Random Thoughts

For those of you unaware, I am currently at a customer site out of the country. I only have Internet access while on-site, and then I am expected to work. Hence, my ability to post to the blog is limited. Kudos to Z for keeping things going. That being said, I want to post a couple of quick thoughts, ted Rall like (by this I mean "totally unsubstanciated"). Unlike Ted, however, I can be trusted to interject a modicum of truth and reality into my baseless charges...

1. Prior to the recent war in Iraq, Amnesty International considered Iraq to be one of the world's worst violators of human rights. During the buildup, AI remained strangely silent on a war that it seemed they should have been in favor of. During the war they issued only two complaints regarding human rights abuses - both against the US. Can we, please, now add them to the list of "irrelevant" international organizations?


2. The hotel that I am staying at has been kind (I use the term loosely in this instance) enough to provide me with the NY Times Digest every morning at breakfast. Normally I avoid the NYT, also known as the American arm of Al Jazeera, like I avoid SARS. Needless to say, the world is a different place when you get all of your news from the NYT.


3. The NYT recently (notice the trend that is about to start) published an Op-Ed decrying President Bush for trying to pad the federal court system with right-wing judges. The problem, they noted, is that they judiciary should be impartial and, therefore, judges should be appointed solely for their judicial merit. Does anypne remember the Clinton administration? Or, for that matter, any other administration in the history of the US? The problem that the gray lady doesn't want to admit is that, to the left, the courts are the "new legislature" (aka 'Josey and the Pussycats' - "Orange is the new Pink"). The last thing that they want is to have the will of the American public enforced there, too!


4. The NYT recently published a story about a coalition of museums that is now working to restore artifacts lost in Iraq. The story, as we could only have expected, refers to "looting." Correct me if I am wrong, but numerous evidence has been uncovered to indicate that the museum and bank robberies were professional jobs performed with inside help. This is not to say that there wasn't looting in Iraq (there was) or that the US didn't handle the first weeks of the occupation poorly (we did). All I'm asking is for a little bit of journalistic integrity. Of course, we are talking about the NYT.


5. The NYT recently published an Op-Ed claiming that President Bush deliberately overstated the threat from WMD that Iraq posed so as to gain greater support for the war. They claim this to be deception. Personally, I never needed WMD as a justification for this war. I was onboard from the beginning. if it turns out that Pres. Bush did mislead the American public, I will still feel as though the war was just. What I will have a problem with, however, is the breach of trust that this would represent. I was a very outspoken critic of former President Clinton over the lies that he told the American public. The NYT (which vehemently defended Clinton during this period) is now correctly pointing out the need for trust between the American people and our elected leaders. Forget for a moment that the gray lady has now offered justification for the impeachment of Clinton and recognise the reality of their point. Dishonesty between the president of the United States and the public thereof cannot be tolerated. Those of us who decried Clinton's dishonesty must hold Bush to the same standard, should it be revealed that he, in fact, was dishonest. Since he never committed perjury I do not and will not advocate impeachment, but I will consider this to be a material breach of trust that Bush must overcome prior to the 2004 election.

Hey, it's Twins...

This from the BBC (because I couldn't resist sharing):

A seven-year-old boy who was admitted to hospital with stomach pains was actually "pregnant" with his twin brother.

Doctors at Chimkent Children's Hospital in Kazakhstan originally believed Mourat Zhanaidarov was suffering from a cyst.

But during surgery, they discovered he was in fact carrying the dead foetus of his twin brother.

Just thought you should know.

Read the story.

How Good are Your Geography Skills?

This link was found on the Corner. It's a fun, Flash-based game that tests your Middle East geography skills.

Have fun.

Take a look.

Blog Survey

I saw this over at Dean's World and thought that some visitors to this site might be interested.

Subject: A Survey of Blogs and Bloggers

Your name (your e-mail address) suggested that you might be interested in participating in a survey examining blogging's influence on opinion of the war on Iraq.

This study is being conducted for academic purposes by researchers at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville, Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, and the University of Georgia. The survey has been approved by the UT institutional review board. All responses will be kept confidential and no identifying personal factors will be used in reporting the results of this survey. Your e-mail address is used only to check for duplicate transmission.

The survey should take about 15 minutes to complete. If you have any questions, please e-mail us at bkk@utk.edu

Although we recognize that the Internet is a global medium, we asked that only those individuals who have accessed weblogs participate in the survey. To take the survey, visit the website listed below.

http://apps.ws.utk.edu/weblogs/

If you've been active in the blogging community, and you have the time, you should give them your opinions.

PC Textbooks

Foxnews is carrying a story about changes being made to textbooks during a textbook review in California.

During a textbook review, the books are combed through to find references that might offend people or violate certain style guides that the states adopt. Hence, as Fox notes, "senior citizen" becomes "older person" and images of Native Americans (not Indians, fergodsake) are removed for being too stereotypical (even if the stereotype contains a large amount of truth). It is also beginning to extend to other items--yachts are elitist, hamburgers aren't nutritious. All this in the name of both social engineering (train the children not to dream of yachts, to avoid hamburgers, and to not think that Ind,sorry, Native Americans lived in rural settings and wore their hair in braids) and in a vain attempt to not offend someone.

There are two problems with this approach, one of which is dreadfully serious and one of which simply means they'll fail.

They'll fail because it is impossible to not offend people. Can't be done. Certain contingents will be offended by what's removed as much as others were offended by the inclusion. And still others will be offended because that's what they do. Am I the only one to have noticed that certain people really like to bitch, moan, and generally be a thorn in the side of everyone else? Some people even take on the role of professional malcontents--the fun folks at PETA who want Hamburg, Germany to change its name, for instance.

It is not possible to come to a point where no one will be offended by the curriculum or the textbooks.

The second problem is more serious, though.

The Founding Fathers, for instance, are now referred to as "The Framers," in an apparent effort to make them sound less male-dominant. And there will be no more reading about Mount Rushmore (search), where the faces of four U.S. presidents are carved into stone, because it appears to offend some Native-American groups.

The problem with this supposedly inclusive approach is that it hides the truth. For good or ill, the Founding Fathers were male-dominated. For better or worse, the presidents depicted on Mount Rushmore did have a monumental effect on the United States and the world--and the building of the monument is an amazing story. Simply ignoring facts that are uncomfortable does not change the facts, but it does guarantee a nation of dumbed-down kids who think that the world was and is an ideal place, who don't know certain facts because those facts were deemed too politically incorrect.

The world is not a colorless place, is not always a pretty place, and our children--the future leaders of this country--need to understand the good and the bad. They need to understand the mistakes made as well as the heroic efforts to change the world for the better. They need to know what people are like outside the sheltered halls of academia.

I'm entrusting my future to children who's understanding of the past may be based on supposed textbooks as bland and historically accurate as Titanic or Pearl Harbor.

Read the story.

State of the Blog

Until I post this, the site has reached a sort of milestone of sorts. We have precisely as many comments as we have blog entries (240 of each).

Obviously, I'm destroying this wonderful moment by posting, but I'm trusting all you wonderful people to fix the problem for me soon.

Over the entire life of this blog--that is, it's first two months--we're averaging almost 100 hits a day. Admittedly, that's not a lot, but it's not bad, either. For the month of April, though, the number is actually 4050 hits. I feel pretty good about this, and hope that SJ and I can continue to hold your attention.

I'd like to encourage all of you who visit regularly to comment so that we know what we're doing right and what we're doing wrong. Admittedly, I'm doing this because I like to write and I like to rant--but I don't really want to do it in a vacuum. If you have ideas or any comments, you're also welcome to comment to me via email at resurrectionsong(at)yahoo.com.

Thanks for visiting and making this experience a great one for both me and SJ.

US Withdrawal from Saudi Arabia

I'm going to be curious to see what overall effect there will be from the withdrawal of the US military presence from Saudi Arabia. Admittedly, it does address the issue that some extremists have about American troops on, essentially, holy ground (never mind that we were invited). The aggravating factor, though, is that we're still in Baghdad, still perceived as an imperial presence.

What I think will be more interesting, though, is the potential for pressure to be brought against Saudi leaders for liberalizing reforms. We've been a little dependent on our supposed allies for a large, reliable military presence in the Middle East. That led to our government turning a blind eye to may of our ally's less savory political traits. This frees us up to react openly to Saudi princes winking funding of terrorism--government can be more diplomatically aggressive in dealing with Saudi Arabia.

Read the story.

Nekkid Chirac (Or "Chirac Punishes America")

This from ace reporter Andy Borowitz:

MR. CHIRAC, HIS HANDS strategically covering key parts of his anatomy, appears buck naked on the magazine cover with controversial phrases and epithets such as "cheese-eating surrender monkey" written on his body in what appears to be magic marker.

Reached at his home in Paris, Mr. Chirac said he took the unusual step of doffing his duds for Entertainment Weekly after losing a coin toss to French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

While some in the State Department called Mr. Chirac?s bid to win back American fans "desperate," the French President defended his decision: "It's not about the nakedness. It's about clothes getting in the way of labels."

Cheese eating surrender monkeys, the Dixie Chicks, Chirac, and nudity. Tell me, how can anyone resist?

Read the article.

UN Continues to Confirm Inherent Goofiness

So, when a country like Cuba continues to oppress gays and political dissidents, when said country has come under heavy international scrutiny recently for human rights violations, and when said country has been part of the UN's Human Rights Commission, how does the UN approach the delicate situation? Well, by reelecting Cuba without any opposition of course.

This Reuters story on Yahoo explains this outrageous situation:

The voting took place in the 54-nation U.N. Economic and Social Council, which two years ago ousted the United States from the Human Rights Commission for the first time since Washington helped found it in 1947. The United States was returned to the body in a vote the following year.

Did you get that? Are you wondering how this could possibly happen?

Human rights groups said this year's elections carried on a trend of increasing domination of the commission by noted human rights violators, many of whom, like Cuba, were proposed on a regional slate without opposition.

"You have a huge powerful and very well organized bloc that doesn't want any country criticized, opposes U.N. human rights monitoring and wants to weaken the office of the U.N. high commissioner for human rights," Joanna Weschler of Human Rights Watch told Reuters.

"It's almost a rule now. You get criticized by the commission or you might be, so you get a seat on the commission and you vote as a bloc against criticism," Weschler said.

I find myself growing more hostile to the idea of the UN ever possibly being a useful organization. I certainly find myself believing that my idealism in this case is naive. The UN continues to prove itself to be impotent to carry out any real missions and to be useless as the international body that it was intended to be. Furthermore, instead of being a body that helps contain regional crises or being an organization that carries out meaningful diplomatic solutions to human rights issues, the UN is increasingly a tool for weaker countries to punish the United States on a world stage.

If the UN continues to be both powerless in any real sense and a forum for petty dictators and tyrants to criticize the US, then American involvement in the UN must be reconsidered.

Read the story.

Bad Jokes

Okay, if Vodka Pundit gets to make bad jokes, then so do I.

There are only 10 types of people in this world--those who understand binary, and those who don't.

Bwahahahahahhah. Phew.

Keeping Tabs on the PC Police

Michele at A Small Victory has linked to a site that is keeping a sharp eye out for all sorts of politically correct hijinks. Yeah, fun!

I'm quoting a short entry from the site so that you can all get an idea of what's going on there (and then go read it on a regular basis):

Rocking the Vote

A Massachusetts man is suing the city he lives in because he says he is offended by being forced to vote in a Methodist church, reports the Boston Herald.

Robert Meltzer says the polling location at the Wesley United Methodist Church in Framingham is "a good, clean example'' of a violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause.

Meltzer, a columnist for the Metrowest Daily News, says that his religion - Judaism - prohibits him from entering churches. He says absentee voting is a poor substitute.

Poor bastard.

Read Tongue Tied.

Jonah Goldberg v/ Annoying Celebrities

If this were a Deathmatch, I'd put my money on Jonah--it would be a vote of the heart, though, not the head.

Jonah has a brilliant rant on NRO today. He takes on the Dixie Chicks, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen, and the hacker who took down NRO over the weekend. His main contentions are that:

1. Free speech, to the liberal elite, only seems to count when the speech is politically correct.
   
2. It is terribly brave to agree with the liberal elite, but you're a bigot if you speak against them.
   
3. Free speech advocates have a very flawed understanding of what free speech rights have truly been guaranteed them--and are quite willing to say that others don't have the same rights to free speech that they do.
   

For example, much as I may disagree with what Senator Santorum said, I'm not so terribly upset by him saying it. To many people, though, he seems to have taken the place of Satan (or, at least, Trent Lott) as the most dangerous and despised man in America. I don't agree with what he said, I don't agree with the sentiment, but he was making an argument about constitutional issues--an argument that I think is wrong-headed and erroneous, but that's a post for another day.

Now, voices are crying out for his removal, voices are calling him hateful and bigoted. Why hasn't Tim Robbins stepped forward to say how brave the Senator is? Why hasn't Tim Robbins stepped forward to simply say that the Senator was merely exercising his rights to free speech and should not be demonized for speaking his mind?

The Screen Actors Guild, the Writer's Guild and the other protection rackets which serve to regulate and prohibit the speech of writers not in their club, issued blistering denunciations. "Some have recently suggested that well-known individuals who express 'unacceptable' views should be punished by losing their right to work," SAGs whined. "This shocking development suggests that the lessons of history have, for some, fallen on deaf ears." SAG went on: "With a painfully clear appreciation of history, we deplore the idea that those in the public eye should suffer professionally for having the courage to give voice to their views."

I don't particularly feel like spending too much time defending Santorum, but I do hate the hypocrisy of those who shout about having their rights trampled on and then turning and demanding that the Senator be removed from his position. Don't they see the hypocrisy? Haven't they noticed that their position is indefensible?

Of course, this is the crowd that thinks that the Dixie Chicks, by posing air-brushed and naked, are somehow making a serious statement about free speech. Way to retain some dignity, ladies.

Read Jonah's Article.

Apparently, I Need to Watch Frasier...

I found this quote on Crosswalk.com while trying to find information about the rumored Al Franken dustup over the weekend (which I'll address if I ever freakin' find any reliable information):

Actor Kelsey Grammer, who plays the lead role in NBC's "Frasier" sitcom, said he refused to watch this year's Academy Awards because of the anti-war "crap" that fellow celebrities spewed.

Grammer said he was spared filmmaker Michael Moore's anti-war acceptance speech and attack on the Bush administration at the March 23rd Academy Awards. "I didn't hear it because I didn't' watch [the Academy Awards], Grammer told CNSNews.com.

"I wasn't interested. I knew that that kind of crap was going to be there and I thought, I am not interested," Grammer added.

I have not idea where Grammer falls in the political spectrum, but it's awfully nice to hear an actor taking this stance. Sean Penn can complain all he wants, but in Hollywood it was not remotely brave to take an anti-war stance: it was common. For a person like Kelsey Grammer to go the other direction actually does show some strength of character.

And who knew that Jason Priestly was a conservative? Okay, admittedly, his importance as an actor is limited enough that I don't even know what I could watch to show my support--maybe I can watch some old re-runs of 90210 and just call it even.

"I think more people should keep their opinions to themselves," Priestley said. He was particularly incensed by Moore's acceptance speech.

"It was shocking. I did not believe that was the forum to voice your opinions. Michael Moore is allowed to have opinions and his opinions are valid like everyone else's opinion, but I just didn't think the Academy Awards were the place to voice them in that manner," he explained.

I find myself liking Jason Priestly.

Take a peek at the article--it's a nice counterpoint to the typical far-left rhetoric that can be heard from most of Hollywood.

Read the story.

French Treachery

If the report from Foxnews is correct, that the French shared privileged information with Iraq, then the French truly cannot be considered an ally. In all honesty, much of the anti-French sentiment to me has been sort of funny--it's easy for me to feel magnanimous when the French have been proven so wrong in this situation.

By sharing information about war planning and diplomatic maneuvering, though, France was not merely trying to keep the US from going to war, they were aiding our enemy. They were aiding a tyrannical regime and undermining both UN and American efforts to contain that regime.

The French leadership is no longer particularly funny to me. The French leadership is decidedly dangerous and our diplomatic relationship with them needs to be considered in length.

Read the story.

Malvo Should Die

From MSNBC:

FAIRFAX, Va., April 28 ? A police detective testified Monday that sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo laughed as he told police about the shot that killed an FBI analyst last fall. Attorneys for Malvo argued that statements in which he allegedly confessed to the shootings that terrorized the Washington area in October should be not admitted at trial because their client, who was 17 at the time, was questioned for several hours without a lawyer.

Testifying at a hearing in which defense attorneys sought to quash the alleged confession, June Boyle, lead homicide detective for Fairfax County, a suburb of Washington, said Malvo was read his rights when he was questioned Nov. 7.

Boyle said she told Malvo numerous times that he had the right to remain silent and to have an attorney present. Malvo responded, "If I don't want to answer, I won't," Boyle testified.

I am opposed to the death penalty. I think that it is unnecessary and opens up the potential for an error on the part of a judge and jury that would lead to an innocent person's death.

And then there's Malvo.

I had toyed with the idea of justifying my desire to see him executed by noting that I also believe in enforcing laws and penalties that are "on the books." I think I could still make that case, but I don't think it's entirely honest. The truth is that I want to see him die. I want this little jackal to be executed and to know a fear so intense that he screams like a baby when he's led to the chair. I want him to shudder with the knowledge that he must pay the ultimate price for his brutality.

Boyle testified that Malvo was amused that a shot whizzed close to one target's head and was laughing as he described the shot that killed Linda Franklin, an analyst for the FBI, outside a hardware store Oct. 14. Malvo is charged with capital murder in Franklin's death.

"I asked where he shot her," Boyle testified. "He laughed and pointed at his head."

Malvo also chortled about a shot that missed its mark, a boy, saying it was so close that "it might have even parted his hair," Boyle said. And he laughed about the shooting of a man who was mowing grass because, afterward, "the lawn mower just kept going down the street."

And admission of guilt, nothing even closely resembling remorse or even a real understanding of what he had done, and laughter when describing the acts.

I'm opposed to the death penalty.

And then there's Malvo.

Read the story on MSNBC.

NRO News

According to Instapundit, NRO was hacked by someone in France this morning.

Heheheh. I don't know why, but I think that's sort of funny. Of course, if I worked there, I'd be annoyed as hell, but it probably does feel like just recompense for all those cheese-eating surrender monkey comments.

I'll update this entry as I find out more.

Michele Feeds My Obsession

Michele, at A Small Victory was kind enough to do a request for me. If you've miraculously forgotten that classic Screaming Trees tune, "Nearly Lost You," then rush over right now to take a listen. She won't be leaving it up long, but if you hurry...

Check it out.

Madonna Gets All Moral

In an interview recently, Madonna criticized American values and dreams. How, precisely, does Madonna figure that she can come across as a great guiding moral light? The original "Material Girl?" The woman who slept her way to the top, lives in the UK with her filmmaker husband and a nanny to take care of the progeny? There are two distinct problems with her offering her opinion on the subject:

1. She's already got hers. It's terribly easy to preach at the rest of us to not dream of having cash in the bank when she has no idea what it's like to have to choose which bill won't get paid in any given month. Or what it's like to not be able to walk into a store and have whatever you want. So, she's got hers, but God forbid anyone else try to reach that lofty height, too.
   
2. She's about as far removed from an average American as is Tim Robbins. Perhaps her own skewed view and rise to stardom have warped her opinion of Americans, but I think she's got this one terribly wrong. Most Americans I know have dreams of love and comfort and friends. Most of them would love to be wealthy, but that sort of goes without saying. Given the choice between an Aston Martin and a VW, most people would prefer then Aston Martin--and why is that bad? Or why, more precisely, is it good to prefer the VW? Well, she could have fleets of either and has very little understanding of the world in which there isn't a choice, where the only option is neither car.

Here's what she had to say on the subject:

Madonna told the Radio Times that Americans had opportunities people in other countries did not have but got caught up in superficial dreams. "We as Americans are completely obsessed and wrapped up in a lot of the wrong values -- looking good, having cash in the bank, being perceived as rich, famous and successful or just being famous," Madonna told the television listings magazine.

Her only redeeming moment in the interview comes when she claims the moral low road.

"It's the most superficial part of the American dream and who would know better than me?"

So, in sum, the person who gave her all for wealth, success, and fame based on looking good, raw sexuality, and good looks is telling me that I shouldn't worry about those things. Somehow, coming from her, this message just doesn't take. If she wants to preach, she should probably choose topics in which I would be likely to heed her advice. Like, perhaps the under-utilization of birth control by womanizing record execs. Or how to tank a career by forcing your husband to cast you in a lead role in one of the worst movies ever made. On these subjects, I would truly respect her knowledge. Read the story.

A Little Bit O' Snobbery Part Deux

As much fun as the Snob Status was, I have to conclude that the findings are a little suspect. Everyone who knows us will concur that I am far more of a snob than Z is. Way more, even.

Hollywood Meets Silicon Valley

Posted by StumpJumper

FilmForce is currently running an article (you have to click through the ad) about video games being made into movies. This is a really big deal for Z and me because we are both huge movie fans and huge video game fans (long live Dreamcast!). For me, the video game/movie crossover is a marriage made in heaven because the movie industry and the game industry are so similar: most of what they produce is absolute crap but the occasional gem more than makes up for it. That being said, here are some of the highlights from the list:

Soul Calibur
Hands down, one of the best games ever. Period. This is the classic one-on-one martial arts game from Namco that debuted on the now-defunct (excuse me for a moment while I shed a tear and observe a moment of silence) Sega Dreamcast. If I had a dollar for every hour that Z and I wasted on that game I'd be a very rich man. Not Bill Gates rich, mind you, more like Adam Sandler rich. Anyway, in a couple of months I will be able to buy SCII for my X-box (I have already reserved my copy) and, if the movie gods are nicer to me than the hockey gods, I may be able to someday see the movie. FilmForce lists the status as "in doubt" but I can still keep my fingers crossed.

Resident Evil: Nemesis
Z didn't like the first movie very much, but I enjoyed the heck out of it. Cool special effects, a killer soundtrack, score by Twiggy Ramirez (of Marilyn Manson fame), lots of action, and a half-naked Mila Jovovich kicking some mutant-zombie buttocks. What more could you want from a summer movie?

MechWarrior
Z and I are such geeks that we both owned (and played regularly) the original Battletech board game. Watching this awesome game evolve has been a joy unto itself, aside from the endless hours of fun brought to us by the franchise. If there ever was a game that was begging for big-screen treatment, this is it.

Duke Nukem: The Movie
I never got into this game, but Z is a true aficionado. The status is listing as "missing-in-action" but I don't believe this. Personally, I think that they will time the release of this movie to coincide with the release of the next DN video game title. (For those of you not into games, this was an insider joke.)

Doom
A movie based on the upcoming Doom III game is listed as "in development." If you don't know why this excites me then you probably stopped reading this post a long time ago.

Deus Ex
This is one of my favorite games EVER. I'm counting down the days until the sequel is released for the X-box. This is a game that could make a great movie. It is a cyberpunk-era science fiction secret agent/conspiracy story. Think Bladerunner meets James Bond. It is dark, gritty, suspenseful, and one of the few first-person shooters where you can advance through the levels without having to kill anyone (guile and stealth work just as well). The writer says that he is making the main character, JC Denton, "a little bit filthier" for the movie. Dude, I can't wait!

Alice
Last, but not least, is one of Z's favorite games. A dark version of "Alice in Wonderland" where Alice has been committed to an insane asylum. The good thing is that it is being directed by Wes Craven ("The Serpent and the Rainbow," the original "Nightmare on Elm Street," and "Scream.") The bad thing is that it is being directed by Wes Craven ("Shocker", "Wishmaster," and "Dracula 2000"). As a bonus, the aforementioned Mila Jovovich wants to play the lead. We'll keep our fingers crossed...

Context

When I post today, keep in mind the following:

• It's cold, grey, and rainy. I'm not generally opposed to grey and rainy, but the cold part really doesn't work for me.
• I'm tired and I need to get a bit more sleep.
• Ward road has turned into a good imitation of a bombed out Iraqi landscape. I find this interesting: for the past week, a lane has been closed down on Ward road in each direction. Apparently, workers are doing something to the roads, although I've never actually seen them working. More impressively, whenever they leave, there are huge craters left in the street. Not little tiny bumps, but rough edged, gaping holes over a foot in width and three or four inches deep. I'm wondering if there's a secret cabal of neocons preparing to invade the city in which I work. If so, I'm actually looking forward to the regime change.
• Did I mention that I'm tired and I need to get a bit more sleep?

So, if I sound cranky today, or a bit short-tempered, understand the context.

I'm guessing that today I shall not suffer fools lightly.

Beware! Here There Be Screaming Trees

Okay, away from the punditry for a moment, and back into the world of musical obsession...

An acquaintance of mine has restored a "lost" Screaming Trees site to a new home. If you have any interest in the Trees, or are curious about this band that so caught my attention that I've spent hundreds of dollars on EBay to track down every last single and bootleg that I could find, then take a peek at this site. Discography, lyrics, articles, images, a little bit of history--and my real name is even mentioned in the credits.

I'm strangely excited.

Take a look.

Thanks, Deb!

Fametracker Hijinks

I don't know where I picked up this link, but Fametracker has released Fametracker's Ten Least Essential Summer Films, 2003. Here's number five:

5. Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life

Release Date: July 25
The Plot: Lara-Croft-Tomb-Raider is back, doing similar things to the things she did back in that first movie, which absolutely sucked.
The Pitch: Indiana Jones with boobs, part deux. The producers have promised more boobs and less sucking. Given their failure to warn us of the orange-alert levels of sucking in the first movie, we are unmoved.
Why It's Inessential: Downside: the first film was so bad that it literally hurt our feelings. Upside: look forward to an entire summer of "Cradle of Life" jokes, starting right here. We'd like to crawl into Lara Croft's cradle of life! Hello!

You must go now and giggle.

Update: Matt Moore has been kind enough to note that this link came from Jim Treacher. And, while visiting Treacher's site this morning, I also note that Treacher has shown Matt some love. A link from Jim Treacher is a beautiful thing, indeed.

Puce Has Been Outed

It would appear that Jim Treacher is Puce.

Check out the story on Matt's site.

A Little Bit O' Snobbery

Oddly enough, credit for this link goes to my ex-wife.

Would you like to know just how much of a snob you are? Then you truly need to take this quiz.

Take the PBS Snob Quiz.

Pro-War Accountability

Truth Laid Bear, the site responsible for all that ecosystem talk a few days ago, has an interesting article about the need to maintain some level of accountability on the pro-war side for things that go wrong in the occupation of Iraq. In specific, he references the lack of commentary and acknowledgment of a mistake over the looting and the general failure of US forces to protect sites that were not related to oil or banking.

His words:

Let's be clear on this. Does this mean all the terrible things about U.S. motives being impure are true? No. Does it mean those who predicted quagmire and awfulness were right? No. Does our failure in this area outweigh the huge success that we've had in defeating the true enemy (Saddam's forces) while at the same time not just sparing, but often protecting the lives of Iraqi civilians? Absolutely, no.

The war is still a tremendous success. But: it is crucial that those of us who supported the war be willing to stand up and actually acknowledge when some things genuinely do go wrong.

This is hard, because for the past month, we've been barraged by chicken-little complaints from the anti-war side of the isle. We've gotten very used to ignoring criticism --- or at least, swatting it away reflexively --- because up to this point, criticism of the conduct of the war has been pretty damned weak.

Now, however, we have a clear example of something that U.S. forces did, indeed, screw up. It happens; the failure was not deliberate (to the best of my knowledge), and it's importance should not be overstated. But it should be acknowledged for what it was: an error.

I think the Bear has a pretty good point.

I didn't join in the conversation about this topic, honestly, because I felt a little split on the issue. It had the feel of the anti-war left and right grasping at a couple of events and using them to explain away the great successes involved in the war. I'm beginning to think that maybe that was just me not wanting to acknowledge a valid criticism of our leaders on this issue. It really did have the feel of a desperate grab for vindication on the anti-war side, but that doesn't excuse the error in judgment.

On A Small Victory, there was a very interesting conversation concerning the value of human life relative to the value of antiquities. I would never dare to say that one item in that museum was worth more than a human life, but I would say that the value of that item was still tremendous. And worth protecting. Hopefully, many of the museum's treasures will be recovered, and in no way does this invalidate the war effort.

But the Bear has a point, and it's a good time for we, the pro-war bloggers, to take a little bit of that humble pie for ourselves.

Read the article.

Cool, funny, ha-ha search results.

I was just checking out my referrers, and noticed 4 references to an MSN search for "Girls Gone Wild."

I'm fairly sure that there were some pretty damned disappointed people checking out the site. I, as a dutiful geek, followed the link back and found myself at number 12 on the list. All that for one little blog entry. How cool is that?

Check out the search result.

Mark Goldblatt Gets Hate Mail

I was reading the new Mark Goldblatt article over at National Review. It begins as a fun little article about the hate mail that he received yesterday for publishing an article in the New York Times that posited the United States as the most benevolent world power in recorded history. He was "astonished" by the backlash.

Astonishingly, that sentence just set people off. I say "astonishingly" because the proposition that the United States is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet is only slightly more arguable than the proposition that the Nazis did mean things to Jews during World War II. Denying that the U.S. is the most benevolent world power in the history of the planet is indeed akin to denying that the Holocaust happened in the sense that it's so beyond debate that it's pointless to begin laying out evidence in support; the effort only dignifies the irrationality of those who would deny it. To deny it, in essence, is to deny that real world exists, that the past really happened ? which perhaps excuses postmodern intellectuals, who deny such things on a regular basis. But the rest of us are left to ask who are America's chief competitors for the title of most-benevolent world power? Ancient Greece or Rome? The Mongols under Genghis Khan? France under Napoleon? The British Empire? Nazi Germany? Imperial Japan? The Soviet Union?

He then goes on to build the case for the United States in context with other world powers, both in intent and in effect.

A good quick read, and well worth your time. Of course, I admit to being in full agreement with him--both in his likening of hard left liberals to religious zealots and in his belief that the United States is benevolent and good.

Read his article.

Take a look at his book, Africa Speaks.

Arafat Gets All Rational

Posted by StumpJumper:

Add Yasser Arafat to the list of bad-guys who is getting all rational now that President Bush has shown that we have both the means and the will to act on American interests abroad. According to Fox News, he has stopped stalling and now a new Palestinian cabinet is in place.

And all those liberals thought that a war in Iraq would destabilize the region...

Free Zimbabwe

Over the next week, I plan to start running a series of posts on the history and present pains of Zimbabwe. I was lucky enough to live there for a year as a boy, when it was still Rhodesia, and had always wanted to return. Thanks to Robert Mugabe, though, the country has been shattered.

Since the victory in Iraq, I had been in the midst of deciding where I wanted to focus my energies. My decision was Africa--specifically southern Africa beginning with Zimbabwe. Well, it was a stroke of luck that someone suggested that Oscar Jr link to African Tears. This site is a diary of life in Zimbabwe and looks to be a wonderful resource to anyone with interests in that region of the world.

Thanks to Oscar Jr for linking that, and here's looking forward to exploring this topic.

Ouch

I must have done something to anger the hockey gods.

I didn't see that one coming.

Here's to the Wild for playing a gritty, oportunistic series and really working like hell for the wins. They deserved it and, although I think Vancouver will probably be a little more than they can handle, I hope the prove me wrong and continue past the next round.

Hell of a story, hell of a series.

All Praise Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys

Okay, we're praising the phrase, not the French. Got that?

The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations has chosen the wonderful phrase to be the most memorable quotation about the war effort. Praise for creation of the phrase goes to some nameless Simpsons writer, praise for popularizing the term (although I know there's some disagreement about this from certain corners) goes to Jonah Goldberg of National Review.

I don't really know that I would want to characterize it as the most memorable quotation, but I certainly have to say that it was the most giggle-inducing.

Read the story.

Hockey Humor that Moxie Would Love

Dunno where it came from--I recieved it yesterday as an email attachment. If anyone knows, let me know so I can properly credit the picture. With  Moxie's new found love of Baghdad Bob, though, it seemed appropriate.

 

When Doves Whine

Nicholas D. Kristof, op-ed columnist for the New York Times, manages to maintain his gloomy outlook on the war while admitting to having been wrong about much of the way the conflict played out. This is a column that is well written, intelligent, and useful, even as Kristof manages to inject a sense of defensiveness in the final paragraphs. He starts out well, though.

Last September, a gloom-and-doom columnist warned about Iraq: "If we're going to invade, we need to prepare for a worst-case scenario involving street-to-street fighting."

Ahem. Yes, well, that was my body double while I was on vacation.

Since I complained vigorously about this war before it started, it's only fair for me to look back and acknowledge that many of the things that I ? along with other doves ? worried about didn't happen.

I can't describe just how surprised I was by this admission. If only Janeane Garafolo would take notes. Kristof even gives credit to the war planners for working so hard to reduce the potential dangers inherent in attacking Iraq. Of course, then he puts a little fly in the ointment by running back to the lack of chemical weapons (yesterday's discovery notwithstanding--perhaps in the future we will be treated to another admission of culpability from Kristof). The chemical weapons were not the only reason that we waged this war.

Though I disagreed with his column on a few points (not because I think he's necessarily wrong, but because I think the points are debatable), it was well-reasoned and a little gratifying. In fact, I had intended to write a very polite pat on the back for the little feller, I was so darned proud of him.

Then I read the closing paragraph.

As in revolutionary Iran, the Shiite network is the major network left in Iraq, and it will help determine the narrative of the war: infidel invasion or friendly liberation. I'm afraid we infidels had better look out.

This feels like a defensive effort to uphold his original opposition to the war. He seems to be saying, "Hey, I was wrong about all that other stuff, and we won pretty handily. But it'll still turn out really bad, so maybe I wasn't so wrong after all."

The way the war looks to the people of the Middle East will be defined far more by how we stick to our promises, and by the effort expended in making Iraq a prosperous, free nation again. The opportunity is here for the people of the West to prove its intentions--not all of the control is in the hands of anti-American forces and al Jazeera. His attitude, if shared by the administration, would be disastrous; if his prognostication were correct, then the only way to neutralize the danger in the Middle East would be to beat them into submission using our military superiority.

His whining aside, it's still a good article and the first admission from a vocal anti-war figure that I've seen to acknowledge being wrong about the way the war progressed. As I said, gratifying, but you may wonder why he didn't decide to stay out of the fortune-telling business. It hasn't been good to him of late.

Read the New York Times Story.

The American Prospect: Openly Hoping for American Failure Abroad

The subheading for Harold Meyerson's article, "Clash of Civilizations," reads, "In the battle between America and Europe, we better hope that they prevail." Thus the April 2003 The American Prospect puts itself in the awkward position of being cheerleader against the United States.

From the perspective of just a handful of weeks after the publication of the magazine, it is amazing to see just how wrong Meyerson's pre-war assumptions proved themselves to be.

George W. Bush may believe he has the mandate of heaven for what, as I write, is still the looming war in Iraq, but he's not doing very well on earth. Indeed, he's all but unified the planet in opposition to the notion of a U.S.-led preemptive war.

Governments that support the war do so at their own risk. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair is in danger of losing the support of his own party. 

The Bush administration certainly won American support for the war effort, and Tony Blair has parlayed his strength of will into a potential run for the first presidency of the EU. The anti-war protestors, meanwhile, simply look a little out of touch and monumentally self-righteous. Saddam proved to be just as vile as President Bush told us he was, links to international terrorist organizations were found, and, slowly, evidence concerning chemical and biological weapons is building that is damning of Saddam's regime. The war was quick, with relatively few casualties on both sides of the fight, and civilians that were spared the bloodbath that nay sayers expected. The Arab backlash has been slight to say the least.

It could hardly be described as a failure for President Bush's White House.

Meyerson doesn't stop there, though. Referring to the left's favorite bogeyman, he supposes that the dreaded neocons are out to scrap every last shred of multinational diplomacy built up since World War 2. All this happens in some shady neocon conspiracy to extend the American empire throughout the world. In fact, in his world, America has transformed itself into the newest evil empire. His fear of neocons is astonishing and his worship of Europeans is overwhelming.

But of all the entities aborning at the dawn of the 21^st Century, a unified Europe poses the greatest threat to the unholy alliance of neoconservatives and xenophobes who dominate the Bush administration...The one obstacle in their path is Europe...

In this diplomatic arena, Meyerson would have the United States bow to these European interests. The Germans, who opposed the US-led coalition in an effort to protect its own business interests. The French, who's diplomatic bumbling in the Ivory Coast, have left the country on the verge of its own tragic war. These, somehow, are the heroes of his tale.

Humorously, while explaining the differences in economic philosophies between the Europeans and the Americans, Meyerson offers this:

The European challenge to the American version of globalism, then, is a sometime thing. If Europe does not provide much resistance to the rule of American laissez-faire in global economics, however, it does provide in itself a model for a more humane form of capitalism.

Really, what it offers is an object lesson in a failed form of capitalism. He must not have noticed the tremendous economic malaise that covers most of Europe. He also failed to note the European scramble to make deals with Baghdad at tremendous cost to the citizens of Iraq. How can that be considered by any rational person to be humane?

Meyerson shows a fleeting sanity when he considers the cost of Europe's recent, habitual contrariness in its dealings with the United States. He offers that, in such situations as Kosovo and Iraq, opposing the US "may be morally satisfying and strategically sound. But it has failed to deter the United States or to weaken Saddam Hussein's resistance to inspectors..."

This translates not into the US being correct, but in Europe not being nearly aggressive enough. He closes with these thoughts:

Americans must hope that, in this era of global integration, we are not at the brink of the American century. If anything, the Europeans should take some time out from perfecting Europe to project their values more forcefully on the wider world. We need Europe to save us from ourselves.

Instead of learning that Europe needs to swoop in and save the United States, the more apt lesson is the precise opposite. Europe needs to wake itself, to notice its own shortcomings, and to change its philosophies drastically. The European pacific attitude has proven itself both inhumane and ineffective. The only things the Europeans might manage to save with the preservation of this philosophy is the abundant bureaucracy that leaches away Europe's vital energy, leaving her stagnant and irrelevant. Hopefully, Britain can lead the charge to make Europe once again be vital and meaningful.

Never Quite Enough

The Iraqi scientist who claimed to have been part of a group that took part in the destruction and hiding of illegal weapons in Iraq has lead Americans to buried components for chemical weapons. From a Rocky Mountain News article, we learn this:

...the material unearthed over the last three days at sites to which he led them had proved to be precursors for a toxic agent that is banned by chemical weapons treaties.

It certainly backs up the scientist's claims. To a person like me, combined with the rest of the little, circumstantial details, this feels much like a "smoking gun."

The funny part, though, is that it doesn't matter.

When I was married and my wife and I were having difficulties, she would say that we just needed to fix this one little problem. When we worked through that problem, she'd raise the bar. Well, yes, she'd say, we did solve that problem, but that wasn't quite enough. And, with that, she'd raise the bar a little bit higher. We ended up divorced when it finally became obvious that there would never be a solution so good that she couldn't raise the bar just a little bit higher.

Dealing with the anti-war crowd is a little bit like that marriage. No matter what happens, they maintain their opposition to the war. No matter how good the evidence, it isn't good enough. If those by now cliched weapons of mass destruction are found, it's only because they were planted by the US government. If there are Iraqis showing happiness at their new-found freedom, it was a choreographed scene. When irrefutable evidence of the most horrific crimes (children rotting in prisons and soldiers who had their ears amputated when they refused to fight, for instance), then we still should have respected the sovereignty of Iraq. Even though few activists raised voices when Saddam raped the marshes in southern Iraq, they certainly noted the few oil fires and the looting of museums.

There is no evidence, no moment of ethical outrage, quite impressive enough to clear their hurdles. That is not to say that the military and the government shouldn't continue to try to prove their case--to show the utter, undeniable truth of that rotten, corrupt dictatorship. Not only will it continue to build on the moral justification for this war, but it will continue to expose the links that our supposed allies had with our enemy. Every ounce of evidence only further marginalizes a shrill, hysterical anti-war movement.

Read the Rocky Mountain News Article.

Things That I Would Discuss If I Had The Time

Posted by StumpJumper:

As some of you may be aware, I am currently swamped at work. I have to go out of town this weekend to deliver a new product to our beta customer, and I am still furiously programming missing functionality. Subsequently, my time for posting has suffered. My intellectual curiosity, however, has not. Below are a few things that I would comment on if I had the time. Fell free, America, (said in by best Bernie Mac voice) to take up the mantle...

• Tim Robbins has been on every news/entertainment outlet that will have him to whine about Cooperstown. For those of you unfamiliar with the story, the Baseball Hall of Fame was planning on having Tim and his "life partner" Susan Sarandon speak at a celebration of the 15th anniversary of Bull Durham. The President, a former Regan and Bush (41), aid, uninvited them due to differences in political views. Tim is complaining that this is a violation of his First Amendment right to Free Speech. What Tim needs to understand is that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to speak freely, it does not require anyone to give him the forum from which to speak. The fact that Tim can speak his views on so many different forum proves that there has been NO violation of the First Amendment. Ergo, "shit down and shut up!"
  
  
• Many of Tim's leftist Hollywood buddies have taken up the "censorship" flag over the boycotting of their movies. As this is a market economy, we, the market, exercise our power through the way we spend, or don't spend, our money. Me not seeing your movie because you are an idiot is no different than me not seeing your movie because it sucks. Hence, there is no censorship, blacklisting, or First Amendment violation here, only market economics. Ergo, "sit down and shut up!"
  
  
• As we are on the topic of free speech, why is it that when a leftist steals every last copy of a school newspaper in protest it is labeled "activism" but when I choose not to see a Tim Robins movie it is "censorship"? Is my dictionary incorrect in its definition? Ergo, "sit down and shut up!"
  
  
• There have been several news reports about ongoing and planned rallies and protests in Iraq regarding the role of the U.S. during the interim/reconstruction period. At first this bothered me. I thought, didn't we just liberate them? Then I looked at it differently. A few short weeks ago these people would have been imprisoned, tortured, or killed for demonstrating this way. Now, they are free. This is a Good Thing. I applaud their freedom and their right to exercise it. Ergo, stand up and be heard! It's about time that you had a voice!
  
  
• One other note about the Iraqi rallies and protests. Tim and his liberal buddies keep talking about 'reprisals' for speaking their minds. In Iraq, the people have lived for three decades with heinous reprisals for speaking their minds. Now they have the most awesome military force that the world has ever seen parked right in the center of town and they have absolutely no fear whatsoever in speaking out against that very military. Why, because they know, deep in their hearts, with absolute certainty, they have nothing to fear. Has there ever been an occupying army that has been that benevolent? I can't say fir sure, but if there has been I'm sure that it was an American army. In short, the Iraqi people seem to have a far better understanding of the freedoms that we in America enjoy and the benevolence of our current administration than Tim Robins, the Hollywood elite, and our European "allies."
  
  
• Prior to the war we kept hearing about the "just war" philosophy. Although I, personally, feel that the war in Iraq was just, many would disagree. This is probably a debatable issue for some. This week's Weekly Standard (print version, I haven't looked online) has an amazing article on "just war." It points out that the documents that were quoted in the days leading up to the war (some written by the great philosopher and theologian Saint Thomas Aquinas) give two criteria under which the justness of a war can be judged. The first deals with the reason for going to war. On this we have heard a lot. The second deals with the conduct of the military during the war. Based on the criteria listed within those aforementioned documents, the conduct of the American military in Iraq qualifies this as the most just war ever waged. I highly recommend that everyone read this article.

Good Morning

Today marks the first day of working with a new intern (please, no Clinton jokes), so I am trying to get him situated and prepared for the rest of his week. I'll still be posting, but a little bit lighter than usual.

Today marks the first day of working with a new intern (please, no Clinton jokes), so I am trying to get him situated and prepared for the rest of his week. I'll still be posting, but a little bit lighter than usual.

Music News

Those who know me know that I love the Screaming Trees and all Trees-related music. In fact, I can trace the Trees through quite a few of the CDs in my collection--everything from the Afghan Whigs to Tuatara and Josh Homme's Desert Sessions. Well, this is a first. Josh Homme--lead singer/guitarist/musical mad genius from Queens of the Stone Age--and Mark Lanegan--lead singer of Screaming Trees, sometimes lead singer of Queens of the Stone Age, and mad musical genius of his own incredible solo work--both lend a hand to Martina Topley Bird. Josh plays guitar and Mark sings back-up vocals.

The musical style is nothing that you might normally expect from either of these artists, but I'm kinda diggin' on it. The following link will take you to the song that the two play on--a lively little piece of pop electronica that would do William Orbit proud. I'll be buying it.

Take a Listen

Mark Lanegan, for those of you who haven't been introduced to my personal obsession, is a hell of an artist. He's opened for Johnny Cash, played host to both Kurt Cobain and Chris Novoselic on his first solo CD (The Winding Sheet's "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" and "Down in the Dark"), sang with the Seattle supergroup Mad Season, has sang lead on songs from The Afghan Whigs, Masters of Reality, and The Walkabouts, and, during a brief stint in jail during a tour, was replaced by Layne Staley from Alice in Chains. If you've seen any of the recent Queens of the Stone Age concerts, you've seen Mark Lanegan--the shadowy figure who sings four or five songs a night in their shows. 

Excellent News on the Ecosystem

In the new ecosystem rankings, and with the help of a few new links, Resurrection Song has been upgraded to a Crawly Amphibian.

I feel so evolutionary and stuff.

Take a look at the rankings.

Happy Easter

To those for whom this applies: Happy Easter. I hope  everyone is having a wonderful day.

I have some lovely new entries planned for this evening, so keep your eyes open.

Justifiably Proud

Josh Chafetz, co-editor of Oxblog, has written a beautiful piece on TechCentralStation proclaiming that, yes, he's proud to say that he supported a just war. This is important reading for everyone who supported the war. It'll make you feel good.

For anti-war activists, it'll be sure to raise your blood pressure and get you sputtering. Have fun with it--the feedback section is pretty active.

Here's a sample:

In my name, the gates to a children's prison were thrown open, and kids whose only crime was that they refused to join Saddam's youth groups were free to go home to their families. Torture chambers have been discovered and shut down throughout the country. Political prisoners have been freed.

In my name, the al Qaeda-linked group Ansar al-Islam has been wiped from the face of the earth, with the help of our brave Kurdish allies. The Kurds no longer live in fear of being attacked with weapons of mass destruction, and those who have ordered such attacks in the past are either dead or in hiding.

Beautiful.

Read the article.

Andy v/ the Trolls

The boys over at World Wide Rant are having a spirited conversation with their trolls, Jared and Rev Mykeru.

Take a look.

Random, Stupid Quote That Makes Me Chortle, #1

"This is my house, you work for me, and I want to suck your toes."

I'm just sayin'...

Jonah Nails It

Jonah Goldberg, of National Review fame, has an article on TownHall.com today explaining the conservative argument for massive change. Noting that many liberals wonder how it is that conservatives, notable for their resistance to change, could want such a sweeping update to our American international policies. The meat of his article begins with this:

In a sense, I don't really mind; it's kind of fun to be called a radical from time to time. Keeps the blood pumping. But what annoys me is this assumption that conservatives are being hypocritical because we are in favor of change abroad and stasis here at home. This amounts to a deeply misinformed understanding of conservatism.

It's true, conservatives aren't big fans of change. We've always followed old Lord Falkland, who proudly declared, "When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change." One of the "canons of conservatism," according to Russell Kirk's seminal 1953 book, The Conservative Mind, is the "recognition that change and reform are not identical, and that innovation is a devouring conflagration more often than it is a torch of progress."

What I've tried my best to explain to my own friends is that I am a conservative not because I'm opposed to changing the world for the better, but I'm opposed to change for its own sake. I want the world to be a better place, but I want the "improvements" to be well-considered and reasonable; I want our idealism to take human nature and the real world into account.

I want the world to change, and I want those changes to be intelligent.

Jonah closes with these thoughts:

And I'd like to spend a small fraction of those savings on tearing down the crack houses of the world, which breed crime and misery, and replace them with sights worth seeing. I'd like to see democracy and prosperity in the Middle East, and a peaceful settlement between Palestinians and Israelis. I'd like to see a unified Korea, run from Seoul not Pyongyang. I would like to see Africa moving forward rather than slipping ever further behind. I'd like to see South America so prosperous that illegally immigrating into America would seem like a pointless and silly endeavor.

I'd like to see these things for two reasons, one conservative and one "liberal." The liberal side of me says that we are our brothers' keepers and we have some minimal obligation to liberate people from tyranny and needless misery. But, just as important, I am a conservative who believes the problems of the world will find their way here and mess up the home I dearly love if we don't do something about them.

Can I get a witness?

Read Jonah's Article.

Michael Kelly's Last Article

The following is the last paragraph of Michael Kelly's last article for The Atlantic.

I spent the last days of the first Gulf War's phony peace in Baghdad, and I am spending the last days of this one's in Kuwait, soon to take part in the experiment of "embedding," as the jargon has it, some 500 journalists with the U.S. military for the duration of what is generally expected to be a short, exceedingly one-sided conflict. On the whole, I'd say, the phoniness quotient is down this time. We are spared, at least, much of the death-and-destruction-and-quagmire talk that preceded the last conflict here. The lessons of the campaign in Afghanistan, adding to the lessons of the campaigns in Kosovo and Bosnia, have sunk in. The U.S. armed forces enjoy a technological superiority like nothing the world has seen before; they are, in a real sense, not even fighting the same war as their opponents?or in the same century. No one argues much now about whether these forces are capable of crushing even very serious opposition, and almost no one argues that Iraq offers serious opposition. Rather, the argument concerns whether the employment of this almost unfathomable power will be largely for good, leading to the liberation of a tyrannized people and the spread of freedom, or largely for bad, leading to imperialism and colonialism, with a consequent corruption of America's own values and freedoms. This question is real enough and more: probably the next hundred years hinges on the answer.

I know it's all been said, but I feel the need to say it again: he was a brilliant writer, a wonderful thinker, and the world of journalism will miss him tremendously.

Read the entire article.

Update: if you haven't already read The Atlantic's press release, here's an excerpt:

David Bradley, the chairman and owner of Atlantic Media, said "This is the first friend and the best friend I made in journalism. In that quarter of the heart, he can't be touched. He is loved by everyone at The Atlantic, by everyone at the National Journal, by everyone at the places we worked together. The Atlantic has had 145 years of good times and bad, but no moment more deeply sad than this one now. The best we can make of this hour is to surround his wife and children and parents and family with some measure of the love we have for Michael."

Cullen Murphy, the managing editor of The Atlantic Monthly said, "Mike Kelly was a loyal and warm friend, a passionate and courageous advocate, an extraordinary reporter and editor, and above all a profoundly good and generous man. You didn't need to know Mike for long to understand that you could stake your life on all of those qualities. You also couldn't know him long before you came to appreciate his wonderful sense of the preposterous?especially if it involved himself. He saw his profession not as a game but as a public service. I want Mike's boys Tom and Jack to know that their Dad was a hero. His loss is devastating to all of us."

The best I could ever hope for in life is to be as loved and respected as Michael Kelly was.

Rest.

Update on the Brilliance of Clinton

Yesterday I had a few special words for former President Clinton. Today, I happily noted that Jay Nordlinger's "Impromptus" had some fun choice words for Clinton, too (you have been reading Jay's "Impromptus, haven't you?):

What to say about Bill Clinton's recent comments, in which he trashed U.S. foreign policy (in the most untutored and common way)? There aren't many words left. We've said it all, about Bill Clinton. He doesn't get any better; quite the opposite. In fact, his departure from the presidency, and from active politics, seems to have freed his inner dope. No longer having to worry about votes ? done with triangulation ? he's at liberty to be a sort of slightly-more-moderate Susan Sarandon.

I can't improve on Bill Kristol's comment, on Inauguration Day 2001, after Clinton gave that rally speech in the airport hangar: "hopelessly vulgar."

Seriously, folks, if you haven't been reading NRO, you really should. This is the face of conservatism as I know it--diverse, intelligent, and interesting.

Read Impromptus.

I Wish I Had Trolls

Over at A Small Victory (see the link to the left, I'm feeling a bit lazy right now), Michele has herself a freakin' hilarious troll. He tries very hard to be mean and annoying, but his limited grasp on the language works against him.

Here's one of his fun moments:

Hallo fat America! Chew and smiling for flappy stomich fill with more Irak childs, phoney towerevenge. Statue fallens from Sadam, put Chucky Cheeze rastorant with cola in locate!

Why call Sirya proud man of charge the moran? For jealous?

Isn't he cute?

Visit puce.

A Quick Thought About Tim Robbins

For the record, I don't think Tim Robbins is a traitor. That's a harsh word that doesn't really apply here. I also think he's a gifted and intelligent actor.

This does not save him from being an ass.

Quote from Fox about Tim Robbins:

At the National Press Club in Washington Tuesday, Robbins said that while he and Susan "have been listed as traitors, supporters of Saddam and other epithets," many people, including musicians and other artists, are happy that some are speaking out because they themselves had to be silent to protect their careers.

"It is time to get angry, it is time to get fierce. It doesn't take much to shift the tide ? a bully can be stopped and so can a mob," he said

The problem here is that Tim doesn't seem to notice that he is a bully. The great majority of the American public isn't calling him a traitor because he disagreed, but because he and his not-quite-a-spouse keep trying to force us to agree with them. If he dissented and left it at that, we'd call him principled and a man with integrity. Instead, he's a bully.

A bully is basically a child who absolutely has to get his way, even when that means that everyone else will suffer. Tim Robbins, for all his nail-biting about the welfare of the Iraqi people, still doesn't bother to acknowledge that they'll likely be much better off without Saddam Hussein at the helm. He doesn't recognize that a great many very intelligent people disagreed with him on the national security interests involved. He refuses to note that there is even the possibility that he was wrong about the President and wrong about the war.

The American public is very forgiving. All it would take is a few public admissions of culpability for this to go past them. All Janeane would need to do is send some flowers and a nice card to the President--we'll forget all about the broken glass.

I don't usually go in for boycotts. I really prefer to separate the artist from the work. In this case, though, I'm inclined to agree with Robbins: a bully can be stopped. And this time, it means simply refusing to buy tickets to his next movie.

Read the article.

Frog Abuse Doesn't Pay

Do you somehow think it would be fun to shoot frogs from a potato gun? You might want to think twice.

While engaged in just such an activity, a young man broke most of the bones in his face and was permanently blinded. Apparently, when the frog was inserted into the tube and the gun failed to fire, the young man looked down the tube to see what was wrong. Boom went the tube and the frog was shot into his face.

This is both an excellent lesson to the rest of us in weapons safety, and a cautionary tale about the abuse of animals.

I feel sorry for the kid, but shooting frogs from what is, in essence, a mortar is kind of sick.

Read the story.

Update: Welcome to all the visitors coming from the links at Winds of Change. Take a look around, it's nice to have you dropping by.

Dave's Hockey News

It was a damned good night for hockey. The games were gritty, the outcomes were beautiful.

The Avalanche dominated the Wild to take a 3-1 lead in the series, giving up only one goal in the game after Patrick Roy had gone almost 118 minutes of game time without being scored on. Brilliant.

More surprising, the Red Wings were swept by the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. This is the only time in history that the defending Stanley Cup champs have been swept in the first round of the following year's playoffs. The only person I feel a little sorry for on the team is Curtis Joseph. Cujo actually played the series, and this game in particularly, pretty damned well.

For me, though, it just feels so good.

Chirac's Call to Bush

Jim Treacher has posted what he thinks the conversation between Bush and Chirac might have sounded like.

This is quick and well worth your time.

Ping Blo.gs

http://ping.blo.gs/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fresurrectionsong.blog-city.com&name=resurrectionsong&rssUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fresurrectionsong.blog-city.com%2Frss%2Ffeed.rss

http://ping.blo.gs/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fresurrectionsong.blog-city.com&name=resurrectionsong&rssUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fresurrectionsong.blog-city.com%2Frss%2Ffeed.rss

Message from Saddam Hussein

From a news organ at least as reliable as today's New York Times:

BAGHDAD, IRAQ-Reflecting on his time as Iraq's president in a pre-taped television address, Saddam Hussein expressed pride Tuesday that, despite the success of the U.S. invasion and the civilian casualties it has inflicted, he still has killed far more Iraqis than President Bush.

"George Bush believes he is so powerful, so strong," Saddam said. "But even with all of his bombs and missiles and Marines, he has not even come close to killing as many Iraqis as I did."

Read this very important document.

Accidentally Dead

What do the Pope, Ronald Reagan, Fidel Castro, Dick Cheney, and Gerald Ford all have in common?

Well, for one thing, they aren't dead.

It seems that CNN.com maintains obituaries for important figures for two distinct purposes: if someone dies, they can quickly add the obit to the site, and also to act as a template for the creation of other online obits. This is all well and good unless those obits happen to be accessible to the outside world and feature people who most assuredly are not dead. Dick Cheney, Ronald Reagan, and the Pope are all featured at the link below. An obituary for Fidel Castro was curious in that the fill text was directly pulled from the Ronald Reagan obit. How odd.

Take a peek at the undead luminaries.

Bill Clinton, Great Diplomat and Thinker

Hope you had your sarcasm detectors going, because that wasn't intended to be taken seriously. Former President Bill Clinton has opened his mouth again and proven his selective memory of history and his unmatched, egotistical hypocrisy. Speaking at a seminar recently, Bill took the opportunity to take a few pot-shots at the current administration's handling of affairs.

Sit back, folks, this is going to be fun.

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," said Clinton, who spoke at a seminar of governance organized by Conference Board (news - web sites).

"And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."

So, the preferable method of dealing with terrorists and aggressors is to sit back and let France, Russia, and Germany--all countries that continued to sell military technology and make back-room deals for oil and technology with Iraq--dictate what our foreign policy should have been? If Clinton were honest, he'd at very least acknowledge that our current President took steps to gain public and international approval that Clinton himself sidestepped. Did Clinton bother to even speak to the UN before ordering the bombing of Iraq? Oh, wait, most people don't even remember that he bombed Iraq and signed an executive order that proclaimed regime change in Iraq to be American policy.

He just never had the balls to do anything about his convictions. I'm fairly convinced that this criticism is more a jealousy that his successor has succeeded dramatically where Clinton himself failed.

Then he embarrasses himself by making the following statement:

"We can't run," Clinton pointed out. "If you got an interdependent world, and you cannot kill, jail or occupy all your adversaries, sooner or later you have to make a deal."

What kind of a deal do you suggest, Bill? Maybe we can let Saddam torture and execute only a third of the political dissidents in exchange for loosening the UN economic restrictions. Or, perhaps it's just fine that North Korea refine a little more uranium if they'll just say some nice things about us in public and pretend to be nice. Clinton's method of dealing with these aggressors certainly made the world a much safer haven for us all--just ask any of the 3,000 people who died at the hands of ruthless terrorists on 9/11.

Oh, wait, they probably have a slightly different take on events, don't they?

But, wait, there are obviously more important things for Bill to be thinking about (and, no, I'm not referring to hiring another intern to suck his dick while he discusses policy on the phone in his new digs) these days.

He said he believed Washington overreacted to German and French opposition to US plans for military action against Iraq (news - web sites) and suggested that the current administration had trouble juggling foreign and domestic issues.

"Since September 11, it looks like we can't hold two guns at the same time," Clinton said. "If you fight terrorism, you can't make America a better place to be."

First, let me be the first to say that I thought fighting terrorism was making America a better place to be. And fighting a man who harbors terrorists, is hell bent on the manufacture of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons not just for their gee-that's-cool value, could certainly be considered making "America a better place to be."

What the hell?

And who the hell says you can't work on both at the same time? They are not mutually exclusive.

In my overall list of priorities, ensuring that terrorists have no safe haven comes pretty fucking high, Bill. I would have imagined you felt the same way.

Twenty years from no, when you think of Bill Clinton's "legacy", you'll likely think about interns and sex scandals. President Bush will be remembered, for good or for ill, for taking drastic steps to ensure his country's security in a hostile world, for recognizing danger and taking action, and for willing this country towards what he believes to be a better future.

Maybe it's just a huge bout of jealousy that he's displaying here. Maybe he really wishes his legacy weren't so terribly tainted.

Maybe he should just have the good grace to fade the hell away.

Read the story.

A Big Hug Out to Adam Sandler

Apparently, Adam Sandler has put a really nice message for American troops up on his Web site, adamsandler.com. So, in public, I am acknowledging that I actually enjoy his movies. The Wedding Singer was wonderful. Happy Gilmore craked me up. The Water Boy left me rolling. Little Nicky didn't suck. And Punch-Drunk Love was an eye-opener.

It's pretty damned nice to see a celebrity openly supporting the troops and thanking them for risking their lives for us.

Adam Sandler is a stand-up guy. Everyone go see Anger Management this weekend.

Read the Foxnews Story.

Die, Easter Bunny, DieDieDie!

A man, apparently enraged by the thought of giant bunnies with soft pink fur, attacked an Easter Bunny at a mall in Wisconsin.

Fortunately, soft pink fur makes good armor against drunken pummeling. The Easter Bunny was not seriously injured.

Anna at Belligerant Bunny will not be amused.

Read the Story.

The "What Were They Thinking?" Files, Part 1

Apparently, to the Dutch, political assassination isn't really that big of a deal.

Volkert van der Graaf, the man who admits to having shot Pim Fortuyn, was only given eighteen years in prison for the crime. Now, eighteen years sounds like a pretty long time, but really doesn't fit the crime at all. This was no crime of passion or accident--it was a planned assassination carried out to further a political philosophy.

It was cold, brutal murder. Eighteen years just isn't enough for this guy.

Read the story.

The" What Were They Thinking?" Files, Part 2

RIALTO, California (AP) -- Rodney King, whose videotaped beating led to the deadly 1992 riots in Los Angeles, was hospitalized with a broken pelvis after he lost control of his sport utility vehicle while weaving through traffic at 100 mph and crashed into a house, police said.

King, 39, was spotted Sunday by a police officer who said King was speeding and weaving through traffic in his 2003 Ford Expedition when he slammed into a utility pole, a chain-link fence and then the home, police said. No one in the home was injured.

Stupid.

Read about it.

Instapundit on TechCentralStation

Glenn Reynolds has written an article on TechCentralStation that has some very interesting insights into American military doctrine and technology. Very interesting reading, very highly recommended.

Read the story.

Stop Ben and J-Lo!

Ben and J-Lo want to remake Casablanca.

This cannot be.

Sign the petition to make them stop this atrocity. Die-ins will be scheduled for a later, more desperate, date.

Sign the Petition.

By the way, thanks go out to Dean Esmay's site for bringing this to our attention.

Not That I Want to Anger the Hockey Gods...

Okay, the Avs are winning their series and looked strong last night. They played well, even considering that the Wild aren't a particularly good team. The Wild are a gritty, fast, oportunistic team, though, who are playing their damndest to stay in this thing. This is good hockey.

Now, here's where I don't want to anger the hockey gods: Red Wings down 3-0 in the series to the Ducks? Oh, please, just a little gloating? Please?

You Must Do As I Command...

Jon over at World Wide Rant is doing something fun.

Either tomorrow or the next day (for I shall act in my own time, selah), I'll be asking for nominees for the First Annual John Wilkes Booth Awards for Outstanding Achievement in Misguided Political Activism by an Actor or an Actress, or as they shall be known henceforth and in all of my official biographies, The Booty Awards.

You must now go to World Wide Rant and vote for your (least) favorite celebrity.

Go Vote

I'll be voting for Michael Moore, but there are so damned many to choose from that I'm sure you'll find deciding is pretty tough. Have fun.

Witch Burning

Witch burning. And stoning. And chopping.

A witch accused of casting spells on people was killed today in Mexico near San Cristobal.

Just thought you should know.

Read the Story

Anti-War Demonstrators Forget the Lessons of History

I was reading an article by Joshua Clover in The Village Voice when I realized that today's peace activists have truly forgotten history's lessons concerning the battle between freedom and tyranny. That article, "No One's Army," is not particularly well-written, nor is it particularly readable. It's filled with moments like this:

"...not as long as freedom is a grant from armies and corporations, and the architects of the New American Century are preparing to sing their own song of Pyongyang, and their song of Damascus."

Horribly overwritten and overwrought stuff with very little in actual information, but littered with emotion and feeling. It's very much what you would expect from The Village Voice, and very much what you would expect from a leftist anti-war protester. Normally, I wouldn't give it the time of day, except to laugh a little and shake my head. A few sentences of it were crying to be answered, though.

Joshua seems to have forgotten just what it takes for a people to be free.

Many professionals of realpolitik would have you know that blocking an intersection in front of, say, ChevronTexaco headquarters (and this is merely a suggestion) will not win the heart and mind of the beleaguered commuter, as if it were somehow about hearts and minds and shock and awe. It is not. It's about stating, in terms that cannot be ignored, that one's freedom is not assigned by the guys with the guns.

Actually, freedom is almost always guaranteed by the guys with the guns. Joshua seems to have forgotten that if it weren't for soldiers, the Confederate states would have gladly brought slavery into the twentieth century. Perhaps he also failed to notice that Jews in concentration camps were not anything resembling free until men with guns liberated them from a man who's stated goal was to rid the world of every single one of them. Maybe Joshua thought that the Afghanis were happier and more free with the Taliban running things--maybe women had more freedom when they weren't burdened with school or political cache or social lives.

In his call for civil disobedience, Joshua whines about the treatment of protesters by everyone from the media to the police. Much of the abuse he complains about is simply fiery rhetoric (being referred to as a traitor, for example), while he fails to acknowledge that his argues with the same kind of conversational bombast. Free speech runs both directions, Josh. It's not just a tool for dissent, it's a tool for support and agreement with the government.

He complains that the police arrest protesters for no real reason and use non-lethal weapons into crowds which will not otherwise be dispersed. He sees this as the government defining freedom for its citizens. Well, this is true, Josh, and it is not undesirable. Would you rather have anarchy where everyone is free to do precisely what they want? The government has always regulated freedoms--by curtailing an individual's rights when that individual is acting in a way that negatively effects others.

Dissent and disagreement are wonderful tools, as is civil disobedience. But non-violent protests do not solve every problem, just as wars are not always the correct response. A pacifist who never sees a reason to fight is just as deluded as the far right-wing fringe who believe that every problem can be solved with well-targeted nuclear weapons and overwhelming force.

Josh has his one hammer, though, and every problem will always be a nail. He also has his overwhelming sense of moral superiority. His path, though, would have left a deranged lunatic in charge of a country. His path would have allowed the systematic murder of thousands of men, women, and children at a dictator's whim. His path would have allowed the ascendence of that dictator's son, assuring that the suffering would have continued for decades.

It would appear that the majority of Iraqis are much more thankful to our President than they are to the followers of Noam Chomsky.

Read the story.

Cheese Eating Coat-Tail Riders

Now that the war is won and public opinion abroad seems to be somewhat neutered by the speed of the victory and the images of Hussein's tyranny, France wants to be friends again. The Washington Post is reporting that Chirac and President Bush spoke today for the first time in months.

"Chirac, apparently signaling a desire to repair frayed France-U.S. relations, told Bush during the telephone call that France is prepared to adopt a 'pragmatic approach' to the postwar situation in Iraq."

Sure, now that it's politically safe and valuable business contracts are on the line, France wants to be buddies.

Bad France! Bad, bad!

Read the story.

Is Jeb Bush the Answer?

USNews reports that the GOP may be looking to Jeb Bush to run for President in 2008 against Hillary Clinton (as it seems everyone assumes that Senator Clinton will be making a run in 2008). I'm not so sure I think this is a great idea. I'll need to look a little closer at Jeb to see how I feel about his policies, but I know how I feel about it politically without needing a second glance.

The thought of running another Bush for President really plays to all the stereotypes from the Democrats about conservative political dynasties (although they'll happily shrug off references to Kennedy and Gore family dynasties). From a political standpoint, regardless of our President's popularity, the idea of three of the last four Presidents--assuming, and it's a big assumption, that President Bush wins re-election -- bearing the name "Bush" does not seem to be terribly wise to me.

I also think that there's a much better candidate to go toe-to-toe with Hillary. National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice would be a perfect running-mate for President Bush in the upcoming election, and a great candidate to combat Hillary for 2008. Not only is she intelligent, strong-willed, and well-connected, but she has many of the same convictions that have driven our current President. She has amazing coalition-building abilities and a mind for international relations that has served George Bush quite well so far.

I realize that the idea is being floated to run her for Governor of California, and that she's never shown interest in the Presidency, but I think that it would be a waste of a great talent to not even explore the concept.

Of course, all of my more left-leaning friends tell me that the US is not ready for a female President and that, even if America were ready for such a thing, that candidate would never possibly be a conservative. I'd like to prove them wrong on both counts: the US is ready for the right candidate at the right time, regardless of race or gender, and the GOP is not the haven for quiet racism that people on the outside believe it to be.

Condi for President!

Read the USNews Story. (You'll need to scroll a little way down the page for the short blurb.)

I Sorta Want a Cigarette

Read the Story

The Amazing Rumsfeld

...in case, somehow, you missed Esquire's Don Rumsfeld sex advice column, I'm linking to it, too.

Read it and Grin

Goofy Peaceniks #6

Yep, with the war winding down, it's time to revisit the Goofy Peaceniks. This one hurts a little, though.

Janeane Garofalo never struck me as one of the Left Wing Nuts until recently. She certainly seemed left-leaning in her sympathies, but a Wing Nut is someone who takes their political beliefs to such a religious extreme that rational thought seems to escape them. I thought that she was one of the principled objectors who might even be swayed by the images and words that we've seen since the fall of Saddam's regime.

Apparently, I was wrong.

At one point, she complained that the anti-war movement in general, and anti-war celebs in particular, weren't being taken seriously. Given the amazing bombast with which the Hollywood left comports itself, it should be no surprise that people have a difficult time taking them seriously. Also given that none of the most vociferous of them has stepped forward to say that maybe, just perhaps, they were wrong, makes it difficult to even care to listen to them.

In one interview, Garofalo suggested that the reason we didn't notice demonstrations against the Clinton White House when he bombed Baghdad or sent troops overseas, her answer is that "it wasn't hip" to be a demonstrator at that time. That's not an answer from a serious, principled adult. That's certainly not a good answer from a person who would like to be taken seriously.

And, given recent events, could she come forward and say that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein's presence? Could she proclaim happiness for the Iraqi people? Nope.

During an interview with Bill O'Reilly, Janeane said that President Bush is just as dangerous as Hussein, just in a different way. She then went on to suggest that, were she proven wrong, she would apologize to the President:

Garofalo: ?I would be so willing to say I?m sorry, I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say you were wrong, you were a fatalist, and I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, hey, you were right, I shouldn?t have doubted you. But I think to think that is preposterous.?

Now, after all of her protesting and insinuation, she says that she has nothing for which to apologize. She must have missed all of the celebration and joy pouring out of Iraq over the last week.

I'll never be able to watch Mystery Men with the same unbounded joy again.

Other Light Garofalo Reading:
Janeane Promises to Apologize
Janeane Suggests Shady Reasons for the Invasion of Iraq.
Janeane Suggests Anti-War Movement in Hollywood is Related to Political Fashions (Okay, she doesn't say this precisely, but her meaning at certain points is clear, hypocritical, and irritating).

North Korea Gets All Rational

I've seen quite a few comments on other sites lately where those opposed to the war in Iraq keep asking why we haven't taken the same action in North Korea. I've addressed, many times, just how foolish I think the comparison is and don't see the need to do so again. I will note, though, that the "catastrophically successful" invasion of Iraq was a way of taking action against North Korea. That, combined with China's apparent willingness to support the US in some limited way when dealing with North Korea, has prompted a move back towards a more pleasant form of diplomacy.

I'm still not particularly hopeful in these matters, though. North Korean leaders have proven adept at continuing to make headway in their nuclear program while mollifying leaders in the West. Still, it is a move in a positive direction.

Read the story.

Update: USS Clueless has a wonderful analysis of the North Korean situation. If you're at work, you may want to wait until later to read this, though.
Read USS Clueless

Impeachment for "W"?

Posted by StumpJumper:

Words cannot describe what I think of this. I will leave it to you, the audience, to develop you own position My favoriete quote of the week (maybe year, we'll see): "The First Amendment does not guarantee that any group with an opinion and a bank account may have its opinion published by a newspaper."

The Big Bash

I came home last night, a little on the late side, fully intending to blog drunk. I sat down to the computer, turned it on, logged in, and stared blankly at the screen for a few minutes. Then I shut down and watched Miss Firecracker (hey, it was on) while eating 7-11 Taquitos.

So, here's the recap. Yes, I got a little tipsy. A good time seemed to be had by all.

Thanks to Matt, Matt, Stephen, and Andy for great conversation. We should be doing this more than once a year.

Now, I'm off for some hang-over hiking.

Ouch.

Alright, I Know...

Special message for SageOne:

I know they lost.

I know you want to rub it in.

Go ahead. I can take it.

Grrr.

Let's Get This Weekend Goin'...

The installer just finished getting my cable modem up and running, and I'm leaving soon to go drink with the Rocky Mountain Alcohol--er, Bloggers.

This morning, as I waited for the installer to come by, I watched some terribly annoying show. I watched it because Dennis Miller was a guest.

Have I communicated to you just how much I like him? Freakin hilarious. I wrote as quickly as I could, but his mouth moves far faster then my writing ever could. Still, a few tidbits:

On the President of the United States:
"I think he's doing a great job. He really grew on me."
"I think he's been dealt really brutal cards."
"I think he's a decent man."

On the potential that Al Queda and Iraq might communicate:
"They both think we're satan...safe to assume they have each other on lunatic speed dial."

On how the war effort was going:
"It took us three weeks...it took Joe Millionaire 8 weeks to pick Zora."

On the French:
The French are "dead to me."
"If they want to get their hands dirty now, they'll just fave to run them through their own hair."

And, finally, on the Germans:
It's hard to tell if "they don't agree with the war or if it's not on a grand enough scale for them."

Damn, he's funny.

Everyone have a great weekend. I'll try to get some posts up on Sunday night, but tomorrow is a trip up to the mountains to remember why I love living in Colorado.

My Future Looks Bleak

I just checked my horoscope at the Onion. Here's what it said:

Leo: (July 23-Aug. 22) It turns out that your weakness isn't the color yellow
after all, but bullets, knives, and angry packs of badgers.

There really is no way to see this in a good light. Damnit.

Quite a Ruckus

Andy at World Wide Rant is causing quite a stir. He posted a humorous petition for anti-war types to sign that explains why they were opposed to Iraqi liberation. Funny stuff.

The comments section, in all its wild glory, though, is funnier.

Check it out.

Stop What You're Doing...

...and go to Andrew Sullivan's site right now. Read the list of candidates for the Von Hoffman award. Cherish this moment.

I know some in these blogging circles don't like him much, but I find him to be one of the best reads around. He's intelligent and interesting, even when he's wrong, and his writing is brilliant.

Update: NRO is also running a list of similar quotes. More really fun stuff. Some of my friends (who shall remain nameless) accuse me of being a bad winner. They say I gloat.

They're probably right.

Come Gloat with Me.

And, while I'm on the subject, Victor David Hanson has a hell of a polite Fisking of Maureen Dowd on NRO, as well. Worth reading.

Read the story.

Newsweek Nails this One

Andrew Sullivan links to a Newsweek page today that shows the Conventional Wisdom for April 7. This is fun. I realize that CW is more aligned to taking the pulse of the public on important topics, but the editorializing manages to annoy me on occasion. Aside from that, some of what they talk to is, like, almost a whole week out of date. Take a peek.

President Bush gets a down arrow along with this: "Steadfast, but his war cluelessly flings open the gates of hell, making any sort of victory Pyrrhic."
I'm thinking that President Bush is garnering votes even as we speak; this war has proven to be moral, just, and well-planned. This only serves to underscore the difference between a President who leads by conviction and vision and a President who kowtows to opinion polls.

Cheney also gets a down arrow with this: "Tells 'Meet the Press' just before war, 'We will be greeted as liberators.' An arrogant blunder for the ages."
I would like to offer Newsweek this one opportunity to retract this statement. I'm magnanimous in victory.

Rummy doesn't do well, either. A down arrow and this little snippet: "Taking fire from TV retired generals for flawed war plan. And how did you miss the fedayeen?"
Hey, umm, how did you miss that this war plan has toppled a government in exactly three weeks? It seems to be going pretty much on schedule and as planned to me.

Blogs get an up arrow and respect: "Internet diarists, both here and abroad, offer fresh, feisty angles. Beats Aaron Brown every time."
Hey, they have to get something right, don't they? Of course, with all us bloggers out here, it just means they'd better watch their butts. We'll hold them publicly accountable for claptrap like Conventional Wisdom.

Read Conventional Wisdom.

DMCA 1, ACLU 0

I am a computer programmer by profession. In addition to my day job I also hold adjunct faculty positions at two universities where I teach at both the graduate and undergraduate level. One of the topics that I love to discuss in my software engineering classes is the DMCA. Today's Yahoo! News has an interesting DMCA article that I think bears discussion.

 

Ben Edleman of Harvard University, with the assistance of the ACLU, took the company N2H2 to court, asking the court to give him permission to reverse-engineer one of H2H2's products. In his brief he cited and intent to "research and document" the workings of the product and that we was being hampered by "fear... of liability." The judge, Richard Stearns, found in favor of N2H2 stating that  "there is no plausibly protected constitutional interest that Edelman can assert that outweighs N2H2's right to protect its copyrighted material from an invasive and destructive trespass."

 

Although I do NOT support all provisions of the DMCA, my belief is that this decision was legally and ethically sound. I do not believe that "information wants to be free" as some would claim. Information does not "want" anything. People "want" things. Unfortunately, not everything that people "want" belongs to them and, therefore, they can't have it. Intellectual property is no different. If I have a great idea then I have the right to profit from it. I had the idea and you didn't (or you did and you failed to capitalize on it). I, therefore, should be the direct beneficiary and not you. I have a right to guard that information from you, whether you like it or not. I don't care if your purpose is something benign like "research" or something malicious, like fraud. If you tell me that you want to have sex with my girlfriend because you are doing research, I am not going to give you permission and I'm not going to apologize for being greedy. Get your own damn girlfriend! (Note: this is not to say that my girlfriend is "property" - I'm just drawing an analogy).

 

Sorry, Ben, but you are wrong on this one.

 

Links of interest:

 

The article on Yahoo! News

Ben's page at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society

N2H2

ACLU

A Joke

This is a joke that my mother e-mailed me. Thanks, Mom!

A long time ago, Britain and France were at war. During one battle, the French captured an English officer. Taking this officer their headquarters, the French general began to question him. The French general asked, "Why do you English officers all wear red coats??
 
In his bland English way, the major informed the general that the reason English officers wear red coats is so that if they are shot, the blood won't show. They will appear courageous and the men they are leading won't panic. . . And that is why from that day to now all French Army officers wear brown pants.

Just Pointing it Out

Okay, I'm not saying it's a smoking gun. I'm just saying it's interesting.

This story of radioactive materials came across yesterday and is slowly growing steam. I had hoped to wait to post it until there was something definitive either way. Then I said, screw it, it really is an interesting story. It also leads to interesting questions whether it turns out to be that cliched smoking gun or not.

Underneath a well-documented nuclear facility, Marines found a wide-ranging underground facility that had apparently been missed by the inspectors. If the work being done there is legitimate, why was it so well-hidden? And why are the levels of radioactivity so high that research scientists say that there would be no way to conduct research in those conditions?

The inspectors did go to this installation at the urging of American intelligence agencies. How is it that they didn't find the underground facilities?

Inspections were not going to work. Ever. It's far too easy to hide things from a group of people who are going out of their way to a) play nice with the host country, b) find reasons to forestall a war even to the point of failing to report damning evidence in official briefings, and c) were not dealing with a regime that was honest about its workings. If local Iraqis had not told our troops that there was a place underground where they stored "missile water" (I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one), we may have overlooked this site as well.

Again, this may not be the story, but it's certainly a thought provoking one.

Read the story.

Update: Fox has an updated story which concerns a possible mobile chem weapons van.

Read the story.

Saddam's Blog

See what Saddam is thinking about his personal difficulties.

Read Saddam's Blog.

Protests v/ Celebration

It really struck me today that anti-war protesters are possibly the most confused people on the planet. While Iraqis are celebrating their liberation, while they cheer and topple the old symbols of his regime, protesters are trying to convince the world that the war is wrong. It's no wonder the protesters are losing the battle for public opinion.

I understand the protesters in the Arab world. They're fed a diet of anti-Americanism and have limited access to information outside their state-approved channels. Many on the left would say that our own media have acted as propaganda machines for the coalition. While there is a certain truth to this, in that many reports are sanitized for our consumption, we also have access to media and journalists who have been tremendously critical of the war. We have access to the horrible pictures of the war as well as the more uplifting moments. We can see and hear both sides of the argument.

They have Al Jazeera.

While many of our media outlets will put a political spin on what they do and do not report, it is usually mild and predictable. MSNBC will report the facts from a moderate left standpoint, The American Prospect from a frighteningly leftist standpoint, Foxnews from the mild right, and National Review from a solidly conservative Republican view. They all have a slant, but essentially report the facts. It is surprising when one of the organizations is caught in a bald-faced lie.

The Arab world has Al Jazeera.

This is old-school Soviet-style propaganda. They report half-truths and lies almost always with an anti-American spin. If I were fed a daily diet of that with no dissenting opinion, I might have a pretty dim view of the West, too.

I understand these protests from the Arab world based on fear and misconceptions.

What I don't understand as much are our protesters. How can they maintain that this is an unjust war when the citizens of Baghdad are joyously celebrating in the streets? These people know the cost that their country is paying, but they still celebrate. These people know the horrors of bombs falling from the skies, from the fear of a potential and horrible death during a war. And still they celebrate. Protesters here, though, know only their fear of non-lethal riot control weapons and a vague sense that something bad is happening in another part of the world. They protest a war that the citizens of the losing side are cheering.

Does anyone else see the disconnect here?

Why are they so terribly surprised that public opinion is against them?

They act like children when they pretend that they just want to be heard. They don't want to be heard, they want us to agree with their view. The arrogance of their position is apparent when they act as if, somehow, were they to state their opinions loudly and often enough, if they were to do something annoying enough and disturbing enough, that the pro-war side would suddenly capitulate or see things their way. This isn't argument or discourse, this is a tantrum.

Note to protesters: we heard and we didn't agree. Move along. If you're going to act like children, why don't you just take your ball and go home?

Cup Crazy!

Posted by StumpJumper:

For those of you who are uninitiated to the world of professional hockey, today is a big day. The 2003 NHL playoffs start today! Here, then, are the top ten reasons to watch the Colorado Avalanche (mine and ZombyBoy's hometown team) seek another title:

10) NHL players aren't paid for the playoffs: the play for pride.
9) Hockey truly is the "coolest game on ice."
8) Hockey combines the athleticism of basketball, the strategy and physicality of football, the tradition and history of baseball, the internationalization of the Olympics, and the excitement of racing all into one awesome game.
7) There is no sport more superstitious than hockey, so keeping track of all of the players and their quirks is a sport in itself.
6) Canadian accents are fun.
5) The Colorado Avalanche have set another NHL record: they just claimed their ninth consecutive division title.
4) The Avalanche are currently fielding two trophy winners: Peter "We're Not Worthy" Forsberg (Art Ross Trophy) and Milan Hejduk (Maurice "Rocket" Richard Trophy).
3) A week ago Patrick Roy set ANOTHER, previously thought unreachable, goal when he surpassed 60,000 minutes of career ice time.
2) Many of you don't know how to pronounce "Hejduk" or "Roy" correctly, so this is your chance to learn.
1) Because the Stanley Cup is, by far and indisputably, the greatest trophy in the history of sports.

Interest piqued? The go and get more information on the Colorado Avalanche and the National Hockey League.

 

Dancing In The Streets

Posted by StumpJumper:

Fox News is reporting that last night the citizens of Baghdad "danced in the streets, waving rifles, palm fronds and flags, pumping their arms in the air and flashing the V-for-victory sign..." In Saddam City they chanted "Bush! Bush! Thank you!" at passing American troops. At the same time, Michael Loughlin is lamenting our victory in USA Today saying that "most of the world believes it should have been done under international auspices." According to him, the US is now a "rogue superpower." Personally, I agree with Laughlin's first statement: the liberation of Iraq should have happened under international auspices. It is not the US that should be chastised, however. It is the rest of the world. Don't believe me? Just ask the Iraqi people.

Read "Looting Erupts in Baghdad as Iraqi Government Weakens" at Fox News.

Read "Terrorism will only increase" at USA Today (on Yahoo! News).

Doom and Gloom for the Anti-War Crowd

For any reader who stumbles upon this site hoping to find dire predictions of Vietnam-like Quagmires of Doom, Mislaid War Plans, or Other Such Unhappy Thoughts, I figured I throw you a bone.

The article I'm linking to an article from Mother Jones magazine. It has all the usual conspiracy-theory buttressed by almost-reasonable sounding predictions of unhappy endings. Of course, it reads quite similar to predictions made before we went and toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan, but that's another story, isn't it.

Of course, a day later, this story seems to be a bit behind the times. Still, if you need a fix of doom, or if you just want a quick laugh, this is the link for you.

Would it really hurt them that much to admit that they were wrong?

Read Ma Jones.

Victory!

Read this article on Foxnews. It appears that the political apparatus of Saddam's regime realize that the war is over. They also seem to realize, this time, that they lost. Big.

Read the story on Fox.

PS--I wonder if anyone has told Baghdad Bob that he's out of a job? Ah, that's just a detail, isn't it?

Update: Iraqi ex-pats living in the US are, understandably, having a great day. This quote is representative:

"Today is my birthday," said Ali Al-Ghazali, 46, a native of southern Iraq. "But it's also the birthday for all Iraqis."

"If President Bush will allow, I would like to shake his hand," he said, standing alongside his 74-year-old father, Musa Al-Ghazali.

Read the rest of this story on Fox.

A Celebration of Restraint

In the midst of celebration, we should take a moment to reflect on a few things about the continuing efforts in Iraq.

1. The President is right: there is reason for caution. Even though the regime seems to have collapsed and the victory is assured, the fighting is far from over. The danger to coalition troops is very real.
2. Now the hard part begins: trying to shepherd a country with no democratic background towards a stable, liberal self-governance that serves its people's needs. This is the most ambitious portion of what was already a far-reaching mission. To topple a government in three weeks with less troops than we had committed to ousting Saddam from Kuwait was child's play in comparison to helping establish a government that will be fair and good not to just select groups within Iraq, but to all the varied Iraqis.
3. Now the distasteful part begins: letting the UN have a hand in the restructuring of Iraq. As much as we may hate it, we have a strong personal interest in forcing the UN to become a useful, meaningful organization. To help this happen, we can't afford to hold nationalistic grudges. So, as much as we may hate it, we'll find a place for France and Germany in the rebuilding process, and that is proper. It is also proper that they have some hand in the expense of rebuilding as they are clamoring for financial deals that will benefit them. It would be unseemly for them to have sniped at the coalition all through the war only to reap the rewards of our leadership; if they assume some of the cost for the restructuring, there will at least be the appearance of some greater level of equity.
4. We now must prove that we weren't interested in a war against the Arab world, that this wasn't an exercise in empire building, by not being too heavy handed in the administration of Iraq. Our actions now will be how the Arab world truly judges us. Make no mistake: the Arab world fears the United States, and with good reason. Part of that fear, though, is that we will try to destroy their culture and render them, effectively, slave states of the US. We have it in our hands to show them that while their fears of our military might are justifiable, their fears that we wish to destroy their religion and culture are not.

Just a few thoughts that were traveling through my head as I drove to work this morning.

Read the MSNBC Story
Read the CNN Story

Update: Apparently Chirac thinks that the rebuilding and planning for Iraq should be handed over in entirety to the UN. This makes it hard for me to maintain what I consider to be a moderate and reasonable position. The biggest problems with the UN handling in total (or even as the major player) is that the UN is far too slow and inefficient to bolster the kind of government that Iraq needs. The UN has proven itself to move too slowly in urgent situations (Bosnia? Somalia?), and did not acquit itself well during this current crisis. To assume that we would simply hand over Iraq to them now is laughable, and, were we to do so, incredibly damaging to the future of the country.

Iraq should not become a client state of the United States, neither should it be subjected to the numbing bureaucracy that is the UN.

Read the story.

Chemical Ali

The reports of "Chemical Ali" (his real name was Ali Hassan al-Majid) are reliable enough that the Telegraph ran his obituary today. Now, anyone who reads the Telegraph's obits knows that they are the most interesting, funny, and touching obits around. I hope one day, long from now, to be blessed enough to be one of their listings.

This one, though, is as brutal as the thug they were remembering.

In one taped recording, dated May 1988, al-Majid boasted about his plans to use chemical weapons on the Kurds, dismissing the inevitability of international criticism: "I will kill them all with chemical weapons. Who is going to say anything? The international community? F*** them, the international community and those who listen to them."

This is the kind of man who maintained power in Iraq for two decades. The man who ordered the gassing of Kurds, killing between 5000 and 10000 civilians.

More importantly, this is the kind of man the anti-war crowd is fighting so hard to protect. Remember that.

Read the Obituary.

A Reason to be Happy

Every other time coalition forces came close to getting Saddam, the reaction from intelligence officials was muted and restrained. The reaction this time has been almost giddy--this time they may not know that they got him, but they believe that they got him.

This makes me happy.

I know that I shouldn't be so exultant in the event of his death, but I can't help myself.

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

Read About It.

Support for the War Effort Rises

The Washington Post is reporting that about 77% of Americans now support the war effort and only 16% think that we should not have engaged in this war. The support for the war has been rising steadily as the protests against the war have grown louder. I think this says a couple of things about Americans in general and war protesters, as well.

1. Americans are pleased that their leaders took great care in their targeting and military planning. If the civilian casualties and collateral damage had been higher, this support would not have existed. This is a vindication of the war planners work as is the speed with which the war was carried out. The second-guessing a week ago about troop strengths and leadership are starting, happily, to fade away.
2. Americans are not moved by shrill protesters. No matter how much news coverage they received, the anti-war folks never made a dent in the determination of the polity. In fact, using such tactics as vomit-ins, die-ins, teach-ins, and break-ins, the anti-war movement more likely alienated people who may have been swayed by rational discourse.
3. The more Americans learned of the frightening nature of the Iraqi ruling class, the more they supported the war. The case for the war was not made in discussions about national security and weapons of mass destruction. The case was made because Americans like to have a moral cause to support.
4. The anti-war side are like children. They cannot accept that they may have been wrong, that they lost the debate, and that the masses somehow ended up disagreeing with them. They bring this point home by complaining, constantly, that their side wasn't heard, that we need a continuing national debate, and that if Americans were only properly educated they would never support the war.
5. Our stars--the musicians and actors that pretend to speak for us--are tremendously removed from the people that admire them. I'm not sure that this is meaningful, but it's interesting that these people would worry so publicly about not being taken seriously when they make it so terribly hard to take them seriously. They really need to consider what it means that so few Americans actually care about their opinions.

These numbers will likely decrease over the next few months as the political realities of building a new government in Iraq become apparent. It will be expensive, it will take time, and it will be contentious. If the President can bring the UN in with a limited roll, but one which the French and Germans (to a much lesser extent, you could include the Russians and Chinese) support, it will do much to shore up the support and admiration for this White House's diplomatic abilities.

Read the story.

Plagiarist Amongst Us

Dean Esmay is running a story (linked to a Wired article) about Sean-Paul Kelley of The Agonist fame plagiarizing war-related information from StratFor. I've read The Agonist on a somewhat regular basis, but never considered him to be one of my daily "must reads." This, though, comes as a bit of a shock and a great disappointment.

Dean's story includes a few tidbits of information that Wired didn't have.

Read Dean's Comments.

Visit The Agonist

A Good Night

I got the G4 up and running at work, which means I'll be taking home the old G3, its software, and a CD burner.

Saddam Hussein and at least one of his boys may very well be dead.

Kansas lost to Syracuse (take that, evil ex-girlfriend of doom!).

Yep, it's a good night.

A Horrible Murder

Drudge linked to an article about a mentally challenged man who was killed by a group of kids aged 13 to 14. The kids taunted Ricky Whistnant, the victim, threw bottles at him and kicked him.

I don't know whether I'm more sad or angry about this.

Understand that the youngest will be tried in juvenile court and the older two as adults. They are being charged with First Degree Assault on a Mentally Handicapped Person and Conspiracy to Commit the same. They may face further charges of murder or manslaughter, according to the report.

Do these kids deserve to be tried as adults? My gut says yes. They are old enough to have a more than rudimentary understanding of morality, of right and wrong. There is no doubt that they knew what they were doing was illegal, was cruel, and was wrong. And yet, even after the man had collapsed, they continued to cruelly torment him. They are also old enough to have a distinct understanding of what death truly means. A six year old has a very tenuous grasp of the true meaning of mortality, but a teenager knows the actuality of death, whether they have or have not experienced it personally.

The people who would defend them will dispute that level of understanding and culpability. They will also ask whether it is fair to take away the futures of these young boys by locking them away for the rest of their lives. I think the first argument is simply a diversion and the second argument is a bit unfair. The question should be whether we as a society can accept the danger that these "children" pose to everyone surrounding them if they are allowed to leave prison.

These are not simply good kids who made a mistake. They are vicious predators looking for weak, defenseless prey. A sixteen year old friend of theirs gives a couple of intriguing statements on the subject:

"They have a lot of troubles. They get in a lot of fights. They're not real good kids..."

and

"For a lot of kids, it's fun to pick on people because you can all laugh at them," Sterling said. "But they went too far, in my opinion. Way too far."

So, this kid thinks they went "way too far." What a mastery of understatement.

Further, is it fair (in the sense that law should be fair) that the older boys are tried as adults while their younger counterpart faces much less serious consequences for the crime? One single year is the difference between a relatively minor punishment and the potential for a life spent in prison.

In a situation like this, that single year seems quite arbitrary.

Ed Asner, Big Blow Hard in Chief

Actor (does he really do an acting any more?) Ed Asner spoke at Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. The fact that he's opposed to the war is no surprise, and neither is the fact that he's rather loud about it. What was surprising was just how funny it was.

It starts off with Ed saying just how proud he is of his fellow anti-war priveleged elite actor/activists, and how disappointed he was by politicians for not speaking against the war.

"It's ridiculous actors are the ones doing it. It strikes me as unbelievable that no legislators or leaders are in the press for speaking out."

So, essentially, he hasn't been listening to any of the Democratic candidates for the Presidency, has he? Someone this far behind on current events should probably be considered with a tiny bit of skepticism, no matter what. More importantly, if I were Senator Kerry, I'd be worried that Ed Asner might be trying to steal my campaign platform.

Anyhow, it continues:

The Southern Illinoisan reported that Asner told the students that the United States' efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq should be questioned.

Ed, the war was questioned. A lot. Unceasingly, it seemed, until we finally took action. Many say that we took too long with all that going to the UN and talking about it in Senate. And, Ed, didn't Afghanistan turn out pretty well? I admit, the job isn't done yet, but the conditions for the Afghanis have already increased measurably. Oh, wait, you probably hadn't noticed that part since you were too busy being an activist to actually read up on the events. I'm a little amazed that he had the time to spare to even notice that we'd invaded Iraq what with all his worry about Afghanistan. Or something.

Asner said people who regard Saddam Hussein in the same manner as Adolf Hitler should rethink the reasons Iraq is in its current condition. He said years of economic sanctions and the effects of past U.S. strikes against the country have put the people in a tough position.

Oh, so the reason that Saddam puts people into industrial plastic shredders is because they don't have the economic wherewithal to feed those particular people. Apparently, it's just one step away from a mercy killing.

I'm one of those who didn't like the never-ending economic sanctions, but that didn't lessen our obligation to liberate Iraq. In fact, it makes me wonder why it took us so damned long. Instead of trapping the Iraqi citizens in a poverty where their leadership diverted funds from the oil for food programs and the illegally shipped oil, we could have introduced them to a future without Saddam Hussein long ago.

Next, Ed explains his disappointment that Americans don't take their celebrities more seriously.

"I think that's unfortunate because entertainment is a marvelous conduit to reach people," Asner said in the DE. "The biggest newspaper in the United States is read by a couple million people. But one prime time television show can reach 30 to 40 million people in one night."

That's right, Ed, it's more bang for your propaganda buck. All your blame-America actor friends can reach more people than the average Presidential address. I'm glad people don't take you and yours too seriously; you obviously don't take the responsibility of the situation too seriously. If actors and musicians, who do have a special public platform from which to speak, were worried more about being honestly informed, I would be more worried about their feelings on the subject. If actors took the role of political commentator seriously, though, they'd probably realize that their understanding of current events is not only limited, but colored by their special place in society. Far from speaking for the common man, they speak for an elite few that the rest of us can never truly understand or imagine. In other words, I'll still watch the movies, but keep the moralizing to a minimum.

Then Ed goes and makes me cranky.

"I've learned above all the necessity for individuals to stand up and become known what they stand for, without worrying about who is looking over their shoulder," Asner said.

You mean, like you can do in America? But apparently, that level of freedom and self-confidence is too good for the Iraqis. Apparently, they don't deserve it as much as our actors and musicians do. This war was started for our own national interests, but the fact that it will liberate an entire nation isn't just a little side note in the exercise. In fact, if Hussein were a just and reasonable ruler, not only would his people already be free, but we would not have been worried about his potential for destabilizing the region or arming our enemies. The two facets of the war truly do go hand in hand.

Ed, in "speaking for" Iraq, is really just giving himself license for an exercise in arrogance. He speaks only from a few standpoints:

1. The hatred of the conservatives in general (and President Bush in particular)
   
2. The hatred of American cultural imperialism (apparently all cultures are morally equivalent and should be tolerated, regardless of their human rights violations and the potential danger to their neighbors, and not including American culture which really doesn't count. For some reason too difficult to be explained).
   
3. The old school anti-war agenda (in which no war begun by a conservative could ever be a just war).
   

Ed, go find a job.

Just give me a reason to change the channel.

Update: I can't believe I forgot to link to the original article.
Here you go.

A Picture Worth at Least a Thousand Words

Offered without comment (and filched from Drudge--I'd love to credit the person responsible).

Chemical Weapons?

Okay, so I'm not saying it's a "smoking gun" yet. Only because thinking up snarky retractions gets pretty old.

That said, it looks like the first store of chemical weapons has been found.

Read the story.

The funny thing is, I'm watching for this not for my own sake, but for others in my life. I actually think that the WMD argument for invasion paled in comparison to the human rights argument. If they never found a drop of chemical weapons, I would have been convinced that we had done the right thing.

If they do find illegal weapons, though, it'll be a nice little kick in the seat of the pants to Hans Blix and his slavish followers.

Update: It's looking more and more like the smoking gun that we've been waiting for.
Read the story.

And How is This Not Attempted Murder?

So, a male teacher has a sexual relationship with a 13 year old boy. Bad enough.

So, the teacher is HIV positive and engages in these acts knowing the potential danger to the boy. Yep, it's getting worse.

The teacher is then charged with "sexual assault by a diseased person, aggravated sexual assault, sexual assault and child endangerment." What?

Don't get me wrong: those are very seriousl charges. But to be HIV positive and knowingly have sexual relations with someone (a child, damnit!) is a step beyond sexual assault. Let's review: AIDs has no cure. AIDs kills in the long run. How is this not attempted murder? How is this not the same as putting poison in someone's food?

Read the story.

They Really Don't Like Saddam...

Uprisings in major Iraqi cities (including Baghdad) are being reported with civilians killing the Fedayeen Saddam and forcing politicians into hiding.

So, to all those who question whether the Iraqis truly wanted to be freed from the tyrant who had ruled them with terror and blood for decades, do you have your answer yet?

The citizens, now that they see that we aren't abandoning them this time, are helping the cause. It's not so much an invasion as it is an assisted revolution; these people could never have been free without our intervention, and, yes, without unfortunate and tragic deaths. The future in Iraq is much brighter today, though, than it was three weeks ago.

And, again, the war planners are being proven right, even though the schedule may have been a few days too optimistic.

Read the story.

Lighter Note: "Disintegration" by The Cure

Posted by Stmpjmpr19:

Hidy-ho, South-Parketeers!

It's Sunday night as I write this, so I'm taking the discussion in a slightly different direction: music.

Yesterday I was watching old episodes of South Park on DVD. In addition to all of the great things about the episode "Mecha-Streisand" we have a wonderful guest appearance by Robert Smith. This is one of the few episodes of SP where a celebrity appears as a character in the show and is actually voiced by the real person. The episode ends with Robert Smith walking off into the sunset having just saved the world from Mecha-Streisand. Before he disappears Stan yells after him: "Disintegration is the best album ever!" Being an impulse buyer and "instant-gratification boy" I rushed out and bought the CD (what better plug than kudos from the SP boys?).

Prior to this excursion into the world of The Cure I only knew their top-40 hits and the song "Burn" from the soundtrack to "The Crow" (for those of you who don't know me I'm a die-hard metal-head at the core, but I will listen to just about anything so my CD collection is about as eclectic as they come). Having listened to "Disintegration" several times I am now moved to go on record with this:

What a great freakin' album!

Global Warming Lite

I can't, and won't, argue about either the "fact" of global warming or the doom-laden scenarios that accompany those people who worry extensively about it. I have neither the scientific background nor the overwhelming interest in the subject. I've read just enough to know that there are two very distinct camps within the scientific community. One camp says that we are creating unprecedented changes to the climate by pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and will reap cataclysmic rewards for our efforts. The other camp says that the worst-case scenarios are exaggerated and that the climate changes may not be that extreme as we are working with such a small slice of time in which temperatures were recorded accurately that we can't know the real normal range of temperatures for the planet.

Me, I lean towards the second camp--not that I think we aren't having some effect on the climate, but that the worry over those effects are probably a little over-stated.

Still, I know that I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to speak with any authority on the subject. That means I get to sit back and watch the sniping from one camp to the other. It's sort of fun in a science-as-spectator-sport sort of way.

Today, there's an article in the Telegraph about a study done at Harvard. If science is a spectator sport, this was a pretty impressive play.

Such claims have now been sharply contradicted by the most comprehensive study yet of global temperature over the past 1,000 years. A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.

The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.

There's a lot more to read, so check it out.

Read the story.

Update: I've been doing a little more reading on this subject today, and have come up with a few more links of interest on the topic. Enjoy.
From TechCentralStation.
GlobalWarming.org

Congratulations to Dean Esmay

Dean Esmay is celebrating his one year blogging anniversary. His is consistently one of the most thought-provoking and insightful of blogs, and if you aren't clicking on the link to Dean's World every day, you're missing one of the best.

Go congratulate Dean.

More Michael Moore, Or "Lick My Love Pump"

To continue my own personal piling on of Michael Moore, I link you to David Kopel's article on NRO. Not only does it speak to the factual errors and conceptual errors of the movie Bowling for Columbine, it also summons up the great This is Spinal Tap.

Any reference to the Tap earns big bonus points with me.

Read it.

Now, I must go listen to "Lick My Love Pump."

Missile Defense

For Kevin Smith Fans (That Means You, Stumpjumper)

I just watched the DVD of A Night With Kevin Smith. This is freakin' hilarious. I certainly like Smith more, even if I don't like the movies any more than I did before. I still think Clerks was brilliant, but it was all down hill from there, with Chasing Amy being my least favorite and Dogma coming closest to being a good movie (in my, admittedly, biased mind).

Highly recommended to anyone who's enjoyed Smith's movie and would like to know a little bit more about the man behind Silent Bob. If, on the other hand, you find his movies offensive, you'd probably be best served by never, ever seeing this film.

His take on dealing with Hollywood types, religion, and sexual politics in movies are all very interesting in particular.

Update: Some people are sure to ask why I didn't think Mall Rats was the worst Kevin Smith flick. The reason is that Chasing Amy is far more preachy and moralizing to me. And I really like Shannon Doherty.

Interesting links

http://jccc.afis.osd.mil/images/images.pl?Lbox=defenselink.Operation_IRAQI_FREEDOM&view_cap=&ban=&cc=3&lbc=1&tc=12&dir=&vn=1&ref=http://www.deanesmay.com/

Saddam Hussein's cruelty
http://www.sundayherald.com/32893
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/030405/170/3ptgn.html&e=3&ncid=1479

Fun Fun Fun on A Small Victory

Michele over at A Small Victory (you do click that link over on the left every day, don't you?) has posted something you really need to read. A Japanese children's show aired an explanation of the events in Iraq, and she has kindly interpreted those images for us.

Thanks, Michele.

Enjoy.

Kudos to Dennis Miller

Posted by Stmpjmpr19:

Dennis Miller was on Jay Leno last night, talking bad about the peace protesters. He described four types:

1) The "genuine pacifists" who he doesn't understand.
2) The people who want to "mislabel Hitler." To them, "the only guy who isn't Hitler is the foreign guy with the moustache dropping guys who disagree with him into the wood chipper!"
3) The "Elite Democratic Guard" like Nancy Pelosi.
4) The "nutcase protesters" who will protest anything. "If you put half the time into your resume that you put into your sign you might not be available for midweek rallies because you'd have a job like the rest of us!"

'Nuff said.

NOTE: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily the views of Zombyboy

Smoking Gun?

Posted by Stmpjmpr19:

Fox News (and several other sources) are reporting that "U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad". Bets on what the substance is? Over/Under on how long it will take the liberals to derive an explanation that exonerates their boy, Saddam?

NOTE: The views expressed in this post are not necessarily the views of Zombyboy.

Note from Zombyboy: Generally, my friend here writes better than I do and thinks more rationally. I gave him the spare set of keys to the blog and he'll be takin' her out for a spin once in a while. While I can't create a new name for him, he'll always note that it's his work (so that he gets both credit and blame).

Iran Just Begging for a Spanking

If it's true that Iran plans to send soldiers across the border to harass coalition troops, it would be an error in judgement.

Let's hope that they err, instead, on the side of prudence.

Read the story.

RIP, Michael Kelly

Michael Kelly has been killed in a Humvee accident in Iraq. An editor at large for the Atlantic Monthly, and formerly with New Republic, he was one of my favorite writers. I didn't always agree with his views (usually, not always), but his writing was spectacular.

He will be missed.

Read the Washington Post story.

Update: Instapundit had a link to Michael's last article. Here it is.

USA Today Gets it Right

USA notes that maybe, just maybe, the war plan is working.

Read the story.

News cycles in the US are so freakin' quick that it makes my head spin. A little more than two weeks ago we were arguing whether we should go to war. Over the last week, we've been arguing about whether the war plan was a failure and whether we would find ourselves in a Vietnam-like quagmire. Now, the news seems to be shifting again towards a more positive tone. I wonder what next week will hold for us.

Update: NRO has also posted and editorial concerning the outlook for the war and where the battle plans have and have not served us well.
Take a look.

Read Jay

Unless you are a huge fan of former President Carter and the French, in general, you'll enjoy Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus on NRO today.

Read it.

On Pearl Jam

When people start walking out on your rock concert because your political statements go too far, you must be doing something wrong.

I've never been a really big Pearl Jam fan. They have a few good songs, I have a few of their CDs. The problem I've always had with them, though, is their arrogance. Looks like Eddie Vedder just stepped over the line, though.

Check out the story in the Rocky Mountain News.

On Sen. Kerry

I've always thought that Senator Kerry was one of the worst sorts of politicians: unprincipled, obnoxious, and loud. He's confirmed all of those opinions with his latest call for "regime change" in Washington, DC. His lust for the Presidency is his driving motivation, and his criticisms of our current President were not only shrill but baseless. His speech yesterday amounted to one big ad hominem attack butrussed by a call for not just new leadership, but Kerry's leadership.

'I believe we can have a golden age of American diplomacy,'' he said, outlining his own foreign policy credentials in the speech. ''But it will take a new president who is prepared to lead, and who has, frankly, a little more experience than visiting the sum total of two countries'' before taking office.

Respectfully, Senator Kerry, what America both has and needs is a President willing to both court international opinion and then make difficult decisions when that opinion isn't necessarily going his way. What you are describing is not a leader, but a follower. What you are describing is someone who would sell America's (and, in my mind, the world's as a whole) security interests because a few countries were unwilling to part with their own economic interests. No, Senator Kerry, we don't need you and we sure as hell don't want you.

Read the story.

Posted by zombyboy at 12:00 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Where's Geraldo?

Moxie is keeping tabs on the large-nosed one.

Read her story.

Bad Lawmakers, Bad, Bad

This, according to the Washington Post:

Dubbed Senate Bill 742, it identifies a terrorist as a person who "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

This bill is put forth before the Oregon state legislature. While I do think that anti-war protestors go too far in their actions, and I do agree that police and the judiciary need better tools to control these people, this isn't the right solution. I agree with the ACLU that the language is so broad that it would have the effect of squashing all anti-war protest.

I don't imagine that this bill will pass. I don't even imagine that its backers intend it to pass. This is the kind of thing, though, that gives fuel to the liberal argument that conservatives don't want to hear dissenting opinions and that conservatives are opposed to free speech.

We don't need this kind of grandstanding; it's bad politics and it's bad legislation.

Iraqi Democracy

Support democracy and human rights in Iraq!

Blogarama

Review Resurrectionsong

Search href="http://www.popdex.com/">Popdex:
 

 

<
?
Democracy! Whiskey! Sexy!
#
>

RSS 1.0 Feed

My Popdex Game Profile


Popdex

Metapop

Get a GoStats hit counter

Kim Jong Il, Blogger Extrodinaire

Like I really need to say anything else.

You must go now.

Good To Be On The Losing Side

According to a Washington Post and Foxnews.com story, coalition forces have pulled to within 19 miles of Baghdad after destroying an entire Republican Guard division. ThisIsLondon.com reports that the major push for Baghdad begins today. No one is claiming that this war is nearing an end. No one is saying that the level of resistance wasn't more than was expected. How is it that some journalists and pundits still seem to think that we're losing this war?

Can we put all the talk of a failed plan to rest, yet?

Oh, of course not. Saddam Hussein, the Incredible Invisible Dictator (Pat. Pend.), has issued a statement declaring that the time for victory is near at hand. Of course, given his commitment to truth, we know this must be true. The massive losses were really just a trick to draw coalition forces to their doom.

Or something like that.

So, for all those who hope for a coalition loss, for all those that care not one whit for the liberation of Iraq, I just have one statement: not this time.

Read The Washington Post Story
Read The This is London Story
Read Saddam's Statement as Reported in the Washington Post

No Divorce for You

A judge in Texas has dismissed a divorce case for two men who had entered a civil union in Vermont. The reasoning was that Texas doesn't recognize same sex unions, so a divorce could not be granted where no marriage existed. I truly understand the reasoning, I understand the legal realities of the situation.

So, laws need to be changed. The best-case situation (and, yes, I know I'll catch a lot of hell from many of my conservative brethren) is if all states recognized same-sex unions. Failing that, though, what about creating some method of obtaining an annulment that recognizes the legality of a contract that was entered into in another state even if that contract is not considered to be marriage.

If I remember correctly, to be divorced in Vermont, one of the divorcing parties needs to be a resident of Vermont for a full year, which of course causes problems for people who travel there to enter into a same-sex civil union.

Again, I understand, to some extent, the legal realities, but it seems to be yet another way to punish people unjustly for their sexual orientation.

"Ooops, someone broke the Internet"

Sorry for the exceptionally long outage yesterday. The kindly folks at Blog-City assure me that it was a major routing problem in the UK.

Damned Limey routers.

(Should Limey, as a (jokey) perjorative term for "Englishman", be capitalized or not? That's the question of the day, then.)

False Advertising, Apparently

I haven't yet commented on the Marine conscientious objector, Stephen Funk, mostly because you see some level of desertion during every war. I don't admire him for "standing up for what he believes," or any touchy-feely crap like that, and I certainly hope that he is prosecuted and punished for his crime. That said, I just didn't really want to pile on to the little guy and I know he's of a sensitive disposition.

Then I read the Washington Post article today.

I can' t help myself. Here's the money shot:

"They don't really advertise that they kill people," Funk said. "I didn't really realize the full implications of what I was doing and what it really meant to be in the service as a reservist."

I could assume that he means what he's saying, and he was just too stupid to realize that, in the event of a war, a Marine's job is to kill things. I could assume that, somehow, he missed every single movie, book, magazine, or other pop-cultural reference to "the Few, the Proud, the Marines." He, perhaps, thought that the weapons that Marines are issued were used merely for hunting of wild game and target practice to fill the lonely hours between PT sessions. Yep, I could assume that he's truly that mentally deficient.

Or, I could assume that he's just another coward trying to find a way out of his duty. I could assume that the only excuse he could come up with was "They don't really advertise that they kill people."

Well, most of us just sort of thought that it weant without saying, Stephen.

I really didn't intend to write anything about Funk. I really didn't. But his statement is so close to that favorite smoker's lament of mine: "But, your honor, I didn't know it was bad for me."

Both the smokers and Stephen Funk deserve the same answer: "Bullshit, kid. Now grow up and deal with the decisions you made for yourself."

Read the Washington Post story.

Not Quite Smoking Guns

ABC news is reporting that coalition forces have uncovered links between al-Quida and Iraqi militant groups. They also uncovered terrorist training manuals, names of operatives (some believed to be in the United States), chemical and biological weapons-making manuals, and other information linking Iraq to terrorists and chemical weapons manufacturing.

It isn't a smoking gun, not by a long shot, but you have to wonder how many of these little coincidences have to pile up before even the anti-war side realizes that the allegations weren't mere conjecture.

"Sarin Gas Documents Seized in Iraq"

"Raid Finds al-Quaida Tie To Iraq"

Can't Feel Good About This

No matter the reasons, you just can't feel good about the deaths of seven women and children. For any who haven't read about it (pretty much unthinkable in these circles), earlier today, US forces opened fire on a van which did not stop as ordered as it approached a checkpoint. The soldiers first fired warning shots, then fired into the engine of the van, but the van continued until the Americans opened fire on the occupants. This is one of those moments where you wish there were a much neater way to remove a man like Saddam Hussein from power.

It should be noted that this in no way invalidates the effort. Wars have unintended, and unfortunate, accidents in which the innocent pay a cost. If the war is just, then that cost is acceptable, as painful as it may be. When Hussein's forces dressed as civilians and opened fire on coalition troops, they made the choice to bring their own civilians into the conflict. When a suicide bomber killed Americans at a checkpoint, the inevitability of what happened today was sealed.

What this moment does do, though, is reinforce just how important it is to execute this war with all reasonable haste. That doesn't mean putting troops in a desperate situation just so the war ends sooner, but to act with a rational level of urgency.

This ends only when Saddam Hussein is removed from power.

Until then, all my sympathies go out to the families who lost loved ones today, and I hope they realize that this is neither what we want nor what we intend for their country.

Read the story.

But You Don't Understand...

...those are some really good curly fries.

Offered without (much) comment, with thanks for Drudge:

Read About the Man Who Really Really Wanted Curly Fries.