Nathan Hamm endorses the President:
"It often shocks the hell out of people when I tell them that my political realignment since 9/11 has almost everything to do with my service in the Peace Corps. Whether or not that service emphasized already latent biases and beliefs, I can’t say for certain, but it definitely did teach me that those in thrall to the international system as it exists now cause more problems than they solve.
"Even before 9/11, I became convinced that the UN did more to make governments feel good about themselves than they did for the people they purportedly help. I saw that too many Western NGOs were more concerned with what they could put in their annual reports than what they were actually doing to make a difference. I saw that what people really want and need in their lives is more capitalism and the guarantees from their government that they will be able to keep and reinvest what their work earns. I learned that there is absolutely no shame in materialism–it’s a much better provider than comforting progressive ideologies. I heard time and time again that America is admired for its strength, its culture, and its very evident and visible willingness to help without asking for anything in return.
"To sum it up, I saw that the people here who tell me they know how the world works and what the world needs because they spent a few weeks in Guatemala are insufferable fools.
"I tell people time and time again that my primary motivation for voting Bush is that I think we are but on the cusp of a long-term ideological and military battle against a murderous ideology. This fight, if it is to involve international institutions, requires leadership that understands that these same institutions are geared towards the challenges of the Cold War, not the modern world. It requires someone who doesn’t dick around with rhetorical niceties. It requires someone that understands that, as during the Cold War, vigilance and a strategic view of foreign policy are required to secure our safety. It requires someone who recognizes that spreading the gospel of democracy and free markets is not something to shy away from, but absolutely vital as we engage the world. These are all lessons that my life overseas either reinforced or taught me.
"Does Bush satisfy me 100% on all these counts? No, but he satisfies me enough, especially next to John Kerry, that another four years of Bush will push this country in the right foreign policy direction."
Saturday, October 30, 2004
Friday, October 29, 2004
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Red Sox World Series Roundp
From Boston.com:
"AT LAST!
Pigs can fly, hell is frozen, the slipper finally fits,
and Impossible Dreams really can come true.
The Red Sox have won the World Series "
"AT LAST!
Pigs can fly, hell is frozen, the slipper finally fits,
and Impossible Dreams really can come true.
The Red Sox have won the World Series "
Wednesday, October 27, 2004
Down to 5 States
Electoral Vote map from RealClear Politics shows just New Mexico, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Florida still in play...
Monday, October 25, 2004
Hitchens Endorses Bush
From The Nation [link via RogerLSimon.com]:
"One of the editors of this magazine asked me if I would also say something about my personal evolution. I took him to mean: How do you like your new right-wing friends? In the space I have, I can only return the question. I prefer them to Pat Buchanan and Vladimir Putin and the cretinized British Conservative Party, or to the degraded, mendacious populism of Michael Moore, who compares the psychopathic murderers of Iraqis to the Minutemen. I am glad to have seen the day when a British Tory leader is repudiated by the White House. An irony of history, in the positive sense, is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable and indefensible status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause. In Kabul recently, I interviewed Dr. Masuda Jalal, a brave Afghan physician who was now able to run for the presidency. I asked her about her support for the intervention in Iraq. 'For us,' she said, 'the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing.' I dare you to snicker at simple-mindedness like that.
"I could obviously take refuge in saying that I was a Blair supporter rather than a Bush endorser, and I am in fact a member of a small international regime-change 'left' that originates in solidarity with our embattled brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq, brave people who have received zero support from the American 'antiwar' movement. I won't even consider any reconsideration, at least until Islamist websites start posting items that ask themselves, and not us: Can we go on taking such casualties? Have our tactics been too hideous and too stupid? Only then can anything like a negotiation begin. (Something somewhat analogous may be true, and I say it with agony, about the Israel-Palestine dispute, which stands a very slightly better chance of a decent settlement if an almost uncritically pro-Israeli Democrat is not elected.)
"The President, notwithstanding his shortcomings of intellect, has been able to say, repeatedly and even repetitively, the essential thing: that we are involved in this war without apology and without remorse. He should go further, and admit the evident possibility of defeat--which might concentrate a few minds--while abjuring any notion of capitulation. Senator Kerry is also capable of saying this, but not without cheapening it or qualifying it, so that, in the Nation prisoners' dilemma, he is offering you the worst of both worlds. Myself, I have made my own escape from your self-imposed quandary. Believe me when I say that once you have done it, there's no going back. I have met a few other ex-hostages, and they all agree that the relief is unbelievable. I shall be meeting some of you again, I promise, and the fraternal paw will still be extended."
"One of the editors of this magazine asked me if I would also say something about my personal evolution. I took him to mean: How do you like your new right-wing friends? In the space I have, I can only return the question. I prefer them to Pat Buchanan and Vladimir Putin and the cretinized British Conservative Party, or to the degraded, mendacious populism of Michael Moore, who compares the psychopathic murderers of Iraqis to the Minutemen. I am glad to have seen the day when a British Tory leader is repudiated by the White House. An irony of history, in the positive sense, is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable and indefensible status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause. In Kabul recently, I interviewed Dr. Masuda Jalal, a brave Afghan physician who was now able to run for the presidency. I asked her about her support for the intervention in Iraq. 'For us,' she said, 'the battle against terrorism and against dictatorship are the same thing.' I dare you to snicker at simple-mindedness like that.
"I could obviously take refuge in saying that I was a Blair supporter rather than a Bush endorser, and I am in fact a member of a small international regime-change 'left' that originates in solidarity with our embattled brothers and sisters in Afghanistan and Iraq, brave people who have received zero support from the American 'antiwar' movement. I won't even consider any reconsideration, at least until Islamist websites start posting items that ask themselves, and not us: Can we go on taking such casualties? Have our tactics been too hideous and too stupid? Only then can anything like a negotiation begin. (Something somewhat analogous may be true, and I say it with agony, about the Israel-Palestine dispute, which stands a very slightly better chance of a decent settlement if an almost uncritically pro-Israeli Democrat is not elected.)
"The President, notwithstanding his shortcomings of intellect, has been able to say, repeatedly and even repetitively, the essential thing: that we are involved in this war without apology and without remorse. He should go further, and admit the evident possibility of defeat--which might concentrate a few minds--while abjuring any notion of capitulation. Senator Kerry is also capable of saying this, but not without cheapening it or qualifying it, so that, in the Nation prisoners' dilemma, he is offering you the worst of both worlds. Myself, I have made my own escape from your self-imposed quandary. Believe me when I say that once you have done it, there's no going back. I have met a few other ex-hostages, and they all agree that the relief is unbelievable. I shall be meeting some of you again, I promise, and the fraternal paw will still be extended."
Ivy League for Kerry
An account from dissident professor Ruth Wisse in Opinion Journal:
"Last spring, I was surprised by a call from a reporter at the Harvard Crimson asking me to comment on my contribution to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. His inquiry was prompted by the disparity he'd discovered in donations by Harvard faculty of about $150,000 for Kerry to about $8,000 for Bush. (The figures have since changed but not the percentages.) I could have filled the whole issue of his paper with reasons for supporting Bush over Kerry, but as we both knew, the real story was the 'herd of independent minds'--the image is Harold Rosenberg's--charging through the American academy. The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC's 160,000. Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%."
"Last spring, I was surprised by a call from a reporter at the Harvard Crimson asking me to comment on my contribution to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. His inquiry was prompted by the disparity he'd discovered in donations by Harvard faculty of about $150,000 for Kerry to about $8,000 for Bush. (The figures have since changed but not the percentages.) I could have filled the whole issue of his paper with reasons for supporting Bush over Kerry, but as we both knew, the real story was the 'herd of independent minds'--the image is Harold Rosenberg's--charging through the American academy. The Federal Election Commission could not have foreseen that when it required employment information on political donations of over $200, it would expose scandalous uniformity in a university community that advertises its diversity. The Sacramento Bee reported that the University of California system gave more to the Kerry campaign than any other single employee group, and that Harvard was second, with only 15,000 employees to UC's 160,000. Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%."
Boston Red Sox : The Official Site
For our readers who are sports fans, here is the home of the Boston Red Sox : The Official Site.
What Would Patton Say?
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers:
"Applying Patton's thinking to today's situation, we can first recognize the so-called 'war on terror' as a misnomer. There has never really been a war against a method other than something like Pompey's crusade against the pirates or the British effort to stifle the slave trade. In fact, we're no more in a war against terror than Patton was fighting against 'Tiger and Panther' tanks. Patton, who understood the hold of a radically triumphalist Nazism on a previously demoralized German people, would have the intellectual honesty to realize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, mostly from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of mostly male, unemployed young people, whose autocratic governments can't provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A small group of Islamicists appeals to the angst of the disaffected through a nostalgic and reactionary turn to a mythical Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of foreign gadgetry and pernicious ideas. In some ways, Hitler had created the same pathology in Germany of the 1930s."
"Applying Patton's thinking to today's situation, we can first recognize the so-called 'war on terror' as a misnomer. There has never really been a war against a method other than something like Pompey's crusade against the pirates or the British effort to stifle the slave trade. In fact, we're no more in a war against terror than Patton was fighting against 'Tiger and Panther' tanks. Patton, who understood the hold of a radically triumphalist Nazism on a previously demoralized German people, would have the intellectual honesty to realize that we are at war with Islamic fascists, mostly from the Middle East, who have played on the frustrations of mostly male, unemployed young people, whose autocratic governments can't provide the conditions for decent employment and family life. A small group of Islamicists appeals to the angst of the disaffected through a nostalgic and reactionary turn to a mythical Caliphate, in which religious purity trumps the material advantages of a decadent West and protects Islamic youth from the contamination of foreign gadgetry and pernicious ideas. In some ways, Hitler had created the same pathology in Germany of the 1930s."
Bush Leads Kerry 48-45
From Reuters [via Powerlineblog and RealClearPolitics]:
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush holds a slender three-point lead over Democratic rival John Kerry in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday. Bush led Kerry 48-45 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, gaining one point on the Massachusetts senator eight days before the Nov. 2 election. Bush led Kerry 48-46 percent the day before. About 5 percent of likely voters are still undecided heading into the final full week of the campaign, but Bush has opened a 12-point lead on Kerry among independents. "
"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush holds a slender three-point lead over Democratic rival John Kerry in a tight race for the White House, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Monday. Bush led Kerry 48-45 percent in the latest three-day tracking poll, gaining one point on the Massachusetts senator eight days before the Nov. 2 election. Bush led Kerry 48-46 percent the day before. About 5 percent of likely voters are still undecided heading into the final full week of the campaign, but Bush has opened a 12-point lead on Kerry among independents. "
Mark Steyn's Election Fun and Games
From SteynOnline:
"Electoral college play-offs! Here's your chance to win big in the final moments of Campaign 2004's electoral round before we move, around 9pm on Tuesday November 2nd, into the Campaign 2004 litigation round. If you're of a psephological bent - or just want to pick swing states out of John Kerry's magic CIA hat - we've prizes galore. And don't forget, unlike those of ballot clerks in tightly contested counties, all decisions of SteynOnline are final."
"Electoral college play-offs! Here's your chance to win big in the final moments of Campaign 2004's electoral round before we move, around 9pm on Tuesday November 2nd, into the Campaign 2004 litigation round. If you're of a psephological bent - or just want to pick swing states out of John Kerry's magic CIA hat - we've prizes galore. And don't forget, unlike those of ballot clerks in tightly contested counties, all decisions of SteynOnline are final."
Sunday, October 24, 2004
American Candide
Saw I Heart Huckabees last night, and was pleasantly surprised. It wasn't 100 per cent succesful. It wasn't the best movie ever made, but at least it wasn't all exploding fireballs and shoot-em-ups. An all-star cast in a film about philosophy was kind of fun, the sort of picture we used to see in college, that they don't make anymore. The type of thing Woody Allen did, before he ran off with Mia Farrow's adopted daughter.
What was nice about this David O. Russell (Spanking the Monkey, Three Kings) production? An element of 60's/70's nostalgia. The cast, featuring Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, and Isabelle Huppert as well as current "It Boy" Jude Law, Mark Wahlberg, and Naomi Watts, was a throwback to The Graduate, Laugh-In, and The Lacemaker.The concerns of the film, the interest in French Existentialism vs. American Optimism (or Leibnizian Monadism, parodied by Voltaire in Candide), with Tomlin and Hoffman as contemporary Dr. Panglosses. There were some 1960s style graphic effects. There were lots of Ying-Yang conflicts: the Good Philosophers v. the Bad Philosophers; America vs. Europe; parents v. children; working class v. business class; experience v. thought; love v. lust; commerce v. environmentalism; skepticism v. religious faith; and even Black v. White. It is about the examined life being truly worth living, and a not-too veiled parable of psychotherapy.
An offhand remark from Lily Tomlin, about "that September thing" in relation to a fireman client, is one clue that Russell's film is in reaction to 9/11. Interestingly, it never mentions the threat of terrorism, yet the re-examination of life goals clearly was prompted by this struggle, just as the disastrous Lisbon earthquake and Spanish Inquisition provide the backdrop to Voltaire's tale.
The message of Candide, to cultivate one's garden, permeates I Heart Huckabees. For those of a philosophical bent, who don't need lots of action, this quirky, personal film is thought-provoking and well worth watching.
What was nice about this David O. Russell (Spanking the Monkey, Three Kings) production? An element of 60's/70's nostalgia. The cast, featuring Dustin Hoffman, Lily Tomlin, and Isabelle Huppert as well as current "It Boy" Jude Law, Mark Wahlberg, and Naomi Watts, was a throwback to The Graduate, Laugh-In, and The Lacemaker.The concerns of the film, the interest in French Existentialism vs. American Optimism (or Leibnizian Monadism, parodied by Voltaire in Candide), with Tomlin and Hoffman as contemporary Dr. Panglosses. There were some 1960s style graphic effects. There were lots of Ying-Yang conflicts: the Good Philosophers v. the Bad Philosophers; America vs. Europe; parents v. children; working class v. business class; experience v. thought; love v. lust; commerce v. environmentalism; skepticism v. religious faith; and even Black v. White. It is about the examined life being truly worth living, and a not-too veiled parable of psychotherapy.
An offhand remark from Lily Tomlin, about "that September thing" in relation to a fireman client, is one clue that Russell's film is in reaction to 9/11. Interestingly, it never mentions the threat of terrorism, yet the re-examination of life goals clearly was prompted by this struggle, just as the disastrous Lisbon earthquake and Spanish Inquisition provide the backdrop to Voltaire's tale.
The message of Candide, to cultivate one's garden, permeates I Heart Huckabees. For those of a philosophical bent, who don't need lots of action, this quirky, personal film is thought-provoking and well worth watching.
Putin Endorses Bush
Reports The Washington Post:
"Yet if the choice in the U.S. elections comes down to Bush the unilateralist vs. Kerry the alliance builder, Russia will still take the unilateralist. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made his preference clear in recent months. Even though he too opposed the invasion of Iraq, Putin last summer insisted that Democrats had no right to criticize President Bush, since the Clinton administration had done essentially the same in Yugoslavia. When Democrats bashed Bush for exaggerating Iraqi connections to terrorism, Putin volunteered that Russian intelligence had warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning terrorist attacks against the United States.
"And just last week, as if reading from the Bush-Cheney campaign Web site, Putin declared that terrorists in Iraq were rooting for John F. Kerry. "The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," Putin told a news conference in Tajikistan."
"Yet if the choice in the U.S. elections comes down to Bush the unilateralist vs. Kerry the alliance builder, Russia will still take the unilateralist. President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly made his preference clear in recent months. Even though he too opposed the invasion of Iraq, Putin last summer insisted that Democrats had no right to criticize President Bush, since the Clinton administration had done essentially the same in Yugoslavia. When Democrats bashed Bush for exaggerating Iraqi connections to terrorism, Putin volunteered that Russian intelligence had warned Washington that Saddam Hussein was planning terrorist attacks against the United States.
"And just last week, as if reading from the Bush-Cheney campaign Web site, Putin declared that terrorists in Iraq were rooting for John F. Kerry. "The goal of international terrorism is to prevent the election of President Bush to a second term," Putin told a news conference in Tajikistan."
Saturday, October 23, 2004
The NY Times' New Book Critic
Here's some good news, for a change, from The New York Times:
"William Grimes, who reviewed restaurants for The New York Times for nearly five years, will become one of the paper's three book reviewers, focusing on nonfiction, Jonathan Landman, the culture editor of The Times, has announced. Mr. Grimes, who stepped down as chief restaurant critic at the end of 2003, has spent most of this year writing reviews of consumer products and recounting his experiences under the heading 'Just Browsing.'"
I met Grimes, known to his intimates as "Biff," about a decade ago, as he covered an AEI symposium on American culture hosted by Ben Wattenberg, featuring erstwhile Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork. In the panel discussion, I compared Madonna to Gypsy Rose Lee, the legendary stripper. Bork objected, pointing out that he had seen Gypsy Rose Lee (in the flesh as it were), and that Madonna is no Gypsy Rose Lee. That interchange caught Grimes' ear, was noted in his New York Times coverage, and I was labelled a "pro-Madonna scholar." I think Bork was embarrassed to be revealed as a judge of the stipper's art as well as the Founder's intent. Result: I was never again asked to appear on an AEI culture panel.
After that, in a retreat from think-tankdom, I got to know Grimes a little bit. We had drinks together at the legendary Algonquin's Blue Bar. He did know his mixology! I followed with interest his dilemmas as a restaurant critic, the controversy over some of his negative reviews, the challenges of having to eat out all the time (be careful what you wish for, you may get it), and remaining anonymous; and his final move to a shopping column. When he praised Netflix, I subscribed. Grimes is an author as well as a critic. He wrote a cute, slim, little book, My Fine Feathered Friend about a chicken who lived in his backyard, as well a charming history of the cocktail, entitled Straight Up or On the Rocks; and a food dictionary, Eating Your Words: 2000 Words to Tease Your Tastebuds,
He's one of the best writers at the Times. And, he has a Ph.D. in Russian Literature from the University of Chicago, so can read Anna Karenina in the original.
"William Grimes, who reviewed restaurants for The New York Times for nearly five years, will become one of the paper's three book reviewers, focusing on nonfiction, Jonathan Landman, the culture editor of The Times, has announced. Mr. Grimes, who stepped down as chief restaurant critic at the end of 2003, has spent most of this year writing reviews of consumer products and recounting his experiences under the heading 'Just Browsing.'"
I met Grimes, known to his intimates as "Biff," about a decade ago, as he covered an AEI symposium on American culture hosted by Ben Wattenberg, featuring erstwhile Supreme Court Justice Robert Bork. In the panel discussion, I compared Madonna to Gypsy Rose Lee, the legendary stripper. Bork objected, pointing out that he had seen Gypsy Rose Lee (in the flesh as it were), and that Madonna is no Gypsy Rose Lee. That interchange caught Grimes' ear, was noted in his New York Times coverage, and I was labelled a "pro-Madonna scholar." I think Bork was embarrassed to be revealed as a judge of the stipper's art as well as the Founder's intent. Result: I was never again asked to appear on an AEI culture panel.
After that, in a retreat from think-tankdom, I got to know Grimes a little bit. We had drinks together at the legendary Algonquin's Blue Bar. He did know his mixology! I followed with interest his dilemmas as a restaurant critic, the controversy over some of his negative reviews, the challenges of having to eat out all the time (be careful what you wish for, you may get it), and remaining anonymous; and his final move to a shopping column. When he praised Netflix, I subscribed. Grimes is an author as well as a critic. He wrote a cute, slim, little book, My Fine Feathered Friend about a chicken who lived in his backyard, as well a charming history of the cocktail, entitled Straight Up or On the Rocks; and a food dictionary, Eating Your Words: 2000 Words to Tease Your Tastebuds,
He's one of the best writers at the Times. And, he has a Ph.D. in Russian Literature from the University of Chicago, so can read Anna Karenina in the original.
Friday, October 22, 2004
US State Department Funded Al-Qaeda-linked NGO
According to the SITE Institute:
"A U.S.-based Islamic charity received millions of dollars in State Department funds for charitable work in Africa-at the same time that its overseas affiliates were allegedly funneling large sums of money directly to Osama bin Laden, according to newly released government documents. The new information about the Islamic American Relief Agency, and its parent organization in the Sudan, appears to represent the strongest evidence yet that, at least for several years in the late 1990s, U.S. taxpayer money may have been inadvertently used to finance the terrorist operations of Al Qaeda."
"A U.S.-based Islamic charity received millions of dollars in State Department funds for charitable work in Africa-at the same time that its overseas affiliates were allegedly funneling large sums of money directly to Osama bin Laden, according to newly released government documents. The new information about the Islamic American Relief Agency, and its parent organization in the Sudan, appears to represent the strongest evidence yet that, at least for several years in the late 1990s, U.S. taxpayer money may have been inadvertently used to finance the terrorist operations of Al Qaeda."
Bin Laden Still on Saudi Payroll?
Yes, says Roger L. Simon:
"According to 9-11 panelist John Lehman, Bin Laden is alive and well (?) in the inaccessible South Waziristan region of West Pakistan. Who knows if that's true, but here's the interesting part - George Soros he's not.
"According to 9-11 panelist John Lehman, Bin Laden is alive and well (?) in the inaccessible South Waziristan region of West Pakistan. Who knows if that's true, but here's the interesting part - George Soros he's not.
Asked how bin Laden was surviving, Lehman said he was getting money from outside countries, such as the United Arab Emirates, and high-ranking ministers inside Saudi Arabia.
'He is not a wealthy man,' Lehman said. 'We ran that information into the ground, and discovered he only receives about $1 million a year from his family's fortune. The rest of what he gets comes from radical sympathizers.'"
Why American Jews Should Vote Republican
From The Diplomad:
"Israel & Terror: President Bush has been a strong supporter of Israel, perhaps the most supportive of any President since Richard Nixon. He has not given into the phony moral-equivalence arguments about terrorism and Israel's response to it that you hear from liberals and Europeans. He has shunned the creepy, murderous Arafat. Now we see that Arafat has come out in support of Senator Kerry, which has Kerry scrambling around Florida's Jewish communities and hoping to win votes by saying 'Oy vey,' which is Hebrew for 'Read my lips, I have a plan.' President Bush has an excellent record on Israel, and should outpoll Kerry among Jews just for that; he does not deserve to lose four-to-one. The fact that President Bush has solid support among Christian conservatives should not scare Jews away--the Christian conservatives are every bit as pro-Israel as Jews themselves. Christians and Jews are in this battle together! On the same side! We would all fare very badly in the Wahabi Islamic Republic of America."
"Israel & Terror: President Bush has been a strong supporter of Israel, perhaps the most supportive of any President since Richard Nixon. He has not given into the phony moral-equivalence arguments about terrorism and Israel's response to it that you hear from liberals and Europeans. He has shunned the creepy, murderous Arafat. Now we see that Arafat has come out in support of Senator Kerry, which has Kerry scrambling around Florida's Jewish communities and hoping to win votes by saying 'Oy vey,' which is Hebrew for 'Read my lips, I have a plan.' President Bush has an excellent record on Israel, and should outpoll Kerry among Jews just for that; he does not deserve to lose four-to-one. The fact that President Bush has solid support among Christian conservatives should not scare Jews away--the Christian conservatives are every bit as pro-Israel as Jews themselves. Christians and Jews are in this battle together! On the same side! We would all fare very badly in the Wahabi Islamic Republic of America."
NGOs Hurt the Poor
From Sebastian Mallaby's article in Foreign Policy [link via Instapundit]:
"But it is also a tragedy for the fight against poverty worldwide, because projects in dozens of countries are similarly held up for fear of activist resistance. Time after time, feisty Internet-enabled groups make scary claims about the iniquities of development projects. Time after time, Western publics raised on stories of World Bank white elephants believe them. Lawmakers in European parliaments and the U.S. Congress accept NGO arguments at face value, and the government officials who sit on the World Bank's board respond by blocking funding for deserving projects. The consequences can be preposterously ironic. NGOs claim to campaign on behalf of poor people, yet many of their campaigns harm the poor. They claim to protect the environment, but by forcing the World Bank to pull out of sensitive projects, they cause these schemes to go ahead without the environmental safeguards that the bank would have imposed on them. Likewise, NGOs purport to hold the World Bank accountable, yet the bank is answerable to the governments who are its shareholders; it is the NGOs-- accountability that is murky. Furthermore, the offensives mounted by activist groups sometimes have no basis in fact whatsoever. "
"But it is also a tragedy for the fight against poverty worldwide, because projects in dozens of countries are similarly held up for fear of activist resistance. Time after time, feisty Internet-enabled groups make scary claims about the iniquities of development projects. Time after time, Western publics raised on stories of World Bank white elephants believe them. Lawmakers in European parliaments and the U.S. Congress accept NGO arguments at face value, and the government officials who sit on the World Bank's board respond by blocking funding for deserving projects. The consequences can be preposterously ironic. NGOs claim to campaign on behalf of poor people, yet many of their campaigns harm the poor. They claim to protect the environment, but by forcing the World Bank to pull out of sensitive projects, they cause these schemes to go ahead without the environmental safeguards that the bank would have imposed on them. Likewise, NGOs purport to hold the World Bank accountable, yet the bank is answerable to the governments who are its shareholders; it is the NGOs-- accountability that is murky. Furthermore, the offensives mounted by activist groups sometimes have no basis in fact whatsoever. "
Roger Kimball's The Rape of the Masters
Unfortunately, we couldn't attend today's lecture at the Hudson Institute here in Washington. It featured Roger Kimball talking about his new book, The Rape of the Masters. We found some excerpts at The New Criterion website; the book looks interesting:
"Why do we teach and study art history? A question that elicits a complicated answer. To learn about art, yes, but also to learn about the cultural setting in which art unfolds; in addition, to learn about--what to call it? 'Evolution' is not quite right, neither is 'progress.' Possibly 'development': to learn about the development of art, then, how artists 'solved problems'--for example, the problem of modeling three-dimensional space on an essentially two-dimensional plane.
"Those are some of the answers, or some parts of the answer, most of us would give. There are others. We teach and study art history--as we teach and study literary history or political history or the history of science--partly to familiarize ourselves with humanity's adventure in time. We expect an educated person in the West to remember what happened in 1066, to know the plot of Hamlet, to understand (sort of) the laws of gravity, to recognize The Venus of Urbino when he sees it. These are aspects of a huge common inheritance, episodes that alternately bask in and cast illuminations and shadows, the interlocking illuminations and shadows of mankind's conjuring with the world.
"All this might be described as the dough, the ambient body of culture. The yeast is supplied by direct acquaintance with the subject of study: the poem or play, the mental itinerary a Galileo or Newton traveled, the actual work of art on the wall. In the case of art history, the raison d'etre--the ultimate motive--is supplied by a direct visual encounter with great works of art. Everything else is prolegomenon or afterthought, scaffolding to support the main event, which is not so much learning about art as it is experiencing art first hand."
"Why do we teach and study art history? A question that elicits a complicated answer. To learn about art, yes, but also to learn about the cultural setting in which art unfolds; in addition, to learn about--what to call it? 'Evolution' is not quite right, neither is 'progress.' Possibly 'development': to learn about the development of art, then, how artists 'solved problems'--for example, the problem of modeling three-dimensional space on an essentially two-dimensional plane.
"Those are some of the answers, or some parts of the answer, most of us would give. There are others. We teach and study art history--as we teach and study literary history or political history or the history of science--partly to familiarize ourselves with humanity's adventure in time. We expect an educated person in the West to remember what happened in 1066, to know the plot of Hamlet, to understand (sort of) the laws of gravity, to recognize The Venus of Urbino when he sees it. These are aspects of a huge common inheritance, episodes that alternately bask in and cast illuminations and shadows, the interlocking illuminations and shadows of mankind's conjuring with the world.
"All this might be described as the dough, the ambient body of culture. The yeast is supplied by direct acquaintance with the subject of study: the poem or play, the mental itinerary a Galileo or Newton traveled, the actual work of art on the wall. In the case of art history, the raison d'etre--the ultimate motive--is supplied by a direct visual encounter with great works of art. Everything else is prolegomenon or afterthought, scaffolding to support the main event, which is not so much learning about art as it is experiencing art first hand."
Jeff Danziger's Racist Cartoon
From OpinionJournal, this item about a racist cartoon distributed by the New York Times syndicate:
"It's no secret that Jeff Danziger is a syndicated cartoonist who leans left of center. But who knew that he also considers himself an arbiter of black authenticity?
"One of Mr. Danziger's recent illustrations features National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as a semi-literate mammy. Ms. Rice--a Russia scholar, former provost of Stanford University and concert pianist--is drawn barefoot and wearing a housedress. Mr. Danziger forgot to put a handkerchief on her head, but the size of her lips has been exaggerated sufficiently to make up for that oversight. She's sitting in a rocking chair and nursing an aluminum tube as though it were an infant. The caption reads: 'I KNOWS ALL ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES! (Correction) I DON'T KNOW NUTHIN' ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES . . .'
"Mr. Danziger, a proud member of the media's 'Bush Lied!' brigade, is making a point about the administration's supposed manipulation of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The caption is an apparent reference to Prissy, the house slave in 'Gone With the Wind' who uttered something similar about babies.
"A substantive debate about the president's handling of the war is something reasonable people welcome, especially in an election year. But it's impossible to see where the national security adviser's race or sex fits in to a debate about what Saddam Hussein planned to do with his aluminum tubes."
"It's no secret that Jeff Danziger is a syndicated cartoonist who leans left of center. But who knew that he also considers himself an arbiter of black authenticity?
"One of Mr. Danziger's recent illustrations features National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice as a semi-literate mammy. Ms. Rice--a Russia scholar, former provost of Stanford University and concert pianist--is drawn barefoot and wearing a housedress. Mr. Danziger forgot to put a handkerchief on her head, but the size of her lips has been exaggerated sufficiently to make up for that oversight. She's sitting in a rocking chair and nursing an aluminum tube as though it were an infant. The caption reads: 'I KNOWS ALL ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES! (Correction) I DON'T KNOW NUTHIN' ABOUT ALUMINUM TUBES . . .'
"Mr. Danziger, a proud member of the media's 'Bush Lied!' brigade, is making a point about the administration's supposed manipulation of prewar intelligence on Iraq. The caption is an apparent reference to Prissy, the house slave in 'Gone With the Wind' who uttered something similar about babies.
"A substantive debate about the president's handling of the war is something reasonable people welcome, especially in an election year. But it's impossible to see where the national security adviser's race or sex fits in to a debate about what Saddam Hussein planned to do with his aluminum tubes."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)