Infinite Monkeys
"...a sparkly blog..." - James Lileks"Read them only with extreme caution."- Hugh Hewitt
Infinite MonkeysDrudge links to a story about some hapless punk who was ejected from a showing of "The Pink Panther" for inappropriate laughter. Frankly, I agree. Steve Martin may be a genius, and the "Pink Panther" remake is quite good, but it isn't that good. Audiences shouldn't have to laugh like psychopaths. Matt Brown... good night and good luck.
It's Paczki Day. My wife managed to find some here in Phoenix at Europa Pastry Cafe.
It works out perfectly, because I'm giving up Polish pastries with names I can't pronounce for Lent.
The Greater Washington Chapter of the Surface Navy Association is requesting contributions of recently released movies on DVD to be delivered to the Navy National Medical Center at Bethesda, Maryland, for the entertainment of Sailors and Marines who are recovering there from injuries received during their military service.
Please send movies by 9 March to:
Surface Navy Association
Greater Washington Chapter
c/o Captain Edward H. Lundquist, USN (Ret.)
Anteon Corporation CSSO
1100 New Jersey Ave., SE, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20003
(Point of Contact phone number for deliveries: Chris Criscuolo, 202-756-7344
Via The Corner
*and Marines, I suppose.
This BBC article looks like it came straight out of The Onion.
Well, sort of...
| You Are 58% Evil |
 Fear not though - you are on your way to world domination. |
Lest we forget -- and I certainly did -- today is the 13th anniversary of the first World Trade Center attack. The consequences of that attack have not yet fully played out.
(Hat tip: The Jawa Report.)
So Fark links to a heart warming story of a guy in a coma who had his life support turned off, work up, and ten days later gave his daughter away at her wedding.
Sweet. But wait a second...isn't that odd? So, honey, we're getting married in a couple of weeks. Anything we forgot to do? Oh, yeah, I've got to unplug Dad.
With Saturday's editorial deploring the violence inspired by the Danish cartoons, the New York Times makes a typically pompous show of its cowardice, hypocrisy or sinister "Islamophobia." Take your pick.
Quoth the Times: "It is time for moderate Muslims to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists by straddling the fence."
Yes. And perhaps it is time for liberal editorialists to abandon the illusion that they can placate the Islamists with underwhelming finger-wagging.
The Times, much like its competitor in Washington D.C., continues to deny its "true calling."
Honestly, when the "Cultural Advisor" to the Iranian "Education" Ministry and Member of Interfaith Organization lectures on Iranian TV that Tom and Jerry were a Jewish conspiracy to improve the image of mice, because Jews were termed "Dirty Mice" in Europe, what can you say to make fun of that?
Paul Belien of The Brussells Journal, which has taken the lead in reporting on the Muhammad Cartoon Controversy, leads off it's "Defense of a Scoundrel" story yesterday about the suspension of London mayor "Red Ken" Livinstone for comparing a Jewish journalist to a Nazi death camp guard with a great quote from the other H.L.:
“The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.”
Yep, Red Ken truly is a lowly bottom feeding scoundrel and an embarassment to free societies.
The question, however, is whether making offensive remarks is sufficient reason for an unelected body of judges to suspend a democratically elected official. To accept this is to accept as legitimate that not the people rule, but the judiciary.
It goes beyond merely a tyranny of judges, doesn't it? As odious as Red Ken and his comments are (and typically are), his suspension undermines the "free expression" moral high ground that the West had during the Cartoon Crisis. Can the West continue to claim that ground when we suspend politicians, fire editors, and jail idiots over their words? I wonder.
‘Red Ken’ may be a scoundrel and a hypocrite. Nevertheless, the only people allowed to punish the Mayor by removing him from office for comparing a journalist to “a German war criminal” and “a concentration camp guard” are the London voters, not the three judges of a case tribunal.
Ironic, isn't it? Red Ken joined in the Muslim protests against the publishing of the Muhammed cartoons and now gets spanked for his excercise of free speech.
Hat tip to the Angry Englishman at The Corner.
Poor Globe Trotting Chad the Elder at Fraters Libertas. Forced to rub shoulders in steerage class with the teeming masses on an international flight to Amsterdam.
The horror. The horror.
Our prayers are with you Chad. God speed young man!
They say they always go in threes.
First, Barney Fife.
Now, Darren McGavin (the Dad in A Christmas Story, among others).
I'd ask who's next, but last time I did that someone suggested me!
In a comment to his post here on South Dakota's total ban on abortion, blogger Jay Reding says
this is the state where Bill Janklow could consume a mewling infant live on TV and still get elected.
"Consume a mewling infant live on TV."
Why does that make me laugh so much?
What more can be said of the man, except he made us laugh. That is honor enough. May he rest in peace.
A good sports column? In the Wall Street Journal?
Yes and yes. As they say, read the whole thing.
I have a LOT of very vivid, strange dreams. Last night, I dreamed I was in Salt Lake City, trying to make my way to Boston to meet with a customer. I stopped in the bar and had a drink, and ALMOST missed my flight. In fact, they backed away from the gate while I ran in that slow-motion, stuck-in-goo dream run. I convinced the gate agent to get the plane back (should have known it was a dream right there!) and as people were getting off the plane for a "break" before we took off, I realized that this plane wasn't going to Boston, but to San Jose.
So, sneaking back up the jetway, I made my way to another gate. I explained that I HAD to get to Boston tonight. They said that all flights to Boston were departed, but there was one plane left that was going to New York City. Looking out the window, the plane was a small eight-seat twin engine prop plane. What Bobcat Goldthwaite has called a "Buddy Holly killin' plane." But I don't really fear small planes, so I accept. However, I get destracted having a conversation with the gate agent, who knows me from some previous weird dream scenario. As we talk, the plane to NYC departs. So I'm stuck again.
The next available plane is a two-seater, going to Burlington, VT. Again, I accept. Working my way down to the plane, I realize that I don't have my bags. After scrambling back into the terminal and finding my bags, we're off. However, and this is the worst part of the dream, my iPod Nano is completely destroyed. The silicone nano-tube that's protecting it has experienced some kind of plastic rot, and the nano itself is broken apart and looks sprung like an alarm clock from an old Warner Bros. cartoon.
So it's late, I have no music, I'm wet (did I mention it was raining?), and I've got to chat with the pilot. We make small-talk as we drive the small plane THROUGH the terminal, nicking the occasional person with the propeller (nobody gets hurt - it's like getting hit by a ceiling fan for some reason) before we finally take off. Not long into the flight, however, the pilot decides to stop off at a friend's house for a visit. Inexplicably, I don't object.
So we land in the friend's front yard, and drive the plane into a barn, which is home to a bunch of birds that live in small mud dwellings, like wasps. At this point the dream sort of unravels, and I wake up.
Well, there you go. Someday I'll tell you about my creepy vampire dream.
... I'd vote for Kinky. Because they ain't making Jews like Jesus anymore. Or like Kinky Friedman.
Well, this explains a lot: "Technology has sped everything up and, by speeding everything up, it's slowed everything down, paradoxically," said John Challenger, chief executive of Chicago-based outplacement consultants Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. "We never concentrate on one task anymore. You take a little chip out of it, and then you're on to the next thing..."
And then there's this: "Businesses that have moved to 24-hour operations, bosses who micro-manage and longer commutes all add to the problem...while downsizing leaves fewer workers doing the work of those who left."
I fear Paul Belien is right about the closing of European civilization: "In Europe a secularized post-Christian culture is facing a Muslim one." Demographic nihilism is killing the West.
Update: A commenter at Brussels Journal writes: "I SAY SEARCH AND DESTROY THESE DESSERT MONKEYS!" Nuts. We've been made! Take the guns and the cannoli, boys!
Alright, guys, I think we're ready to lay the next links down. By the way, my name is Monkey Brad. Yes, THE Monkey Brad. And I gotta tell you: fellas.. you have got what appears to be a dynamite blog! But I'll be honest... Fellas, it's great. But.. I could've used a little more cowbike!
Just one more reason to take up an endurance sport like cycling, triathlon, or distance running. (It takes a long time, yes, but curling doesn't count. Has someone made a curling themed beer yet?)
Before the Iraq war, there was a discussion about post-war Iraq on KCRW's Left, Right and Center. The question was asked if each person could give a "worst case" for their own position. The left and "center"* people weaseled, but David Frum answered candidly that the worst case was that Iraq would splinter in our hands. This is still the worst case, and I'm not sure that we can control the events there.
* "center" is in scare quotes because Arianna Huffington is, well, scary.
You will never stop the Hearts on Fire
Hat tip: Brian
I have more in common with this bizarre sport than I thought...
| You Are Curling |
 And while curling isn't much more of a sport than bowling, you *can* win a gold medal for it! |
You must admit, his facial hair goes well with his name.
But this name is even worse.
Surely, either of these top Bear Trapp.
(Hat tip: F-Rock from the Yam in the Ore)
What's all the fuss? Total security is impossible. We can no more secure our ports from a container with a nuclear weapon than we can prevent a determined terrorist from taking a school bus, attacking an airline ticket counter, bombing a shopping mall, or spreading a biological weapon. We cannot do these things, unless we wish to be a true police state.
But we can use our heads and not allow a company owned by a state that happens to be the nexus of the Arabic banking and trade world to assume management of six strategic assets on our soil. It is not fair, perhaps, to the good people of Dubai or the rest of the United Arab Emirates. I, for one, do not care. I place the burden of proof on the foreigner to prove a negative -- an impossible standard. But I demand the impossible because we already face the impossible task of security. In short, I do not wish to compound an impossible security problem with yet another unknown factor. The United Arab Emirates must not be allowed operational control of American ports. Is that clear?
Peter King, R-NY, and Chuck Schumer, D-NY, ask: Where's the common sense?
In his TKS column at National Review Online, Jim Geraghty goes against the grain on the port issue, claiming, "We’ve been snookered, folks." See, Geraghty makes the case that bloggers, pundits, and pols are the ones who've been duped, but not by the administration, CFIUS, or the UAE. He gives the issue remarkably fair treatment, adding a touch of self-deprecation, and even suggested reading supporting the interests of those who disagree with him.
Cal Thomas points out the following travel advisory issued earlier this week by Australian authorities:
Travel AdviceLet us not be put off by kneejerk race-based reactions in the CFIUS / DPW / P&O debacle or those who accuse of such. There are substantial reasons to object to this deal.United Arab Emirates This Advice is current for Thursday, 23 February 2006.
"High degree of caution"
This advice has been reviewed and reissued. It contains new information on Local Laws. The overall level of the advice has not changed.
Summary
• We advise you to exercise a high degree of caution in the United Arab Emirates because of the high threat of terrorist attack.
• We continue to receive reports that terrorists are planning attacks against Western interests in the United Arab Emirates. Commercial and public areas frequented by foreigners are possible terrorist targets.
Krauthammer mapped the path out of the Harriet Miers mess. Let's hope he comes out with a piece on this soon. Until then, we have the following tactical options offered by Frank Gaffney:
[Mr. Bush] could reverse the decision himself (perhaps by directing CFIUS to reconsider its initial recommendation). He could encourage and sign into law legislation barring foreign ownership or management of U.S. port facilities (akin to the rules governing other critical infrastructure). Or he could quietly encourage the UAE to do as Communist China did last year with respect to the Unocal purchase — withdraw the offer itself, sparing the country in question (and its friends here) the embarrassment of having its behavior carefully scrutinized and its offer spurned in a high-profile way.
Happy Birthday to Teddy Kennedy. 74 happy years of tax and spend drunken debauchery.
Mary Jo Kopechne could not be reached for comment.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld gave a fascinating speech at the Council on Foreign Relations last week. "Our enemies have skillfully adapted to fighting wars in today's media age, but for the most part we — our country, our government — has not adapted," Rumsfeld said.
Belmont Club's brilliant readers responded to Rumsfeld's challenge here and here. Beyond that, with one notable exception, Rumsfeld's speech seems to have received little or no serious media attention.
Which sort of proves his point.
In the last few days and weeks, we've had visitors from across the globe. In fact, in the last few hours, we've had visitors from Pakistan, Brazil, Columbia, and Italy. Greetings. So... tell us about yourselves. How did you find us? What do you think of this nonsense?
...and the Democrats will use the GOP's bones for tools in 2008.
Hysteria? No. That is the only reasonable political conclusion to be drawn from the Dubai Port World fiasco.
Why, Mr. President? Why?
"One of my concerns... is mixed messages. And the message is, it's okay for a British company, but a Middle Eastern company -- maybe we ought not to deal the same way. It's a mixed message."
Yes, sir. We... uh, appreciate your concerns. The answer is, of course, Britain is a steadfast friend and ally of the United States. The United Arab Emirates is not. Not really.
Oh, sure, there are things we... I... do not know. I do not have super-top-secret-codeword-security clearance. So it is conceivable, for instance, that the UAE has aided the U.S. effort against al Qaeda in ways we may never know, or not know for quite some time. It's possible that UAE plays host to one of those "secret CIA prisons" we've heard about now and again. And, by way of thanks for the Emirates' cooperation in the global war on terrorism, the United States government has seen fit to reward the nation -- well within the sphere of influence, if not an ally, of Iran, by the way -- with operational control of six large, strategically important U.S. ports. Makes sense to me.
Monkey David observes shewdly that our liberal brethren (and even a well-known acquaintance on the center-right) wrung their hands over the Danish cartoons, but assert with near metaphysical certainty that the port deal is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Well, the deal is wrong, and the very worst people happen to be right this time. We have enough trouble with this global war on terrorism without introducing another problem of our own free will.
Let us be frank. The Bush Administration has been inconsistent in its prosecution of the war. That is to say, it has failed to recognize its true friends and its true enemies. Mostly, we've coddled our enemies at the expense of our friends and so have earned our enemies' contempt.
For this reason -- and no other -- the United States will be engaged in a very long war.
On the other hand, President Bush may be right. Perhaps we're overreacting. "This kind of reaction is totally illogical," said Philip Damas, research director at Drewry Shipping Consultants of London. "The location of the headquarters of a company in the age of globalism is irrelevant." Yes, yes... of course. Whatever makes big business happy. That's all that matters.
No... who are we kidding? This is Harriet Miers on a geopolitical scale.
Perhaps the anarchists were on to something.
Lileks adds a few intemperate remarks of his own.
So let me get this straight: we should be sensitive to how the Middle East feels about cartoons but we shouldn't do business with them?
Are they children?
And if the security of our ports can't survive this deal, we've got a log bigger problem than some UAE company taking over distant ownership from some British company.
Remember "Pravda"? It was the Soviet Union's official news organ. The paper survived the dissolution of the the USSR. And so, evidently, did its editorial standards. Lest anyone think the Russian government is any more friendly to the United States (heh, heh, and heh), here is a random sampling from Pravda's website:
An "opinion" "piece" by an "American" "dissident." (I love the sneer quotes.) (I mean, "sneer" "quotes.")
"Condoleezza Rice released a coarse anti-Russian statement. This is because she is a single woman who has no children. She loses her reason because of her late single status. Nature takes it all." Well, there you go, girl.
But wait! There's more!
Perhaps their nature? "Every so often, Condoleezza Rice has an attack of fury, which seems more like a temper tantrum from some spoilt six-year-old brat in need of a good hiding." Ouch.
Uh, oh. Looks like the United States needs to burn down some more foriegn embassies! Or maybe that's Israel's job. I get confused sometimes.
Congratulations, you vodka-swilling bastards!
Anyone who says today is President's Day is a liar and a fraud. Today we celebrate George Washington's birthday (even though it's actually February 22). I, for one, honored the great man's memory by cutting down half-a-dozen cherry trees and cutting off an Englishman on the freeway. How did I know he was an Englishman? I could just tell by cut of his gib.
More on Washington here, here, and here.
And, just for Robb, here and especially here.
In the beginning, there was American Telephone and Telegraph, a wholly owned subsidiary of American Bell Telephone Company, which was the creation of one of history's worst monsters, Alexander Graham Bell. "Ma Bell" the wags called it. Ma Bell owned the phone lines, owned the phones. Some said she even had her own police force. (Some say they're still on the beat.) Ma was... well, Ma was huge. And although she was not without her charms, Ma Bell was big and unwieldy and inefficient. And she charged a lot of money to make a lousy phone call across town.
Then around 20 years ago, Pa Government stepped in and said, "No more, Ma." And so Ma Bell become lots and lots of Baby Bells.
So many babies! There was Qwest and GTE and Pacific Bell and Pacific Telesis and SBC and lots of others whose names I forget. But they didn't last. Little by little they merged and acquired and merged some more.
And now? Ma Bell is back.
I'm not exactly Mr. Fix-it. Two months ago the drain under our kitchen sink backed up. I wound up dismantling the piping underneath the dual sinks (where the dishwasher connects to the drain lines) all the way to the wall. It was a day-long affair, after a few day's worth of hoping that cheap corrosive liquids poured into the sink would magically dissolve my problems. After numerous trips to Ace, I would up utilizing an expanding device that fits on the end of a garden hose, allowing it to be inserted into the pipe, pressurizing it, and blasting away any obstruction. It worked! All was well... for two months.
A few days ago the whole scenario began to play out again. My weekend was taken up volunteering at the Valley of the Sun Stage Race (more in a subsequent post, hopefully), but with the bike race over, the courses torn down, and Presidents' Day home from school, it was time for my volunteerism to be put into use at home... (not to mention that we have gone through most of our dishes, what with not being able to use the dishwashing machine or the only deep sink in the house).
With all of the trappings usually reserved for cartoon characters and sitcom dads, I... well, er... made water shoot up and out of the roof of my house, spilling sheets of water over the gutters and onto two sections of back patio. Dumbfounded hilarity ensued. The initialism of my immediate exclamation ought not be printed here. At that point, I knew with absolute certainty that the matter was way beyond my capacity. It was time for a professional.
I called my bother-in-law, knowing that he would "know a guy." Before he would offer any names, he had to put me through the obligatory inquisition.
"Trap's clean and it's still clogged?"Someone will be here between 7:30 and 8:00 tonight."Yep."
"Have you snaked it?"
"Yes."
"Have you snaked it from the clean-out, outside, opposite side of the opening?"
"This set-up only has one on a different wall at a 90-degree angle. But I can't get it open without two giant wrenches."
"Oh, I've got some you can borrow."
"Rick, I made water shoot out the roof vent."
"Um... Let me call someone." [click]
When I called my wife to give her an update she laughed, suggesting, "You should just take a break and blog this." Yep. So, here I sit, doing what I can do. I may not be able to fix the drain, but I can write about it.
Haven't bought this book yet, although the the official website is very clever. Thanks to the Infidel Hugh, I did read the first few pages at a bookstore the other day, and I was enticed. Not enticed enough to buy the thing, but I promise I will... in due course. Much of my reading lately is non-fiction. Yes, I am reading five books at once. They're all fairly similar, at least.
I blame MTV.
Irreverence is not a crime. Yet.
Our friend Saint Paul misreads a Q&A with Michael Scheuer in the City Pages. Despite his recent associations, Scheuer is a serious writer whose works deserve a close reading. As the former head of CIA's Bin Laden unit, Scheuer knows a thing or two about the enemy we face. Rather than demonize him, Scheuer prefers to take bin Laden on his own terms. It's easy, of course, to say "Let's give those Mohams what for!" But that is not a strategy. To know bin Laden is not to love him. But it is not wrong to respect him. Kill him, kill his people, but respect him just the same.
How far would you go for a free 99 cent custard? This far?
Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
Generally the Brits dominate NRO's The Corner over the weekend, bringing their own brand of pessimism for Western Civilization.
Today we learn that a Muslim singer is facing death threats from the RoP in Britain because her hit single seems to advocate women's rights. I wonder if someone would consider her song vulgar and stupid?
Nor surprising since according to Patrick Sookhdeo (also via The Corner) Brit Muslims believe (correctly) that they are winning the culture war.
"It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent. Dr Sookhdeo adds that he believes that "in a decade, you will see parts of English cities which are controlled by Muslim clerics and which follow, not the common law, but aspects of Muslim sharia law. "It is already starting to happen - and unless the Government changes the way it treats the so-called leaders of the Islamic community, it will continue."
Read the entire Telegraph article: The Day is Coming When British Muslims Form a State Within a State.
With 40% of British Muslims actually desiring the introduction of Sharia law, the future does seem pretty grim.
And the ever cheery John Derbyshire opines that 50 Years of National Review and the Reagan Revolution was all for naught.
And let's not forget the selling of our port security to Dubai.
All we seem left with are "Harriett Miers" conservatives?
Take me down to Mutt Lynch's.
Take me down to the pub.
Buy me a schooner of Boddington's.
Brian's driving, I'll need more than one.
As we watch Canadians curling
On one of ten flat-screen TV's.
We'll eat wings, drink, and watch the sun sink
At Mutt Lynch's, please!
At Country Store, this may be the most offensive cartoon depiction of Mohammed I've seen.
Professor Banion paraphrases Dennis Prager:
"Used to be I would go to the ball game and nobody would swear and everyone would smoke. Now there's no smoking at the ball park, but lots of bad language."
Aint't that the truth.
From the Volokh Conspiracy, via SCSU Scholars, comes news from Arizona that the Legislature is considering a bill that would allow any unversity student to get out of a required reading assignment by claiming it is "personally offensive."
Seems somewhat superfluous to try and add some editorial comment to this bonehead idea.
Crooked Timber has the back story. (Yes, it appears the bill is sponsored by some foolish dumbass Republican. God Bless the GOP and its ability to make itself look stupid while the Dems are in full melt-down mode.)
Well, it could be worse.
At least four major U.S. newspapers published one or more of the infamous 12 Danish cartoons. Several other publications -- from the Weekly Standard to the Harvard Salient -- followed suit. But, for the most part, the American media wimped out on the Muhammad cartoons. The outrage continues, however. Now the barbaric sentiments we've seen in London, Lahore, and elsewhere around the world has come to New York City. (Via Michelle Malkin.)
We have it within our power to stop this. But it won't be pretty. Nope. Not pretty
at all.
"Osama bin Laden says his jihad is 'a battle of Muslims against the global crusaders.' Imagine if al-Qaida faced the Caped Crusader. Alas, only in comic books. But finally, the forces of popular culture are joining America's war on terror."
I took our new cat, Spartacus, to the vet today. The one surprise: while a young cat, he has no teeth. Not one. So he's less this and more this.
CNBC is showing Women's Curling right now. The Swedes vs. the U.S.
It's delightful. The cries of the Swedes are wonderful--no translation needed. The Olympians seems unaware that they are miked (sample from the U.S. team: "holy crap!").
In 2002, I was working in Seattle, so I got to watch the Canadian channels, with much more coverage of curling. It's a wonderful sport. It combines the best elements of bowling, billiards, and, uh, janitorial services. OK, that was a cheap (and obvious) shot. Seriously, this sport is fun to watch, and it looks like a hell of a lot of fun to play. If I win the Powerball this weekend, I'm opening the first curling ice rink (stadium? lanes?) in Phoenix.
And yet, as the press wonders whether the vice president was intoxicated on Saturday afternoon, a pair of bold editors at the Daily Illini were suspended the other day. Why? Because they dared to publish these cartoons, of course. And their colleagues? Cowardly swine.
Peggy Noonan speculates about Dick Cheney's future. Good grief! Between Gore's sedition, the EU's apparent capitulation, and Iran's provocations, I cannot believe that the Vice President's hunting accident is so terribly significant. Priorities! Priorities!
For an American to question any of the articles of fundamental faith cherished by the majority is for him to run grave risks of social disaster.
The old English offense of "imagining the King's death" has been formally revived by the American courts, and hundreds of men and women are in jail for committing it, and it has been so enormously extended that, in some parts of the country at least, it now embraces such remote acts as believing that the negroes should have equality before the law, and speaking the language of countries recently at war with the Republic, and conveying to a private friend a formula for making synthetic gin. All such toyings with illicit ideas are construed as attentats against democracy, which, in a sense, perhaps they are. For democracy is grounded upon so childish a complex of fallacies that they must be protected by a rigid system of taboos, else even half-wits would argue it to pieces. Its first concern must thus be to penalize the free play of ideas. In the United States this is not only its first concern, but also its last concern. No other enterprise, not even the trade in public offices and contracts, occupies the rulers of the land so steadily, or makes heavier demands upon their ingenuity and their patriotic passion.
Off air I got scolded today by Hairy Legged Monkey to link more. Okay, here's a link. And another.
Happy, monkey boy?
According to Ed Koch, "Before this occurred, I had no doubt that, no matter how difficult, no matter how long the war we are now engaged in continues, the democracies of the world would win, as they did when first facing Hitler and later Stalin. Today, I am no longer so certain." But don't tell Hugh that. After all, we wouldn't want to be caught celebrating the vulgar and stupid, now would we?
So, evidently, a killer asteroid is hurtling toward earth. But according to the news story, I'm still on the hook for my son's college tuition. Man, that's just cruel. I was hoping to buy a really bitchin' stereo.
I cannot recall the last time I ingested a Nestle chocolate. Well, I do enjoy a Peanut Butter Cup now and again. (Those are, of course, produced by Reese's, not Nestle. Duh.) Or, at least I did. I can say, with great certainty, that a Nestle product will never again pass these lips. Or those of my cats! Cowards! They'll get what they deserve. The ever courageous Ayaan Hirsi Ali is right: "Nestle chocolates will never taste the same after this, will they? ... Liberty does not come cheap."
No. No, it doesn't.
Here is a list of Nestle brands sold in the United States. See how easily a large food conglomerate can be intimidated and cowed into submission? So much for the impersonal might of the evil multinational corporation!
ATTORNEY SEASON AND BAG LIMITS
1. Any person with a valid Texas State hunting license may harvest attorneys.
2. Taking of attorneys with traps or deadfalls is permitted. The use of currency as bait is prohibited.
3. Killing of attorneys with a vehicle is prohibited. If accidentally struck, remove dead attorney to roadside and proceed to nearest car wash.
4. It is unlawful to chase, herd, or harvest attorneys from a snow machine, helicopter, or aircraft.
5. It shall be unlawful to shout "whiplash", "ambulance", or "free Perrier" for the purpose of trapping attorneys.
6. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 100 yards of BMW dealerships.
7. It shall be unlawful to use cocaine, young boys, $100 bills, prostitutes, or vehicle accidents to attract attorneys.
8. It shall be unlawful to hunt attorneys within 200 yards of courtrooms, law libraries, whorehouses, health spas, gay bars, ambulances, or hospitals.
9. If an attorney is elected to government office, it shall be a felony to hunt, trap, or possess it.
10. Stuffed or mounted attorneys must have a state health department inspection for AIDS, rabies, and vermin.
11. It shall be illegal for a hunter to disguise himself as a reporter, drug dealer, pimp, female legal clerk, sheep, accident victim, bookie, or tax accountant for the purpose of hunting attorneys.
BAG LIMITS
1. Yellow Bellied Sidewinder 2
2. Two-faced Tort Feasor 1
3. Back-stabbing Divorce Litigator 4
4. Small-breasted Ball Buster (Female only) 3
5. Big-mouthed Pub Gut 2
6. Honest Attorney EXTINCT
7. Cut-throat 2
8. Back-stabbing Whiner 2
9. Brown-nosed Judge Kisser 2
10. Silver-tongued Drug Defender $100 BOUNTY
11. Hairy-assed Civil Libertarian 7
Today at work I was wondering if this had been Al Gore who shot a hunting buddy, would I be mocking him and making an issue out of it? Honestly? Yeah, probably.
(I see JPod at NRO's The Corner asks this question as well.)
The ever-topical T-Shirt Hell weighs in on the Danish cartoon controversy. They also lifted my supremely witty Muhammad Ali reference, but I'm going to chalk it up to flattery and keep the monkey lawyers on the leash. For now...
Hugh: Are you angry?
Chait: No.
Hugh: How about now? Are you angry.
Chait: No I am not.
Hugh: Are you sure?
Chait: Yes.
Hugh: How 'bout now?
Chait: No.
Hugh: Now?
Chait: No.
Read the real thing.
Dear Sonoma County Visitor's Bureau:
YOU SUCK!
After ordering their "visitor's guide" via the online request page, I have now received about 50 e-mails (and thos are the ones that got through) from every F&*%ing business, winery, hotel, etc., in Sonoma. And they are still coming. It would have been more, but about one-third of the sites they sent my e-mail address to are dead.
So if you want to visit wine country, be sure to call. And when you do, tell them they suck. It's okay. They know.
Is Harry Whittington the first person shot by a Vice President since Alexander Hamilton?
Leave it to Mark Steyn to get to the crux of the matter:
The issue is not "freedom of speech" or "the responsibilities of the press" or "sensitivity to certain cultures." The issue, as it has been in all these loony tune controversies going back to the Salman Rushdie fatwa, is the point at which a free society musters the will to stand up to thugs. British Muslims march through the streets waving placards reading "BEHEAD THE ENEMIES OF ISLAM." If they mean that, bring it on. As my columnar confrere John O'Sullivan argued, we might as well fight in the first ditch as the last.
The question, then, is this: Are you with civilization, or are you with the barbarians?
Today was Abe Lincoln's birthday. If Lincoln were alive today, he would be 197 and, undoubtedly, clawing desperately at the inside of his casket, trying to get out. Or perhaps he would be fighting for justice... or something. Of course, Lincoln isn't quite as revered as he ought to be. No matter. The Lincoln business is as robust as ever. And who's reading Edgar Lee Masters these days, anyway?
Happy birthday, Mr. Lincoln. You gave the South what-for. That counts for something.
Just want to share what has to be one of the great sports names of all time:
Bear Trapp, Freshman Forward, Sacred Heart.
"Bear Trapp".
Wonder if he hates his parents?
And for pity's sake, whatever you do, don't talk about the monkeys with lasers.
Wish somebody had told me that when I was single and still in my 20s and actually, you know, gave a damn. Would have saved me a lot of grief.
People think I have got the power cause I've got the monkeys. Nope. I've got the power because I'll let the monkeys loose...
And this guy is going to be in big trouble.
From Iran Focus
"An Iranian court has sentenced a teenage rape victim to death by hanging after she weepingly confessed that she had unintentionally killed a man who had tried to rape both her and her niece."
Via Kathryn Jean Lopez at The Corner.
She described how the three men pushed her and her 16-year-old niece Somayeh onto the ground and tried to rape them, and said that she took out a knife from her pocket and stabbed one of the men in the hand.
As the girls tried to escape, the men once again attacked them, and at this point, Nazanin said, she stabbed one of the men in the chest. The teenage girl, however, broke down in tears in court as she explained that she had no intention of killing the man but was merely defending herself and her younger niece from rape, the report said.
The court, however, issued on Tuesday a sentence for Nazanin to be hanged to death.
Rick Brookhiser at The Corner unearths a wonderful Jefferson quote.
(You can read the full letter here.)
"...has begun and has been going on for years," writes Hugh Hewitt. "Everyone is aware of it, and a majority of Americans are committed to it."
But "it only takes a few hundred men and women in Washington to decide that a war is lost." (If you haven't read Ralph Peters's essay in The Weekly Standard, do so now. Then read it again.) The reason why this cartoon controversy is so useful is that it is waking many more Americans to the larger reality of this war. No, it isn't just about Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda.
A prominent radio talk show host asks:
"Are we at war with Islam? Do you want a war with Islam?"
The answer is: Not yet. And No.
But, as we heard on the radio today, the argument in favor is strong. Look, it's all fairly straightforward. Either you are for civilization or you are not. Look upon the links and despair.
It isn't merely a matter of a dozen cartoons published in an obscure Danish newspaper. It's a question of whether the tenets of Islam can coexist peacefully with Western-style democracy.
Or, as Jack Kelly writes, "Most of Europe's political leaders would like to respond with more appeasement. But ordinary Europeans wonder why they must accommodate the demands of bullying immigrants who have swollen their crime rates and welfare rolls."
But wait. There's more.
The great David Warren writes:
To a truly Christian mind -- one steeped in the “practice and presence of God” -- blasphemy against Him is a terrible crime, against your own Maker. It is infinitely worse than insulting your mother, for God made her, too. Not to say Christianity encourages you to insult your mother.
Quite right. For what it's worth, I cannot seem to gather up the exact link. Forgive me. As of February 7, it's here. The headline is, aptly, "Blasphemy." Don't blame me, I didn't write it.
And where would we be without the enduring wisdom of Thomas Lifson?
[A]cceding to the demand that those most willing to use violence be allowed to control the discussion and stifle debate, among infidels and Muslims alike, is a betrayal of not only the moderate Muslims, but of all those who hope someday to live in peace with an Islam that grants legitimacy to religious dissent and to the claims of other faiths.
Well, that doesn't make a lick of sense. But, as our friend Hugh Hewitt asks, "Are we at war with Islam? Do you want a war with Islam?"
The answers, in order, are "Perhaps" and "No." But that requires a bit of explanation. About which, more Tuesday night.
When the Hummer 3 commercial came on during the Superbowl, for a moment I thought I was seeing "Brokeback Monster." (Of course I wasn't -- that's been done already.) Turns out, the giant lizard creature is, apparently, female. But it seems to me that mating a giant robot with a Godzilla knock-off is some kind of affront to the laws of God and nature.
Speaking of affronts, I fully expect the preposterous "brown and bubbly" to work its way into a future version of the Aristocrats. Good God!
On the other hand, monkeys are, and will always be, funny. Especially when partying to vintage Quiet Riot. And that is true, no matter what these snobs say.
Oh, "V for Vendetta" looks very cool. Could it be, at long last, a film based on an Alan Moore graphic novel that does not suck? Here's hoping...
Too see monsters in love, click below...
If you get the chance, watch or tivo the replay of Special Report with Brit Hume tonight. There are two or three pieces on the cartoon riots and the panel discussion is noteworthy. Fred Barnes has changed his tune, and I mean considerably. Mara Liason makes a major gaffe when she says that the original printing of the cartoons by the newspaper was bad but that the reaction of the protesters has been "equally as egregious." EQUALLY?
As usual, Charles Krauthammer offers an insightful perspective.
Can we start paying attention to the rhetorical charade about "health care," please? I can't listen to anyone talk about the country's problems lately without hearing someone demagogue the uninsured as "people who don't have health care," "can't afford health care," or "don't have access to health care." It's deceptive and wrong.
I could understand it, if it were done exclusively by opponents of the current administration and the majority party. But their tactic is working. It's taken root in their opponents' lexicon. It's infiltrated the water cooler talk among us proles.
Don't say "health care" when you mean "health insurance." No, they're not the same, not even practically. We are not a nation in which millions are without access to health care. We are a nation in which the health care delivery system has been disfigured and impaired by the health insurance system. It needs proper focus, reform, and (dare I say it) regulation. But don't confuse the victims with the offenders.
The touchdown replay challenge cases suggest that specific molecules of the football have penumbras, formed by emanations from the goal line that help give them life and substance.
The new Belle & Sebastian album, The Life Pursuit, is out Monday in the U.K. and Tuesday in the U.S.
The album is a good'un, though fans hoping for a return to the wistful navel-gazing of If You're Feeling Sinister may be disappointed. Ditto those expecting a continuation of the harder sound cultivated on 2003's Dear Catastrophe Waitress and the terrific "Your Cover's Blown" from the Books EP. The Life Pursuit rocks harder than the band's early output, but lacks the meaty Trevor Horn production of the last album.
It does, however, continue to explore the strange but satisfying twilight zone between Burt Bacharach and late sixties television theme songs. And although less immediately ingratiating than Catastrophe, the songs grow on you rapidly and feel more of a piece than that somewhat scattershot album. The overall mood is bright and sunny, though not without the trademark Murdoch ironic wit. Fans will be pleased, though B&S n00b's may be better served elsewhere.
Early Standouts: "Act of the Apostle, Part 1", "Sukie in the Graveyard", "We Are the Sleepyheads"
Betty Friedan, author of "The Feminine Mystique", is dead tonight at 85. Grandpa Munster (a.k.a. Al Lewis) also shuffled off his immortal coil today after 95 long, cantankerous-but-wacky years.
Any guesses as to which one I'll miss more?
(Here's a hint: It's not the one who kickstarted a social revolution that has resulted in more divorces, broken homes, screwed up latchkey kids, molestations at day care centers, inter-gender distrust, harassment of women who would dare to stay home and be Moms, and the general inability of regular guys to get laid, than you can shake a limp-from-fear-of-litigation stick at.)
Just kiddin'! I love the ladies! You go, girls! Please don't emasculate me!
So it's been nearly two days since an Egyptian ferry sank into the Red Sea, apparently killing a thousand or more.
Is it still too early to, uh, make the obvious Moses reference?
Yeah, I guess it probably is.
This is starting to give me nightmares.
Why does it have FOUR saggy boobs?
I swear to god man, it's freaking me out.
Psycho: The name's Francis Sawyer, but everybody calls me Psycho. Now, any of you guys call me Francis... and I'll kill you.
Leon: Ooooooh.
Psycho: You just made the list, buddy. Also, I don't like no one touching my stuff. So just keep your meathooks off. If I catch any of you guys in my stuff... I'll kill you. And I don't like nobody touching me. Now, any of you homos touch me... and I'll kill you.
Sergeant Hulka: Lighten up, Francis.
Via Andrew Stuttaford at The Corner:
Matthew Parris' opinion piece in in the London Times today, "So they have thin skins. That shouldn’t stop us poking fun at them." is, as Andrew Stuttaford says, a must read (not just for Hugh Hewitt).
A little candour is called for here. Those protesting against publication are not really doing so because they themselves do not wish to see these pictures. They do not want you or me to see them either. They do not want anyone to see them. They do not want them to exist.
Devising a means by which access to the images will be granted only to those who positively seek it is unlikely to satisfy the objectors, and nor should it: their religion has instructed them to keep God’s world unpolluted by such pictures and the sentiment and opinion that accompany them. This they believe to be their God’s demand.
I’m afraid we really do have to decide whether the demand is reasonable.
and
But offence implicitly offered, and offence actually taken, are two different matters. On the whole Christians, for example, take offence less readily than Muslims. The case for treating them, in consequence, differently is obvious, but we should be wary of it. It means groups are allowed to be as thin-skinned as they wish: to dictate for themselves how delicately we must tread with them — to create, as it were, their own definition of respect and require us to observe it. Those who do this may not always realise that that they create serious buried resentments among those of fellow-citizens who are more broad-shouldered about the trading of insult.
Worth the read. And as a reminder to all of how thin-skinned people can be about these cartoons, there is this from Times Online as well:
'Let the hands that drew be severed!'
"Let’s slaughter the Danish ambassador!"
"We're ready for jihad!"
"No one is allowed to ridicule or cast aspersions on the faith of a people under the cloak of free expression . . "
"Let the hands that drew be severed!"
"Behead the one who insults the prophet"
"Free speech go to hell!"
And in an irony alert. check out the protestor with the sign that says "Freedom Go to Hell"
And we're talking about cartoons?
Little Green Footballs links to a report on the burning of the hEmbassy in Damascus.
And we're talking about cartoons, aren't we?
UPDATE: Today's Telegraph report on the "protests."
James Robbins at NRO The Corner linked to Radio Isalm's "Toons: Caricatures Politiques". A nice collection of evil, vicious, and hatefull cartoons that didn't prompt riots or death threats.
Vulgar, stupid, and unnecesary indeed.
Mmmm. The Benihana at Scottsdale Road & Frank Lloyd Wright has some darn good sushi. Really tender cuts, and very good chefs.
Also, they have a great happy hour: $1 nigiri and 1/2 price rolls from 5-7pm on weekdays.
I've eaten there four times in the last 8 days (including tonight).
Hugh Hewitt spent a good chunk of his airtime today backing up his opinion that the infamous Danish cartoons were "vulgar", "stupid", and "an unnecessary affront", while simultaneously condemning the steady stream of death threats that have flowed out in response. His reasoning is that the cartoons were deliberately aimed at offending the greater Muslim population, and as such, foolishly risk expanding the scope of the War on Terror to a generalized clash of civilizations.
While I agree wholeheartedly that the death threats demand condemnation, on the subject of the cartoons themselves Hugh is way off. He's so concerned that the Middle Eastern predicament doesn't become "The West vs. Islam," that he effectively tosses Denmark's freedom of expression under the bus. Ironically enough, he proves the Danes' point in the process.
Hugh's major error is in deliberately ignoring the intent of the cartoons. Their purpose was neither to offend Muslims nor to denigrate Islam, but to determine whether controversial views can still be aired in Denmark without fear of massive reprisal. It is clear from the reaction of some Muslims -- most importantly the heads of various Middle Eastern states -- that they can not.
That the illustrators' goal was not specifically to offend should be obvious just from looking at the images. Of the twelve cartoons, only one of them -- the sketch of Muhammad with a bomb in his turban -- is clearly aimed at equating Islam with terrorism. One or two more poke fun at certain aspects of Islam. As to the rest, you'd have to have your cheeks clenched pretty tightly to believe that they were intended to provoke anger.
And what about that sketch of the Prophet with the explosive headwear? It certainly seems to suggest that the teachings of Muhammad are responsible, at least indirectly, for acts of violence and terrorism. Might that offend some Muslims? You betcha. If a similar accusation was launched against Christians -- and it has been, many times -- some of them would likely be offended too.
And in both cases, it would be a valid viewpoint worthy of debate and analysis; the kind of topic, I would argue, that we all should be discussing in order to better understand the players in this conflict, not to mention the stakes. If the press loses its freedom to raise such topics, we're all going to be in some deep doo doo.
The Jyllands-Posten's little experiment was not a stupid, irresponsible act of petty bigotry, but a necessary attempt at bringing to light hugely important realities about the growing influence of Islam in the Western world. It has opened a lot of eyes that were previously squeezed tightly shut in Europe and the rest of the West. It is exactly the sort of thing that a newspaper's editorial clout should be used for, and I would hope that my local newspaper would have cojones big enough to do the same. (It wouldn't.)
As to whether we stand at the brink of a clash of civilizations, I honestly don't know. Certainly nobody in the West wants that -- nobody worth mentioning, anyway -- and I'd wager that the vast majority of people in the Muslim world feel the same. If a war of ideals is to be avoided, however, then it's absolutely critical that Muslims recognize and learn to accept that most in the West do not subscribe to the sharia; that we jealously guard our freedom to flap our gums as we please, regardless of whether they wish to deny themselves the same.
If they can't, or won't, live with that, then clash we will. And no amount of ignoring the signs of that eventuality, or disparaging those who would bring it to light, is going to stop it.
As for me, I'm drinking Carlsberg tonight. Who wants one?
Hugh Hewitt called printing cartoons critical of Islam "un-Christian" on his show yesterday. I respectfully disagree. Christianity, and Judaism before it, have a rich history of mocking false gods and their prophets. My favorite example is from my favorite Old Testament bible story: Elijah on Mount Carmel. Elijah and the prophets of Baal are having a contest to see whose God is the true God. I quote the 1 Kings 18:26-27 from the English Standard Version:
And [the prophets of Baal] took the bull that was given them, and they prepared it and called upon the name of Baal from morning until noon, saying, "O Baal, answer us!" But there was no voice, and no one answered. And they limped around the altar that they had made. And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, "Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened."Sorry, Hugh, but Moo-Hammed and the Porcine Prophet (and the others) are not only legitimate political speech, they are statements that are consistent with Christian criticism of false prophets.
Hugh's a political animal, all the way through. Nixonian, ex-Monkey Ben once called him, and it's true.
I believe he is calculating that The War on Terror must not be seen as a religious war. Because there's a hell of a lot of muslims, and we don't want to drive the ones on the fence into the Bid Laden camp.
This is mistaken for several reasons. First, I think most of those inclined to go become radical revolutionaries have already done so, or will do so anyway.
Second, this is an issue of principle. I mean, did we surrender when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?! No! And this really is a critical free expression issue (not a First Amendment issue, by the way, though governments in other countries are suppressing this expression). And free expression is critical to a free society, which in turn is critical to...everything.
But, last, on a pure political calculation, Hugh's smokin the crazy weed. This is precisely the kind of issue that gets the fence sitters--especially the fence sitters in the West--to have to take a stand. Rushdie showed this too, and this one is even better, because you don't have to read that damn long book (and people who heard the title thought that maybe, just maybe, it was a bit much--but cartoons? Kid stuff!).
Flood the zone, be Spartucus, and those who are weasels, those who go wobbly and show cowardice in the defense of liberty and moderation in the pursuit of justice will rue, yes rue! the day that they stood by. They shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here, and hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks that fought with us upon Groundhog's Day!
Hugh Hewitt leaps to the defense of islamic violence today in his post "A Decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind" and gets it all wrong.
The furor over the Danish cartoons is sparking an odd reaction among some commentators in the West who see no contradiction in condemning the idiocy of Joel Stein or the repulsiveness of Tom Toles while urging solidarity with the idiot newspapermen in Denmark who thought it a good idea to not just illustrate Mohammed, but to include some illustrations designed to offend. Like Toles and Stein, they sought a cheap reaction, and getting it, are alarmed that anyone could be judgmental of their efforts.
Yes, Hugh, there is a difference. First, the condemnation of Toles and Joel Stein does not include violence and death threats. And that's the point.
Of course the thugs who threaten violence against the idiots are evil, and the reaction across radical Islam is every bit as chilling and outrageous as the 1989 fatwa against Rushdie.
But . . ?
But I think the third course between the cartoonist provocateurs and the radicals waving guns at the EU employees in Gaza is to denounce without ambiguity or excuse the latter but at the same time to delineate a very bright line between what the West stands for and the churlishness of the caroonist provocateurs.
That's what is happening. In the West - for the most part - when we are offended, we protest. We scream and yell. We generally don't threaten violence, take hostages, or declare a clash of civilizations. Isn't this obvious?
Our country's founding document includes in its opening paragraph the explanation for why the Declaration is necessary: "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that [we] should declare the causes which impel [us] to the Separation."
Sorry, Hugh, but the "decent respect" should be a two-way street. It stopped being that a long time ago.
The cartoons were in bad taste, an unnecessary affront to many of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world, just as Joel Stein affronted the military, the families and friends of the military, and as Toles did the same to the wounded, and their families, friends and admirers. [Actually, I think the Toles cartoon and the reprehensible Stein comments were worse. But then I'm not looking for hostages in Gaza.] Of course each of them had the absolute right to publish their screed, and the Dutch (and now Norwegian) governments must reply to demands that these papers be punished with a steely refusal to be dictated to as to their culture of free expression and the protection of the vulgar and the stupid.
