My own personal musings, wonderings, thoughts, and results of personal studies. Also, occasional comments on world events.
|
Friday, February 28, 2003
This is not encouraging.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Russell Wardlow describes an anti-war speechfest in his girlfriend's science class. (Hey, it's Berkely. What did you expect them to talk about in a science class? Science?)
There was also an argument that apparently claimed this war would "upset the Iraqi way of life." After all, we wouldn't want to disrupt their proud tradition of having their testicles zapped and their fingernails pulled out, would we?
There was also the notion put forward that it was silly to do this because the UN inspectors haven't even said conclusively that Iraq does indeed have any illegal weapons, which by all indications took its logical basis from the "See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, then hit yourself over the head repeatedly until you can't remember your own name, let alone retain any basis for logical analysis" school of thought.
She said they allowed a question and answer period after their collective spiel had ended. Oh, how I wish these folks would come to my class one of these days.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Red Letter Edition
Matthew 20:20-28 ESV Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, ?What do you want?? She said to him, ?Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.? Jesus answered, ?You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?? They said to him, ?We are able.? He said to them, ?You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.? And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, ?You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.?
(Apparently, I've been more distracted lately than I thought. I just realized that it's been more than 2 week since I did the Red Letter Edition. I shall endeavor to do better.)
There are several interesting things about this passage. The first is that James and John did not make this request themselves. Instead, their mother came to Jesus to ask this favor. Somehow, they thought they could get this incredible benefit, without even having to ask for it themselves. One thing I have often heard my dad tell high school age students is, "You can't get to Heaven on your daddy's coattails." The point being that any position you may have in Heaven is solely the result of your relationship with God. James and John's mother couldn't have gotten this benefit for them even if it had been Christ's to give.
Secondly, Jesus makes it perfectly clear to James and John that getting into his kingdom will be difficult. We sometimes like to think that once we become Christians, that everything should be fine for us in this world. Jesus never promised that. He promised the opposite.
Finally, we should be servants. Jesus came to this earth to die for us. Shouldn't we have the decency to live for Him?
Update - Fixed some horrible grammar.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Jonah Golberg thinks we've had more than enough debate on Iraq.
It is only natural for people on the losing side of an argument to insist that more argument is needed. Whenever I bring my dog Cosmo to the vet, he gives me a look that I could swear says, "Shouldn't we discuss this a bit more?" Losers in the courtroom want one more chance to persuade the judge before the gavel comes down. Only the convicted man is interested in an appeal.
So in this sense, I don't begrudge opponents of war who claim that we haven't had a "full and honest" debate about a war with Iraq. After all, there's every reason to believe that there will be a war no matter what the U.N. or the anti-war folks say. That's the only conclusion of President Bush's long overdue speech outlining his plan for democratizing Iraq. But let's be clear about something: This is quite plausibly the most debated war in human history.
Sure, the Hundred Years War might have a leg up on this one. But keep in mind that the Internet and satellite television didn't exist in the 14th century. Every single day, in nations across the globe, there are debates on television over Iraq. C-Span and radio callers and their equivalents in foreign lands have raised every objection and justification for war. The Web buzzes with blogs, `zines, chat rooms and news sites hashing out every detail for and against war.
Print magazines, newspapers and books have been written, pro and con. The most powerful newspaper in America, The New York Times, has pushed against war, and perhaps the second most powerful paper, The Washington Post, has pushed back. Congressmen have been holding town hall meetings, and universities have assigned their students papers on everything from the Baath Party to the U.N. Security Council. "Crossfire," "Hardball," "Hannity and Colmes" have had everybody on their shows more than once. Any single person interested in the subject has more access to information about Iraq than at any other time in human history.
And this has been going on for a long time -four presidential terms (one elder Bush, two Clinton, one younger Bush). Since Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the United States has debated, in the United Nations and in community centers, what to do about Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
When Hussein ordered the assassination of George H.W. Bush, war was debated. In 1998, President Clinton told Saddam he had "one last chance" to cooperate with inspectors. That was debated. When Saddam failed to comply, we bombed him for days. That was debated. The Democrats crafted a policy of "regime change." That was debated. Sanctions, assassination, exile, deterrence, containment, imperialism: It's all been hashed out a million times.
Indeed, if you think there's not enough information on the subject, either you haven't been paying attention or you didn't win the argument. Neither of these justify more, exhausting, debate.
No, it doesn't. We've debated the war to the point that I can't even get up the energy to care about debating it any more. I've got to agree with Jonah, "Enough already!"
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Should students be able to get out of courses they deem to be "irrelevant" to their life? Thomas Sowell utters a definite NO!
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Hmm. Kill woman's dog. Go to jail. Sue woman and newspaper. Which part of this progression doesn't belong?
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Sorry about that Eugene. More's the pity.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Blogging may be light. I keep loosing my internet connection.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Misha has some thoughts on pilots carrying guns. Um ... I think he's for it. So am I.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 28, 2003
Thursday, February 27, 2003
Hmm. Somebody I know was worried that I wasn't having as much time to blog as I used to. It looks like I did better today.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Joel Fuhrman suggests some prayers for the Iraqi people. He's right. I've been praying for much the same thing.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Susanna Cornett is calling for a "Girlcott." Works for me.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Eugene Volokh examines some issues that would have to be addressed if the 17th Amendment was ever repealed. Fascinating stuff.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Wait a minute, you mean this wouldn't work?
David Adnesnik has this note.
SUPREME IRONY: Reader JS writes in with a very clever way of preventing Iraq from launching Scud attacks on Tel Aviv: Send in the human shields! Surely the anti-war movement can come up with a few volunteers for this mission...
Thanks to JS, I also thought of the following: Why not stop Palestinian suicide bombings by having human shields on every public bus and in every nightclub in Israel? After all, clubbing is almost as much fun as going to protest marches!
Anybody else find this as interesting a point as I do?
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Martin Devon pays tribute to Mr. Rogers.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
I'm finding it desperately hard to read any more of the arguments about going to war with Iraq. All the arguments I've heard against going to war are either incredibly stupid or mind-boggling naive. I have yet to read a comprehensive, intelligent argument against the war, and I now seriously doubt I ever will. Like wise, I find I can no longer read articles in favor of invading Iraq, no matter how well written and how correct they are. I think there is simply very little left to say on the subject.
To that end, I'm finding myself yearning for the war to start just so we don't have to argue about it anymore. I know that's a terrible reason to start the war. We now no we must go. Now that the decision has pretty clearly been made by President Bush and his advisors, the war should start at the time and place that is best from a military perspective; no other factor should influence the decision.
All the same, I keep finding my mind screaming, "Get on with it already!"
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
I can't believe that I forgot that President Bush was making a major policy speech last night! Wow, I really wasn't on my game yesterday. Luckily, NRO has the full text. The stuff on Iraq is very encouraging. The part about Palestinian terrorism was nothing new that I saw. (I must admit that I just scanned that part.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Ann Coulter tears into fence-sitters-for-the-sake-of-fence-sitting and faux fireman lovers. There was one sentence that made me glad I didn't have anything in my mouth. See if you can guess which one.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Alan Reynolds has an article about President Bush's plan to exempt dividends from taxation. For all I know, non-accountants won't find the article interesting, but I did. Reynold's primary concern is all the people trying to milk more money out of this proposal with arguments that make now sense. (Like this surprises anyone.)
Personally, I find the Bush plan to be overly complicated, but I'll support any plan to end corporate double taxation.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
I couldn't make this stuff up in a million years.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Well, this is interesting
How evil are you?
Of course, the author of this quiz also calls Canada both a European country and a weapon, so perhaps you need to take this with a grain of salt.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Well, this made me sad.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Well, this is a new one
MP apologizes for calling Americans 'bastards'
OTTAWA - A Liberal MP has apologized for saying about Americans: "I hate those bastards."
MP Carolyn Parrish was speaking to reporters about Canada's diplomatic initiative on Iraq. At the end of her comments, after most of the cameras were turned off, Parrish said, "Damn Americans … I hate those bastards."
CBC reporter Susan Lunn, who heard Parrish make the comment, said the MP then laughed as she was walking away.
In a written statement issued Wednesday afternoon, Parrish says she made the comments in the heat of the moment in a private conversation. She said they do not reflect her opinion of the American people.
"My comments do not reflect my personal opinion of the American people and they certainly do not reflect the views of the government of Canada," she said in her written statement.
Now I've seen some pretty weird disclaimers, but one stating that your comments don't reflect your own opinions? That's duplicity on the highest order.
For the record, I have no sweeping derogatory remarks to make about Canadians in general. Now, for certain members of their government ...
Update - I forgot to ask: If she wasn't expressing her own opinion, just whose opinion was it?
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 27, 2003
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Sorry about the lack of posting. I got ..... distracted. I'll try to do better.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Gerhard's spine has been found! Of course it's still not in his back ... But I suppose you've got to start somewhere. (Link via His Imperial Royal Highness)
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 26, 2003
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
John Hawkins really tears into some stupid educational ideas.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Larry Miller responds to charges that we're rushing to war.
This is a rush? The World Trade Center was attacked a year and a half ago. As others have observed, eighteen months after Pearl Harbor, American soldiers were in Sicily. (It's a little ironic that the first European spot in WWII we landed our guys was a place where it was more dangerous for them to ask a local girl on a date than to charge a machine gun nest.)
And never mind the first attack on the Twin Towers years before, or the murders at our embassies, or on the Cole, or in Bali, or all the other assorted throat-cuttings. Last summer, to avoid the "rush," everyone insisted President Bush get a resolution from Congress, so he did. Then everyone insisted he stop the mad lust for battle and go to the United Nations, and he did, even though the U.N. couldn't break up a cookie fight at a Brownie meeting. Then everyone pleaded with him to give inspections a chance, and he did. Now Hans Blix is insisting that the inspections are working, when what he really means is that the inspectors are working. (Maybe that's his idea for full employment.)
Some rush.
Yeah. Some rush.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Lions and tigers and 7 foot alligators, OH MY! (Where does he find these people?)
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Yeah, this was pretty much my thoughts on the subject.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
This may be the best plan for dealing with Saddam that I've heard yet.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Tacitus explains that just because he's a conservative, doesn't mean President Bush has his unwavering loyalty. My reasons aren't exactly the same as his, and I wouldn't go so far as to call the President, "the best of a series of bad choices." However, I would agree with this statement, in principle:
So do the pros outweigh the cons? Depends on the alternative, doesn't it? If the Democrats ever toss up a pro-war fiscal conservative who isn't afraid to take on the long-term structural problems of the tottering welfare state, yeah, he'll probably get my vote.
But what are the chances of that happening?
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Can you say material breach?
CBS: Saddam: we will not destroy al-Somoud Missiles
The Iraqi President Saddam Hussein announced yesterday in an interview with CBS news that he does not intend to destroy al- Somoud missiles, as asked to do by the UN chief weapons inspector.
The UN chief weapons inspector claims that these missiles exceed the limited allowed range of 90 minles [sic] that they can reach by some 20 miles according to some reports.
CBS said that Saddam Hussein denied these missile to have had constituted a violation of the UN resolutions concerning Iraq, and that he does not intend to destroy them nor to vow to do so as requested by chief UN inspector Hans Blix.
Last Friday, Blix sent a message to Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saad'di, the advisor of the Iraqi President asking him for the Iraqi government to start destruction of missile al-Somoud 2 before next Saturday under the supervision of the UN inspectors.
I knew you could.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
I suppose I really shouldn't laugh at this, but I couldn't help myself.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Monday, February 24, 2003
Okay, so maybe the resolution has more teeth than I thought.
Seeking U.N. approval for war against Iraq, the United States, Britain and Spain submitted a resolution to the Security Council declaring that Saddam Hussein has missed "the final opportunity" to disarm peacefully and indicating he must now face the consequences.
But could someone explain this?
In an interview with CBS anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein challenged President Bush to an internationally televised debate ...
What would the point of a debate like this be? Debates are intended to encourage a free flow of ideas. I can't think of any ideas at issue here. The issue is whether or not Saddam has violated Security Council resolutions. Saddam is a known liar. What would be the point?
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 24, 2003
This is your last-last-last chance. (And we really, really mean it this time!)
Would someone tell me what the wording of this resolution does that 1441 didn't?
Update - Someone (but due to the Blogger bug, I can't tell who) has a more detailed look at this.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 24, 2003
Sunday, February 23, 2003
You know, sometimes reality is more bizarre than satire.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 23, 2003
Does George Clooney have to try to be this mind-boggling stupid, or does it come naturally?
"I believe he thinks this is a war that can be won, but there is no such thing anymore," said Clooney, who starred in a film about the 1991 Gulf War "Three Kings" that took a dark look at the war to drive Iraq out of Kuwait.
Insert your own jokes here. I'm too disgusted to mess with it right now. I will note that the writer mentions his roll in "Three Kings" as if that gives him authority to speak on war. Sheesh!
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 23, 2003
HMM. I just had a Canadian tell me she, "Pleads the Fifth." Do Canadians in Canada get to do that?
Update - Ooops. This post got me in trouble.
Another update - I've now been informed that I was not in trouble. I'll have to work on figuring that out.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 23, 2003
Hmm. We have lots of snow here today. The kids are having fun playing. Other than that, I'm having trouble getting worked up about anything today.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 23, 2003
Saturday, February 22, 2003
When I saw this headline I nearly blew a gasket
Carter: U.S. Mideast Policy to Blame for Anti-Americanism
Thus says the world's foremost authority on screwing up mideast foreign policy.
posted by jeffrey at Saturday, February 22, 2003
Friday, February 21, 2003
Somebody's not happy with the Norwegian press.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Ha, ha, ha,ha.
Here are couple of recent searches that brought people to this site.
"streisand the traitor" Hmm. Nope, I never said that, but now that you bring it up ...
"citizens against pundit celebrities opposing war" I actually come up 2nd on MSN for that one. That's strange actually, since I am not against celebrities expressing their views on the war, even if their views differ from mine. I'm just against them being both sanctimonious and stupid while expressing said views.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Now, this is funny.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Yes, let's make sure we do just that.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Now here's an anti-terrorism plan that might work.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Is the State Department trying to raise my blood pressure, or this kind of idiocy just come naturally? On second thought, don't answer that.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
The National Review editors have published a piece arguing that war in Iraq is not just morally permissible, but, in fact, morally necessary.
Under the traditional doctrines, a war to overthrow the Iraqi regime is amply justified. The cause of preventing nuclear devastation or its threat is just. War has been authorized by the U.S. Congress and will be, prospectively, by the president. Their best determination is that a war would be very likely to succeed and would be likely to bring more good than ill. No targeting of civilians is contemplated. Alternatives have been tried, and have failed, for a dozen years.
It is sometimes thought that the just-war tradition begins with a "presumption against violence." It does not. As Weigel writes, it actually "begins with the presumption — better, the moral judgment — that rightly constituted public authority is under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom it has assumed responsibility." When war is morally permissible, as it is here, it is also morally obligatory.
They're right.
Update - Donald Kagan makes a similar point, but using an entirely different approach.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Hey, somebody bought off my ad! I'm now ad free! Thanks Wylie.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Two out of three of the blogs I've already read this morning have reminded me that it was one year ago today that Danny Pearl was murdered. On the tape, the Islamists are shown forcing him to "confess" to being a Jew and an American. For some reason there are people out there who don't understand why we Americans can't "get over" 9/11. Well, here's one of the reasons why. The Islamists thugs keep giving us fresh examples on a regular basis that they consider the mere fact that someone was born a Jew, born in America, or for that matter, happened to have visited America to be crimes punishable by death. There's that, and there's the fact that not only do they say that we ought to die, but they keep trying to kill us.
Some people are scared of "American power,", but they fail to understand something vital. Americans don't want to be a world power. We are frankly to selfish to spend much time thinking about how we'd rule the world. Most of us don't have time for that. We're to busy e-mailing each other stupid jokes, watching "reality shows", and buying lots of cool stuff to be very much worried about what goes on in the rest of the world.
To be honest, the only reason American foreign policy has become so belligerent as of late is because the Islamists finally managed to get our attention long enough for us to realize that we aren't safe to day trade and go to football games until we get rid of them. In Alan Jackson's song, "Where were you when the world stopped turning" he has a line that says, "I'm not a real political man. I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you the difference 'tween Iraq and Iran." That probably describes at least 40% of our country. The Islamists call us the Great Satan and think of us as our mortal enemies. What they failed to realize is that prior to 9/11 the average American didn't think of him as their enemy. In fact, the average American didn't think about him at all. For that matter, most of us were only dimly aware of his existence.
Now, we can't help but be aware of the existence of these thugs. All that killing and screaming makes them real hard to ignore. (Not that we didn't try for 10 years or so.) They've finally managed to awake the dragon and make him really mad. However, all he really wants to do is get this nonsense over with as soon as possible so he can go catch another nap.
For all those in foreign countries that are worried about American dominance and American power, let me give you some advice. If you want to keep America from becoming even stronger militarily, there's a real simple solution. All you have to do is go take care of all those Islamist thugs who want to kill us and the fascists thugs trying to build nukes to kill us with. The only reason we're awake at all is that the robber broke into our home and started killing some of us. If you'd get rid of him for us, then we could go back to sleep. We've only had about sixty years of sleep since the last time something like this happened to us and it really wasn't enough. We'd like to curl up with a good book for a few minutes and then go back to sleep for another 50 years or so. I've got to warn you though, the longer we have to stay awake and deal with this problem ourselves, the crankier we're going to get.
See also: Confessions Of An Isolationist Wannabe by John Hawkins
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
We're still negotiating with Turkey about stationing troops there in preparation for the war. Forbes has this report from the Reuters "news service". (Motto, is it news, or is it propaganda. You decide.)
Turkey has said the United States must satisfy its political, economic and military concerns before a deal is struck.
Let's see, political means, "Don't let anything bad happen that will cause my coalition to collapse. Economic means, "Give us money." Military means, well, just see political above.
Actually, I'm even more cynical than that. As this article notes, these negotiations have been going on for weeks, yet its only within the last few days that we've started hearing much about it publicly. I have two mutually exclusive theories on this. The first is that the Turks have started talking loudly in order to turn up the pressure and the U.S. in effort to get more concessions out of our government. The other is that agreement has already been reached and now we're just seeing a smokescreen in order to throw Saddam off as to our timetable. I have no idea which is true.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
I'll just note that he didn't promise to have enough ideas to win in '04. Not that I'm complaining.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 21, 2003
Thursday, February 20, 2003
Hehehe. Apparently the French just can't take a joke. Hey, it could have been worse. The Sun could have called him a weasel. Oh wait, that's been done.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Yes! It looks like we'll probably see at least two more Spider-man movies. Sam Raimi has now chosen an actor to play Dr. Octopus. Since they already set up Harry Osborne to become the second Green Goblin at the end of the first movie, this is a pretty clear indication that Spider-man 2 won't be the last.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
I forgot to mention this yesterday. I did see evidence yesterday that not all Democrats are idiots. (Intellectually, I know that, but sometimes its very hard to remember, given all the inanity that party seems to attract. Anyway, yesterday I saw an old pickup. It looked like it probably belonged to a farmer. On the back of truck, I saw two things. One was a Democratic party sticker. The other was a large hand-painted sign that the owner had affixed to the vehicle. The sign read, "Don't Smoke Camels. Smoke Saddam." That wasn't the high point of my day, but it sure made me feel good.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Juan Gato has something to say about stupid arguments:
The Post-Dispatch, among its other arguments, uses one of my least favorite arguments against action against Saddam.
Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people, but we didn't lift a finger in protest at the time.
This is usually paired with its Wonder Twin of a pail of water, I mean "We supported Saddam in the 80s." Useless argument. As I've said before, this is like saying that since the Democratic Party once supported slavery and Jim Crow laws, that party would then be precluded from ever supporting any civil rights action. Just think. By this logic if you'd worn a leisure suit in the 70s, you are hereby not allowed to wear anything else. Girls who teased your bangs to the bejeezus in the 80s, well, better get the industrial hairspray back out. If something is right, past action or inaction or hypocrisy should never prevent it being done. Otherwise progress is impossible.
The sad thing isn't that this has to be said. The sad thing is that we have to keep saying it over and over (and over and, you get the idea). For some reason, this inanity just won't go away. (Kind of like Jimmy Carter.)
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Maybe Bjørn Stærk won't say amen, but I will.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Eugene Volokh has put forth an argument that Congress is not only permitted by the Constitution, but in some circumstances, may even be required, to mandate compulsory smallpox vaccinations. I find the thought seriously distasteful, but I don't, off-hand, find any serious flaws with his logic. I must grudgingly agree that he's right.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Emperor Misha said that this was worthy of dissemination. He's right. Watch. Learn.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Well, doesn't this headline speak volumes?
Some on Security Council Want to Avoid Taking Sides on Iraq
Yes, it seems that Mexico, Chile and a few other gutless governments are upset that they are being asked to take sides between the U.S. and Britain on one side and Iraq on the other. Sheesh, grow a spine, will you? Besides, don't you realize that in a situation like this, if you refuse to pick sides pro-actively, you end up choosing sides by default? Not only that, the side you end up on doesn't say that much about your moral compass.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
This could have gotten out of hand in a hurry.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
It's about time.
TAMPA, Fla. — A University of South Florida professor previously accused of having terrorist ties was arrested early Thursday by federal agents.
Television reports showed Sami Al-Arian being led in handcuffs by authorities to the federal courthouse in Tampa after the arrest. His indictment is sealed until a court hearing scheduled for Thursday afternoon, a federal source said on condition on anonymity.
"It's all about politics," Al-Arian told reporters as agents led him inside.
Of course it is, it's just that his political allies demonstrate their political opinions with bombs. And if what I've been hearing the last few months is true, they do so with his financial support. I'm glad to know that the FBI can spot a terrorist occasionally. (As long as he's not walking into an airport with a gun and opening fire on the El Al ticket counter.)
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Mark Byron points out that people in traditionally Christian countries have become, at best, luke-warm. Then he offers this advice, "If people won't praise him, the rocks will cry out. Don't let the rocks out praise you."
Marks' got a good point. He also points out that people in Africa and South America are becoming more receptive to God's word while those in North America and Europe have become less so. On that subject, I have heard missions to Africa being touted on the basis that America is slipping away from the gospel so fast, that your grandchildren may need missionaries sent to them for them to have a chance to learn the gospel. If we support the churches in Africa now, they'll be in a position to send missionaries back here in time to save our grandchildren. It is an ugly truth. Nevertheless, I'm afraid that it is just that, the truth.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
This post will only make sense to one person. The rest of you feel free to skip it.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Somewhow, I think they might have trouble getting anyone to bid on "poop bear".
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 20, 2003
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Red Letter Edition
Matthew 20:29-34 ESV And as they went out of Jericho, a great crowd followed him. And behold, there were two blind men sitting by the roadside, and when they heard that Jesus was passing by, they cried out, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” The crowd rebuked them, telling them to be silent, but they cried out all the more, “Lord, have mercy on us, Son of David!” And stopping, Jesus called them and said, “What do you want me to do for you?” They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.” And Jesus in pity touched their eyes, and immediately they recovered their sight and followed him.
I am struck by the directness and unambiguous nature of these men's faith. They expressed no doubt that Jesus could heal them. They also showed no presumption that they deserved to be healed. There's was a simply appeal, "Have mercy on us." I wish I had that kind of faith and humility.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Proof that large sections of the Democratic Party have simply lost their minds
Terrence Jeffrey reports that six Democratic Congress-critters, led by John Conyers, are attempting to sue President Bush and get an injunction against war with Iraq. Included in this band of misfits are Jesse Jackson Jr. (insanity runs in the family), Sheila Jacskon Lee (according to some reports, she seems to think she's the Queen of D.C.), and Dennis Kucinich (This one's actually running for President. Hey, we couldn't ask for anything better than him and Carol Mosley Braun sharing a ticket. Can you say Bush by 40 points?)
How do people like this get elected? It's days like this that I despair for the country.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Jackie Mason and Raoul Felder are pretty critical of the "peace" rally.
The masses of people on First Avenue were as diverse a group as imaginable. Some held up signs advocating the legalization of marijuana, some were still protesting against the Vietnam War, a few demonstrating against cruelty to animals. None were there to protest against a regime that tortures its citizens, gang rapes women while their families are made to watch, and has used chemicals and poison gas against its neighbors and its own citizens.
None of this was mentioned by the speakers, none of this seemed to disturb the ardor of the crowd: pop-eyed, screaming, flagellating themselves into euphoric frenzy -- a mindless lynch mob with no one to lynch -- least of all the real villains. And no one to ask the question, "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
Clearly, if this were Iraq, and people in that country rallied in public against the government's policies, it would be a one-way ticket for them to the torture chambers and then execution. Why do these First Avenue demonstrators have the arrogance to believe that they should be entitled to any more rights than an oppressed Iraqi citizen? Edmund Burke observed that "All that is necessary for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing." In an interconnected world, evil somewhere is evil everywhere. This bunch should ruminate on the thought that if we do nothing, there could come a time when there may be nobody left to demonstrate on First Avenue -- or there may not even be a First Avenue.
Well, said. There's more to this article. It includes comparisons to 1938 and the obligatory mockery of the French.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
I bet PETA is about to lay an egg
Apparently the US milatary is preparing to use chickens as an early warning for chemical weapons in Iraq.
The chickens, which were otherwise destined for Kuwaiti dinner tables, will work in the same way as canaries in coal mines used to. Small traces of poisonous gases or chemical agent will kill the birds and warn troops to put on their gas masks. "A sky full of oil can mask some chemicals," says Warrant Officer Jeff French, a nuclear, biological and chemical officer for a marine battalion in Kuwait. "Using chickens may sound basic but it's still one of the best ways we have of detecting chemical agent."
Dubbed Operation Kuwaiti Field Chicken (KFC), the use of chickens is sure to enrage animal activists. But chickens were used to detect for chemicals during the first Gulf War and, says French, consider that the alternative may be dozens of dead troops. Consider too that marines and soldiers will face nerve-racking moments with or without chickens. U.S. troops in Kuwait have been training to fight and live in their protective suits but at some point after a chemical attack they will have to take them off.
KFC. If anybody ever says the U.S. army doesn't have a sense of humor, make them read this story.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Why is it that the guys with lots of information are frequently so depressing?
Mansoor Ijaz thinks Osama bin Laden is alive, for now. He also thinks Osama's running scared and preparing to go out with a bang. I mean a really big bang. Think nuclear.
In a worst case scenario, al Qaeda could construct a crude but effective nuclear device in weeks, if not a month, from Hezbollah C4, North Korean plutonium, and a little nuclear expertise from disaffected Pakistani scientists. Making a "dirty" radiological dispersion device with Strontium or Cesium also remains an option, although it is clear that al Qaeda has the intent and resources to go for weapons that cause maximum collateral damage.
Add to this troubling possibility the fact that the terror group has resorted to the use of seafaring vessels to move its people around, and now has a fleet large and diverse enough that one or two could seamlessly move into a large harbor or congested waterway undetected, and a picture emerges of an unparalleled potential threat to the global economy from the paralysis that could be caused by a crude plutonium bomb exploding in the belly of an al Qaeda ship with bin Laden onboard.
Now that's a cheerful thought, isn't it? He's got some thoughts about potential targets as well.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Mounir el Motassadeq was convicted by a German court of 3,066 counts of conspiracy to commit murder and 5 counts of conspiracy to commit attempted murder in connection to the 9/11 attacks. He received the maximum sentence allowed by German law: 15 years. Huh? Isn't there something wrong with a legal system that can only give a 15 year sentence to a man found to be responsible for over 3,000 deaths?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Is it too late for me to third this?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Sheesh, I'd forgotten all about the quagmire in Panama. Hint: That was satire.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Well, maybe the French don't think there's anything they can do about this, so howsabout the US just take care of this little problem as well. I mean, since we're going to be in the neighborhood anyway.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Steve Den Beste has a (surprise!) lengthy and very interesting essay on Chirac's public meltdown.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien (or is that Cretin) explains that "solo", "unilateral", and "alone" are all synonyms for "without UN approval."
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
John Hawkins has a hilarious explanation of why it's not so great to have Jimmy Carter on your side.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Philip Murphy has some interesting thoughts about the difference between America and Europe.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Mark Byron thinks $25 million dollars would be getting off cheap if it could get rid of Governor Grey-out.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Somedays I swear the anti-war movement is populated by people that are an awful lot like Pig.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
As if the Nobel Peace Prize wasn't already a joke, they've now nominated Bono. When we withdraw from the UN, can we get rid of these guys too?
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
I just noticed that Susanna has a new logo, "Fighting for peace - standing against appeasement". Pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Alan Cornett has some things to say about Europe, religion and war. I've got to say Amen to his final statement.
That said, a solid religious faith ought to inform our rulers. I want a President who prays and acknowledges God, whether I always agree with his politics or not.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Bryan Preston expresses his gratitude to France. (Yes, that France.)
With the world seemingly headed to war, and with millions marching against that war around the globe, all the news that streams in from all parts seems bad. The North Koreans celebrated dictator Kim Jong Il’s birthday by hating the US, and promising themselves a victory should nuclear war result from Pyongyang’s own lawbreaking. Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden or one of his voice impersonators issued a new tape again, this time promising that his terrorist group’s “victory” in Afghanistan (a victory seen in their rearview mirrors, for some odd reason) was the beginning of the end of the US.
But all is not lost, even with the gigantic anti-war protests of the weekend. We Americans, especially we Americans who lean to the right politically, owe a huge debt of gratitude to one nation which has provided so much clarity to these confusing times. So all together now, folks—thank you very much, France.
Yes, you read that right. Thank you very much, France. You have taken a clouded world and made the view as bright as a spring day.
In your recent actions, France, you have vindicated a viewpoint that was once, as in last week, considered little more than a fringe idea. You have single-handedly shown that the United Nations is every bit as useless, feckless, amoral and corrupt as many of us have long suspected. You have proven that the UN isn’t about keeping international order, and hasn’t been for some time. You have proven its true purpose, which is to rein in the one country without which the UN will be irrelevant, the one country that has ever had the power but lacks the sinister purpose to conquer the entire world, and to reward that country’s generosity and goodwill with a big, multilateral finger in the eye. So thank you.
You’ve done it so openly, and in retrospect so obviously, that it’s a wonder we never saw it coming. Late last year you made a big show of voting yes to UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the 17th UN resolution aimed at disarming the rogue state Iraq, and this resolution seemed to have “we really mean it this time” attached. But now it’s obvious that you didn’t really mean it, since Iraq has continued to flout 1441 and the other 16 resolutions, and you’re still not ready for the enforcement that surely must come. In so doing, you’ve proven that the UN is a parliament of insincere blowhards. Given some of the UN’s other recent actions, that’s a good thing.
There is, as we bloggers like to say, more. Much more.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Jason Steffens points out that there's a big difference between judging and pre-judging.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Tim Blair isn't impressed by anti-war demonstrations.
HAVING HAD a couple of days to consider the implications of the massive worldwide street protests and the apparent resurgence of the international Left, here is my response:
So?
They were only marches. Marching is all the Left has, well, left. They've abandoned argument for low-impact aerobics. Oh, they have slogans too; trouble is, two plus two doesn't equal five, no matter how many people turn up at a park to tell you so.
The high turnouts didn't surprise me much. It isn't as if the Left hasn't had years of practice organising the old shout 'n' stomp. Forming gangs is their thing. So is the idea that weak arguments can be improved by yelling them loudly while walking about. I've experimented with this at home:
Weak argument: "Two-month-old milk is OK to drink."
Result: "BLEEEURGH!"
Weak argument shouted over and over while marching in circles in my living room: "What do we want? Foul, curdled, rotten milk! When do we want it? NOW!"
Result: "Gak! BLUUUURG! Ewww!"
[...}
Dumb ideas die. And the ideas of many on the weekend's marches were so dumb as to be instantly self-extinguishing. That's why the marches will prove not to be a sign of gathering momentum, but a high point. That was the best they've got. From here on, the Left will slide. More sour milk, anyone?
Personally, I find it interesting that most of the people who are so enamored by the numbers at "peace" marches find it of no significance that more than 400,000 people showed up in London last September to protest a possible ban on Fox hunting. I mean, seriously, what will the radical anti-war demonstrators do if you don't listen to them? Protest some more? What will those hunting enthusiasts do if they think you're threatening their lifestyle? Well, I don't know for sure, but I will point out that the latter have guns.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 18, 2003
Monday, February 17, 2003
Well, this could be interesting. HEHEHE!
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 17, 2003
Everybody, I'm sorry for the lack of posting the last few days. My medication has been acting up and giving me fits with headaches. Also, real life has been interfering with the blogging. I'm going to try to get back in the groove, but tax season is upon me, so I may not be posting as much as normal.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 17, 2003
Friday, February 14, 2003
Charlotte, if you're reading this, I just want to say, "You are not crazy." Just another part of trying to keep you sane.
For all of you who aren't Charlotte, just skip past this one.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 14, 2003
What color is the sky in the world where this guy lives?
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 14, 2003
Saddam bans WMD's. Whooh! I feel safe now.
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 14, 2003
I don't usually bother linking to something that the InstaGuy has already posted out, but it's been a long time since I laughed this hard. (Note, this is definitely a link you should not follow until your mouth if clear of food and beverage.)
posted by jeffrey at Friday, February 14, 2003
Thursday, February 13, 2003
I apolgize for the lack of posting today. Just haven't had much time and probably won't have tonight either. I may or may not have some stuff later.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 13, 2003
While not at all condoning their methods, I must admit to being in awe of Enron's internal and external accountants. It seems that while making up imaginary income to report on their financial statements, they were simultaneously able to hide all the real income from the IRS. If you're not an accountant, you may not understand how hard it is to accomplish both at the same time. Trust me, it ain't easy.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 13, 2003
Six Iraqis were detained in Mexico. They falsely claimed to be German citizens and Mexican immigration officials believe they were trying to enter the U.S. This may not mean anything; it may be that they're just six people trying desperately to get to the U.S. for personal reasons. If so, they picked a really stupid time to try a stunt like this.
posted by jeffrey at Thursday, February 13, 2003
Wednesday, February 12, 2003
What can you say about things like this?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Maybe he should change the name to "Eli Blog". Not that I'm complaining. That's one cute kid. Hopefully he grows up to be as much of an Anti-Idiotarian as his father.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Psalm 66:16-20 ESV
Come and hear, all you who fear God,
and I will tell what he has done for my soul.
I cried to him with my mouth,
and high praise was on [1] my tongue.
If I had cherished iniquity in my heart,
the Lord would not have listened.
But truly God has listened;
he has attended to the voice of my prayer.
Blessed be God,
because he has not rejected my prayer
or removed his steadfast love from me!
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Red Letter Edition
Matthew 20:20-28 ESV Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” And when the ten heard it, they were indignant at the two brothers. But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave, even as the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
It is natural for humans to want to be in positions of honor and respect. That's what motivated the request by the sons and wife of Zebedee. I suspect that part of what motivated the anger by many of the other disciples is the fact that they didn't think of it first, or the possibility that Jesus might grant their request, leaving them to lesser places.
Jesus's reply shows us that such aspirations will gain us nothing in God's Eternal Kingdom. Christ came to earth to serve and to sacrifice. Only by doing the same can we gain a position of honor in His kingdom.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Martin Devon takes a look at the Democratic Presidential hopefuls.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
You know, when you look at it all at one time, it kinda looks like something's about to happen, don't it?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Cato sounds off on the Axis of Weasels and the UN:
If the UN refuses to act decisively against Saddam it will have chosen the same coward's path that destroyed the League of Nations. The difference between now and the 1930s is that the United States, Britain and a small group of courageous nations is willing to step into the breach and end the threat to civilization that Saddam poses. Unlike the French and Germans, we have learned that the best cure for an aggressive tyrant is a JDAM through his bedroom window.
And if that doesn't work, I'm sure we can find some other equipment to finish the job.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Look, I hate tele-marketers too, but would someone please tell me how this fits into Congress's delegated authority?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Required Reading
Larry Miller has a must-read column about his son's sleepover and so very much more.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Hugh Hewitt thinks that Gray Davis and Barbara Boxer may be just what President Bush needs to win the state in '04.
California is a center-left state, and a fickle state, but it is not a stupid state. Boxer won with a dirty-tricks campaign in 1992, and got help from the anti-anti-Clinton bounce in 1998. Her votes on national defense are, to put it mildly, out of step with the times. Her repeated references to "my people" are as irritating to her friends as they are maddening to her foes. Boxer has little appeal to the black and Latino machines of Los Angeles, and no hard-core followers outside of her San Francisco roots. The state's GOP is a complete mess, of course, but Boxer is the one candidate guaranteed to bind up every wound and dissolve every old grudge.
There is no front-runner from among a half dozen potential GOP standard bearers, and there has been no attempt (yet) to clear the field for a Bush favorite. But the GOP race will arrange itself in fairly quick order, and an early primary will allow whoever gets the nomination plenty of time to reorganize a campaign against the Senate's looniest liberal. With enough money, Boxer's record presents a target that cannot be missed, and every score will help Bush pile up votes as well.
A pathetic and despised governor. A collapsing economy run exclusively by Democrats. An extremist senator with an ambivalent base and a tissue-soft record on national security and defense, and an opposition party that can agree on nothing except its disdain for her. That's an interesting mix.
Yes, it is. All in all though, I'm not convinced. It's and encouraging thought, though.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Josh Chafetz is calling Gary Hart on a really despicable statement.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
And there's more where this came from
Some U.S. lawmakers want to ban French water, wine and move troops from Germany
WASHINGTON - Some members of Congress are suggesting the United States impose trade sanctions on France and withdraw U.S. troops from Germany to retaliate for opposition to U.S. policies on Iraq, the Washington Post reported Wednesday.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert has told associates he would like to target bottled French mineral water and wine, the paper said.
"France and Germany are losing credibility by the day and they are, I think, losing status in the world," the Post quoted House Majority Leader Tom DeLay as saying. "They are walking a fine line that is very dangerous."
Hastert has instructed Republican colleagues to determine whether Congress should pass laws that would new impose health standards on bottles of Evian and other French waters, the paper said.
According to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, a U.S. research firm France is the leading exporter of water to the United States and sold 65 million gallons (147 million liters) in 2001.
The Post said the speaker also is exploring whether the United States should require "bright orange warning labels" on French wines that are clarified with bovine blood.
"People should know how the French make their wine, " the Post quoted Hastert spokesman John Feehery as saying.
And this is just what Congress wants to do. Then there's the whole matter of the growing grassroots boycott against French and German products. I wonder if the French and German governments will still be so high and mighty when the pocketbooks of their constituents start suffering?
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
U.N inspectors are preparing to report the discovery of a missle system in Iraq that falls outside the limits Security Council resolutions. Can you say "material breach"? Good, I knew you could.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Please, somebody fisk this idiocy. I din't have time now. I've got to go to work.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Hey, apparently DU is desperate for donations. Somebody help them out here. If they went away, how would I get my fix of laughing at idiots?
Besides, you might even get a gold star! Wouldn't that be cool! (Snicker, snicker.)
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Sheesh. Having the Emperor designate a fisking "Required Reading" does wonders for traffic.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Sean Penn is crying.
posted by jeffrey at Wednesday, February 12, 2003
Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Martin Roth describes his disappointment at one of his favorite religious papers.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
John Hawkins analogizes. Democrats and toilet paper are involved.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
I don't usually link to things that the Instapundit has already linked to, but everyone should read this story about two very brave men.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Red Letter Edition
Matthew 20:17-19 ESV And as Jesus was going up to Jerusalem, he took the twelve disciples aside, and on the way he said to them, “See, we are going up to Jerusalem. And the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and scribes, and they will condemn him to death and deliver him over to the Gentiles to be mocked and flogged and crucified, and he will be raised on the third day.”
Jesus repeatedly told the apostles that he was going to die. Part of the reason He did this is because it didn't sink in with them very well, and when they did understand Him, the didn't want to believe Him.
Regardless of the apostles ideas though, Jesus never lost sight of the fact that He came to earth to sacrifice Himself for our sins and to be resurrected to prove His identity. I will be eternally grateful of that fact.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
I've got to agree with Jason on this one.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
John Hawkins thinks everyone should read this article in the Sun blasting certain world leaders for their stances on Iraq. I think he's right
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
A Fisking We Will Go, A Fisking We Will Go, Heigh, Ho, the Dairy-O, A Fisking We Will Go
Laura Billings thinks celebrities views aren't being given proper consideration.
LAURA BILLINGS: Stars' views shouldn't be so easily written off
This is a stellar accomplishment; she has managed to identify her column as being worthy of a fisking and I haven't even gotten past the title yet.
Jessica Lange is against it. So is Susan Sarandon.
Bonnie Raitt's not in favor of bombing Baghdad. Neither are Michael Stipe, Madonna and Martin Sheen, who plays a president on television but thinks the real one is a "moron.''
Um, yeah. They're bloviating has made that abundantly clear. I can't wait to see you try to tell me why I should care.
When it comes to the impending war on Iraq, a phalanx of famous faces is speaking out against it. Which means that everything they say is being blasted by pro-war pundits, who believe celebrities should confine their opinions to the Zone diet and stay out of demilitarized zones.
Yes, it's true. There are some people who make the "argument" that celebrities have no right to speak out about politics. For most of us though, our problem is not that they speak; our problem is that they act as if the sheer fact of their celebrity status makes their opinions on world events more valid then anyone else. It doesn't. Celebrities don't have any less right to speak and be heard than anyone else, but they don't have any more right either. What bothers us is the sheer arrogance with which most celebrities speak about politics. That, and the sheer stupidity of what they usually end up saying.
Take for instance the shellacking that singer Sheryl Crow recently got after appearing at the American Music Awards in a T-shirt sequined with the message "War is not the answer.'' As she told reporters, "I think war is based in greed and there are huge karmic retributions that will follow. I think war is never the answer to solving any problems. The best way to solve problems is to not have enemies."
Yes, take the shellacking, please. You'll find it more intelligent and fun than reading this essay.
For those of you who are still here, or have returned from perusing all the amusing things people had to say about Ms. Crow, let's continue.
Though Jesus Christ, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. all expressed similar thoughts
OK, I've got two things to say about this. The first is that I find it highly offensive to group the Son of God with two men in this context. It implies that His teachings are no more important than theirs. That is simply not true.
Next, I missed the part where Jesus told us not to have enemies. Let's see,
He said to love your enemies. Not really the same thing though. In fact that statement presupposes that you will have enemies.
He said that he came to bring a sword, not peace and your enemies will be the members of your own family. I'm pretty sure that's not the passage she had in mind.
He also said to love your enemies and do good for evil men. Again, not really what Ms. Crow said, although I can see anti-war types at least trying to make a case here. It should be noted that the costs Jesus mentions here were all personal in nature. He did not say that we were to stand by and let evil men go about their plans when the cost was to others, not ourselves.
In the parable of the vineyard, the landowner (who represented God), ordered his enemies slain. I'm still coming up dry.
Sorry Ms. Billings, but if Christ said anything remotely like what Ms. Crow said, I can't find it. (I'm real sure he never said anything about "huge karmic retributions.")
they didn't have the misfortune of living in a world with FOX News.
Is that really a misfortune? Only if you say stupid things.
Conservative critics were worse to her than music critics
That is, in part, because political critics don't rely on Ms. Crow's good will to get access to her for interviews. Music critics often do rely on the good will of the stars.
The much larger reason she was "shellacked" is that what she said was STUPID! The idea that all a country has to do to avoid having problems is, "to not have enemies," reflects a level of ignorance and naivete that is truly astounding. To begin with, it assumes that nations have a choice about whether or not they have enemies. They do not. Furthermore, the assumption that the motivation behind all war is greed ignores the fact that America has participated in wars in which it defeated its opponents, gave them their land back, and then spent billions rebuilding its allies and its enemies. But enough about this. I'm not fisking her. I already did that. I'm fisking you now.
referring to her as a "noted geopolitical strategist"
Wait a second here. She tries to act like a geopolitical strategist and we get blasted for calling her one?
who "probably thinks Saddam Hussein is a New York City cabdriver.''
That's pretty funny. Probably over the top, but pretty funny.
You know what the real problem I have with this quote is? I can't find it anywhere on the internet. Have you ever heard of referencing your sources? Sheesh!
It's true, she might not have been especially eloquent on the subject, but neither is our own president.
Oh, here it comes. The obligatory broadsides at the intelligence of the President. Let me say it one more time: The problem with Crow's comments was not the lack of eloquence, it was the lack of intelligence
Just a few days after the Crow flap, Bush was quoted saying the United States had to go to war against Iraq because of Saddam Hussein's "willingness to terrorize himself.'' It's a safe bet no one on FOX News made fun of him.
You know, this isn't the first time I've seen someone make fun of this statement. The thing is, though, that everyone knew exactly what he meant. No one questions the fact that Hussein has used terror to enforce his will, both at home and abroad. You may think that he was not well-spoken, but the accuracy of what he said has not been challenged. It was factually true. Crow's statement was stupid! (See above.)
Sean Penn, who seems to have replaced Barbra Streisand as the most hated liberal on talk radio, was in for worse ridicule after the actor placed an anti-war ad in the Washington Post in October.
Nope, trust me, Streisand is still mocked far more than Penn. Penn has said a lot of stupid things, but he's just playing AA ball in the stupidity league. Streisand is in the hall of fame.
"Bombing answered by bombing, mutilation by mutilation, killing by killing, is a pattern that only a great country like ours can stop,'' Penn wrote in an open letter to the president.
You know why he was mocked for this? It was just cutesy words. It doesn't mean anything! Penn has no plan to deal with the complex problem; he thinks we can solve the problem of murderous dictators by just doing nothing. That's stupid and ignorant.
He followed up in December with a trip to Baghdad, an attempt to educate himself about the real causes and consequences of a war in that region.
Yeah, "an attempt to educate himself." That's a good one. He attempted to educate himself by going to Baghdad and asking questions of a murderous regime that is known to lie about practically everything. Penn had about as much chance of getting an education in Baghdad as I have of bearing children. (For those of you who aren't very good at math, that would be zero.) As Roger Carstens pointed out there are far better, and cheaper, ways to learn what you need to know about Iraq.
For his troubles — his earnest intention of finding a peaceful solution, rather than a war that will surely lead to the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis — he has been called a "traitor."
Yeah, isn't it odd the things people get called when they take the word of their countries enemies over the word of their own government when all the facts point solidly to the conclusion that their government is telling the truth?
No doubt his ex-wife, Madonna, can expect the same treatment when she releases a new single this week with a strong anti-war message.
We can dream, can't we?
The conservative "Drudge Report" says the video shows her dressed in fatigues and throwing grenades in a landscape of limbless men and women.
Ah, enlightening social commentary, that.
The question I have is, why do we so easily dismiss the opinions of famous people, as if they're nothing but "limousine liberals"? (Itself a laughable epithet, as if conservatives are all driving around in Corollas, or being ridiculously rich discounts your opinion on political issues.)
I'll try this again. We don't automatically dismiss the opinions of all famous people. Just the ones who make stupid statements. (I have no idea what limousines and Corollas have to do with any of this.)
Streisand is continually derided for mixing up Iran and Iraq, and yet no one complains when the president says Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
Streisand is derided for far more than that. I'm not aware that the President has ever accused Iraq of planning the 9/11 attacks, although he has indicated that Iraq may have offered support.
Does anyone remember al-Qaida?
Oh, you mean that terrorist organization whose leader expressed his solidarity with Iraq? Yeah, I remember them. What's your point?
Though there is a strong anti-war movement in this country, it is also strangely muted.
Muted is it? I'd hate to see what happened if they really got behind their message.
And no wonder.
Oh, goody, she's going to enlighten us.
The way the administration has framed the argument, as good against evil,
How dare he call the people who want to kill us evil! Why, why, why, why that's insensitive!
simply asking why (Why us? Why now? Why them? Why not North Korea?) casts the questioner on the wrong side.
No, asking questions does not put you on the wrong side of the question. However, asking stupid questions make you worthy only of mockery.
Standing up against this march to war takes a big voice, a big ego and maybe even big box office. No wonder Hollywood seems perfect for this casting call.
Oh my goodness! This may be the stupidest thing I've heard about the war yet. (Are we sure Ms. Billings isn't really a celebrity?) Is she seriously arguing that you have to be a celebrity to effectively argue against the war? No, you don't have to be a big star. You just have to have a brain. There are intelligent arguments against the war. They're just not coming out of Hollywood.
After getting a lifetime achievement award in London, actor Dustin Hoffman said, "I believe — though I may be wrong because I am no expert — that this war is about what most wars are about: hegemony, money, power and oil.…
"I believe that administration has taken the events of 9/11 and has manipulated the grief of the country and I think that's reprehensible.''
Critics say a guy like him has no right to weigh in on the issues of the day; as he says, he's "no expert.''
No, we don't say he had no right to weigh in on the issues because he's not an expert. (Although many found his admission to set up jokes that were just to good to pass up. We just think what he said was ignorant and stupid.
But when it comes to understanding the spin doctoring and cynical manipulations that go on in D.C., Hoffman may have more expert standing than he lets on.
Really? Why's that?
Did you ever see him in "Wag the Dog"?
No, I didn't.
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
The AP is reporting that Federal agencies had information in advance of the OKC bombing indicating that white supremacists might launch a major terrorist attack, but never passed the information on.
I have a question. Within weeks after 9/11 we were hearing reports all over the place about intelligence failures. Would someone please explain to me why it took nearly eight years for this information to come out?
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Is it me, or is this just too weird
HOUSTON, Feb. 10 — As Dr. Clara Harris sits in court every day, her staunchest supporters are the parents of her husband, the man she is accused of killing with her Mercedes-Benz.
Today, they had the chance to explain why.
"I love her very much," Mildred Harris, beaming toward her daughter-in-law, said this morning from the witness stand shortly before the defense rested its case. "She's really more like a daughter."
[...]
They watched as prosecutors built a case against Dr. Harris, 45, a former beauty queen who is a dentist. They heard witnesses tell how she killed her husband, David, by running over him with her car on July 24 after he admitted having an affair. Yet they say they have forgiven Dr. Harris and in court today described an unblemished marriage that was, in Mildred Harris's words, "made in heaven."
"David loved Clara very much," she told the jury. "In 10 years, he never had a negative thing to say about Clara."
No, he didn't say anything negative about her. He just skipped that step and cheated on her.
By the same token, she added, her daughter-in-law "loved David very much."
"Sometimes I think she loved him too much," the victim's mother said.
Yup, loved him so much that she ran over him with her car. Twice. With her step-daughter in the car begging her to stop. Sounds like the perfect marriage to me. Are these people in the Twilight Zone?
Personally, I'm with the daughter on this one.
There is at least one holdout in family support for the driver of the Mercedes. Lindsey Harris, 17, David Harris's daughter by his first marriage, was in the passenger seat of the car that killed her father.
According to her testimony on Jan. 29, she screamed repeatedly at her stepmother to stop as the car rushed toward her father. She has since filed a wrongful death suit against her stepmother.
Look, I'm all for forgiveness. What this guys parents are doing isn't forgiveness though. It's willful ignorance. They're sitting there acting like nothing wrong happened. (Yes, I realize that later in the story, we're told that they knew that the "marriage made in Heaven" was developing problems.) They go on the stand and describe their sons marriage as this thing of bliss where both partners loved the other so much that nothing could ever go wrong. Wake up people! That is not the kind of marriage your son had. It was dysfunctional! Deal with it please. If you can't deal with it, could you please stop broadcasting your ignorance to the country? You're driving me CRAZY!
posted by jeffrey at Tuesday, February 11, 2003
Monday, February 10, 2003
I always get a bit of a buzz when I get a Google hit for "Temporal Engineering."
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
WiN has an interesting and thought provoking post about what should be done about homosexuals and the church.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Red Letter Edition
Matthew 20: 1-16 ESV “For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ So the last will be first, and the first last.”
It's a sad truth that many Christians tend to look down on those who come to the Lord late in life. There's a bit of a tendency to resent the fact that they will be receiving the same gift that we will. We need to remember that Heaven is just that, a gift. Yes, we've been working in the kingdom, but that work did not earn us a place in Heaven. We work because we have salvation, not in order to earn it. Our salvation is a free gift. It is God's right to bestow salvation on anyone he chooses. We should not begrudge those who come to Christ late in life. In fact, we have a duty to help them.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Today's required reading
Glenn Reynolds explores what it would look like if America really were an imperialistic bully.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
You know, I think the U.N. would fall for this.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Yup, journalism at its best.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Get over it? I don't think so.
David Adnesnik has this to say:
Finally, the Indpendent provided me with my recommended daily allowance of righteous indignation, all in a single headline: "It's About Time the US Got Over 9/11."
What can you say to that? The column that follows is unremarkable. But the headline is a twisted knife in an open wound. I guess all I can say is this: We'll get over it when the Towers are standing again and when Bin Laden and Saddam are sharing a prison cell at the Hague, watching CNN report on the first elections in Iraq and Saudi Arabia.
Personally, I think that's only a start. I'll get over when every tin pot dictator in the world has been replaced with a free and functioning society and when there is not a terrorist in the world capable of threatening my country. Until then, the people of this nation are at risk. In the meantime, I have no intention of forgetting 9/11 or of getting over it.
Don't get me wrong though. I'm not out for revenge or retribution. All I want is justice and security.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Consider it said, Josh.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Here's a very touching account of the funeral of IIan Ramon, the first Israeli astronaut. I fervently hope he will not be the last.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Saul Singer has an interesting analogy. Here are the highlights, America is Eliot Ness, the "coalition of the willing" is the Untouchables, Saddam is Al Capone, and the Security Council is the corrupt police force. His conclusion is that it is better to deliberately avoid going back the Security Council. In that way, we avoid giving the crooked cops the veneer of respectability.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Hehehe
Bush blasted France and Germany today for refusing to help defend Turkey.
"Upset is not the proper word," Bush said of his views on France's diplomacy after a meeting with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch U.S. ally against Iraq. "I am disappointed that France would block NATO from helping a country like Turkey to prepare," he said.
Note to the world, the behavior of France and Germany is not the behavior of allies; would people please stop using that word to describe these nations.
This is the behavior of allies:
Later, with Howard, Bush said Australia was a member of his "coalition of the willing," a term he usually uses to describe countries willing to disarm Iraq even without U.N. approval. Bush said it was up to Howard to say how far Australia was willing to go.
The prime minister did not specifically commit troops to the Bush coalition, but said Saddam is a rogue leader who poses a grave threat.
[...]
After meeting with Powell and Rumsfeld, Howard said Australia had already deployed forces to help in a war with Iraq.
"Australia does not believe all of the heavy lifting should be done by the United States and the United Kingdom alone," he said.
See the difference? You see, allies actually help you. Countries who are not your allies go far and above the call of duty to try to stop you. After reading about the statements coming out of France, Germany, and Australia, I think it's pretty obvious which nations do (and do not) qualify.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Michael Novak argues that war in Iraq is a moral necessity. He also makes this point.
Meanwhile, for 12 long years Saddam has flagrantly violated the conditions laid down by the United Nations for the continuation of his presidency. In the world become far more dangerous after September 11, 2001, either the world community now upholds international order, or it backs down from its own solemn agreements. In the latter case, individual sovereign nations will refuse to be complicit in the policy of appeasement. To do otherwise would join Saddam's conspiracy against international order, and to accrue responsibility for anything he might do.
Many other nations besides Iraq have been obliged to disarm, and to show proof of it, for instance, South Africa, Kazakhstan, and other nations of the former Soviet Union. All have complied fully and openly. Iraq has not. It has not accounted for immense supplies of chemical and biological weapons which on earlier occasions it either admitted that it possessed, or was shown by international inspectors to have possessed.
It is not the burden of the international community to prove Iraq's noncompliance. That fact was publicly and internationally well established years ago. It is Hussein's obligation, as a condition for continuing in his presidency, to present evidence that he has disarmed. This he has so far disdained to do. Hussein has judged that the international community lacks the will to enforce its decrees.
Keep this in mind when you hear people asking about a "smoking gun," the inspectors were not sent to Iraq to find proof of noncompliance; they were sent to verify Iraq's claims of compliance. Resolution 1441 specifically states that Iraq is already in material breach of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Under 1441, Iraq must prove they are now in compliance, or face the consequences. They have not provided the required proof. Because of Iraq's failure to prove compliance, the day of reckoning is now at hand.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Granted, this is no surprise, but for the record ...
ABC News has this report:
Feb. 10 — In the last 10 days, United Nations inspectors have been given what are described as "important, new and credible leads" from a recent defector, who also told ABCNEWS that Iraqi scientists involved in the nuclear, chemical and biological weapons program were systematically intimidated.
The defector, interviewed by ABCNEWS in an undisclosed European country, is an engineer described as close to several of the weapons scientists who, he said, live in fear.
Many of the scientists are eager to cooperate with the United Nations, but the intimidation is so effective that the scientists are terrified of meeting in private with the inspectors. One scientist who met with the inspectors this week was so frightened, it took an hour for him to stop shaking, according to U.N. sources.
"Iraqi scientists and researchers are under a lot of pressure and influence by the Iraqi authorities," the Iraqi defector told ABCNEWS. "They were scared and threatened in different ways, including threatening to go after their families if they leave Iraq to meet with inspectors and going after their relatives if their families go with them and going after them even if they were in exile.
[...]
The Iraqi also revealed, for the first time, how the scientists were compelled to sign two documents. The first was a declaration that he would cooperate fully with the U.N. inspectors. The second declaration negates the first, obliging every Iraqi researcher and scientist not to cooperate with the U.N. teams and hide the information.
"If he causes any harm to the Iraqi authorities, he is considered legally responsible," said the defector. "The first pledge is public and a copy is sent to the U.N., while the second is only for some Iraqi security agencies."
The words "legally responsible" have a particular meaning in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. "The penalty: killing and torture and going after the family, even if in exile."
There's more to this report, all of it damning. For those of you keeping score at home, this constitutes a material breach.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Susanna has an interesting post about what the Russians really think.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
David Adnesnik explains how he was saved by the soft bigotry of low expectations.
posted by jeffrey at Monday, February 10, 2003
Sunday, February 09, 2003
Well, it looks like things are coming to a head with Iraq.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Russel Wardlow chimes in on Rummy's statement that the UN needs to move, "from a path of ridicule to a path of responsibility."
Of course, I don't really think he believes they'll ever do anything except move from a place of ridicule to a place of utter contempt to a place of non-existence, in the long run, at least. I think that Rumsfeld is simply setting up the UN for the post-Iraq breakup. The worthlessness of the UNSC will resonate only more clearly after the war because of rhetoric like this.
There's more where that came from.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
The Insomniac has a great quote from a pissed off Colin Powell.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Unfortunately, this is just satire.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
So is this Australian for, "Yeah, that will work. Snicker, snicker."
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Here's something that I find interesting, but which I've never heard explored before.
Matthew 14:34-36 ESV And when they had crossed over, they came to land at Gennesaret. And when the men of that place recognized him, they sent around to all that region and brought to him all who were sick and implored him that they might only touch the fringe of his garment. And as many as touched it were made well.
There are other places in scripture where we are told that someone was healed by touching the fringe of Jesus's garment. For our purposes, it is not important to explore every instance; the only important thing to know is that it happened and it happened more than once.
To understand why I think this important, I think I need to point out that the importance of the fringe Jesus's garment is one that is lost, not just in translation from one language to another, but from one culture to another. To understand why the fringe of the garment would have been important, we need to examine one of God's commandment's to Israel.
Numbers 15: 37-41 JPS (1917) And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 'Speak unto the children of Israel, and bid them that they make them throughout their generations fringes in the corners of their garments, and that they put with the fringe of each corner a thread of blue. And it shall be unto you for a fringe, that ye may look upon it, and remember all the commandments of the LORD, and do them; and that ye go not about after your own heart and your own eyes, after which ye use to go astray; that ye may remember and do all My commandments, and be holy unto your God.I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: I am the LORD your God.'
The people of Israel were commanded to make these special fringes with blue tassles to represent, physically, the commandments of Yahweh. The purpose of these fringes was to remind the people of His commandments and their special relationship with Him. As far as I can determine, this practice was practiced in the first century, at least by the faithful. While the scriptures do not say one way or the other, there is every reason to believe that when the fringe of Jesus's garment is referred to, it is this special fringe representing the commandments that the Gospel writers had in view.
When you approach these passages with this cultural context in mind, you can see that the people were doing more than just touching Jesus's garments. The Word of God was wearing the physical representation of His word; it was this representation of the word that people touched to be healed. In other words, these people were healed by their faith in God's word.
When you look at it this way, these miracles were of a special type; they demonstrate not just Jesus's identity as the Messiah, but also the power of the God's Word.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Germany and Russia said Sunday that both countries now exist in an alternate reality where up is down, black is white, good is evil, and Saddam Hussein will disarm peacefully.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Ah, so this is what is characterized as a "beginning of a change of heart". I'd hate to see what would happen if they'd hardened their hearts.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
As a friend of mine said, "These people have too much time on their hands." About 639 years too much. (Link via Dave Barry.)
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
Mark Byron points out, rightly, that those who argue that Jesus brought a "Gospel of Peace" that completely locks out the possibility of war overstate the case.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
And Now The Belgians
Belgium has announced that it intends to veto the U.S. request that NATO send troops to defend Turkey.
Now this seriously pisses me off. No matter what anybody thinks about U.S. foreign policy, there is simply no excuse for taking those objections out on Turkey. The NATO nations have a moral obligation to defend Turkey. If they're not willing to follow through on that obligation, then I fail to see what the purpose of the alliance is.
posted by jeffrey at Sunday, February 09, 2003
|
