Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysI realize this piece is a couple of days old now and therefore ancient history, but I only read it a few minutes ago and I have to presume that a few of you may have missed it, too. "The university needs to start rounding up all of the people who are interfering with my life, liberty, and pursuit of absolute comfort," writes Mike Adams, a live white male who teaches at a college in some God-forsaken state other than California. "I hope that no one will feel uncomfortable when they are reprimanded for making me feel uncomfortable." Just so, Dr. Adams. Just so.
Update: King Banian at SCSU Scholars had a better link for the Mike Adams column, so I replaced it this morning. Here is a direct link to Mike Adams's site.
Call me a masochist, but I'm as fascinated by liberal talk-radio as the next guy. Sadly, I must say the good people at Air America haven't made it easy for me to listen. I happen work in an area of L.A. County where neither the L.A. affiliate nor the Inland Empire station come in clearly on my radio. And the webstreaming just plain sucks. I caught enough of Franken to conclude that a little goes a long way. His opening monologue was all about how liberals are angry about the way George Bush "politicized 9/11." Whatever. But I'm anxious to hear Chuck D and Jeanene Garafalo do their thing later today. If I can tune in, that is.
Update: Monkey David writes, "Well, you can tune Air America in on your car on XM, right?" That's true, and I probably should have mentioned it. Trouble is, I don't work in my car. I can (and probably will) listen to some Garafalo on the drive home, even though it will cut into precious Hendrie time.
I love Safari. It's the fastest web browser I've ever used. But it slows down over time...I thought I was just getting used to the speed. But, no, it needs occasional house cleaning. I highly recommend doing this first, then checking out these.
I like Dennis Miller more and more. It's not that Dennis himself is full of remarkable insight. He's a funny guy, and since he started using a live audience, you don't feel uncomfortable laughing at his jokes. But the real score here is that he can book a guy like Gentry Lee of Jet Propulsion Laboratory and spend a whole segment talking with him. Jay Leno simply can't do stuff like this.
I can't speak for my fellow Monkeys, who are known to be lazy hounds, but I'm much too saddened by the passing of Peter Ustinov and Alistair Cooke to blog much of anything.
I spent a couple of hours the other day using a little known feature at Amazon--the free music downloads. Just go to Amazon, click on "Music" on the tab at the top (if it's there--otherwise you'll have to click "See More Stores," then "Music") and then click on "Free Downloads" on the bar at the top. Or try clicking here.
It's not organized very well, and a lot of what's there is pretty bad. But it's free, and there are some real gems. Plus, it's fun to type in something like "monkey" or a curse word or "cherry bikini" and see what comes up. That last one leads to a song that's a favorite of my old college roommate. It's funny to be able to download something like that, for free, on Amazon. I bet the Wal-Mart music store won't have any of that. Or the real sound of a howler monkey in a Costa Rican rain forest.
While I'm on the topic, some of my most frequent music listening is streamed music on the web (my computer is connected to my stereo with a Xitel USB audio out for great sound). I listen to KCRW. Go here, select "Sounds Eclectic," "Morning Becomes Eclectic" or some other show (not all of them are playable) from the drop down menu, and find something good to listen to. Note that you'll have the playlist there for you (good) and you'll have to use RealPlayer (bad).
You can also listen to KCRW's main music feed from the home KCRW.org page, or on iTunes under "Radio, Eclectic"--but it will be harder to find the playlist, then, because you'll need to go back and check a couple of days later and remember what show it was.
Anyway, trust me, you'll like a lot of what you find there. Other station program directors in L.A. certainly do, and that's how a lot of bands get their break. I highly recommend browsing through the "Best of" shows from each year on "Sounds Eclectic."
Don't try to quote the Bible in your campaigns. It's just sad. You know how clumsy the Republicans sound when they try to sound like they understand race issues? Well, increase that by an order of magnitude and that's how silly you sound when you pretend you know scripture. We all remember Howard Dean's little experiment with courting the Christian vote.
If you ARE going to have someone go out and talk about the Bible, you may want to ask a Southern Democrat, who most likely has actually read portions of it, and may actually understand the point.
Just some free advice from me to you.
Dateline: Marotinu de Sus, Romania. "Before Toma Petre's relatives pulled his body from the grave, ripped out his heart, burned it to ashes, mixed it with water and drank it, he hadn't been in the news much. That's often the way here with vampires. Quiet lives, active deaths."
After that, how can you not read the whole thing?
(Hat tip: Monkey David and his Easy Rider pal.)
I linked below to a piece by Monty Ashley, in which he objects to the term "Blogosphere." "Objects" may not do Monty's feelings justice. He writes:
Actually, I hate it. For one thing, it's a weird neologism that contributes to the degradation of our language. But that doesn't bother me that much really, because our language is already fairly far down that path.What I actually object to is that it pretends to mean "all blogs everywhere; the universe of blogs" but it always secretly means "my blog and the handful of blogs I read."
I was heartened (if slightly alarmed) to learn that this site is, in his words, "pretty much the only [conservative blog] I read on a regular basis." Monty goes on to mention how we often refer to the words and works of a certain nationally syndicated talk show host by the name of Hugh Hewitt. "This confuses me," Monty writes, "because I have absolutely no idea who Hugh Hewitt is. Not a clue. But in the Infinite Monkeys world, he's apparently a superstar. And that's the thing. If someone on Infinite Monkeys says 'The Blogosphere,' they mean a group of blogs that includes Hugh Hewitt."
Personally, I feel sorry for people who don't know who Hugh Hewitt is. I won't feel so sorry when the Revolution comes. Ignorance of Hugh Hewitt will be no excuse.
But I digress.
I think Monty is on to something when he suggests a term such as "neighborhood of blogs" as a more accurate description of what folks mean when they refer to the "blogosphere." But its implied universality is really no different than somebody saying "everyone's talking about X," or "the whole country was complaining that Y." Monty may be overstating his objection a bit, but the neighborhood paradigm certainly fits my reading habits and feelings about wandering versus visiting sites.
Leftists are such a drag. The President of the United States makes a pretty decent attempt at stand-up comedy, and all he gets is grief from the professional scolds at The Nation and the Democratic Party. "That's supposed to be funny?" John Kerry said in a statement yesterday. "If George Bush thinks his deceptive rationale for going to war is a laughing matter, then he's even more out of touch than we thought. Unfortunately for the President, this is not a joke."
James Taranto worries what Kerry's humorlessness says about the man's character: "There have been two utterly humorless presidents in our memory: Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. According to the WSJ/Federalist Society Survey on Presidents, they were the worst two presidents since Warren G. Harding. Perhaps that wasn't a coincidence. If John Kerry showed any sign of having a sense of humor, we'd be a lot less uneasy about the idea of him in the White House."
I don't know. Reading Kerry's statement, I'm much less worried about the prospect of a Kerry Administration. I'm pretty sure he's going to lose. Why? He's nasty. He's spoiled. And now we see that he's a party-pooper. Nobody likes a killjoy. Even in time of war.
Rush Limbaugh's attorney, Roy Black, writes about prosecutorial misconduct in the Wall Street Journal today:
Rush's situation should trouble everyone who believes in the principle of equal treatment under the law. Even if you subscribe to the dubious notion that public figures should be made an example of, contrast the way Rush's case is being handled with treatment similarly afflicted celebrities have received at the hands of law enforcement. Do you recall Ozzy Osbourne or Elizabeth Taylor ever being singled out for criminal investigation after they publicly acknowledged their drug dependencies? You don't, because they weren't. Nor should they have been.
I'm not sure that's the most persuasive part of Black's argument, but it certainly demonstrates the double standard at work. Limbaugh is getting a taste of what too many Americans have been forced to endure as a result of the drug war. But perhaps Rush should look on the bright side. It could be worse.
Now, I hasten to add that I'm not as libertarian on this question as one might think. I'm not in favor of legalizing drugs. Then, I'm not in favor of no-knock raids, unrestricted asset forfeitures, and similar abuses of the public's liberty, either. I am, however, greatly in favor of the Bill of Rights. Or what's left of it, anyway.
Rich Toscano is one of the funniest guys around with a blog you probably never read. (Which is your problem, not his.) Earlier this month, Rich and his lovely bride Brooke were forced to flee the country due to an ongoing dispute with their fascistic homeowners association. As the days and weeks pass, I begin to fear for my friends' safety. If you're out there Rich, drop us a line. The Blogosphere, such as it is, misses you.
Man, I wish I had more time to stay home and blog what's going on over at Fraters Libertas. They seem to be back after what I'd call something of a lull. Of course, it all kicks off with a viscious attack on us. Which is surprising, as I've always felt some sort of kinship with these guys. JB writes:
I've always resented this bizarre notion that somehow we have something in common with these nasty, feces-flinging abominations... Personally, I share nothing with them... I'm just glad I'm not one of them.Then there's an announcement about Nim Chimpsky's - er, I mean Noam Chomsky's blog. Lastly, they've added another poll. This one is a Who's Hotter? among several, well, I guess they're known in PC circles as "female news personalities." But I have to ask, were they really justified in leaving out Weekend Update's Tina Fey or The Daily Show's Beth Littleford?
Update: The Elder writes: "Reason #134 Why You Need To Read EVERYTHING We Write (and listen to all 3 hours of Hugh [Hewitt]'s show) – The poll on who's hotter was spawned by another poll that Hugh requested to determine who would win the most money in Jeopardy!'s Power Player competition. The choices for who's hotter came from that list of contestants. Context baby."
Mitch Berg explains why he isn't a Libertarian. I can relate.
(Update: Per Monkey RobbL's suggestion, I capitalized "Libertarian" in the sentence above. Mitch could be described accurately as a small-"l" libertarian. So could RobbL.)
"Blasphemous Tampon"
Answer below
Yes, this was actually the headline of a piece of unsolicited e-mail I received yesterday. Way to target your market, guys.
Oh, the message was hocking cheap viagra and other drugs. Again, I don't see the connection.
We like our logo. But it's always fun to keep your eyes out for a mascot. Hey, we might even be able to find one for each of us five InfMonks, a la Power Line.
This Shag Monkey might do for David, our Wine Monkey.
But which one of us gets pegged with this aberration?
(Hat tip: IMAO for the orangubot.)
California State Senator Tom McClintock writes:
If the source of our fundamental rights is not God, then the source becomes man—or more precisely, a government of men. And rights that can be extended by government may also be withdrawn by government.Words matter. Ideas matter. And symbols matter. The case now before the Supreme Court over the Pledge of Allegiance must not be devalued as a mere defense of harmless deistic references and quaint old customs. The principle at stake is central to the very foundation of the American nation and the very survival of its freedoms.
McClintock lays out the principled case against Michael Newdow in the briefest possible terms, which is fine as far as it goes. I'll have more to say about the Newdow case later. In the meantime, I recommend reading articles by Philip Muñoz and Julia Duin, and this post by Ken Masugi.
Two years ago today (March 24th) was my mom's last birthday on this earth. We'd held a party for her a couple of weeks prior because we didn't think she was going to make it. Of course, she had been told she would die several years before, but persisted in her stubborn refusal to comply. Very soon after I was married (10 years ago), she was diagnosed with breast cancer and underwent a full mastectomy. She remained cancer-free for a couple of years, but eventually the cancer metastasized into her spine.
Refusing to submit to chemotherapy, she underwent virtually every other form of therapy including, eventually, radiation. Some helped, some didn't, and of course none of them cured her. During her battle with cancer, she enthusiastically welcomed five grandchildren into the world, and never ceased to live vigorously. Each summer before the last, she and my father hopped into their Suburban and pulled their giant Airstream trailer around the country for five months every summer, seeing parts of the country they'd never seen before, and spending time with friends they made in the Airstream club.
At the party, she embraced the bittersweet event with open and optimistic arms. From her wheelchair, she smiled and talked for hours with the many family members who had come. My mother was the last of ten children, and many of her siblings live close. Many others trekked in from throughout the southwest to spend one last family meal with her, just as we had all gotten together almost every Christmas and Easter when I was growing up.
By her birthday, she was confined to an adjustable bed in the family room, and hadn't eaten for a few days. Hospice visited twice a day, and the rest of the time various family members would sit by her side and give her ice chips and talk to her when she was awake, which wasn't often, due to all of the morphine in her system.
Mom held on for another full week. Easter came, and for the first time, I started to feel loss. I am the grand master of denial, and despite all of the evidence, I never believed in my heart that she would die. But sitting there at the Easter table, my mother's conspicuous absence was felt with full force. No matter what happened before, I could always count on her presence on those two holidays. Without fail. Until that day. Later in the evening, I went and visited her, but she never woke up to talk to me.
The next day was April 1st. April Fools' Day. Around dinner time, my sister called and told me mom was gone. Some joke. When I got to the house, she was still lying in the bed in the family room. I declined the offer to go in and see her body before the folks came and took it. I didn't want to remember her that way, but I caught one glance as I was walking into the kitchen, and damn it! Now I cannot get that fleeting picture out of my mind.
That was not my mom. That was the perfect picture of an empty shell with the entire person drained out of it. My mother's soul was not lifeless and still. It was hosting a party, or taking me to school, or exuding enthusiasm, commitment, and the spirit of Christ in some small way. And now it was gone.
Every year, starting with her birthday and ending with Easter or April Fools', I feel the loss again. I'm not a terribly emotional guy. Actually that's an understatement. But for a couple of weeks every spring I experience the last gift my mom gave me: I feel.
Monkey Robb and I were having an iChat conversation. He wrote:
The problem is, it's an extremely difficult lifestyle change long-term. But I think part of the problem with the "lifestyle change" part is that the "startup" is so easy. You don't really have to commit to something "difficult" ...Robb and I belong to different denominations, though we're both in the same basic meta-faction of one of our nation's most recent divides: no, not gay marraige... it's low-carb vs. low-fat. (Hat tip to the Splendid Table public radio show for the paradigm label.) Yep, Robb's an Atkins man and I'm a Zoner.
No, we weren't swapping recipes. Well, truthfully, we did discuss the fiber content of apples and the wholesome goodness of almonds. But the topic only came up because I asked his opinion on whether I should keep my giddiness over reaching another weight-loss goal off the blog. Robb reminded me that Lileks wrote about being on Atkins a few times, so a Blog Standards & Practices precedent has been set. Of course, I had to rant about how ole' James isn't really on Atkins. Folks just reflexively call anything carb-conscious "Atkins" – you know, in the same way that Kleenex means "tissue" (noun), Google means "search" (verb), or Xerox means "photocopy" (noun & verb). But I won't bore you with the obsessive minutia of why Lileks is most likely, according to his own descriptions of his regimen, straying inadvertantly close to The Zone Diet.
But I will jump up and down like Richard Simmons to shout abou- [sound of needle scratching across record] Okay, I'll calmly inform you that I have hit 40 pounds lost. That's since September. The first 22 pounds was from diet alone – strictly adhering to Dr. Barry Sears' Zone Diet. Right around Christmas I added exercise, swimming just over a mile before work each weekday. I even continued to lose weight over the holidays when I allowed myself a little cheating. The funny part about the exercise was that it skewed the weight loss tabulation, as I have obviously gained some muscle. (I should note that I'm still not in the territory of Monkey James, who has lost around 100 pounds through diet and weight training.)
I started The Zone on the recommendation of the good folks at the Amen Clinic, the brain scan folks I've written about before. Mood stability and general mental wellness were also the real impetus behind my return to the pool for exercise. Providentially, my weird heart trouble (atrial fibrulations) about a year and a half ago gave me the motivation I needed to nix the caffeine (and remember, I was an owner/operator of a specialty coffee cart for a few years – near the top of the supply pyramid). After losing caffeine, about the only indulgent vice I had left was sugar. And I made a staple of it. But what made it possible for me to give up the sugar was the timely advent of Splenda.
I love Splenda. I ought to write poems to Splenda. I may pledge to knock out a goofy three-cord votive song to Splenda this week. I don't have a link for confirmation, but I read on a Zone message board that Dr. Sears had strong suspicions that Splenda doesn't raise one's insulin levels the way that Aspartame (NutraSweet – the blue one) and Saccharine (Sweet-N-Low – the pink one) are known to. Oh, and finer establishments are finally starting to offer the little yellow packets of the sweet substance (Starbucks, for instance). You may be tempted to buy the pourable granules for home use, but take it from me, that's just for baking. Go to Costco and buy the box of 700 packets. Keep some everywhere: car, work, wife's purse, etc.
Splenda has probably made its biggest impact in my new regime through the wonder product that is Diet Rite soda. I know, you're thinking, that's stuff's been around fer ages... Well, they've also been keeping up with the times with a blend of Splenda and Sunett brand sweeteners. Their cola is practically my elixir of life. The raspberry soda is a fine alternative. The orange (tangerine, for those scoring at home) is a bit disappointing, but not to be dismissed. The hard to find white grape is an oasis. I hope that they find huge succes with this line up, so as to ensure market survival, securing me continued access, and possibly even an expansion of available flavors.
Before I go any further about my personal adaptations to The Zone, I should point out the books that lay the whole thing out. No, you don't need more than one. For the whole story, including how and why it works, how it was developed, and who Dr. Sears is... see a later edition of his book Enter The Zone. A summary of the plan and a good blueprint for getting started can be found in the small paperback, A Week In The Zone. I found the combination of these two books to be helpful.
For a simpler, cut-to-the-chase book, I recommend 40-30-30 Fat Burning Nutrition. Sears' book made no sense to my mom, but this one did the trick for her.
The other product that has made a huge impact on the convenience factor, for a diet that is notoriously (if somewhat undeservedly) known as complicated, is the ZonePerfect nutrition bar. Best uses: A) half of one 30 minutes before I exercise, the other half immediately after, and B) a chocolatey one as a late night snack to keep my insulin level "zoned" throughout the majority of my sleep. I have been known to horde them when they go on sale. That, and they're the only product I will willingly go to WalMart for. Cosco or Sam's Club only have two mediocre flavors, so the saving there is a real trade off.
More personal tips below.*
These days I'm allowing myself the occassional In-N-Out Double Double. And I enjoy a few cookies here and there, or a piece of pie. But if I can, I'll sneak a slice of turkey, or a few almods to balance it a bit. It's obviously too soon to say it with any authority, but I feel like the foundational tenets of the 40-30-30 thing, and what I've learned about how, when, and what to eat have already just become a part of who I am. It really feels like a lifestyle change that I can continue with. We'll see.
As for the exercise thing, I'm ramping it up a bit. I've discovered the site for US Masters Swimming, and I'm planning to work more interval training into my routine. Annnnnd I'm getting the urge to compete again. Right now I'm shooting for pulling the swimming end of a team triathalon on May 23rd. My runner has fallen through, but I've got my cyclist friend lined up. I haven't done an open water swim in maybe 20 years, and never as a race. If this one comes off, I'll certainly have to blog it.
*Tips cont'd
Turkey. Not just a good lean meat. Everyone's heard of how it contains trypotophan. Well, that stuff doesn't just make you sleepy, it's the building block (precursor) of serotonin. Good to know if your system doesn't make much or loses it through re-uptake abnormally fast. Treat yourself: get your turkey from the deli counter. (I can't believe I lived this long without knowing that they'll cut you a slice of anything in the case to let you taste it free. It's like Baskin-Robbins!)
Like Monkey James, a love that beef jerky. Right now I'm partial to Oberto's original.
I should mention Trader Joe's store brand protein powders, and the Designer Whey vanilla. I mistakenly bought the unflavored once and tried to make due. Horrible mistake. I use the stuff in morning fruit smoothies (take that, Atkins folks).
Trader Joe's also has a nearly powdered, dry, crushed almond meal that works well in smoothies. I thnk it's called "Just Almonds" or somesuch no-brainer.
Aunt Hattie's Low Carb bread fades in and out of status as a staple, but it's nothing to sing about.
Pizza rule: Order thinnest crust, lean meat topping (maybe two, like chicken and ham) plus a veggie or two. Then for each piece eaten, eat only the topping off the next piece.
Taco Bell: Chicken Soft Tacos add up well. Two should do for most folks. I'm 6' 5" and active so I get more. Sometimes I replace one with a Grilled Steak Soft Taco.
Jack In The Box: Haven't really run the numbers, but I've had lots of success with their Chicken Fajita Pita. New salads are good too. (There's even a palatable salad with grilled chicken at McDonald's now.)
I'm told the Wendy's chili makes for decent stats, especially with a side salad or two.
Drinks: Ice water with lemon. Add a Splenda packet or two. If you have a few lemon wedges it's practically lemonade. Other than that, avoid caffeine. It breaks down into substances that mess up your insulin level, thus taking you out of the zone.
Avoid deli meats made with organ meats. Yeah, I never really wanted to think about it either. But those odd bits that make up most deli meats contain substances that keep you out of the zone too. Sorry pepperoni. I still have a little in moderation. The more I think about the "organ" part, the easier it is to avoid.
PSA: I hesitated to add these tips to my post. I wouldn't want anyone to think that the info included here is enough to get one "into the zone." It's not. Read the book(s). Consult your doctor. Lastly, I should add that I wouldn't do the real Atkins if you paid me. Nope. Read one of Sears' Zone books to find out why.
Claremont McKenna Students are back from Spring Break, and they are none too pleased about Kerri Dunn.
"She told us that she thought one of her students did it," said Daniel Curtis, a student in a psychology class taught by Dunn, who is now on leave. "If she did do it, we were lied to straight to our faces. That is insulting and to make us question our classmates and friends is horrible."If she did do it, I feel betrayed."
Ah, nothing like a little disillusionment to change a young idealist's outlook on life. The lessons of this case will leave Dunn's students with a better education than a semester's worth of her lectures ever could.
Still nothing from Eugene Volokh on the eminent domain thing. But unprovoked he exclaimed, "We Jews have not just taken over banking, the media, the universities, and all that; we've taken over infinity itself!" [emphasis in original] Sounds like an assault on our blog, if you ask me.
Not only that, but fate has recently dealt us a fickle hand.
Ben's fine posts have had a decent share of exposure, what with Power Line's post making the rounds. But when Instapundit picks up the story, who gets the link? The Volokh Conspiracy. You know, at last I think there may be something to that blog's name...
Bitter? Nah, not really. (Well, maybe in that Ziggy kinda sense.)
Saddam Hussein's secular-socialist Ba'ath regime had no link whatsoever with the radical Islamists of al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. Yeah, and I'm the king of Siam. (Hat tip: Powerline.)
Anyone can get 50,000 visitors. Heck, Glenn Reynolds gets that many on a slow day. Well, Infinite Monkeys just surpassed 51,470 visitors. Sure, it took 10 months or so to pull off, but it's . . . something. To all of you have have slogged through with us, many thanks. And to the 51,471st visitor, we were going to give you a bottle of Potter's Creme de Banana liqueur, but (1) we don't know who you are and (2) Dr. Monkeystein drank it already. You have our extra-special thanks.
Every once in awhile, you see something that just makes you want to cry out, "But this is AMERICA!" Now, I know I'm likely considered "the boy who cried Police State" around here on the blog, but what I read today offends me in the most profound way, and I hope the other Bear Flaggers (and others) will take up the call and discuss this issue thoroughly.
Yesterday, the Bakersfield Californian ran this piece by AP writer Tim Molloy. I will include the most offensive quote first, and then proceed with more quotes from the story. Malloy quotes Larry Adams, the mayor of California City, CA:
"I think it's a matter of one or two (who) probably are true believers in the freedom of mankind, blah blah blah, and they don't like eminent domain."
Read that sentence again, and let it soak in. No, wait - let me give you more of the story first. Again, from the article:
When Hyundai needed land for a new auto testing track, officials in this remote, high-desert town were eager to oblige...Now, go back and read the "blah blah blah" sentence again. The legal owners of property don't want it STOLEN from them under a law that CLEARLY was never meant to allow this kind of theft to happen. And the Mayor calls them "true believers"???Under a state law that allows governments to seize land designated as "urbanized and blighted," the city's redevelopment agency went to court and won permission to take more than 700 acres from private landowners...
...But four holdout property owners said if Hyundai wants the land it must be worth much more than what the city offered.
They have sued over the city's argument for condemning their land, saying it is anything but "urbanized." The region lies 100 miles northeast of Los Angeles, set amid a lonely expanse of Mojave Desert dotted with Joshua trees and scrub brush.
"You know how the desert looks when it's pristine and hardly anybody's out there and there's no tracks or anything?" said Barry Redfearne, who owns 20 acres. "That's how it looks. And it's been like that for hundreds of years."
Private property is inseparable from liberty. If we are not free to own land without fear that our government will take it from us and give it to someone else, then we are simply not free. Let's forget the debate over whether or not it would be appropriate for government to take property that was TRULY "urbanized and blighted" away from its owners, and talk about the clear injustice in this case for a minute. This is pristine desert - many acres of it - purchased legitimately by its owners. And they want to take it away so that Hyundai can build a test track, and then the city will collect extra tax revenue.
I could go on and on about this, but I'd prefer to "share the outrage" and let some of the other Bear Flaggers give their thoughts. Does this sound acceptable to you? Should government be allowed to trample personal property rights whenever it believes it can make money doing so? How would you feel if the government snapped up your house or apartment and turned around and sold it to a real estate developer or factory?
(Hat Tip: Deuce of Clubs)
UPDATE: Deuce also recommends you let the Mayor know what you think. His numbers are listed as (760) 373-2539 and (760) 373-3241.
Several people have mentioned the recent death of (Lt. Col.) Bob Zangas who was blogging his service as a civilian with the Coalition Provisional Authority working in the Public Affairs Department doing his best to rebuild Iraq. I must admit that I hadn't read his blog before hearing of his passing. But tonight I can't stop reading it.
There are many instances where I think, "Wow, that's worth excerpting if I write this up." Sometimes it's because of the irony that surfaces with hindsight. Sometimes it's just because of the unparalleled insight into the Iraqi culture, and the challenges that face the nation as it struggles to find its legs and come to grips with an entirely new paradigm: freedom from despotism and deprivation. I just kept thinking that this or that should be excerpted for a post like the one I'm writing now.
But, of course, no excerpt could do justice to the experience that is reading his site. I found it particularly captivating to read the comments about his photographs that were usually written the same week or day the pics were snapped. But the site is so much more than a collection of captions. Zangas oftentimes thinks out loud in his journal entries, being honest and human about his experiences, feelings, hopes, and challenges.
Truly Bob Zangas proved the second half of the Marine's most recent motto; to the Iraqis there was "no better friend."
[UPDATE: The site's message board is now collecting submissions of condolence.]
Let's see... change the Weebles to Kerry. Wobbles would work, as it's so close to Waffles. Strike the first and last letter of They. Annnnd... nudge Don't to Does. Yep. There you have it.
Power Line gives the best coverage out there of this (and one other) most telling, insightful slice of the would-be President's life and character.
Maybe Kerry can out perform Bush first-time on a Segway. Try running that leadership qualification past folks old enough (or well read enough) to remember FDR.
I've been meaning to start a list of John Kerry's most distinctive utterances, sort of as a reminder of how awful he is as a politician and as a human being. Trouble is, other top-flight bloggers have essentially been doing the job for me. This excellent post by the Ashbrook Center's Peter Schramm reminded me just now how badly I've fallen down on the job. Schramm begins:
"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it," so said John Kerry yesterday. I mention this not only because this might become the perfect summation of his character, both intellectual and moral, but also because it is a perfect example of the difficulty of doing politics in a Republic. It is all a bit confusing isn’t it? A person goes around saying anything and everything, no matter how contradictory, just to get himself elected (he will fail, by the way)...
And there's more! Much more! Read it all, as another wise man said.
The horrors of racism in America, if not well known, are at least documented well enough for there to be no excuse for not knowing.
We've come a long way since 1900. We've come a long way since 1965, for that matter. Anyone who says otherwise should take a good, long look at those images. Then she should look at them again.
But would Kerri Dunn understand what she sees? I don't know. As she said at the anti-hate rally at Claremont McKenna College last week,
I read about the cross burning, and I read about the... uh, word "nigger" being written on calendars and I was appalled. I just couldn’t believe in 2004 this was happening. As a psychologist I teach on a regular basis about the nature of prejudice. And we talk about how prejudice nowadays is supposed to be modern, and covert, and based on ignorance, and stereotyping. And I thought these acts aren’t ignorant. This isn’t the result of some covert thought. This was a well planned out act of terrorism.
It suits her, and people who think like her, to believe that a virulent racism lurks just below the surface of American society, that we're one short step away from once again hanging black people from trees. There really are two Americas: one thought this was a horrendous crime, and that the perpetrators got what they deserved; the other thought it would make for a good political ad.
Of course, Dunn is hardly alone in thinking this way, nor is she the first person to fabricate a "hate crime" in order to advance an agenda. (John Rosenberg at Discriminations compares the Dunn incident with a similar case at the University of Virginia involving an undergrad running for student body president. One small correction to his otherwise solid account of the Claremont story: CMC's president is named Gann, not "Gunn." I made a similar mistake [caught and corrected!] in an article I edited earlier today. See also: Erin O'Connor, who has several excellent links to other hate-crime faking items.)
Perhaps worse than the ideological blindness of Dunn and her ilk is the cynicism of college administrators who will use recent events as a pretext for ridding the colleges of politically correct undesirables.
I think Scott "Big Trunk" Johnson's assessment of the colleges' response will prove terrifyingly accurate:
All in all, a graphic illustration of the "verdict first, trial later" atmosphere that pervades the intellectual life of elite college campuses today. While it is difficult to assess the situation from a distance, we somehow doubt that all students at the Claremont Colleges feel free to express their viewpoints, thoughts, and ideas, particularly if they partake of any cynicism about the morality tales that constitute their daily mental diet.
The Los Angeles Times reports today that "Administrators...will offer extra counseling and campus discussions" when students return from spring break on Monday. Right. Anger management, anyone? As for Professor Dunn's future teaching at CMC, college president Pamela Gann says, "We're left in a very ambiguous situation . . . People always want closure. This may be a decision where it's very difficult to get to closure." Don't be surprised if her contract isn't renewed in June. Not that it will matter. In the perverse hothouse of academic politics, Kerri Dunn will be remembered as a martyr to a noble cause, the victim of another kind of "high-tech lynching." About this I have no doubt.
Here's a prime example of why I read Evangelical Outpost daily, and why we Monkeys rarely enable comments on our posts.
...I'd hammer on Leonard Nimoy for recording this song. (Viewers are advised to lock up all guns, kitchen utensils, blunt instruments, and to remove any belts and shoelaces before watching the clip. You have been warned.)
(Hat tip: F-Rock.)
Morally superior folk just love to announce how much better they are than we intolerant haters. After the atrocious hate-crime in Claremont last week, many of the more enlightened citizenry could be seen driving around town with dashboard signs reading "Pro-Diversity, Anti-Hate," to show their solidarity with the victim.
As we know, the story has been exploded. Now what's a skeptic supposed to do? Gloat! Yes, but how? We offer the following solution...
Print, clip, and post on your dash. Click here to download the full-size PDF file. (Requires Adobe Acrobat.) It looks really good on yellow paper.
Best line from last night's Dennis Miller show on CNBC, by John Laroquette:
"I'm a registered Libertarian, so I vote for whatever librarian they put on the ballot."
From today's Bleat: "Sometimes you look at your shirts and realize: I don’t wear any of these anymore." The obvious corrolary is: I can't believe I ever wore these!
Ye gods! "USA Today said Friday that an examination of the work of journalist Jack Kelley found strong evidence that the newspaper's former star foreign correspondent had fabricated substantial portions of at least eight major stories," reports the Associated Press. I presume the story was thoroughly fact-checked.
Another fun campaign site is Open Secrets, where you can find facts such as that the Kucinich campaign buys office supplies at Wal-Mart.
Oh, and so do most of the campaigns, including Kerry's.
I'm having way too much fun with the Fundrace website. You can put in your address and see who your neighbors have contributed money to (where I live, it's quite a mix--but the $2000 donations mostly go to Bush). You can also, as Bitter Lawyer did, look up actors (such as those in the show The West Wing) (hat tip: Wonkette).
Wonkette claims no conservatives are listed, but of course Ben Stein is there, with $1,000 for Bush.
Now, if you could search by job title or company, that would be great...
Update: Oh, and yes, there's $2,000 from a certain Hugh Hewitt, who—unlike some of the actors—was smart enough to list a P.O. Box to keep those pesky stalkers away.
Update 2: And a certain John Ellis Bush, who lists his job as Governor of the State of Florida, gives $1,000. A George H.W. and Barbara in Houston each give $2,000. But a guy names Alvin Gore in Lousiana gives a $100 of his hard-earned dollars to the Bush campaign.
OK, I'll stop now.
You may have seen reports last week about a Claremont McKenna College professor whose car was vandalized with racial and anti-Semitic epithets. The administration cancelled classes on Wednesday and quickly assembled a great rally against racism and intolerance on behalf of psychology professor Kerri Dunn. The community was justifiably outraged. How could such a barbaric, bigoted act happen here? Claremont is, like most college towns, a pretty liberal place. At the Claremont Farmers Market on Sunday, people could be seen carrying and driving around with signs proclaiming "Pro-Diversity, Anti-Hate."
Turns out, police say, Dunn probably vandalized her own car.
She denies it. "This is like a very big deal if they think I'm a suspect," Dunn told an L.A. Times reporter. "I didn't want any of this from the beginning. This is so overshadowing the bigger problem on campus, which is that the administration has turned its head regularly on hate speech and hate crimes." Her lawyer added: "[I]t is an outrageous and sad twist to victimize a person who was trying to speak out against hate crimes. I don't know who vandalized her car, but I know it wasn't her."
We'll return to the question of "hate speech" and "hate crimes" on the Claremont Colleges in a moment. For now, however, let's look at how the locals are taking the news.
You would think the college administration would be deeply embarrassed today. Maybe they are, but it's hard to know. Scripps College President Nancy Y. Bekavac said in a message to the college: "Above all, we must focus on this: even if the vandalized car and slogans were a hoax, our responses last week were right and appropriate—in our community meeting March 10 ... and in our strong participation in the evening rally at CMC with all The Claremont Colleges. However painful and confusing this latest development is, we cannot forget the reasons we were outraged in the first place; we cannot avoid the challenges that hatred poses to our community, to our country."
And according to the Times, "Claremont McKenna College President Pamela Gann said the idea that Dunn vandalized her own car came as 'a shock and a surprise.' Gann said that Dunn's continued employment at the school was under review but that the college remained committed to 'academic freedom and free speech.'" Whether or not lying to police and the FBI constitutes "academic freedom and free speech" is a subject I'm sure we'll be hearing more about in the coming days and weeks. But say this for the college administrators: They know an educational opportunity when they see one. Today's lesson: Never Let Facts Get In The Way of The Truth.
"Whatever the ultimate outcome," of the investigation, Claremont Graduate University President Steadman Upham wrote in an e-mail, "I remain heartened with the outpouring of support we saw last week on our campus and throughout the Claremont Colleges for the values of inclusiveness, tolerance, and diversity. As a university, we are committed to taking concrete steps to make CGU a place where all people feel welcome and included, regardless of their race, gender, culture, religion, sexual orientation, or nationality."
Within days of the bogus hate-crime report, the colleges began taking steps to eradicate the plague of bigotry that had erupted so suddenly in their midst. CGU's Board of Trustees announced last Friday the formation of something called the "Permanent Group on Tolerance, Fairness, and Diversity."
In his announcement, CGU President Upham said, "Incidents of intolerance have occurred because we have allowed the conditions that sustain racism and anti-Semitism to exist. Eradicating these conditions must become a priority of everyone associated with CGU and the other Claremont Colleges. ...We believe this action will begin a process of renewed concern at the very top of the university to advance programs and actions that encourage, sustain, and expand tolerance, fairness, and diversity."
The students are getting it, mostly. Again, from the L.A. Times: "Andrew McDavid, editor of the Claremont Student monthly campus newspaper, said he felt 'manipulated.'" [In other words, like a good-hearted young liberal fellow, he bought the story.] "I had considered the possibility that someone might be doing this to make a point about racism on the campuses," McDavid said. "But I dismissed that as a bit of a conspiracy theory." That's college journalism for you!
Meanwhile, they're having a field day in the forums over at CMCStudents.com.
But some students—I'd venture to say a slim majority—see the incident as a good thing. One told the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin that "Dunn must have been desperately trying to raise awareness of racial issues." Because nobody was paying attention to a problem that barely exists, you see. The papers refer to a "string of incidents" leading up to the vandalism of Dunn's car, but all of the reports seem to mention only two: "Earlier this year," according to the Times, "four students stole an 11-foot cross from an art class and set it afire. The next month, a student discovered a racial slur written on a picture of George Washington Carver, a black agricultural scientist."
That's it? That's it. Crude, stupid stuff, especially at a university in the 21st century. But can anybody seriously argue that it represents an underlying climate of hatred and bigotry?
"The community's response Wednesday was to the climate of privilege and hate that exist on these campuses," Pomona College student Jeremy Schulman told a reporter from the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. "But this climate did not begin or end with the vandalism to professor Dunn's car and we need to be sure to continue to confront these issues."
Nonsense. Here's what this is really about: progressivism vs. "reaction." There is within the Claremont Colleges a very small but influential enclave of political conservatism. It isn't the force it was, say, 30 or even 20 years ago, but it's there, like a pebble in the shoe or an itch you can't scratch. An itch with tenure, you might say. The government department at Claremont McKenna, for example, remains largely on the right. There are others. It is a problem for the liberals on the faculty and especially within the administration. What to do?
Well, if you can't drive them out for being hopelessly conservative, what if you tag them as "anti-diversity"? What if you say their ideas create a climate of intolerance on the campus?
That's what Kerri Dunn thinks. She said so at the rally last week. From a transcript of her remarks:
What are you gonna do, I said, I kept saying what are you gonna do, these are your friends under attack, these are my friends under attack, these are your colleagues, these are your peers, you’re my students who are being attacked. What are we gonna to do?Many people responded with, well you know Professor Dunn, we’ve always been taught that we should be racially blind, and that by not paying attention to it and not calling attention to differences we would minimize them. You know, that’s a beautiful, beautiful, explanation... or should I say, um… all right, piece of shit...
(Applause)
It has absolutely no substance and no utility in society wherein we are founded on diversity. The Statue of Liberty stands every day of all of our lives theoretically welcoming people to this land to become part of us. So to say that we should act like we’re color blind I really believe is an excuse. I believe it’s an excuse to remain lazy, it’s an excuse to turn your head. And it’s an excuse to allow these idiots to continue with their agenda.
(Applause)
< snip >
And I just, you know, I want to end this by saying as a group, we stand here, and we say we’re pro-diversity and anti-hate (applause) and that the people who espouse these hateful ideologies, really, I said earlier today should go underground. What I meant is that they should go to hell.
Understand, then, that there really is a war of ideas being waged in the United States and around the world today. The self-styled forces of "progress" believe that justice is on their side. And they'll lie and cheat to make damned certain of it.
Update: In a town ruled by pompous, "progressive" sloganeering, here is a refreshing alternative.
Update II: If you liked this post, you will love this one.
Okay, so now "al Qaida" is getting involved in the presidential election? What next? Movie reviews? Posting odds for football games? Hey Osama, what teams should I pick for my NCAA tournament office pool? Hey Osama, do these pants make look fat? Do you think I should update my look? What do you think of my couch? Do you think me and my girlfriend should take our relationship to the next level?
I love beef jerky. I mentioned before I lift weights. I'll have a protein shake from time to time, but generally I try to get my protein from chicken, pork chops, eggs, and soy products.
One of my favorite sources of protein is jerky. I love jerky. Especially the teriiyki. I'd eat it all the time, if it weren't for all the salt. Anyhow, yesterday was jerky day. I can't wait until next Wednesday when I get to eat more jerky.
Mmmn... jerky good.
Joe Carter says we suck at Scrabble.
I say, "poop to you", sir! I am, in fact, very good at Scrabble.
I am not, however, good enough at reading a calendar to recognize that it's St. Patrick's Day until it's too late to do some serious Irish Whiskey drinking. Rats.
Once again, the Camper Van Beethoven group on Yahoo! is filled with the most informed people on the planet. Check out this gem:
Forgive me for being off-topic, but I needed to share this:http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_s
pain_truce_dc&e=2&ncid=721highlights:
"Kerry will kill our nation while it sleeps because he and the Democrats
have the cunning to embellish blasphemy and present it to the Arab and
Muslim nation as civilization.""Because of this we desire you (Bush) to be elected."
The group said its cells were ready for another attack and time was running
out for allies of the United States.
Good grief! Well, clearly we should take Al Qaeda at their word. They've
never done us wrong before...Seriously - read the whole article with the skepticism required of people
living in a dangerous world. Al Qaeda bombs Spanish railroad, Spaniards
panic and vote for Socialist party, Socialist party announces they will
withdraw troops from Iraq, Al Qaeda calls truce. Sounds like Al Qaeda got
exactly what they wanted.Generally speaking, I prefer not to consider the political advice of a group
that would rejoice in my death. It's a little policy of mine.Disclaimer: This post should not be considered an endorsement of King George
or the war in Iraq.
And no matter what my views of the two party system, I'm pretty damn sure that not a single Al Qaeda sympathizer in the country will be voting for George W. Bush.
The April issue of my favorite lefty-magazine arrived in the mail today. Reading Lewis Lapham's "Notebook," I came across the following statement:
The President isn't good with words, and seldom knows how or why or when he's lying.
Maybe it's the editor in me, but I halted on that sentence. I suppose Lapham means to say that the President is a pathological liar, that lying for him is as natural as breathing, stupid though he may be. But that can't be right, can it? He "isn't good with words," after all. As George W. himself might say, "That don't make any sense." Can one not know "how or why or when" one is telling a lie and still be a liar? Or would that make one...something else? I search in vain for an answer. I suppose we're to believe (have faith!) that Bush's "lies" are obvious to everyone. Everyone, that is, except George W. Bush himself.
Lapham goes on to write:
Not having a straight story to tell, and unwilling to hold himself accountable to anything other than his own courage and resolve, he answered [Tim] Russert's questions with statements deployed as evasive decoys similar to the chaff off-loaded by an F-16 dodging enemy ground fire.
Nice imagery, but what does it mean? That Bush really is a good liar? That he is a megalomaniac? That he is, at bottom, insane? I haven't finished reading the piece yet, so I don't know the answer. As soon as I have it, I'll let you know. I have a funny feeling that I'd better let Lapham know it, too.
Are you a bartender? Do you play one at home? If so, you may be interested in BarProducts.com, especially if you need basic tools—such as shakers, strainers, and speed pourers—at low prices. I've been bartending some private functions lately, and I needed pourers. Lots of them. Most liquor stores sell the cheap plastic ones for about a dollar a piece. Bar Products has them for $1.19 a dozen, in five different colors. They sell metal pourers for 65 cents each (compared to four or five bucks for a package of two at the store). I won't vouch for everything BarProducts peddles (neon? blech), but at least now I know where to go for mundane but essential tools of the trade.
(Standard disclaimer: I don't work for BarProducts.com, nor am I receiving dot-com payola—although I would be open to it. I couldn't pick somebody who works there out of a line up. But I like the site, and wanted to pass the word. So there.)
The e-mail headline of this Washington Post report is provocative, not to mention misleading: "Going Ugly, Early." When you read the story, however, what you get is something a bit different. (The actual Washington Post headline, on the web anyway, is "Campaign Gets More Personal. Still misleading, but much less incendiary.)
The presidential election took a sharply personal turn Tuesday, as President Bush aired a new television ad accusing Democrat John F. Kerry of turning his back on troops in Iraq . . .Bush's TV ad accused Kerry of voting against legislation to pay for military needs in Iraq after originally supporting the U.S. invasion.
How is this a "personal turn"? Senator Kerry made his national-security credentials a campaign issue. The Bush ad challenges those credentials. Indeed, as the story goes on to show, the would-be President once again wants to have it both ways:
But the Democrat—whom Bush has criticized for taking both sides of difficult issues—offered a less-than-crisp statement defending the nuances of his position."I actually did vote for his $87 billion, before I voted against it," he told a group of veterans at a noontime appearance at Marshall University. He went on to explain that he preliminarily backed the request, so long as it was financed not by deficit spending but with a tax surcharge on the wealthy that Bush opposed.
So the ad isn't wrong, and it isn't personal. But it does make Kerry look like a flip-flopping weasel. Or a nuanced weasel, if you prefer. (Now that's personal.)
Look, I know we're supposed to reflexively dismiss every idea that springs from a Clinton's head, but, contra Brian Newport, I don't think it's nuts to want a little extra proof that my electronic ballot is secure. Even those bad old punchcard ballots had a receipt you could take with you. To put it crudely, Democrats know more than a thing or two about vote fraud, and I'm not referring to the "truth" about Florida. Republicans would do well to get behind the effort to ensure touch-screen voting is safe and sound in November and beyond. George W. Bush may regret it otherwise.
So I was watching "NYPD Blue" last night-- I generally don't watch TV-- and last night one of the characters said, "Bullshit." i wasn't shocked or anything, more like pleasantly amused. Did anybody catch that? And what was your reaction?
"Great generals... don't depend upon their enemies to make mistakes or give up. A great general relies on his own ideas, initiative, skill and maneuvers to put the enemy in a position where he must do the general's bidding. A great general wins his battles before he fights them. he obligates the enemy to take positions he cannot defend or from which he cannot extricate himself."-- How Hitler Could Have Won World war II: The Ten Fatal Errors, by Bevin AlexanderYou're too rigid, you think in straight lines. If all things were equally possible, and nothing more likely to happen than anything else, decision of any kind would be impossible. It's better to take risks, have some successes and some failures, than to always be paralyzed by expecting the worst.... You only get what you want if you strive for it. Caution, timidity, never get you anywhere."-- Xerxes, King of Persia from Herodotus: The Struggle for Greece.
The real questions of Madrid for me are: Who's next? And what's next? I've been thinking about it, and I think the next terror attack will be so obvious that in hindsight, we'll wonder why we didn't think of it. So why don't we think of it? Being a terrorist isn't exactly brain surgery.
The terrorists seem to be targeting ubiquity. That is, the everyday things that we have to do, that we don't think too much about. The everyday things we have to do that put us in contact with large groups of people. The everyday things we have to do that make us a perfectly vulnerable target of terror. Like I said, in hindsight the next attack will seem very obvious in its obviousness.
So I shall now think like a terrorist. The terrorists believe they are punishing us. Every target they choose has certain a symbolic value. Because of the ubiquitous nature of the target, we fail to see its symbolism. So the trick is in predicting where a terrorist will strike is to think in terms of symbolism.
So taking that in mind, I think the next attack will have something to do with cars. It is the most ubiquitous target out there. That being said, I think the next target is somewhere in California. I think it will be a bridge or an overpass. The bridge or the overpass in and of itself isn't a famous bridge. But it is a grand site. What I mean is, it probably something like the 805 overpass in Mission Valley during rush hour. It's indefensible. And frankly, you get the same bang for your buck blowing up an overpass than the Golden Gate Bridge.
Because an overpass is so ordinary, and everyone would expect a terrorist to try to blow up the Golden Gate bridge. If I'm a terrorist and I want to send a message to Americans that "your country can't protect you"-- that's the sort of target I go after. Think about it from a symbolic standpoint. What does a car symbolize? Freedom. Freedom to move. Freedom to be. And from the terrorist's point cars are legitimate part of the discussion. To me it's interesting that one thing women aren't allowed to do in Saudi Arabia is drive. To me that says everything doesn't it? They understand the symbolism of a woman being able to drive. Freedom.
From today's Guardian:
London's police chief warned yesterday of the ever-widening terrorist threat to the capital, stressing that bombers could strike not just on the rail or tube network but virtually anywhere - pubs, nightclubs, buses or roads.Anyhow. Cars. That's what my gut tells me. But gut also tells me it'll orginal and horrific and utterly undefensible. But knowing that, knowing that honestly our government can't protect us, I refuse to give in to despair. Live or die free. Old words for sure, but they still mean something.
I was listening to NPR this afternoon (now that Hugh's show has been moved back two hours in San Diego), and heard the most remarkable take on the elections.
Yes, NPR.
It was in the middle of a depressing report on the Socialist victory. Go here, select "Spain May Abandon U.S. Coalition," and start listening at around 1:50.
The speaker is an opponent of the war in Iraq, who had written a book called "Spain in the Bulls-eye of Islamic Terror" in 2002 essentially predicting the Madrid attacks. He maintains that while it was obvious that Spain was on the Al Quaeda hit list, the Conservative government ignored the threat, and was obsessed with the Basque ETA terrorists. In addition, the government reduced the security budget, losing 6,000 policeman in eight years, and allowed "one million immigrants, most of them Muslims, to enter Spain illegally."
The report then goes on without really understanding what was said here, because it doesn't fit the spin U.S. liberals are trying to put on the election (even though it came from someone who obviously was not a fan of Bush). But if it's true that the Conservatives turned a blind eye to Islamo-fascism (aside from supporting the Iraq war), then it's understandable why there was such a backlash against the government's persistent efforts to blame the ETA.
Or, to paraphrase a Spaniard in The Princess Bride, "I don't think that means what you think it means."
We could, I suppose, rationalize this as the latest and most egregious example of the degradation of public discourse by the Cult of Celebrity. Or, if you're a certain Dr. Monkeystein, you could simply giggle at the naughtiness of it all. Warning: James Lipton is nowhere to be found in the following Channel 4 clip, but lots of well-known actors are. Also, if your name is Jon Luker, please, please, please do not click here.
(Hat tip: Regis Snell.)
Who would have thought that the "tragedy of Al-Andalus" could be avenged so easily?
As Victor Davis Hanson writes on his website today:
Let me get this straight. Two-and-a-half years after September 11, on a similar eleventh day of the month, 911 days following 9-11, and on the eve of Spanish elections, Al Qaeda or its epigones blows up 200 and wounds 1,400 Spaniards. This horrific attack follows chaotic months when Turks were similarly butchered (who opposed the Iraq War), Saudis were targeted (who opposed the Iraqi war), Moroccans were blown apart (who opposed the Iraqi war) and French periodically threatened (who opposed the Iraqi War).And the response? If we were looking for Churchill to step from the rubble, we got instead Daladier. The Spanish electorate immediately and overwhelmingly connected the horror with its present conservative government’s support for Operation Iraqi Freedom. If the United States went to Afghanistan in 26 days following the murder of 3,000 of its citizens to hunt down their killers and remove the fascists who sponsored them, Spaniards took to the streets with Paz placards and about 48 hours later voted in record numbers to appease the terrorists.
Win a few, lose a few, right? Europe, as a bastion of Western Civilization, is slowly committing suicide. This piece from the Daily Telegraph (via Sullivan) adds a bit of historical context to the Islamofascist's interest in Spain. "Do not weep like a woman for what you could not defend like a man." What was once a rebuke to the Muslim world may one day be remembered as the epitaph for Old Europe.
I don't see how one can interpret the victory of the Socialists in Spain in any other way than as a victory for the terrorists, whether they were Basque or Arab. I know that sounds over-the-top, and "the terrorists will have won" has become a cliché, but it's the truth. It's what they wanted to happen, and the timing of the attack had more to do with the election that any "911 days from 9/11" issue (most of the rest of the world calls it 11/9 anyway).
Update: Sullivan knocks this one out of the park.
Drudge is linking to a story on a protest in Spain (a small one--a thousand people) blaming the terrorist attacks on the Spanish government's support of the Iraq war, and calling for its resignation.
The problem with this is obvious: even if it were true, do you really let fear of terrorism dictate your foreign policy? Where does that get you?
But the bigger idiocy of this is that it misses the history here: Bin Laden spoke in his videotape after September 11th of "not repeating the mistake of Andalusia." The mistake he's referring to is the Moors allowing the Spaniards to continue practicing Christianity, instead of forcing them to convert to Islam. The Islamo-fascists have long memories and old hatreds. I'm confident that most Spaniards understand this, even if a few idiot protesters don't. Remember that in contrast to a thousand marching for terrorism, eleven million marched contra el terrorismo.
Update: OK, so I finally get around to reading Lileks's Friday Bleat, and he makes a similar point. I should note, though, that all the Spanish talk about their constitution has a lot to do with the fact that it means the Basque areas are part of Spain. But you can read it here. It's worth reading, and contrasting to what the Islamofascists would want.
Veee-rrrry interesting. A caller to Hewitt's show a few minutes ago mentioned a story posted on Free Republic about a fruitless plot by the Vietnam Veterans Against the War to assassinate pro-war Senators. The rather breathless headline on the article is: "TWO WITNESSES COULD END KERRY PRESIDENTIAL RUN -- 'The Phoenix Project.'" Now, I don't put much creedence in Free Republic posts (hence no link, sorry; if you care, you can find it yourself), but I do respect The New York Sun, which is the primary source for the Freep piece. The Sun story is a bit less hysterical. The headline reads: "How Kerry Quit Veterans Group Amid Dark Plot." Here are the particulars:
The anti-war group that John Kerry was the principal spokesman for debated and voted on a plot to assassinate politicians who supported the Vietnam War.Mr. Kerry denies being present at the November 12-15, 1971, meeting in Kansas City of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and says he quit the group before the meeting. But according to the current head of Missouri Veterans for Kerry, Randy Barnes, Mr. Kerry,who was then 27,was at the meeting, voted against the plot, and then orally resigned from the organization.
Mr. Barnes was present as part of the Kansas City host chapter for the 1971 meeting and recounted the incident in a phone interview with The New York Sun this week.
In addition to Mr. Barnes’s recollection placing Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting, another Vietnam veteran who attended the meeting, Terry Du-Bose, said that Mr. Kerry was there.
< snip >
...on behalf of the John Kerry campaign, spokesman David Wade told the Sun yesterday that Mr. Kerry resigned from Vietnam Veterans Against the War “sometime in the summer of 1971 after the August meeting in St. Louis, which Kerry did not attend.”
Mr.Wade also said,“Kerry was not at the Kansas City meeting.”
So at least two witnesses put Kerry in KC, but the Kerry camp denies he was there. I wonder if the rest of the press—our friends at the New York Times, say—will pick up on this story? And will reporters spend the next two weeks or so demanding that Senator Kerry prove he wasn't in Kansas City? Can't hurt to ask, can it?
I’m somewhat annoyed by the assertion that this act was “sophisticated,” and hence the work of those brilliant stratgerists of Al Qaeda. My definition of sophistication is somewhat different: it’s an unmanned drone flying over Pakistan, piloted by a guy in Florida, dropping a laser-guided bomb into the passenger cab of a truck full of Taliban. That’s sophistication.
James Lileks, writing in today's Bleat. Read the whole thing, as the sages say.
.. if what they said about Andrew Jackson is true, that would mean that Bill Clinton was merely America's second black president. Once again, the liberal media gets it wrong.
I mentioned this by the way to one of my co-workers and she asked "how much black do you have to have to be considered black?"
And I replied: "To quote the old saying, 'One drop of black blood makes ya' all black."
Oh, no! Professor Bainbridge has resigned as Hugh Hewitt's on-air wine expert! Uncharacteristically modest for an academic, the Prof explains, "radio just wasn't my format." Well, that, and laziness on his part. It's a shame, though, because it means Hewitt will talk about wine in much the same way he pops off about popular culture, sports, and just about everything else outside the extremely narrow realm of politics: i.e., with a reckless and almost perverse disregard for the facts. On the other hand, I guess that's why we tune in...
John Kerry is a intemperate fellow. But did his portrayal of the Administration as a "crooked, lying group" really mark a "new low" in our political discourse? I have in front of me a book called Presidential Ambition: How the Presidents Gained Power, Kept Power, and Got Things Done, by Richard Shenkman. In his account of the 1828 election between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson, Shenkman writes:
Of Adams it was said that he had had premarital relations with his wife, that she was illegitimate, and that when he had served as minister to Russia he had pimped for Czar Alexander I. Of Jackson, that his mother had been a whore, that he was the son of a lascivious mulatto named Jack (hence "Jack's son"), that he had seduced his wife, Rachel, wrecking her marriage to another man, and then lived with her in sin.
The election of 1828 is a good comparison, I think, because the incumbent (Adams) was accused of ascending to the presidency through a "corrupt bargain." Again, the objection may be raised: Jackson didn't personally say those terrible things about Adams, and Adams didn't personally say those terrible things about Jackson and his wife, whereas Kerry did accuse Bush and his administration of being "the most crooked...lying group I have ever seen." Is the latter necessarily worse than than the former? Sorry, but I really don't think so. But I'm happy Kerry said it. It may be the most honest thing he's said since his Rolling Stone interview.
Somewhere else in my library is a book called How to Get Elected: An Anecdotal History of Mudslinging, Red-Baiting, Vote-Stealing, and Dirty Tricks in American Politics, by Jack Mitchell. I wish I knew where it was, because it shows in even greater (and hilarious) detail the lengths to which politicians and their minions will go to discredit their opponents.
You sorta need to have a good sense of gallows humor to work in the business. Especially when you have to go to a slide show and horrific images of dead people and hear people around you go: "Wow, that's a great shot." At first you feel a sort of disgust until you hear youself say aloud: "Wow, that's an interesting shot. Put that one though." That I can find an iconic beauty in an image of horror-- I don't what that really says about me. And that I can enhance the beauty of that photograph by the crop--I don't know what that really says about me either. Other than I guess I'm good at my job, I guess.
I used to work at the Orange County Register. And it was kinda their thing that whenever they'd run a story about something somewhere outside O.C. they'd always try to give it "local flavor."
Anyhow, while I was working yesterday I started writing headlines about Madrid adding local flavor:
TRAIN BOMBINGSY'know like that. Anyhow, I joke, but the Madrid thing really is terrifying. Because I ride the train everyday from Brooklyn in Manhattan. And I'm pretty sure that if terrorists were to target the subway system here, my line would a perfect one to hit. It goes over one of the big bridges here, and during the morning and evening rush a good amount of Hasidic Jews ride the line. It's too good a target.
KILL NEARLY
200 IN SPAIN
------------
Vacationing
O.C. Couple
Unharmed
BASQUE GROUP
DENIES TRAIN
TERROR ATTACKS
---------------------
Laguna Niguel Man Says, 'This has
al Qaeda's Fingerprints All Over It'SPAIN HONORS
MADRID BOMB
VICTIMS
--------------------
Ripples of Attacks
Felt in Anaheim
Slow week around here. Hey, you can't wring blood from a stone.
I have several very fine ideas floating around my head. Will I ever get around to posting them? Probably not. I know better than to make any promises.
For example, I want to say something about a very funny (unintentionally, to be sure) article in the latest issue of Harper's about "reality TV and the Republican ethos." I'd link to it, but Harper's is about as bad as Liberty when it comes to modern information technology. I can't even quote from it, because I left my copy on my kitchen counter. It's a real hum-dinger, though, that much I can say. If I ever get around to posting about it, I think the title will be "A Crypto-Fascist Metaphor for Nuclear War."
I love Harper's, by the way. It's my favorite liberal-lefty magazine. It's beautifully produced, and so unabashedly elitist in its editorial stance. Lewis Lapham and company may be dour old scolds, but at least they aren't shrill. (Well, not most of the time, anyway.) That's why I can't get past the cover of The Nation. I never read it anymore. Ditto for The Progressive. Double ditto for Mother Jones. I used to love reading the lefty rags. In These Times, The Utne Reader, The Washington Monthly, The New Yorker... I read them all. Now I lack the patience, and the stomach, for most of that stuff. The older I get, the more reactionary I become. Maybe that's why I like Harper's so much. It appeals, in a very elegant way, to the crank in me.
I'm also toying with a post on Kerry. Colonel Slanders the other day said that Kerry's now-infamous comments marked a "new low in American politics." Coming from a man who used to work for Richard Nixon, that's saying something. Was it really a new low? After all, past campaigns have been pretty vicious. Thomas Jefferson was smeared as an atheist and an adulterer. Lincoln was portrayed as a monkey. The attacks on Andrew Jackson's wife were so bad, they killed her. The difference, I guess, is that this is a major party candidate (rather than a surrogate) smearing the President of the United States as a liar and a crook. That may be unprecedented, I don't know. I guess I have more research to do.
If I had been on the ball, I would have written something about Lisa Schmeiser's musings the other day about comedy and politics. My point would have been something about the division within liberal circles over how to think about the war on terrorism. Instead, let me simply point you to the piece and let you draw your own conclusions.
Finally, National Review's John J. Miller today publishes an op-ed I wish I'd written about the embattled conservative minority on college campuses. No, that's not quite true—I wouldn't have written this piece exactly. I don't have much sympathy for the conservative-as-victim line. (To be fair, I don't think Miller does, either.) What's new here? Fact is, conservatives have been the embattled minority on college campuses for a long, long time. Maybe it's the refreshing candor of their antagonists. As Miller notes, "Perhaps this is a good thing. Right-leaning students intrigued by [a particular professor's] course descriptions can find out what their prospective teacher really thinks of them before they make the mistake of enrolling in his class." The editors of The New Criterion make a similar point in the March issue. Recounting recent comments by Duke philosophy professor Robert Brandon about why university faculty tends to be liberal (short answer: "If, as John Stuart Mill said, stupid people are generally conservative, then there are lots of conservatives we will never hire"), the New Criterion observes:
It is not often, we think, that academic arrogance makes quite so blatant a spectacle of itself. Everyone knows that professors as a group tend to think they are smarter and politically more virtuous than anyone outside the professorial flock, but generally they communicate this conviction indirectly, through snobbery and other forms of patronizing behavior. There is something almost touching about Professor Brandon’s naked braggadocio.
Not often, perhaps, but lately such displays seem to be getting more frequent. Maybe it's something in the air. In case you missed it, Justice Antonin Scalia visited Amherst College a few weeks ago. Most of the major press coverage centered on Scalia's quip about his hunting trip with Vice President Cheney ("Quack, quack.") But almost nobody has picked up on the controversy that ensued on campus. Amherst Junior Ethan Davis reported on the faculty-led protest against Scalia and its aftermath. Most significant (and widely overlooked) are the comments by law professor Austin Sarat, who said after Scalia's speech:
"The scope of legitimate debate on a college campus is narrower than in the world at-large," he declared. "Whether homosexuals are covered under the equal protection clause is not a debatable subject on a college campus."
Chew on that for awhile. In case you missed the point, Amherst political scientist Hadley Arkes (one of the few conservatives on that campus) spelled it out in a subsequent essay:
To say that Scalia's presence was in need of endorsement was to suggest that there was something problematic or illegitimate about that presence. But if the presence of a Scalia, for one lecture, on one evening, was not legitimate, it did not require high powers of inference to draw out the implications: it would be quite as illegitimate for someone sharing Scalia's perspectives to be speaking day in and day out as a member of the faculty.
John Kerry calls the Bush Administration "the most crooked...lying group I have ever seen." Harper's magazine thinks reality TV is a fitting metaphor for our Republican-dominated era. A Duke professor says conservatives don't get hired on college campuses because they're stupid. An Amherst professor says there are some subjects that simply have no place for discussion on college campuses. Truly, these are wonderfully clarifying times.
Other than that, I've got nothing.
Michelob Amber Bock is not any worse than Sam Adams' Boston Lager. They're both shite, but when you're in "No Good Beer Here", Florida, it's as good as you're going to get. So suck it up and save a couple of bucks.
I'm sorry I have to perform these tests, but it's for the common good.
"Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled and incapacitated, to prepare themeselves for the conquest of countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country of the world."I don't care President Bush says, I'm not really buying the whole "Islam is peace" thing. In fact, I'm becoming more and more wary of the Islamic world. It is becoming clear to me that Islam needs to grow up. They have a very infantalized view I'm sorry to say. And it's not to say other religions don't same problem with their backwards-looking world view, it just seems that Islam seems to be the worst."But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the world... Those who know nothing pretend Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims shouod sit back until they are devoured? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter... Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah who may want to kill you! .... The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for Holy Warriors! There are humdred of other psalms and Hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit up those foolish souls who make such a claim." -- The Ayatollah Khomeini
Really, it's a question of modernity. here we are in struggle over who's vision of God is best. I mean really that's what this is all about. Who's best. Here we are fighting over words that were written hundreds of years ago for a different time and context and trying apply those words to modern life.
Which in and of itself is kind of funny. Think about something for a moment: there are many things God has commanded people to do in the Bible that we completely ignore. Because it doesn't make sense because we've collectively evolved from those ancient times. And I suspect the more humanity evolves, the more things in the Bible that people will ignore.
And is that a bad thing? I don't think so. All you have to do, is take a look at the Islamic world to see the consequences of not learning to ignore God's words.
Sometimes I think the Bible, and other holy texts, are tests from God. I think we're supposed to question what are in the books. And if something in the text doesn't work anymore, if something doesn't make any sense, to simply let it go.
Why was Christ crucified? For challenging the orthodoxy. He said the world could be better and different. He said the power to achieve that better and different world was in us. He told us to let go of the past. He told us to love our neighbors idea: that you could love yourself.
Jesus didn't mind turning over tables, rubbing people the wrong way, hanging out with rabble, and challenging the conventional wisdom of the day. And I think if one wants to be more Christ-like, one should do the same thing. I don't think Jesus would have a problem with that, since we would be following his example.
I love beef jerky. I mentioned before I lift weights. I'll have a protein shake from time to time, but generally I try to get my protein from chicken, pork chops, eggs, and soy products.
...but Luther seems to be on mine. In a continuation of my posts on whether images of Christ constitute a violation of the commandment against idolatry (obviously brought on by Gibson's movie The Passion – see also Mark D. Roberts' series
on the topic), I have run across a noteworthy appeal to authority. The other night I was the only one who showed up at my friend's house for our group's recently rekindled Bible study. What was great was that it allowed us to go deeper into quiet academic research together than the typical group conversation.
I described a coworker's yes-it's-idolatry appeal to the writings of the Puritans and John Calvin's Institutes to my friend Fingers, I explained that I respected those writers, but felt that I felt compelled to take a stand like that of Luther and claim that unless I could be convinced by sacred Scripture on the matter of images and idolatry, well... then upon my current position, I would have to stand. Fingers said, "Well, we've looked at Scripture several times on this. Now let's see what Luther himself had to say about it." He pulled out a big compilation that was like a cross between a systematic theology and a thesaurus, but it was all about Luther's writings.
Plass, Ewald M., ed. What Luther Says: A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959.[That subtitle cracks me up - "for the active Christian." Yes, there's nothing better for today's Christian on the go; you're a part of the new Christian generation, hip, with-it, always on the move...] Fingers is more of a primary source kind of guy, and explained with a bit of discomfort that the book was a gift. But I thought it was great. Here's what we found (each section had a bit of commentary from the compiler/editor before and/or after it, so I have italicized them; the Luther quotes are indented further and non-italicized):
Luther felt that the preservation of the Christian religion might have been counteracted at least to some extent by certain works of art depicting Biblical incidents and truths. He thought especially of the crucifix.I hope this formatting isn't too confusing. Each book entry's coding for sources was confusing, as you can see. I am unable to reproduce the key here. If you have specific questions, email me, and I will charge Fingers with the task of deciphering the origin of a passage, emailing it to me, and I'll get back to you. Use the email address in the upper right-hand corner. The very next "subject" in the book dealt with nearly the same topic:We judge the indiscriminate expulsion in many places of the images even of Christ and the apostles to be not only barbarism but also a case of remarkable ignorance....But, you ask, if the usefulness of pictures and images is so great, why did Moses and the prophets prohibit and condemn them with such emphasis? I reply: Moses and the prophets are speaking of images made for people to adore and to believe that through this adoration they rendered God religious service. (E op ex 26, 268 – SL 14, 998 f)*Our selection is in Luther's first exposition of Micah (1:7). He completed it in April 1525, but not until did Veit Dietrich publish it on the basis of the notes he had taken. Luther reviewed and approved the manuscript.
The fact of the matter is that the Old Testament itself had a prophetic type of the crucifix, Luther holds. This was the brazen serpent Moses was told to lift up. In the light of its saving effect and of John 3:13-14 the Reformer saw in it a type of the Crucified. To be sure, when this symbol became the object of idolatrous worship, it was justly abolished. In a sermon on the day commemorating the "finding" of the "actual" cross of Christ, May 3, Luther said that our attitude toward crucifixes should be the same.I think that, yes even the Reformers, need to be critiqued as to the effects that the political and topsy-turvy ecclesiastical circumstances may have had on the formation of certain aspects of their doctrine. Obviously, all of the caveats and disclaimers about my respecting the concerns and cautious piety of those who hold that images of Christ do cross the line into idolatry apply. But I'm just not convinced by their arguments, even after giving them substantial consideration. Here I stand.I do not entirely reject images, chiefly not the figure of the crucified Christ. We have an image of Christ in the Old Testament, the brazen serpent lifted up by Moses in the wilderness, that all who had been bitten by the fiery serpents and looked at this brazen serpent should become well (Num. 21). We, too, should do this. In order to become well in our souls, we should look at the crucified Christ and believe in Him. But when the Jews began to worship the serpent as God and did not consider it a sign, pious Hezekiah came and tore it down (2 Kings 18:4). This is what our bishops and prelates should now do.... Instead, they come along and bless churches and images and grant indulgences to boot, to be sure to fool the people and trick them out of their money, aye, alas, their souls, too. What shall we say? Wolves they are and wolves they remain. (W 10 III, 114 – E 15, 360 – Sl 11, 2241)Strong words, but probably not too severe in view of the "pious fraud" that was being practiced with wonder-working "chips of the true cross." In the sermon from which we have just quoted, Luther offers some sober directives and correctives.
"It is a frequent vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you have identified the correct one." —Christopher Hitchens, "Reactionary Prophet," The Atlantic Monthly, April 2004.
I think this year in Florida, we will be wistfully longing for the days of the hanging chad-- after the computerized voting machines screw up.
I just want to say I'm so proud of myself for not making fun of John Ashcroft having his gall bladder removed. I had a good joke too. You people would have been saying "Dr. Monkeystein, you crossed the line! But I gotta admit, it was funny." I wish I could give you a hint about the joke I was gonna tell, but I won't. I'm taking the high road.
Now, some of you are thinking, "Dr. Monkeystein hid the joke inside this post. It's like an every other word kind of thing. Or maybe if you take the first letter from every word in the post it will spell out the joke. Yeah, that's what Dr. Monkeystein did. Heh heh."
No I didn't.
"You're really not going to tell the joke Dr. Monkeystein?"
No, I'm not.
"Please?"
No.
"Pretty please?"
No!
"You've lost your edge Dr. Monkeystein!"
Maybe I have.
"You're really not going to tell the joke?"
I'm really not going to tell the joke.
"You suck!"
That's not the first time I've heard that kiddo.
"You're supposed to be the crazy guy on this blog. The nutty guy. The guy who gets all drunk and says all the things we wish we could say, but don't have the nerve to! "
Yeah I know. But I don't like to kick a man when he's down. Even a crazy bible thumper.
"So what are you saying?"
That I wish John Ashcroft a speedy recovery. And that's no joke.
Captain Ed live-blogged the maiden voyage of the Northern Alliance Radio Network. For now it's just a local Minnesota show. But the Cap'n writes, "If you want us to have a live Internet feed, make sure you let the station management know!" Well, here's 1280 The Patriot's email.
"[Jack] Paar and his guests were among the last beneficiaries of the great universal popular culture of the mid-century, in which operatic divas and slapstick comics were all part of the same landscape. Today we have unpopular popular culture—not Marshall McLuhan's global village but a global housing project of mutually hostile ghettos." —Mark Steyn, "A Meteoric Disappearance: Jack Paar (1918-2004)," The Atlantic Monthly, April 2004.
Mitch Berg has an interesting piece thinking about education. Read it all, and then read the first three parts linked at the bottom of the piece. It's striking how it weighs the issues and considers the options--nothing like the authoritative, pendantic tone that writers use in most print journalism (and their editors require, I believe). It's a perfect example of what's great about blogging.
I wish I could hear stuff like this on the radio.
In California, I mean.
I'm standing with Puzzlestud and Fraters Libertas in their effort to save Rudy Boschwitz. Yes, that's how exciting my Saturday night is.
David Denby didn't quite go nuts again, but he rolled out most of the same bizarre critiques of Mel's movie on this week's Studio 360. Yep, I listen to public radio. But as I'm usually quick to point out; only on the weekends. Studio 360 this week was all about evangelical pop culture. And it was pretty good, if you skip the Jerry B. Jenkins part of the show. Special guest Randall Balmer, who acted as a sort of guest host, was not bad. They featured The Danielson Famile, a D.C. funk (Go-Go) band, and a contemporary painter who, like so many evangelical visual artists, struggles to find a place for his work. It was interesting to hear him discuss some of the same themes that have been coming up in my (and Mark D. Roberts') posts on the visual arts and idolatry. He even brought up Giotto, and a Piero della Francesca painting that I had just been discussing at school on Friday.
I hadn't searched out the show, or seen it in a listing. I was just working in the yard later than usual and it came on after my regular lineup of programs. Cool how those things just work out providentially.
You can listen to the show via stream, or download it at the link above.
The other PRI show worth mentioning today was an old episode of Michael Feldman's Whad'ya Know. The guest worth listening to was sociologist Ray Oldenburg talking about his book The Great Good Places, based on the (his?) theory of "The Third Place". The soft spoken character did a study that included research on "every bar in Superior Wisconsin." It was a delightful listen, particularly for a southwesterner like me. I'm sure there's a world a difference between Minnesota and Wisconsin to the folks who live there... But to folks like me, heck, those northern mid-western folks all seem the same. His talk of the history of bars, saloons, taverns, other sorts of drinking establishments, and the sociological changes in drinking over the decades reminded me of so many Coalition of the Swilling members. Being one who drinks just a few time a year, and lightly at that, it's a whole different world to me.
Give it a listen - 12 minutes and 38 seconds into Part C of the program. The show was recorded in west Florida, which I mention so you can make sense of his references during the show. After the Oldenburg segment, some folks from a local bar (the Sand Shaker) are guests to talk about their signature drink, the Bushwacker.
Oh, and a note on that yard work I mentioned. Why anyone would intentionally plant Lantana is beyond me. My Mrs. Monkey rightly refers to the weed as "the cock roach of the plant world." We hates it.
Ever been pressed for something to say, and what comes out is just a cliché that doesn't really convey the truth of your situation?
Well, that's where I found myself yesterday evening. When I mentioned on the air that I had to be sure to get in a thorough plug for the blog, Mark Larson asks out of nowhere, "Do you guys get any sort of federal subsidy for that?" So I stammer, "Uhh, no... but our wives give us grief about how much time we spend on it."
What in the world? [Previously that last line was a three letter contraction of a phrase that may be considered vulgar. Upon reflection, I've decided that it didn't really fit the definition of a "nerf-curse," so I've edited it.]
Truth be told, the most I can say about my household is that I am the one who often feels like I spend an inordinate amount of time blogging and reading blogs (it may not show here, since I write slowly, taking forever to work out links and such, plus some post drafts never see the light of day). So I often assume that my wife feels the same way, but she's never said as much to me; not even once. Nor have I received reports that other Monkey wives or fiancees have related such opinions.
I guess it all comes down to the reports of such expressions that I have read on some of the blogs we link to, and that I often read. Some even have such comments quoted in their "what folks are saying about my blog" headers (or used to). So, yes, it's a blogging cliché. And by invoking it, for no good reason, I may have caused some uncomfortable Friday nights. My apologies, fellow Monkeys.
Mark Larson, filling in for Colonel Slanders today, wonders about Martha Stewart's politics and surmises that her liberalism will earn her a pass from the corporation-hating, Kerry-backing Democratic establishment. I doubt it. Her political liberalism cannot be disputed. So far, however, I find no accusations that her conviction stems from a Republican-led political persecution, nor any real evidence of a grassroots movement to free Martha, nor any news of housewives rioting in Ann Arbor, Great Neck, or Denver.
In short, for good or ill, she's going away for awhile.
Update: Seems I was wrong. (Surprise, surprise. -Ed.) Bear-Flagger Interocitor is leading the charge to get Martha pardoned. Something about the prosecution being a waste of taxpayer money from the get-go.
Emmett of the Unblinking Eye reviews movies and does a regular spot the last broadcast hour of every week on Hugh Hewitt's radio show. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have my suggestion for a weekly "Ten Best" theme chosen. Last I heard, today would herald the countdown of Movies with Monkeys! (I'm disappointed that today's show is guest-hosted, as Hugh's currently off on another junket. I doubt he knows this Emmett's theme came from "The Exile." Of course, this way we run no risk of him calling foul and cancelling the theme.)
Obviously, we had to put together our own suggestions. No, they're not in any particular order. And yes, there are more than ten. But hey, there are five of us Infinite Monkey bloggers, so... (Click the "Continue Reading..." thingee for our list)
From 1981, Raiders of the Lost Ark. Duh. Saved him from the poisoned dates.
From 1978, Every Which Way But Loose. Ben says, "'Any Which Way You Can' was a far inferior product."
From 1995, Twelve Monkeys. Obviously.
From 1968, Planet of the Apes. Ben says, "Obviously, but I'm not sure about the sequels or the Burton / Wahlberg re-make (I did like the ending with the Ape Lincoln Memorial, though). Brad says, "The remake can't be on our list since I hammered Judge Dan over it when he substituted for Emmett on the Biggest Disappointment/Let-Down Movies list."
From 1968, Head. Robb says, "Actually a Monkees movie. Written by Jack Nicholson – the same one! And choreographed by Toni Basil. Weird."
From 1959, Tarzan's Greatest Adventure. The inveterate Cheetah, king of movie monkeys (yeah, f'git choo, Kong). Featuring a youthful Sean Connery as one of the villains.
From 1995, Outbreak. (South American capuchin even though the monkey in the movie was supposed to be from Africa.) Brad says, "Not the best movie, but I liked it. Good sound design."
From 1999, Being John Malkovich. Yep, double-checked it last week. There's an emotionally troubled chimp who lives in their apartment. He even rescues Cameron Diaz's character near the end.
From 1939, The Wizard of Oz. The Army of Winged Monkeys. Just have to believe this one will be on Emmett's list, but couldn't bear leaving it off ours.
From 1992, Aladdin. Abu. Brad says, "Part of the Ashman & Mencken canon of 'modern' Disney musicals. (Feel free to roll your eyes, but among kid's fare this stuff is top shelf.)"
From 1964, Robinson Crusoe on Mars. Adam West merely co-stars. Brad says, "I've never forgotten seeing this one on tv late one night. It seems to be completely unavailable now."
Suggestions, corrections, chastisements, legal notices, etc. may be entered in the comments below.
My slogan suggestion for the proposed North Koreans For Kerry Bog (scroll up one post from there):
Compassion Out
Sympathy In
Joe Carter was wondering if John Kerry ever played the saxophone. I don't think so. But I do seem to remember seeing Kerry playing guitar with Moby and some band on C-SPAN around the time of his camaign kick-off. That image has been rattling around in my head of late. I'm glad to have a reason to shake it out. I remember thinking at the time what a longshot Kerry seemed like. I mean, the field was awfully full, and I saw no reason for Kerry to be considered a standout. But Moby saw something. Huh. Moby. I liked some of his earlier (mid-career) stuff, but I suffer from slight sympathetic embarrassment when I see him play (that) rock music live on tv shows. Now I have to recognize the uber geek's ("under-geek's?") political acumen. What's the world coming to?
When we were in college, I used to amuse the fellas with a certain story about Batman jumping out of a closet. I thought it was joke. I didn't know it was a an urban legend. And no, I've never dressed in a Batman suit.
Buy a fruit bowl of honeydew melon, watermelon, grapes, cantelope, pineapple, strawberries. Put a an old peanut butter jar. Pour in jar a lot of vodka and some tonic water. Leave over night in the fridge. The next day, drink myself silly and eat the fruit. Good. Very good.
Ever notice how best way to get an conservative really interested in a topic is to somehow involve booze? And by the way Ben: gin is gin.
On to another topic. Okay not really, anybody know a good brand of moonshine? I'd like to get some. And I think its low carb, all the better.
Comments from David:
If all gin is the same, then it follows that it doesn't matter what you marinate in your vodka. Next time, instead of fruit, I recommend cabbage, brocolli and cheese.Oh David, now you're just being hysterical-- like a college girl reading Sylvia Plath for the first time-- of course it matters what you marinate your booze in! For example, let's say I wanted to make a drink with vegetables. I'd take take a slice of cucumber, tomato, cilantro, some tabasco, a squeze of lemon, with some vodka, and you'd have a wonderful drink. And I'm just pulling this out of my ass David. I'm a culinary man. As you know. Anyhow, gin is gin, especially in mixed drinks.
Per Monkey David's recommendation, I was perusing the Thirsty Traveller episode guide just now, when I noticed an error. Under "Gin Tips," there appears the following:
Seagram's, which is a fruitier gin, is excellent for fruit juice concoctions like the Screwdriver. America's best selling gin, Seagram's Extra Dry, is a rare-cask aged dry gin.
The Screwdriver is a vodka drink, of fairly recent vintage. Gin and orange juice is an Orange Blossom, which is a somewhat older drink that became extremely popular during Prohibition. The original Orange Blossom recipe was a bit more refined and called for orange flower water. An even better variation is the Orange Bloom, which calls for Cointreau.
Actually, there is another error: Seagram's is America's best-selling gin because it is cheap, not because it is good. You should not drink it.
So I'm kind of enjoying the gradual destruction of Michael Eisner. Not that I own Disney stock or anything. It's just kinda fun to see a powerful man brought down to earth. Like Martha Stewart. I'm reading this book right and the author mentioned how Henry Ford eventually kinda went insane and had to have the Ford Corporation taken away from him. An interesting side note, during WW II the U.S. Government actually toyed with idea of nationalizing Ford Corp.-- Henry Ford was that insane. now I'm saying Michael Eisner is crazy or anything. He's just outlived his usefulness.
I know this sounds silly, but remember the first principle of the 2000 Presidential Election: it was so close that any observation you make about something that made the difference (Bush DUI late hit, Florida panhandle weather) is almost by definition true. Every little thing made a difference.
But I genuinely believe that a huge factor was Saturday Night Live's handling of the candidates. Daryl Hammond's Gore was annoying and stiff (in other words, accurate) and his heavy sighs in the parody of the debate cemented Gore's image in viewers' minds. And Will Ferrell's George Bush was great. It wasn't really very accurate in terms of voice and gestures, but he created an impression of a not too bright but very likeable, good hearted man. Will Ferrell's charisma comes through whatever he's doing, and his "strategery" (struh-TEE-jer-ee) line was perfect--it made Bush's mangled words seem sweet, not stupid.
I couldn't name the guys doing Bush and Kerry on SNL now (I hardly watch the show, but from the little I caught, the guy doing Kerry is terrible). But Bush should consider using some of his huge campaign war-chest to pay Will Ferrell to do cameos on SNL when they are doing a Bush skit.
It's always tough to be one of the first to blog right after one of Brad's well-researched iconoclastic posts (research? I just make stuff up!) I usually leave it to the good Doctor Monkeystein to do.
But Atomizer's recent post reminded me that I, too, have been remiss in booze blogging.
So let me say this about that: I've recently been watching a fine show called The Thirsty Traveler. Now, apparently, this show has been on the Food Network for a while, but I didn't catch it until it moved to the Fine Living channel (the channel is available on DirecTV; I'm not sure how many cable systems have it). I recommend putting it on your TiVo season pass list. Recent shows have focused on bitters, gin, cachaca, and Belgian beer. Bitters? Yes, bitters. Fascinating.
But I fear my enjoyment of the gin episode may have strayed into idolatry.
Mark D. Roberts has posted the second installment in his series on the Commandment against idolatry, The Passion, and other visual representations. The first installment is here.
UPDATE: I was thinking about the 2nd Commandment issue again tonight. I remember that when I used the explanation that the focus of the restriction was upon objects (even images) to be worshiped that the holder of the more restrictive view retreated (or should I say, went on the offensive) with demands for a definition of what constitutes "worship."
Now, at this point I called foul, because I think calling for an opponent to give a dictionary definition of a term in a debate is almost always just a tactic by which one tries to paralyze his adversary - it's a strategic corner to back someone into because they'll rarely include every nuance, and you can pull a McLaughlin-esque "WRONG!" (and even if they do stumble into the definition you hoped they'd miss, you've got an AHA! Wait, where was I? Oh yeah.) But the demand is still there from the other side: "What do you mean by 'worship'?" Well, the commandment itself describes "bow down and serve." But this is where they begin to argue that, "Oh no, all sorts of things (including several unintentional mental and emotional acts) constitute worship." They seem to want to define worship so widely that they argue that any image portraying a Person of the Godhead will likely be worshiped, despite one's intentions. Furthermore, some have argued that the more compelling the image is (more specific, more believable as an historic representation, more powerfully depicted with cinematic arts, musical score, lighting, other factors to add to one's emotional manipulation) the more likely one is to fall into worship of the image. One character even argued that The Passion would be dangerous for, if Gibson succeeded in his efforts to get the audience to suspend their disbelief, and think even for a moment that they were witnessing their true Lord, they would be compelled, nay commanded to worship.
Now of course I believe that there are times that a person may slip into something that constitutes a sort of side order of idolatry when they include an image of Christ where they regularly engage in their devotions or inside a center of worship. I'm not going to delve into that now, as I suspect that such stuff may the topic of Roberts' next installment. But the "oh no, I might worship" argument seems like a bit of a catch-22. I doubt that anyone so concerned would allow themselves such a slip. Of course, I doubt that anyone so concerned would get much out of the movie either, so I'm not suggesting that they go see it. I, for one, was so wrapped up in critique that I came out of the theater as one of those reportedly rare middle-of-the-roaders, rather than a love it or hate it guy.
Yes, yes. I know. I still haven't gotten around to putting together my own review of the movie.
Because I have 487 items in my e-mail inbox AFTER deleting all of the SPAM and other junk that I don't need to respond to in some way.
"Unanticipated delays in initializing the vote tally software have resulted in our inability to report additional results. The delay is a result of human miscalculation, not machine malfunction. This delay will in no way affect the accuracy or completeness of the results. Results will be posted as soon as possible.''
Of course! The new technology is just fine.
So, McDonalds is going to stop super-sizing french fries and soft drinks, and by the end to completely eliminate super-sizing altogether.
"The driving force here was menu simplification," spokesman Walt Riker said after McDonald's disclosed the change in strategy in a brief statement late Tuesday. "The fact of the matter is not very many Supersize fries are sold."Yeah, right. It's more like customers are beginning to catch on that super-sizing those fries were super-sizing their rear ends. I mentioned before that iI had lost a lot of weight. One of the most important things I ever did swear off McDonalds. By doing that I lost 30 pounds without even trying.
This move by McDonalds kinda pisses me off. Because they really haven't changed anything. here look:
McDonald's detailed the menu changes — quietly under way since January — in a seven-page memo to franchisees, obtained by The Associated Press. The elimination of the 7-ounce "Supersize" carton of fries is part of a switch from five size options down to three; the biggest will now be the 6-ounce "large" fries.So they trimmed one ounce from the largest fry serving. Big deal. That'll bring the fries down from 600 calories to about 500. The point is it's just a token gesture. Because if you have a soda (550 calories) and a hamburger (280-560 calories) you're still consuming a meal that will be in excess of a thousand calories. And lets not forget all the salt and the saturated fat. In the long run trimming one ounce of french friesis wash. But McDonalds gets to look like a "responsible" corporation when haven't really done a damn thing.
RobbLMonkey and I are both in Arizona. Puzzlestud Luke Duke also lives in AZ. Yesterday he ran a story on local media coverage of our ridiculous governor. (That last link goes back to last August before the AZ gas shortage. Check our August Blog*Spot archive for truly compelling coverage of that debacle. /self-deprecating sarcasm)
But yes, I agree with Luke; Napolitano would be great on the ticket with Kerry. There's nothing I'd like more than to see our ridiculous governor's career closely model that of Geraldine Ferraro.
Sure, I can't predict the outcome of an election to save my life. I can't even get all of the candidates right. But I do know a little something (very little) about movies. So I was honored (hardly surprised, however) to learn that I won Luke Duke's "Passion Pool." I haven't even seen the movie yet.
I just returned from the polling place, battling wind, rain, and old ladies. Ah, democracy. Again, there were two of me on the register. Actually, one of me and a crude facsimile with a misspelled name. "We went through this at the recall," I said. "We'll see what we can do to take care of that for you," the nice old lady replied, making no notes of any kind. And once again, my wife found herself living in San Bernardino County and registered to vote (at a Rialto address, mind you!) in Santa Clara. But voter fraud is rare in the Golden State and the system is sound.
Or so the proper authorities assure me. Sorry, but I'm not so sure about this newfangled touch-screen voting business. For one thing, how do I know—really know—that my vote was recorded? At least with the old punchcards, I could see the holes. And because I have a functioning central nervous system, I could even check for hanging, dangling, pregnant, and dimpled chads. Twice. Just to be sure.
Not so with the touch-screen. I'm supposed to take on faith that my vote was recorded on the machine, as well as on the little chip on the back of the credit-card they had me stick in a slot. I have no receipt. All I have is a sticker that says "I Voted Electronically." Wowser.
Afterward, one of the pollworkers gave me a three-question survey to fill out. How confident was I that my vote was recorded correctly? Not very. How easy was it to vote? Very. Ridiculously so, in fact. How did the touch-screen system compare to other voting systems I may have used in the past? Somewhat worse, I'd say. Call me a luddite. Go ahead. I dare you.
Old-fashioned vote fraud isn't easy in this day and age. Stuffing ballot boxes, "losing" ballots, miscounts... this takes some coordination, some effort. If some kid can hack the Pentagon, what's to stop him (or a political party, or a foriegn power) from hacking the electronic ballot boxes? How easy would it be to lose, damage, or destroy those little back-up credit cards? I'm sure more than a few people with more diabolical minds than mine have given this some thought.
So, how did I vote? I wrote in a candidate for president. I voted for Howard Kaloogian for U.S. Senate, because he's the only decent conservative running. And I voted no on all four ballot initiatives. Proposition 55, 57, and 58 were no-brainers. But I paused for a moment on Proposition 56. The principled argument for reducing the two-thirds budget requirement to 55% is that it will make the majority party accountable for its vote. The Democrats, who dominate the state legislature, would no longer be able to accuse the Republicans of obstructionism. The Republicans could finally say, "Look, we didn't vote for this. We didn't raise your taxes. We didn't blow out spending. The Democrats who own this state did that to you. Don't blame us. Blame them."
That's the principled argument. But in reality, with few exceptions, the Republicans are as feckless and weak as the Democrats. And I'm not interested in having my taxes go up this year. The State Legislature needs to hear this message loud and clear: enough with the spending already. You need to make cuts. Big cuts. Now.
I figured it out. Why the world's so shitty that is. Yale University. George W. Bush went there. Bill Clinton went there. George Bush went there. Reagan didn't, thank goodness.
Sadly, we shall have no redress. Because Kerry's a Yalie.
Great. Fucking great. 16 years of failed Yalie policies, and we're guaranteed 4 more years of failed Yalie policies. Whatever happened to the Harvard boys? I guess Hah-vahd boys would rather own the world than run it.
I guess that means that can mean only one thing-- it's time for another university to step up to the plate. And I volunteer my alma mater. I put a call out to all of the graduates of the Univertsity of California in San Diego, that we will put a man (or woman) in the White House by 2012.
The graduates of UC San Diego in my mind are only people who can stop this infestation of the seats of power. Join me my fellow Tritons and help me drive back the Yalie tide! Who's with with me? Who's got that unquenchable thirst for power! Who will be first among all of those from UCSD! I say we can do better than Benicio Del Toro! Though Benicio is pretty cool, and he's got an Oscar. And beautiful, beautiful eyes. Sometimes I just lose myself in them. And that voice, so smoky. And his hair, oh his hair.... Focus Monkeystein. Focus! Must get UCSD person into White House.
Let's see, how about Ben. No, no he's got too much controversial stuff out there, the press'll have a field day with him. How about David? Too laid back to run a serious campaign, but maybe he can throw some fundraisers. How about Jason? I don't see him connecting with the electorate. What about Phil? Too volatile, and there's just too much dirt on that guy, he wouldn't make it through the vetting process. What about Greg? Too geekly. What about Gregg? Yeah, military background. Might work. Wait... didn't he write that article a while about being a TV cameraman at college football games shooting video footage women's boobs? oh yeah. What about Pete? Pete! He's a boy scout! Yeah... Pete! He could do it. There isn't a finer man I know than Pete.
Yeah, Pete could do it. Now we just have to get the electorate used to the idea of a Chinese president.
Ahhh, who am I foolin'?
The Elder writes to comment on James's post on calling up National Guard units:
The comments section on the post aren't open otherwise I'd bang him upside the head there, but what the hell is up with Dr. Monkeystein? I'm quite serious. I haven't always agreed with his views in the past but have at least been able to understand where he's coming from.
His latest theory that the National Guardsman being called up will not vote for Bush is so ridiculous that it hardly merits a response. Check out where the units are coming from. New York, Tennessee, Idaho, and Louisiana. Three of the four states went for Bush in 2000. So to begin with it's more likely simply based on geography that they would support him. And these guys are in the military, which despite some grumbling over Iraq, is still an institution where he is very popular.
These guys might not like getting called up. Some of them may elect not to vote for Bush because of it. But the vast majority of them understand that they have a very important duty to perform and will support the CIC.
If you think a National Guardsman from Idaho is going to vote for a liberal senator from Massachusetts who shat all over his "band of brothers" after Vietnam, then you might need to look in the mirror when asking about people losing it.
Dr. Monkeystein might want to think about cutting back to drunk half the time and stoned a quarter.
Dick Clark Sued for Age DiscriminationSANTA MONICA, Calif. - A 76-year-old game show producer sued Dick Clark Monday, alleging the 74-year-old Clark called him a "dinosaur" and refused to hire him because of his age.
Joe at Evangelical Outpost has once again established his blogging street cred with this satiric wonder, "How to Spot a Straussian".
The comments on this post also offer ample support for our policy of generally not enabling comments. Almost without exception (as of this writing, Joe's responses are the only reasoned and informed ones), the comments are profoundly idiotic, exuding a particular ignorance of Christianity in general and Evangelicalism specifically.
Does it make me a bad person to admit that I don't give a hoot about Haiti? And does it mean I've watched too much TV when the first thing that pops into my head when I think of the Caribbean is "Live and Let Die"?
Can I just say something "Live and Let Die" has too be one of the worst Bond flicks ever. No.. that would be "Moonraker." Moonraker is the worst. Come to think of it has there ever been Roger Moore bond flick that was any good? They all kind of sucked. Name one that wasn't filled with oozy suckiness.
Even Timothy Dalton, who was not my cup tea, even he did not serve the pure dreck that Moore served on a regular basis as Bond. Moore was too flippant. I could never really believe that he was a remourseless killer with misogynistic tendeancies like I could with Sean Connery.
And the misogyny by the way, is important. Hatred of women completes Bond in my humble opinion. Wham, bam, thank you ma-am, and by the way baby eat some lead. That's classic Bond.
Anyhow, what am I talking about? Oh yeah, Haiti. I don't give a flying fuck. Dr. Monkeystein out.
By THE NEW YORK TIMES Published: March 2, 2004Don't you get the feeling like they've lost it? That they don't even care anymore? I don't know, maybe I've become cynical in my old age.WASHINGTON, March 1 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld ordered on Monday that 18,000 National Guard soldiers be alerted for possible duty in Iraq, beginning this fall or early in 2005.
The unusually early warning of potential duty in a third yearlong rotation of troops is part of the Defense Department's new policy to give National Guard members and reservists, as well as their families and employers, as much notice of call-ups and deployments as possible.
The units affected by Monday's order including the headquarters of the 42nd Infantry Division of the New York National Guard in Troy; the 256th Infantry Brigade of the Louisiana National Guard; the 116th Armored Brigade of the Idaho National Guard; and the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment from the Tennessee National Guard.
The Pentagon said these units would be mobilized in the coming months for more training before deploying to the Persian Gulf.
So, should we even care that Barry Bonds and other athletes were juiced up on steroids and human growth hormones? Is it even a surprise? Is this something the government should even be using precious resources on? How i it going to make my better or safer or whatever because the government arrested some dudes who juicing up professional athletes? somebody give me a real reason why this even matters.
Anyhow, Barry Bonds is fucked. I'll tell you why: John Ashcroft is insane. I shouldn't even be writing this, because he'll come after me just to make an example out of me. But nonetheless, Ashcroft is gonna nail Barry Bonds' testicles to the wall. if I'm Barry's lawyer, I tell him say nothing. Don't deny, don't anything. Because whatever you say, Ahscroft is gonna use it against you. If Barry Bonds denies publicly that he used steriods, Ashcroft will come up with some sort of charge. If Barry Bonds comes clean and admits he used steroids, Ashcroft will charge him with something.
But all things said, no matter what Barry Bonds does, Ashcroft is gonna charge him with something. Because Ashcroft is an insane bible thumper with a thirst for vengeance.
In doing a bit of research for my post on the Passion/idolatry issue, I wound up checking in on the folks at Credenda Agenda. The periodical is well respected in Classical & Christian Education circles. Turns out they haven't weighed in on the issue of The Passion. But they have weighed in on blogging. Godly blogging, that is.
I'm not holding their article up for ridicule, as some might be inclined to expect whenever they see a blogger point out a more traditional journal's coverage of the blogosphere. No, this story has some worthy points in it for believers. I could understand if some find a few of the piece's generalizations a bit wide and a touch high minded. But these are good folks. I've even had one of their contributing editors and his family as houseguests. (And I'd welcome them back any time.)
So it's with a friendly smile that I poke 'em in the ribs and pose whether it's prudent for a publication whose name translates from Latin, "Things to be believed - Things to be done," to offer the advice: "If you have a blog, don't take yourself too seriously."