Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysI stay home to watch the Music City Bowl just to watch the Univeristy of Minnesota Golden Gophers mismanage another lead and lose another game?
Apparently.
Good luck with that new contract, Mason.
UPDATE: Not that anyone other than me and a bunch of giggly frat boys in Minnesota cares, but Coach Glenn "Can't Coach in Close Games" Mason had his contract extended by five years by the University of Minnesota.
Mason recruits good players, and puts a good team on the field. But his game time coaching and uncanny ability to blow close games is the stuff of legend. Three stratight years of having two running backs with over 1000 yards rushing each, and he's a .500 coach in his conference. Yuck.
Patrick Reusse of the Strib is right. Never has a coach accomplished less with more.
Warning to Rick Santorum: Whatever you do, PLEASE do not read this article. Your head may explode.
Properly warned be thee says I.
From National Geographic we have "Hubble Reveals Rings Around Uranus" and, in a story being followed closely on National Review's The Corner, the adventures of Korean Kloning Doctor Woo Suk Hwang.
Beavis, meet Butthead.
Joseph Knippenberg at TAE Online says, "Bring it on!"
Michelle Malkin writes:
In June, Debra Burlingame, sister of Charles F. "Chic" Burlingame III, pilot of downed American Airlines Flight 77, blew the whistle on plans by civil liberties zealots to turn Ground Zero in New York into a Blame America monument. On July 29, the Times editorial page, stocked with liberals who snort and stamp whenever their patriotism is questioned, slammed Burlingame and her supporters at Take Back the Memorial as "un-American" -- for exercising their free speech rights.Yes, "un-American." This from a newspaper that smeared female interrogators at Guantanamo Bay as "sex workers," sympathetically portrayed military deserters as "un-volunteers," apologized for terror suspects and illegal aliens at every turn, enabled the Bush Derangement Syndrome-driven crusade of the lying Joe Wilson, and recklessly endangered national security by publishing illegally obtained information about classified counterterrorism programs.
So, which side is The New York Times on? Let 2005 go down as the year the Gray Lady wrapped herself permanently in a White Flag.
Can't say that I disagree. This was a very bad year for the press generally. I expect 2006 will be even worse, not just for the mainstream media but for the First Amendment. There is a backlash brewing. And the media has only itself to blame when it comes.
Two enlightening and related editorials appear in Wednesday's Press Enterprise. The first is an assessment of intelligence reform after one year. "There is no substitute for human intelligence. Sure, the United States possesses satellites that can read a label on the back of a soda can through tinted glass from 5 miles in space. But even after 9/11, and a renewed focus on Islamic radicals in the Middle East and Asia, the CIA still cannot recruit or retain agents who speak Arabic, Pashtu, Farsi or Urdu fluently."
The second is another salvo in the ongoing NSA controversy. "If the president's opponents expect Watergate redux next year, they are likely in for a disappointing 2006."
(Last week's opening salvo is worth rereading, or reading for the first time.)
See also Robert F. Turner in Wednesday's Wall Street Journal. The gist: "Our Constitution is the supreme law, and it cannot be amended by a simple statute like the FISA law. Every modern president and every court of appeals that has considered this issue has upheld the independent power of the president to collect foreign intelligence without a warrant. The Supreme Court may ultimately clarify the competing claims; but until then, the president is right to continue monitoring the communications of our nation's declared enemies, even when they elect to communicate with people within our country."
Those editorials (and the Turner op-ed) serve as a rebuttal of sorts to the top story in Wednesday's New York Times. According to Eric Lichtblau and James Risen, "Defense lawyers in some of the country's biggest terrorism cases say they plan to bring legal challenges to determine whether the National Security Agency used illegal wiretaps against several dozen Muslim men tied to Al Qaeda."
Ah, yes, a trip down memory lane to a time when the United States treated foriegn terrorists as mere criminals. Should be an interesting exercise in nostalgia -- and a test of whether we're truly serious about this war.
Update: David Ignatius writes in the Washington Post: "As we learn more about what was going on under the Bush administration's secret surveillance program, it's clear the National Security Agency has developed some powerful new tools against terrorist adversaries. That's all the more reason these innovative spying methods should be brought within the rule of law -- so that they can be used effectively and legally." Powerful new tools? Powerful, perhaps, but not really new. I'll leave it to others to seek out what, if anything -- anything at all -- Ignatius had to say about the NSA's leaps of technical prowess during the Clinton Administration. Or, for that matter, what Ignatius had to say about Jimmy Carter's Executive Order empowering the Justice Department to tap foreign communications minus a court order.
Could it be that MADD, the Women's Christian Temperance Union, and the beverage wholesaler lobby have made an unholy pact with the animal kingdom to undermine California's lucrative wine industry?
Could be, although it's highly unlikely. But these bears sure do like grapes.
Personally, I think the initiative and referendum are for the birds. With very few exceptions, legislation by plebescite is a disaster. Witness California's patchwork constitution. And yet, if I find myself confronted with a petition for this measure, I may well sign.
The Sacramento Bee elaborates:
Connor Vlakancic said he drank diluted wine and apricot brandy as a child. He allowed his own son to drink alcohol in moderation.And now he thinks all children in California should be able to sip alcohol when supervised by their own parents.
The measure is eminently sensible. So much so, I cannot imagine why it requires an initiative. No, actually, I can. I hope it makes the same ballot as Rob Reiner's latest utopian scheme. Might I suggest that Mr. Vlakancic circulate his petition in neighborhood saloons? He should have his 400,000 signatures in no time.
I'm guessing I'm not the only person out there who gets all manner of unsolocited e-mail from friends who assume that since I'm a Christian, I must want to receive copies of every hard-right e-mail diatribe ever distributed.
Recently, a friend forwarded a message that included one of the standard conservative sound-bites about gay marriage: that it "opens the door to government sanction of polygamy and pedophilia."
First of all, let me say that I'm not "for" gay marriage. In fact, I think that government should not endorse or certify marriage of any kind. It shouldn't be in the "marriage business," so to speak.
Next, I think the pedophilia argument is ridiculous. Certifying gay marriage is no more a "slippery slope" toward pedophilia than gun rights are a slippery slope toward vigilantism and murder. Or the right to free association is a slippery slope toward kidnapping. Whether or not sodomy is a "perversion" has no bearing on the fact that one scenario involves only consenting adults, and the other involves non-consenting minors.
Okay, all of that out of the way? On to my main point: I know I may be going out on a limb here (big surprise), but I've got to say that legalized polygamy doesn't worry me in the least. In fact, if I DID think that marriage was the government's business, polygamy would concern me less than same-sex marriage. For one thing, polygamy enjoys an enormous historical precedent that same-sex marriage does not. Many cultures, including the ancient Hebrews, practiced it routinely. Solomon, who is widely credited as being the "wisest man who ever lived" had 700 wives and 300 concubines.
Now, having a single wife, I have to say that I'm pretty sure I couldn't cope with two of them, much less 700. In my book, I've got to question the "wisdom" of having that many wives. Nonetheless, you don't really hear people referring to Solomon as "that old pervert."
Second, for all of its downsides, polygamy does preserve the cultural requirement of human reproduction, as well as the child-rearing benefit of having parents of both sexes. One could argue (I won't, but one could) that a child of polygamous parents in a society that condoned such practice would be better off than a child of a single parent.
So there you have it. Consider today's crazy rant complete.
An editorial in Tuesday's Press-Enterprise explores America's penchant for suppressing dissent during wartime, then and now.
Please read. Or we may have to charge you under the Espionage Act.
Christmas is finally over. I'm a bit of a Grinch/Scrooge, so I can't say I'm sad to see it go. It is my least favorite holiday, chiefly because of the endless barrage of obligations: cards, presents, visitations, "special" events, etc. All succesfully taking the focus off of the Incarnation. Not intentionally, mind you, more as a side-effect. And the current "War on Christmas" silliness only makes it worse. Everybody just SHUT UP about it already. And I'm especially talking to YOU, Bill O'Reilly.
On the upside, my girls love Christmas, and so I get a lot of "joy by proxy" from them. The last three days have been a near-constant shower of little-girl gifts. My daughters' presents fell into three categories: American Girl stuff, My Little Pony stuff, and Polly Pocket stuff. The vast majority were the former, in large part due to the fact that Mrs. Monkey spent two solid months on eBay ("online porn for women!") tracking down every cute "retired" accessory she could find.
I do find it charming. Innocent and feminine. No "Bratz" dolls for my girls. I actually think the girls find Bratz to be as skanky and horrifying as I do, which is a source of parental pride, to be sure. We're in no hurry to see them grow up, and at the moment, neither are they.
So there it is. Joy in the midst of chaos. Not bad at all. And, as long as they're still airing "A Charlie Brown Christmas" every year, we'll always have Linus to remind us what it's all about.
(title stolen from Aaron Sorkin)
Note: Introduction and table of contents here.
First we must evaluate if our entry into war was just (jus ad bellum)
Definition: Just Cause: Force may be used only to correct a grave public evil (e.g. a massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations) or in defense;
Evaluation - Afghanistan: It can reasonably be argued that our actions in Afghanistan satisfy both criteria for Just Cause. The Taliban was actively involved in funding, supporting, and hosting the perpetrators of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Bombing Afghanistan and removing the Taliban from power was a defensive action in response to those attacks, which also had the effect of correcting the "grave public evil" that was training, funding, and protecting international terrorists.
Evaluation - Iraq: This is much more difficult. Iraq had insignificant, at best, ties to the 9/11 attacks. They had not meaningfully attacked us (i.e. anything other than shooting at our planes that were flying in their airspace) since the first Gulf War.
Some would argue that we were correcting a "grave public evil" because of the activities Saddam Hussein carried out against his own people. But this would be both hypocrisy and sophistry: We sat by and ignored and/or funded Hussein's government for decades knowing full well what kind of horrors he was engaged in. Likewise, our official justifications for invading Iraq did not address these issues at all - they have only been used as a retroactive justification. The "Iraq is a better place now that he's gone" argument is a good example of this retroactive justification. Additionally, the fact that we chose Iraq to invade rather than any of a dozen other countries engaged in massive internal human rights violations gives the lie to this argument. Our motivation for entering Iraq was not to correct a grave public evil, it was just a potential side-benefit of the invasion.
Evaluation - Other: "Global Terrorism" is so ambiguously defined that evaluation of this criteria is difficult. Any "defensive" action in response to 9/11 was certainly proportionally resolved in Afghanistan. Correcting the "grave public evil" of Islamic terror possibly meets the criteria.
Next Chapter: Comparative Justice
Not wishing to dampen the joy of the day, nevertheless I think I speak for all parents right now when I say, with confidence, that there is a special place in Hell for the corporate stooge who decided that every toy needed to be clamped down with 26 steel-reinforced twist-ties.
Well, Mr. Monkey, you see, we determined through intensive research that strapping toys down in the most inconvenient points possible allows us to enhance our quarterly bottomline by 0.9 percent.
Whatever. Explain that to the third demon on the left.
Evidently, the new trend is clear elastics. The better to choke cats with, I'm sure.
Oh, great. I'm not even the first to blog-rant about this.
Merry Christmas, movie house! Merry Christmas, Emporium! Merry Christmas, you wonderful old Building and Loan! Hey! Merry Christmas, Mr. Potter!
...but I was not a mosque emanating radiation, so I said nothing.
But evidently, U.S. News and World Report thinks this is a big deal. Oddly enough, so does the Council on American-Islamic Relations. Somewhere, in one of those penumbras, er, emanating from, I think, the Second Amendment, I have a God-given right to build my own atom bomb free from government interference. Don't I? Because it's all fake, this surveillance. The feds just want to make sure I'm thinking happy thoughts, and not checking out the Little Red Book and being a righteous 100 percent American.
UPDATE: Oh, dear. The senator will be crushed. (And that's saying a lot.) And so will Molly Ivins. And these hysterical jackasses. Tough break. (Hat tip: commenter Dayna.)
As promised (threatened?), I'm going to post several entries evaluating the moral justice of the so-called Global War on Terror (GWoT) based on established Just War Theory. For purposes of discussion, I'm going to use the Wikipedia Article as a framework, because it presents the traditional position clearly and concisely. Other presentations may vary, but this article is as useful as any.
In each category, I will also treat each of our "major engagements" separately, just as our actions in Europe and the Pacific should be evaluated separately when considering World War II. The "fronts" of this war that I will consider are:
Afghanistan: Actions taken in and immediately around the nation of Afghanistan, as well as domestic activity directly related to actions in Afghanistan.
Iraq: Actions taken in and immediately around the nation of Iraq, as well as domestic activity directly related to actions in Iraq.
Other: All other war-related activities of the GWoT that are not tied directly to Iraq or Afghanistan.
I realize there is room for ambiguity here, but I think it is more important to attempt to distinguish between these areas of activity than to allow them to be blurred together.
Table of Contents:
Section 1 - Jus ad bellum (Law to War)
Chapter 1 - Just Cause
Chapter 2 - Comparative Justice
Chapter 3 - Legitimate Authority
Chapter 4 - Right Intention
Chapter 5 - Probability of Success
Chapter 6 - Proportionality
Chapter 7 - Last Resort
Section 2 - Jus in bello (Laws of War)
Section 3 - Jus post bellum (Justice after War)
U. of Chicago Prof Cass Sunstein is all wet when it comes to the First Amendment, the Internet, and just about everything else. So bear that in mind as you read the transcript of Hugh Hewitt's interview with Sunstein on this NSA business. I did like this exchange, however:
CS: ...[I]t would be odd, I think, to understand the authorization not to include the power to engage in surveillance, when al Qaeda is communicating with people who are unfriendly to us.HH: Now if...would your analysis change if the Congress reconvened, and then passed a specific law saying we did not mean that. Would that...this is for the non-lawyers in our audience...would that in any way affect his inherent Constitutional authority?
CS: No. And then we'd have a huge question, which is whether Congress has the Constitutional power to negate the president's authority to monitor communications from our enemies. And that would be a big and unresolved Constitutional question. It would be unfortunate if the Congress of the United States stopped the president from doing something which Congress already probably is best understood to have allowed the president to do in the authorization to use force.
Tantalizing. Obviously, read the whole thing.
Update 12/22/06: I see this year-old post is getting a bit of traffic, no doubt from XM listeners. Sadly, just about all of the links below are dead, including the link to the .wav file. But, here's the good news: You can read the "Pretty Little Dolly" lyrics here. And the song appears on Dr. Demento's Holidays in Dementia album, which is still in print and available via Amazon.
If I had a daughter, I would buy her this toy. Because she might kill me if I didn't.
Or not. But nothing surprises me anymore.
I confess I had never heard the song until this year, on XM Radio. Looks like you can get it legally here.
Monkey Robb comments: "And no, we cannot 'agree that we are at war' in the sweeping sense that justifies indefinite suspension of our basic civil rights. More importantly, we do not agree that the "war" we are engaged in meets the criteria for a 'just' war. And if the war is not just, it is not legitimate, and 'wartime powers' are likewise illegitimate. If they were ever legitimate in the first place."
I can see where this is going. The war is not just because it isn't truly fought in self-defense. It isn't truly fought in self-defense because the United States has -- oh, I don't know -- engaged in more than a half-century (maybe even a century) of unjust and possibly illegal foreign adventures for which al-Qaida's murderous attacks (assuming al-Qaeda actually exists and isn't an invention of the CIA) are an entirely predictable response.
To which I say, nonsense.
"Indefinite suspension of our basic civil rights"? What in the world are you talking about? Where is the Charles Schenk of the global war on terrorism? I cannot find him. Surely it is not Yaser Hamdi. Surely it is not Jose Padilla. (A stupid case, about which more later.)
Here we are in 2005 with an aggressive Islamic enemy and hostile states aiming to take down the world's sole superpower a notch or ten. What do we do about that? Because we're not going to return to the halcyon days of 1800, when, incidentally, the British and the French were doing their best to put the young republic under their imperial thumbs.
Fact is, the United States has never been isolated from the world, because other countries have interests, too. Other countries might even have interests in ... the United States! Our territory, our natural resources. So either we ensure that our interests remain unhindered, or we answer to another power. The Chinese spring to mind.
Coincidentally, I was reading an interesting essay H.L. Mencken wrote in 1927 about the America's emergence as a world power. Mencken well understood what happens to a democracy in war. He basically said, get ready, because when the next war comes, the Espionage Act will be back in full force and dissent of any kind will be regarded as treason. He exaggerated, but only a little. The abuses of civil liberties during the First World War were nearly unprecedented in our history. They've also not been repeated since. And the Espionage Act, under which hundreds of political agitators were convicted and deported for "crimes" we would consider laughable today -- remains on the books.
So I say, worry about liberty. And guard it jealously. But retain proper perspective. Paul Campos is right: "War, in other words, transforms the United States from a constitutional republic into something rather different." Campos cannot understand why that is so, or refuses to believe it, or thinks it's bad. It may be bad, but it is true, and for reasons Campos disparages or dismisses.
We are at war, even if some people choose to deny it. That's their problem. The next question for the rest of us should be, how do we win this thing so we can resume our normal, free lives?
Former Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-SD, writes in Friday's Washington Post: "All Americans agree that keeping our nation safe from terrorists demands aggressive and innovative tactics."
Really? But...
"This unity was reflected in the near-unanimous support for the original resolution and the Patriot Act in those harrowing days after Sept. 11. But there are right and wrong ways to defeat terrorists, and that is a distinction this administration has never seemed to accept. Instead of employing tactics that preserve Americans' freedoms and inspire the faith and confidence of the American people, the White House seems to have chosen methods that can only breed fear and suspicion."
Yeah. Sure. Whatever.
Incidentally, the headline on the piece is "Power We Didn't Grant." News for the former Senator from a citizen without a law degree and who has never held elected office: Congress doesn't grant the President power. The Constitution does. Back to school with you!
Update: Good Lord. Mort Kondrake writes: "Ideally, Congress should tear down whatever barriers prevent the government from getting court warrants to tap terrorists. But, if it can’t do that, it should authorize no-warrant intercepts, subject to eventual court review." Where have you been for the last week, Mort? Has your Internet connection been down? Do you not have a library card? Have you not been watching the cable TV shows?
Hey, have you heard about Hugh Hewitt's new book? Podcasts : Understanding the Information Reformation That's Changing Your World.
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
We now interrupt this MonkeyFight for a moment of sweetness and light:
Eek, my 8-year old, just got through expressing her delight that Christmas fell on a Sunday this year, because it would be just perfect for us to get to go to church on the day that we celebrate Jesus's birthday.
Sweet kid. If she didn't look so much like me, I'd wonder who her real father is.
I went searching for a Dec. 5 article by Charles Krauthammer called "The Truth About Torture," On the way, I passed a response by Albert Mohler. By way of World Magazine's blog, I eventually found myself (surprise, surprise) at a Christian symposium of responses to the article hosted by one Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost fame.
I'm too tired to argue. But I'm not too tired to post more links... (Thank God for RealClearPolitics.)
A more skeptical view ...
And, of course, the obligatory "-gate" take... (or what professional journalists call "contextualization"):
Sorry, Robb. It's constitutional in ways the "war on drugs" is not. Puke all you like. Puke blood. You're still wrong.
From the lead editorial in Tuesday's Press-Enterprise (link requires onerous but free registration): "Americans can and should debate what measures the war on terrorism requires. But can we at least agree that we are at war?"
I suspect the answer to that question from certain quarters will be "No." The correct answer, of course, is "Yes." Whether you want to believe it or not, and notwithstanding the absence of a piece of paper with the words "Declaration of War" printed in 36-point roman type at the top...
But we've been through all of this countless times before. I have more to say. But, anonymously speaking, I'm too tired and too tipsy to slog through these arguments again tonight.
Earlier this year, it was Christina Aguilera at Gitmo. Now this: "[M]usic by Eminem and Dr. Dre were used as instruments of torture." I believe it. Is there no end to the Bush Administration's depravity?
The republic is ruined.
I'm feeling some despair about the state of our political environment. Is it possible to have honest debates? Where do we start? In a blog post below, RobbL, a man who shares most of the fundamental political philosophies of others who post on this blog (as Monkeys or commenters), comes to very different conclusions than at least I do about the war and the Bush administration.
How is it possible to have a discussion when you dismiss those who disagree with you as excrement guzzling sycophants? I'm not trying to call Robb out here--I'm really not. I'm just wondering if a serious political conversation with the left is possible when it's so difficult to have one within the right.
President Bush would be a lot better off (and so would our country) if he held a press conference every week. At least.
I find it, quite frankly, sickening that Republican mouthpieces have reacted to the latest round of news (specifically: CIA prisons, NSA wiretaps, PATRIOT Act filibuster) by stepping up their defense of this indefensible President and his cadre of thugs, rather than coming to their senses and recognizing that this guy is every bit as awful as his critics have been saying.
COME ON PEOPLE! If you had heard that Bill Clinton was authorizing warrantless wiretaps and allowing the CIA to run secret torture prisons in far away countries, you would have gone ballistic, demanded congressional hearings, called for his impeachment, and generally eaten the bastard for breakfast. And you would have been right to do so.
Not only that, if four years ago someone had predicted that these things would come to pass as an overreaction to the events of 9/11/2001, you would have laughed in their face and called them paranoid. The stuff that is going on right now is ripped straight from 1984. It is (and I do not use this term in the fluffy, Ann Coulter catch-all way) treason to the Constitution, and an affront to every man who has ever given his life in the true defense of our liberty.
Instead? I hear people like Tony Blankley calling for the prosecution and imprisonment of those CIA and NSA staff who leaked this information to the New York Times and other news sources. I read so-called conservative writers excoriating John McCain and others who have dared to limit the government's right to TORTURE prisoners. And I see Republicans across the board guzzling the excrement that this administration churns out and asking for seconds.
Things have gotten so bad that, I'm embarassed to say, I actually wish the Democrats controlled the Senate. If they did, perhaps we'd actually get a hearing on this unforgivable behavior, rather than sycophantic defenses of activities that are worse than anything Nixon wound up resigning over.
Listening to the last hour of the Shock Jock's show today, we heard this:
"I don't know much about movies but I know my nuts."
I'm sure he does.
I was shocked to hear that 58 year-old John Spencer is dead.
He was a class act. He was the only reason to keep watching "L.A. Law" after the initial flash of the show faded. He brought depth to every role, and "West Wing" will be much poorer without him. Television will be much poorer without him.
John Sununu, Senator for the "Live Free Or Die" State, puts his money where his mouth is and joins four other Republicans in giving the Patriot Act the finger, at least for now.
A special message from me to one of my Senators, Jon Kyl: You can suck my unconstitutional wiretap.
UPDATE: The AP story has a little more detail than the Reuters story, above.
I don't see why anyone would be concerned about this. Nope. Nosirree.
Jim Miller writes about speculation that Iraqi chemical weapons went to Syria. Why is no one talking about this obvious possibility? One, because as Miller rightly points out, "Discussing General Yaalon's conclusion would spoil, I suppose, their preferred story, that the Bush administration 'lied' about Iraq."
But the Republicans have a very good reason for not talking about it too: letting the WMDs leave Iraq could have done serious damage to our national security. Using WMDs as one rationale for war then having it shown that they didn't exist is politically survivable, as has been proven. But using containment of WMDs as a rationale then letting them slip away to potentially more dangerous enemies of the U.S. is unforgivable. Had the Democrats been smart, they would have had a presidential candidate in 2004 who hammered this possibility home. If the Democrats were smart, they would be raising this possibility now.
The Democrats are not smart.
Okay, I've found the Pink Floyd album that wins the bottom position in their all-time releases. Anyone care to take a guess on this one? Never mind - too easy. It's the studio disk of "Ummagumma" - a full 50% crap. The noise from Richard Wright and Nick Mason is completely pointless. Gilmour's pieces aren't bad, but also aren't compelling at all. The same goes for Waters's "Grantchester Meadows", and "Several Species..." is just a novelty piece. Very disappointing.
As I was reading Brad's post, below, and the Thomas Sowell article to which it links, it got me to mulling over something that has frustrated me about the Iraq War debate overall. I think Sowell has a point, of sorts, but his analysis is based on presuppositions that he doesn't share with many of those he is criticizing.
The chief presuppositional difference? Whether or not this is a just war. A significant part of the problem is that neither the media nor most of the vocal critics of the Bush administration will acknowledge that, deep down, they DON'T believe this is a just war. Instead, they "accept the premise" and criticize the EXECUTION of the war, rather than its justification. When they're not criticizing the execution, they're harping on two of the less-important justification issues:
The WMD issue. Bush lied! People died! Yes, it's true that we were either lied to about the WMD issue, or deceived by a perfect storm of incompetence and wishful thinking. But the WMD issue was never enough to justify invasion.
UPDATE: Looks like we finally got something resembling a mea culpa on this one. For what it's worth.
The Iraq-al Qaeda link. Everyone's full of crap on this one, with the conservatives playing both sides ("We never said there was a link!" - "See! Al Zarqawi PROVES there was a link! Just like we said!") and the liberals just acting like whiners ("You tricked us! We thought you said..."), but none of it makes any difference. What we did in Afghanistan was a proportional response to 9-11, and the alignment between the Taliban and al Quaeda was much more focused than ANY theory proffered about the Hussein government.
But with few exceptions, none of the "heavy hitters" for the opposition are really criticizing the fundamental "rightness" of this action. I believe there are at least two significant reasons for this:
1. The parties are more concerned with the politics of the debate than the principles involved. They figure a "soundbite nation" can't wrap it's head around anything as deep as Just War Theory, so they resort to cheap rhetorical manipulation to persuade people without helping them to actually understand. They also don't want to engage in the dicussion in a way that might risk a loss of power for their political party.
2. There's an ingrained post-Vietnam fear of looking like they "don't support the troops" when criticizing the war in this way. Well, duh. Of COURSE you don't support the troops if you oppose the war. Sure, you appreciate their willingness to sacrifice for their country, blah, blah, blah, but that doesn't change the fact that if you believe the war is unjust, then their actions are implicitly unjust, as well. Just grow a spine, admit the connection, and then make your case. At the very least, stand up and declare a discussion of our "feelings about the troops" to be a red herring.
So that's it. Presuppositions: at least admit them, at best defend them. Keep your eye on the ball, and for those of you who think "the ball" is getting your party elected, grow a friggin' soul.
Thomas Sowell says what I've been thinking.
Richard Pryor Passed away today at an all too young 65 years old.
Hopefully, he will remembered for more than the freebasing episode.
R.I.P.
Disney is messing with Pooh!?
I guess RobbL is right to be pessimistic.
And weren't all those copyright extensions supposed to help preserve the heritage of these cultural symbols, and protect them from the sort of hooligans who--well, I supposed who now where cute little Diney badges to work.
Anyone know what Medved's point was in debating (and attacking) the legacy of John Lennon on the anniversary of his assassination today? Did he really feel a need to piss off millions of Beatles fans on the anniversary of Lennon's death? Honestly, who cares?
Here's a good idea. Let's piss on John Lennon's grave for no reason and alienate a bunch of Beatles fans. Smart. Real smart.
And his criticisms seemed so trivial:
Ooooh, he didn't protest against the Soviets during the "Prague Spring"* of 1968???
Huh? What?
John Lennon's real legacy? Yoko Ono. For that, he should be criticized.
"Imagine there's no Yoko, it's easy if you try."
*The “Prague Spring” originated with attacks on the Czechoslovak President Antonin Novotny at the Writers Union Congress in June 1967. Escalating student demonstrations led in January 1968 to Khrushchev supporter Alexander Dubcek being appointed President. Dubcek’s reform program was adopted on 5 April but ended on 20-21 August when Soviet troops invaded.
The President of Iran is suggesting that Israel should be moved to Europe.
Is he crazy? Doesn't he know that Europe is full of anti-semites?
I don't say "must read" very often, but this is a must read.
I can't watch the latest Carl's Jr. ad enough.
From the Corner at National Review:
NRO ROCK BLEG [John J. Miller]
I’m going to compile a list of great conservative rock-and-roll songs, and I’d like your suggestions. Criteria: 1) Lyrically, the song must express a conservative sentiment, such as appreciation for a traditional value, skepticism of government power, etc. 2) It must be a great rock and roll song. A good example: “Taxman,” by the Beatles (“If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street/If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat”).
Please send your recommendations to me at nrorocks@yahoo.com -- and be sure to explain your reasons. I have a bias in favor of songs that are already well known, or at least songs that are by well-known bands. But I’m willing to consider anything. Even Duran Duran.
Frankly, I can't think of any. Maybe Dirty Laundry by Don Henley and Get Over It by the Eagles?
Okay, so I'm on a Smiths kick. I blame John Ashcroft AND Monkey Brad.
Finally, after years of avoiding it, I broke down and bought "The World Won't Listen" on CD. I had avoided it because I only knew for sure that there was one song ("Money Changes Everything") that I didn't already have on some other release. I also have long been frustrated that the CD version doesn't include "The Draize Train", which is another track I need to acquire on CD so I don't have to put on my 12" of "Panic" when I want to listen to it.
Anyway, thanks to some kind seller on half.com, I'm now in possession of TWWL, and I'm delighted that I made the purchase. The song sequence is much more coherent than "Louder Than Bombs," its American counterpart release. And, much to my surprise, there are several tracks that I didn't already have:
1. Money Changes Everything - This instrumental is the only truly "new" track.
2. The Boy With The Thorn In His Side - A noticeably different mix from the version on "The Queen Is Dead"
3. Stretch Out And Wait - The vocal track is different (including different lyrics) from the version on "Louder Than Bombs"
4. That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore - This is a "single edit", almost a minute shorter than the version on "Meat Is Murder." Basically, when the MiM version fades out, this one never fades back in.
5. You Just Haven't Earned It Yet, Baby - This is also different from the version on "Louder Than Bombs", although I haven't listened closely enough to figure out if it's a different mix or a completely different recording.
...there's always somebody out there that will make you feel better about yourself.
Okay, so I travel a lot for my job. I often fall asleep with the TV on. One day, a few months ago, I woke up in the middle of the night and MSNBC was on. In my groggy state, I thought I was still asleep, because the anchor was this girl, who was a friend of my sister back in grade school.
I remember specifically, because she's the only girl who ever asked me to dance at those horrible Jr. High school dances. Since I was 13 at the time, the memory of her right boob pressing into my chest is permanently etched on my brain. The whole recollection is utterly embarassing now, because I'm sure I was completely paralyzed. Now, slow-dancing in Junior High is not a complicated process, but you're supposed to at LEAST sway back and forth to the music, and I'm almost positive I wasn't even able to manage that.
Being married with kids now does nothing to mute the latent feelings of humiliation and social ineptitude. However, THIS does:
I googled Cheryl's name, so that I could forward some link with pictures to my sister, and tell her what became of her friend. In the process, I found this link, some yahoo liveblogging 24-hour cable news coverage, raving about how CNN "scooped" MSNBC and FNC by - get this: SIX and EIGHT minutes, respectively, in their reporting of the death of Justice Rehnquist. IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT. Seriously, people, is there a single person who saw the news on Fox and said to themself, "Eh, that's old news. CNN reported that eight whole minutes ago."
I shook my head and kept looking for a good link. A minute or two later, I stumbled across these idiots. All of a sudden, Mr. Eight Minutes seems remarkably grounded, because at least he's not in a chatroom with a half dozen other dorks who are all WATCHING 24-HOUR CABLE TOGETHER and chatting a collective critique of the various networks' performance.
So, Cheryl, I'm not feelling so insecure anymore. I still don't know how to dance, but thanks for asking. Jill says, "hi."
Reading about the Catholic Church's considering abandoning Limbo, I couldn't help but wonder why the Church had a problem with a stupid dance. I mean, it's not like we're Baptists for crying out loud.
Reading further (the rest of the first paragraph of the story), I saw that the Church was going to drop the concept of Limbo as the edge of hell for unbaptized babies.
(Emily Litella voice): Oh. I'm sorry. Never mind.
Damn. I need to get right with God.
Slate magazine has Monkey RobbL's number.
OK, maybe mine too. I loved Scrubbles list of songs that almost, but not quite, made it to the Top 100.
Speaking of Lileks.
I think it was yesterday or the day before when he appeared on Hugh's show, Lileks was asked by Hugh about the John & Ken Show. Which Hugh seemed to be doing with every caller.
Why? Why in god's name does Hugh seem to be obsessed with John & Ken? He's got a nationally synidcated smart radio program, and they've got a local drive time show in L.A. Sure, their station (KFI) is kicking Hugh's KRLA's ass in the ratings (Last I saw I believe KFI had a 4.4 share and KRLA a 0.8). And yeah he's trashed them a bit over the last few months, but now it seems we are approaching intervention time.
Come on, Hugh, give it a rest. You're probably just making people curious and sending listeners to KFI where they can hear the Tookie Must Die Hour.
By the way, Lileks said today that "You can’t even say it was a snowstorm of Biblical proportions, because it never snows in the Bible." Well, God bless the Internet so I could check and see that it's not exactly true.
I'm in a hotel today, so I got to catch the nice mention James Lileks's new book got in USA Today.