perfidy

I'm not going to fisk, but I'm going to take issue with a number of points you raise. Your general tone is "path of righteousness".

We are having an effect on certain terrorists, but new recruits are banging on their doors, and overall I suspect terrorism is largely unabated. I think that there just aren't all that many people in the world willing to commit suicide for their beliefs. There are some, but not that many. The rarity of events lik 9/11 is statistical evidence for this.

America's Army is NOT exterminating terrorists at the moment. They are engaged in a low-intensity battle against resistance forces, after having exhausted the regular forces invading a teeny-tiny country. Yes, there are some terrorists in the mix, and we hear about the car bombs and so forth. 99% of the conflicts with American forces are run-of-the-mill insurgents. You can't call them all terrorists. Some of them are pissed-off natives who don't want the US in their country. Some of them are Baathists. It's a mixture.

The bottom line is that most of the strength of the military is engaged in nation-building at the moment. By most reports I've read, resources have generally been shifted away from pursuit of terrorism, and towards political change in Iraq.

This is single-issue, silver-bullet foreign policy. A very great number of eggs are in a single basket. There are so many eggs in the basket that, yes, in the absence of other fiscal responsibility, there are serious threats to the economic stability of the country.

Nobody thinks the 7% growth rate is anything more than a single exceptional quarter. Most predictions go for around a 4.5% quarter next time, which is still very good, but more in line with history.

Do you not see that the debate has everything with what the US may _legitimately_ do in the world? If a nuclear bomb had detonated in NY, and was traced to Saddam Hussein, the entire world would have been behind the US in removing him. They probably would have lead the way.

This is instead a forceful war of political change...cynical and expensive. It is by no means a "war of revenge". There is no direct connection between Hussein and 9/11. Are you arguing that you believe there to be a solid connection? One that was known BEFORE the war was initiated? You are certainly willing to trade on the idea, to make your political points. Do you or do you not believe it? What evidence do you have? You have no business using it as an underpinning to debate otherwise.

So what does $300 Billion buy us? Quite a lot. Our yearly medicare budget is around $250 Billion. The interest on the national debt is around $175 Billion (due to rise dramatically). $300 Billion is a rather incredible amount of money! Of course, prior to the war, Mitch Daniels (long since fired as White House budget director) explained that the war would cost around $50 Billion.

It is simple, and deceitful, to throw round numbers like "1% of GDP". The government doesn't have anywhere near a large percentage of GDP to work with; the federal budget is around 25% of GDP, I think.

With the huge deficits Bush has created just around the corner. we will be spending, on interest, enough money to do an Iraq every year in short order.

There are so many absolutes in what you write. "Terrorists are created not by our actions, but by the failure of their societies". So our actions have no effect? I think they do. I think our actions matter greatly. I think Bush's snubbing of the UN has had an effect. His abandonment of the Palestinian-Israeli peace process has had an effect. The trashing of Kyoto has had an effect (we can argue all day long about whether it would work or not, but symbolically it was a tremendous blow to multilateralism).

I'll retract the NASCAR remark, with regards to YOU. I stand by it as far as this Administration goes. And I stand by it for most people I've met in favor of the war. Their thinking hasn't gone much past, "punch me, and get punched".

"tit-for-tat" is one of the winningest strategies for the Prisoner's Dilemma, a well-studied game theory example. I gather, in your world, that there need be no foreign policy more sophisticated than tit-for-tat. tit-for-tat is a conservative position that attempts to engender cooperation, rewarding cooperation where it exists, and punishing it where it does not. There are strategies that can beat it, but it's pretty good all around.

We aren't playing tit-for-tat, because we just took the first punch. We chose the path of non-cooperation, of unilateralism.

Finally, you state that "It is sadly common for those who are protected to resent those who do the bloody work of protecting."

Do you believe that you are somehow identifying with more firmly, and are showing more solidarity with our armed forces? I do not recall you have been on any secret missions to Iraq.

Men with guns, you can't handle the truth, and all of that. You are not on the wall with a gun, and neither am I. There are men (and women) doing that. Do you imply that those who disagree with Bush policy resent our soldiers, who protect us, and who follow orders?

Terrorists do care about US strategy and actions. Because right now, we are hunting them down. They are on the run, hiding in caves, and fearful that they will be ratted out. They are fearful that a group of US Special Forces like the ones described in GeekLethal’s first post will be knocking on the door of their hideout. The only places where terrorist attacks have happened in the wake of 9/11 are those places where we do not have troops – like Saudi Arabia, where we (hopefully temporarily) left, or Indonesia, or Israel. The most powerful military force in world history is devoted to exterminating terrorists. I think that this fact has made an impact on their thinking, and on their plans.

It will also have an effect on those who might have joined them in more salubrious times. When the uniform result of an attack on America is death and destruction not for America but for the terrorists, all but the most zealous will think twice. And even the most zealous might reconsider their means when 99% of all attempts result in abject failure. The martyr must not merely die for his faith, but he must inflict damage in the process. Continued failure will result in demoralization.

During the recent Gulf War, even Iraqi military strategy assumed the basic goodness and restraint of American forces. They hid behind civilians, knowing that we would not willingly harm civilians. The Iraqi people have witnessed that, and our efforts to rebuild their nation – not merely the damage from our brief bombing campaign, but from decades of neglect. If we are successful in remaking Iraq into a democratic nation – which will require the willing cooperation of the Iraqis, the Islamic world will notice. And the fact of a successful, free, prosperous Arab nation will put immense pressure on other authoritarian and despotic governments.

The proper question to ask is, “does America give a shit what the rest of the world thinks?” We were attacked; and we are, with the assistance of many other nations taking action we see fit to remove the threat. This is a basic right of national sovereignty. While we have taken steps to get the approval of others, we do not require it, any more than France needed UN approval to invade the Ivory Coast.

The cost of our invasion will likely exceed $300 billion dollars. That is less than one year’s expenditure on our military. It is less than three percent of our gross national product for one year. The occupation and eventual departure from Iraq will not bankrupt us, and I cannot conceive of any possible domino effect that would lead from that occupation to any kind of decline. "We didn’t spend the money on drugs for rich old people, Revolution in the streets!" This is, well, extremely unlikely at best.
The dynamism of our economy is intact – despite the recent cyclical recession, we grew at an over than 7% annual rate last quarter. The more mature and nuanced Europeans are still fighting high structural unemployment, low growth rates and stagnant technology. How this will lead to the things Ross fears eludes me.

I am reminded of an essay that PJ O’Rourke wrote, titled “Among the Euro-Weenies.”

Why yes, we do all have guns.

We're the badest-assed sons of bitches that ever jogged in Reeboks. We're three quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother's side. You take your Germany, France and Spain, roll them all together and it wouldn't give us room to park our cars. We're the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized new and improved butt kickers of all time. When we snort coke in Houston, people lose their hats in Cap d'Antibes. And we've got an American Express card credit limit higher than your piss-ant metric numbers go.

You say our country's never been invaded? You're right, little buddy. Because I'd like to see the needle-dick foreigners who'd have the guts to try. We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying "Cheerio". Hell can't hold our sock hops.

We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, f*ck longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I'd rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen and jack of all Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfast and shit them out before lunch.

The can of whup ass mentality does work in a world where civilization is not universal. Between the US and Canada, or in Europe and Japan, we can discuss things reasonably. There civilization is the order, literally, of the day. Elsewhere, where as you correctly note, there is no end of despots, it is a Hobbesian war of all against all. Europeans make the mistake of assuming that their polite discourse can be extended to this world, or that persuasion and kind words will change the hearts of totalitarian mini-fuehrers.

For those who are not part of civilization there is threat, coercion, and violence. In order to secure the safety of our nation, and not coincidently the safety of the the rest of the civilized world that depends on the American military for safety, we have to be prepared to open that can of whup ass. Sometimes there is no other way. Ten years of sanctions, resolutions and jabber did not end the horrific regime of Saddam Hussein. Bloody compulsion did. It is sadly common for those who are protected to resent those who do the bloody work of protecting.

Terrorists are created not by our actions, but by the failure of their societies. We did not piss them off so much that they decided to kill themselves. They fixate on our success, and figure that we must be preventing them from the riches, power and glory that by right is theirs. When we destroy those who attacked us, we are deterring others. We are demonstrating that is foolhardy in the extreme to bait us. We also demonstrate that we are magnanimous in the aftermath, and that we do not hold grudges, and that we are happy when others join us in prosperity, peace and freedom just as after WWII.

That you describe my foreign policy judgments as WWF smackdowns or NASCAR rallies is condescending not just to me but to the people who watch NASCAR and WWF. They, by and large, understand that if you’re attacked and do nothing, you will be attacked again. And nothing includes talking. Response must not be subtle. Despots are not noted for their grasp of subtlety and nuance. This level of wisdom seems entirely unattainable to much of the left. We used our force and accomplished something good – the removal of Saddam Hussein. Now we are using our unparalled wealth to rebuild that nation. The rest of the world will respect us no more or no less than it always had as a result of this war. Those who are envious or fearful will remain as they are. Those who appreciate that for all our flaws, we do stand for liberty, well they have always been our friends.

Last month I spent a few days in the company of warriors. It was like going to a different planet compared to my usual day to day existence at a liberal, snoot-ay private college. A filmmaker and I shot several training exercises conducted by special operations forces. This training was largely built around urban maneuver and combat; some exercises were held at night, others in broad daylight; some with live ammo, others with a 9mm paintball-type submunition. Many of the operators we spoke to were combat veterans and the rest are soon to be. Here's a short list of what I learned. I think it worthwhile to share these observations, particularly with Bad Guys. If you are a Bad Guy, please take these to heart and save us all some trouble in the future: 

1. These guys WILL get into your house/bunker/cave/RV/hijacked plane. You can lock the door and latch the gate if it makes you feel better, but you really needn't bother. They will blow it up, blow it off, torch or saw through it within about 15 seconds. If you give them half a chance and a pipe wide enough they will throw on some flippers, swim into your house, and come right out of your tap the next time you get a glass of water.
2. If commandos kick your door in in the middle of the night, they will not kill you if you are not holding a weapon. If you are not a Bad Guy, you might want to stop, drop, & roll like Dick Van Dyke encouraged in that old PSA. That was for fires. For this scenario, if you curl up and refrain from looking menacing you'll be OK. If you have to cry or piss yourself, try not to move too much. If you are a Bad Guy and insist on meeting Allah at that very moment, reach for your weapon. Hello, virgins!
3. Special operations people are high-energy. They do nothing slowly or half-assed. If you are a Bad Guy, you will not outrun them. You may make them tired in the process of catching you, but that will only make your immediate future exceedingly difficult.
4. Special operations people shoot better than you. While you and you cohorts were spending your days deciding whether Israel or the US was more responsible for the world's evil, they were training. Day and night, year-round: close quarter battle. Long distance sniper ranges. Heavy weapons training. Look, I KNOW you want to get your share of virgins but put it this way: I also know some want them more than others. All you have to do is not shoot at the SOF guys and you'll live. Just say, "I must live to spawn a new generation of martyrs" or some such. That'll probably fly on Al Jazeera.
5. Special operations people WANT to kill Bad Guys. ALOT of Bad Guys. Badly. They are disappointed if they are not in the fight, and will not accept failure once on the battlefield. If you are a Bad Guy, do not confuse soldiers with warriors. Soldiers exist to do specific jobs: cooks, drivers, artillerymen, military police, etc., and vary in their readiness and quality of leadership. Warriors don't share these problems. They exist to kill you. They are grouchy when they aren't. Please make a note of it.

Wow. Just wow.

U.S. economic growth surged in the third quarter of 2003 to the fastest pace in nearly two decades, the government said Thursday, in a report that was much stronger than most economists expected.

Gross domestic product (GDP), the broadest measure of economic activity, grew at a 7.2 percent annual rate in the quarter after growing at a 3.3 percent rate in the second quarter, the Commerce Department reported. Economists, on average, expected GDP growth of 6 percent, according to Briefing.com.

Hey, that's great news.

Now, could I see a little of that magic, please?

This Washington Post Editorial is very sobering. A key quote:

"It's war because our undefeated enemies say it is and behave accordingly.

In that stubborn resistance lies a fundamental truth that seems too often to have eluded American political leaders since World War II: It's not the winner who typically decides when victory in a war has been achieved. It's the loser. "

If that is true, and it does seem so to me, then the hearts and minds of everyday Iraqis are really the key to the mission. It also places in distinctly sharper relief the Administration's predictions before the war that Americans would be welcomed as liberators, and that the population would fall over themselves to greet the incoming troops.

That has happened in small ways, but the overall situation is poor, and the attacks are accelerating. Riverbend gives us a view from one Iraqi citizen; are we winning her heart and mind? How do we convince the people shooting at the troops, recruiting "resistance fighters", that the war simply doesn't need to go on?

It will go on as long as there are people willing to fight and die against perceived occupation. When it comes to the Arab world, it seems that the supply of such people is almost limitless...and with population growth there, as fast as they can be killed (to put it bluntly), they are being replaced.

Is war and aggression truly the best path? Is there another way?

AP is reporting that in the third quarter, economic growth has jumped up to a 7.2% annual rate, more than double the not particularly anemic 3.3% growth rate of the previous quarter. This is the strongest single quarter gain since 1984.

The economy's recovery from the 2001 recession has resembled the side of a jagged cliff; a quarter of strength often has been followed by a quarter of weakness. But analysts are saying that pattern could be broken, considering increasing signs the economy finally has shaken its lethargy and is perking up.

Near rock-bottom short-term interest rates, along with President Bush's third round of tax cuts, have helped the economy shift into a higher gear during the summer, economists say. The next challenge is making sure the rebound is self-sustaining.

Job creation surged to a net increase of 57,000 in September, the first increase in eight months - though job creation is generally a lagging indicator of recovery. The article goes on to list improvements in other economic indicators - drops in unemployment claims, increases in wages and benefits, consumer spending, and business capital spending.

As for the government's role:

Federal government spending, which grew at a 1.4 percent rate, was only a minor contributor to GDP in the third quarter. Spending on national defense was flat. But in the second quarter, military spending on the Iraq war - which grew at a whopping 45.8 percent rate - helped to catapult economic growth.

The evidence suggests that businesses are still somewhat gunshy, and unwilling to trust in the economy's rebound just yet. But if, as economists predict, that the next quarter will show at least 4% growth, I think that we've turned the corner on the most recent cyclical recession.

Of course, one result of a growing economy will be the reduction in deficits as government tax revenue increases. If the typical pattern holds, we will enter a period of economic growth that will last another decade before the next recession. If this growth period is even half as potent as the last one, we should see deficits disappearing again so long as the increases in federal spending stays not to far ahead of inflation.

Of course, it would be better to see a reduction in federal spending. I have played with the budget simulator that Ross linked recently, too - and balancing the budget is simple. As long as you have your priorities straight. I balanced the budget by increasing defense spending and simply halting increases in social spending, while eliminating the department of education and farm subsidies.

And, in answer to one of Ross' claims in the previous post, what are you smoking? Defense spending, including the Iraq War and Veteran's Benefits, is $547.61 billion. Spending for social welfare (Education, Health, Medicare, Social Welfare, and Social Security) is $1.27 trillion. That's almost one and a half times more for welfare boondoggles, not an order of magnitude less.
Huge jails house people who commit crimes. Blacks are in prison because they commit more crimes - generally against other blacks. This is a sad situation, but you can make the argument that social policies dating back to the sixties are partly responsible. When you reduce everyone's taxes by, say 5%, of course the people who pay more taxes will get more money back in absolute terms. But that isn't what happened. After the tax cuts, the wealthiest among us are paying a larger fraction of the total tax collected than before. And it is semantically incorrect to refer to the government as spending money on a tax cut. People earned that money, the government takes it. If the government takes less, it is not spending money.

I agree with Ross that Agriculture subsidies are a travesty, and should go. Likewise with other subsidies. As far as the tax cut, Ross can feel free to give more money to the government, but I'd like to keep mine.

My general view on government spending is that as long as we have entitlement programs that consume vast portions of the federal budget, worrying about nickel-ante programs that cost only millions of dollars is pointless. I really have a hard time getting exercised over the (on the government scale) small expenditures on things like the NEA, NPR, and so on. If the liberals need NPR to get the word out, fine. They can have their All Things Considered and Lake Wobegon Days.

The most important things to spend money on, to me, are those things required by the constitution. Defense, Treasury, Justice and the Courts, the State Department. Once those are adequately funded, we can use leftover funds to do nice things like unemployment insurance, welfare, medicaid, scientific research and the like. (Though they should be reformed, and their budgets should never, ever be indexed to the inflation rate. Each budget should be approved by the Congress, not have built in automatic increases.) With the change the government finds under the couch, it can fund the smaller programs.

A friend of mine once had the idea that we should include a form on the Tax return that lists, to a reasonable amount of detail, the various departments and budget items in the gov't. You can then allocate your tax dollars to them however you like. Items that get no money from the taxpayers are eliminated. The gov't would be allowed discretionary control over tax revenue from businesses and excises, etc. It would be interesting to see what happens.

I've talked about this before, but progressive taxation is an offense to fairness. We are supposed to receive equal protection of the laws, it's in the constitution. Tax brackets are discrimination. There is no reason why if I earn $5000 more in a year, I am affected by a different set of standards than I am now. Everyone should have the same, exactly the same rules to live by.

According to Bill Moyers, it may be at hand. I haven't seen much lately that leads me to believe otherwise. There are still a few signs of life out there, where ethics haven't been bent and folded enough times to disappear entirely...It's a sobering interview.

Everything involving television is for sale. I wonder how long even NPR can last; its ad content has slowly been creeping upwards too.

It occurs to me that I have heard entirely too many times that we "shouldn't be spending public money on NPR". Here's the thing, for those of you on the right. There are things that you think government should spend money, and there are things that I think government should spend money on. On your side, we've got big guns and a military, invasions of other countries, huge jails for mostly black people who can't afford Rush Limbaugh's lawyers, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, and government funding of religions. I think it's worth noting that we're actually spending money on all that stuff.

On my side there's an R+D budget, health care, serious funding for educational institutions, we keep our progressive taxation system progressive, taxes can certainly go higher, and we keep important programs like NPR and NASA and yes, even the NEA.

Here's the thing: The right's pet expenditures are an order of magnitude higher than the left's. The old canard about "free-spending liberals" just doesn't hold water any more. We all know exactly who the free spenders are now. So the next time you want to knock off the NEA, maybe I get to pick one out of your list.

You too can play amusing budget games! Try this budget simulator. I pretty much balanced the budget on the first try. It's not even hard to do. You just have to have your priorities straight...and get rid of the stupid tax cut that got us into this deficit mess in the first place. Plus nuke agricultural subsidies. I can't for the life of me figure out why a single mom struggling to make ends meet in the inner city should be forced to give part of her income to Archer Daniels Midland.

Old budget was $3274.734 billion
($2292.807 billion in spending, $981.927 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

New budget is $2914.09 billion

($2253.16 billion in spending, $660.93 billion in tax expenditures and cuts).

You have cut the deficit by $360.64 billion.

Your new deficit is $-3.63 billion.

It's Wednesday! Time for music blogging!

My blogcritics colleague Rodney Welch has found this screedly little list of 100 albums that everyone must purge from their collections immediately. I can't say as that I agree with many of the choices, but it's a well-argued and provocative piece nonetheless.

I mean, I can see why The Replacement's "Tim" is on the list, when "Let it Be" is much better, and why Tom Waits' "The Mule Variations" is called a remake of the far better "Swordfishtrombones" and "Rain Dogs," but... "Giant Steps"? "Blood Sugar Sex Magic"? "Combat Rock"? "The Soft Bulletin"? "Bitches Brew"? "Daydream fucking Nation?" "Nothing's Shocking"?

Please.

Shoots straight past "the emperor has no clothes" to reveal a buncha half-Neanderthal Philistines pissed off that they don't get it. Cry me a river and go buy the new Cave-In record, ok?

Blogcritics is hosting a Halloween blog blowout this week-- I suggest you go check it out, not least because I'm a member in good standing of that august body.

Gregg Easterbrook regains his footing after a disastrous couple weeks (ontology, rectocranial disease) with this post on NASA's latest genius plan: build a space plane!

NASA last wanted to build a space plane in the 1960s, and abandoned the project when ICBMs rendered negligible their strategic worth. It's well documented that podlike vehicles do better upon reentry than winged vehicles, and at this point the spaceplane is nothing but a decades-old dream. Furthermore, a space plane would do nothing to NASA's advantage-- it would still be expensive, dangerous, of limited use, and packed with Senate pork. From braindrizzles like this it's clear that NASA is not just useless, but actually harmful to the advance of engineering, science, and space exploration in the United States.

And these are the dudes in charge of space. /*covers face with hands

I would encourage anyone with a passing interest in space and space policy to pick up the most recent edition of the Atlantic, which features William Langeweische's killer cover story on the Columbia disaster and NASA's bumbling, fumbling, and institutional dead weight. Easterbrook covers the main point on Easterblogg so I won't belabor them here; I will only say that that X-Prize better be won, and soon.

Private Space Exploration Now!

[wik] Buckethead has kindly reminded me that he covered this NASA spaceplane garbage a while back.

[alsø wik] And don't forget to choose "That Buck Rogers Stuff" from the categories list at left for some of the darned-tootenist, bestest, pithiest, and altogether smartestest space bloviation anywhere!

A little fodder:

• Private Health Care Through Your Employer.  There's nuthin' beddah.  God intended it to be this way.  Why, the personal care of unsurpassed excellence we all get is all that stands between us and hell.
• Guns are Great.  If I can't shoot it, I can't control it.
• American Democracy Is The Only Real Democracy.  You can just shut the hell up if you think anything else!
• The Founding Fathers BLAH BLah Blah blah blah.  They knew everything.  They even know about the magazines in the back of your closet, they invented light bulbs and boxed lunches, and they don't approve of what we're doing.  No sir they don't.  Follow the recipe.
• Rich People Are Because They Are Just Plain Better People.  Luck, hereditary factors, hundreds of years of bia and bullshit, have nothing to do with it.  Please ignore the current round of cheatin' and lyin' on Wall Street.  Nothing to see here.  These are not the crooks you are looking for.  Move along.
• Market Uber Alles!  All human function can be controlled by markets.  All human functions must be controlled by markets.  If all human bodily functions were controlled by markets, our toilets would be 3.7% more efficient.  This would lead to world peace. 

Ah.  I feel so much better!  Why do I still like it here so much?  I don't know!  Maybe it's the women.  Maybe it's the fact that with a little bending and twisting, this country could be so truly excellent.  I have a pipe wrench around here somewhere.

As resident contrarian, please allow me to differ. Greatly.

What dumb-ass playground do you think we are still all on? Do you seriously believe that there are terrorists out there who give a crap about US strategy and actions? They don't. They know that the consequences of their actions are visited upon others -- the citizens of the countries we blow up, in the name of collective punishment. It's beautiful for them, really...they just have to sit back, drug up a 20 year old, shove him into a car, and tell him that 29 (or 63, or whatever the 'magic' number is) virgins are waiting for him on the other side of a 15mm red button. We toss ten thousand bombs into their countries, maim children, and create a whole new generation of recruits. "Wag the dog" usually refers to something else.

Do you think the rest of the world gives a shit about how the US looks when it mobs a country with its Army? Here is the lesson any intelligent planner has learned from this: No one country can stand against America, but America can easily bankrupt itself through the sheer idiocy of pursuing unbelievably expensive foreign policy. A bankrupt America becomes a corrupt American, and this will lead to its decline in the shorter time, rather than the long wait history teaches us is the norm.

What kind of flypaper do we have in Iraq, exactly? Is it the kind that attracts terrorists (you know, the really stupid ones)? Or is it the kind that gets stuck to a world power, sapping resources that are needed elsewhere, compounding domestic problems, and potentially setting off a domino effect that results in a cultural decline?

It's probably a bit of both. Your "can of whup ass" mentality was all fine and fun in the Wild West, and probably worked great in the 'hood. This ain't the hood. We have a lot more to lose than the momentary satisfaction we gain by killing a few idiots, and deposing a few standard despots.

The world isn't going to run out of despots any time soon. It also isn't going to run out of smart terrorists, who are gaining converts, created by our actions, at ten times the rate they were before. And I refuse to back that up with anything other than a gut feeling. You know it's true too.

Do I advocate we do nothing? Of course not. That would be stupid. WWF Smackdown Foreign Policy sounds kick-ass to the Nascar crowd. Woohoo! Now comes the hard part. Put it back together again. There are other ways.

We could have cured AIDS and raised living standards by half in a dozen countries, earning respect worldwide, for less money than two months of this war has cost. Politics and true leadership is about allocation of scarce resources, making hard choices, and going for the maximum effect. It's not about posturing, point-making, and throwing a $300 Billion Finger at the rest of the world, with a follow-on "fuck you if you don't like it. But will you please pay for it anyway?"

It's not that the rest of the world is anti-American. By and large it isn't. It just seems like such a huge waste of potential. So much human capital could have been created, for so much less. With these kinds of expenditures there could have been a third way...a way where the US leads by example, by education, by being reasoned, and right.

Amen, Brothers.

This exercise in fantasy from the state controlled Egyptian press goes a long way toward explaining a lot of the problems that they have. Hat tip:
Daimnation! via Dodgeblogium.

In relation to Johno's comment in a previous post:

1) You are the first person to plausibly explain how a rise in attacks might be considered a "good thing." Thanks for that. And you are right-- it IS good in a sick way, if at all.

2) In the run-up to war, we discussed the possibility that Bush wanted to whack Saddam's government as an example to others. It's not a thesis you hear very often, which is weird because it seems to me to be the single most logical of all reasons for the war. It's like we're the action hero who steps into a room of thugs who've done something bad to him and beats the shit out of the guy nearest the door-- breaks ribs, knocks out teeth, bleeding scalp, disclocated knee, swirly-- and then looks up with blood on his chin and says, "now who's next?"

1) Thank you.

2) While I have been often distracted by the minutia of why this or that reason is right, wrong, or disengenuous; at root my basic support for the war comes from that conclusion. While I think all the reasons that have been given for invading are valid to one degree or other, the core principle at work is that we needed to throw somebody against the wall after 9/11. In a sense the reasons given for the war are not justifications for an invasion of Iraq, they are merely the reasons we picked Iraq to invade.

The war on terror is a Huntingtonian clash of civilizations - on a relatively modest and restrained level. It is a clash of lifestyles. War, on one level, is merely a demonstration that our mojo is stronger than their mojo. If we are to defeat terror - it will happen because we have convinced the Islamic world that:

1. Attacking America is a supremely bad idea. That we will ruin the day of anyone who attacks us, supports those who attack us, or even looks at us funny when someone attacks us.
2. That the Islamic Fundamentalist/Baathist - Pan Arab Nationalist/Let's blow things up because we haven't got our way set of memes is a really bad way to organize your society. Because it either results in 1) above, or because it results in poverty and oppression even when your land sits atop stupendously valuable natural resources.
3. We have created at least one example that a Muslim nation can be reorganized on western lines without destroying the essential muslimness of it.

The terrorists themselves have told us how our limpwristed, ineffectual responses to previous terrorist attacks only encouraged them. It made us look weak. So, the obvious corrolary is that we must look puissant. The political wisdom that covers this situation goes back to Roman times. Be nice, until its time not to be nice. But once you change your MO, go biblical on the m-fs so that they get the idea.

War is a bad thing. But it is often better than all of the alternatives.

If the aliens arrive and challenge the human race to a rock/paper/scissors match.

Last night I watched a re-run of Thursday, Oct 23's "The Daily Show With John Stewart", on which the guest was Walter Isaacson discussing his book, Benjamin Franklin: An American Life.

I already think "The Daily Show" is one of the best shows on television. The quality of the actual news reportage is incredibly high, as is the quality of the interviews. What other show do you know whose recent guests include Michael Moore, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Rowan Atkinson?

Anyway, last night I had an epiphany. We, the geeks, are in charge and "The Daily Show" is our salon. It's not the Jews. It's not the Illuminati. It's not even Clear Channel. It's the geeks. Last night, for a brief second the mask slipped aside and we revealed our utter hegemony to the world. Last night, while discussing Benjamin Franklin on a basic-cableshow known for fake comedy news stories, Walter Isaacson without fanfare or explanation uttered the word "antinomian."

Damn, it feels good to be in charge.

I frequently disagree with his every "heh" and "indeed," but when he's right, he's right.

Glenn Reynolds, the Instapundit, on those people who believe God will punish us for loving our gay brethren:

"Yeah: No-show for the Holocaust, or Rwanda, or what's going on in North Korea, but he's going to come down from the clouds and hurl lightning bolts if two guys get married."

In a spectacular profile in the New Yorker, head Saturday Night Live writer Tina Fey nails the mercurial nature of fame and legacy. Warning: cussing below the break.

You can be a murderous tyrant and the world will remember you fondly. But fuck one horse and you're a horse-fucker for all eternity.”

In a sick way, the recent shift in targets is a positive sign. It means (hopefully) that the holdover Baathist thugs and imported jihadists are finding that attacking American soldiers and Marines is a very, very, dangerous thing. One thing that the media has been less than efficient in broadcasting is that when one or two American soldiers die in an ambush, the cost to the attackers is often far higher. And many attacks are foiled without American loss of life.

It also means that the counterrevolutionaries are going to be even less popular with the general populace, which can only be a good thing from our point of view.

If we continue to hunt them down, and the people continue to help us do so, things will get better. Remember, we were in a similar situation in Germany for well over a year. Operation Werewolf was killing American and British soldiers from ambush into '46.

What I remember from the pre war build up is that the administration focused on Iraqi efforts to develop WMD. Note that the consensus of all western intelligence agencies (including the French) was that Saddam either had them, or had the capability to develop them. And, of course, he had used them in the past which is certainly an indication that the idea wasn't out of left field.

The other reasons were on the back burner, but never discounted - violation of UN resolutions (18 if I recall correctly), the brutality of the regime, and support for terror. The administration never said that Saddam was directly connected to Al Quaeda, and never said that the WMD threat was imminent.

I think the central point is that after 9/11, we had to whack somebody just to establish a deterrent. Afghanistan didn't count, as it was to small, too weak. Saddam was a perfect target, because of all the reasons that were given. If we are to eliminate terror - and the war was always cast as a war on terror in general, then we have to make large scale changes in the region that is the source of the terror that has hit us hard and that continues to be (albeit smaller) threat today.

We know that Saddam's regime supported terrorists. Groups with links to Al Quaeda are in the northeast of that country, and were before we got there. The connections to Palestinian terror were more obvious.

No one of the reasons given for the invasion of Iraq was perhaps compelling enough to justify an invasion alone. But collectively, and in light of the overall threat from terrorism, Iraq was the logical and necessary choice. The best analogy, I think, for the war on terror is the British crackdown on piracy in the 19th Century, which the United States sometimes collaborated on. Sometimes it involves direct action against pirates, sometimes against the nations that support it - even if those nations didn't help the particular pirates that attacked you. Terrorism is a threat to the west, and it is not localized in one terror group.

Strangely enough, one of my first entries is about terrorism in Iraq. I've long been against the war; it's pretty clear at this point that this Administration "fudged" (to put it gently) a lot of the information used to drive the war authorization process forward. I distinctly remember thinking, at the time that there must be some highly secret intelligence, in Bush's possession. That was the only explanation for his actions. News reports and whatever sources I could read at the time simply didn't support rushing the country into an incredibly expensive war.

If we set aside the WMD aspect, we are left with the continuous claims of the administration before the war that terrorists had taken root in Iraq, and were supported by that government. Iraq did support terror, by paying Palestinian families of martyrs, but that is not the connection that the Administration implied. They implied terror; they implied a direct connection to Al Quaeda (note the spelling of the week).

No significant evidence of such a connection has been found. And yet...over the last few days there has been a serious round of terrorism in Baghdad. There are at least 200 wounded, at least 34 dead. Virtually all of them are Iraqis. This is not, in any shape or form, "resistance" fighting. What resistance murders dozens of its own people to make a "point" against an occupier? If "collaboration" is given as a reason, it is a fiction. The vast majority of the dead are regular Iraqi civilians, not police or anyone else who could be termed a collaborator.

I find the events of the past four days to be one of the strongest indicators we have yet seen of Iraq's former government being involved in terrorism. That they have shifted to this tactic so quickly, and with deadly effects, speaks volumes about who they are, and what they were and are prepared to do.

If new elements in Iraq are responsible for these atrocities, we need to root them out. The Iraqi people don't need foreign elements blowing them up, while they're trying to rebuild a society.

For showing how you can have financial discipline AND a national health care system!

For having a hemp-tolerant culture, at least for now.

For providing opposition to Buckethead. Did you really have to IMPORT someone to do this? Are there truly no liberals left?

Thanks to the Perfidy folks, all better writers than I, for the opportunity to provide some opposition. All I can do is offer facts; the eloquence will escape me...most of the time.

I am a level playing field capitalist. I think that we need to provide basic health care and education to every citizen, and if we don't, we make the American (or Canadian, take your pick) Dream so much harder to achieve. I think hard work should be rewarded, but I don't buy the "cut the taxes until the social systems bleed" crap. I think the environment is in danger, and that we can't risk NOT doing anything about it.

I believe that there are factual rights and wrongs, when it comes to politics. Partisan politics has, over the past few years, degraded in its discourse to the point where otherwise intelligent, learned people will argue black is white, up is down; you'll find them on both sides of the aisle.

Let the hazing commence.

Also coming soon to blogcritics.org

D.H. Lawrence once wrote that "one loses one's sickness in books." I don't know if that's quite right. I read like a champ, yet I'm a fairly boring guy with few kinks that I'm willing to admit to. I have never killed a man. I have never had anonymous sex with multiple partners (my loss... I guess). I have never even faced off against Ultimate Evil armed with only my wits, a flashlight, and a roll of duct tape. Consequently, the sicknesses I have to lose are easily handled by massive infusions of alcohol and by a strict program of yoga, emetics, and curmudgeonly behavior. Okay, I might be a huge fan of "Gilmore Girls" and vegetarian cookbooks, but those aren't as much signs of sickness as of postmodern metrosexual wimpery.

No, I usually go to books to find my sickness. I tend to prefer works that simultaneously attract and repel with an aplomb rarely found in standard "horror" fare. So, in tribute to this season where all America goes in search of their sicknesses and usually comes back with nothing more than a cheap torn costume and a bellyache, I have decided to offer up to you, gentle reader, a highly personal list of my favorites of what my wife recently dubbed my "awful" books.

There are no horror novels on this list, because they bore me to tears. Instead, the selections run the gamut from autobiography to experimental fiction. Yet these are the ones that gave me nightmares, or at least ruined my week admirably. At the root of this list are two questions: why do people choose to read a book they know will upset them; and what does it accomplish? Luckily, I'm no philosopher, so I can only offer pat answers. I like such books because I have an active imagination yet little ambition to be an Airborne Ranger or ninja, and what they accomplish is to allow me to satisfy the kinky parts of said imagination without actually getting down in there in the muck. They let me be a tourist rather than a resident.

So, without further ado, puffery, or hijinks, the list:

• James Ellroy, My Dark Places. James Ellroy’s mother was murdered near their home in Los Angeles when James was a young boy. Years later after a life of homelessness, depression, general unpleasantness, and incredible crime fiction, Ellroy hired a retired L.A. detective, Bill Stoner, to revisit the case. My Dark Places is Ellroy's autobiographical account of his mother's murder and the subsequent investigation carried out by him and Stoner in the 1990s. Written in Ellroy's signature staccato prose, the book is unflinching in its depiction of his mother as a flawed woman and equally unflinching in dealing with James' own Oedipal obsession with her death. Ellroy is brutally honest as he lays bare the wellspring for the darkness that underlies his novels. All the standard plot elements he uses in his fiction are here: random acts of mayhem; a preoccupation with avenging violence against women; corrupt and incompetent cops; Los Angeles as a living thing in its own right; and underneath it all, a ten year old boy madly in love with his dead mother.
• Jim Thompson, The Killer Inside Me. Have you ever seen those Faces of Death movies where they string together footage of people dying horribly and charge ten bucks admission? I hate them. Yet, I really dug this book. The Killer Inside Me is the story of a small-town deputy named Lou Ford, a quiet man who everybody likes just fine: normal, good neighbor, nice enough guy, until the sickness comes out and people suffer and die. The breakthrough that makes this novel transcend Thompson's average prose and heavy-handed plotting is that Thompson wrote it in the first person, making sure the reader is along for every bit of torture, murder, and cruelty. This one made me feel dirty, yet I found it too entertaining to stop reading. Of all the books on this list, I can't honestly recommend this one without reservations. But if you are a fan of American hard-boiled crime fiction, I suggest you test your mettle and see how much you really like it.
• Charles Bukowski, Ham On Rye. Bits of Bukowski's writing keep surfacing in my psyche at opportune times. Usually it's when I'm hanging on by a thread, say, living in my car, or drinking alone in a basement in Queens. What qualifies Bukowski for this list is not anything intrinsic to this book, but his ability to self-mythologize even the worst parts of his life in a way that appeals to those (e.g. the younger me) who doubt and sometimes hate themselves but never have it in them to actually rebel, escape, or rise above. Like so much of Bukowski's fiction, Ham On Rye is thinly veiled autobiography. In this case we explore Buk's young life in California, including his first encounter with alcohol (thumbs up!), his monstrous father, his high-school stint in the ROTC, several fights, some unpleasantness with women, and numerous trips to the doctor's office to have his boils lanced. Although other Bukowski works could have made this list, this is in my opinion his best-written novel, and the one that keeps coming back on me.
• William Burroughs, Naked Lunch. It took four or five reads to figure out that there was a plot underneath all the weirdness. Naked Lunch is like a "Where's Waldo" book, except it's called "Where's The Plot?" and features multiple deaths by heroin, purple-assed baboons, totalitarian social experiments, an obsession with bodily functions, and more homoeroticism than professional wrestling. I approve! Despite the aforementioned obsession with bodily functions, Naked Lunch lives up to its legendary status and makes the grade as Burroughs' best novel. All his experimental prose elements are working, his imagery is vivid, and I cannot for the life of me get the image of the Willy The Disc sucking the junk out of some poor dying junkie's body out of my head. A random flip through its pages reveals the following wisdom: "Deteriorated schitzos sometimes refuse to move at all" "Initial proptosis and the inevitable purulent discharge" "which may pass unnoticed in the shuffle is followed by stricture of the rectum requiring intervention of an apple corer or its surgical equivalent" "Bedpans full of blood and Kotex" "The President he is a junky but can't take it direct because of his position… sometimes have to slip my penis under his left eyelid" "'Cut him down, Mark,' she screams. Mark reaches over with a snap knife and cuts the rope" "The centipede is rushing about in agitation."
• Thomas Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow. Otherwise known as "the one nobody got through." Well I did get through it, twice in one cruel summer. My payback? Twisted dreams in which I pursued the V2 rocket through the alleys and sewers of wartime Germany accompanied by Donald Duck and a talking typewriter. Here's the plot, as much as one can be discerned. Tyrone Slothrop is a member of the US Army working intelligence detail during World War II. As a young child, Slothrop was subjected to psychological experiments in which his sexual urges were displaced onto objects. As a consequence, the map of Slothrop's sexual conquests in London corresponds to a map of rocket hits on the city. This unique connection with the rockets provides Slothrop with a sort of homing ability, and he is set loose in Germany to locate a new German super-weapon, the V2 rocket. As Slothrop moves deeper and deeper into Germany in search of the V2, his world becomes populated by malevolent soldiers, cartoon characters, mad scientists, and human weapons. At that point, things get kind of weird. If you have a couple months to kill and no pressing obligations, you can do much, much worse than hide yourself away with Gravity's Rainbow and the Companion to same.
• Art Spiegelman, Maus. This graphic novel tells two stories: the history of the Holocaust as experienced by Speigelman's father; and the story of the strained relationship between father and son as Spiegelman deals with his father's aging, his mother's suicide, and the writing of the novel itself. The central conceit is so simple - the Jews are mice! The Germans are cats!-  and yet the novel achieves great power and complexity. I read both volumes in the same week I visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., and Maus made the things I saw there more comprehensible, more complete. Maus is all the more horrible because everything in it is true.
• Thomas Hardy, The Return of the Native. A left-field choice for a list of this sort, but just read the book! The wild landscape of the English moors is as much a character as any human in this story of love, greed, betrayal, and loss. Briefly, Eustacia Vye is about to be married to Damon Wildeve and settle down unhappily for a quiet life in the grim countryside. But she remembers a young childhood on the seacoast, and longs for escape. When Clem Yeobright comes back home from France (the returning native of the title), Eustacia sees her ticket out of town. As a result of her machinations, several people end up ruined, and the lucky ones end up dead. Hardy, who's a pretty bleak writer by any measure, delivers a tragic story of characters caught up in destinies they created but cannot control. It makes this list by virtue of Hardy's seeming belief that the innocent are born to suffer and the incredible restraint and power Hardy demonstrates in recounting such a standard, simple, classic plot.
• Jon Krakauer, Into Thin Air. The true story of an expedition to climb Mount Everest and the amazing feats of strength, mulishness, and self-delusion necessary to pull it off. About the time that one gentlemen is left for dead near the peak and staggers back into camp several hours later with his arm and shoulder frozen solid is about the time I question the sanity of people who go to such extremes. I'm also looking forward to reading Krakauer's Under The Banner of Heaven which no doubt will further erode my faith in the essential reasonableness of mankind.
• Mo Yan, Red Sorghum. Hands down the most disturbing book I have ever laid my eyes on. Red Sorghum interweaves the brutal story of the Japanese invasion of China with the equally brutal story of the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Set among the sorghum fields of Shandong Province (Mo Yan's home), this intensely visual book is packed with scenes of incredible beauty and unbelievable horror. I read Red Sorghum before I encountered of Zhang Yimou's films, but when I finally saw the over-saturated colors and gorgeous imagery of Raise The Red Lantern, Farewell my Concubine, and Ran my mind and eyes went "Ah!" Many of the key images from the book are burned on my brain: blue skies against the red fields of sorghum, streaked with the blood of Chinese peasants and soldiers; Uncle Arfat screaming as he is skinned alive by the Japanese; a goat seeming to shit ammunition as its tied-shut anus is cut open to expel the contraband bullets hidden within; dead mules floating down the river, their bodies bursting in putrid green pools. They come back to me like unwelcome memories and taint my happy times. What pushes this over the top from nauseating spectacle to one of my favorites is this: Mo Yan populates his novel with people who commit acts of unimaginable cruelty and self-interest, and these impulses throb just below the surface of their daily existence. Yet he creates characters, who, in all their cruelty and kindness, are quintessentially human. More than anything else I've ever read, Red Sorghum claims to reveal the savagery that infuses civilization. 

And there you have it. This is my list, and mine alone. If you dig Dean Koontz, Steve King, or Danielle Steele, prefer Women to Ham on Rye or think I'm a total candy-ass for including Thomas Hardy on a list of my favorite "awful" books, by all means please make your own list and leave me be. But aside from that caveat, I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks. If you have any suggestions, please - my "to read" shelf is getting pretty bare.

This letter, from Cuban dissident Oscar Biscet Gonzalez, should be getting the same kind of attention that Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail got. It is sad the Castro gets a free ride from so many.

Read it.

I won't make cracks about Canadians having beady eyes and flapping heads whenever I disagree with Ross.

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy continues to grow exponentially. The Ministry would announce to all and sundry that we have acquired a new minion. Minister. Ross, who despite his Canadian birth has become something of a success in the world, has been persuaded to join the Ministry's stable of bloviators. Bamboo splinters and heated copper wires were most certainly not part of Ross' decision making process, regardless of what he might tell you.

Ross has been blogging at Spiral Dive for time out of mind, where he mixes leftish political innuendo with learned scribblings on Java arcana. Ross' political and cultural commentary will move here, while soletta.com will remain a repository for his computer and technical thinking. We feel confident that in short order, Ross will be able to pad his technical resume with Ministry standard skills of bootlickery, rubberstamping, gnome-inveigling, and sublethal obfuscation.

Welcome, Ross, to the Ministry of Minor Perfidy. We welcome your particular talents to our relentless quest for minor celebrity, self regard, and world conquest. God speed the right!

This is truly sick.

The SNP Museum in Slovakia recently held an exhibition of photographs of women, Jewish and non-Jewish, in the death camps of the Holocaust. On September 7, 2003 a group of Arabs visited the exhibit and signed the guest book:

1. This exhibit testifies to the quality of organization and handling [of the mission]. From a historical perspective, what Hitler did to the Jews is exactly what they deserve. Still, we would have wished that he could have finished incinerating all the Jews in the world, but time ran out on him and therefore Allah's curse be on him and on them.
-- Khaled al-Zahraya from Saudi Arabia, 07.09.03

2. This is a museum showing a restaurant [specializing in] Jewish meat, which is what they deserve. Sons of apes and pigs. The day after the attempt to murder Ahmad Yasin.
-- 'Umar al-Da'm, Yemen. 07.09.03

3. The most beautiful sights of Jews.
-- Ibrahim al-'Arimi, Sultanate of Oman, 07.09.03

4. I say what they all say, and will just add that they [Jews] are cursed in this world and the next.
-- Madih, Yemen. 07.09.2003

These individuals went to a Holocaust museum to gloat. Truly sickening, in a completely literal sense. Gives the argument in this Daniel Pipes article a human face. This article, by Charles Jacobs, covers some similar territory. Links via lgf.

[wik] Mark Steyn chimes in with a story about disappearing Sudanese penises. (Now there's a sentence you won't see every day.) Read the whole thing, but this part was interesting to me:

For one thing, a week after the Malaysian Prime Minister told an Islamic summit that their "enemies," the Jews, control the world and got a standing ovation from 56 fellow Muslim leaders, it's useful to be reminded that the International Jewish Conspiracy is comparatively one of the less loopy conspiracies in the Islamic world...

It is, in that sense, the perfect emblematic tale of Islamic victimhood: The foreigners have made us impotent! It doesn't matter that the foreigners didn't do anything except shake hands. It doesn't matter whether you are, in fact, impotent. You feel impotent, just as -- so we're told -- millions of Muslims from Algerian Islamists to the Bali bombers feel "humiliated" by the Palestinian situation. Whether or not there is a rational basis for their sense of humiliation is irrelevant.

One of the things I'd feel humiliated about if I lived in the Arab world is that almost all the forms of expression of my anti-Westernism are themselves Western in origin. Pan-Arabism was old-school 19th century nationalism of the type that eventually unified the various German and Italian statelets. Nasserism was transplanted European socialism, Baathism a local anachronistic variant on 'tween-wars Fascist movements. The Arabs even swiped Jew hatred from the Europeans. Though there was certainly friction between Jews and Muslims before the 20th century, it took the Europeans to package a disorganized, free-lance dislike of Jews into a big-time ideology with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Mein Kampf and all the rest.

Even Islamic fundamentalism, though ostensibly a rare example of a homegrown toxin, has, as a practical matter, more in common with European revolutionary movements than with traditional expressions of Islam -- an essentially political project piggybacking on an ancient religion to create the ideology of choice for the world's troublemakers.

There's something pathetic about a culture so ignorant even its pathologies have to be imported. But what do you expect? The telling detail of the vanishing penis hysteria is that it was spread by text messaging. You can own a cell phone, yet still believe that foreigners are able with a mere handshake to cause your penis to melt away.

It becomes harder and harder for me to believe that the nastier strains of Islamic thought are actually limited to the lunatic fringe, as we are repeatedly told. This kind of thing is far more pervasive. And eventually, it is going to bite us in the ass if we keep ignoring it. This kind of malicious bile needs to be fought.

Check this out! A study from the University of Utah estimates that, for every gallon of gasoline you put in your car, 98 tons of prehistoric plant matter had to die.

I'm not throwing that out there to be an environmentalist doomsayer, though numbers that big do induce a little save-the-world spasm. I just think that's 98 tons is awesomely huge number. The Slashdot story which linked to the study notes that this equates to roughly 4 tons of plants per car per mile. Daaaamn. Thirty-odd tons of plant matter! In my Pontiac! Just to go to the store!

I don't know which is more mind-boggling: the sheer amount of dead plants it takes to move our society, or the sheer amount of dead plants that must have existed.

Over here, I found this:

The Ministry is pleased to announce that we have acquired the talents of GeekLethal as Special Roving Correspondent for Matters Concerning GeekLethal. He comes to us from his own semi-defunct weblog, and will soon become puissant in the arts of minion-beating, backstabbery, interrogative dentistry, and pixie-baiting.

The Ministry leaves it to GeekLethal to write his own introduction beyond this pittance.We congratulate GeekLethal, and welcome him, his talents, and the sweat of his legions to the cause. Excelsior!

In a stunningly unprecedented display of laughtastic corporate involution, Fox News was all set to sue The Simpsons-- on the Fox TV network-- over an upcoming segment on the show that parodies Fox News.

*covers face with hands, shakes head*

The Fox News Network did back down on its threat, although it has told The Simpsons creators that in the future, cartoon series will not be allowed to include a "news crawl" along the bottom of the screen, which might "confuse the viewers".

So tell me: just how stupid does Fox News think its viewers are?

[wik] So I wonder what Justice Scalia thinks about fox-on-fox action. *ducks*

[alsø wik] One more time. A news crawl on a cartoon show might confuse viewers?

[alsø alsø wik] They really think that?

[starring] Really?

At the suggestion of Buckethead Sr., a respected and credentialed historian, the Ministry is changing the name of the horseshit category. While the Ministry appreciated the sophomoric potty humor tone of the previous category moniker, it was felt that the new name would give the category, and by extension the entire website, an air of erudition and sly humor. If it should not have this effect, the world will mourn the passing of an eminent historian.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia has gigantic stones. Wheelbarrow-necessitating gonads. Much as I am diametrically his opposite on most matters, I have to admit a grudging respect for his decisions, at least until he starts talking out his ass and using the Constitution to legitimize his own hang-ups.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ridiculed his court's recent ruling legalizing gay sex, telling an audience of conservative activists Thursday that the ruling ignores the Constitution in favor of a modern, liberal sensibility.

The ruling, Scalia said, "held to be a constitutional right what had been a criminal offense at the time of the founding and for nearly 200 years thereafter."

Scalia adopted a mocking tone to read from the court's June ruling that struck down state antisodomy laws in Texas and elsewhere.

Also a criminal offense at the time of the founding, and for nearly 100 years thereafter: helping slaves to escape.

Where Scalia loses me is when he uses his strict-constructionist credentials to take stands on issues he finds personally morally objectionable. More than just intellectually dishonest, it's a cheap trick by a person in a position of great reponsibility.

Or maybe I'm just a godless liberal anti-American communist. Whatever.

The Jerusalem post has an interesting interview with Richard Perle. Particularly interesting was the story the interviewer told about Bush's visit to the WTC. Read the whole thing.

Does anyone know or care who is winning the world series?

In a newly released bio of Canadian PM Jean Chretien, it is revealed that the Canadian gov't was prepared to take a much harder line than it ever admitted if Quebec sovereignists had achieved a referendum victory in 1995. In an interesting quote, we hear the opinions of the Canadian Defense Minister at the time, David Collanette:

Earlier in the chapter, Martin suggests Collenette was also prepared to come to the aid of federalists still in Quebec.

" 'My view,' Collenette would explain in a later interview, 'was that these guys aren't going to get away with this. This is my country. I don't care what the numbers are. It's one thing to say you want to separate. But now we start playing hardball. Because we're not going to abandon all those people who want to stay in Canada.' "

"...A negation of the verdict in front of tens of thousands of celebrating Quebecers would have risked a bloody backlash. But in fact that is what Chrétien planned to do,"

Considering how opinion in Quebec was running, a repudiation of the referendum would have caused some havoc. The government felt that the constitution had no provision for leaving, and that therefore the referendum was merely a "consultative exercise." In an interview for the book, Chrétien admitted he would not have recognized a close vote.

"You know, at 50 (per cent) plus one, I was not about to let go the country. You don't break your country because one guy forgets his glasses at home."

Jacques Parizeau, then the premier of Quebec, revealed in his book Pour un Québec Souverain that he was prepared to declare unilateral separation if Ottawa refused to accept the referendum result. Throw in Chrétien's stance and Collenette's willingness to call in the troops, Martin speculates, and you have the elements for a possible civil war.

It has always been my belief that we have let far too much time pass since the last invasion of Canada. Almost two centuries, in fact. The thought that Canada might spare us the trouble by conveniently dissolving itself is, well, delicious. We could easily absorb the good parts, and then seal the borders around Quebec, and give laser weapons to the Indians. Sorry, First Nations.

On a disturbing note, the article closed with this quote:

Frulla and other Italian Canadians in her riding were being warned they would "have to go back to your own country," when the sovereignist side won.

Q: Know the best way to tell you are no longer a cutting-edge musical renegade and threat to society (tm)?

A: Your lyrics are the subject of a long, appreciative article in the New York Review of Books.

Marshall Mathers may now be mentioned in the same breath as the Rolling Stones, Beatles, and Sonic Youth. *shudder*

No this isn't from some Buchananite wacko. It's from Italy's reform minister, Umberto Bossi.

Mr Bossi, leader of the Northern League, said Brussels was "transforming vices into virtues" and "advancing the cause of atheism every day". He denounced the European arrest warrant as a step towards "dictatorship, deportation, and terror, instilling fear in the people, a crime in itself". It would lead to a Stalinist regime "multiplied by 25".

One day Italian citizens would be locked up on the orders of Turkish judges, he told Il Giornale newspaper, which is owned by the family of the Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi. He added that the euro was a "total flop", its inflationary effects costing ordinary people "a fortune" in lost purchasing power.

I don't know if I agree completely, but I have my suspicions - on bad days, I agree with Rachel Lucas, and wish that the EU would just declare itself a fascist dictatorship so we could go over and kick their ass and get it over with.

The new draft EU constitution contains none of the protections for individual liberty that we enjoy here. The tendency of EU bureaucrats to take action without consulting the public - or even thinking about consulting the public, is worrisome as well. The unelected officials who form the nascent European federal government are completely removed from any kind of accountablility to the citizens of the several European nations.

It might be a good thing if some Europeans got together with a copy of the Federalist Papers, the Notes from the Constitutional Convention, and a lot of red pens.

It is surprising to me that the drafters of the new European constitution have paid so little attention to the lessons of our constitution - given that there are so many parallels. In both cases, there are a number of different soveriegn states, varying in size, population and wealth. There are issues of free trade and common currency. There are debates about the optimal miz of central and state power.

Of course, they may have paid attention, and decided that a representative democracy that devolved power to the masses and allowed maximal freedom for the individual; and enshrined notions of limited government inviolable rights is not what they wanted.

This, by way of her, by way of him. He also has a very funny picture. Click the more link, and don't look if you're an easily offended PETA freak.

*Bah-whooooosh!*

Woah. Did I make it flush twice? I didn't move. That's some flush. Like a jetski in a koi pond. Why make the flush so powerful? What the fuck do people here eat ? " Yes, I'll have the innards of six Baby Ruths, some olestra, two wheels of cheddar, and the small bag of hair, please."

*Hiss!*

It's angry. I think it's angry. Looks angry. I shouldn't have mocked it. Do they make telepathic toilets? Probably. Damn Japanese. I know this is a Japan thing. Japan has way too much free time.

What perplexed my wife was, did someone see the cat, then make the sign, or did this sicko take the time to make the sign and just kept it in the car until he found a suitable cat?

I'm not much of a gun guy, but I am a huge geek and a bowler. So, imagine my excitement when vodkapundit pointed me to this bowling-ball mortar!

Holy crap! This thing shoots a bowling ball SIX HUNDRED YARDS so fast they whistle, and it uses, get this... THREE OUNCES of black powder as a charge.

Gotta go... gonna drop by Home Depot on the way home... hmmm dum de dum dum....

In the comments to Robert Prather's post China In Space (which he originally posted as a result of a comment I made on The Spoons Experience ain't the blogosphere grand?) Robert asked about space based kinetic energy weapons:

I saw a story last year about space-based missiles that used kinetic energy -- no warhead -- and hit the earth with all the destructive force of a nuclear weapon, minus the radiation.

Seeing as the post was a bit old, I decided to email him, but here's what I thought:

Robert,

The system you're looking for is THOR. It was featured in the novel Footfall, by Niven and Pournelle. Pornelle came up with the idea in the sixties, and advocated it when he became a member of the Citizen's Advisory Council on Space back in the early eighties. (The council included several sf writers, including Niven, Pournelle and Heinlein; as well as scientific and military types.) Here's a link to Jerry's description on his site, here's another article that references Pournelle and THOR, and here's a RAND corporation study, rather long and technical but juicy, nevertheless.

We've actually seen precursors of this concept in operation in Iraq - the concrete bomb is essentially the same concept, just airdropped instead of from space. With sufficient accuracy, and GPS gives us that, we don't always need explosives. When you have orbital weapons, the speed of reentry gives the weapon enormous power. However, it's not quite on the nuclear level. You'd need a very large projectile to approach Hiroshima grade impact events, or else accelerate the projectile to much higher speeds.

I was thinking some more about the militarization of space, and in one sense it has been militarized almost from the start - reconnaissance satellites are certainly performing a military function. But for the last forty years we've been frozen at the equivalent of 1914 for aircraft. What we're really thinking of is turning space systems from intelligence gathering and communications platforms into weapons platforms. While to the best of my knowledge we have never done it, it would be very easy to design a small manned, armed space capsule. We have invested substantial effort in developing unmanned ASAT weapons, they are still very limited in capability. With the advances in UAVs, this may change, but despite the weight penalties of carrying a pilot and his life support, the advantages of having intelligent direction are substantial.

When you think about potential Chinese moves into space, it becomes clear, I think that this is where it's going. For the Chinese to have any serious ASAT capability, which they would need to degrade our overall capabilities in any potential conflict, they would have to go with a space warship, however simple. Their technology would not enable them to develop the automated weaponry necessary. But, once they have made the space warship, their space capabilities could very well be greater than any collection of unmanned weapons platforms we have at the time. We would need manned space platforms to face the threat. (That assumes that they develop a reliable launch capability in addition to whatever space hardware they come up with.)

I posted a link to an article about the imminent arrival of serious battlefield lasers recently, and when you combine that concept with all the ideas for space to space and space to ground weaponry, you have some incredibly kick ass potential. We are already years if not decades ahead of any potential peer competitor militarily. Once this stuff comes on line, (and no one else is spending the money to develop it) we might be talking Nineteenth Century British v. Zulus or US Army v. Indians types of lethality differentials. Of course, just having the weapons doesn't guarantee victory - Custer left his Gatlings at base, and the British commander at Isandalwanda was a complete idiot. But with even moderately good military leadership, these weapons will give us enormous power. 

I join John Cole in wondering just how the Rumsfeld memo that was leaked to the press today is bad thing.

Assuming it's real (and yes, I'm assuming it's real), Rummy is basically asking his senior staff "how're we doing? Long way to go... how can we do better?" and getting hit in the papers with charges of "admitting we've lost." Noooo, he's asking how we can more effectively fight the terrorists. Read the memo. These kind of questions are EXACTLY the kind of issues he should be addressing.

I tend to think Rumsfeld is kind of a dickhead, (and I LOVE to see him restrain his murder-urge in front of the press), but I love that he is taking the time to address issues like "Is the Department of Defense on the right track?" and "Are we doing the best we can in Afghanistan?" I'm really glad that someone with pull is asking these difficult questions about the War On Terrah, and taking the time to solicit responses. Hopefully this will lead to improvements in our tactics and strategery.

And I agree with Cole. Leaking this kind of memo and crucifying it in the media will only lead to; fewer such memos; fewer such questions; and greater opacity from our government. All these are, say it with me, Bad Things.

Dammit.

[memo reproduced below the break.]
October 16, 2003
TO: Gen. Dick Myers
Paul Wolfowitz
Gen. Pete Pace
Doug Feith

FROM: Donald Rumsfeld

SUBJECT: Global War on Terrorism

The questions I posed to combatant commanders this week were: Are we winning or losing the Global War on Terror? Is DoD changing fast enough to deal with the new 21st century security environment? Can a big institution change fast enough? Is the USG changing fast enough?

DoD has been organized, trained and equipped to fight big armies, navies and air forces. It is not possible to change DoD fast enough to successfully fight the global war on terror; an alternative might be to try to fashion a new institution, either within DoD or elsewhere — one that seamlessly focuses the capabilities of several departments and agencies on this key problem.

With respect to global terrorism, the record since Septermber 11th seems to be:

We are having mixed results with Al Qaida, although we have put considerable pressure on them — nonetheless, a great many remain at large.

USG has made reasonable progress in capturing or killing the top 55 Iraqis.

USG has made somewhat slower progress tracking down the Taliban — Omar, Hekmatyar, etc.

With respect to the Ansar Al-Islam, we are just getting started.

Have we fashioned the right mix of rewards, amnesty, protection and confidence in the US?

Does DoD need to think through new ways to organize, train, equip and focus to deal with the global war on terror?

Are the changes we have and are making too modest and incremental? My impression is that we have not yet made truly bold moves, although we have have made many sensible, logical moves in the right direction, but are they enough?

Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror. Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?

Does the US need to fashion a broad, integrated plan to stop the next generation of terrorists? The US is putting relatively little effort into a long-range plan, but we are putting a great deal of effort into trying to stop terrorists. The cost-benefit ratio is against us! Our cost is billions against the terrorists' costs of millions.

Do we need a new organization?

How do we stop those who are financing the radical madrassa schools?

Is our current situation such that "the harder we work, the behinder we get"?

It is pretty clear that the coalition can win in Afghanistan and Iraq in one way or another, but it will be a long, hard slog.

Does CIA need a new finding?

Should we create a private foundation to entice radical madradssas to a more moderate course?

What else should we be considering?

Please be prepared to discuss this at our meeting on Saturday or Monday.

Thanks.

"An unabashedly Christian message is not by definition anti-semitic"

Fucking A. I wish more people in public positions would take that, and related sentiments, to heart.

My own religious background was in dour Methodism, and it never really took. As a teen, I bounced around from Methodist to Episcopal to Lutheran to Congregational churches, and never really found much that resonated with me.

What I mainly took away from Christianity when I left (did I leave? I was confirmed a Methodist, but confirmation seemed to be just something you "do" rather than something that "changes you," which runs counter to the whole idea of confirmation in the first place. I mean, I got confirmed, but I never had that inner-light experience that Wesleyans seem to hold as the hallmark of the saved person. Saved? Maybe by a technicality, but don't ask me to accept Jesus as my saviour, because I tried that once and it felt like I was faking it. Better to be an honestly sinful person than a falsely pious one.)

Whew - digression. What I took away from Christianity when I walked away was this understanding of the basic lesson that Jesus taught: that it's good to be nice to people and let them live their lives and you yours. Even though the spiritual aspects of Christianity are lost on me, the ethical and moral lessons went deep. Which is why it burns me up when people use religion as a test or (loaded word) crusade. Since Christianity is inherently an evangelical religion, you’re bound to have some measure of urgent fervor for converting nonbelievers, since their eternal happiness in some measure your responsibility. But the flip side of that is the message of tolerance and goodwill that Jesus preached. 

This actually came up in a post on Blogmother Kathy Kinsley's site. Kathy excerpts an article from the Observer which compares the Pledge of Allegiance to a test oath, which, as the article observes, was one of the MacGuffins behind the founding of the USA in the first place.

Let me remind those who have forgotten: There is a "pro-God," pro-American argument against putting God in the Pledge, against the worship of a graven image (the flag) that the Pledge requires. If I'm going to pledge allegiance to anything - under God or Vishnu or Whomever - it would be to the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is more worthy of true Americans' allegiance than a piece of red, white and blue fabric.

Perhaps it's the sheer historical inattention - if not ignorance - of so many of the supporters of the Pledge, and the all-important "under God" insertion, that gets on my nerves. Could they be unaware of the unsavory history of the "test oath"? I'm sure I don't need to explain test oaths to Observer readers, but for those who skipped that day in class, test oaths were the essential reason that religious and other dissidents fled England to found America. Test oaths were the means by which the Established Church in England enforced its repressive regime: Those who refused to mouth oaths required by the Established Church were often imprisoned, tortured and executed, leading many religious dissidents to leave for America.

Test oaths were one key reason the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibited the making of laws respecting the establishment of religion. That's what they were talking about. An enforced Pledge of Allegiance - especially the Pledge of Allegiance with the "under God" clause - is nothing but a test oath. It is a violation of everything American democracy is about. If you want to be - was this Mencken's phrase? - a "God botherer," go ahead, wander the halls of the schools, the streets and sidewalks affirming that we are "one nation under God." Just don't force everyone to take a test oath and worship a graven image made out of cloth. Or you can go reside in a nation founded upon test oaths and the worship of graven images. Look them up under "theocracies." You'll be happier there.

This also pertains to my post earlier this week about General Boykin, the chap at the Pentagon who declared Muslims as idolaters. By the way, since when was God an idol? From a Christian perspective, Muslims may well be idolaters, but last time I checked all three People of the Book (Christian, Jew, Muslim) worshiped the same dude.

Variety is reporting that Gibson has finally found a US distributor for his movie Passion. After being stiffarmed by wary studios, Gibson has reached a deal with Newmarket, where Gibson essentially is renting their distribution system for a cut of the gross. Gibson self financed the movie to the tune of $25 million dollars.

Personally, I am happy that we will be able to see the movie. (And also happy that the movie will now have subtitles. My Aramaic is a bit rusty...) While the usual suspects were up in arms with charges of antisemitism, every review I've read from someone who has actually seen the movie was overwhelmingly positive. A movie that has an unabashedly Christian message is not by definition anti-semitic. I look forward to seeing it.

For its expose of the Gest/Minnelli nightmare.

Charges of slander brought against Eminem by a guy he went to school with have been dropped. The charges were based on lyrics in which Eminem accused the man of beating him up every day in elementary school. (Em was willing to admit that???) The judge's decision was reprinted in part yesterday in the Detroit Free Press, and read in part:

Mr. Bailey complains that his rep is trash
So he's seeking compensation in the form of cash.
Bailey thinks he's entitled to some monetary gain
Because Eminem used his name in vain. . . .
The lyrics are stories no one would take as fact
They're an exaggeration of a childish act.
Any reasonable person could clearly see
That the lyrics could only be hyperbole.

It's nice when a judge has a sense of humor.

According to this article the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is on the verge of developing some kick ass solid state lasers. Within ten years at the outside, U.S. armed forces will begin to be equipped with laser weaponry.

The first and most obvious use for these weapons would be point defense against missiles and artillery rounds - given that lasers are nearly instantly retargetable, a ground based, radar guided laser system could knock out incoming artillery barrages, missile strikes and enemy aircraft. The advantage over conventional systems is that the ammunition is merely electricity rather than say, a $3mil patriot missile. It will become far more difficult to saturate a laser defense system, because as long as their is adequate electrical power, it could shoot at anything in the air, shifting targets every second, and not worrying about wasting expensive ammo on decoys.

The Air Force has been working on a large chemical laser system - mounted in a modified Boeing 747 - designed for missile defense. This system would shoot down missiles during the boost phase, when missiles are slowest and most vulnerable. But the equipment required weighs many tons, and requires toxic and explosive chemicals to fire.

The new lasers being developed are solid state, and require only a plug into an electrical system. They could be powered by generators, and mounted on Humvees or in jet aircraft. The DoD says it needs at least 100kW for a useful battle laser - and the researcher in the story, Yamamoto, says he'll have 25 by Christmas and double that early next year.

Interestingly, the problems with heat have led the developers at Yamamoto's lab to adopt a gatling-type principle - when a stack of laser crystals gets to hot, it can be rotated out and replaced by another so that it can cool. Gatling lasers. Sweet. And the lasers are pumped by diodes - LEDs, which are much more efficient than flashlamps:

In theory, that means a liter of everyday Army diesel fuel costing as little as $1 will generate enough rapid-fire laser pulses to destroy a standard airborne missile. The job now falls to Patriot missiles costing $3 million apiece.

The only real defense against laser weaponry is dust, which degrade the beam - limiting range. But just because lasers don't shoot through smoke, doesn't mean bullets won't.

Considering that we are effectively the only nation in the world investing in new military technology, we should have a years, even decades long monopoly on battlefield lasers once we put them in the field. Imagine, functional invulnerability to artillery barrages - historically the most lethal of all weapons systems - causing half of all casualties in American wars of the last century. Jet fighters that can't be shot down with missiles. AC130 gunships with lasers that can fire at a hundred targets a second.

Sheesh.

Jesse Walker has a short piece at Reason about the clusterfark that is "market reform" in Bolivia. The 800-lb gorilla in the room is (of course) the single biggest market in Bolivia, coca. Check it out. Walker reveals a tragic and misguided series of events, and offers this analysis: " the war on drugs has undermined not just peasant property rights but the rule of law."

If I ruled the universe like I was rightfully born to do I would institute some hard-and-fast rules.
One is this: All celebrities who in my estimation outstay their welcome, by say, getting a daytime talk show after starring in Gigli and serial-marrying marginally talented hunks, will be summarily consigned to a facility run by Wolfgang Puck where they will be "repurposed" and fed to the next generation of studs and starlets.

This will make the universe a happier place, and Hollywood will run more efficiently, no longer forced to continue supporting vampiric fading stars. No more Carrot Top! No more Tara Reid! No more Osbournes. That Puck dude from The Real World who keeps hanging around would become that on which Jake Busey feeds. I'm so goddamn brilliant.

The Washington Post is running an op-ed piece today taking the President to task for quietly condemning the shit-headed remarks of Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia, but not doing the same for the equally shit-headed remarks uttered by one of his own generals.

Look. One of the things that makes this country great is that people of all stripes, creeds, beliefs, and systems can rise to positions of prominence. The degree of freedom any one person can enjoy, given a little luck and circumstance, is staggering. Members of the US military are allowed to have any inner belief they want. (Unless they're queers. Then they by God don't want 'em.) But there's a point when this system bites you in the ass, like last week when an undersecretary of Intelligence, William Boykin, declared that our God is bigger than their God, and framed the war on terror as a Christian crusade against the devil. (Previously, Boykin sponsored a huge revival at a military base using Federal funds, so this kind of thing is not really new to him.)

There's two layers on which to respond to the situation: the personal and professional. The first layer amounts to"whatever gets you through your day, dude." I happen to think that Gen. Boykin's comments are foolish, divisive, and profoundly un-Christian. But, they're his sincerely held beliefs and more power to'im for it.

But the professional level is the more important one here. The President has spent two years off-and-on trying to convince the Muslim world at large that the United States' campaign against terrorism, often meaning radical Islamic terrorism, is NOT a "crusade" against Islam in general. Any comment from American officials that could possibly be played for anti-Islamic gain is reproduced, amplified, and chewed over endlessly in the Islamic press around the world.

In light of this, it is in the interest of the Federal Government to make sure that everyone in a position of responsibility in the War on Terrorism-- including the For-God's-Sake-Undersecretaries of Intelligence-- is on board with the general message. It's incredibly important that the US win the Sysiphean hearts-and-minds campaign. In fact, it's the one thing that can help ensure the longevity of the US' hegemony, which kind of makes it the most important thing. (Reasonable minds may differ, and although I feel hearts-and-minds is the biggest of the long-term goals, others may be more important over finite periods. So put that flaming email down, Poindexter.)

I'm all in favor of giving shit-heads a chance to succeed. It's the American way! But the President really ought to think twice about letting this guy stay in his post. It hurts the home team as much as letting Pedro pitch the 8th.

[wik] I know I'm right, because Eugene Volokh agrees with me! He also analyzes the legal what-ifs involved in firing Boykin, if that were to happen.

[alsø wik] Boykin has issued a statement apologizing. But check out CNN's list of what the Pentagon had him take out! Again Boykin's beliefs are totally his own bidness, but as Eugene V observes, there is tension between his beliefs and the mission he is part of.

It's so very nice to see some things never change.