Friday, July 30, 2004

Intelligensia





This morning I tuned in to the opening testimony of the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the 9/11 commision, and so heard them make their case for restructuring our intel organizations under a single National Intelligence Director, at cabinet level, and a National Counter-Terrorism Center within the Executive office of the president. The argument that we need a definitive, legal head of the intelligence community, within the White House, to set intel goals and ensure proper information sharing is a valid one, to my mind. The argument that counter-terrorism needs to be institutionally prioritized also makes sense, in the short term at least.


But I kept wondering to myself: Isn't that what the Department of Homeland Security is supposed to do? More to the point: isn't bringing all intel under that what the Director of Central Intelligence was supposed to do, back in 1947? I seem to recall that having a CIA in the first place was supposed to prevent the pointless rivalry and non-sharing that characterized Army and Navy Intelligence before and after Pearl harbor. Is this new Director really going to make a difference?


Also, why no suggestions for how we gather intel? Wouldn't this be a good time to suggest that we went wrong in the 70's when we cut ourselves off from HUMINT (Human Intelligence) and insisted that ELINT (Electronic Intelligence) would provide all our needs? Then again, if we are doing that, it would need to be done secretly, wouldn't it?


Thursday, July 29, 2004

New Link: Catholic Light





He's Catholic and Republican, which I like. But more importantly, he's funny. I need no more.


Wankette





I'm surprised that I haven't heard more people on the net expressing disdain for Wonkette, the blogger darling of the traditional media. I checked her out at first, after Sullivan and Instapundit and NeoLiberal linked her, but after a while, I found that she had nothing interesting to say. If I want political dick-and-fart jokes, I can make my own. It's not hard (huh-huh, I said "hard").


So, what's the deal here? Am I taking this too seriously, or what?


And Iran...Iran So Far Away...Couldn't Get Away





How to take Iran's declaration that they're doing...something with their nuclear plant? They claim it's within the bounds of their earlier promise. Should we believe them? How can we find out definitively? If they're yanking our chain and suddenly make a nice test mushroom cloud, what's the next step? Should we march our troops westward? Do we have the stomach?


How to take the fact that the EU seems to have a "big three": Britain, France and Germany? Doesn't this rather defeat the purpose of having an EU? How does Poland and Spain feel about this? Is there any chance of Iran taking seriously the "big three's" call to "seriously reconsider their decision"? What if Tehran says "We've reconsidered it, and we're doing it anyway, bugger you"?


Finally, what is All-Powerful Diplomatic God John Fitzgerald Kerry think should be done?


Wednesday, July 28, 2004

The Real Problem with Michael Moore





A few days ago I bought a copy of Michael Moore is a Big Fat Stupid White Man, and zipped right through it (it's a quick read). I found the book not quite as funny as it's author's probably wanted it to be, and a bit repetitive at moments. But overall the book is a pretty damning indictment of Moore's habitual fabrications, manipulations, and general mendacity (as well as his habit of claiming artistic license and/or lashing out whenever anyone calls him on this).


Moreover, the book neatly unravels the lynchpin of Fahrenheit 9/11: the charge that Bush is in bed with the Saudis and the Bin Laden family. Moore's only evidence is the fact that the Bushes and the bin Ladens both invested in the Carlyle Group, an international investment firm. So they have their money in the same bank, wooopeee, right? But it turns out that George Soros, billionaire Bush-hater, Democratic fund-raiser, and founder of moveon.org, also invests in Carlyle, and in amounts that dwarf the Bushes and the bin Ladens.


Taking this annoying little fact and running with it, the authors create a conspiracy theory involving Moore, Soros, the Saudis, and Disney (I knew they were evil! I just knew it!) no less plausible than that advanced by Moore in his film. Which is to say, not very plausible at all, in the end.


But all of this is minor stuff, putting the structure underneath the thesis that Moore is a waste of space and his films of the Goebbles school of public debate. That point's been made by better men than I; Lileks, for example, here and here. What Lileks doesn't mention, and what I think far more interesting, is the book's suggestion of, for lack of a better term, an ideological connection between Moore's brand of Leftism and the Islamic Jihadism with which we are at war. The missing link is called Qutbism in the book, and it provides an interesting answer to the by-now-cliched question: "Why Do They Hate Us?"


Because they were taught to do so.


The book points out that the vast majority of jihad leaders are not ignorant camel-jockeys, but educated men, and mostly educated in western schools. This is unsurprising; many of the great leaders of Third World Communism, such as Ho Chi Minh, were also educated in the West, and learned there to hate the West and what it stands for. Now who would it be that teaches them to learn such things? Perhaps Karl Marx, who disdained the freedoms he enjoyed and spent his life devoted to their spiritual undermining? Perhaps lefty academics of the Sartre/Fanon school, who never met a bloodthirsty revolutionary they couldn't cheer for? Perhaps the hip trendies running Colorado State University and Stanford, who educated Sayiid Qutb, Osama's John the Baptist?


Qutb, according to the book, drew heavily on western thought, especially Marx, in divising his writings, which hold, among other things, that America was the land of brutes and sluts, primitive and materialistic and soulless, and deserving of violent distruction.  The West corrupts the Islamic world, so the Islamic world must destroy the West. We deserve whatever is done to us, no matter how foul.


Thus Qutb. Here's Moore:


The Iraqis who have riesen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and they will win. (comments on President Bush's A13 News Conference, April 16, 2004)

 

What I do is that all day long I have heard everything about this bin Laden guy except his one fact--WE created the monster known as bin Laden. (Moore's Sept. 12, 2001 letter, on his website)

 

We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants. (from "Somwhere in the Land of Enchantment" on his website, September 15, 2001)


Add to that the core theme of Bowling for Columbine -- we are an aggressive, excessively materialistic and dangerous culture that erodes the individual soul -- and you have the basic set of beliefs that animates jihadis.


I should point out that none of this is to imply that a) criticizing Western culture or b) criticizing the War on Terror automatically puts you in bed with Osama. It is the form and content of your criticism that matters. And if you're going to accept the Michael Moore view of reality, you should know whose views you're sharing.


 Because our enemies have no difficulty with this. Qiadar Faisal, lawyer for Imam Samudra, the leader of the conspiracy behind the October 2002 Bali Bombings, quoted from Moore's book Stupid White Men when presenting the defense summation at Samudra's trial.




 

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

Filing Dead Weight





A while ago I thought it might be fun to do a second blog,  in which I sniped at people from the perspective of a demon charge with overseeing temptation, a la "The Screwtape Letters." I called it "Toadpipe's Blog" after Screwtape's secretary. It never really got off the ground, and I only made three real entries. Nevertheless, I had fun while it lasted, and am linking them accordingly. You can find it here. I might add something else from time to time, but one never knows...


Monday, July 26, 2004

Music is Magic!





The rest of my PunkFix reviews are posted, as is the link to my Allzah reviews (which are all on the same page). I may yet dig through my older snapshot reviews on this site, but for the moment, that's my body of published work. Enjoy





I know I said I wouldn't Follow Convention Babble...





But damn me if I'm not starting to like Teresa Heinz-Kerry.



American politicians speaking the same language as the rest of the populace, in public? It may be the only thing that saves us.



Or something.



Update: I'm not alone



Sunday, July 25, 2004

Democratic National Conven....zzzzzzzzzzzzzz....





Won't be watching either convention. They're so hackneyed and boring as to make one wonder why they have the damned things.



That's my fresh topical commentary.



I'll be posting regular, starting tommorrow, and cleaning up a few things on the site. I've finally got a free week and I'm going to make use of it...cheers...





Thursday, July 15, 2004

The Weakness





Belmont Club states clearly what I've recently suspected: that the problem at CIA will not be solved. More, that the problem will not be solved because of a cultural distaste towards what the CIA is for:


America needs spies. American spies. It is, of course the last thing either the CIA will do or Congressional oversight will demand. The Standard article goes on at great length to describe how the metrics of intelligence success have been politicized to the point that the issues being debated bear no resemblance to the requirements of the service.


There is, I sense, a squeamishness behind the Left's opposition to our current security strategy and their past opposition to such strategies. Those that have opposed our entries into Afghanistan and Iraq do not, in most circumstances, demonstrate a favorable attitude towards our enemies, but rather an unwillingness to shed blood on behalf of our ideals. I had a long conversation/debate with an old college friend last year, before Abu Ghraib or the CIA's idiocy had surfaced. We both studied International Relations at St. Joe's, and have long been able to argue with each other and enjoy the experience. And the problem she had with the Iraq war above all other objections was that we were imposing our system (democracy) upon them by force.


Perhaps others who opposed the war from the Left would not word it quite that way, but I do feel that such a view is representative. Liberals and Democrats believe that the true moral use of government power is to repair injustices, and that social defense should only be practiced when the threat is obvious and the enemy is utterly intractable, and even then, there will always be plenty who would prefer to earn superiority points by damning the society around them, the enemy they know. Obviously, to criticize someone else's society or government is a sin against tolerance that a leftist would never commit, and certainly not when a Republican is in the White House.


It is difficult not to characterize this obstinance, this refusal to percieve enemies abroad, this insistence on tiny, surgical, diplo-economic counterattacks, this horror of casualties and the inevitable blunders of conflict, to the point of calling for retreat at the first sign of either, as the very weakness that Osama suspects of us. Of late, I have been taking to view the upcoming election as the true test of whether he is right. Can we, knowing the errors in intelligence, in discipline, knowing the costs in blood and treasure it has and will require to kill our enemies, have the courage to see it through by re-electing the man who has led us so far? Or are we too nauseated by the President's on-cameria clumsiness, his Texan accent, his born-again Christianity? Are we so wrapped in our superficial pop existence that we'll elect any boring, gutless plutocrat so long as he gives us nice, happy babble about health care and making the world "like us again"? Can we not grasp that the current occupant of the White House is the enemy of those who wish our destruction, the enemy of our enemies? Can we not see the jungle for the Bushes?


If we can't, I fear for us.

I may as well tell you...





If you don't know already, I have a new email address. Send your tinctures and other missives to andrew.j.patrick@att.net. I promise to publish all good letters, for the sake of argument, and some of the bad ones, for the sake of humor. Share and Enjoy...

Tuesday, July 13, 2004

I Have Decided to Not Die....





Moreover, I have decided to fix the Music section, to show all my music reviews. I don't have them all up, not yet, but that's a good start. I've further decided to link my reviews at PunkFix and Allzah. I do this for two reasons: 1) I think I'm a good music critic, and I hope others will agree, and 2) music makes a good subject when politics weighs in on you.


I've also decided to stay in the game because despite the fact that I've been blogging fitfully in the last two months, I've gained another rank in the TLLB Ecosystem. Why? Because Alex at NeoLiberal has joined, and I'm on his linksheet. Thanks, old man...

Saturday, July 10, 2004

Music Review: Sex Pistols -- Anarchy in the UK (Live)



I've been a bit disparaging of late of my favorite style of Rock n' Roll, so much so that in my last two posts on the subject, I've used not only the same arguments but phrased them the exact same way. I submit that I did so unwittingly. Nevertheless, that speaks of the disdain with which I view most of the music I enjoy most. Whether that makes me scitzophrenic or just a dedicated critic, I lack the self-knowledge to say.

A great deal of my affinity for punk is that it's a deliciously extreme form of Rock n'Roll, blending by speed and audio leakage the traditional guitar-bass-drums sound into a single distorted, psychedelic hum. It's that sound I love, not the sound as an instrument for certain social goals. I've stated before in many venues that I hold most of the lyrics in this genre at arm's length.

Most punks embrace a childish, narcissistic leftism, of the kind that will fight bitterly for their own "rights," and not give two hoots in hell for anybody else's. On the most recent Sex Pistols DVD, John Lydon argues vociferously in support of their band's album being named "Never Mind the Bollocks" by saying that "Bollocks" was a common working-class word, perfectly valid English. "How can you ban language? How can you ban words?" exclaims Johnny. I can never sit through that without feeling compelled to ask him "How about the word 'Nigger,' John? How about the word 'Bitch'? How about the phrase 'Half-Educated Limey Street Scum'? Those are all perfectly valid English words, too. Yet somehow I doubt you'd respond to them so favorably."

And that, boys and girls, is why Our Boy Johnny is the real tragic figure of punk. To hell with Sid Vicious and his scratchy-voiced girlfriend, two empty-headed drug fiends as boring as they were useless. Sid contributed nothing but a look to punk, and it wasn't even his look to start with, it was Eddie Cochrane's by way of Ron Asheton and Dee Dee Ramone. Beyond that, the wanker couldn't play bass, couldn't give an intelligent interview, couldn't write anything worth repeating. All he did was die. Woopty-crap.

But Lydon had a passion, an intelligence, a sense of self and a sense of theater that made his band worth remembering when so many of those that popped in his wake are justly forgotten. He encapsulated the strained mentality of a teenager, too smart to be a child, too weak to be a grown-up, and shoved that energy out of him in a manner nothing short of explosive.

And twenty-five years later, the dumb mook hasn't moved on. You can read it in his autobiography, see it in any interviews: bitterness. He's still pissed at Malcom McLaren, at the monarchy, at the world. Steve Jones, Paul Cook, and Glen Matlock are all men in their forties, able to look back at their gloried past with detachment, recognizing their achievements and their mistakes with humor and regret. Not Lydon, who still spikes and colors his hair and spits invective. His wit, intellect, and lust for musical creativity, audible on any Public Image, Ltd. record, is swallowed by his terminal adolescence. He's so busy demonstrating how much smarter he is than everybody that the doesn't see everyone shaking their heads at him. That, too me, is true tragedy.

So why in the hell would anyone want to listen to any live Pistols show? The band playing to some tiny audience in some nondescript English Country town, on a crappy PA system? Why, so we can tell ourselves we're listening to "history"?

No. You don't buy a record to listen to history. You buy a record to listen to music. And you buy this record, the complete recording of the Pistols' September 24th, 1976 performance at the 76 club in Burton-on-Trent, so that you can hear the Sex Pistols in their pre-Sid glory (of course, the cover art has a picture of a later performance with Sid. Matlock just can't win). You can hear the tightness of Jones' guitar and Cook's drums, and feel the bottoming power that Matlock's bass added to the mix. You can hear how the Pistols took the brooding, menacing sound of Iggy Pop and the Stooges and added to it the flashpowder youthfulness of the British Mod sound, of bands like the Who. Not coincidentally, the standout tracks on the disc are their cover of the Stooges' "No Fun," and the Who's "Substitute." But the whole set, Pistols originals and pop covers all, is compelling, and exciting, and raucous, and everything Rock n' Roll is, was, and ever shall be, amen.

Lester Bangs once wrote that the future of popular music was as follows: "a small island of new free music, surrounded by some good reworkings of past idioms and a vast sargasso sea of absolute garbage." Most folks would agree with that, whatever their tastes, believing that whatever tickled their ear was the good stuff and everybody else's shit was just that. So, on a certain level, unless you're into Pun Krock already, there's no way I stand any chance of convincing you. If you beleive that Punk was an unfortunate episode in the history of music and culture, and that the Sex Pistols are but one of the "punk" bands that a lot of stupid kids fashionably embraced, you won't be interested no matter what I say. But if you're able to look beyond a label and appreciate hard, fast, slightly irritating Rock n' Roll, then give a listen. It won't hurt, and if it does, CD's make great skeet.

Thursday, July 08, 2004

For the "Duh" File





News Flash: Parental supervision prevents STD's!.


Next thing you know, they'll be telling us that cooking food prevents food poisoning...

Thursday, July 01, 2004

It's Been Worse





National Review has a worth-reading article about where we were sixteen months into all of our previous wars that lasted that long. The long and short of it is, we were losing in all of them.


One could fairly point out that we've been talking about Iraq for the past 14 months as being in a "post-war occupation," not a "war." Many, myself included, have made the analogy to post-WW2 Germany. Nevertheless, we've done more with few casualties on both sides in this war than in any of our previous ones, and that's worth pointing out. I still say the best analogy for Iraq is Aguinaldo's insurgency in the Phillipines 100 years ago. One of these days, I may go into some detail on the subject.