Spring & Summer Reading

Come to think of it, I think I'll be really lucky to get any of the stuff done this week in here that I want to. But I have decided on my next set of books to acquire, now that I've largely finished with Hayek (fascinating book. Said a great many things I have considered to be true). As it stands, my next goals are to read the following:




1. The Phenomenon of Man, by Teilhard de Chardin. The guy was a Jesuit priest and an archaelogist. I am fascinated.


2. Phoenix: The Church in the Dark Ages, by by H. Daniel-Rops. I'm interested in "The Dark Ages" as a period of time, and have been since I did a report on the Merovingians in high school. This is as good a place to start as any.


3. Dark Age Ahead, by Jane Jacobs. Yay, future paranoia!


4. 1940 Marine Corp Small Wars Manual. Considered scriptural on the subject by some.


5. Manufacturing Consent, by Noam Chomsky. It is wise to know the ways of one's adversary.


6. Galileo's Mistake, by Wade Rowland. Historical Church apologism. I've long heard that there was more to the story of Galileo than "brave man of science held back by naughty, bad, wicked Church! Time to investigate.


7. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision, by Henry Kamen. See above.


8. A Concise History of the Crusades, by Thomas Madden. Since I read Piers Paul Anderson's history of the Templars, I've been interested in doing some more Crusade reading. Another period that has always interested me.




I'm thinking of putting this list up on the main page, next to the music listings. I might even put these on the other side of the blog, as my archives are taking over the other side. Skeptical's got a good design. I should consider using it.

How to Change a Reputation

If John Kerry has any intentions on making inroads among hawks, he needs to repudiate this:




Unwillingness to use force to retaliate against terrorism or pre-empt attacks.

Inaction in the face of legal obstacles

Animus toward the intelligence community

Fear of unpopularity in the court of domestic and foreign public opinion

Failure to improve the effectiveness of bilateral relations with Arab states and Pakistan.




All of which were Clinton's failures, for eight years, and not Bush's. Bush can perhaps be faulted for not looking for an attack, but it wasn't his weakness that invited it, it was Clinton's. Woe betide those that forget their Machiavelli.


So, John-boy, let's hear it. What are you going to do? Aside from "not pull out," I mean. No one in the administration has suggested that Iraq is the final battle ground in the War on Terror. So what's next?

Hey There

Been in NY for a few days. Have some plans for the new week, which include: Reviews of Rites of Spring and Black Flag, some thoughts on the lingering fission between Christian and Islamic civilization, and something for the anniversary of Kurt Cobain's last explosion.


All of which might not happen. But I'm gonna try.

The Intolerance of Tolerance

A lot of people think John Derbyshire of National Review, the cranky ex-pat Brit, unreconstructed Tory, and mathematics obsessive, is a nasty, antideluvian bigot. I can see their point of view, sometimes. I don't know that I agree with every word he said in his NRO piece today. But I will say that I think his DOG/DVG (Designated Oppressor Group/Designated Victim Group) dichotomy is more true than not. It certainly explains the differing responses to Trent Lott and Corrine Brown (thought I'd forgotten about that, didn'tcha?). It also bears out my personal experiences.


The first "racial" incident I ever witnessed was in elementary school. It wasn't a bunch of white kids tormenting a minority. It was two minority kids (I won't tell you which ethnic group they belonged too, because it doesn't matter) harassing a kid I knew, promising to "kick his little white tail" if he had a problem with it. These two were surrounded by white children, none of whom (myself included) said a word in defense of their fellow honky. I was perhaps too shocked, unwilling to believe that in this post-Martin Luther King age, people acted this way. You see, every year before the MLK holiday, we were sat down, class by class, and shown the same video on MLK, and the Dream he had. I understood that in the past those that weren't white were put down, but the laws against them were taken away thanks to men of courage like King. I believed that dream was reality. On that day, it was killed, because nobody stood up for the abused kid. No one dared.


Everything I've seen since has but augmented that impression, that while everyone of us is supposed to be equal and respected for our diversity, some of us are more equal than others. White male Christian heterosexuals are supposed to respect everybody's diversity, to be polite and cheerful, to listen courteously and engage in self-criticism. White female Christian heterosexuals are expected to be this way to everyone except WMCH's, because of historical sexism. Black male Christian heterosexuals are expected to act this way towards everyone except whites, but they're not too loudly condemned for the rest, especially if as regards people who are Jewish or who kinda look white. For black females, see above. And so it goes, until you reach the ultimate Designated Victim: the minority transgendered atheist, who can be as nasty as he/she wants to whomever, and face criticism from no one.


I realize that there's a hearty pile of oversimplification here, and that we're dealing with the rules according to our cultural elites, and not the heartland folks. I don't know how well a minority transgendered atheist would do in rural Alabama. But I do know how well a white male Christian heterosexual Republican does in Manhattan. He mocks his whiteness and his maleness for the amusement of those who aren't either, he makes as little reference to his Christianity as possible, and hides his Republicanism at all costs. This isn't tolerance, and I submit that tolerance will not exist until its demanded from everyone. And I do mean everyone. That's right, leftists too.

From the Mouths of Cooks

Zayed has the "Iraqi Street's" reaction to the Israelis taking out Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. It's a lot more mixed than I would have thought. Note this:

Our cook had the most interesting reaction. "How many young men did this @#%$ send to death by brainwashing and fooling them into carrying out suicide attacks? How many innocent people had he killed?" he shouted to the doctor, "And how many thousands of dollars did he get in his Swiss bank accounts by pimping on the Palestinian cause?". "If he was truly such a hero and a believer in Jihad how come he didn't rig his wheelchair with explosives and blow himself up at some Israeli checkpoint? I say f* him". We advised the cook to stay out of politics, at least for the moment, and stick to his task of scrambling eggs for us.

Frankly, I couldn't have said it better. Hope springs eternal, my brothers.

Instapundit Says What I've Been Saying

Pretty much verbatim:

You want a revolution in antiterrorism? Fine. We'd all love to see the plan.



Where is it?

Amen, brother. John Kerry seems to think that he's gonna sell us a war that's tougher on terrorism than Bush's but is gonna manage not to ruffle anybody's feathers, because he's a Democrat, and they're that smooth. But if I'm gonna trade one Commander-in-Chief for another, I want the details. And I'd better be impressed.


Be sure to read the whole thing, especially if you're wondering about this Clarke fellow.

Vinyl Love...Denied!

So I called SST and wondered what the dilly-yo was up with my January order. The guy was really helpful, but it turns out the Bad Brains LP is STILL out of stock. So I said "Just ship me the Black Flag CD and be done with it." I'll check on it again in a month or five, but in the meantime, I still need to review the Rites of Spring album. For the moment, all I can say is WOW. I can also say, oh, looky, I've got a new source of RIAA-free music.

Swimming With Squid

P.J. O'Rourke once postulated that the most intelligent thing anyone could say about the government was that it was like taking a bath in a tubful of squid, so complete was it's sliminess. I generally find such arguments to be an exaggeration, if not a palpable untruth. I suspect that 90% of the "slimes" in Washington are utterly unaware of the fact that they are slimes, except in the most sardonic manner. There's very little that our federal government debates that is not, one way or another, that doesn't have to do with money: inlays and outlays. So one man's tax relief is another man's fiscal irresponsibility, and one man's progressive charity is another man's counterproductive waste of public wealth. Everybody fights the other guy as dirty as possible, because you can't accomplish your tax relief, fiscal responsibility, or progressive charity if you lose. But you still believe in tax relief, fiscal responsibility, or progressive charity.


With that in mind, take a gander at this (link via NRO).


Now I've never heard of Insight Magazine, but guessing from their home page, they seem like a right-leaning job to me. So you can expect the spin of Bush' budget numbers. Nevertheless, it's the only piece I've read this year that talks in any detail about the programs being cut or the overall structure of the budget. I also find it interesting that no one on the right seems to have bothered making these arguments before now, but have bought into the "Hey, Big Spender" meme.


So here we have the progressives and the traditionalists scourging each other over money spent here, money spent there, help not given here, burden not being lifted there. And as I said, most of them are honest, and most of them are arguing according to the facts that follow their philosophy (where they get their philosophy is another matter). But once again, as Tom Daschle pointed out, we could cut all discretionary spending and still have a deficit. I'm not hearing anything from either campaign on Social Security reform, despite what Greenspan said last week and despite today's statement by the Medicare trustees that it too will go broke if nothing is done. The conclusion that the political class is so interested in its Great Game that it refuses to see the coming deluge is easy to arrive at. Perhaps that's what P.J. meant.

I'm Not DEAD!

I've just been busy putting a move together, and working for a class, and fifty thousand other little things. It is for suck. I may be a bit itinerant over the next couple of weeks. I will report that I have seen the Passion, and feel certain that most of it's naysayers are missing the point.

Get in Touch With Your Inner Music Snob

Yes, you have one. Stop pretending that there isn't a song that makes you want to run up walls to escape from. Stop condemning condemnation.


Vote in the Jukebox From Hell sweepstakes. I did, and it feels good.

Fun With Fundies

In the slapping between Andrew Sullivan and the Flying Monkeys over at NRO, summed up here (with a fair bit of anti-Sullivan animus, which you are free to ignore), nobody's gone an dispassionately discussed the main reason why what the Rhea county illuminati are doing is contrary to the principle of liberty and good government. Obviously these guys are exploding in Stop-Them-Before-They-Get-the-Children hysteria with regard to gays, and they probably feel provoked by the sudden performance of gay marriages here and there in spite of applicable laws. One is free to condemn their anti-gay attitudes as being unenlightened, even Pharisaical. But that's but part of the story.


These people seem to think it would be a good idea to have policemen and the courts responsible for enforcing "natural law," and therefore sending people to jail for acts of at least dubious criminality. This means dedicating already finite amounts of officer patrol time, court docket time, and space in the jails, just to make sure that no one is having the wrong kind of sex. I fail to see how this can be defended as an appropriate use of public resources. Public officials are not clerics, the instruction of the soul does not fall into their brief. They are agents of the civil authority, and theirs is a far more specified area of action. They are charged with the maintenance of public order, not the maintenance of public morality, and not the conformance of society with various ideals. They are there to make sure we are not murdered, robbed, or raped, and to make sure that those who engage in such activities are kept away from the rest of us. Anything new rule we give them to enforce either makes this activity more or less difficult. Which does the Rhea County resolution call for?


Incidentally, if you parse this post and wind up thinking that I'm in favor of ending, or radically re-thinking the Drug War, you would be correct.

Behold, Ye Infidel, More Silliness

Best. Flash game. Ever.

Official Notion Statement: Top Ten Reasons to Vote Kerry

10) He has distinguished himself in the Senate as a man of nuance, able to grasp that the same policy might be alternately right and wrong, depending on the circumstances, and the ever-shifting winds of politics. Therefore, he will do nothing without consulting his aides, Congress, the people at large, our allies, the UN, our "enemies" (because an act can be right and wrong according to the moment in which it happens, someone can only be our enemy in the short-term, provided it is not the result of a cross-cultural misunderstanding), and academics. This will prove so exhausting that President Kerry would never actually do anything, which is precisely what we would want our President to do.*


9) He's man enough to ride a motorcycle. VROOOOOOM!


8) He wants to raise taxes on rich people to stimulate the economy. This will confuse rich people so much that they'll go crazy and start hiring anyone that walks into the plant, and at good wages. As an added benefit, we prefer our rich people nice and confused, like Paris Hilton, who doesn't even know if she's a person or a city. If rich people appear sane and sorted-out, we must hate them, because success is nuanced, mmkay?


7) He was in Vietnam, and that means he knows all there is to know about fighting modern warfare. Hell, he could probably defeat al Qaeda all by himself! Sure, all wed have to do is airlift him into Afganistan (not Iraq, because al Qaeda has nothing, do you hear, nothing to do with Iraq. The fact that al Qaeda set off bombs in Spain in part because of Spain's support of the Iraq war means Nothing! Shut up, warmonger!), and he'd catch Osama faster than Lloyd Bridges took out Saddam in the second Hot Shots! movie. And with any luck, he won't come back.


6) He thinks the war shouldn't be a war, it should be an investigation, complete with arrests and warrants and trials and Interpol and prosecutorial discretion and negotiations. This will undoubtedley deter people willing to blow themselves up for a cause. And it won't require any broad, permanent increase in the power of the federal government. Nope, none. Good-bye, Patriot Act!


5) Look at this chin:





Tell me you wouldn't want to vote for a man who looks like Dudley Do-Right's shady lawyer cousin. "I'll sue Snidley, Nell!"


4) Much has been made of our potential first Lady, Teresa Heinz Kerry. Fear has struck through the Democratic camp that she's too rough, to sassy, to devoted to four-letter-words to be a proper first lady. I say, au contraire! Aren't we all just a little tired of First Ladies who claim to be feminists but roll over like beaten dogs when their husbands get drunk on the power? I think we all know what would happen if Teresa caught John playing pet-the-puppet with an intern. She'd kick the living crap out of him. And that's just what America needs: the sight of a diddling husband being pummelled by his wife in the highest office of the land. It would empower women like nothing has since the Pill.


3) Furthermore, Teresa is the heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune, a veritable Ketchup Queen. This doesn't make John Ketchup King, but it does make him a kind of Prince Consort of Ketchup. That is so lame we just have to put them both in the White House! Think of the relief it will bring to our European friends. They're going through a bad patch right now, what with that dim, unspeakable fear that terrorists might just mean all that crazy talk they shout out about killing infidels. They need a good laugh. Such a magnanimous gesture will demonstrate to the whole world that we're willing to think about everybody's needs when choosing a President, and are moving beyond that whole looking-after-your-own-interests thing.


2) The economy is all Bush's fault. He stole jobs from under the pillows of poor minorities and sold them to foreign countries, and gave the money to Halliburton! OOOOOOOOOH! Halliburton makes me SOOOOOOO mad!


1) Remember, you can't say "Kerry" without "Care."














*That is, if the rest of us weren't so caught up in the "oooh, shiny" of politics, so we could safely ignore this process

The Thicker the Grass, the Easier to Cut

My silliness is on its way, but I'd like to point out that Donald Sensing agrees with me about marriage in the Wall Street Journal (link, unsurprisingly, via Sullivan). He puts into words what many have generally understood: "that same-sex marriage, if it comes about, will not cause the degeneration of the institution of marriage; it is the result of it."


So what do we do?


Simple. Wait for the Visigoths to arrive.


Oh, wait, they're already here. They just sacked Madrid.

Silly Bastards!

Fortunately, I am saved from my gloom by the wisdom of Lee Harris, who writes of the value of silliness. This is entirely within the lines of my own philosophy, which I graniloquently refer to as the Reality Principle: if something exists, it probably has a reason for existing, and therefore will not abate until that reason has been dealt with. According to Harris, Silliness exists to derail pomposity. With that in mind, I hereby promise that tommorrow's blog will be consist of the Top Ten Reasons that the Notion Supports John Kerry. I feel better already.

Oh, Spiffy...

Spain goes wobbly. Do they respond with outrage against the men who did this? Noooooo...that wouldn't be nuanced. They blame the guy who's been trying to fight the guys that did this. And now they say they want the fighting to stop. Yeah, that'll make the terrorists quit. Maybe you should give them the Sudetenland while you're at it.


Oy.


I know, I said no more warblogging. Can't help it. I've been overtaken by events. That'll learn me.

Sorry for the delay...

...but I've been on retreat for a few days, and ideas are sifting through, looking for soil to grow. I think about faith and spirit and war and love and mind and dreams and realities. I can describe these things as best I may. Can I convince? Is it worth my while to convince? Is it just that I should try? What does "just" mean?


Is it friday yet? It is friday. This will wait.

Steppping Back

I'm going to try to avoid the warblogging for a little while; much is being said in many places on the subject, and there's not much that hasn't already been said. I'll keep tabs on it every now and again.


I'll also probably lose interest in the gay marriage conundrum. What I predict is going to happen is that the Federal Marriage Amendment won't pass Congress. The states that don't have the political willpower to restrain civil disobedience and activist judges will end up with de facto gay marriage. The states that do, won't. Federalism will allow us to keep having this coversation.


What I'd prefer to do is focus a bit more on some meta-criticism of the processes I see around me: the media, the blogosphere, the music industry and its discontents, that sort of thing. I've been considering for some time exactly what it is I want this blog to be. The war demanded the attention of all of us, but it's easy in such a time to lose sight of other pictures. So much goes on in the world that it's hard to get a clear picture of it. I'm going to work on that.

Exploiting the New Link

Michael Totten issues a doomsday scenario: what happens if the Arab tyrants get nukes before they get democracy? John Kerry should be required to explain what he intends to do about this. This is another reason to fight against the Churchill Syndrome.

It Ain't Just a River in Egypt

Lee Harris of Tech Central Station, which is going on the link sheet, has an interesting piece on 9/11 denial. He even goes so far as to suggest that those who refuse to see the Islamofascists as an enemy are doing them a disservice:

To insist that your enemy is not your enemy when he insists on being one is to rob him of his humanity, and to endanger your own existence -- and all for the sake of preserving an unsustainable illusion. To recognize an enemy, and to treat him as one, is not to dehumanize him -- on the contrary, it is to treat him as your equal. It is to take him seriously. It is to meet him on his own terms.


But that is just what liberal Democrats cannot bring themselves to do. They insist on pretending that 9/11 was just a kind of glitch, instead of seeing it as an act of devotion carried out by men who were motivated by the highest ethical purpose that they could comprehend.

He goes on to apply a fair criticism to the Iraq war: that the terrorists that planned it were international insurgents, not the forces of one state. This is, to my mind, the only criticism of the Iraq war worth listening to, the argument that it will not prevent terrorist attacks. It is entirely just and reasonable to criticize the administrations strategy for dealing with terrorism on the grounds of ineffectiveness. To do so is not treason, it is the reason we have free speech. I happen to think that the Iraq war is a far more effective means of fighting terrorism than Harris does, because I think it moves the battlefield away from us while planting a cultural counter-narrative in the Middle East. But others are free to disagree. However, most of the loudest criticism of the war has been to treat it as an imperialist enterprise utterly divorced from 9/11. And, once again, the Dems have yet to say how they would do it. To criticize without offering alternatives is simply whining, and I don't think that will eventually prove to be good politics.

Are the Kids All Right, After All?

Here's a story that makes me happy: teen pregnancy is still declining. There appear to be a two main reasons: fewer teens having sex, more teens using contraception. Why they're doing that is a mystery sociologists haven't quite pierced yet, but there's a rise in religious reasons, and a greater awareness of contraception options and how to use same, and changing attitudes towards sex and sexual culture.


All of which runs counter to some of the alarm-bells I've been ringing here in this blog. But demographic trends are slow to spot. If we're on the upswing of real responsibility, and not a downswing, then I'll be pleased to be wrong.

Cold Truth?

Fisked for your entertainment:




Cold Truth Vol. 3: Vote Democrat if you want to live.


This must be an example of non-threatening argument I've been hearing so much about.


TBTM Commentary by bozak


"Hi, I'm bozak, and I like fudge. Hey! You aren't wearing your anti-CIA tinfoil!"


Howard Dean has brought youth into this election process this year.


Just like Clinton was supposed to have in '92, and the 26th Amendment was supposed to in '72...


If I was between the age of 18-27 right now it wouldn?t take Howard Dean to get me involved in politics. I would do my best to organize every young person in the country to vote for the Democratic representative in the final election, provided there is an election this year.


Well, that makes se...huh?


I wouldn?t be surprised if another unexpected catastrophe happened and Coup Leader Bush decided that the time for elections just isn?t right for our country.


You wouldn't be surprised by something unexpected. That's cool! Will you be my Jesus?


Why would I say something like this? Have you forgotten the Republikkkon parties denial of ninety thousand black voters in Florida to steal the election in 2000? I remember it like it happened yesterday.


Notice that he's not citing any evidence that any of that actually happened. Merely the fact that Republicans denied what EVERYONE KNOWS happened is sufficient. After all, minorities would never lie for political purposes! Their hearts are pure as the driven sn...well, not snow, but some substance which is pure but not white. Phew. Almost stepped over the line.


Getting beyond the modern Jim Crow party and their dislike for minorities,


We'd love that, thanks.


it?s the youth of this country that really should start worrying if the Coup Leader actually wins the election this year. It is possible that the staunch Republikkkon owners of Diebold could help make the Coup Leader victorious with their paperless voting systems anyway.


Welcome to the International Society of Non-Sequitorians. We like pizza.


Cant you see it, Bush wins! The public says lets count the ballots. To which Diebold tells us, what ballots?


These are the same paperless voting systems that every news organ couldn't stop fulsomizing about after the AARP crowd got confused by paper ballots. You know, the system that was supposed to guaruntee that nobody ever had to argue about dimpled chads again. But now this is an insidious plot to make sure that all the votes go Republican. Also, notice the assumption that a Republican win in Florida is an immediate grounds for a recount. Because he can't win there, he just can't!


This being the case, the youth of our country should be organizing like no group in the history of the modern world has before.


Underneath the leadership of the Vanguard of the New Tommorrow, right?


It is the youth of this country that will be sent to die in more wars for profit for the Coup Leader and his Republikkkon party.


I seem to recall that the average age of our military during the first Gulf War was around 26. Anyone want to contend that it's lower now?


At the current time there are well over 500 American citizens who have lost their lives in the Iraq war for profit, not to mention ten thousand Iraqi?s. The Coup Leader and his Klan think young American life is worth losing in order that Halliburton and their other cronies can be given no bid contracts to fatten their pockets. Imagine the kickbacks the high ranking Republikkkons will get once they leave office.


This meme is apparently resistant to antibiotics. Although it would explain why Clinton is suddenly rolling in oil kickbacks, given that he awarded a no-bid contract to Halliburton in 1997 to deal with the Bosnian reconstruction even though another company had the LOGCAP contract. It would also explain why the Moon Landing was faked.


The only kickback for the youth who votes Republikkkon and ends up in the next war for profit can only be death.


Not security, tax cuts, or social security reform. Nope, just DEATH! Why, at the rate of 500 dead soldiers a year, we won't have any youth at all in just 200 years! Assuming that they all serve in the military, and nobody wins the war for 200 years.


That reminds me, how come the lefties never shriek about the casualty figures from Afghanistan? Surely the soldiers who died their are just as betrayed as those that die in Iraq? Why was that war okay but this one not?


Think about it, even if you are a young white racist and you vote for the Republikkkon party because they keep it real (real white),


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! He said "real", and then "(real white)"! Chris Rock would just LOVE how you stole his joke!


would you rather vote for bigots to keep racism alive, or vote democratic to keep your ass alive? You have to think that even a racist would say I choose life over hatred and bigotry. Wouldn?t they?


'Course they would, silly. Islamic bigots choose their own life over hatred and bigotry all the time. That's why the West Bank is such a serene tourist destination today.


It should be obvious to American youth that this regime's plan is for more war for profit.


Don'tcha love it when they move beyond parody?


Where will you be shipped off to?


Wah, Ah don' rahtlee no, suh. Ah'm hopin' that massa' 'membuhs that Ah been a good hand.


Syria, Iran, North Korea? Imagine casting a vote as a youth for the Coup Leader and then being shipped off to a country to fight in a war for profit.


If you wanted, bozak, you could do better than imagine it. You could ask some of the soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division who've returned from Iraq how they feel about serving. Go ahead, ask them how they feel that the Coup Leader has forced them to fight a war for profit. Hope you like the taste of knuckles.


Think it can?t happen to you? It?s being said almost everyday now that our military is being spread way too thin because we are fighting wars on two fronts right now.


I haven't heard anybody say this since before Operation Iraqi Freedom. Maybe that's why we need to TAKE BACK THE MEDIA! Why, it should be obvious!


If the Coup Leader miraculously gets elected,


Hang on there, tiger. You just said that you wouldn't be surprised at all if he pulls a fasty and gets "re-selected." So now you wouldn't be surprised by the miraculous?


Gosh! You ARE Jesus!


look for the next war in the never ending ?wore on terra? to start as soon as possible. I?m sure this regime knows it?s so dirty that it could never finish another term even if the people of this country moronically elected them to office for the first time.


So they know that they can't finish another term even if they're re-elected, because re-election will have proved how much the American people don't....


*blither*


Look how long it took them to go from Afghanistan to Iraq. They never finished the war in Afghanistan before starting the war in Iraq. So most likely here comes the draft. You say you don?t want to die in a war for profit?


And here, at last, after paragraphs of deathless prose, is the rhetorical coup de grace. Why, of course! That's the plan! They'll just draft everybody! That always works! And we know that this is their real plan because none of them have even broached the subject publicly! They're just that clever and corrupt!


Did we mention the Moon Landing was Faked?


Then don?t vote Republikkkon.


Sorry, I have to. I'm a white racist who wants to see others die for Halliburton's stock price. Every day I check the casualty figures, and when they go up, I cackle mischeviously and pull my moustache, and for one bright shining moment I can forget about all the dirty minorities that have civil rights and all the poor people I haven't ridden my coach over today.




Look, I know that there's a difference between this tool and Atrios, and that aliterates of his kind are to be found on the right. But I'm not linking to them, am I?

Wow.

Sometimes I gets me the itchin' to read what the liberals be sayin', and Skeptical, good as he is, doesn't fulfill that for me. So skipped over to Talking Points Memo and then Atrios, both of whom I should probably link, and then followed an Atrios link to this site.


I mean, I know the lefties are mad about FoxNews and whatnot, but Damn.


I swallowed my nausea and clicked a link again, to this beauty.

Prepare for fisking.

John Jong Kerry

Just in case you thought Lileks was blowing smoke about who our enemies want to win the election, the Financial Times says that the North Koreans love Kerry (link via Instapundit). Naturally their are those prepared to spin this one away, and FT quotes Gordon Flake:" It would be harder for a Democratic president to do a deal because there would be a lot of pressure on him not to be a soft touch," quoth he.


Okay, Flake. Because there isn't going to be any pressure on President Kerry to be an accomodationist. No one's gonna want him to back away like a skittish horse from anything that smacks of "unilateralism." Isn't the escape from Cowboy Diplomacy precisely the thing that's animated Kerry's almost life-like candiacy?


Now, you and I both know that Clinton was able to bomb Belgrade into rubble without international furor of any kind, because he was the kind of American that European politicians understood (read: he was willing to say bad things about America). So it's possible that Kerry could simply put another face on "axis-of-evil" diplomacy. But I don't see tough-on-rogue-nations anywhere in Kerry's history, and I don't see much of a mandate for it from his party or the international community. If we remember that only Nixon could go to China, we should also consider that he wouldn't have done so if Johnson had tried it first.

Adding Homeboys to The Linksheet

Another college-pal goes up today, Jon Gibbons (who thoughtfully linked me first). Today's a good day to link him, because he provides a standing refutation for anyone who thinks the Hawks built an UNDEFEATED SEASON, BABY by playing tomatoes.


I also recommend checking out the rest of his site, the Department of Homeland Obscurity. Especially check out the expositions. His "hockey players have damned goofy names" piece still makes me giggle like a schoolgirl.

And the Band Played On...

Instapundit linked this study by the Kennedy School of Government on the anatomy of the blogosphere's revolt against Trent Lott. Compare the way that the internet pushed a story that the mainstream press has given up on, with the way everyone has dropped the ball on Corrine Brown. The left-wingers have stuck their fingers in their ears, excusing it away, while the right-wingers made a show of outrage and then moved on to further bouts of exigesis over the Passion and/or gay marriage. What is everyone thinking? "What the hell, it's just a black politician saying dumb things. What do you expect?"


No, I haven't let it go. And I'm not gonna.

Alex, Corrine Brown Called...

I don't expect someone who calls himself a "neo-liberal" to gush approvingly at NRO the way some of us shameless types do. But I would expect him to not sound like Ted Kennedy. Today Alex makes a charge of racism that seems a complete disconnect from reality. Someone explain where in Tim Graham's Corner post that anything like the support of white supremacy is advocated, or even suggested. Does Alex not grasp that Graham is accusing the Democrats of racial hypocrisy by nominating "another boring white federal office holder"? Are we retreating to the paleoliberal axiom that any time a conservative even mentions race, he is being racist?


Seriously, I don't get it. It's obviously too nuanced. Explain.




By the way, I haven't noticed anyone on the left start caring about the waste of a congressional seat mentioned in my title. Am I wrong?

IIIIIII WANT TO BEEEEEEEE.....a registered Democrat, Part Deux

Dave Weigel of Reason Magazine questions the notion that pop culture is inherently leftist in a review of Dispatches From the Culture Wars: How the Left Lost Teen Spirit (link via Instapundit). I read the Post's review of this book months ago when it was released, based on that, I found the premise shallow at best, at worst a pretentious example of the navel-gazing that those in the pop industry are given to, the surety that they possess cosmic truth. Weigel leans more toward the "shallow" end, dinging author Danny Goldberg for never considering that maybe Democratic policies have something to do with whether the young respond to them. More to the point, Goldberg ignores the glaringly obvious fact that fans don't necessarily look to musicians for their politics:

Not every fan of Rage Against the Machine or the Dead Kennedys is against globalization and free trade. Marilyn Manson -- yes -- guardedly endorsed George W. Bush during the 2000 election, telling the defunct Talk magazine, "If I had to pick, I?d pick Bush and not necessarily by default. I know I don?t support what the other team is about." In the end, very few Dixie Chicks fans, judging by ticket and album sales, care all that much about the band?s stance on presidential IQ or geopolitics.

As someone who often grooves to the MC5's Kick Out the Jams while ignoring or skipping the album's stereotypical hippie rants, I can only say "duh." Who says that the young (or anyone else for that matter) is only interested in overthrowing authority or establishing national medical insurance (cause that's so badass)? Who says that music can only be a conveyer of the will to change? For that matter, why must the change only be the kind of change the DNC approves of?


I could also ask if the kind of arguments a three-muinute pop song contains will necessarily translate to public policy. But I suppose even asking that question marks me as a dull wanker, uncool enough for school and smart enough to get a job. How my soul chafes at its bourgeois confinement.

Quote For the Day

Radio and TV Indecency Will End When We Stop Watching and Listening


-Sign out front of the Hughesville Baptist Church, Hughesville, MD




Just in case you thought that us religious types are nothing but glowering Torquemadas.

Constitutionality

Allow me to throw some more Kudos at Jonah Goldberg: his brief piece today was a needed questioning of all the (albiet receding) hysteria surrounding the Federal Marriage Amendment.


Sure, it's easy to catch Terry McAuliffe in an inconsitency. For that matter, it's easy to catch Goldberg himself in one. If he can ask when McAuliffe suddenly discovered the "sacred" nature of the Constitution, one can ask him when he suddenly got so excited about democracy (which he recently declared to be a system in which "51 percent of the population can vote to give the other 49 percent wedgies"). But he underlines an important point: there is nothing in the Constitution that says it cannot be changed to say what we wish it to say. We can have the Constitution say that left-handed people must walk backwards on days beginning with "T". But we all have to agree to it first, and left-handed people who'd rather not have giant chiropracter's bill from looking over their shoulder will have the opportunity to suggest that this amendement is stupider than Rosie O'Donnell's magazine. That's different from judges saying that a right to an abortion is found in the existing text of the Constitution, just because he thinks that right should be there.


Right now the Constitution says nothing whatsoever about marriage. I'm not sure that I want it to say anything about marriage, even if it defends the understanding of marriage that I agree with. But right now the Mayor of San Francisco and a couple of judges thinks that the Constitution already says that their understanding of marriage is valid, and are acting accordingly. It may be that their understanding of marriage is the correct one. But if the majority of the population is unconvinced, it is nothing short of tyrannical to impose this understanding without public debate. So let's have that debate.


And if the people decide in a few years that they made the wrong decision, guess what? We can Amend the constitution again to say so. It's been done before. All you need to do is persuade the other side that it should be so. Just make sure your arguments don't consist of the notion that all your opponents are bigots. That might not play well.

Meanwhile, More Things Blow Up

Savor the absurdity of today's chant by Iraqi Shiites during the funeral procession after yesterday's attacks: "No, no, Americans! No, no Israel! No, no, terrorists!" And the fact that we came to Iraq to deal with terrorists doesn't seem to have crossed their radar screen. The identical tactics terrorists use against Americans, Israelis, and them doesn't suggest that maybe the enemy of their enemy is their friend. Oh, no. Jews are still bad, naughty and wicked, and Americans are somehow to blame for all of this. There are days when I just want to start slapping people.


The only silver lining is that the Shiites aren't taking the bait to start a civil war, and the fact that they're actually using the word "terrorist." Hope springs eternal.

THE ST. JOE'S HAWKS, THEY'RE AWESOME, BABY!

Bring it, Stanford.

Insert Constitution A into Populace B

Matt has a mostly on-the-money account of America's past in nation-building. He leaves out a key detail, though: that all of our "success stories" came about as the result of a victorious war that was in our national interest, and that our successful "nation-building" were part of a larger strategy aimed at containing a dangerous enemy. In other words, pretty much exactly what we're doing in Iraq.


The other problem, is that Japan, Germany, France, etc., were all functioning countries with dynamic economies and an educated populace before we moved in. We didn't build them so much as rebuild them, and we didn't do that so much as make resources available so they could do it themselves. From reading Zayed's blog, I'm betting that the same is true of Iraq. The Iraqis a) have a clear understanding that sovreignity is going to return, b) have a stake in constructing a functional civil society, and c) a chance to let the free market work it's magic.


All the "basket cases" we've had to invade time and time again, to little result (I dispute that Panama belongs on that list, however), are bannana republics with one-crop economies, little sense of the rule of law, poor education, and a populace with little to no stake in their own governance. "Nation-building" is a false term on many levels, because it implies that one nation can build another. It cannot. Only a people can make themselves into a nation. So far, the Haitians have not even tried. Their history is a revolving door of heads of state forced to flee the country by the next fool to do so. The government regards the people as its chattel as much now as when the place was one big sugar plantation. Until that changes, there's little we can do.


In order to make a real go of it, we'd have to:


1. Take the country over and rule it for a period of several years. A decade sounds just about right.


2. Disband the army. Begin training a new one, on the pattern of the Guardia Nacional in Nicaraqua, a professional, well-paid constabulary that doesn't need to shake the population down to eat.


3. Establish a competent civil service, and a tax code and administrative system that actually provides services to the population (and one not so expensive that the nation can't afford it after we leave).


4. Establish property rights. Give people the deeds to their homes. They tried this in Peru a few years ago, and it worked miracles. End the right of the government to confiscate property for good by setting the example.


5. Strenghten what judiciary exists in the country. Get it up and running during the occupation, and subject our Guarde Nationale du Haiti to its edicts.


6. Get a functioning electoral commission to certify ballot results and oversee the formation of political parties. Begin electing a National Assembly to advise the occupying power, which will serve as the legislature when sovreignity is returned.


Only then should we worry about such piffling details as writing a Constitution. When we do that, we should make it simple, with a seperately elected executive and legislature, and an independent judiciary, like our own government. The National Assembly can work out the details, as is being done in Iraq.


All of which would be worth a fart in a hurricane if the Haitians don't play ball. We can give them institutions, and while we control the land, make them do as they should. But if the people don't see these institutions as theirs, it won't wash. Then they'll make a nation of themselves.

Music Update

Yesterday's post has inspired a bit of a retreat from the politics of the minute to something more personal. I haven't devoted as much of this blog to music as I would like, for a couple of reasons:




1) Haven't really found the format that I like. I can write a review and post it, but there hasn't been a regular rythmn of things. Reviewing music takes time, thought, and repeated listens, and I don't always have those things available. Plus, they'll get lost amid the rest of my screeds. This is all a subset to my larger concerns about the design for the site. I've been pondering a switch to BloggerPro.


2)I haven't really had new stuff coming in. SST's usual pokiness has been compounded by the fact that the Bad Brains LP I ordered is out of stock, so my January purchase is on backorder. Financial considerations led me to abstain on new purchases for February.


3)I've been trying to make the switch from an amateur critic to an amateur creator. I've got a brand name, an aesthetic, and some songs. What I don't really have is a band or again, the time to devote to it. Mayhaps that will change come summer.




Today, after thinkng on yesterday's post and reading old reviews at Punk Fix, I surfed over to eBay and bought the Rites of Spring album on vinyl. Reading Dance of Days made me consider the value of Dischord products. I've been meaning to start buying as soon as my last SST record arrived. Now I'm done waiting. I'm making the plunge into emo. I'm thinking that early emo will be more substantial and authoritative than modern practitioners like Dashboard Confessional. Here's hoping I'm right.

IIIIIII WANT TO BEEEEEEEE....a registered Democrat...

We have the new version of Rock the Vote, untainted by any connection with MTV and their filthy corporate-rock agenda, man. Yup, Punk Voter has risen from the ashes of Fat Mike's righteous fury at the 200 election and is determined to get spike-heads to the ballot box.


There's absolutely nothing new about this. I only blog it to remark on the remarkable orthodoxy of the musicianly class. NoFX used to make a name for itself as rejectors of PC dogma (witness the cover of their 1993 album). But when it's time to actually make politics, they're the DNC in a Mowhawk. And when you boil down the badass poses, you've got nothing that Daschle hasn't said a million times before: blah blah the war on terror is "a little crazy" blah blah George Bush is dangerous blah blah the world is against us blah blah only stupid people vote Republican.


In the split between "artie" punks and "social realist" punks that started in 1978 when the Sex Pistols broke up, the working class social realists won, and they became the definers of what punk looked like, sounded like, and thought (all horse declamations to the contrary notwitshtanding, I know my tribe, and there are a whole list of things that are "not punk"). To wit: Punk looks like spikey hair and leather jackets, sounds like Fun House in countless variations, and believes what the socialists tell it to believe. Punks who read anything other than fanzines read Chomsky, Howard Zinn, and mounds of post-Marxist critiques of the free market. This is not done to actually overthrow the capitalist system, but to make a great show of independence of it, and to pronounce the Good News until the Day of Liberation. Beyond that, there hasn't been a new idea in the movement for decades. Punks are the Teddy Boys of the Left.


Or so it might seem. Conservative Punk says otherwise. The layout's similar, as is the tone. But I'll bet money that the age group skews older. What they need is some bands. We'll just have to see who's got the numbers.

I Know You're Out There...

So far, zipski from the mainstream press and most liberal bloggers on the Corrine Brown affair. The link indicates what I fear will become standard talking points from the left:




1. What Brown said wasn't as bad as what Trent Lott or Jim Moran said. The former expressed esteem for an old segregationist and seemingly suggested that said segragationist, had he been elected, would have prevented "all these problems." Brown simply said that U.S. policy towards Haiti was a racist conspiracy of white men and said that all whites and Hispanics looked the same to her. To make racist comments is not as bad as to backhandedley suggest that things were better in the old days.


2. Not every member of Congress who says dumb and offensive things is punished (a fact which has kept Ted Kennedy afloat many times). This one time, in band camp, this one Republican said something really mean and bad, and nothing happened to him/her. So, nyah.




I'm not looking for Rep. Brown to lose her leadership positions, should she have any, or resign her seat (though I won't yell too loud if that happens). All I want is for the silly twit to publicly apologize for her statements, the way Lott did (repeatedley, I might add). Barring that, I'd simply like to believe that the Democrats give a rat's ass. Thus far, it appears they don't.




UPDATE: Oh, look, she did apologize. In the most un-convincing, legalese manner imaginable. David Bernstein has it exactly right. What's truly at issue here isn't whether she offended Secretary Noriega, but the entire ingrained habit of many black politicians to engage in racial spitting and clawing at the drop of a hat. It's utterly vile behavior, and it is the enemy of good race relations in this country.