That should end the violence. No problem.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
News Flash:
Government Agency Wastes Taxpayer Money!
And all the people who insisted that airport security workers being turned into federal employees would improve their performance will now...call for the agency to be given more money. And the band played on...
And all the people who insisted that airport security workers being turned into federal employees would improve their performance will now...call for the agency to be given more money. And the band played on...
In Case You're Wondering...
...when I talk about city machines, I mean this:
voter fraud
prostitution rings
attempted murder of federal witnesses
And you thought Bill the Butcher was dead, dint'cha? Alas, no. He's changed colors, but not methods, and not parties, either.
And you thought Bill the Butcher was dead, dint'cha? Alas, no. He's changed colors, but not methods, and not parties, either.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
The Essayist #7: The Meaning of Candor
As I've said before, whatever the flaws of the Washington Post, it's no New York Times, and its editors are to be commended for the (albeit occiasionally skittish) support they've given to at least the theory of the War in Iraq. Today's editorial, in response to last night's press conference, is a perfect example of their love-hate relationship with the Iraq War: they're serious enough to see that we need to win, but they won't stop kicking the man whose job it it to win it.
Frankly, I find some of their barbs bizarre:
Why does he need to explain that? The Iraqi army melted on the field, and the losers resorted to insurgency, because they didn't want to lose, and were sure we'd run away as soon as they killed enough of us. Ask the average John Q. Voter why the war in Iraq is still going on after two years, and I'll bet you'll get either that or "Because Our Evil President doesn't WANT it to, man!". Does the WaPo believe that anyone who thinks the latter will be convinced by having the former explained to them?
Or this:
Followed by the rest of the piece, which chides Bush for not saying what commanders and senior aides and every newspaper from Sea to Shining Sea has been saying for months: that the insurgency doesn't appear to be going away just yet, and indeed, has remained roughly at the same level of efficiency for the last year. Again, why does the President need to explain this? We see it every day: Bomb kills 40, Three soldiers killed in ambush, and a partridge in a pear tree. WE KNOW the problems. The purpose of the President's conference was to argue why we should continue to stay the course.
No, it's going to require Mr. Bush to continue to point out the "bright side of a very mixed picture." Let me offer a few examples:
In 1941, the two-year mark for World War II, the allied side was in very bad shape. Winston Churchill, more or less the only Western leader still resisting, did not rally his people by pointing out that France had fallen, that half of European Russia was overrun, that Rommel was running rampant in North Africa. The people already knew that. What he told them was that the enemy was monstrous, and that the British people would never surrender to a monster. He didn't tell them about the fact that we were going to start day-and-night bombing of Germany but let the Russians do the heavy lifting until we felt like starting a second front, or about the recent success against the enemy's Enigma code, because, although it might have cheered the Pommies, it would also have told Hitler exactly what he needed to do to win.
In 1863, the two-year mark for the American Civil War, the Lincoln administration had a very mixed picture of its own to deal with. In the Western theater, the Mississippi had been cleared of rebel forces, cutting the Confederacy in half, and the pressure soon to be brought to bear agains the remaining Confederate forces west of the Appalachians was deemed to be inexorable. But in the East, the Rebels had held out, and held out, and held out, embarrassing every Yankee general that could be summoned against them. Sure, they'd won at Gettysburg, but the cost of that battle was horrendous, and that a battle was being fought in Pennsylvania in the first place indicated that all was not well. How was Lincoln to keep the people with him? What could he say?
You know what he said. Read the Gettysburg Address and see if you can find a description of the new strategies to be employed, or candor about the problems faced. Read it with a critic's eye, and it's a masterpiece of vagueness (and more than a few did read it with such an eye. One snark referred to the speech as "the dishwater utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States"). Lincoln did not mention that most of the Union Army's three-year enlistments would be up the next spring, or that Confederate cavalry raiders such as Nathan Bedford Forrest were growing "increasingly sophisticated" in their assaults on union railroads, or that the most recent amphibious expedition against Charleston had failed. He also didn't say that his plan for the future was going to involve appointing his hardest-fighting general, a man alternately accused of being a drunken incompetent and a pitiless butcher, to the head of all Union forces, and direct him to cut down Lee's army, whatever the cost.
Instead, he told them that the were engaged in a war for the survival of their nation, that to lose would be the end of our forefather's beliefs, and that they must steel themselves for the coming struggle, must resolve that the sacrifice of their sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers has not been in vain. Thus, Lincoln's candor, not in the tiny decisions that amount to policy, but in the broad meanings that the people, who care not for wonkery, will hear.
Look, if most of the anti-war crowd was as level-headed as the WaPo editorial staff, I'd be a lot less strident on this issue, which I know I said I would stay away from. But if they're so worried about the people not holding fast to a war they know we need to win, mayhaps they could get on board and get their front page to tell both sides of the very mixed picture. If they're stuck for how to get news on the progress they admit to be genuine, they can start here.
Frankly, I find some of their barbs bizarre:
Mr. Bush didn't explain how a war meant to remove a tyrant believed to wield weapons of mass destruction turned into a fight against Muslim militants
Why does he need to explain that? The Iraqi army melted on the field, and the losers resorted to insurgency, because they didn't want to lose, and were sure we'd run away as soon as they killed enough of us. Ask the average John Q. Voter why the war in Iraq is still going on after two years, and I'll bet you'll get either that or "Because Our Evil President doesn't WANT it to, man!". Does the WaPo believe that anyone who thinks the latter will be convinced by having the former explained to them?
Or this:
When he did turn to Iraq's reconstruction Mr. Bush mostly described the bright side of a very mixed picture. While acknowledging that "our progress has been uneven," his dominant theme was success: in training Iraqi security forces, holding elections and promoting political accord. The progress he described is genuine, as is the reality that the United States has no reasonable alternative to continuing to support the construction of a representative Iraqi government. Mr. Bush rightly argued that a deadline for withdrawal would be a "serious mistake."
Followed by the rest of the piece, which chides Bush for not saying what commanders and senior aides and every newspaper from Sea to Shining Sea has been saying for months: that the insurgency doesn't appear to be going away just yet, and indeed, has remained roughly at the same level of efficiency for the last year. Again, why does the President need to explain this? We see it every day: Bomb kills 40, Three soldiers killed in ambush, and a partridge in a pear tree. WE KNOW the problems. The purpose of the President's conference was to argue why we should continue to stay the course.
Fortunately, most Americans appear to have a hardheaded appreciation of the problems and stakes in Iraq. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows that most do not believe the administration's claims of progress, but a majority still is willing to support an extended stay by U.S. forces. If those forces are to succeed in the difficult months and years ahead, Mr. Bush will need to preserve and nourish that fragile mandate -- which will mean speaking more honestly to Americans than he did last night.
No, it's going to require Mr. Bush to continue to point out the "bright side of a very mixed picture." Let me offer a few examples:
In 1941, the two-year mark for World War II, the allied side was in very bad shape. Winston Churchill, more or less the only Western leader still resisting, did not rally his people by pointing out that France had fallen, that half of European Russia was overrun, that Rommel was running rampant in North Africa. The people already knew that. What he told them was that the enemy was monstrous, and that the British people would never surrender to a monster. He didn't tell them about the fact that we were going to start day-and-night bombing of Germany but let the Russians do the heavy lifting until we felt like starting a second front, or about the recent success against the enemy's Enigma code, because, although it might have cheered the Pommies, it would also have told Hitler exactly what he needed to do to win.
In 1863, the two-year mark for the American Civil War, the Lincoln administration had a very mixed picture of its own to deal with. In the Western theater, the Mississippi had been cleared of rebel forces, cutting the Confederacy in half, and the pressure soon to be brought to bear agains the remaining Confederate forces west of the Appalachians was deemed to be inexorable. But in the East, the Rebels had held out, and held out, and held out, embarrassing every Yankee general that could be summoned against them. Sure, they'd won at Gettysburg, but the cost of that battle was horrendous, and that a battle was being fought in Pennsylvania in the first place indicated that all was not well. How was Lincoln to keep the people with him? What could he say?
You know what he said. Read the Gettysburg Address and see if you can find a description of the new strategies to be employed, or candor about the problems faced. Read it with a critic's eye, and it's a masterpiece of vagueness (and more than a few did read it with such an eye. One snark referred to the speech as "the dishwater utterances of a man who has to be pointed out to intelligent foreigners as the President of the United States"). Lincoln did not mention that most of the Union Army's three-year enlistments would be up the next spring, or that Confederate cavalry raiders such as Nathan Bedford Forrest were growing "increasingly sophisticated" in their assaults on union railroads, or that the most recent amphibious expedition against Charleston had failed. He also didn't say that his plan for the future was going to involve appointing his hardest-fighting general, a man alternately accused of being a drunken incompetent and a pitiless butcher, to the head of all Union forces, and direct him to cut down Lee's army, whatever the cost.
Instead, he told them that the were engaged in a war for the survival of their nation, that to lose would be the end of our forefather's beliefs, and that they must steel themselves for the coming struggle, must resolve that the sacrifice of their sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers has not been in vain. Thus, Lincoln's candor, not in the tiny decisions that amount to policy, but in the broad meanings that the people, who care not for wonkery, will hear.
Look, if most of the anti-war crowd was as level-headed as the WaPo editorial staff, I'd be a lot less strident on this issue, which I know I said I would stay away from. But if they're so worried about the people not holding fast to a war they know we need to win, mayhaps they could get on board and get their front page to tell both sides of the very mixed picture. If they're stuck for how to get news on the progress they admit to be genuine, they can start here.
Start Kissing the CIA bye-bye...
FBI is getting it's own intel service. Add this to the fact that the DCI is no longer the chief intelligence officer in our goverment, the NSA does all the ELINT, the Homeland Security Department handles the domestic policing, and the fact that the boys at Langely have been farming out HUMINT jobs to the Brits since the 70's, and one has to wonder how long before we start asking our most unpopular government service the Bob question ("What would...you say that...you do here?").
And yes, I know that sentence got away with me.
And yes, I know that sentence got away with me.
See, This is Why People Believe in God...
Who will be the next victim of Kelo vs. New London? One of the Justices who wrote the decision. Winds of Change has the goods (Hat tip: Boxing Alicibiades).
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Well, It's More Interesting Than the Usual Movie Plug...
I normally avoid celebrity comment, but Cruise's little slapfight with Matt Lauer over Scientology and Ritalin caught my fancy. Note the statements with which Cruise argues:
-"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."
-"Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that?"
-"If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That's what I've done."
My curiosity stems from the fact that at no point do we seem to see any actual facts brought out of this. Cruise claims to know, but does not elucidate. Either he's full of it, or he determined that going into the details would be too boring and dry for TV. Inasmuch as he should know that Scientology itself is too boring for TV, I am inclined to think the former.
Seriously, does anyone know anything about Scientology? It's routinely called a cult, but so's every religion until it becomes mainstream.
UPDATE: Never mind.
-"You don't know the history of psychiatry. I do."
-"Do you know what Adderall is? Do you know Ritalin? Do you know now that Ritalin is a street drug? Do you understand that?"
-"If you start talking about chemical imbalance, you have to evaluate and read the research papers on how they came up with these theories, Matt, okay? That's what I've done."
My curiosity stems from the fact that at no point do we seem to see any actual facts brought out of this. Cruise claims to know, but does not elucidate. Either he's full of it, or he determined that going into the details would be too boring and dry for TV. Inasmuch as he should know that Scientology itself is too boring for TV, I am inclined to think the former.
Seriously, does anyone know anything about Scientology? It's routinely called a cult, but so's every religion until it becomes mainstream.
UPDATE: Never mind.
Friday, June 24, 2005
I never did like PETA
If this is true, PETA got some 'splainin' to do (Hat tip: Boxing Alcibiades).
You know, come to think of it, that sounds familiar, too.
It is as if PETA prefers the idea of animals to animals themselves
You know, come to think of it, that sounds familiar, too.
Billy Bong Thornton Rides Again
Only the Washington Post would conclude that the trendiness of hookah bars is "counterintuitive". People want to smoke. Smoking around non-smokers makes them pissy and lawyery. So people who want to smoke go to places where smoking is the very point of being there.
I've been to one, in Manhattan. The Jasmine tobacco was Dee-lish.
I've been to one, in Manhattan. The Jasmine tobacco was Dee-lish.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
The Dog is Dead, but the Tail Still Wags
The Dog, of course, is Socialism, and the tail appears to be wielded by our own Supreme Court. Observe.
So now, if the city government deems that you aren't using your land to the proper economic benefit of all, it will take it from you, and give it, not to the public, but to ANOTHER private corporate interest, who will presumably have plans to stick a mall there.
It sounds like something out of the Democratic Underground's nightmare, as rich captialists throw the honest yeoman out of their homes to get wealthier. It sounds like something out the 19th century. It sounds like the nightmare of Bushitler tyranny finally showing its ugly face.
Except the eminent Justices who approved this decision were not the kind Bush wants to nominate. It was Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. You know, the liberals. The conservatives on the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, all dissented, joined by perennially swing-vote O'Connor, who wrote the dissenting opinion.
How does this work? Is it Bizarro day and they just didn't tell us? Nope. Read the justification by Justice Stevens:
Isn't that neat? Your house can be taken and turned into an Ambercrombie and Fitch whether you like it or not, provided that the local government has "carefully formulated" (by which they mean...?) that it will be of greater benefit to the whole. This is beyond socialism, beyond Communism, beyond even Fascism. We've regressed back to feudalism, with the local authority installing those that will provide it with the greater revenue, and damn the peasants if they don't like it.
Yet, somehow, some way, someone on the Left will find a way to transmogrify this into a Republican evil.
Update: I appear to have been wrong. Many Lefties are also peeved, as they should be. Good for them, and here's to us all getting together on a truly bi-partisan issue. But not Atrios:
Hmmmmm...seems to me this logic sounds familiar. "Yes, it sucks, but we'll keep it so long as dirty filthy Bushitler hobbitses can't play..."
Better Kelos than Scalia?
Better Saddam than Bush?
It makes a body wonder...
So now, if the city government deems that you aren't using your land to the proper economic benefit of all, it will take it from you, and give it, not to the public, but to ANOTHER private corporate interest, who will presumably have plans to stick a mall there.
It sounds like something out of the Democratic Underground's nightmare, as rich captialists throw the honest yeoman out of their homes to get wealthier. It sounds like something out the 19th century. It sounds like the nightmare of Bushitler tyranny finally showing its ugly face.
Except the eminent Justices who approved this decision were not the kind Bush wants to nominate. It was Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. You know, the liberals. The conservatives on the court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia and Thomas, all dissented, joined by perennially swing-vote O'Connor, who wrote the dissenting opinion.
How does this work? Is it Bizarro day and they just didn't tell us? Nope. Read the justification by Justice Stevens:
The city has carefully formulated an economic development that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, including -- but by no means limited to -- new jobs and increased tax revenue
Isn't that neat? Your house can be taken and turned into an Ambercrombie and Fitch whether you like it or not, provided that the local government has "carefully formulated" (by which they mean...?) that it will be of greater benefit to the whole. This is beyond socialism, beyond Communism, beyond even Fascism. We've regressed back to feudalism, with the local authority installing those that will provide it with the greater revenue, and damn the peasants if they don't like it.
Yet, somehow, some way, someone on the Left will find a way to transmogrify this into a Republican evil.
Update: I appear to have been wrong. Many Lefties are also peeved, as they should be. Good for them, and here's to us all getting together on a truly bi-partisan issue. But not Atrios:
Yes, this is a bad decision, but we must think of what the alternative might have been. I don't know what was in the hearts of the justices who ruled the way did, they may be fully on board this apparent belief in the unlimited power of eminent domain. This is not something I support. However, the alternative could've been a conservative written opinion severely limiting the power of eminent domain and the concept of public use, which would've eviscerated a truly necessary government power.
Hmmmmm...seems to me this logic sounds familiar. "Yes, it sucks, but we'll keep it so long as dirty filthy Bushitler hobbitses can't play..."
Better Kelos than Scalia?
Better Saddam than Bush?
It makes a body wonder...
Tuesday, June 07, 2005
There's a Very Good Reason Why I'm Not Blogging...
...and it's called Finals. SEE Andrew Battle the Paperwork Beast! SEE Andrew give students grades they don't deserve, to avoid being hassled! SEE Andrew sign another contract to do the same all over again!
Now playing at schools everywhere.
Now playing at schools everywhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)