He's against it. From Martin Kramer's Sandstorm:
"The wrong Muslims. Now if some of the Islamists today were on a march to power, the case for dialogue might be more compelling. But where are these Islamists? Where is the Khomeini of Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Skeptical as we may be about the prospects for the Saudi monarchy or the Iraqi government, it is difficult to see Islamists who could replace them. And what would we talk about in a dialogue with the kinds of Islamists who seek to seize power in Saudi Arabia or Iraq? Would not such a dialogue merely antagonize and alienate those forces for stability that still have a chance to see the crisis through? And do we really think that were we to facilitate the ascent of any of these groups, they would be grateful for it? Any more so than the Afghan mujahideen?
"In sum, dialogue with Islamists, far from undercutting the jihadists, would undercut their opponents. It would muddle the message of the war on terror--the message that there can be no middle ground, and that Muslims must choose. Islamists not only wish to create a middle ground in the Middle East, but they seek to extend it to American soil. Few things could undermine the war on terror more thoroughly than dialogue with them, because it would facilitate just that.
"The United States has no use for equivocating Islamists. The United States does have use for dialogue with believing Muslims--those who share its vision of a Middle East that is free, and free of terror."
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Mark Steyn on the Cheney-Edwards Vice Presidential Debate
From SteynOnline:
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: CHENEY!
Classic Daddy Party performance, underlined by Edwards' closing with his maudlin generic hardscrabble vignettes. Simply by being who he is, Cheney made the other guy look a lightweight. Edwards had one good trick: he worked the format better - using the 30-second add-ons for his sharpest and best rehearsed jabs and leaving Cheney no time for rebuttal. That aside, I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on much these days, but I'm with him on this: Cheney is way sexier than Edwards, who seems cheesier and emptier every time I see him."
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: CHENEY!
Classic Daddy Party performance, underlined by Edwards' closing with his maudlin generic hardscrabble vignettes. Simply by being who he is, Cheney made the other guy look a lightweight. Edwards had one good trick: he worked the format better - using the 30-second add-ons for his sharpest and best rehearsed jabs and leaving Cheney no time for rebuttal. That aside, I don't agree with Andrew Sullivan on much these days, but I'm with him on this: Cheney is way sexier than Edwards, who seems cheesier and emptier every time I see him."
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Frankfurt Book Fair Promotes Arab Authors
From Deutsche Welle | [link from Artsjournal.com]:
"Many popular Arab authors remain unknown in the West. That may change as the Frankfurt Book Fair invites the Arab League as guest of honor this year. But the nagging issue of censorship might not be touched upon at all. Of the around 120,000 foreign fiction titles translated into German, only about 500 come from the Arab world. It's a telling statement on the lack of information in the West when it comes to the diversity of the literary landscape in the Arab countries. It's usually literary heavyweights such as Egyptian author and Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz or France-based Moroccan writer Tahar Ben Jelloun who enjoy relative popularity in Europe. But that might be about to change as the spotlight falls on the Arab League at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair. Starting October 6, visitors to the world's largest book fair will get the chance to meet and get acquainted with the works of around 200 authors and artists from 17 countries of the 22-member Arab League."
"Many popular Arab authors remain unknown in the West. That may change as the Frankfurt Book Fair invites the Arab League as guest of honor this year. But the nagging issue of censorship might not be touched upon at all. Of the around 120,000 foreign fiction titles translated into German, only about 500 come from the Arab world. It's a telling statement on the lack of information in the West when it comes to the diversity of the literary landscape in the Arab countries. It's usually literary heavyweights such as Egyptian author and Nobel Prize winner Naguib Mahfouz or France-based Moroccan writer Tahar Ben Jelloun who enjoy relative popularity in Europe. But that might be about to change as the spotlight falls on the Arab League at this year's Frankfurt Book Fair. Starting October 6, visitors to the world's largest book fair will get the chance to meet and get acquainted with the works of around 200 authors and artists from 17 countries of the 22-member Arab League."
The Only Thing We Have To Fear...
Roger L. Simon: Mystery Novelist and Screenwriter realized the Vice-Presidential debate subtext was about fear:
"But we all know that. And for the willfully disinterested who didn't, Cheney pointed it out last night with the one slightly witty line of the first two debates in which he wondered aloud how K & E could stand up to Al Qaeda if they couldn't stand up to Howard Dean. How indeed? Or should I say 'Howard indeed'? But it's worse, because the ghost of Dean and the Deaniacs sits astride all sides in the current conflagration. Consider the endless debate on the number of troops. Can you honestly suggest that the presence of the 'Dean Left' (quotes deliberate) did not influence the size of the deployments? Say what you want about 'military advice'... and I am an agnostic on the number of troops issue... I am certain that the administration, as would almost all politicians, was looking over its collective shoulder at its noisy adversaries as they went to war. And they continued to look over their shoulders as they pursued the peace. Consciously or unconsciously, they wanted to believe that lower numbers were acceptable. War-lite, they thought in the shadow of Dean, would garner less resistance. But like many decisions made in fear, this may not have been in true. Still, Bremer's complaints on troop numbers do not impress me. He is thought not to have distinguished himself as head of the CPA (who knows the reality of this?), so naturally he is looking to CYA, making his criticism suspect. But the overweening problem is being governed by fear, fear of Dean (how ridiculous is that, when you think about it). I didn't need Cheney to tell me that for that reason alone I could not vote for Kerry. "
"But we all know that. And for the willfully disinterested who didn't, Cheney pointed it out last night with the one slightly witty line of the first two debates in which he wondered aloud how K & E could stand up to Al Qaeda if they couldn't stand up to Howard Dean. How indeed? Or should I say 'Howard indeed'? But it's worse, because the ghost of Dean and the Deaniacs sits astride all sides in the current conflagration. Consider the endless debate on the number of troops. Can you honestly suggest that the presence of the 'Dean Left' (quotes deliberate) did not influence the size of the deployments? Say what you want about 'military advice'... and I am an agnostic on the number of troops issue... I am certain that the administration, as would almost all politicians, was looking over its collective shoulder at its noisy adversaries as they went to war. And they continued to look over their shoulders as they pursued the peace. Consciously or unconsciously, they wanted to believe that lower numbers were acceptable. War-lite, they thought in the shadow of Dean, would garner less resistance. But like many decisions made in fear, this may not have been in true. Still, Bremer's complaints on troop numbers do not impress me. He is thought not to have distinguished himself as head of the CPA (who knows the reality of this?), so naturally he is looking to CYA, making his criticism suspect. But the overweening problem is being governed by fear, fear of Dean (how ridiculous is that, when you think about it). I didn't need Cheney to tell me that for that reason alone I could not vote for Kerry. "
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
From Our We Hate To Say We Told You So Department: "CBS Says Probe Results Unlikely Until After Election"
You can scroll down to read our earlier post on the weakness of the blogosphere. Now this confirmation of further Dan Rather forgery scandal cover-ups, from Yahoo! News [link via LittleGreenFootballs]:
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - An external review of how CBS News came to use disputed documents in a report on President Bush (news - web sites)'s military record will probably not be concluded until after the November election so as not to interfere with the presidential race... "
"NEW YORK (Reuters) - An external review of how CBS News came to use disputed documents in a report on President Bush (news - web sites)'s military record will probably not be concluded until after the November election so as not to interfere with the presidential race... "
Russia's War on Terror
Leon Aron's analysis of Russian policies in the wake of the Beslan tragedy:
"Wars have repeatedly had a decisive influence on Russia's political development, and the present global conflict against fundamentalist Islam is no exception. With the murder of hundreds of Russians at the hands of Chechen terrorists--most notably, the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan earlier this month--President Vladimir Putin has announced a sweeping overhaul of Russia's political system that would further consolidate power in the Kremlin and damage the country's nascent democracy. The United States and its allies now confront the dual challenge of assisting Russia in its fight against terrorism while simultaneously resisting the erosion of freedom there.
"The French only make reforms in the course of a revolution," General de Gaulle once told Raymond Aron. Of the Russians it may be said that their reforms (and revolutions) are very often precipitated by wars.
"The Crimean War (1854-1856) led to Alexander II's "revolution from above," which included the emancipation of the serfs. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 brought about the 1905 Revolution and the beginning of democratic politics and constitutional monarchy. World War I was the key precondition for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan (1979-1988) contributed mightily to the urgency of Mikhail Gorbachev's overhaul of domestic and foreign policies. And the defeat or, more precisely, voluntary withdrawal from the Cold War attended the breakup of the Soviet Union and the democratic revolution of 1991.
"With the murder of more than six hundred men, women, and children by Chechnya-based Islamic terrorists in Russia since late June--including the simultaneous downing of two civilian airplanes and the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan--Russia is again at war. The historic pattern of wars' profound impact on Russian politics and society is evident in President Vladimir Putin's September 13 outline of political and bureaucratic reforms that would consolidate the Kremlin's power and damage Russia's nascent democracy. The United States now confronts the challenge of a "two-track" policy of helping Russia to combat militant Islamic fundamentalism while opposing the erosion of democracy. "
"Wars have repeatedly had a decisive influence on Russia's political development, and the present global conflict against fundamentalist Islam is no exception. With the murder of hundreds of Russians at the hands of Chechen terrorists--most notably, the massacre of schoolchildren at Beslan earlier this month--President Vladimir Putin has announced a sweeping overhaul of Russia's political system that would further consolidate power in the Kremlin and damage the country's nascent democracy. The United States and its allies now confront the dual challenge of assisting Russia in its fight against terrorism while simultaneously resisting the erosion of freedom there.
"The French only make reforms in the course of a revolution," General de Gaulle once told Raymond Aron. Of the Russians it may be said that their reforms (and revolutions) are very often precipitated by wars.
"The Crimean War (1854-1856) led to Alexander II's "revolution from above," which included the emancipation of the serfs. The Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905 brought about the 1905 Revolution and the beginning of democratic politics and constitutional monarchy. World War I was the key precondition for the success of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Soviet Union's war in Afghanistan (1979-1988) contributed mightily to the urgency of Mikhail Gorbachev's overhaul of domestic and foreign policies. And the defeat or, more precisely, voluntary withdrawal from the Cold War attended the breakup of the Soviet Union and the democratic revolution of 1991.
"With the murder of more than six hundred men, women, and children by Chechnya-based Islamic terrorists in Russia since late June--including the simultaneous downing of two civilian airplanes and the massacre of schoolchildren in Beslan--Russia is again at war. The historic pattern of wars' profound impact on Russian politics and society is evident in President Vladimir Putin's September 13 outline of political and bureaucratic reforms that would consolidate the Kremlin's power and damage Russia's nascent democracy. The United States now confronts the challenge of a "two-track" policy of helping Russia to combat militant Islamic fundamentalism while opposing the erosion of democracy. "
Monday, October 04, 2004
Why Go Digital?
Charlie Clark, in The Washington Post today,: considers the case of the vanishing reference book:
"In our digitally drenched age, I find myself fascinated by the 'refresh' function on today's more dynamic Web sites. The steadily blinking, disappear-and-reappear changes to washingtonpost.com and my AOL home page reassure me in a nanosecond that the information I take in is perpetually updated -- with zero effort by me.
"Small problem, however. Computers have so accelerated our thought processes, so raised our expectations and so reduced our patience that nowadays when I consult one of my venerable reference works, I take for granted this same up-to-the-minute 'refreshment.' Instead, it hits me like a punch in the nose when I discover that my research sources are frozen in an era when Jimmy Carter was president, the Bee Gees ruled radio and TV news was a half-hour a day.
"So, you ask, why not go digital? I mean, who still buys their children a heavy shelf of World Book Encyclopedia volumes when you can score a current and searchable version that fits in your coat pocket?
"Truth is, I'm too attached to the glorious objects that give ambiance to my thinking man's study to trade them for a rack of utilitarian plastic and ephemeral data. "
"In our digitally drenched age, I find myself fascinated by the 'refresh' function on today's more dynamic Web sites. The steadily blinking, disappear-and-reappear changes to washingtonpost.com and my AOL home page reassure me in a nanosecond that the information I take in is perpetually updated -- with zero effort by me.
"Small problem, however. Computers have so accelerated our thought processes, so raised our expectations and so reduced our patience that nowadays when I consult one of my venerable reference works, I take for granted this same up-to-the-minute 'refreshment.' Instead, it hits me like a punch in the nose when I discover that my research sources are frozen in an era when Jimmy Carter was president, the Bee Gees ruled radio and TV news was a half-hour a day.
"So, you ask, why not go digital? I mean, who still buys their children a heavy shelf of World Book Encyclopedia volumes when you can score a current and searchable version that fits in your coat pocket?
"Truth is, I'm too attached to the glorious objects that give ambiance to my thinking man's study to trade them for a rack of utilitarian plastic and ephemeral data. "
Che Guevara Didn't Ride Motorcycles
Agustin Blazquez let us know that the new film about Che Guevara, Motorcycle Diaries is not only fiction, it is a lie. Agustin shared this email from a friend as evidence that Che didn't ride a motorcycle -- because he didn't know how.
Guess what folks? Last night I went to Lectorium Books in Manhattan for a book presentation. The author who was presenting his memoirs is a Cuban who was on the Gramma expedition and Moncada Barracks attack with Castro. He knew Castro, Raul, and Che personally and up close. When asked by someone in the audience about the "Motorcycle Diaries," he laughed and said that Che did not know how to ride a motorcycle! He said that he unequivocally knows that, because on various occassions he went motorcycling around Habana with Castro and company and Che never went along with them even when asked to accompany them. All that he did was sheepishly wave GOOD-BYE, because he didn't know how to ride a motorbike!
Ah, the mythmaking of the left that ceaselessly lionizes Che! Pretty soon, they'll have him coming down on a cloud!
Museum of Modern Art Ups Ticket Prices
The entrance fee at New York's Museum of Modern Art just went from $12 to $20. My Stupid Dog is annoyed with Terry Teachout's knee-jerk condemnation:
"To call New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg plain-spoken is a bit of an understatement. When queried about MoMa's price hikes, Bloomberg stated with characteristic bluntness, ''Some things people can afford, some things people can't. ... MoMA is a private institution. It's not a city institution. And they have a right to set their own pricing policies.' Bloomberg added that 'If you can't afford [admissions] at any one, you can go to another one.' Journalists have had a field day with Bloomberg's statement, noting that the mayor is one of America's wealthiest men -- of course he won't be affected by a mere eight-dollar increase, with his multi-billion dollar personal fortune.
"Online arts critic Terry Teachout, who usually combines informed connoisseurship with common sense, claims that Bloomberg 'just earned himself a swift kick in the crotch for his personal contribution to the ongoing debate. (Not in the head--that wouldn't hurt him one bit.)' Yet Bloomberg's reasoning is absolutely correct: Private institutions should set their own admissions policies, without interference from government. He neither condemned nor condoned the new admission rates, but he did state that the price of MoMA admissions was not his concern as a government official.
"In the meantime, I wonder what has happened to Teachout's own head. When he accepted a prestigious position with the National Endowment for the Arts, I feared that the moribund institution might alter him more than he would alter it. Once you start to work with government-sponsored arts projects on behalf of 'the masses' -- who presumably are too ignorant to make an informed judgment in matters of taste -- the idea that artists and government institutions should work together to bring art to the people becomes embedded in your brain like a virus. The consequent government-funded art, complete with Uncle Sam's seal of approval, runs the gamut from redundant (NEA's ongoing "Shakespeare in the Suburbs" tour!) to banal ("Piss Christ," anyone?).
"I think the NEA tends to forget that art is not only accessible, it is everywhere. From television commericals to art-house cinema, from down-and-dirty blues music to fun-house postmodern architecture, even the poorest of Americans are sated, even glutted, with products of human imagination and creativity. That may explain why most Americans don't go to art museums: They've had enough truth and beauty for one day, thanks, and staring at colored squares isn't going to do anything for them. When interior designers on cable television can paint household cabinets in the style of Piet Mondrian, it's time for all government-subsized priests of high culture to declare "Mission Accomplished" and call it a day."
"To call New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg plain-spoken is a bit of an understatement. When queried about MoMa's price hikes, Bloomberg stated with characteristic bluntness, ''Some things people can afford, some things people can't. ... MoMA is a private institution. It's not a city institution. And they have a right to set their own pricing policies.' Bloomberg added that 'If you can't afford [admissions] at any one, you can go to another one.' Journalists have had a field day with Bloomberg's statement, noting that the mayor is one of America's wealthiest men -- of course he won't be affected by a mere eight-dollar increase, with his multi-billion dollar personal fortune.
"Online arts critic Terry Teachout, who usually combines informed connoisseurship with common sense, claims that Bloomberg 'just earned himself a swift kick in the crotch for his personal contribution to the ongoing debate. (Not in the head--that wouldn't hurt him one bit.)' Yet Bloomberg's reasoning is absolutely correct: Private institutions should set their own admissions policies, without interference from government. He neither condemned nor condoned the new admission rates, but he did state that the price of MoMA admissions was not his concern as a government official.
"In the meantime, I wonder what has happened to Teachout's own head. When he accepted a prestigious position with the National Endowment for the Arts, I feared that the moribund institution might alter him more than he would alter it. Once you start to work with government-sponsored arts projects on behalf of 'the masses' -- who presumably are too ignorant to make an informed judgment in matters of taste -- the idea that artists and government institutions should work together to bring art to the people becomes embedded in your brain like a virus. The consequent government-funded art, complete with Uncle Sam's seal of approval, runs the gamut from redundant (NEA's ongoing "Shakespeare in the Suburbs" tour!) to banal ("Piss Christ," anyone?).
"I think the NEA tends to forget that art is not only accessible, it is everywhere. From television commericals to art-house cinema, from down-and-dirty blues music to fun-house postmodern architecture, even the poorest of Americans are sated, even glutted, with products of human imagination and creativity. That may explain why most Americans don't go to art museums: They've had enough truth and beauty for one day, thanks, and staring at colored squares isn't going to do anything for them. When interior designers on cable television can paint household cabinets in the style of Piet Mondrian, it's time for all government-subsized priests of high culture to declare "Mission Accomplished" and call it a day."
Sunday, October 03, 2004
Mark Steyn Still Says Bush Will Win
From The Chicago Sun-Times:
"Those of us who've been sweet on George W. Bush a long time have gotten used to these moments. Four years ago, he stacks up more money and a bigger runaway lead than any other candidate in history, but he can't be bothered campaigning in New Hampshire, so he loses the primary to John McCain. He struggles to catch up, wins the nomination, but then takes the summer off to build his ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Al Gore's ahead on Labor Day, but Bush claws his way back to a small lead, then they drop the last-minute DWI scandal and, instead of rebutting it, he takes the weekend off, and lands us in a month of Florida chad-divining.
"So Thursday was one of those moments. Bush wasn't wrong, but he was in the same state he was in in early 2003, before launching the Iraq war, when he was tired and punchy and stumbling round the country not making a case against Saddam but just droning the same phrases over and over: ''He's a dictator.'' Smirk. ''He gassed his own people.'' In Thursday's debate, his own people seemed to have gassed him. Bush droned, repeatedly, that Kerry was sending ''mixed messages,'' but his own message could have done with being a little less robotically unmixed. He said, ''It's tough. ... It's hard work. ...'' again and again..."
"Those of us who've been sweet on George W. Bush a long time have gotten used to these moments. Four years ago, he stacks up more money and a bigger runaway lead than any other candidate in history, but he can't be bothered campaigning in New Hampshire, so he loses the primary to John McCain. He struggles to catch up, wins the nomination, but then takes the summer off to build his ranch house in Crawford, Texas. Al Gore's ahead on Labor Day, but Bush claws his way back to a small lead, then they drop the last-minute DWI scandal and, instead of rebutting it, he takes the weekend off, and lands us in a month of Florida chad-divining.
"So Thursday was one of those moments. Bush wasn't wrong, but he was in the same state he was in in early 2003, before launching the Iraq war, when he was tired and punchy and stumbling round the country not making a case against Saddam but just droning the same phrases over and over: ''He's a dictator.'' Smirk. ''He gassed his own people.'' In Thursday's debate, his own people seemed to have gassed him. Bush droned, repeatedly, that Kerry was sending ''mixed messages,'' but his own message could have done with being a little less robotically unmixed. He said, ''It's tough. ... It's hard work. ...'' again and again..."
Network Anchors Rally Behind Dan Rather's Forgeries
According to The Washington Post network anchors are supporting Dan Rather in the scandal over his forged documents:
"NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- Dan Rather, vowing to resist any 'smear' campaign against him by the Bush administration or other critics, said Saturday he would not 'give up the fight' and intends to remain in the CBS anchor chair. Rather, who has apologized for reporting on National Guard documents about President Bush that the network now says it cannot authenticate, twice declined to comment on the controversy at a forum hosted by the New Yorker. He made clear he had been muzzled by management, saying CBS News President Andrew Heyward had asked him to stay quiet while an outside panel investigates the matter. The other network anchors at the forum stood by their longtime rival. NBC's Tom Brokaw accused Internet critics of 'a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that is quite outrageous.' Although he called Rather's '60 Minutes' story 'a big mistake,' Brokaw said it had led to an attempt to 'demonize' Rather and CBS through 'demagoguery.'"
"NEW YORK, Oct. 2 -- Dan Rather, vowing to resist any 'smear' campaign against him by the Bush administration or other critics, said Saturday he would not 'give up the fight' and intends to remain in the CBS anchor chair. Rather, who has apologized for reporting on National Guard documents about President Bush that the network now says it cannot authenticate, twice declined to comment on the controversy at a forum hosted by the New Yorker. He made clear he had been muzzled by management, saying CBS News President Andrew Heyward had asked him to stay quiet while an outside panel investigates the matter. The other network anchors at the forum stood by their longtime rival. NBC's Tom Brokaw accused Internet critics of 'a kind of political jihad against Dan Rather and CBS News that is quite outrageous.' Although he called Rather's '60 Minutes' story 'a big mistake,' Brokaw said it had led to an attempt to 'demonize' Rather and CBS through 'demagoguery.'"
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Al-Zawahri Calls for US Attacks
From Aljazeera.Net:
"'In Palestine, we are not only facing the Jews but also the anti-Islam international alliance headed by the US crusaders.So, fighting Jews and leaving America without being attacked will not make the Americans or the crusaders lessen their aggression against us.'"
"'In Palestine, we are not only facing the Jews but also the anti-Islam international alliance headed by the US crusaders.So, fighting Jews and leaving America without being attacked will not make the Americans or the crusaders lessen their aggression against us.'"
The Botox Factor
President Bush's facial expressions have come under attack from the Democratic National Committee, which posted selected clips from the Bush-Kerry debate on their website. But the Texan's more mobile face might simply be a sign that he hasn't used quite as much Botox, while the impassive rigidity of Kerry's lower-jaw might give credence to the notion that the Boston Brahmin has indeed been cosmetically enhanced, his skin paralyzed by the Botulism toxin.
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
That's what reports on the AwfulPlasticSurgery.com website seem to indicate, at least...
Don't Call Me a "Blogger"!
From Wizbang:
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
"I've always hated the word... Blogger. Even without referencing its auditory resemblance to gelatinous masses ejected from nasal cavities, I still don't like it. Blogger. Say it aloud. It sounds as if you are talking with a mouth full of food you are trying to prevent from escaping. Or perhaps it sounds like some did escape. Either way, what does it mean? One who has a weblog? Look that up in a hip glossary and it does not cover what I do. This is no 'on-line diary.' People outside the blogospehre don't like the word either. After all, bloggers (as we all know) don't have the systems of checks and balances like they have in a traditional newsroom. It was my adventure debunking Professor Hailey that lead me to an epiphany. I no longer what to be called a blogger and neither should you. We are not bloggers, We are independent, peer reviewed journalists.
"It was the phone call to the head of Professor Hailey's department that made me see the light. He said something to the effect of, 'Certainly Dr. Hailey's work needs to stand up to peer review.' But who exactly is Dr. Hailey's peer? Apparently some guy sitting in his pajamas who has a blog. The simple act of 'getting things right' is important to society. Politicians must get things right so have have voters keep an eye on them. Lawyers must get things right so we have juries. So to must scholars get things right, so a system of 'peer review' was born. I can think of no other entity than the traditional media whose only review system is internal. Multiple people have tried to make the case that the blogosphere is more accurate than the mainstream media. Heck, search this blog and you'll find I've done it several times. What we have lacked is a way to explain our system of checks and balances to people outside the blogosphere. The phrase 'Peer Reviewed Journalism' does that."
Charlie Cook on the Debate
From The Cook Report:
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
"While I personally thought that Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's performance in last night's debate was awful and that he has been badly damaged by the flip-flop argument, I am clearly in the minority. Data (polling, focus groups and dial tests) from both parties and the media show that Kerry won debate, though it remains unclear as to whether the ballot test moved much. Personally, I thought that Kerry sounded like Thurston Howell III, the snooty and condescending millionaire from 'Gilligan's Island,' but more people were comfortable with that than they were with the President's stammering and halting delivery and repetition of same phrases and arguments... "
Why Kerry Will Lose
From Victor Davis Hanson's Private Papers:
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
"So Kerry flip and flops like a fish out of water, suggesting that his heart is with Howard Dean while his mind concurs with George Bush -- and thus his schizophrenia is on the verge of leading his party to a landslide defeat in the electoral college, and the loss of all branches of government with it. Americans simply have never voted for leaders who insult their allies on the battlefield, claim that their soldiers are losing, and shrug that the war is about lost. And they surely won't this time either."
Friday, October 01, 2004
Mark Steyn on Golda's Balcony
From The New Criterion:
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
"If you can't be a Zionist on Broadway, where can you be? That surely is one lesson to be drawn from Golda's Balcony, which has been playing at the Helen Hayes for almost a year now. That's a remarkable run for a solo show on a serious subject not exactly in tune with prevailing fashion, so I felt I ought to see it before it turned into Cats or The Mousetrap. The play is a new work by William Gibson, one of the old lions of the Anne Frank era: he made his name in the Fifties with Two for the Seesaw and The Miracle Worker. In his later career, he's found himself circling back to earlier hits: The Miracle Worker (1959) was about Helen Keller's young life, Monday after the Miracle (1982) was about her later life. Golda (1977) was a big-budget biodrama starring Anne Bancroft as the Israeli Prime Minister supported by a cast of dozens. Under the constraints of Broadway economics a quarter-century on, Golda's Balcony covers much of the same terrain but as a one-woman monologue for Tovah Feldshuh. Miss Feldshuh, as made up by John Caglione, Jr., with a prosthetic nose and thickened legs to suggest phlebitis, is a persuasive Golda Meir, especially in profile.
"In Gibson's monologue, Golda has, in fact, two balconies--one at her apartment in Tel Aviv overlooking the Mediterranean, the other an observation deck above the Israeli nuclear-weapons facility at Dimona. It's October 1973 and a seventy-five-year-old woman is pondering whether to unleash a nuclear holocaust. The events of Gibson's play are, within the bounds of dramatic license, historically accurate: it was the Yom Kippur War and the Prime Minister faced a tough decision on how far Israel was prepared to go in order to survive. As Gibson tells it, the bombs were loaded and the planes were ready to fly, awaiting the order to take off and nuke Cairo and Damascus. At the last minute, the Nixon Administration provided sufficient assistance to enable Israel to defeat its enemies with conventional weapons.
"Still, it’s riveting material for a dramatist. 'What happens when idealism becomes power?' Golda wonders. 'To save a world you create, how many worlds are you entitled to destroy?' What amazes in such situations is that the Prime Minister or President has only a few hours to make the right call. He or she needs to be able to concentrate, to see through every angle of the question, knowing there’s only one chance to answer it correctly."
John LeBoutillier on the Debate
From Boot's Blasts:
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
"Overall prediction: the race is now going to tighten a bit. How much? A bit. Kerry has reversed his downward momentum. Whether he can generate upward momentum is the next question. But this race is not over."
CNN: No Clear Victor in Debate
From CNN.com:
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
"Did the debate change many minds? Not according to the poll. After the debate, the same percentage of those interviewed -- 54 -- said Bush would be better on Iraq than Kerry.
The story was almost the same on who would be a better commander in chief -- 55 percent said Bush would be better before the debate, 54 percent said so after the debate. Although Kerry made a better impression on some basic measures and may have been successful at re-introducing himself to voters, the poll showed he might not have changed many minds on Iraq and military matters.
"Because the poll talked just to debate watchers, only subsequent surveys will be able to determine whether Kerry gained any votes. Four years ago, a plurality of debate watchers thought Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had done a better job than Bush in the first debate. But when the dust settled Bush was the one who picked up a few points in the horse race. Gallup has asked the question about who did a better job in the debate in five previous elections, and in four of them the candidate who 'won' the first debate did not win the election in November."
An Australian on the Debate
From The Command Post:
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
"Kerry won the debate, hands-down. Now that's not to say he's particularly wonderful at debating. He's not, at least, not from this performance. Any of the top 6 teams in the GPS (Greater Public School) Debating competition in Sydney, Australia would have him as, at best, a second reserve. But in terms of a debate, he did all the right things, made all the right moves, moves which are as stylised and formalised as anything in Olympic diving or gymnastics. So many points for eye contact, so many points for gestures at the right time, so many points for inflection and expression. Not a perfect 10, or even a solid 8, but a pedestrian 7.5. Kerry's performance was quite reasonable for a High School or College debate, though even I in my hayday could have made mincemeat of him - as could many people.
"Bush's, on the other hand, wasn't. He didn't behave like he was at a debate at all. He was comparatively inarticulate, halting at times, and confined his argument to only one main point : that whatever qualities he may have had, Kerry had shown himself to be incompetent to be a Commander-in-Chief. I got the impression he wasn't trying to engage in the highly formalised verbal combat that is debate at all - though repetition of a main them can be very effective in the right hands. When Bush did it, by the fourth or fifth time it was starting to grate on my nerves. Still, my impression was that Bush wasn't particularly interested in Kerry, nor Lehrer, nor even the studio audience. He was using this so-called 'debate' as a tool to communicate with the American people, confident in the belief that if they heard what he had to say, and got to know him as a man, a President, and a leader, that he'd garner more votes than with mere bardinage and verbal fencing. Arrogance or merely the courage of his convictions? If that was his aim, I think he succeeded. He came across as honest, plain-dealing, and straightforward. As the old saying goes : “The most important quality in Honesty : if you can fake that, you’ve got it made.” Well, he’s really good at that, because after listening to him, I’m not sure he’s faking."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)