on to describe as an example of evidence that the National Guard he was serving with were slowly but surely becoming professionals rather than a bunch of Miller High Life swigging weekend wannabees.
Major John continues on to deal with Murtha's claim that the troops are living hand to mouth:
...I served in Operation Enduring Freedom V (Afghanistan, March 2004-March 2005). We stood at the end of the longest sustained supply line in the history of human conflict. (Emphasis added.) We were in war-torn Central Asia. Af-frickin'-ghanistan. We had decent food, e-mail, phone (OK, sometimes they weren't always working, but almost all the time) excellent medical support, good pay, regular (if slow) mail. We had a PXs at most of the larger bases, and coffee places sprang up too. We had so damned much ammunition that we needed to build a bigger ammunition supply point at Bagram, AF. We had so many vehicles that we were constantly squabbling over where to put them all - and we had enough up-armored ones too. Our supply warehouses were stuffed with clothing, boots, body armor and the like. "Living hand to mouth" is the worst lie of the bunch.
As I said above, IMO Major John's entire article is well worth reading. He concludes, and rightly so:
Respectfully, Rep. Murtha - you are wrong. Dead wrong.
My sincere thanks to "Major John" who will likely forever remain unknown to me at a personal level. And the same to you, Major Craig, whom I have known well and personally through a timeframe even longer than what Major John tells us about. The vast majority of your fellow citizens know not what you've done. Fortunately their recognition is not the prize you sought or continue to seek. Among those of us who do know what you've done, this fellow citizen stands in awe and holds you in the deepest respect.
Should the Russians withdraw from Moscow?
Given Rep. Murtha's call for the immediate surrender of the American forces in Iraq gateway makes an interesting comparison of American and Russian casualties.
I wonder if Murtha was ever really a Marine in the sense of say... Ollie North... or if like John Kerry he was a politician using the military as a stepping stone to political power?
I wonder if Murtha was ever really a Marine in the sense of say... Ollie North... or if like John Kerry he was a politician using the military as a stepping stone to political power?
The Noguchi Filing System
The Noguchi Filing System ios a short note by a guy in Japan on a filing system invented by a guy named Yukio Noguchi. The article is good, but the short description is this:
Actually, as the files got more full, I'd be tempted to take stuff from the right end of shelf A, and move it to the left end of shelf B, and so on.
There are two things I find interesting about this. First, it exploits what computer scientists call the principle of locality, which basically says that if you've used something recently you're more likely to use it again. This is exploited in computers through things like caching schemes.
The second is that it uses a principle of self-organization. Instead of having to come up with an organizational scheme and think it out in detail, your files self-organize, putting the most used ones together automatically. (I strongly suspect that they will end up roughly chronologically ordered after a while, at least on the rightward end of the system.)
More to come on this as I think more about it and experiment with it.
- Everything goes into an envelope
- Every envelope is tagged with date, the contents, and (optionally) some kind of color code for the content.
- The envelopes go into a shelf, say a bookself.
- Here's the slick part: Every time you put an envelope into the shelf, you put it at the left hand end. As a side effect of this, the envelopes sort themselves so that active things are on the left, less active on the right. Stuff on the far right end is "dead" and can be disposed of, or moved to less obtrusive space.
Actually, as the files got more full, I'd be tempted to take stuff from the right end of shelf A, and move it to the left end of shelf B, and so on.
There are two things I find interesting about this. First, it exploits what computer scientists call the principle of locality, which basically says that if you've used something recently you're more likely to use it again. This is exploited in computers through things like caching schemes.
The second is that it uses a principle of self-organization. Instead of having to come up with an organizational scheme and think it out in detail, your files self-organize, putting the most used ones together automatically. (I strongly suspect that they will end up roughly chronologically ordered after a while, at least on the rightward end of the system.)
More to come on this as I think more about it and experiment with it.
Saturday, December 03, 2005
The Baron on Offense
A recent exchange with a simian tête-de-cul commenter at Roger's Place resulted in his espousing the sentiment that "real" journalism is not practiced by bloggers. Leaving aside trying to define of "real" journalism (do you have to have a gold plated set of anonymous sources to practice?) I started looking around to see what was happening at various places of high repute that I am wont to visit.
I came accross this series of three separate pieces which continue an investigation that the Baron began some time ago. I had never heard of Jamaat-ul-Fuqra prior to reading his first two pieces and had certainly never heard of Tablighi Jamaat. The material that the Baron is assembling is somewhat troubling but even more troubling is the lack of coverage in the dying media.
Real investigative journalism is being practiced all of the time on blogs. Reading Baron's series leaves no doubt of that. Just as reading the general press leaves no doubt that it is undergoing a slow transition to complete stasis.
I came accross this series of three separate pieces which continue an investigation that the Baron began some time ago. I had never heard of Jamaat-ul-Fuqra prior to reading his first two pieces and had certainly never heard of Tablighi Jamaat. The material that the Baron is assembling is somewhat troubling but even more troubling is the lack of coverage in the dying media.
Real investigative journalism is being practiced all of the time on blogs. Reading Baron's series leaves no doubt of that. Just as reading the general press leaves no doubt that it is undergoing a slow transition to complete stasis.
The Earth at Night
Here.
Other people have religious experiences in churches. Me, it's the Jefferson Memorial, the Library of Congress, and Astronomy Picture of the Day.
Other people have religious experiences in churches. Me, it's the Jefferson Memorial, the Library of Congress, and Astronomy Picture of the Day.
Oprah as Queen of the Universe
Some Oprah fans seem to have gone over the deep end. They've set up a website entitled Oprah for Nobel Peace Prize. They're attempting to get 100,000 signatures petitioning that she be nominated for the award.
The line that amused me was, "Her worldwide television show has raised the consciousness of the universe about the critical issues of homelessness, poverty, hunger, race, crime, AIDS, women's inequality and others."
Yowza! That's quite the claim. I dunno... looking at the Giant Martian Face I don't think it's her, but I suppose, in light of Oprah's galactic-wide reputation, it could be.
Read the Skeptical Optimist regularly
Apropos of David Thompson's post below, Steve Conover at The Skeptical Optimist does a great job putting economic data into perspective.
I'm not linking a specific post there, because they're all worth perusing.
I'm not linking a specific post there, because they're all worth perusing.
My personal beef with Altman
A lot of people think this movie is fabulous. One guy on IMDB says he thinks about it every single day, even though it was made in 1973; another says he watched it twice last week. I really don't get it.
Of course, I'm not a habitual movie watcher. Movie buffs seem to distance themselves from the movies they watch in a way that I just can't; to me, watching a movie is like spending an hour and a half in somebody else's mind.
Last night we watched Robert Altman's 1973 movie "The Long Goodbye." Warning: if you're considering seeing it, my comments here are spoilers, so stop now, but I'll leave you with this one thought first: Robert Altman hates everybody.
Being in Altman's mind for an hour and a half is a really desolate experience. Even the people who love Altman films will talk about his 'misogyny' as a feature of his work, as though it were morality-neutral; and it's true that the women in The Long Goodbye are uniformly flat mannequins, from the naked yoga druggy cultists who live next door to Marlowe to the lead female character, whose motives are inexplicable because they are not those of a real human being.
But Altman's women aren't just flat mannequins; they are flat mannequins that Robert Altman personally hates. Nor is he just a misogynist; he hates his male characters too, to the point where he can't understand their motives either (and so at the end of the movie, Marlowe is shown going skipping down a street playing a harmonica like Harold at the end of Harold and Maude -- having just murdered a man who has been his friend since boyhood. This is Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe we're talking about).
I must say, Altman is great at putting you right inside his mind; it's just that it's not anyplace you would ever want to be. I refuse to excuse Altman on the grounds that he is an artist; I assign him full responsibility for his hatred of humanity.
Starting with the (apparently) famous Coke bottle scene, which I knew nothing about in advance, and which more than half of IMDB reviewers didn't even comment on (and when they did it was only to claim that it was a scene that really redefined movie violence for the other artistes of Altman's generation). The Coke bottle scene is, to my mind, one of the really unforgivable moments of cinematic history.
A thug is visiting Phillip Marlowe (played by a mumbling Elliott-Gould-as-Trapper-John) with his henchman. He has brought along his lovely flat mannequin girlfriend, who is so innocent that she enters the apartment where the thug is shaking down Marlowe because she's been scared by something that made a noise when she was left out in the car. She is beautiful and sweet and utterly brainless and unreal, since she apparently habitually drives around with her lover and his henchmen and never is touched by the violence she sees them perpetrate.
The thug praises her beauty and her innocence and tells Marlowe that he loves her above everyone in the world but his family. He instructs his hoodlums to get her a coke from Marlowe's refrigerator; he empties it; and then he brutally bashes it across her face so hard that not only must her bones all be broken, the glass breaks and she is hideously cut by the breaking glass. She screams and writhes horrifically as the blood pours down her face and gets all over everything; the camera rests lovingly on her at length, while we are privileged to ponder the utterly brainless destruction of her beauty and innocence.
(Altman loves this crap. He loves it. He did it also in McCabe and Mrs. Miller, in a scene in which gangsters slay in cold blood a good and innocent 17-year-old boy after a long and drawn out preamble. I saw it years ago, and I do think about it often, but that's not a good thing).
After that, I was unwilling to stick around Altman's brain any longer. I suppose I am writing this article as a way to try to get back at him for polluting the world with his hideous vision of the destruction of innocence, goodness, and beauty. Thanks for listening.
(and if you liked that.. you should hear what I have to say about "The Talented Mr. Ripley").
Of course, I'm not a habitual movie watcher. Movie buffs seem to distance themselves from the movies they watch in a way that I just can't; to me, watching a movie is like spending an hour and a half in somebody else's mind.
Last night we watched Robert Altman's 1973 movie "The Long Goodbye." Warning: if you're considering seeing it, my comments here are spoilers, so stop now, but I'll leave you with this one thought first: Robert Altman hates everybody.
Being in Altman's mind for an hour and a half is a really desolate experience. Even the people who love Altman films will talk about his 'misogyny' as a feature of his work, as though it were morality-neutral; and it's true that the women in The Long Goodbye are uniformly flat mannequins, from the naked yoga druggy cultists who live next door to Marlowe to the lead female character, whose motives are inexplicable because they are not those of a real human being.
But Altman's women aren't just flat mannequins; they are flat mannequins that Robert Altman personally hates. Nor is he just a misogynist; he hates his male characters too, to the point where he can't understand their motives either (and so at the end of the movie, Marlowe is shown going skipping down a street playing a harmonica like Harold at the end of Harold and Maude -- having just murdered a man who has been his friend since boyhood. This is Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe we're talking about).
I must say, Altman is great at putting you right inside his mind; it's just that it's not anyplace you would ever want to be. I refuse to excuse Altman on the grounds that he is an artist; I assign him full responsibility for his hatred of humanity.
Starting with the (apparently) famous Coke bottle scene, which I knew nothing about in advance, and which more than half of IMDB reviewers didn't even comment on (and when they did it was only to claim that it was a scene that really redefined movie violence for the other artistes of Altman's generation). The Coke bottle scene is, to my mind, one of the really unforgivable moments of cinematic history.
A thug is visiting Phillip Marlowe (played by a mumbling Elliott-Gould-as-Trapper-John) with his henchman. He has brought along his lovely flat mannequin girlfriend, who is so innocent that she enters the apartment where the thug is shaking down Marlowe because she's been scared by something that made a noise when she was left out in the car. She is beautiful and sweet and utterly brainless and unreal, since she apparently habitually drives around with her lover and his henchmen and never is touched by the violence she sees them perpetrate.
The thug praises her beauty and her innocence and tells Marlowe that he loves her above everyone in the world but his family. He instructs his hoodlums to get her a coke from Marlowe's refrigerator; he empties it; and then he brutally bashes it across her face so hard that not only must her bones all be broken, the glass breaks and she is hideously cut by the breaking glass. She screams and writhes horrifically as the blood pours down her face and gets all over everything; the camera rests lovingly on her at length, while we are privileged to ponder the utterly brainless destruction of her beauty and innocence.
(Altman loves this crap. He loves it. He did it also in McCabe and Mrs. Miller, in a scene in which gangsters slay in cold blood a good and innocent 17-year-old boy after a long and drawn out preamble. I saw it years ago, and I do think about it often, but that's not a good thing).
After that, I was unwilling to stick around Altman's brain any longer. I suppose I am writing this article as a way to try to get back at him for polluting the world with his hideous vision of the destruction of innocence, goodness, and beauty. Thanks for listening.
(and if you liked that.. you should hear what I have to say about "The Talented Mr. Ripley").
Don’t worry, be happy---the government debt will take care of itself
"PORKBUSTERS UPDATE: Reader Douglas Bass emails:
I ran into Heidi Frederickson, Congressman Mark Kennedy's staffer, in Keegan's Irish Pub, during the weekly caucus of the Minnesota Organization of Blogs. I mentioned that I had gotten her mentioned on Instapundit, and she told me that she had shown Rep. Kennedy all the Porkbusters web pages. Is it a coincidence that Mark Kennedy cast the deciding vote to cut $50,000,000,000 in spending? I think not!
Heh. Indeed.
posted at 07:25 PM by Glenn Reynolds
I adamantly disagree with those who are overly concerned about America’s growing debt. This problem will essentially take care of itself. There are two major reasons for my nonchalance. We are increasingly living in an era of instant communications with our elected officials. Transparency is the key. They are starting to be intimidated by the countless e-mails and phone calls over projects such as the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere.” There is no question but they are now having second thoughts about these dubious expenditures. Yes, Instapundit and the rest of the blogging community deserve to take a bow. Investors will also inform the politicians when they have had enough of their nonsense. They will simply vote with their money. The price signaling of the markets gets everyone’s attention. By 2008 this problem will have virtually disappeared.
I ran into Heidi Frederickson, Congressman Mark Kennedy's staffer, in Keegan's Irish Pub, during the weekly caucus of the Minnesota Organization of Blogs. I mentioned that I had gotten her mentioned on Instapundit, and she told me that she had shown Rep. Kennedy all the Porkbusters web pages. Is it a coincidence that Mark Kennedy cast the deciding vote to cut $50,000,000,000 in spending? I think not!
Heh. Indeed.
posted at 07:25 PM by Glenn Reynolds
I adamantly disagree with those who are overly concerned about America’s growing debt. This problem will essentially take care of itself. There are two major reasons for my nonchalance. We are increasingly living in an era of instant communications with our elected officials. Transparency is the key. They are starting to be intimidated by the countless e-mails and phone calls over projects such as the Alaskan “bridge to nowhere.” There is no question but they are now having second thoughts about these dubious expenditures. Yes, Instapundit and the rest of the blogging community deserve to take a bow. Investors will also inform the politicians when they have had enough of their nonsense. They will simply vote with their money. The price signaling of the markets gets everyone’s attention. By 2008 this problem will have virtually disappeared.
Is propaganda a bad thing?
According to my ancient Webster's propaganda is any organization or movement for the propagation of certain ideas, doctrines, etc.
So is it propaganda for the US Military to pay Iraqi newspapers to publish certain stories, if the stories are real? Congress will investigate this issue.
Will they investigate CNN lying to the American people about Saddam's regime to keep access as Eason Jordan said?
Will they investigate exactly how it came to be that CBS got the Abu Ghraib pictures and set about to deliberately disgrace the American military in an effort to damage George Bush?
Will they investigate CIA leaks which some say constitute the attempt on the part of unelected officials at the CIA to damage an elected government and to use the media to aid them in that mission?
Will they investigate the symbiotic relationship between the press and the terrorists?
It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between minstream media and AlJazeera.
In other words why is it considered propaganda for the American military in Iraq to state facts, but not propaganda when powerful forces try to use the media to distort the truth?
Maybe the investigations Congress need to do are not just about gambling casinos and campaign financing and oil companies making money off the law of supply and demand...maybe they should be looking at the Fourth Estate a little closer.
I know I smell a rat.
update: Betsy has an interesting post on propaganda past and present
So is it propaganda for the US Military to pay Iraqi newspapers to publish certain stories, if the stories are real? Congress will investigate this issue.
Will they investigate CNN lying to the American people about Saddam's regime to keep access as Eason Jordan said?
Will they investigate exactly how it came to be that CBS got the Abu Ghraib pictures and set about to deliberately disgrace the American military in an effort to damage George Bush?
Will they investigate CIA leaks which some say constitute the attempt on the part of unelected officials at the CIA to damage an elected government and to use the media to aid them in that mission?
Will they investigate the symbiotic relationship between the press and the terrorists?
It is getting harder and harder to tell the difference between minstream media and AlJazeera.
In other words why is it considered propaganda for the American military in Iraq to state facts, but not propaganda when powerful forces try to use the media to distort the truth?
Maybe the investigations Congress need to do are not just about gambling casinos and campaign financing and oil companies making money off the law of supply and demand...maybe they should be looking at the Fourth Estate a little closer.
I know I smell a rat.
update: Betsy has an interesting post on propaganda past and present
Friday, December 02, 2005
A FIRST ATTEMPT TO COURT YOU AFTER RAIN
From pools of shattered glass, upholstery springs
Sprout. Willow thickets burst from burnt out cars.
The smoke rain leaves flowers now above the foothills.
I should think over stupid things I've done.
Useless, the fighting. No use in denying
Couples their romance machinery, lovers
Haunting the trees, startled, the moon turned on.
So dance with me, as though through great stone rooms.
We'll have to give back that space, moving on
While night, in opening, ruptures icy chains,
Shakes drops — the twigs bead — sets small stars adrift —
(Things unintended rising to fulfillment).
We've kissed here, old Ford buried to the axles
Among the river willows, where rust bleeds
Into the stream — as recently as August
All the wells coughed sand. On Coffee Creek
The one hundred and sixty clear-cut acres
For sale very nearly tempted me
To buy into that light's simplicity,
A ruins such as gods might shout across,
Archaic stillness. The tail of the pool's
Rust dark. New waters flood the alder saplings.
As yet no salmon rises to the fly.
Sprout. Willow thickets burst from burnt out cars.
The smoke rain leaves flowers now above the foothills.
I should think over stupid things I've done.
Useless, the fighting. No use in denying
Couples their romance machinery, lovers
Haunting the trees, startled, the moon turned on.
So dance with me, as though through great stone rooms.
We'll have to give back that space, moving on
While night, in opening, ruptures icy chains,
Shakes drops — the twigs bead — sets small stars adrift —
(Things unintended rising to fulfillment).
We've kissed here, old Ford buried to the axles
Among the river willows, where rust bleeds
Into the stream — as recently as August
All the wells coughed sand. On Coffee Creek
The one hundred and sixty clear-cut acres
For sale very nearly tempted me
To buy into that light's simplicity,
A ruins such as gods might shout across,
Archaic stillness. The tail of the pool's
Rust dark. New waters flood the alder saplings.
As yet no salmon rises to the fly.
New Orleans Flood Walls update
The Times-Picayune: 17th Street Canal levee was doomed. (Despite the fact that the T-P "lives there" I do believe they are talking about the floodwall rather than a levee.)
A musical interlude
Die Gedanken sind frei,
wer kann sie erraten;
sie fliehen vorbei
wie naechtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
kein Jaeger erschiessen;
es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei.
Ich denk was ich will,
und was mich begluecket,
Doch alles in der Still,
und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren
kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei.
The White Rose [Die Gedanken Sind Frei] has the full words, and a MIDI file for the melody.
wer kann sie erraten;
sie fliehen vorbei
wie naechtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen,
kein Jaeger erschiessen;
es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei.
Ich denk was ich will,
und was mich begluecket,
Doch alles in der Still,
und wie es sich schicket.
Mein Wunsch und Begehren
kann niemand verwehren,
es bleibet dabei:
Die Gedanken sind frei.
The White Rose [Die Gedanken Sind Frei] has the full words, and a MIDI file for the melody.
Translation:
Thoughts are free (things)
who can guess them?
They flee past (us)
Like shadows at night
No man can know them
No hunter can shoot them
it therefore remains
Thoughts are free things.
I think what I will,
and what pleases me,
Yes, all thoughts are hidden
and we think them ourselves
My wishes and desires
No man can question
it therefore remains
Thoughts are free things.
This is a pretty literal translation, except I've tried to make some things "feel right" in English. For example, "Die Gedanken sind Frei" would be literally "thoughts are free", since we don't insist on definite articles in English. But "die Gedanken", to me, makes thoughts into palpable objects, round and hard, like a cat's eye marble. So I make it "Thoughts are free things" to keep that "objective" sense. Similarly, some translations would give "no hunter can kill them", which sounds better, but "erschiessen" is shoot, dammit. So this is as good as I can get right now; if anyone has anything better, I'd be happy to see it.
Upturn In Optimism About Iraq
A fellow I know who understands polling tells me that sometimes the raw numbers are less significant than the trends. If that is true, then the results of this Rasmussen Poll (which I was led to reading this piece on job numbers in Power Line) may be highly significant:
The breakdown by party is particularly interesting because it shows an increase in positive views of the war even among Democrats:
One doesn't want to linger too long in admiration of the forthright identification of Democrats as "Nancy Pelosi's party" before one moves on to notice perhaps the most important trend:
Readers of this blog (Ha ha...Are there any, really?) know that I am a fervent admirer of James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, which contends that ordinary groups of us human beings may, given the right set of circumstances, make better choices than a single expert (in whatever field) or even a group of "experts." Just take the last presidential election as an example.
So in my inexpert view, this last trend among people who identify themselves with neither party shows that the war is going far better than the mainstream media contend and, even more encouraging, the smokescreen laid down by the MSM is not having the desired effect.
Confidence in the War on Terror is up sharply compared to a month ago. Forty-eight percent (48%) Americans now believe the U.S. and its Allies are winning. That's up nine points from 39% a month ago and represents the highest level of confidence measured in 2005.
Just 28% now believe the terrorists are winning, down six points from 34% a month ago. The survey was conducted on Wednesday and Thursday night following the President's speech outlining his strategy in Iraq.
The breakdown by party is particularly interesting because it shows an increase in positive views of the war even among Democrats:
Huge partisan divisions on questions dealing with Iraq remain. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans believe the U.S. and its allies are winning. That's up from 64% a month ago.
Just 28% of Democrats believe the U.S. is winning while 45% of Nancy Pelosi's party believe the terrorists are winning. Even that is a more optimistic assessment than last month when just 19% of Democrats said the U.S. was winning.
One doesn't want to linger too long in admiration of the forthright identification of Democrats as "Nancy Pelosi's party" before one moves on to notice perhaps the most important trend:
Among those those [sic] not affiliated with either major party, 40% now say the U.S. and its allies are winning. Thirty percent (30%) take the opposite view. A month ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided.
Readers of this blog (Ha ha...Are there any, really?) know that I am a fervent admirer of James Surowiecki's The Wisdom of Crowds, which contends that ordinary groups of us human beings may, given the right set of circumstances, make better choices than a single expert (in whatever field) or even a group of "experts." Just take the last presidential election as an example.
So in my inexpert view, this last trend among people who identify themselves with neither party shows that the war is going far better than the mainstream media contend and, even more encouraging, the smokescreen laid down by the MSM is not having the desired effect.
Purveyors of Pessimism
It seems a slow morning here at Flares. Well, whatever and anyway, let's go somewhere.
I was doing my normal checkin at Instapundit and my eye got caught on his 7:15AM post. In it he linked to Mickey Kaus and Ann Althouse. The entire linky-loop more or less revolves around the articles Upbeat Signs Hold Cautions for the Future in the NYT (you may need to register, Idunno) and the WSJ Pouting Pundits of Pessimism (see Idunno stuff above and, in case you couldn't guess, that's the one from which I purloined the title I used).
Due to some interruptions I've lost track of where I wanted to take this (if I ever knew). The Nabobs of Negativity, and they seem to be like hordes of Flying Monkeys these days, are really irking the heck outta me. What is wrong with these people? Yes, there's a war on but we're winning it. It couldn't have been won already and it can't be won tomorrow or next month. We're winning - that should be enough to be something other than relentlessly pessimistic. Yes, the economy is not perfect and there are some things to be concerned about. But overall the economy is doing remarkably well all things considered. Yes, there have been natural disasters - a tsunami, earthquakes, hurricanes - but these things happen when one lives on a spinning, molten rock hurtling through space. They've happened before and life goes on and, oddly enough, generally improves despite the difficulties.
What the heck are so many people so freakin' all fired pessimistic about?
I was doing my normal checkin at Instapundit and my eye got caught on his 7:15AM post. In it he linked to Mickey Kaus and Ann Althouse. The entire linky-loop more or less revolves around the articles Upbeat Signs Hold Cautions for the Future in the NYT (you may need to register, Idunno) and the WSJ Pouting Pundits of Pessimism (see Idunno stuff above and, in case you couldn't guess, that's the one from which I purloined the title I used).
Due to some interruptions I've lost track of where I wanted to take this (if I ever knew). The Nabobs of Negativity, and they seem to be like hordes of Flying Monkeys these days, are really irking the heck outta me. What is wrong with these people? Yes, there's a war on but we're winning it. It couldn't have been won already and it can't be won tomorrow or next month. We're winning - that should be enough to be something other than relentlessly pessimistic. Yes, the economy is not perfect and there are some things to be concerned about. But overall the economy is doing remarkably well all things considered. Yes, there have been natural disasters - a tsunami, earthquakes, hurricanes - but these things happen when one lives on a spinning, molten rock hurtling through space. They've happened before and life goes on and, oddly enough, generally improves despite the difficulties.
What the heck are so many people so freakin' all fired pessimistic about?
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Information of the People
"The information of the people at large can alone make them safe as they are the sole depositary of our political and religious freedom." --Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1810.
Rick Ballard, in Arlington National Archives (below) notes that the National Archives are where some reports of Independent Counsel are published for all to read and use as they see fit and others sent to rest in something other than peace, away from public view.
It is curious that some matters are made available for public perusal via the National Archives website and others are not. Independent Counsel reports regarding Watergate and Iran-Contra are readily available. Yet the reports of Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr (Whitewater, etc) and Donald Smaltz (Clinton Agriculture Secretary, Mike Espy) are not - one needs to peruse university or legal sites for those reports.
Is this a matter of budgetary or staffing constraints or something else? Has the Nation Archives simply not yet caught up with the years of the Clinton administration regarding the publishing of impeachment and OIC information or have they chosen, as a matter of policy, not to publish documents that might reflect badly upon a beloved former POTUS?
In Congressional Omerta, we are made aware of an effort by a joint oversight committee to prevent release to the general public of Section V of the report by Independent Counsel David Barrett. Barrett was the IC charged with investigating Henry Cisneros (Clinton Housing and Urban Development Secretary). On the surface it might seem that Barrett's report about his investigations may be deemed insufficiently important - legally or otherwise - to warrant publication. The HUD Secretary's lies to the FBI regarding his philandering and funds shifting were of no lasting national import or damage. He plead guilty and paid a fine.
While it is impossible to know precisely what Section V of Barrett's report contains it is a reasonable guess that it is related to the investigation of the potential misuse of the Internal Revenue Service for political purposes. Barrett twice sought and was granted expansion of his investigation to include potential misuse of, or misbehavior by, the IRS. And it is apparently that portion of the report that a DC appeals court has ruled should be released only to specific members of congress rather than to the public.
The DC court of appeals ruling seems to leave ample room for those members of congress who receive Section V to make it public as they see fit. The joint oversight commission could, I believe, authorize release of Section V to the archives. Will they? If not, why not?"
The federal government belongs to us. The Internal Revenue Service is an agency of our government. Independent Counsel, whether a good idea or not, were duly authorized investigative agents of our government. Investigation is meant to discover and, ultimately, to inform.
The ways by which We the People can become poorly informed or inattentive are as many and varied as those who would prefer us in that condition. Burying information clearly hinders our ability to remain informed. Is the failure of the press to cover the burial of that portion of Barrett's report which documents his investigation into potential abuse of the IRS an attempt to manage our attentiveness?
"If once [the people] become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, Judges and Governors, shall all become wolves. It seems to be the law of our general nature, in spite of individual exceptions." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1787
More than a century later a similar warning was issued to We the People:
The death-knell of the republic had rung as soon as the active power became lodged in the hands of those who sought, not to do justice to all citizens... but to stand for one special class and for its interests as opposed to the interests of others. Theodore Roosevelt, Sept 7, 1903
In whose interests is it to have the National Archives behave so selectively in their publication of Independent Counsel reports? What special class is protected by the suppression of the Smaltz report? Or of the Starr report?
Why is the press so inattentive regarding Section V of the Barrett report? One might imagine the press would be very much interested in a report which very likely contains information regarding potential abuse of the powers of the IRS by the Executive.
The Founders and subsequent national leaders repeatedly warned us about the misuse of government power and the need for an active and impartial press to help keep us informed and attentive. The Congressional joint oversight committee's failure to bring forth information concerning possible misuse of the IRS by "wolves" and the curious practices at the National Archive are among the more dangerous abuses of power and discretion in recent times.
The failure of the press to exhibit even mild curiosity regarding potential IRS abuse - and congressional grave digging - is puzzling. While the press gets itself in a lathered frenzy about Scooter Libby and the leak that didn't even drip, they "impartially" ignore potential misuse of the IRS by the previous executive. It's a shame - theirs and ours.
Ah, Computers
No analogy is perfect but I've found parallels regarding Macs as Socialist and PC's as Capitalist. As in Central Planner vs Market System. Though there have been changes in the last few years whereby Macs now utilize some third party hardware, it wasn't always that way. When something went wrong, you took your Mac to an Apple Dealer and replaced an Apple part with another Apple part. It was simple--and expensive.
PC's, on the other hand, have parts made by heaven only knows who which can be replaced by parts made by yet another company. It can be a little confusing with all the choices, but the availability of so much and the competive pricing lead to more innovation and cheaper prices for all kinds of hardware from mouses to video cards to storage devices and monitors. Even to various types of merchants and PC support people and technicians. The choices available for PC hardware purchase, support, repair, and replacement are almost mind boggling.
The market has worked to bring us affordable computing which is good for everyone, but as in everything capitalistic and market driven, sometimes you have to trade convenience for price.
Take my video card. Please.
Six months ago I went through about 3 weeks of hell with my PC. Strange noises. Harddrive failure. CDR failure. Machine turned off for days at a time while I tried to figure out what was wrong and what to do. I wanted to be a computer geek and handle it myself. After replacing harddrive and CDR (with a DVDR) and all that entailed. I still had problems. I finally figured out it was the fan. I just didn't know WHICH fan.
But I got a replacement fan from DELL to replace the fan I thought was the problem. But I couldn't figure out how to install it (long story) so I broke down and took the PC in to the Computer Geeks at Best Buy.
It turned out to be the fan on my video card. It had stopped working and scorched the sound card into uselessness (and taken out my harddrive and cdr but thankfully didn't affect my processor or ram). I didn't even know my video card HAD a fan. Such a geek was I. So I bought a new video card and all was well.
Until a few days ago.
The same bad sound. A whining and buzzing. Very loud.
Panic.
And here is where the inconvenience lies.
I found my receipt and called the video card supplier. They were willing to give me an RMA to return the video card and they would replace it. Great. BUT the process would take TWO WEEKS. I cannot no way no how live without my PC for TWO WEEKS. I said thanks, but no thanks.
So I went pleading to Joe. Please let's just get a new video card. He says no because he doesn't have the money (no shit sherlock, we had to borrow money from his ex-wife to get groceries a week ago. No turkey for Thanksgiving either. Embarrassing, but what can you do.)
But he agreed to take the PC to the Geeks to see what they had to say.
Yes, it's the video card fan. Have to replace the video card. Nothing they can do about the warranty because it was beyond 30 days. I have to deal with the supplier directly for that.
So he suggested we buy a new video card. Get the replacement from the supplier. Replace the card then return the card from Best Buy to Best Buy for a refund by the end of the month.
Okay. So that's what we're doing. I have my PC back and working (quietly) and I'll give the supplier another call, send them the old card and wait for the new. Switch out the cards, then return the one that's in there now. But what a hassle!
I am grateful there is a solution that won't cost very much.
But a one-stop deal where the manufacturer/repair/retail are all the same would have been much more convenient.
You just can't have everything. And in the end I do prefer the wealth of choices and good pricing.
And maybe someday I'll be able to replace the sound card!
Meanwhile, listen to your PC. Get used to the sounds it makes. Listen for the overtones and the harmonies created by, say, your refrigerator sounds with the pc sounds. Then you will know when something is about to go wrong if they change. That's how I suspected something was going wrong this time before the buzzing even started. The overtones had changed.
Don't worry too much. Have fun. And if something goes wrong, there's always a solution.
PC's, on the other hand, have parts made by heaven only knows who which can be replaced by parts made by yet another company. It can be a little confusing with all the choices, but the availability of so much and the competive pricing lead to more innovation and cheaper prices for all kinds of hardware from mouses to video cards to storage devices and monitors. Even to various types of merchants and PC support people and technicians. The choices available for PC hardware purchase, support, repair, and replacement are almost mind boggling.
The market has worked to bring us affordable computing which is good for everyone, but as in everything capitalistic and market driven, sometimes you have to trade convenience for price.
Take my video card. Please.
Six months ago I went through about 3 weeks of hell with my PC. Strange noises. Harddrive failure. CDR failure. Machine turned off for days at a time while I tried to figure out what was wrong and what to do. I wanted to be a computer geek and handle it myself. After replacing harddrive and CDR (with a DVDR) and all that entailed. I still had problems. I finally figured out it was the fan. I just didn't know WHICH fan.
But I got a replacement fan from DELL to replace the fan I thought was the problem. But I couldn't figure out how to install it (long story) so I broke down and took the PC in to the Computer Geeks at Best Buy.
It turned out to be the fan on my video card. It had stopped working and scorched the sound card into uselessness (and taken out my harddrive and cdr but thankfully didn't affect my processor or ram). I didn't even know my video card HAD a fan. Such a geek was I. So I bought a new video card and all was well.
Until a few days ago.
The same bad sound. A whining and buzzing. Very loud.
Panic.
And here is where the inconvenience lies.
I found my receipt and called the video card supplier. They were willing to give me an RMA to return the video card and they would replace it. Great. BUT the process would take TWO WEEKS. I cannot no way no how live without my PC for TWO WEEKS. I said thanks, but no thanks.
So I went pleading to Joe. Please let's just get a new video card. He says no because he doesn't have the money (no shit sherlock, we had to borrow money from his ex-wife to get groceries a week ago. No turkey for Thanksgiving either. Embarrassing, but what can you do.)
But he agreed to take the PC to the Geeks to see what they had to say.
Yes, it's the video card fan. Have to replace the video card. Nothing they can do about the warranty because it was beyond 30 days. I have to deal with the supplier directly for that.
So he suggested we buy a new video card. Get the replacement from the supplier. Replace the card then return the card from Best Buy to Best Buy for a refund by the end of the month.
Okay. So that's what we're doing. I have my PC back and working (quietly) and I'll give the supplier another call, send them the old card and wait for the new. Switch out the cards, then return the one that's in there now. But what a hassle!
I am grateful there is a solution that won't cost very much.
But a one-stop deal where the manufacturer/repair/retail are all the same would have been much more convenient.
You just can't have everything. And in the end I do prefer the wealth of choices and good pricing.
And maybe someday I'll be able to replace the sound card!
Meanwhile, listen to your PC. Get used to the sounds it makes. Listen for the overtones and the harmonies created by, say, your refrigerator sounds with the pc sounds. Then you will know when something is about to go wrong if they change. That's how I suspected something was going wrong this time before the buzzing even started. The overtones had changed.
Don't worry too much. Have fun. And if something goes wrong, there's always a solution.
On Progress In Iraq
One of joys of reading blogs is the discovery of fresh thinking on complicated matters. Not infrequently in wandering about the blogosphere, one discovers a new bird in an obscure corner of the forest.
Today while reading the comments section on a post at Belmont Club, I encountered Evan, whose comment at 7:33 A.M. begins thus:
One has in this gem the outlines of a very reasonable "metric" for our success I have not before encountered, namely, the extent to which [Iraq] is not or is a contributor to the Islamic madness. And this is coupled with an astute perception and interpretation of an event, the discomfort of the senior Iraqi minister being made to squirm before a hostile press, I had not seen anyone else call our attention to. (Of course I don't read everything!)
So I wandered over to Evan's blog, The Future Uncertain, and was not disappointed by his most recent post, Economic Growth as a Moral Imperative, where I learned something new about child labor in the Third World, among other things.
But back to Iraq. President Bush's speech yesterday began what I hope will be a sustained corrective process, one directed at helping the American public see beyond the agenda of The New York Times. It is only two weeks to the parliamentary elections in Iraq; it is high time we begin to appreciate this for the watershed it is.
Today while reading the comments section on a post at Belmont Club, I encountered Evan, whose comment at 7:33 A.M. begins thus:
I suppose the battle of Iraq is won or lost to the extent to which it is not or is a contributor to the Islamic madness. There are several measures one could use, say five years after withdrawal: Is it serving as a jihadi incubator, as Afghanistan did (and the banlieues soon will)? Is it plagued by pathological conspiracy theories and hatred of the infidel, particularly Jews? Is consensual government holding? I am cautiously optimistic that these questions will be answered the way the civilized world wants them to be. There was this extraordinary scene recently, a day or so after the "dungeon" with 174 prisoners was revealed. A senior Iraqi minister had to sit there and explain this, and take hostile questions from both Iraqi and foreign reporters. He looked just like a harried press secretary in any Western government, a scene familiar to all of us. We take this for granted, but it would've been unimaginable in any Arab country two years ago. I hope that enough Iraqis have now crossed the mental bridge to normalcy - they are turning their backs on indispensable strongmen, on suicide bombing, and the other repellent aspects of so much of the Muslim world.
One has in this gem the outlines of a very reasonable "metric" for our success I have not before encountered, namely, the extent to which [Iraq] is not or is a contributor to the Islamic madness. And this is coupled with an astute perception and interpretation of an event, the discomfort of the senior Iraqi minister being made to squirm before a hostile press, I had not seen anyone else call our attention to. (Of course I don't read everything!)
So I wandered over to Evan's blog, The Future Uncertain, and was not disappointed by his most recent post, Economic Growth as a Moral Imperative, where I learned something new about child labor in the Third World, among other things.
But back to Iraq. President Bush's speech yesterday began what I hope will be a sustained corrective process, one directed at helping the American public see beyond the agenda of The New York Times. It is only two weeks to the parliamentary elections in Iraq; it is high time we begin to appreciate this for the watershed it is.
When insiders blog
It is a curious phenomenon when insiders in politics, business, or media take up blogging as an alternative way of doing PR. Do they think they will get a significant audience for their opinions, or is the name of their game simply to insure that their opinions get inserted in MSM stories on what's going on in the blogosphere, to create the impression that blogs are just an alternative medium for carrying the same reality as is promoted on tv and in print?
Anyway, if you spend any time in the Canadian blogosphere, you will have noticed the snow in the air. If you are interested in following the Canadian federal election campaign that has just gotten under way, here is a good site to find political blogs of various shapes and stripes. I expect to be getting out to help my local candidate, so you might see a little less from me here at YARGB the next while.
Anyway, if you spend any time in the Canadian blogosphere, you will have noticed the snow in the air. If you are interested in following the Canadian federal election campaign that has just gotten under way, here is a good site to find political blogs of various shapes and stripes. I expect to be getting out to help my local candidate, so you might see a little less from me here at YARGB the next while.
Far Away and Very Very Big
You're looking at the most detailed picture of the Crab Nebula ever created. Thanks to our friends at Hubble (and Ball Aerospace).
Update: Here's a catalogue of Hubble imagery I just serendipitously came across thanks to the new Stumble plugin available in the brand new Firefox 1.5 browser which just came out Tuesday (why Firefox 1.5 is really that good). Wow. I love the Internet. (Cool astronomy/Firefox 1.5 demo showing how the moon got into orbit.) (Ok, I'll stop, I'll stop.)
Arlington National Archives
The Arlington National Archive is that section of the United States National Archive where certain material that should be on display is instead laid to an unquiet rest. A potter's field where remains are interred in unmarked graves pending the passing of a suitable period of silence. It is easy to imagine legitimate reasons for such a period prior to archival display of all documents pertaining to a given matter. Proper cataloguing, numbering and the preparation of document inventories take time. A question remains as to identification of certain matters which are undergoing the archival process and an additional question arises as to what should be done with wholly completed documents that may be of interest to researchers if presented in their final form even without all ancillary documentation.
It is passing strange, for example, that if one uses the term "Office of Independent Counsel" in the marvelous National Archive search engine, the most comprehensive list returned is this. It seems somehow... incomplete?
We know about Watergate, of course. And who could ever be allowed to forget Iran/Contra and Walsh's effort. Understandably, the current Congressional efforts to allow a quiet, if undignified, burial to Section V of the Barrett investigation make publication of his report problematic, even without the diligent efforts of archival interment experts. It is remarkable that Congress is acting as if Executive misuse of the IRS is a matter of little public import. Are we prepared to live in a country where some Office of Independent Counsel Reports are more equal than others and some indiscretions are deemed unworthy of mention?
Wasn't there a fellow named Donald Smaltz? If memory has not failed entirely, another fellow named Kenneth Starr may have written a report that was published as a requirement in completing his service as Independent Counsel. How is it that the Smaltz Report has found its way into the archives of the University of North Texas and the Starr Report is available, (annotated, no less), via the offices of a diligent attorney but the National Archives does not deem them fit for publication?
The motto of the National Archives is "Democracy Starts Here".
That would bring a smile to Winston Smith's face.
It is passing strange, for example, that if one uses the term "Office of Independent Counsel" in the marvelous National Archive search engine, the most comprehensive list returned is this. It seems somehow... incomplete?
We know about Watergate, of course. And who could ever be allowed to forget Iran/Contra and Walsh's effort. Understandably, the current Congressional efforts to allow a quiet, if undignified, burial to Section V of the Barrett investigation make publication of his report problematic, even without the diligent efforts of archival interment experts. It is remarkable that Congress is acting as if Executive misuse of the IRS is a matter of little public import. Are we prepared to live in a country where some Office of Independent Counsel Reports are more equal than others and some indiscretions are deemed unworthy of mention?
Wasn't there a fellow named Donald Smaltz? If memory has not failed entirely, another fellow named Kenneth Starr may have written a report that was published as a requirement in completing his service as Independent Counsel. How is it that the Smaltz Report has found its way into the archives of the University of North Texas and the Starr Report is available, (annotated, no less), via the offices of a diligent attorney but the National Archives does not deem them fit for publication?
The motto of the National Archives is "Democracy Starts Here".
That would bring a smile to Winston Smith's face.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)