Posted 7:40 PM by Angie Schultz

Hurry (and Wake) Up Hari

I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this Johann Hari post. Hari (blogger and Real Lefty Journalist) wrote a previous post about the politically-engineered famine in North Korea, placing the blame squarely on Kim Jong-Il. He also wrote approvingly of a man who's helping North Korean refugees, and sending radios into North Korea on balloons, so people there can learn what's really going on in the outside world.

Hari was then "astonished" to find that many self-professed leftists (on the Medialens website, some Chomskyite thing---go to Hari's for the link) not only disagreed with him in the details, but about the major points too. In essence, the state of North Korea is all America's fault. Simultaneously, if the US was against the North Korean regime, the Medialens crowd was for it, even if it meant the starvation of millions. The doctor Hari wrote about, the balloon-radio fellow, is an "international criminal", and Hari ought to be arrested for supporting him. (Admittedly, that's the opinion of one guy, way over the top and down the other side. That shocked even me.)

Poor Hari explains, in rather bewildered detail, just how the US has opposed North Korea at every turn, and has tried to mitigate tensions between North and South Korea. He is at a loss to understand how the US is, in the opinion of one commentator, responsible for Kim's "harshness" simply by virtue of having fought the Korean War. (Hint: If the big bad US had never opposed those innocent Commies in the first place, the Kims wouldn't have had to take such drastic measures to keep their country free and pure of the Yankee taint. Surely this must be obvious.)

On the one hand, Hari's dismay is rather comic; on the other, his consternation is pitiable. Those of us who've been paying attention to the loopier side of the Left are unsurprised at this. I've been reading stuff like this for the past two years. The problem is in deciding how much of the Left this represents. I never took these kinds of opinions seriously before September 11, because I didn't know any leftwing crackpots personally (rightwing crackpots, on the other hand...).

But now I'm reading this sort of thing everywhere, and I don't know if it's because the websites I read love to stew over it, or whether it actually is everywhere. Hari cautions that Medialens is not really representative of the Left, but I would disagree. While their comments are more rabid than you usually find, their ideas are not. I've heard, from actual live people, attitudes that are not much different than this. It's a common theme that the US is responsible for all the trouble in the world. If there's a coup, the CIA is in back of it. If there's a famine, it's because the US is witholding food. And if there's good news---as in the recent case of Khaddafi deciding to behave---it's because the Great Satan was looking elsewhere for a moment, allowing the Good People to perform their gentle magic.

(Hey, remember when the Soviet Union was the font of all evil, when no suspicious event, down to fluoridation of the water supply, took place unless the Reds were behind it? Remember how silly those rubes looked? Remember how the Left laughed at those bumpkins?)

And here's where my laughter becomes the cold, mirthless laugh of schadenfreude. Here, Hari, writing about North Korea in a previous post, says:

No, this isn't about saying that America is terrific and the last great hope of man on earth. Its foreign policy has done more harm than good in the last fifty years.

Damian Penny thinks this is just the Lefty secret handshake, something Hari has to say to maintain his leftist bona fides. I say it's spinach, and I say, to hell with it.

I think Hari is one of those people who've been denouncing US policy all these years, and one day is surprised to find that this has led to a hatred (there's no other word) for the US and all its works, even when (as in this case, as Hari correctly insists) the good, caring people of the Left ought to be working for the same goal. See also Julie Burchill.

Hari is like a man who's been in a decades-long party, cheerfully defending the right of the revellers to be drunk and disorderly and loud, claiming that it will epater le bourgeoisie, which will do 'em good. And now he's sobered up to find that his drunken mates have gone on a rampage he never intended, that there are crops burned, stores looted, people stampeded, and cattle raped. And he wants to know how that happened.

Think he'll figure it out?

P.S. In expressing his confusion as to why his fellow leftists would object to nonviolent attempts to undermine Kim's reign and support North Korean refugees, Hari says:

I can understand why conservatives would oppose this. Why should we give a toss about a bunch of yellow people, they ask, when we have so many problems of our own? But it didn't even occur to me that anybody on the left - which by definition is universalist and concerned with human equality - would disagree.

Smooooooooth, Hari, smoooth. See, folks? That's the kind of sound thinking which gets you a gig at the Independent.

Posted 3:36 PM by Angie Schultz

Et Tu, Klaatu?

I find myself writing an unscheduled, unMSTied, movie review.

I hate it when beloved childhood memories crumble to dust in the harsh light of reality. Last night, while fixing dinner, I caught part of The Day the Earth Stood Still, a classic science fiction film from 1951. I have always enjoyed this film, less for its message (which, despite its reputation, has been rather trite for about forty years) than for its sleek fifties aesthetics. But while watching it yesterday I noticed a strange echo of the present.

In this film, a human-like alien (named Klaatu) lands on Earth, to immediate suspicion and distrust. He escapes his military pursuers, and takes a room at a boarding house. There, he lives among humans, especially latching on to the widowed Mrs. Benson and her young son, Billy. You can check the IMDB entry for details, but the gist of the movie is that Klaatu has come to tell Earth to clean up its act and stop being so warlike. It doesn't matter if Earthlings kill each other, he explains, but now one (unnamed) nation is beginning to place nuclear weapons on spaceships, which threatens other planets. So Klaatu has an ultimatum: get peaceful or Earth will be destroyed.

In order to give his ultimatum a little weight, he arranges a demonstration: a world-wide power failure lasting 30 minutes. Electricity, phones, telegraph, automobiles do not function, but hospitals still have power and planes in flight are unaffected. This shows that the aliens' power is irrestible.

There's no real resolution to this. Klaatu delivers his message, is shot and dies and (temporarily) resurrected, and blasts off, leaving Earth to consider his warning.

If a movie could be canonized, this one would be. It is regarded by all as a splendid example of the Message film, warning against greed and paranoia and war, urging peace and understanding. It was produced during the Cold War, so we all know it's really a damning indictment of America's belligerence and militarism toward those innocent Commies. This is the accepted verdict in science fiction circles, and if you check out the IMDB's comments, you'll see that it's nearly unanimous: "As relevant now as it was then," is a common refrain. This despite the fact that the intellectual level of its message is best expressed by young Billy, who, when told by Klaatu/Carpenter that they do not have wars where he comes from, chirps, "Gee, that's a good idea!"

(Not to mention the obvious religious overtones of the movie---Klaatu is known to humans as "Mr. Carpenter", geddit?, in addition to the whole resurrection thing.)

But look at the reason for Klaatu's visit again: He doesn't care that humans are slaughtering each other right and left, but now that they've begun to develop technology that will threaten the interstellar community, he comes to lay down the law: shape up or you'll be shipped out.

Pardon me, but wasn't that George Bush's line? In fact, wasn't that pretty much the history of Gulf War II? Except that Bush was infinitely more patient and diplomatic than Klaatu. Iraq was defeated in a war and signed a ceasefire agreement which it did not honor, prompting twelve years of futile sanctions. Before going ahead with the war, there were months of wrangling in the UN.

By contrast, Klaatu lands, makes an unwise sudden move and is shot (and given prompt medical attention) then escapes to find his way to the boarding house. He tours Washington for only a day before declaring that his patience with humanity is wearing thin.

Furthermore, it's difficult to believe that Klaatu's powerful civilization is seriously threatened by Earth's pathetic spacecraft and feeble weapons. This would be like the present-day US threatening a civilization that had just discovered steam power.

And yet many commenters think of Klaatu as mankind's "savior" while George Bush is reviled (sometimes simultaneously, as in this unusually perceptive comment). In fact, if you read through the comments, you find many people wishing for just such a savior as Klaatu; I'll bet that many of these people despise Bush for a fundamentalist nutter, although he's not the one sitting around wishing God (or Gort) would save him. Have I mentioned that the aliens don't have wars because they have surrendered their sovereignty to incorruptible, implacable robots who destroy anyone who threatens the peace? Gort is Klaatu's robot overseer.

I find myself agreeing more with this fellow, even if he is writing tongue in cheek.

Another cherished movie memory ruined by re-examination in a critical modern light, much like M*A*S*H.

Posted 1:31 PM by Angie Schultz

Santa Claus Conquers the Martians: A Modern Exegesis

One of the things I always wanted to do, if I ever got my own website, was review some of the movies featured on Mystery Science Theater 3000. This would be totally self-indulgent, since it's like shooting goldfish in a Dixie cup, and redundant, seeing as MST has already shot those piscines dead.

However, some of those movies have unrecognized virtues which I'd like to call attention to, while still sitting on them and giving them noogies. What better place to start, at this special time of year, than with that imperialist classic, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians?

This movie isn't one of those with unrecognized virtues, however. It has unrecognized vices, which I shall describe in soporific detail.

Short Summary: The children of Mars are unhappy, so their parents kidnap Santa Claus (and two Earth children) to spread a little Christmas cheer to Mars. This makes Santa and the Earth children unhappy, along with a few traditionalist Martians. All's well that ends well, however, as a Martian substitute is found and Santa and the Earth kids return home.

Analysis: The very title of the film brazenly makes its viewpoint clear: Santa---by far the most successful of American imperialists---conquers those Martians. He does not encounter or persuade or dialogue with them; his conquest is swift and total.

Martian children---as represented by Bomar and Girmar (the latter played by Pia Zadora)---are unhappy and listless. They spend much of their time watching the TV programs with which Earthlings aggressively bombard the solar system. As the movie opens we see the two Martian youngsters watching a program from KID-TV, in which a newsman gives a tour of Santa Claus's sweatshop at the North Pole and interviews the Nordic strongman himself. We also see glimpses of the race that labors its life away to make toys for spoiled rich children.

From conversation between the two Martian kids, we find that they're depressed and humiliated that they do not have a Santa Claus on Mars. Forget globalism---this is interplanetarianism! At this point their father, Kimar, leader of the Martians, comes home and expresses his displeasure that his children are forsaking their native, intellectual Martian pursuits in order to stay up and watch TV.

The next day, upon finding that the children still seem listless, he and other Martian men seek counsel from Chochem, a mysterious Martian elder, who bears a suspicious resemblance to Santa Claus. He tells them (for what reasons we can only guess, unless I can make something up) that Mars needs a Santa Claus too, and then vanishes in a puff of smoke.

So the Martians get in their Simon game-powered spaceship and head toward Earth. As they approach a large city, they examine it with their powerful telescopes, and are confused by the plethora of Santa Clauses all over town. They land in a wooded area, where they encounter Earth children Billy and Betty Foster. Kimar explains the Santa confusion situation, and Billy immediately spills his guts by telling them the real Santa can be found at the North Pole. The Martians depart for there immediately, but not before crafty Voldar insists on taking the children along, lest they alert the Earth authorities.

After landing at the Pole, the children somehow manage to elude their captors and attempt to warn Santa. But their inauthentic Western existence has rendered them completely inequipped to withstand the brutal polar winter, and they are swiftly recaptured. The children are then sent back to the ship under guard while the Martians seek out Santa in his lair.

They first send in their robot, Torg, to soften up resistance, but Santa proves too much for the mechanical man, and humiliates it into impotence. The aliens then demonstrate their humanity by immobilizing, rather than killing, Santa's slaves, as well as his downtrodden wife. Santa is completely cowed by this overwhelming display of force, and allows himself to be taken without a fight. (Like a certain hero of the anti-imperia---er, wait, forget I said that.)

The United Nations springs into action, ordering the creation of a task force to study the feasibility of convening a panel to look into the possibility of perhaps contacting the Martians about their intentions towards Santa Claus, but the whole crisis is over before the task force can decide on a logo for their letterhead, thereby demonstrating the intrinsic superiority of multilateralism.

However, once aboard the Martian vessel, Santa uses his CIA training to excite the sympathies of his captors, through the use of stories and jokes such as "What's green and soft and is roasted on a stick? A martianmallow." Quick to ally himself with Santa and the children is the childlike, mincing, grimacing, shrieking, stupid Droppo, a low-status Martian who has stowed away aboard Kimar's ship.

Voldar, however, is made of harder stuff, and proves immune to Santa's mind-tricks. Proclaiming a (strategic) truce, he gives Santa and the children a tour of the ship, terminating in the airlock, where he contrives to trap them. Santa, utilizing methods honed during his days as an MI6 agent, effects their escape through an air duct (just as enters chimneys back on Earth to plant listening devices in the homes of dissidents).

Kimar is furious when he discovers Voldar's heroic efforts, and has him thrown into the brig. But on their return to Mars, the wily Voldar escapes when he gets the better of his guard (the aforementioned chunkwit, Droppo), and disappears.

Kimar and his wife, Momar, introduce Santa (and the Earth children, who are still tagging along) to their own children. In one of the most chilling scenes every filmed, Santa uses his Mossad mind control techniques to reduce the dignified, taciturn Martian children to a pair of giggling cretins.

Afterwards, the Martians offer Santa the thing his black heart must desire most---a toy-making machine! If he had that on Earth, he could finally carry out that genocide against those pesky, smelly elves. Always demanding food, and sleep, the ingrates. Naturally, almost the first thing produced by the machine is a "toy" gun, intended to introduce the Martian children to Earth-type violence. No doubt the resultant splintering of Martian society will please Santa's puppet masters back on Earth.

But even the wicked have to rest sometime, and Santa and his underage minions knock off for the day. This disappoints Droppo, who like all traitors is anxious to prove his new loyalties. He desperately wants to be Santa. So he dons Santa's extra costume (and beard, the existence of which is never adequately explained) and returns to the toy machine to churn out more model death weapons and Earth-centric imperialist playthings.

Now we find that Voldar has joined up with the Martian Underground (literally underground) to try to take back their planet from the colonizers and their running dog lackeys. To that end they arrive to sabotage the toy machine when they see Droppo, mincing and prancing alone in his Santa outfit. Mistaking him for the real Santa Claus, they kidnap him and drag him off to their underground hideout.

The next morning Santa and the children find Droppo gone, and the toy machine sabotaged. Kimar comes to investigate, but instead encounters Voldar, who has come to make an arrangement to give up Santa Claus if he will be deported and the toy project abandoned. Kimar, knowing Voldar does not have Santa, holds him at gunpoint while stalling for time until the next plot point. This occurs when young Billy overhears the parlay and reports back to Santa, allowing him to prepare a defense. Voldar then escapes from Kimar and runs to the toy room where Santa and the children await.

Then follows an embarrassingly goofy fight scene, in which Santa and the children use toys to defeat Voldar and his men.

Meanwhile, Droppo has escaped from Voldar's comrades, on account of they're even dumber than Droppo. After Voldar's defeat, Santa declares that there is no longer any need for his direct supervision of the conquest of Mars, since Droppo is sufficiently brainwashed to do the job (of course, he doesn't put it quite like that). So the Martians send Santa and the Earth children back home, with much hallooing and ho-ho-ho-ing.

Now, this may seem like a major victory for the forces of racism, imperialism, and (inter-)globalization, but consider: instead of the competent (if stodgy) Santa Claus, Mars is left in the hands of the dim, flailing Droppo, whom Kimar has called "the laziest man on Mars". No doubt his reign will be short, and his end, ugly.

For more on this movie, see this site. En française. But you were only going to look at the pictures anyway. More pictures here.

Also, this IMDB commenter points out that the characters' names are just shortened versions of their roles: Bomar=Boy Martian, Girmar=Girl Martian, etc. I never thought of this. Wonder what Voldar stands for? Allegedly the movie was remade in was remade in 2002, but the IMDB listing contains no cast, only a plot summary and the writers (Ben Edlund and Randolph Heard, who have solid modern comic credentials---being writers for The Tick and, in Heard's case, Space Ghost Coast to Coast).

Pleasant December Work Stoppage Interval, Comrades!

Posted 9:05 AM by Angie Schultz

Press Coverage of Iraqi March

Many bloggers are complaining (sample here) of the lack of press coverage of the Iraqi anti-terrorism / pro-democracy march. Well, it was prominently sited on the front page of the Houston Chronicle, main photo, above the fold. How 'bout them apples?

Unfortunately, two photos and the accompanying captions were all there were on the subject! There was no story inside, as there usually is with a front page photo.

(I'd link to the Chronicle's web site, but I didn't see the photos or anything about the march on their front page. They typically have very few photos on their web site.)

The main photo is of men on the pillars in Fardus [sp?] Square. They're waving red flags, so presumably they were Zayed's Commies. (Here and here are Zayed's pictures of the Communists standing on the pillars, waving their flags. Your totalitarian philosophies always know how to make a stunning visual impression.)

(UPDATE: The photo accompanies this story by Maureen Fan in the Seattle Times. Click on the picture for a larger image.

The article takes a very ambivalent view of the march, devoting several paragraphs to news of continued attacks, a woman equally angry at Saddam and the US, and men who cite shortages and unemployment as their complaints---though they blame these on the terrorists. No bias in the article, though!)

The caption in the Chronicle reads:

Common Cause:

A heavily policed march in central Baghdad on Wednesday, organized peacefully by dozens of Iraq's major political parties and religious groups, drew thousands into the street to protest the attacks by guerilla fighters that have injured and killed Iraqi civilians as well as U.S. troops and others.

[For the pillar men]: Several Iraqi men stand atop pillars to wave flags and signs.

There was also a picture of two men in white burnooses (they looked like brothers) standing next to a man in a fur cap, who has his back to them but is looking over his shoulder at them. He seems to be holding hands with someone on his left. This picture is captioned:

Illustrating the diversity in the march, Iraqi communists rubbed shoulders with the Shiite Muslim group al Sadr supporters in voicing their support for peace and democracy.

UPDATE II: The photo is here, as part of a slide show. This is the link if you want to see the other pictures. The same Maureen Fan article (linked above) accompanies them.

Hmmm...Zayed says:

What was interesting, a group of Al-Sadr supporters showed up and started shouting "NO NO to occupiers" obviously in an attempt to hijack the demonstration. They drowned in the rest of the crowd.

None of the al-Sadr supporters in his picture is wearing a burnoose. However, several men in his photos of tribal leaders are.

Anyhow, at least this is some scrap of attention from Old Media.

Posted 10:23 AM by Angie Schultz

Can You Tell a Kook by His Cover?

Donald Luskin presents a comparison of US and UK covers for four books by left wingers. This has something to do with the lurid UK cover for Paul Krugman's book, The Great Unravelling. Scroll up and down on Luskin's site for more on that.

I must say I like the UK cover of Michael Moore's childishly-titled Dude, Where's My Country? better than the US cover. The UK cover shows Moore and Bush in boxing poses. There are cut lines around them, as if you could cut them out as paper dolls and put them on sticks and make them fight. This, to me, represents the momentarily - amusing - but - ultimately - pointless nature of Moore's oeuvre.

The US cover, on the other hand, shows Moore hauling down the statue of Saddam Hussein (except it has Bush's head on it). This is more in line with Moore's conception of himself, as the brave iconoclast and toppler of empires.

Speaking of which, here's a translation of a fun article from the German magazine[? newspaper?] Die Tageszeitung (or TAZ, for short). (Here's the original.)

Maybe it's just me, but Babelfish's German translations stink. It has a hard time with German verb order, and chokes on those long compound words. Of course, their translations aren't perfect in French, either, but I studied French for three or four seconds and can usually smooth over the rough spots. In German I'm helpless.

That said, here's the opening of TAZ's piece, titled "An American Martyr", just as Babelfish delivers it:

Michael of moorlands will die. The day will come, there raises a pistol against it or a precision rifle, perhaps a confused weapon fool, perhaps an CIA agent skillful by George W. Bush. Shots will whip, balls its grey XXXL t Shirt will penetrate, this ridiculous, sweated piece material. The balls will knock the dark baseball cap into its massive, fat body, it will backwards fall, fall thereby from the head, roll in a small semi-circle around the fallen body and remain lying. Michael of moorlands is dead.

(Hey. No cheering in the back there.)

Well. Dramatic, eh?

To continue in that theme:

The whole week it could have remained in Berlin, says Michael Moore, so many people wanted it to experience. After the Show may they to it questions place.

"One hears so much over it, what does the CIA. Don't you have a fear around your life?"

No, says Michael Moore. "The only opportunity, at which you fear is around my life to have had, if you see me going in in a McDonalds."

But later---and here's where my ignorance of German hampers me---the author (Stefan Kuzmany) says Moore is speaking in a falsetto, apparently making a joke about dying:

"Uuuuuuuuuuwir haben ihn doch noch gesehn! Er war so luuuuuuustig, so fr?????hlich. Uuuuuuuuuuuuund jetzt ist er toooot! Uuuuuuuuund er hat noch Witze darüber gemacht!"

Naturally Babelfish cannot cope with that. But cleaning up the extended vowels only helps a little:

"Uwir have it nevertheless still gesehn! It was so merrily, so merry. And now it is dead! And it made still jokes over it!"

"Gesehn" might be a form of "gesehen", "seen" (a couple of web sites with the word show that it makes sense---or at least does not make nonsense---in context). "Uwir" is hopeless; a Google search turns up mostly gibberish. It might be archaic.

Anyhow, this sounds like Moore is making jokes about his own assassination, which is not only creepy, but a little egomaniacal.

Now, for those (like me) who like to become outraged at such things, here's some fresh meat (translation cleaned up very slightly):

Yes, it is terrible: the war, based on lies. The education system, intentionally ruined (this strategy calls Moore "enforced stupidity"). The social system destroys. The whole fraud and the exploitation. But like Moore reported of it, it does not to pain. And the Germans directly not at all. They laugh.

It becomes quiet, completely quietly, when on Germany comes to speak Moore. It does pain, if it says that we may not watch, how the social net is cut. That we may not lose the solidarity with those, no work, money to have, those nobody does not help and those completely to be moved therefore. Together with the Germans over the ignorance of the Americans is a thing makes itself merry...[But] earnest becomes it, if it concerns reforms here [in Germany].

...

He is only [a] guest [in Germany]. But: "I saw into the face of the devil. And I want to save you that. " What will the people do, which him belongs, its books to have read? Will they begin to resist? Will they change our system? Will Michael Moore be their leader?

Moore assures his German audience that his life is safe:

"Nothing will happen to me. Cola and frits will kill me...not the CIA. however now I [am] in Germany, me will healthy nourish, and each morning rise we early and run around the block", say Michael Moore on Sunday. At the Monday morning [he] did not run, but chauffiert with the car to the press conference.

...

Michael Moore will die, in the hand a Burger.

Because of the limitations of the translation software, I can't tell whether Kuzmany is mocking Moore, or agrees with him. He seems to be ambivalent. I can't tell whether the emphasis on martyrdom is Moore's, or Kuzmany's, and if the latter, whether Kuzmany is making fun of him.

It seems pretty clear, though, that Moore is telling his German audience what idiots Americans are, and how badly we've screwed up our country, and urging the pure and innocent Germans not to screw theirs up too.

With that kind of pandering demogoguery, it sounds as if Moore is running for Hitler.

It's probably just the translation.

Speaking of lurid covers, check out this cover for the German version of Bowling for Columbine, a special offer to TAZ subscribers.

TAZ link via Davids Medienkritik where there is much more.

[Corrections, context, and nuance welcome on those translations, by the way.]

Posted 9:21 PM by Angie Schultz

President Blasts Dixie Chicks

O Courage! O Bravery! Thy name is Dixie Chick. It's the Fearless Trio, again, spitting in the very eye of George W. Hitler.

Says Natalie Maines:

"I think people were misled, and I think people are fighting a war that they didn't know they were going to be fighting...And I think they were misled by people who should have been asking questions and weren't."

When some lackey (probably from Fox News) asked George Bush---President of the United States, Conqueror of Afghanistan and Iraq, Crusher of Dissent, and Destroyer of Worlds---his reply to such heroic statements, he thundered out the following denunciation:

They can say what they want to say. ... they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. I mean ... you know, freedom is a two-way street.

IS NO ONE SAFE IN BUSH'S AMERIKKKA???

Risking certain transportation to Ashcroft's secret gulags deep in the heart of Palm Springs, the Chicks boldly shot back:

Emily Robison said Mr. Bush "wasn't standing up for the principles that our country are founded on."

Martie Maguire said he basically was saying, "You got what you deserved" and "This is what's going to happen if you keep speaking out."

How long until the Chicks' emaciated corpses are rotting in a trench grave somewhere? Be of good heart, Natalie, Emily, and Martie, for when the Revolution comes we will melt down Bush's 50-foot golden statues, and recast them in your images! Hospitals, elementary schools, and sanitary landfills shall be christened in your honor, and your names will ring down through the ages, when "Bush" will mean just a short tree.

Men of the 4th ID in Tikrit now a-bed will hold their manhoods cheap whilst any speak of the Dixie Chicks.

Posted 9:55 PM by Angie Schultz

Operation Innuendo

Ah, Reuters: One man's news service is another man's embarrassing intestinal condition.

Reuters seizes a large lead in the media limbo contest (how low can they go?) with this item, titled "U.S.'s 'Iron Hammer' Code Name 1st Used by Nazis":

The U.S. military's code name for a crackdown on resistance in Iraq was also used by the Nazis for an aborted operation to damage the Soviet power grid during World War II.

See, sixty years ago, the Nazis thought it might be a good idea to cripple Soviet power production, and gave the plan the name "Eisenhammer". But, what with one thing and another, it was never carried out.

The article goes on to say that "Iron Hammer" is being performed by the 1st Armored Division, whose nickname is "Old Ironsides", hence the name. It also mentions the change of Operation Infinite Justice to Operation Enduring Freedom.

That's it.

What, you were waiting for something else? Like, maybe an explanation of why this is relevant or important, or even interesting? Well, you're not getting it. We used the words "U.S. military" and 'Nazi' in the same sentence and are going to get away with it. That's all we wanted. Ha ha ha.

There doesn't seem to be any other reason for this news article, given that 1) Eisenhammer was a completely ordinary military objective, which 2) was very different from the goals of "Iron Hammer", and 3) was never carried out.

This just in: "Reuters is pronounced 'roiters', in the German fashion, because its founder was, like many Nazis, a German. The Nazis were known for their sophisticated use of propaganda."

Via the suspiciously Teutonic-sounding Rantburg.

Posted 3:54 PM by Angie Schultz

Agenda? What Agenda?

Today, Reuters has a story which is simultaneously unremarkable, boring, and shocking. The Headline on this Reuters story on Yahoo reads, "US War Dead in Iraq Exceeds Early Vietnam Years". The lede:

The U.S. death toll in Iraq has surpassed the number of American soldiers killed during the first three years of the Vietnam War, the brutal Cold War conflict that cast a shadow over U.S. affairs for more than a generation.

Those of you who are conversant with current events and/or the history of Vietnam will not be too surprised---the US had comparatively few troops in Vietnam, as the next two paragraphs show.

Reuters analysis of Defense Department statistics showed on Thursday that the Vietnam War, which the Army says officially began on Dec. 11, 1961, produced a combined 392 fatal casualties from 1962 through 1964, when American troop levels in Indochina stood at just over 17,000.

By comparison, a roadside bomb attack that killed a soldier in Baghdad on Wednesday brought to 397 the tally of American dead in Iraq, where U.S. forces number about 130,000 troops -- the same number reached in Vietnam by October 1965.

So we've sustained as many casualties in about eight months as a force more than 7 times smaller did over 46 months (not three years, as the lead paragraph states). Actually, we're doing better now than we did then: the Vietnam fatalities in that period work out to 0.05% per month; whereas the Iraq fatalities are less than 0.04%/month. You know, if we're going to play with numbers that really aren't very meaningful.

But you can't compare apples and meteorites in this manner. The role of the troops in Vietnam in the first three years of the war was much more of an advisory and training one, rather than one of major combat, among many, many other differences. The article goes on:

The casualty count for Iraq apparently surpassed the Vietnam figure last Sunday, when a U.S. soldier killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack south of Baghdad became the conflict's 393rd American casualty since Operation Iraqi Freedom began on March 20.

I hate to make an argument on the basis that most people are stupid, because 1) I don't think it's true, and 2) most people don't care for arguments based on the stupidity of most people. However, I must point out that, even if a news article survives the inevitable editing (and this one is long), the thing that will stick with most people is the headline and the first few paragraphs. They may well not notice (or not even see, because of editing) the much lower troop strength in Vietnam, or if they do they may not stop to think about it.

I don't think this article will stir most Americans (at least, not in the way the author expects), but it may certainly resonate with Europeans, who, if the European press articles I've seen are any measure, receive very poor information about the war in Iraq. Your average European will probably find his "Quagmire!" conclusions bolstered by this misleading article.

To continue:

Larger still is the number of American casualties from the broader U.S. war on terrorism, which has produced 488 military deaths in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Philippines, Southwest Asia and other locations.

I'm assuming he means American military deaths.

The Bush administration has rejected comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam, which traumatized Americans a generation ago with a sad procession of military body bags and television footage of grim wartime cruelty.

Ah, nothing like keeping your news and editorials separate. And this is nothing like that.

The article goes on to sketch the origins of the Vietnam War, with emphasis on the fuzziness of when the war "started". (They use the Army Center of Military History start date for their analysis.) It also has a short recounting of the escalation of the conflict, finally, in the sixteenth paragraph (out of 21), mentioning that the war did not really get going (that is, start to become the quagmire we've come to know so well) until after the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1965.

Perhaps there is some legitimate journalistic, military, or historical reason for comparing fatality levels in two conflicts in two different time frames in very different countries fought forty years apart for different reasons and with different methods. But I do not see it. Why not compare, say, American War on Terror fatalities to American fatalities in the first two years of World War II (September 1, 1939 to September 1, 1941)?

Otherwise, one might have to conclude that Reuters published this article in order to mislead readers. Surely that can't be right.

I was going to point out that someone would eventually get around to using this as an anti-war argument, but then I realized that---Doh!---Murat, at Rantburg had already done just that thing (which is how I found the article). Thanks, Murat!

Posted 1:51 PM by Angie Schultz

Hey, Hey, My, My, '68 Will Never Die

Back in August, I wrote a post commenting on the whiny departure of Ed Vulliamy, the Observer's US correspondent, from these shores. His basic point, near as I could tell, was that the US was good when Clinton was in office, because Clinton was good. Now that Clinton was gone, a shadow had fallen across the land. This segued into a discussion of the caustic nature of politics today. Allow me to quote myself:

In summary, Clinton was cool because he was one of Us---the sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll Boomers.

...

Bush, on the other hand, was one of Them---the non-'60s Boomers. Though of the same age, they lived in a completely different '60s. We wore blue jeans; they wore suits and ties. They drank; we inhaled (well, except for Clinton). We protested the war; they joined the military. They are too much like our parents.

...

Vulliamy doesn't come right out and say this---he describes Us, but doesn't go into what They may be. But it seems to me that this is exactly the point; it's the Great Divide in politics.

...

But I never understood why this visceral dislike...I think it was less what Clinton had done that what he was---he was one of the Dungarees, rather than the Suits.

...

The same thing is operating here in reverse. Bush is a Suit. It doesn't matter what he does, in the eyes of the Dungarees he's one of those imperialist, militaristic, god-bothering Suits. He can do the very same things Clinton would do, but in Bush they're EEEEVIIIIIL.

So here we are, two months later, and Michael Barone has an article in U.S. News and World Report, titled "Harshness and Vitriol", about the "seldom seen" level of acrimony in political debates these days:

Why this increased harshness? My explanation: It is a baby boom thing. What we are seeing is a civil war between the two halves of the baby boom, the liberal half that basked in national publicity in the late 1960s and the conservative half that smoldered in resentment for many years until its more recent rise to prominence.

So. Great minds think alike. It's just that some of them get paid juicy sums for doing it, and some, uh, don't. (To be fair, some write thoughtful articles and some dash off snarky blog posts.)

I will take issue, however, with this bit:

Boomer liberals are liberation-minded on cultural issues and conciliation-minded on foreign policy.

...

Boomer conservatives are tradition-minded on cultural issues and confrontation-minded on foreign policy.

There's no immutable law saying that a foreign policy hawk must also be a rock-ribbed social conservative; these two things have little to do with one another.
(Actually, that's what I thought the much-maligned "neo-cons" were: people who were socially liberal yet hawkish on international relations. It may be, though, that these people are generally younger than Boomers.)

Via InstaPundit, who links to other comments.

(Like this one of Roger Simon's. In his comments, Patrick Lasswell makes a very good point:

Barone did bring up one interesting point about the passing similarity between W and Clinton. The problem is that Clinton was indictable, and after years of supporting a President under attack, many liberals felt it was their turn.

That they are taking their turn regardless of the merits of the accusations is unfortunately insane. I can think of no civil description for such breathtakingly self-descructive attitudes and acts. It's like they've decided to take the Jim Jones Kool Aid rather than be without a gesture of dissent.

I think that Clinton was hounded more than other, guiltier, presidents were. And it's true that when Bush was elected I was torn between hoping he got the very same treatment, and wishing we would stop all this partisan bullshit. Then came 9/11, and the good, clean fun ceased, and became deadly earnest. After that, participating in the politics of destruction is inexcusable.)

Posted 9:50 PM by Angie Schultz

Voting Against Democracy

I hesitated to put this up, because my last post was about discussions on a forum, and I'm working on another post along the same lines. This might get tedious. But then I remembered this was the BBC, which it is my sworn duty to bash whenever possible, until such time as it ceases to suck.

The Belgravia Dispatch points to this BBC comments forum on "Bush's version of democracy". The intro says:

President Bush has made a speech calling for democracy and freedom across the Middle East...He also spoke of the need for democracy in countries such as Syria, Iran, Burma and China.

...

But is western-style democracy good for the world or is it just another example of cultural imperialism?

...

What does democracy mean to you where you live? Is flawed democracy better than none at all? Has the west created the ideal model, the liberal democracy? Or is the democratic process unworkable as a universal model?

Naturally an overwhelming number of the responses posted (which, as you know, "reflect the balance of the views we have received") conclude that democracy is not workable everywhere, that democracies have to grow internally, and that to suggest otherwise is cultural imperialism.

Many comments, naturally, are knee-jerk responses to nasty American imperialism. (The imperialist Americans want to set up an Iraqi democracy? Then democracy must be a tool of imperialism!) Some are slightly more thoughtful, noting that democracy can't just be plastered on, but will only thrive if the people have a democratic mindset. Those people might mean that it won't be instantaneous, but few of them qualify their remarks. They may mean that it's forever impossible for the dar---er---poor little brown people.

I can't decide if this is the soft racism of the left, or the old-fashioned racism of the right.

It's amusing and dismaying to read the foreigners' denials of the existence of American democracy (it's much more dismaying to read them from Americans), such as this gem from Mark MacCallum of New Zealand:

The American people, by-and-large, do seem to have a genuinely democratic outlook. But as democracies go their own system of government is very, very deeply flawed. From the electoral college and the two-senators-per-state rule, both of which give disproportionate weight to less populous and usually more conservative states, through to the laughable election campaign finance rules, which give politicians representing the wealthy such a huge spending advantage over their rivals, Americans are ruled by a system of government that often frustrates the will of the people, rather than implements it.

It's true that the Constitution gives the less populous states more power than their populations would warrant in some areas, but that was sort of the point, so that the majority does not ride roughshod over the minority. I suspect Mr. MacCallum's chief argument against this is that it gives power to conservative states.

The BBC liked Mr. MacCallum's comment so well it posted it twice. The comment above is on the first page of comments. Another, almost identical, comment is on the second page:

Most American people do seem to have a genuinely democratic outlook. But the US system of government is very deeply flawed. It gives disproportionate weight to less populous and usually more conservative states and gives politicians representing the wealthy a huge spending advantage over their rivals. Americans are ruled by a system of government that often frustrates the will of the people, rather than implementing it..

Did he send in two letters and they didn't realize they'd published the first? Or is one of these an edited version of the letter he sent in?

I don't suppose that pointing out that we've had the same system for 200 years---so that those small "conservative" states have had this "disproportionate" power all this time---would do any good. After all, as Hamed Al Mahruqy of Oman so wisely points out:

Western democracy died with the election of the current US president.

So true.

Then there's this scathing indictment of Western democracy:

Just what is "western-styled" democracy? Hierarchically arranged rule by a coalition of big business interests, and party bosses? An oligarchy with a sneering acceptance of the "peoples' right" to cast meaningless ballots for cardboard cut out candidates who are carefully selected by their party machines to have similar ranges of views and interests? Western "Democracy" isn't actually democracy at all, it is just an illusion of democracy, based on this ludicrous idea of "free election" that gives people the impression that they are living in a "free society". Whoever gets into power in western countries is essentially the same as the last person who got into power. In that respect it is no different from a totalitarian system where the same leader always gets elected. We may elect different leaders but they all act in the same way once elected. It makes no difference whether you live in the west or the east. Any system where one person is in charge of a country basically revolves around power, and nobody is going to want to do that job unless they crave power.

He signs himself "Simon Moore, EU", which I think explains that.

All in all, the BBC debate is best summed up by Jim of New Jersey:

I can't believe the mental gymnastics people go through to be original, thought-provoking, and completely wrong.

Posted 7:16 PM by Angie Schultz

How Not to Hang a Frame

Andrea Harris, through a rather roundabout route, comments on this post on lefty blog "Body and Soul" about how to "frame" the national debate. Andrea is annoyed at the metaphor in the main post, one of savage caveman and civilizing woman. Actually, I don't think that's the metaphor the poster is getting at. She's trying to construct a fairy-tale version of unilateralism vs. multilateralism, using a mammoth hunt as an example. At the same time, she's referring to Berkeley professor George Lakoff's views on the perception of "stern father" (Republicans) vs. "nurturing parents" (Democrats).

Lakoff believes that the Republicans are getting their message out because they have seized the debate. They, you see, have defined the terms being debated, therefore they have control. (Apparently the left never, ever does this by, say, referring to themselves by the nice, positive-sounding term, "progressives"---which, of course, is how Lakoff refers to his ideological kinsmen throughout the above-linked interview.)

Jeanne, the blogger at "Body and Soul", dislikes Lakoff's parental metaphor, and is trying to find a new "frame" she thinks will fit better, one that will best distill complex reality down into simple fairy tales for the consumption of the masses. Jeanne is a little troubled by the need to do this, but decides that it's vital, since the evil Republicans did it first.

(The fact that both parties do this sort of thing constantly, and always have, apparently doesn't occur to her, or her commenters. Nor does the fact that nearly every word she writes reveals that she already believes, deeply, in the current "frames" of the Left. For her, those ideas aren't just fairy tales; they're reality.)

Frankly, if the discussion on this blog is indicative of the mindset of thoughtful Democrats, we (Americans) are in a hell of a lot of trouble.

From this discussion, I glean the following:

1) Republicans are immature, Democrats are mature and serious. The Republicans, in particular, are little boys---emphasis on boys, rather than generic children---obsessed with guns:

From Jeanne:

Looking at the Republicans, what I see over and over again is a play-acting, pre-adolescent version of masculinity. Little boys think that what makes daddy a man is that he's big. He can beat anybody up. His weapon's longer than your weapon. His god's bigger than yours. And so when little boys pretend to be men, the emphasis is on bigger and stronger...Republicans are funny, in the same way that little boys who want to be men [are funny]...


Heather Wokusch had an interesting piece up recently at CommonDreams about the connection between fear of sex and love of violence in the Bush administration. That's the little boy pretending to be a man issue peeking out again. Sex is icky...

2) And because sex is icky, Republicans don't have any, which is probably why they're boys, rather than men.

From commenter "john steppling":

One cannot really imagine a healthy sex life for people like Cheney and Bush and Rove and Rumsfeld...and deep down that anxiety is manifested in the puritanical obsessions of this administration and its endless need for violence and domination.The post 60s "touchy feelie" brand of sensitive men has played a role here as well....as has the anxiety caused by the feminist movement. Jeanne recently had a pic of Kucinich in the picket line, and another of Bobby Kennedy and Chavez....all much more substantial images of masculinity....but this culture is so addicted to the visual hyperbole of the culture industry and so awash in the marketed idea of fear and threat that only the image of a bully seems to resonate...

(All ellipses except the last are in the original.)

3) As implied in that last sentence, people are sheep; they buy what they're told to buy and believe what they're told to believe. From Jeanne again:

...we have to deal with the fact that a great deal of politics is marketing. Republicans aren't under any illusions about that, although most of the people who vote for them aren't aware of it...Republicans have to do it, because...most Americans disagree with them. They have to find a way to get Americans to "buy" ideas that they don't want, the same way stores have to get Americans to do something equally unnatural -- go out and spend money on crap they know they don't need, or even really want.

4) Bush is selling fear, which is irrational. He is sending people into a panic to gain their support. This is "aimai", talking about "Joe Schmoe", a frequent Calpundit commenter who briefly dropped into Body and Soul:

In Joe Schmoe's case I've read lots of his posts, and I think he is, potentially, tellilng us something very important about the frames issue. His frame is "fear" and his source of comfort is "someone knows better than me what to do, and the thing to do is simple: its violence." He will vote for the person who most accurately portrays that theme, regardless of any evidence to the contrary that the person is a sham.

Behind every passage I've quoted here to illustrate my point are several more on the same theme. I was going to quote all the good ones, but the post got very long.

This the thoughtful, nuanced left? Childish theories, threadbare Freudianism, and contempt for The People---this is what they've come to? No, really. I want to know. These people are so---partisan? blinded? stupid?---that they don't even see that they have already "framed" the debate, although they dimly realize that this frame is unlikely to appeal to their intended audience.

Imagine them trying to convince people with their true vision: "Wake up, you sheep! You only believe what They tell you! We're much smarter than you are---we know the Truth! Bush and Co. are nothing more than nasty little boys, whose sexual retardation makes them prone to violence! Violence isn't the answer to terrorism---the ICC and alternative energy are the answers!"

Yeah, sign me up now.

I have no way of knowing just exactly how widespread this playground mentality is. But if Matthew Yglesias wants to know why some Democrats are defecting, he could do worse than to look at the linked Body and Soul discussion.

Posted 2:07 PM by Angie Schultz

Childhood Haunts

Well, here's a Halloween story for you. It's about the time I saw a ghost.

I was about seven years old. I want to say it was Halloween, after trick or treating was done, but it was probably a few days before, or after. We lived in a house at the end of a street in a small town. There were a bunch of other kids on the street, and one night we were all hanging out together, just goofing around.

Now, my sister is two years younger than I, and apparently we (or I) thought she was too young and annoying to hang out with us (or me), so we (or I) made her go home, which she did with much pouting and sulking.

So we were all telling scary stories. One kid told us about the Boogie Man, who was a man all covered with boogers, see, and he was green all over, except for his heart, which you could see there in his chest, and it (needless to say) was all red.

Another kid told us the story of the Black Coffin, which I will now tell to you.

There was a woman who married a man for his money, and then she killed him, and had him buried in a black coffin, thirteen miles away.

The night after the funeral, she gets a phone call, and all the voice says is, "Black coffin thirteen miles from home."

Well, of course this is spooky, but she doesn't think much of it. Maybe some kids playing a prank.

The next night at the same time, she again gets a phone call. "Black coffin twelve miles from home."

And of course, the night after: "Black coffin eleven miles from home."

And so on, until two weeks after the funeral. She doesn't get the phone call she's come to expect, and she figures the prankster has gotten tired of it. Then, in the middle of the night, she wakes up, and hears---not the phone, but a voice---

Black coffin on the street.

Black coffin in the driveway.

Black coffin in the yard.

Black coffin on the porch.

At this point, she begins to hear thumping noises downstairs.

Black coffin in the doorway.

Black coffin on the stairs.

Thump Thump Thump...

Black coffin in the hallway.

Black coffin in your room.

Black coffin at your bedside.

Black coffin

GETCHA!

It went over big. I must have jumped a foot. As we sat there absorbing the impact of that story, we heard...a noise.

WoooOOOooooo

What the---? "Look at that!" One of the kids pointed behind me.

WoooOOOooooo

It was a ghost!

A ghost! Just like on Scooby Doo: an eerie white form, floating a few feet above the ground, with only two bottomless pits for eyes. And it was headed straight for us!

WoooOOOooooo

We scattered.

Screaming, we took off in random directions. I ran home, by a very roundabout route, since the dreaded Thing was between me and safety.

Finally, I arrived home and burst into the house. "Mom! Dad! We saw a ghost! It was white, and it went WoooOOOooooo!" They sat there for a second, and then they burst out laughing. "You mean like this?" Dad said, gesturing to my sister, sitting in the middle of the floor.

She threw a blanket over her head. "Wooo!"

"Uh, yeah." They all laughed. "You wouldn't let me play with you, so I scared you!" my sister said. She had been under that sheet. She had come back home, crying that I was being mean to her, and Mom and Dad had found an old blanket and cut eye holes in it, and sent her out to scare us.


I'd still be laughing about this today, except that they used my own security blankie to make the ghost. I had mostly outgrown it, but I was still really sad that they'd cut holes in it. "Oh, grow up," they said.

Posted 12:59 PM by Angie Schultz

The Intruder

This is a true story, for your pre-Halloween enjoyment.

Yesterday I was home alone, sitting at the computer in the gathering dusk[*], when I saw something move out of the corner of my eye. Of course, I'm always seeing something move out of the corner of my eye---and it's generally nothing. I'm always seeing things that aren't there.

But this time, something was there. There was a shadow moving against the light behind me. I turned a little, instinctively, wondering what could be making the shadow, when my hair began to stand on end. There was someone looking over my shoulder. I turned to stare right into a pair of monstrous green eyes! What could it be??

It is balloooooon! A couple weeks ago we got a big mylar balloon, a "black" (actually purple) cat with big green eyes and (inexplicably) a pumpkin on its chest. Those mylar balloons stay inflated forever. We stuck it in a corner of the study, wedged its ribbon under a bookcase, and largely forgot about it.

Well, it being the end of October, yesterday it was cool enough to turn off the air conditioning, open the windows, and allow some fresh oxygen molecules into the room. The little breeze blew the balloon from its station by the bookcase. It has about five feet of free ribbon on it, so by the time it reached me it was hovering just above my shoulder. Whatcha readin', Angie? Muahahahahaha!

I wrapped the ribbon around a TV antenna. That ought to hold it. Anyway, today it's back to being hot, and the windows are shut.

If that had happened at night, while Niles was away on a business trip, I'd still be under the desk, shivering.

[*] Actually it was about two in the afternoon, but it makes a better story at dusk, don't you think?

Posted 12:38 PM by Angie Schultz

Don't Bother, They're Here

O Joy! There will finally be peace in the Mideast. How do I know? Because Hollywood is on the job.

[N]ow a team of Hollywood film stars is about to visit the Middle East on a private peace mission, in the belief that their charms will work magic on the Israeli-Arab conflict.

Brad Pitt, his wife, Jennifer Aniston, and Danny DeVito are among the stars who aim to succeed where world statesmen have stumbled.

"The past few years of conflict mean that yet another generation of Israelis and Palestinians will grow up in hatred," reads a statement from Pitt and Aniston. "We cannot allow that to happen."

Wow! So, how are they going to accomplish this? Well, it's part of a 4 million pound peace initiative (So says the Telegraph---I don't know how you put a monetary value on that. Is there a bond market of some sort?) called "One Voice", brain child of American businessman Daniel Lubetzky.

Near the end of this AP article, One Voice is described as a plan "backed by academics, former U.S. officials and actors Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman." (Gosh! Academics, former officials, and short, annoying actors! It can't fail!) The article further says:

The plan has brought together experts to create 20 secret pillars to solving the conflict. Those are now being put to focus groups of Palestinians and Israelis.

The 20 secret pillars of peace. Wasn't that by T.E. Lawrence? Well, he should know all about it. But I don't see how they're going to work if they're kept a secret.

This article is kind of vague too. Does One Voice have a website? But of course.

Here at last we get some details. I like the description on this article from Global Democracy (whatever that is) best.

A sidebar explains that:

The One Voice initiative is based on the premise that there is a silent majority among Israelis and Palestinians who want a negotiated settlement to their conflict and an end to the cycle of violence.

So far, so good. And then:

"The aim of this project is to awaken the voice of the silent majority on both sides and involve people in helping to solve the main issues by getting their input," [Mohammad] Darawshe [regional director and co-founder], explained.

"The first stage will be to collect signatures on a proclamation of principles, which will be the gateway for engaging in a dialogue on the way to drafting proposals for overcoming obstacles on the path to peace.

Friends, I have seldom in my life seen a finer example of ActivistSpeak: The signatures are a gateway for engaging in a dialog which will result in proposals for overcoming obstacles. Why just do something, when you can discuss the tactics for approaching the strategies of the protocols for implementing the instrumentalities which...

The article goes on:

"Those who sign the proclamation will then be eligible to participate in a truly public referendum, via e-mail, phone, and traditional door-to-door canvassing that we hope will reach hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. They will be asked to give their views on proposals formulated by experts to resolving the 10 key issues."

In other words, they're going to take a detailed poll to find out what people want. Although at this point is sounds as if the only people who count will be those who signed the petition in the first place. That's sort of what it sounds like here, in the group's FAQ. Only those people who signed in the first place get to discuss the actual issues. When (or if) the issues have been resolved:

Once we have consensus and have established the People's Mandate, we will partner with local grassroots organizations for them to deliver the mandate to the leaders in the region. Politicians will be confronted by the clear will of the majority and will face the need to listen and act accordingly or face replacement by future leaders, who will gain a mantle of legitimacy by adopting the People's Mandate.

Firstly, this won't be the People's Mandate, but the People Who Were Semi-Sane and Literate and Unintimidated's Mandate. Secondly, I invite you to consider the likely outcome of "confronting" the leaders of the PA by the "clear will" of the majority (assuming, of course, that it's different from what they're doing now), and their reaction upon being threatened with removal in favor of other leaders which will carry out the (putative) will of the majority.

I'm guessing a few executions would swiftly bring things back to the status quo.

I can only imagine that the founders of One Voice:

A) Are completely delusional about the mechanisms of "leadership" among the Palestinians, or

B) Think that the Israelis are the real stumbling block to peace. After all, it is only among the Israelis that the People's Mandate has the remotest chance of influencing the leaders.

The FAQ makes a very interesting read, addressing concerns like "Isn't One Voice a liberal dream?" with answers amounting to long-winded versions of "No." For example, one question asks whether democracy isn't foreign to Palestinians. The answer:

• Palestinians have one of the most developed civil societies in the Arab world. Non-Governmental Organizations serve as a buffer between the government and society, and have been very active for decades. In 1996, the Palestinian Authority held elections for President and a Palestinian Legislative Council, with universal suffrage.
  
  
• Palestinians have more democratic tendencies than most of their Arab neighbors, including Egypt, which has a peace agreement with Israel. Besides the fact that the majority of Palestinians crave democracy because they have been exposed to it, the democratic process is natural to all people with free will and does not require prior institutional expertise or structure.
  
  
• Regular Palestinians have already started to participate and have helped design the platform of OneVoice; hundreds of Palestinians have been extremely supportive and encouraging and are eager to participate in the initiative.
  

I am astonished to find that the existence of NGOs (such as? the ICRC? UNRWA? Hamas?) serving as "buffers" between government and society is somehow indicative of democracy. If it's democratic, why do you need a buffer? I am not astonished, but instead disgusted, at those who would hold up Arafat's 1996 farce as a genuine election.

The second point is telling: "...the democratic process is natural to all people with free will and does not require prior institutional expertise or structure." This must be why every human society has organized itself as a democracy, beginning with the ancient Sumerians and continuing on until the present day.

Wait, that's in an alternate universe. In the real world, societies are still often ruled by whoever is the strongest, or whoever can buy protection, or whoever has the largest tribe. While the dream of democracy may come easily, the actual implementation is a bit trickier. And many people who get the short end of their society's stick dream of revenge, and only call it democracy.

Those who overlook these facts are doomed to failure (and worse, ridicule).

Posted 8:57 PM by Angie Schultz

Falling to the Earth's Rubber Core

Natalie Solent kindly mentioned the email I sent her about the How and Why Wonder books. Gosh, I loved those. I have great stacks of them in storage. In storage---therefore I'm afraid I cannot look up the source of the nuclear strawberries she mentions.

But her memory reminds me of my own embarrassing encounter with the books. One of my favorites was Our Earth. Hey, who could resist exploding volcanoes? But better than that, Our Earth had illustrations of gemstones. In particular, they noted that the most valuable rubies were called "pig-eon's blood" rubies, because they were the color of the blood from a freshly-killed pig-eon. (I had never seen this word spelled before, and pronounced it in three distinct syllables, with a hard "g".) I was very dismayed to find the book talking so cavalierly of slaughtering pig-eons (which I thought might be something like pygmies), and wondered how many poor pig-eons had to die to compare their blood to the rubies. I figured this was a practice of earlier times, and trusted that this sort of thing wasn't allowed in these enlightened days.

(Mind you, in those days insects, not children, were nestled in cotton wool: Insects included information on the use of the "killing jar", and Sea Shells instructed you to kill your univalves by immersing them in boiling water, then prying them out of the shell with a wire hook. So you never knew what kind of horrors you were going to find. See below.)

But that wasn't the embarrassing part.

My grandmother gave me this book, which also included a section on the formation of the solar system. It said that the sun and planets were formed out of clouds of dust and gas which started swirling around, and formed themselves into a disk with the sun bulging at the center, and the disk eventually becoming the planets. But Grandma was a bit concerned, she said, because the book did not mention the role of God in the creation of the Earth. I assured her that God had caused the gas clouds to swirl. "After all," I reasoned, "You don't think those clouds started swirling around by themselves, do you?" St. Anselm, eat your heart out.

These days, we think gravity might have something to do with it.

But that wasn't the embarrassing part either.

No, the embarrassing part came when the book described the structure of the Earth. It said something of the nature, "The Earth is like a baseball, with its core of hard rubber, surrounded by packed string, covered in a thin layer of horsehide." It probably went on to point out that the earth has a molten core, surrounded by a thick mantle, covered in a thin crust, on which we live. Unfortunately, that wasn't clear to me. I thought they meant that the Earth was covered in a thin layer of horsehide. Disbelieving, I read it several times. This posed some problems:

1. All those poor horseys! (I worshipped horses.)
   
2. Where did the dirt come from?
   
3. For that matter, where did the horses come from? Didn't the horses evolve (of course I knew about that---I read about the eohippus in Prehistoric Mammals) on the Earth? Did the horses originally come from another planet? Or, was there some other covering to the earth before horses arose?
   
4. Who sewed the horsehides into the earth's covering? And why? Did God do that? What did He have against horses, anyway?
   

Eventually, I suppose, someone straightened me out, but I was awfully confused there for a while.

Anyhow, a check of my book list shows that I have 64 of these books, of which 49 are unique titles. The books came, not only in the paperback editions I had as a child, but in slightly fancier hardback editions with glossy covers, and also as "library editions", sturdily made with cloth covers. I have some of each of those. Most of them were collected at various book sales in the Bay Area. But my first week in Australia, the local hospital held a "fete", which included sort of a communal garage sale, and there I found a How and Why Wonder Book. It was as if a new planet swam into my ken. I had no idea that the books had penetrated into the Antipodes. Afterwards, I eagerly searched the local university book fair, bravely wading into the blood-drenched pit that was the children's section, and snatching at any blue-yellow-pink bars I saw, before the slavering mothers could find them.

In this way I found the coveted The Tower of London book, which was not published in the US, but that's the only UK-specific one I have.

Posted 9:47 PM by Angie Schultz

The Smallest Show on Earth

As always, if you have nothing to say, you can always take off from a Bleat.

This week, the Minnesota Family Lileks goes to a circus. Go read about that there. I use this mostly to tell you about the time I went to the Worst Circus in the World.

We went to the circus occasionally as kids. It was very stressful, because it entailed driving clear to St. Louis (about an hour away), watching Dad sweat bullets as he navigated the Big City, and then again as we walked from the parking lot to the car, expecting to be mugged at any moment.

Once in the circus we waded through ankle-deep litter to our seats, and then the fun began! Well, not really. TV spoils you for the circus. When I was a kid there was a televised circus at least once during the year. On TV you could see all the acts really close---the fearsome tigers, the daring trapeze artists, the disturbing clowns. It still was only marginally interesting, but at least you could see it well.

In person, you saw little blobs whirling about somewhere far below, until finally the music told you they were done and you could applaud. When it was all over, you spent five minutes being told no, you could not have a balloon, or a banner, or a stuffed tiger, and then you kicked through the litter back to the car, and fell asleep while Dad was still telling you to lock your goddamn door already.

So when we were given tickets to the circus in my senior year in high school, I was not terribly enthused. But I was curious to see the circus that would come to our tiny town. As far as I knew, we had never had a circus---or any other kind of social event---in our town, ever. Unless it occurred at the high school or the Amvets, we never had concerts or anything of that nature. And here was a circus coming to our little town, and it was free! (To me.)

So off I went with my friends to see (what turned out to be) the Sad, Sad Circus. This sort of thing must have inspired Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way Comes.

We approached the circus tent by passing the tiger cages. We could have easily put in an arm and had it chewed off. There was no one and nothing to stop us. Nothing, except the profound disinclination of the tigers to bother us, or look at us, or even move. These were very tired tigers, with ragged coats.

Inside, the lion tamer didn't appear to be in mortal danger every second from the ferocious beasts only he could control. He practically had to get up behind the arthritic cats and shove them up onto their perches. I love big cats, and felt very sorry for them.

It wasn't just the cats who were tired. You could tell the human performers were too; if not physically tired, then tired of their work, of themselves, most of all of their audience. The female trapeze artist did not look like a fairy princess, she looked like a cigarette-y broad in shabby chiffon who was dying to get back to her bottle. When she took her bow she flopped over perfunctorily, twice, in the general direction of the audience, and stalked off as if her ass ached.

Best of all was the tightwire act. A man threw on a serape and sombrero, and, mimed drunkenly swigging from a bottle while the band played the "Mexican Hat Dance". I was mildly aghast. Those were the days, eh? He would drink from his bottle and wiggle back and forth and stagger across the wire, and even as bigoted as it was, it might have been worth seeing if he had been more than six feet off the ground. Truly. The wire was not as tall as he was.

I looked around at the audience and wondered what they thought of it. Were the grown-ups amused, the little kids impressed? I have the impression they sat there somewhat grimly, as if determined to be diverted, but having a bad time of it. Maybe they were thinking what I was thinking---that this would've satisfied our homebound ancestors, who never saw a real circus, but would not do for us. I wondered if this was the last of the small travelling circuses, and whether that was a bad thing.

No. I don't think it is.

Posted 4:02 PM by Angie Schultz

Easterdonnybrook

There's been a lot of bloggy controversy over Gregg Easterbrook's rant on violence in movies (specifically in the new Quentin Tarantino film Kill Bill), which concludes with:

Disney's CEO, Michael Eisner, is Jewish; the chief of Miramax, Harvey Weinstein, is Jewish. Yes, there are plenty of Christian and other Hollywood executives who worship money above all else, promoting for profit the adulation of violence. Does that make it right for Jewish executives to worship money above all else, by promoting for profit the adulation of violence? Recent European history alone ought to cause Jewish executives to experience second thoughts about glorifying the killing of the helpless as a fun lifestyle choice. But history is hardly the only concern. Films made in Hollywood are now shown all over the world, to audiences that may not understand the dialogue or even look at the subtitles, but can't possibly miss the message--now Disney's message--that hearing the screams of the innocent is a really fun way to express yourself.

As Meryl Yourish pointed out, this is a major WTF moment. How did Jews get into this? Why does he feel that their position as Jews have anything to do with it, rather than, say, their position as men, or as white men, or as rich white men, or as rich white men whose names contain the "ei" dipthong?

A few days later (about three weeks in blog time), Easterbrook issued an apology, saying that he had expressed himself poorly, that he stood by the thinking behind his words, but agreed that his phrasing was very bad.

Roger Simon pronounced this apology adequate, but just barely, saying "I would think some honest self-examination is in order." Meryl says she accepts it, but later suggests it's a "non-apology apology".

Other people---commenters on Roger Simon's blog, or on LGF (example here)---don't even give him that much credit.

While I think people were certainly right to wonder what the hell was going on, and to criticize his words, I think they're going overboard when they still suspect him of harboring (perhaps unconscious) anti-Semitic feelings. Here's the relevant bit of his apology:

I wondered about the consciences of those running Disney and Miramax. Were they Christian? How could a Christian rationalize seeking profits from a movie that glorifies killing as a sport, even as a form of pleasure? I think it's fair to raise faith in this context...

He deplores the over-the-top violence in films. He wonders about the guys who let Tarantino get away with this. What are they thinking? Are they Christian? How could a Christian justify (to himself) making such violent films?

So he looks up the movie executives in question. Huh. That theory falls flat---they're not Christians, they're Jews. Hmmm. But wait! That's even worse! Jews have been the targets of terrible violence in the past century, and even now have prime ministers baying for their blood. How can they justify making violence seem enjoyable, knowing that they are the disproportionate targets of violence?

It seems pretty clear to me that his reasoning went something like this.

Of course, I find it----well, I won't say "chilling", or "disturbing" or "ominous", but instead perhaps "telling"---that practically the first thing he wonders is, "Were they Christian?" I've heard this before; in this case it's tantamount to asking, "Weren't they Christian?"---an answer expected to be answered in the affirmative, and followed by a lecture as to why such-and-such is not Christian behavior.

In other words, it sounds as if Easterbrook was prepared to offer a little sermon on Good Christian Living to men who were (perhaps only nominally) Christians; in my youth, this was a favorite pastime of little old ladies with a lot of time on their hands. In this case, however, his targets foiled his plan by being Jewish.

I don't know whether this is SOP for him, or whether his mind was still on the case of Mel Gibson:

I think it's fair to raise faith in this context: In fact I did exactly that one week earlier, when I wrote a column about the movie The Passion asking how we could take Mel Gibson seriously as a professed Christian, when he has participated in numerous movies that glorify violence.

I don't think it's fair at all to raise faith in this context, unless of course you believe that it would be impossible for your co-religionists to have any other understanding of a Christian's role than the one you hold.

Gibson, however, may be an exception. He's claimed that he's created his movie, The Passion, out of his Christian faith. One might question the sincerity of his religious beliefs in the light of his movie career (though I don't really see why), but that's because he's made this explicit claim. Eisner and Weinstein have not (to my knowledge) made any such claim.

Sullivan's take on it is pretty much the same as mine, except that he sees Easterbrook's words as

...an appeal to leading Jewish citizens to take their faith seriously, as Gregg has also written, in an identical context, about Christians.

This is the flip side of what I wrote---Sullivan sees it as a call to take one's faith seriously, I see it as an unwarranted assumption about what their faith is, and nannyish interference, to boot.

Easterbrook doesn't sound like an anti-Semite to me. He claims to belong to some church that shares space and finances with a synagogue. This wasn't enough for some people. "Oh, right, some of his best friends are Jews. Where have we heard that before? You know he's a bigot when he says something like that."

But as Glenn Reynolds pointed out, long ago (look under the heading EUROBASHING):

Actually, though, the "some of my best friends" line was originally thought uncool because of what usually followed: "my shoeshine guy, the janitor, the bartender at the country club, the yard man," etc. The "best friends" line was thus rather hypocritical: these were people who were actually servants, and only promoted to "best friend" status in the service of rebutting charges of racism.

That's not the case here. There's no reason to believe Easterbrook is not sincere about his non-problem with Jews. But there's no way for him to prove it. The "some of my best friends" remark was often countered with, "Yeah, but would you want your sister to marry one?" Easterbrook could marry off his sister, his daughter, his mother, and still be tainted in some people's eyes.

Posted 11:32 AM by Angie Schultz

Over 4 Million Served

Natalie Solent points to this blog survey, which reports:

The most dramatic finding was that 66.0% of surveyed blogs had not been updated in two months...

...

Blogging is many things, yet the typical blog is written by a teenage girl who uses it twice a month to update her friends and classmates on happenings in her life. It will be written very informally (often in "unicase": long stretches of lowercase with ALL CAPS used for emphasis) with slang spellings...

You sometimes find Big Media types dismissing blogs on this basis---"Blogs? Yeah, I've heard of them. My 15-year-old niece has one. So do all her friends. I hardly think they are a source for informed commentary on current events, heh heh heh."

One might as well note that: "The typical newspaper supports a small community. Often it is distributed free, supported solely by advertising. Its chief features are birth, death, and wedding announcements; notices of upcoming community events, and, occasionally, news articles of purely local interest." This is true of many places I've lived, from the Rocket (of Jefferson County, Missouri) to the Eastern Suburbs (of Sydney) Courier.

Obviously they are not a source for informed commentary on national or international events. Heh heh heh.

(I wrote this, then shelved it, thinking I was behind the curve. Big Media may not like or respect blogs, but at least they know that not all blogs are teen angst billboards, right? Well, maybe not.)

Posted 1:36 PM by Angie Schultz

I. WANT. IT. NOW.

All last week, the Bleat (start there) was about Lileks's recent trip to New York to talk to his publishers about upcoming Lileksian goodness.

For example, from Tuesday:

When the meat and wine and gossip was done, it was back to the office to talk about the next book beyond “Desecrators.”...So I said THE IDEA, and bang! / shazaam, he got it. We almost did a little dance on the spot, so perfect was the concept. And no, I’m not telling....If all goes well, I’ll be kicking out a book a year, which is what I wanted to do anyway. Three more Institute books for a total of five...

Oh, for fun! And I'm glad your little idea was received so well.

Now.

WHERE'S THE BOOK, JAMES? WHERE THE HELL IS INTERIOR DESECRATORS? I WANT IT. I WANT IT NOW.

I did a google search and could not find anything which said that the book was forthcoming, which seems ominous for a book that was supposed to be published this fall.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH IT?

It better damn well be out for Christmas, that's all I'm saying. It better be under my tree come Christmas Day, or Someone Will Hurt.

...twitch...whimper...foam...

Posted 10:42 PM by Angie Schultz

Loonies to the Left of Me, Rednecks to the Right

OK, this is new. In an interview with the Charlotte Observer's Tim Funk, Rep Cass Ballenger (R - N.C.) blames CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) for the breakup of his 50-year marriage.

Seems his wife was unnerved that CAIR moved into an office near their house, and they both were worried that CAIR could blow up the Capitol, only a couple blocks away.

CAIR spokeman Ibrahim Hooper said:

Blah...blah...bigotry...blah...

Now, this all would be much more interesting if it didn't seem that Ballenger is kind of a jackass:

This isn't the first time Ballenger has been criticized for comments some consider insensitive. Last December, in another interview with The Observer, he said that then-Rep. Cynthia McKinney, an African American from Georgia known for her abrasive style, had stirred in him "a little bit of a segregationist feeling. I mean, she was such a bitch." He later apologized for what he called "pretty stupid remarks" even as an aide was painting white the black lawn jockey -- a symbol of racial insensitivity to many -- in Ballenger's front yard.

McKinney is six different flavors of unsavory, but I really think her colleagues in the House ought not to call her a "bitch" (or even words that rhyme with it) and witter on about segregation.

But it gets better:

Another stress on their marriage: the decision by "we holier-than-thou Republicans" in the House, Ballenger said, to ban gifts -- including meals and theater tickets from lobbyists -- that once meant "a social life for (congressional) wives."

...

Ballenger's wife also agreed with him that the GOP-controlled House's 1995 decision to restrict the money spent on members of Congress and their spouses had helped turn Washington into "a lousy place to live. ...It used to be you'd get invitations to the symphony or the theater ... I don't think you should get $1,000 trips to the Bahamas (from lobbyists). But I don't see where a dinner or a theater ticket is that bad. We had friends who are lobbyists."

So what did they do? They got a legal separation and now live in separate residences, although he still eats a lot of meals over at his wife's place.

Could this marriage have been saved? I don't suppose it would have been possible to move away from CAIR, and to buy your own damned theater tickets? That would've been cheaper than a separation and separate residences.

Twits.

It would help if people opposed to McKinney and suspicious of CAIR wouldn't act as if they longed for the old days when all these coloreds knew their place and you could let a nice feller buy you a dinner or a car.

I found this as a little snippet in the Houston Chronicle, where it came from AP. The Chronicle's title was "Lawmaker blames split-up on Muslims", whereas the Observer's title was "Ballenger grouses about Muslims, lobbyist limits". You don't see much grousing in newspaper headlines these days. One gathers that he grouses quite a lot, and always expects to see it in the newspaper.

UPDATE: Not one to open itself to charges of being unfair and unbalanced, the Observer prints Froot Loopy goodness from the other side---to wit, the assertion by a fellow writing for the Islamic Political Party of America, that Muslims beat Columbus to the punch:

It is important for the American public to know that although this political movement by Muslims may be somewhat new, Muslims have been a part of the fabric of this society, in some fashion, since before Columbus. Muslim explorers visited the West Coast long ago. Arabic writings have been found in some caves in California. The name "California" comes from the Arabic word calif, meaning ruler or leader.

Actually, the name "California" comes from "Calafia" the queen of a fictional land of women warriors. I suppose it's possible that "Calafia" came from "Caliph": after all, Arabs occupied Spain for hundreds of years, until driven out in 1492, and many Arabic words entered the language.

I think I'll write the Observer on behalf of the lost continent of Mu.

Via the Lizard King.