From the Dutch websiteAmerika kiest:
"Needless to say, I'm disappointed with both candidates. The world stands at a turning point, and the times call for an extraordinary leader. Instead, our choice in America is between two ordinary men, neither of whom are doing anything to help make clear to Americans the gravity of the choice they will make next month."
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Mark Steyn on Friday's Bush-Kerry Debate
From The Telegraph:
"And, if you want to know the real difference, after 90 minutes of debate it came in the final exchange of the night: 'The truth of that matter,' said Bush, 'is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States.'
Kerry replied: 'Not necessarily.'
That's John Kerry: the 'not necessarily' candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit."
"And, if you want to know the real difference, after 90 minutes of debate it came in the final exchange of the night: 'The truth of that matter,' said Bush, 'is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he [Kerry] were the President of the United States.'
Kerry replied: 'Not necessarily.'
That's John Kerry: the 'not necessarily' candidate. Saddam might not necessarily be in power. He might have been hit by the Number 37 bus while crossing the street at the intersection of Saddam Hussein Boulevard and Saddam Hussein Parkway in downtown Tikrit. He might have put his back out with one of his more vigorous concubines and been forced to hand over to Uday or Qusay. He might have stiffed Chirac in some backdoor deal and been taken out by some anthrax-laced Quality Street planted by an elite French commando unit."
Saturday, October 09, 2004
From Our "Your Tax Dollars At Work" Department...
From Unixdude, this item about a recent grant from the National Endowment for the Arts:
"$35,000 NEA Grant Funds Musical About A Killer!
NEA -- the National Endowment for the Arts -- is giving the La Jolla Playhouse thirty-five thousand dollars to 'develop' a musical based on the life of San Diego gay prostitute turned serial killer Andrew Cunanan. Cunanan as you might recall killed fashion designer Gianni Versace as the last (himself not withstanding) of his many victims. The musical, titled 'Disposable,' will be developed by three Playhouse associates ---- playwright Jessica Hagedorn (whose 'Dogeaters' went from the Playhouse to off-Broadway a few years ago), composer Mark Bennett (creator of the score for the Playhouse's 'Eden Lane' last year) and director Michael Greif (who ran the Playhouse as artistic director from 1994 to 1999).
Is this really how we want our government spending our tax dollars? Not mine, thank you. It seems that the NEA is linked quite frequently to Insufferable Art. So whether you want to see dancing vaginas or a guy nailing his tiny johnson to a board [one moment, please, while I wince in pain], the NEA can 'help' us all! Unfortunately, the artists that receive NEA funding are no more an 'artist' than the guy down at Subway that makes my sandwich. Further, the NEA is way beyond the point of reform. It must be abolished."
"$35,000 NEA Grant Funds Musical About A Killer!
NEA -- the National Endowment for the Arts -- is giving the La Jolla Playhouse thirty-five thousand dollars to 'develop' a musical based on the life of San Diego gay prostitute turned serial killer Andrew Cunanan. Cunanan as you might recall killed fashion designer Gianni Versace as the last (himself not withstanding) of his many victims. The musical, titled 'Disposable,' will be developed by three Playhouse associates ---- playwright Jessica Hagedorn (whose 'Dogeaters' went from the Playhouse to off-Broadway a few years ago), composer Mark Bennett (creator of the score for the Playhouse's 'Eden Lane' last year) and director Michael Greif (who ran the Playhouse as artistic director from 1994 to 1999).
Is this really how we want our government spending our tax dollars? Not mine, thank you. It seems that the NEA is linked quite frequently to Insufferable Art. So whether you want to see dancing vaginas or a guy nailing his tiny johnson to a board [one moment, please, while I wince in pain], the NEA can 'help' us all! Unfortunately, the artists that receive NEA funding are no more an 'artist' than the guy down at Subway that makes my sandwich. Further, the NEA is way beyond the point of reform. It must be abolished."
Kerry on Record Against Kyoto Protocol
Nathan Hamm found this article from the Grand Forks Herald, and shared the link with InDC.com, evidence Kerry is against Kyoto :
"BOSTON - During the presidential primaries, Sen. John Kerry quietly renounced support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming. More recently, as it readied itself for the Kerry lovefest in Boston, the Democratic Party surreptitiously removed from its platform support for Kyoto - a treaty, in large part, personally negotiated by its last presidential candidate Al Gore. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, who supports Kyoto, should be forgiven if he is surprised by Kerry's position, which essentially is now the same as President Bush's. Delegates to the recently convention were confused as well. Indeed, the general public could be forgiven for not knowing Kerry's stance on Kyoto. After all, none of the major media outlets have highlighted his rejection of Kyoto and his campaign has gone to great lengths to portray Kerry's position as pro-Kyoto. For instance, Teresa Heinz Kerry recently boasted that Kerry had attended more Kyoto conferences than any other major politician. Kerry, as usual, wants to have it both ways. He wants to appear pro-Kyoto in public before the camera's, while actually rejecting the treaty as a policy matter. But I digress, this is not to pan Kerry's apparent hypocrisy but to praise his decision to reject Kyoto and to call on him to reject other proposals that would require U.S. companies to unilaterally reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
"BOSTON - During the presidential primaries, Sen. John Kerry quietly renounced support for the Kyoto treaty on global warming. More recently, as it readied itself for the Kerry lovefest in Boston, the Democratic Party surreptitiously removed from its platform support for Kyoto - a treaty, in large part, personally negotiated by its last presidential candidate Al Gore. John Edwards, Kerry's running mate, who supports Kyoto, should be forgiven if he is surprised by Kerry's position, which essentially is now the same as President Bush's. Delegates to the recently convention were confused as well. Indeed, the general public could be forgiven for not knowing Kerry's stance on Kyoto. After all, none of the major media outlets have highlighted his rejection of Kyoto and his campaign has gone to great lengths to portray Kerry's position as pro-Kyoto. For instance, Teresa Heinz Kerry recently boasted that Kerry had attended more Kyoto conferences than any other major politician. Kerry, as usual, wants to have it both ways. He wants to appear pro-Kyoto in public before the camera's, while actually rejecting the treaty as a policy matter. But I digress, this is not to pan Kerry's apparent hypocrisy but to praise his decision to reject Kyoto and to call on him to reject other proposals that would require U.S. companies to unilaterally reduce greenhouse gas emissions."
The Diplomad on the Australian Election
From The Diplomad:
"The Diplomads are dancing with joy! Normally a horrible sight, but forgive us for today is one of great joy! Howard has won!!!!!! Our Diplomad in the Pacific is watching (Aussie) ABC and reports that the media types look positively glum -- grasping and gasping for an explanation of how the hated, stoooopid, ignorant, lying Howard has crushed the opposition and made the pollsters look, well, stoooopid! PM John W. Howard has pulled off one of the great electoral victories of our time and is on his way to becoming the longest serving Australian PM. Congratulations to PM Howard. And heartiest congratulations to the Aussie electorate: they ignored all the nonsense screamed about Howard -- one of the three most vilified men on the planet along with Bush and Blair -- and proved that Australia is not Spain, not Canada, not the EU, it's, it's . . . . Australia! And it doesn't get much better than that."
"The Diplomads are dancing with joy! Normally a horrible sight, but forgive us for today is one of great joy! Howard has won!!!!!! Our Diplomad in the Pacific is watching (Aussie) ABC and reports that the media types look positively glum -- grasping and gasping for an explanation of how the hated, stoooopid, ignorant, lying Howard has crushed the opposition and made the pollsters look, well, stoooopid! PM John W. Howard has pulled off one of the great electoral victories of our time and is on his way to becoming the longest serving Australian PM. Congratulations to PM Howard. And heartiest congratulations to the Aussie electorate: they ignored all the nonsense screamed about Howard -- one of the three most vilified men on the planet along with Bush and Blair -- and proved that Australia is not Spain, not Canada, not the EU, it's, it's . . . . Australia! And it doesn't get much better than that."
Andrew Sullivan on the Debate
From www.AndrewSullivan.com:
"A DRAW: That's my basic take, although the debate was more interesting than that makes it seem. On style, the president was clearly far better than in the first debate. I think he's woken up and realizes he can lose this thing. He was aggressive, clear most of the time, had a good rapport with the audience and, as the debate went on, became more relaxed. There were moments early on, however, when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness. Early cut-away shots weren't helpful either. He tended to look up at Kerry blinking fast, twitching a little, and occasionally smirking and even winking to friends in the audience. Not presidential. He was strongest on stem cell research, where most of his work was done by the questioner. But his clear formulation - 'to destroy life in order to save life is one of the most difficult moral concundrums we face today' - was eloquent and correct. I'm with him on this one. I also found his response to the abortion question better than Kerry's. How you can respect human life and be in favor of partial birth abortion is simply beyind me. Bush is also clearly right that the war on terror cannot be restrained merely to police work against al Qaeda. On all these things, his performance was immeasurably better than last week. "
"A DRAW: That's my basic take, although the debate was more interesting than that makes it seem. On style, the president was clearly far better than in the first debate. I think he's woken up and realizes he can lose this thing. He was aggressive, clear most of the time, had a good rapport with the audience and, as the debate went on, became more relaxed. There were moments early on, however, when he seemed to me to be close to shouting; and his hyper-aggressiveness, having to respond to everything, went at times over the line of persuasiveness. Early cut-away shots weren't helpful either. He tended to look up at Kerry blinking fast, twitching a little, and occasionally smirking and even winking to friends in the audience. Not presidential. He was strongest on stem cell research, where most of his work was done by the questioner. But his clear formulation - 'to destroy life in order to save life is one of the most difficult moral concundrums we face today' - was eloquent and correct. I'm with him on this one. I also found his response to the abortion question better than Kerry's. How you can respect human life and be in favor of partial birth abortion is simply beyind me. Bush is also clearly right that the war on terror cannot be restrained merely to police work against al Qaeda. On all these things, his performance was immeasurably better than last week. "
Roger L. Simon on the Second Presidential Debate
From RogerLSimon.com:
"I thought this was a big win for Bush, but I admit it, I can't stand John Kerry. I find him the most fake candidate of my lifetime. LEt's see how the pundits spin it."
"I thought this was a big win for Bush, but I admit it, I can't stand John Kerry. I find him the most fake candidate of my lifetime. LEt's see how the pundits spin it."
Mark Steyn on the Second Presidential Debate
From SteynOnline:
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: BUSH! (and whoever loaded his percolator)
The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?"
"INSTANT DEBATE REACTION!
WINNER: BUSH! (and whoever loaded his percolator)
The unasked questions: Is there anything you can ask John Kerry that he doesn't have a plan for? Is his plan to have a plan for everything? If you ask him whether he's concerned that something might come up that he doesn't have a plan for, does he have a plan to deal with things he hasn't planned? Has he planned for the possibility that he might misplace one of his plans?"
Friday, October 08, 2004
Victor Davis Hanson on Iraq
From VDH's Private Papers:
"In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.
"The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace."
"In fact, Kerry's only chance for honest intellectual criticism of the Bush administration might have come from the right: stern remonstrations over our tolerance of looting, inability to train Iraqis in real numbers, laxity in shutting off the borders, failure to control arms depots, tolerance for terrorist enclaves in Fallujah, and sloth in releasing aid money to grass-roots organizations. Yet by putting a tired Richard Holbrook or a whining Jamie Rubin on television, Kerry suggests that far from chastising Bush for doing too little, he believes that the president has already done too much.
"The administration's gaffes all share a common theme of restraining our military power in fear of either Middle Eastern or European censure. But once one climbs into a cesspool like Iraq, one must either clean it up or go home, and that means suffering the 48-hour hysteria of the global media about collateral damage in exchange for killing the terrorists and freeing the country. Only that way can we impress the fencesitting Iraqis that we employ an iron fist in service to their own security and prosperity, and thus we — not the beheaders and kidnappers — are their only partners for peace."
Who Is Behind the Taba Bombing?
From Haaretz :
"As in Thursday's attacks in Sinai, the attacks in Bali, Casablanca and Mombasa were characterized by a series of strikes indicating meticulous planning, collection of intelligence and impressive operational ability on the part of the attackers. Another common thread is that the targets were identified with Israel or Jews - the Tunisian synagogue, the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel, the Arkia flight - as well as attacks on synagogues in Istanbul about a year ago. There were extremist Muslim organizations in Egypt that began to carry out such terror attacks even before September 11, 2001 in an effort to destabilize the Egyptian regime. In 1995, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad attacked a Cairo hotel and killed a number of Greek tourists. In 1997, terrorists from the Egyptian 'Jama'a Islamiya,' headed by Rifa'at Taa, slaughtered 69 Western tourists in southern Egypt. He was later counted among those signing a Osama bin Laden's manifest declaring the creation of Al-Qaida and a war against Christians and Jews."
"As in Thursday's attacks in Sinai, the attacks in Bali, Casablanca and Mombasa were characterized by a series of strikes indicating meticulous planning, collection of intelligence and impressive operational ability on the part of the attackers. Another common thread is that the targets were identified with Israel or Jews - the Tunisian synagogue, the Israeli-owned Paradise Hotel, the Arkia flight - as well as attacks on synagogues in Istanbul about a year ago. There were extremist Muslim organizations in Egypt that began to carry out such terror attacks even before September 11, 2001 in an effort to destabilize the Egyptian regime. In 1995, the Egyptian Islamic Jihad attacked a Cairo hotel and killed a number of Greek tourists. In 1997, terrorists from the Egyptian 'Jama'a Islamiya,' headed by Rifa'at Taa, slaughtered 69 Western tourists in southern Egypt. He was later counted among those signing a Osama bin Laden's manifest declaring the creation of Al-Qaida and a war against Christians and Jews."
Who is Elfriede Jelinek?
Here's her biography, from NobelPrize.org:
Elfriede Jelinek was born on 20 October 1946 in the town of Mürzzuschlag in the Austrian province of Styria. Her father, of Czech-Jewish origin, was a chemist and worked in strategically important industrial production during the Second World War, thereby escaping persecution. Her mother was from a prosperous Vienna family, and Elfriede grew up and went to school in that city. At an early age, she was instructed in piano, organ and recorder and went on to study composition at the Vienna Conservatory. After graduating from the Albertsgymnasium in 1964, she studied theatre and art history at the University of Vienna while continuing her music studies. In 1971, she passed the organist diploma examination at the Conservatory.
Elfriede Jelinek began writing poetry while still young. She made her literary debut with the collection Lisas Schatten in 1967. Through contact with the student movement, her writing took a socially critical direction. In 1970 came her satirical novel wir sind lockvögel baby!. In common with her next novel, Michael. Ein Jugendbuch für die Infantilgesellschaft (1972), it had a character of linguistic rebellion, aimed at popular culture and its mendacious presentation of the good life.
After a few years spent in Berlin and Rome in the early 1970s, Jelinek married Gottfried Hüngsberg, and divided her time between Vienna and Munich. She conquered the German literary public with her novels DieLiebhaberinnen (1975; Women as Lovers, 1994), Die Ausgesperrten (1980; Wonderful, Wonderful Times, 1990) and the autobiographically based Die Klavierspielerin (1983; The Piano Teacher, 1988), in 2001 made into an acclaimed film by Michael Haneke. These novels, each within the framework of its own problem complex, present a pitiless world where the reader is confronted with a locked-down regime of violence and submission, hunter and prey. Jelinek demonstrates how the entertainment industry’s clichés seep into people’s consciousness and paralyse opposition to class injustices and gender oppression. In Lust (1989; Lust, 1992), Jelinek lets her social analysis swell to fundamental criticism of civilisation by describing sexual violence against women as the actual template for our culture. This line is maintained, seemingly in a lighter tone, in Gier. Ein Unterhaltungsroman (2000), a study in the cold-blooded practice of male power. With special fervour, Jelinek has castigated Austria, depicting it as a realm of death in her phantasmagorical novel, Die Kinder der Toten (1975). Jelinek is a highly controversial figure in her homeland. Her writing builds on a lengthy Austrian tradition of linguistically sophisticated social criticism, with precursors such as Johann Nepomuk Nestroy, Karl Kraus, Ödön von Horváth, Elias Canetti, Thomas Bernhard and the Wiener Group.
The nature of Jelinek’s texts is often hard to define. They shift between prose and poetry, incantation and hymn, they contain theatrical scenes and filmic sequences. The primacy in her writing has however moved from novel-writing to drama. Her first radio play, wenn die sonne sinkt ist für manche schon büroschluss, was very favourably received in 1974. She has since written a large number of pieces for radio and the theatre, in which she successively abandoned traditional dialogues for a kind of polyphonic monologues that do not serve to delineate roles but to permit voices from various levels of the psyche and history to be heard simultaneously. What she puts on stage in plays from recent years – Totenauberg, Raststätte, Wolken. Heim, Ein Sportstück, In den Alpen, Das Werk and others – are less characters than “language interfaces” confronting each other. Jelinek’s most recent published works for drama, the so-called “princess dramas” (Der Tod und das Mädchen I-V, 2003), are variations on one of the writer’s basic themes, the inability of women to fully come to life in a world where they are painted over with stereotypical images.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
CBS Responds to Criticism of Dan Rather's Forgeries
From BoycottCBS.com:
"Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS -- Black Rock -- headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:
"A check of the computer-generated email headers provided to track abuse confirms that the email was sent from servers at CBS headquarters (170.20.116.206 and 170.20.9.150 , tadata@cbs.com)."
And we thought hate was not a famiy value...
"Addressed to BoycottCBS.com founder Michael Paranzino, the email from the CBS -- Black Rock -- headquarters in New York City was brief and to the point:
PARANZINO..YOU'RE A PUTZ!
GET A LIFE PARANZINO!!!!
"A check of the computer-generated email headers provided to track abuse confirms that the email was sent from servers at CBS headquarters (170.20.116.206 and 170.20.9.150 , tadata@cbs.com)."
And we thought hate was not a famiy value...
Martin Kramer on Dialogue with the Muslim Brotherhood
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."
"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."
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)