:: Bluestarblog ::

:: Wednesday, July 31, 2002 ::

Gamla made me realize something ugly today

While Jesse and his friends shook hands, students at Hebrew U. were being murdered while they sat and drank coffee.

(via Dawson Speaks)

:: Scot 9:01 PM [+] :: ::
...

Abdullah: Arab Trust of U.S. Low ABC news reports:

King Abdullah of Jordan says Arab nations have little trust in the United States.

What a coincidence Mr Abdullah...

:: Scot 8:30 PM [+] :: ::
...

James Lileks today writes about his favorite character on Voyager - Tuvok. For me it was always a toss-up between him and the Doctor until I read this:

Best of the batch, no question, is Tim Russ as Tuvok. That’s a Vulcan. He makes Nimoy look like Alan Alda. It’s all in the eyes - Nimoy’s Spock had empathetic, curious eyes; they were sarcastic, inquisitive, disbelieving, and of course fascinated. Russ’ Tuvok had Vulcan eyes. Disengaged from human trivialities, staring six minutes ahead of everyone else, with a tinge of conspicuous disdain. Go up against that flat gaze, and you lost every time. I always thought he got the whole Vulcan thing better than anyone else, and in the latest iteration of Trek, the Vulcan crewmate is doing Russ, not Nimoy.

N.B. Stay away from Tim Russ' awkward country-blues recordings lest it ruin your image of the stoic Vulcan.

:: Scot 8:19 PM [+] :: ::
...

Stephen Hayes and Matt Welch also mention the New York Times' specious reasoning on the no war stance. I'm waiting for tomorrow or next day's editorial that reads something like 'we do stand for the war, but we don't stand for the war.' After all, sales are sales.

:: Scot 8:03 PM [+] :: ::
...

Now who is that fat bastard Caesar Barber going to sue? It looks like granola could have been equally responsible for luring his fat ass to the couch every night (although he probably wouldn't know granola from sawdust).

:: Scot 7:50 PM [+] :: ::
...

I was going to post a few DHS boners but why bother. For a daily update read Glenn Reynolds' take on it. He's posting a few a day.

:: Scot 7:41 PM [+] :: ::
...

Whoa, what's this? Saudi's blocking websites? Next you're going to try and tell me something crazy like Iran and Syria back the Hezbollah and Hamas.

:: Scot 7:36 PM [+] :: ::
...

David Limbaugh on the justice system's latest shame - Caesar Barber's 'fat suit.'

Not too long ago I would have been confidant that such preposterous lawsuits would be summarily dismissed, but not any longer -- not in the current climate of million dollar verdicts against McDonalds for selling hot coffee and people feeling sorry for young adults orphaned after murdering their parents. We must understand that the problem is not just trial lawyers preying on society -- though more than a few of them are. They can't file suit without willing plaintiffs, and they can't sustain their cases without receptive judges and sympathetic juries. Sadly, these plaintiffs, judges and juries are simply a reflection of a society that has lost its fundamental appreciation for liberty and is following an inexorable path toward forfeiting all of it.

My last posting on this was sourced from a BBC story that read like one of those simple eye-rolling American idiosyncracies - good for nothing but a few yuks. Now, 3 days later, we find out this guy has a lawyer and is ready to go. Here's hoping he has a heart attack first.

:: Scot 10:45 AM [+] :: ::
...

Bias in the New York Times? Say it ain't so. If it isn't bias against Israel, it's futile attempts to stall the war on Iraq.

For more on its anti-Israel stance, type 'new york times anti-israel' into Google (8550 results at time of this writing). Andrew Sullivan has been closely covering it's anti-war position (he should know about the Times' agenda, he used to write for them).

:: Scot 10:33 AM [+] :: ::
...

National Review has posted Donald Rumsfeld's tribute to Milton Friedman (May 9th, 2002).

:: Scot 10:12 AM [+] :: ::
...

The right to remain silent? Maybe not.

(via Instapundit)

:: Scot 3:00 PM [+] :: ::
...

Hookers in Iran? I still say we try democracy first.

(via PejmanPundit)

:: Scot 2:51 PM [+] :: ::
...

The Toronto Sun weighs in on the Cuban youth defection.

:: Scot 2:23 PM [+] :: ::
...

Scared of the ominous nature of future technologies? Don't be writes Brenda Cooper and Glen Hiemstra:

In fact, it is essentially impossible to stop technological advances, even as the technologies have greater potential for good or ill. Historically, more powerful and useful technology has almost always prevailed. It is reasonable to assume that new technological skills and tools will belong to us as we move forward through time.

That is what technology is. A tool set. We must remain empowered to choose how to use it wisely. All of us. Doctors, writers, engineers, families, children. Not just the government, although it's simplistic to assume that all governmental uses of technology are bad. Government, after all, is our tool as well, albeit one we must actively watch.

A related addendum: disposable cell phones! (I kinda thought they were somewhat disposable already based on how frivolously we treat them - but now they're going to be marketed for that purpose).

Meh

:: Scot 1:24 PM [+] :: ::
...

Asylum-seekers disappoint WYD organizers

It's unfortunate that 23 young Cubans used World Youth Day as an opportunity to seek asylum in Canada, organizers of the Toronto event say.

"You know that's not why we held World Youth Day," said Mr. Kilbertus. "We wanted people to come for the right reasons. We were diligent as we could be when working with Canadian immigration officials — we're sorry that there are people who've used the opportunity to take part in a religious event as an excuse to get in the country."

Just for the record, this isn't a cabal of Mexicans crashing the border. These people have gone through the proper channels seeking legitimate refugee status. And yes, how unfortunate that World Youth Day is responsible for providing a beacon of hope for 23 people looking for a better life. This must be really embarrassing.

Freak

:: Scot 12:17 PM [+] :: ::
...

Meh - I don't feel like writing a book this year. Maybe I'll just hire someone to write it for me.

:: Scot 12:02 PM [+] :: ::
...

Is Saudi Arabia looking to pick a fight with Qatar ?

It appears Saudi Arabia and Qatar are headed for a quarrel that could affect U.S. forces deployed in Qatar. Doha's willingness to support the U.S. military's buildup for a war with Iraq is making rulers in Riyadh irate, a feeling the Al Jazeera cable network has only compounded by airing criticisms of the Saudi regime.

Saudi daily al Watan called Qatar's foreign minister, Sheikh Hamad bin Jassem al Thani, a "dwarf" July 29 after he met with his Israeli counterpart Shimon Peres in Paris. The insult is just the latest in a string of sour notes sounded between Riyadh and Doha.

Layers of resentment are contributing to the tensions between Qatar and Saudi Arabia. At the surface, Riyadh is genuinely angry about the negative press coverage by Doha-based Al Jazeera, a satellite TV network that broadcasts relatively uncensored material throughout the Arab world. Beneath this outrage over Qatari press freedoms is the fear that Qatari support for a U.S. military campaign against Iraq could result in Washington's advancing its war plans.

Dear Saudi Arabia:

Go for it!

:: Scot 7:17 AM [+] :: ::
...

Victor Davis Hanson on the Europeans' fear of America. (I know, I know - I've been picking on Europe a lot lately. I promise I'll stop when, umm...the war is over)

:: Scot 11:29 PM [+] :: ::
...

I don't usually post any positive news about Muslims and America (let's face it - there isn't much). But here's a good story - Muslim Leader Urges Community to Fight Terror.

Kabbani wants to dispel the distorted image of Islam that has festered in the post-Sept. 11 America. He visited Ground Zero as proof that a more moderate voice of Islam is alive and well. He is a voice in support for peace and understanding between all Americans.

"When America helped Kosovo, when America helped Bosnia, when America helped Afghanistan, when America helped Kuwait, when America helped Saudi Arabia from the threat of Iraq, that is what?" he asked. "That is not helping Islam?"

Kabbani works as head of the Islamic Supreme Council of America, encouraging Muslims to join the war against terror and to denounce those who defile the faith for their own violent ends.

As I posted a long time ago, the more Muslims that step forward and oust the terrorists from their mosques, the better served will be the image of Islam. Instead of a 'religion of terrorism' or the hollow 'religion of peace,' I like the idea of Islam as a 'religion of we don't put up with that crap.' Just think, they would be a step up on the Catholic church.

:: Scot 11:25 PM [+] :: ::
...

I read rumors of the Oklahoma-Al Queda connection about six months ago and left it at that - simply rumors. According to the LA Weekly, it looks like there's a case worth re-opening (as long as the DHS is up to the task).

:: Scot 11:15 PM [+] :: ::
...

Charles Krauthammer explains why liberals are fools.

Liberals tend to be nice, and they believe -- here is where they go stupid -- that most everybody else is nice too. Deep down, that is. Sure, you've got your multiple felon and your occasional war criminal, but they're undoubtedly depraved 'cause they're deprived. If only we could get social conditions right -- eliminate poverty, teach anger management, restore the ozone, arrest John Ashcroft -- everyone would be holding hands smiley-faced, rocking back and forth to "We Shall Overcome."

Liberals believe that human nature is fundamentally good. The fact that this is contradicted by, oh, 4,000 years of human history simply tells them how urgent is the need for their next seven-point program for the social reform of everything.

He makes a good case.

Tomorrow: why conservatives are villians.

:: Scot 6:51 AM [+] :: ::
...

Ralph Peters with a bit of advice for Israel: Don't apologize for civilian casualties.

:: Scot 6:43 AM [+] :: ::
...

Great essay relating to Thursday's post on the Euroweenies. Bruce Bawer writes about the recognition of fundamentalist Islam in Western Europe and what needs to be done to counter it.

(T)hese immigrants must be thought of–and must be encouraged to think of themselves–as full and equal members of the societies in which they live. European natives must appreciate what an accomplishment it is for people to become functioning members of societies radically different from the ones in which they were born. Those who do make the adjustment successfully deserve the utmost respect. To persist in calling them immigrants after they have been living and working in a country for years (and, even more outrageously, to use the same word to describe their European-born children and grandchildren) is not only offensive and insulting but staggeringly counterproductive.

As for those who, after a period in the West, make it obvious that they are unwilling or unable to adapt, they must be sent home and replaced by deserving individuals who can adapt. This may appear extreme, but there is no reasonable alternative. For at stake in all this, ultimately, are the basic freedoms of all Westerners–not only women and homosexuals, but everyone, including Muslims and former Muslims who wish to live in a place where they can be themselves. At stake, indeed, is Western civilization.

:: Scot 6:38 AM [+] :: ::
...

Fat Americans sue fast food firms

"The fast-food industry has wrecked my life," Caesar Barbar, one of plaintiffs, told the New York Post. Mr Barbar - a 57-year-old maintenance supervisor who weighs almost 125 kilograms (275 pounds) - said he regularly ate fast food until 1996, when a doctor warned his diet could potentially kill him.

Mr Barbar said he had already had two heart attacks and has been suffering from diabetes. "I always thought it was good for you. I never thought there was anything wrong with it," he said.

I suggest that you turn your lawsuit to the school system that obviously failed in their bid to provide you with at least a modicum of intelligence.

:: Scot 6:17 AM [+] :: ::
...

Andrew Sullivan opines that the answer to eradicating racial tension lies in miscegenation:

If the rate of inter-racial marriage increases, the next generation may well not identify as "black" or "white" at all. That's a real fillip. Miscegenation has always been the ultimate solution to America's racial divisions. It blurs distinctions in the only way in which history can be definitively left behind. It was an interesting coincidence that the week in which the Atlanta Constitution ran its article on inter-racial marriage, a new proposition made it onto California's ballot in November. It's called the Racial Privacy Initiative, and it would forbid the government from asking any citizens about their racial identity. It's an attempt to accelerate the slow decline of fixed racial categories in a new and brownish America. And it captures a growing cultural mood. The comedian Chris Rock has noted that things are really changing in America when the best rapper is white and the best golfer is black. But what's more salient is that neither Eminem nor Tiger Woods sees himself as racially defined or restricted. That's the future.

John McWhorter sees the failure of black leaders as a positive step:

During a recent CNN special marking the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, playwright Anna Deavere Smith asked, "Why is it that there has not arisen a single young black leader in the past 30, or even 40 years?" You hear that question often among blacks. Truth is, though, never again will there be a "Black Leader" in the mold of Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X--and this is a heartening sign of progress. Black America has done so well since the big victories of the civil rights era that it no longer needs the kind of leadership that was vital in those years of struggle. These days, most blacks are way beyond the injustices of the past and are taking advantage of the opportunities of the present.

:: Scot 5:46 AM [+] :: ::
...

Al Sharpton grabbing headlines twice in the past month? How dare this buffoon upstage me. I'm going to the Middle East to broker a peace agreement.

:: Scot 1:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

Still waiting on that Afghanistan oil pipeline thing...

:: Scot 11:56 AM [+] :: ::
...

Rod Dreher on 2004 presidential candidate Al Sharpton (hard to write that with a straight face):

It's always something with the Rev. Al Sharpton, who is good for nothing but controversy.

When last we heard from him, the Rotund Rev (as the New York Post loves to call him) was trying to disentangle himself from washed-up multimillionaire Michael Jackson's instantly mocked quest to become the poster hermaphrodite for racial injustice in the recording industry. Moving swiftly away from that train wreck, Sharpton has filed a $1 billion libel suit against HBO over the Tuesday night airing of a 1983 FBI surveillance tape showing a duded-up Sharpton discussing a drug deal with an undercover agent.

Here's the odd thing about Al Sharpton: Unlike almost any other public figure, had he chosen to laugh off the HBO report instead of make a billion-dollar case out of it, he wouldn't have been hurt a bit. At this point in his career, folks have made up their minds about the guy. Depending on where you come down, Sharpton either walks on water or rolls in the gutter, and his media enablers find him entertaining either way. By now, his supporters and detractors, as well as those who cover him, expect so little of Sharpton that he gets away with things that would sink most anybody else in his position.

Credibility or not, this is free comedy at its best.

:: Scot 11:36 AM [+] :: ::
...

The ailing state of Canadian cities:

In Toronto, Canada's biggest metropolis by far, it's been a while since beleaguered residents heard their home described as the "city that works." Congestion, smog, inadequate public transit, homelessness -- Toronto is becoming as well known for its failings as it once was for its livability. The New York Times recently profiled the city in unflattering terms, focusing on Tent City, a shantytown along the eastern waterfront that's home to about 80 people who say they can't find affordable housing. Former mayor David Crombie, now president of the Canadian Urban Institute, generally agrees that his hometown is in decline, although he believes the problems are solvable. "What's happening," he says, "is we're starting to pay the price of what previous generations decided they didn't want to pay for."

:: Scot 11:14 AM [+] :: ::
...

Another reason the Europeans are pussies:

Lost in Sweden: A Kurdish Daughter Is Sacrificed

"It's hard to say what Swedish society should do," said Marianne Broddesson, the treasurer of Terrafem, a support network for immigrant women. "It has to do with the whole social situation in the country, and it's very, very complicated. It has to do with segregation, doesn't it — with people who don't want to enter into Swedish society, and who don't realize that their kids are growing up here. But how do you tell people to become more Swedish?"

I'm not sure I see this as very complicated at all. For starters, you can explain to newcomers that while raping and sacrificing your daughters might be the status quo in your native land, it just doesn't fly in non-thugocracies. Another option might be importing the balls that allows you to call a psychopath by name without feeling culturally insensitive.

:: Scot 11:07 AM [+] :: ::
...

The hard life of an African ex-despot.

Valentine Strasser became the world's youngest head of state when he seized power in 1992 at the age of 25. But the limelight didn't last – four years later, he was ousted in another coup.

"I'm basically living off my mother now. She's been very supportive," the 35-year-old said at a neighborhood bar on the outskirts of Freetown, Sierra Leone's capital.

"It's been tough. I'm unemployed, but I'm coping."

Good luck - chump.

:: Scot 10:17 AM [+] :: ::
...

The best retort I've read so far on Stanley Fish's defense of postmodernism.

(Something tells me po-mos might not find this so satirical)

:: Scot 5:40 AM [+] :: ::
...

A couple of disappointing signs (via Instapundit) on the Homeland Security front (here and here).

:: Scot 5:27 AM [+] :: ::
...

Great essay from Kay S. Hymowitz on the death of feminism. Does this mean we can finally abolish 'women's studies' at university?

When you ask young women today if they think of themselves as feminists, more often than not they will pause for a moment. Then they will answer something like: “Well, I believe in equal pay for equal work,” or “Yes, I do believe women should have choices,” or “Of course, I believe women should have equal rights.”

If these are the principles that define feminism, then we are all feminists now. And the future belongs to feminism, too: a 2001 American Demographics survey of adolescent girls entitled “The Granddaughters of Feminism” found that 97 percent believe women should be paid equally, while 92 percent believe “lifestyle choices” should not be limited by sex. Curiously, the war on terror has, if anything, solidified our commitment to women’s rights, though orthodox feminists opposed it as another dangerous example of “the cult of masculinity.” The sight of women forced to scurry about in sacks brought home to Americans just how much they treasured their freedoms, including those won for women over the past decades. For a remarkable moment, President Bush and Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority, which had long tried to bring Taliban mistreatment of women to the State Department’s attention, seemed members of the same party—which, seen against the backdrop of radical Islam, they actually are.

But how do we explain that pause that comes when you ask women if they consider themselves part of the movement? The truth is, very few Americans are capital “F” Feminists. Polls show that only about a quarter of women are willing to accept the label. Younger women seem no more comfortable with the title than their grandmothers were. Marie Wilson, president of the Ms. Foundation for Women, has admitted that the elite young women who 20 years ago would have been the generals of the movement are feminists “by attitude . . . [but] are not interested in hearing about organized movements or activism.” They mostly do not join NOW or read Ms. magazine. They don’t think of themselves as second-class citizens of the patriarchy, or follow “women’s issues” in the news, and their marital status seems as likely to predict how they will vote as their sex.

Activists who try to make sense of these young feminists who are not Feminists conclude that the movement has an image problem. The reason so many people believe in feminist goals yet reject the label, they say, is that the media have given us a cartoon picture of liberationists as humorless, Birkenstock-wearing man-haters, our era’s version of the old-fashioned spinster. Feminism is still an “unfinished revolution,” they say, and young women share its goals. They just don’t like the packaging.

But this explanation falls far short. Feminism is not simply suffering from a P.R. problem. It’s just over. As in finished.

Little wonder that few women in their twenties and thirties seek to complete this so-called unfinished revolution. They don’t yearn for the radical transformation of biological restraints and bourgeois aspirations devoutly wished by stalwarts. Even those few who want more androgynous sex roles for themselves don’t wish to impose them on others. Yes, they took women’s studies courses—often only to satisfy their college’s diversity requirement—but they came away unimpressed. To many of them, Feminism today represents not liberation but its opposite: a life that must be lived according to a strict, severe ideology. The younger generation, on the other hand, wants a liberation “that isn’t just freedom to choose [but] . . . freedom from having to justify one’s choices,” as Jennifer Foote Sweeney has put it in Salon. In short, they’re ready to de-politicize the personal.

:: Scot 5:21 AM [+] :: ::
...

Ben Shapiro on 'civilian casualties':

I am getting really sick of people who whine about "civilian casualties." Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care. In fact, I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys, even if that means some civilians get killed along the way. One American soldier is worth far more than an Afghan civilian.

For the past decade, the United States and Israel have been attempting to prove their moral superiority by attempting to minimize civilian casualties. That's all well and good. Unfortunately, this policy also means that politicians put our soldiers in harm's way in order to save "non-combatants."

Take, for example, the "wedding party" in Afghanistan that made front-page news after being strafed by American warplanes. The American pilots claimed that they came under fire from the wedding party. The Afghan interim government claimed that 48 civilians were killed in the attack and that the Americans had never come under fire. Perhaps, they suggested, the pilots were confused by Afghans firing their guns in the air in celebration.

Whom do you believe? The American pilots, who say they were fired upon and respected the rules of engagement? Or the Afghan "civilians," who claim that American pilots were bored and decided to have target practice with women, children and goats?

I believe the Americans. The Afghans tolerated and supported the Taliban for years, no matter what President Bush says. A group doesn't conquer 95 percent of a country unless it has some support among the populace. The Afghans are fundamentalist Muslims. They didn't seem to mind too much that their women were treated like dogs or that the Taliban enforced Shariah (Muslim law). So frankly, it doesn't matter to me if some of their "civilians" get killed for involvement with the enemy.

His essay is cold and heartless, but I don't disagree with his arguments. I'm glad to be on the side that morally examines our actions during war, but not when it comes to risking the lives of our own civilians or soldiers.

:: Scot 5:03 AM [+] :: ::
...

A couple of good essays from the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren. The first is a look at Iran and the factors contributing to its revolution-in-waiting:

In a further sign that the regime was losing its grip, it then confined its police to barracks in Isfahan, as it had done the previous day in Tehran -- doubting their loyalty. Instead they sent foreign thugs with paramilitary training, chiefly Palestinian and Iraqi Arabs, and Uzbeks and Tadzhiks from Afghanistan, to beat the demonstrators down. It was a desperate measure -- an implicit acknowledgement that the whole Persian people have now sided with the opposition.

To understand how this could have happened, it is important to realize that almost two-thirds of the Iranian population was not yet born in 1979, when the Shah fell and Ayatollah Khomeini brought the world's first Islamist, terrorist regime to power. And most of his cronies, still in power, are now quite old. Iran's formerly very high birthrate (it has since plummeted) created the mother of all generation gaps. To the students in universities, and other young people coming of age in a time of Internet and satellite TV, the ayatollahs have nothing to say. Their parents, too, are sick to death of living under the Shia version of Islamist tyranny; but while their parents were cowed into submission, the kids refuse to sit still.

The second is Canada's inability to recognize current war heroics. Did you know Canadian troops just broke a world record on the battlefield? And that they did it twice?

Our troops in Afghanistan -- and I am referring today to our Canadian troops -- were sent to help the Americans fight an enemy who observes no rules of decency, has no intention of surrendering under any circumstances, and will, if left unmolested, perform fresh deeds as malicious and spectacular as the attack upon Manhattan last Sept. 11. Here is an enemy so perfectly demented and satanic that he leaves us no choice but to hunt him down and kill him as we can.

I wrote two weeks ago, on the eve of Dominion Day, about the "two nations" Canada has become; the one being the old, actual, historical one, that among its many real accomplishments, proudly fought and contributed so much to winning two 20th-century world wars; contrasting this the new, bloodless, unhistorical, fake, "designer" Canada with which our Liberal party has been replacing it for more than a generation. This is the unctuous, self-indulgent "peacekeeping" Canada, which observes a kind of state vegetarianism in the face of the evils of this world.

The old Canada had a proud martial tradition; and some of it survives to the present day. Our contribution to the wars in which we vindicated the liberties of our Western civilization were out of all proportion to our size. Even today our troops, though practically disarmed by a federal government that ranks national defence among its lowest priorities, continue to benefit from a tradition of training and leadership that made the individual Canadian soldier among the world's most feared in combat.

Nothing could express the disgrace of the "new Canada" so eloquently as what we learned last week: that we would have to read Soldier of Fortune magazine to discover the heroic exploits of our snipers in Afghanistan. For our government, our Department of National Defence, and even the media class of this "new Canada", are now so timidly "politically correct" that they can't bring themselves to mention what our troops do.

During Operation Anaconda in March, two three-man teams of Canadian snipers from Edmonton's 3rd Princess Patricia's took out Al Qaeda and Taliban machine-gun nests and mortar positions while covering U.S. infantry, under intense fire on the slopes of the Shah-i-Kot, on the east side of the valley above the village of Sherkankel, at altitudes up to 12,000 feet. They killed more than 20 of this enemy, with rifles only, including, according to the report, confirmed kills at 2,400 and 2,310 metres. (The previous .50-calibre world record of 2,250 metres having been set by a U.S. marine near Duc Pho, Vietnam, back in 1967.)

They thus saved the lives of many American soldiers, ascending a ridge free of vegetation and entirely exposed. And they did it resourcefully, adapting U.S. army ammunition when their own inadequate supplies ran out; and wearing British desert kit because the Canadian Forces couldn't even supply them with proper clothing.

:: Scot 8:07 PM [+] :: ::
...

Isn't it funny how chess might be a better solution for inner city black kids than the NAACP?

:: Scot 7:47 PM [+] :: ::
...

Just Another Cultural Co-Op? Blogging hits the mainstream, for better or worse. Cool article from Joyce Slaton on blogs.

:: Scot 8:51 PM [+] :: ::
...

Not too often you read a pro-U.S. article from the Globe and Mail without the words 'but,' 'however,' or 'on the other hand' peppered throughout a description of its virtues.

As Lloyd Axworthy, Canada's former foreign affairs minister, put it: "Any illusion that the present U.S. administration might have a smidgeon of respect for international treaties or multilateral co-operation should be finally dispelled. The disdain of the Americans is palpable; they'll resort to crude means to wreck any form of international architecture with which they disagree."

Strong stuff. Wrong, too.

The suggestion that the United States has suddenly given up on the rest of the world is absurd. The dictionary defines a rogue as "a fierce and dangerous animal, as an elephant, separated from the herd."

The United States has gone out of its way since the events of Sept. 11 to seek the co-operation of other nations in the struggle against terrorism. Its diplomats have been co-operating with their foreign colleagues to tighten up treaties on the movement of terrorist finance and agents. Its security forces have been co-operating to track down the perpetrators. Its senior officials have been jetting around the globe to try to calm the Arab-Israeli and Indo-Pakistani disputes.

U.S. President George W. Bush made it clear from the first that he wanted to work together with the whole civilized world to defeat terrorism and he set about creating a coalition to that end. Yes, he made it clear that the U.S. would fight the struggle alone if necessary, but that does not make Washington a wild elephant.

Nor does its decision not to sign Kyoto or ratify the ICC treaty. The U.S. is a member in good standing of dozens of international organizations and signatory to scores of treaties on matters ranging from the protection of endangered species to the control of chemical weapons and the regulation of international trade.

That it chooses not to sign a handful of them hardly puts it in league with the woolly mammoth. Washington's opposition to the ICC is unfortunate, and its tactics at the UN were regrettable, but it made clear right from the drafting of the treaty in 1998 that it had serious objections to the court and its actions come as no surprise. As for Kyoto, the U.S. only said what other Western nations are afraid to: that the commitments could damage the world economy without solving the biggest problem -- Third World pollution.

The United States has the power to dominate the world in a way not seen since the days of the Roman Empire. Its military, economic and political power has no rival. If it chose to break away from the herd and rampage around the jungle, it surely could. Instead, it has exercised that power carefully and, for the most part, co-operatively. For that, we should all be grateful.

:: Scot 8:38 PM [+] :: ::
...

Although it will most certainly prevail, baseball is is the worst shape of its career and in worse shape than hockey, basketball, or football.

For shame.

:: Scot 8:27 PM [+] :: ::
...

Where else but Washington would you expect to find the International Spy Museum. The Washington Post has a review of the grand opening.

:: Scot 8:15 PM [+] :: ::
...

Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales, offers another good reason to keep church separate from state.

The cleric widely tipped to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury has called any attack on Iraq "immoral". Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Wales, has signed a declaration criticising the West's war on terror and said an assault on Iraq would be "illegal". The declaration was published in the Roman Catholic weekly paper, The Tablet.

Let's see, immoral and illegal. A basic tenet of morality is the less number of people that die, the better. Makes sense. Saddam Hussein's body count, based on his recent past (over 500 000 and counting), is likely to continue apace, if not climb. To stop him now would no doubt cost fewer lives than the Gulf War (less than 100 000). On numbers alone, his displacement is moral. It will save lives. This argument has been debated already. The removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan, despite the loss of lives and the ensuing political chaos, has resulted in fewer deaths than would have occured had the Taliban reamined in power. When thugs are alleviated of their power, civilians benefit.

As for the bit about acting illegally against Iraq, I will let that go based on what is obviously emotional rhetoric. I doubt the Archbishop is versed well enough in American law to know what is illegal and what is not.

In it, Dr Williams and other signatories, including a Church of England and Catholic bishop, say attacking Iraq would be tantamount to fighting "terror with terror".

Wrong here too. Terror is a long, drawn out, and usually unsuccessful tactic. In addition, its goal is the taking of civilian lives. Contrast this with the Western response that will undoubtedly be quick and successful, while going out its way to spare civilian lives

"It's deplorable that the world's most powerful nations continue to regard war, and the threat of war, as an acceptable instrument of foreign policy," they write. They add that such thinking is in "violation of both the United Nations and Christian moral teaching". They raise their concerns amid increasing indications from the US that such an invasion is being considered.

The claim of violating the U.N. and the Church is all but irrelevant. These two institutions act as political flanks for Europe and when Europe (namely Germany, U.K., France, and Spain) doesn't like something, neither do they. Not that this accounts for much. Europe has less to do with the Middle East than Russia (and all the 'stans'), India, China, Sudan, Turkey, or the U.S. Both these institutions are still lost in 90's style politics - cozying up to rather than confronting thugocrats and dictators. Syria, one of the Middle East's finest terrorist machines, holds a seat on the U.N. Security Council. The Church on the other hand wouldn't know war if the Pope was assassinated and the Vatican was razed.

In January, the outspoken cleric described the Afghanistan conflict as "morally tainted" and "embarrassing".

Since the conflict the Afghan civilians enjoy more freedoms and have greater access to aid. They are better off and thankful for it. What's to be embarrassed about?

Other signatories include the Church of England Bishop of Chelmsford, Reverend John Perry, and the Catholic Bishop of Brentford, Reverend Thomas McMahon. They want Iraq to allow UN weapons inspectors to check if it had weapons of mass destruction. They also want Britain and the US to do the same. The signatories add: "It is our considered view that an attack on Iraq would be both immoral and illegal and that eradicating the dangers posed by malevolent dictators and terrorists can be achieved only by tackling the root causes of the disputes."

Not to sound like I'm quoting from a grade four history text, but the root causes of the disputes is that these countries are run by malevolent dictators and terrorists. They operate their governements to serve the few rather than the many - and this, as the history of any nation can tell you, is a recipe for disaster. Dictators and terrorists are as root as these countries' causes get, and only their removal will 'eradicate the dangers' they pose.

:: Scot 1:28 AM [+] :: ::
...

You don't hear too many feel good stories from the NFL (what with the drugs, murders, rapes and all) but here's one. Pat Tillman has given up a three year 3.6 million dollar payload to enlist. Specifically, he'd like to be a Ranger (the ones who kill the best).

:: Scot 11:43 PM [+] :: ::
...

A great article from sex columnist Dan Savage on lefties and the war:

In 1942, George Orwell (author of lefty classics Animal Farm and 1984) published an essay in Partisan Review slamming British pacifists who refused to fight Nazi Germany. "Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist," Orwell wrote. "This is elementary common sense." Michael Kelly spelled it out in the Washington Post on September 26: "No honest person can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone, not attack again," Kelly wrote. "You are either for doing what is necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor the terrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, you are for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You are saying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans--perhaps a great many more--to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers. That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil."

So the left needs to put down the PAP symbols (from the 'Peace and Patriotism' movement) and put away the "No War" posters. We're at war, ya dopes. Simply stopping the war now--rather than holding the United States to the standards we set after the last world war--would harm the very people the left professes to care about. Afghanistan needs a Marshall Plan now; Iraq's going to need one soon. U.S. smart bombs and troops, the left should argue, have to be followed by smart money and medicine and a constitution and an American commitment to long-haul nation building. We have to do for Afghanistan and Iraq what we did for Germany and Japan; anything less is immoral and indefensible. That's the argument the left should be advancing.

Why isn't the left making this argument? Well, grandstanding and screaming "warmonger" at people (my voice mail should be a treat this week) is whole lot more fun than taking responsibility for a war that's being waged in all of our names, of course, but I think it goes deeper than that. Since the left lost the "no war" argument, a perverse desire to see things go badly--even at the cost of Afghan and Iraqi lives--has taken root in the American left. Americans didn't leave only rubble and corpses behind in Germany and Japan after the Second World War, although we helped create plenty of both. No, we stuck around; helped rebuild; drafted constitutions; oversaw elections; established freedom of religion, association, thought, and the press. To invade Afghanistan and Iraq and leave anything less would be a tragedy.

So, tell me, PAPsters: What does the people of Afghanistan more good: Chanting "no war" and waving our PAP symbols? Or pouring into the streets and chanting, "We Want a Marshall Plan for Afghanistan!" Shit, you guys, it even rhymes.

:: Scot 10:46 PM [+] :: ::
...

This is the cool thing about some of the more news oriented blogs out there. Some of the sites host forums based on the particlar news du jour and feature compelling debate (with some fools thrown in for good measure) among the blog's readers. Little green footballs seems to garner some intelligent readers based on the smart ping-pong debate on topics like America balking on the ICC, the arming of pilots, and the ugly bias of Reuters news service. Its a good way to cut through bias, check facts, and weigh the sides of an argument - three things bereft in any of the mainstream media outlets.

:: Scot 12:57 AM [+] :: ::
...

One man's piety is another man's porcine paranoia.

:: Scot 10:52 PM [+] :: ::
...

Aussie Tim Blair and his comparison of the two WWF's:

World Wrestling Federation: Appeal based on comically threatening entities named the Undertaker, the Rock, Latino Heat.

World Wildlife Fund: Appeal based on comically threatening entities named the Greenhouse Effect, Global Warming, Overpopulation, Kyoto Protocol.

World Wrestling Federation: Supporters mainly young, under-educated and gullible.

World Wildlife Fund: Supporters mainly young, over-educated and gullible.

World Wrestling Federation: Prone to issuing dire threats: "Tomorrow night I'm going to twist Edge's head off and eat it! You hear me, Edge? I'm calling you out!"

World Wildlife Fund: Prone to issuing dire threats: "Unless we change our priorities and embrace environmental concerns, humanity faces an unsustainable future."

World Wrestling Federation: Fans display nonsensical signs reading "Stone Cold Rules!", "Nothing Else Matters" and "Austin 3:16".

World Wildlife Fund: Fans display nonsensical signs reading "People Not Profits", "Save the Planet" and "Meat is Murder".

World Wrestling Federation: Bad guys become good when story-lines dictate.

World Wildlife Fund: Bad guys become good when multinationals donate sponsorship dollars.

The main difference between the two WWFs is that the wrestlers know it's all make-believe, while the panda people want you to take them seriously. The wrestling show this year changed its name to WWE – World Wrestling Entertainment. Good move. Any connection with the World Wildlife Fund would deliver a serious smackdown to wrestling's credibility.

:: Scot 10:45 PM [+] :: ::
...

And there goes Iraq...

:: Scot 10:33 PM [+] :: ::
...

Pure slut linkage. Another gem from Mark Steyn.

:: Scot 10:53 AM [+] :: ::
...

Don't tell the anti-globos about this. For the time being, I find their protests and rhetoric far too amusing.

:: Scot 10:48 AM [+] :: ::
...

A couple of interesting articles on Michael Jackson's racist smear of Sony's Tommy Mottola. Despite the fact that Al Sharpton walked away from this one (who would have thought), this is still getting tiresome. I don't care if it's Michael Jackson, Cornell West, Al Sharpton, or Jesse Jackson - I'm not sure if I have the ability to take charges of racism (especially institutionalized racism) seriously anymore. Until people stop identifying themselves by race (a condition near alien to whites, Hispanics, and Asians) and abolish racial agents of coddling (NAACP, Black History Month, affirmative action), charges of racism like this will never cease.

:: Scot 10:23 AM [+] :: ::
...

Victor Davis Hanson on our friends the Saudis:

There is, then, no real need for us to be frightened by the loss of the kingdom's oil friendship. But we should be concerned by the evidence of its strategic enmity. It may be true that the Saudis are neither Iraqis nor Iranians nor Libyans; but it is quite dangerous enough that they are Saudis.

The Palestine Liberation Organization archives made public by the Israeli army in the wake of its recent operations on the West Bank have confirmed that the kingdom actively gives cash to a variety of terrorist organizations and showers with money (or free trips to Mecca) the families of suicide bombers. This bounty can no longer be seen as mere postmortem charity, but rather as premeditated financial incentives for murder. What that means is that the kingdom's suicide-killers of September 11 who butchered our civilians were not so at odds with basic Saudi approaches to conflict after all.

The much-vaunted Saudi "peace plan" for the Middle East does not alter this troubling picture. What was striking (stunning, really) about the proposals was not the grudging willingness after a half-century to recognize the existence of the state of Israel but the complete absence in them of any gesture--planned state visits to Tel Aviv, direct talks with Jerusalem, cessation of state propaganda, curtailment of terrorist subsidies--that might suggest more than a public-relations ploy to deflect growing American furor after September 11. Current Saudi peace-feelers are mostly explicable as salve for wounds the Saudis themselves have inflicted, and which they are suddenly worried have become infected in a very aggrieved host.

Then there is radical Islam. Despite suicide bombings in Lebanon, the first World Trade Center attack, the 1996 assaults against the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia, the 1998 bombings at the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the hole blasted in the USS Cole, distracted Americans used to believe that such vicious wasps deserved little more than an occasional swat. But after the murder of 3,000 Americans, and the various anthrax, dirty-bomb and suicide-attack scares, Americans are finally seeing militant Islam not merely as a different religion, or even as a radical Jim Jones-like cult, but as a threat to our very existence.

Saudi Arabia is the placenta of this frightening phenomenon. Its money has financed it; its native terrorists promote it; and its own unhappy citizenry is either amused by or indifferent to its effects upon the world. Surely it has occurred to more than a few Americans that without a petroleum-rich Wahhabism, the support for such international killers and the considerable degree of ongoing aid to those who would destroy the West would radically diminish.

:: Scot 10:00 AM [+] :: ::
...

Blogsite Little Green Footballs has been observing Arafat's Baby Wipes connection for a few months now. It seems that in any indoor photo of Arafat one can spot within arm's reach a box of Huggies Baby Wipes. I guess even the most murderous of the human lot knows that if it's good enough for a baby's ass than it's good enough for anyone. No word yet on Arafat's royalty check for these constant plugs.

:: Scot 9:51 AM [+] :: ::
...

So, are Jose Padilla (the dirty bomber wannabe) and Hesham Mohamed Hadayet (the LAX Jew killer) terrorists? I'm not sure why so many have twisted themselves into pondering whether they are or are not terrorists (be it the State Department's definition, the FBI's, or citizens'). This is the equivalent of a bunch of Afghanis or Iraqis trying to decide whether they're at war with Special Force Ops or Night Rangers; F-15 fighters of F-16 fighters; smart bombs or defecting militias. Defeating terrorists or terrorism would be the same as our enemies gunning down one of our air fighters or killing one of our soldiers on the field. What has been stopped (for either us or them) is a particular tactic. That is, despite these small victories (neutralization of tactics) , the greater war still looms. We could nab every terrorist in action, and they could knock out all our satellite arrays (heh heh - not likely) but there would still be a war with more enemies, more tactics, etc. Think of how much less confusion there would be if we avered that we caught an Islamist in action (or about to go into action). It would make more sense than trying to pigeon hole his tactic into the category with which we are familiar.

:: Scot 9:14 AM [+] :: ::
...

Ollie North on America's decision to abstain from the ICC.

:: Scot 6:47 AM [+] :: ::
...

Despite my hyper-capitalism, I'm not sure I like the idea of this:

Both Universal and the Busch parks have adopted programs that grant line-breaking privileges in exchange for extra dough. And though the parks won't release numbers, judging by the proliferation of new levels of privilege, the practice of paying to break in line is on the rise. Gone are the days when the theme-park queue was the great equalizer, where every vacationing family waited its turn in democratic fashion.

Some of these "express-lane" programs are free and open to all park visitors willing to put in a little effort. These are a great idea and reduce congestion in a way that feels fair to all. What's potentially irritating to the average park-goer are the expensive passes and "tours" that, in exchange for a large chunk of money, allow those willing to pay more to cut in front of even the express lines. Universal and Busch offer so-called "VIP" tours that anyone willing to pay between $130 and $3,000 can go on. These tours brazenly let you cut to the front of all lines. And you even get a theme-park factotum who escorts you and runs interference between yourself and the understandably enraged little people.

Would I pay for this? Likely. I can't find a moral or ethical argument against it, though I do recognize that blatant displays of status like this at a place like an amusement park strips away some the innocence. It wouldn't surprise me to soon see families allowed to rent Mickey or Donald as personal hourly escorts for their kids, and off-limits to other park patrons while on the hire.

:: Scot 6:45 AM [+] :: ::
...

Check out these weirdos. In the Glossary For Scientology and Dianetics, the first word listed is A.A. It stands for 'attempted abortion' with no definition or meaning given. Perhaps there is a reason for that. The second word in the dictionary is A=A=A=A and it is defined as 'anything equals anything equals anything. This is the way the reactive mind thinks, irrationally identifying thoughts, people, objects, experiences, statements, etc., with one another where little or no similarity actually exists. Everything is everything else. Mr. X looks at a horse knows it’s a house knows it’s a schoolteacher. So when he sees a horse he is respectful.'

I couldn't make this up. Here are a few more:

isness: an apparency of existence brought about by the continuous alteration of an as-isness. This is called, when agreed upon, reality. See also as-isness.

obnosis: observation of the obvious. The only way one sees anything is by observing the obvious: one looks at the isness of something, at what is actually there. Fortunately, the ability to obnose is not in any sense “inborn” or mystical. It is easily regained and improved through Scientology. See also isness.

present time: the time which is now and which becomes the past almost as rapidly as it is observed. It is a term loosely applied to the environment existing in now, as in “The preclear came up to present time,” meaning the preclear became aware of the present environment. See also environment.

sanity: the ability to recognize differences, similarities and identities. The legal definition of sanity is the “ability to tell right from wrong.” The better one can tell differences, the more rational he is. The less one can tell differences, no matter how minute, and know the WIDTH of those differences and the closer one comes to thinking in identities (A=A), the less sane he is. See also A=A=A=A.

technology: the methods of application of an art or science as opposed to mere knowledge of the science or art itself.

two-way communication: a two-way cycle of communication would work as follows: Joe, having originated a communication, and having completed it, may then wait for Bill to originate a communication to Joe, thus completing the remainder of the two-way cycle of communication. Thus we get the normal cycle of a communication between two terminals (people).

:: Scot 1:58 PM [+] :: ::
...

One of the best articles I've ever read out of the Middle East - and it's written by a Palestinian businessman.

:: Scot 1:32 PM [+] :: ::
...

I can't believe my Simpsons' likeness turned out to be Marge. I was hoping the Simpson's character match-up would have me as a Mr. Burns or a Sideshow Bob. I think you only get matched from the five member family, but dammit anything would have been better than Marge - even Homer or Maggie.

(via Damian Penny)

:: Scot 1:14 PM [+] :: ::
...

Palestinian civil war looms:

Security officials defy Arafat sacking

17 hurt as PA forces clash with Hamas supporters in Gaza

Factions and head honchos standing off. Who to cheer for?



Ever wonder what Palestinian school texts look like?

Disguisting

:: Scot 9:16 PM [+] :: ::
...

Some cool photos of the Afghan caves.

:: Scot 9:05 PM [+] :: ::
...

UN study faults Arabs for Arab woes

And all this time I thought it was the fault of Eskimos.

:: Scot 6:12 PM [+] :: ::
...

What a pile of shit.

:: Scot 6:01 PM [+] :: ::
...

Political correctness run amok.

A British theater company has changed the name of its adaptation of the classic novel, "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," so it won't offend people with the disability. Oddsocks Productions swapped "hunchback" for "bellringer" because it did not want to upset people with scoliosis, producer Elli Mackenzie said Friday. The condition causes the spine to curve and, in extreme cases, the development of a hunchback.

"We did not want to reinforce any stereotypes about Quasimodo's disability," said Mackenzie.

Like, you know, the fact that hunchbacks have hunched backs.

:: Scot 6:00 PM [+] :: ::
...

I've been meaning to post this essay for some time now. Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity by Alan D Sokal. If the title doesn't make much sense don't worry - the essay is no clearer. This clever draft has become known as Sokal's hoax. Sokal, a physicist, concocted a brilliant but nonsensical essay that not only fooled but quickly gained favor in the circles of one of philosophy's greatest punching bags - postmodernists. For a good analysis go here.

:: Scot 5:52 PM [+] :: ::
...

A few ideas from Elizabeth Nickson worth a lot more than the pile of money we continually flush down the African toilet.

Now I know about NEPAD, the "New Partnership for Africa's Development" and its calls for peer review and self-assessment. Self-assessment. Don't make me laugh. As the Durban conference last summer made clear, most of these thugs embrace a post-colonial philosophy of tribalism based on some kind of black Third World unity, functioning in opposition to the great devil of all time, the West. Stealing from the West, to these guys, is noble.

We have more important things to give than money and those are the institutions that have ensured the flowering of black American culture. Secure property rights, the rule of law and mechanisms for contract enforcement. An independent central bank, vital for monetary and economic stability, as well as to staunch capital flight. An independent judiciary, crucial for the enforcement of rule of law, protection of property and to end rapacious plunder. An independent and free media, to facilitate the free flow of information, to expose criminal wrongdoing, and to disseminate ideas. Neutral and professional armed or security forces, to protect life and property and ensure law and order.

:: Scot 5:19 PM [+] :: ::
...