|
Dean's World Defending the liberal tradition in history, science, and philosophy. |
|
January 31, 2004
My friends Kyle and Joel both forwarded this story about Big Brother to me.
I have a lot of things I could say about it. Some of them good, some of them bad. But for now, I'll just link it and allow you to decide what to think. I may have more to say later.
You know, I can think of very little in this world that would give me more personal pleasure than Robert Mugabe's head on a pike.
Oh, and for the record? I am not being intentionally provocative. This is merely how I honestly feel. You will just have to accept it: this is who I am, this is how I feel, and I will not be lectured about it or talked out of it. But, for those of you who think my view unhealthy, I merely refer you to my comments in this thread. Look for the comment where I say, "I have mostly stayed silent," and you will know where I stand--and that I will not be dissuaded.
...than some good Live Zeppelin. Know what I'm saying?
That version of Moby Dick is worth the price of admission all by itself. Bonzo ruled, he really did. My friend Ed, who isn't even a particularly big heavy metal fan, once observed the following: "This may sound funny, but there is no bad Led Zeppelin." He was right. (Thanks to Andrew for turning me on to this DVD.) There's More...
The guy from down south who bought us a copy of "Spirited Away" from our wish list.
Thanks. You rule. That's a great movie. Jake and I both love it. "And they sit at the bar and put bread in my jar, and say 'man, what are you doing here?'" --Billy Joel Thanks also to those of you who've dropped a dime in our tip jar. The Piano Man will never get rich, but won't complain if you toss a buck or two in his hat. Whether you do or not, thanks for being a part of this place. Most of you guys really make this a worthwhile endeavor. (Except for Arnold Harris ang Gary Utter, who always ruin everything.)
Warning: This is not a satire!!!
Ok, now that I have issued the warning, a few facts: I am still a Republican. I have not changed my mind about my dislike of Howard Dean. I voted for Bill Clinton, once, because I believed in what he stood for. ----- When I was in college, I was mildly interested in politics. I was a wet behind the ears Liberal and I voted for Dukakis. I always voted in every election because I thought it was my duty, as an American. I voted with my heart back then, not my head. Until 1992. 1992 changed everything for me. In 1992, I discovered that I really disliked Al Gore and I really liked Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was perfect . He was passionate, he spoke with conviction, and he was charming. He was my generation's JFK. He made me excited about the future. He made me believe that we could change the world for the better and I was hooked. I was a believer and I actively campaigned for him. I went to rallies. I was 1992's equivalent of today's barking moonbat. I love politics, even though my views shifted to "the right", without Bill Clinton I wouldn't be who I am today. Clinton got me into politics. I believe that Howard Dean is 2004's Bill Clinton. I'm not talking about policy or ideas. I'm talking about the ability to energize America's youth. Today's barking moonbats become tomorrows political thinkers, pundits and policy makers. As they get older, some will become conservative, some will become libertarian, some will stay where they are. Without having someone getting you excited, you become bored and cease caring. We need to care, we need to get excited, we need to believe in something. It doesn't matter very much what you believe, because there will always be someone that disagrees with you. It matters that you believe in something and that you are willing to fight to achieve the goal. We need candidates that will excite people, especially young people. Howard Dean does that. None of the other Democratic candidates do. While we all snicker at the moonbats, remember we were all somebody's moonbat once.
I have added our thread on prostitution to the Best Discussions archive. Ditto our thread on The Healthy Nature of Hatred.
Almost every single comment that anyone left in those threads are worth reading. The conflicting points of views and assumptions are fascinating, and a few people were rather brave in their remarks. It was all worth reading. Even the comments from people I disagreed with. I will note something I said myself in the comments: I think anyone with a teenaged son or daughter would be foolish not to have conversations like this with their kids.
It's terribly unfortunate that election politics sometimes make it impossible to have discussions of important issues. People whose partisanship is more important to them than their patriotism often make much-needed discussions impossible by their kneejerk tendency to make cheap-shots instead of thoughtful points.
So is the case today with our intellegence services. Obviously, America and the United Kingdom, not to mention most of the other Western intelligence services, all guessed wrong on Iraq's WMD programs. All of them. And we know now that they had all been wrong about Iraqi WMDs since at least 1997. Jim Hoagland has an excellent, sobering analysis you should read. While he doesn't say so directly, his column does point out a crucial fact: in recent years, the US has invested far more money in spy technology (satellites, radio and phone surveillance, etc.) than it has on the most expensive and difficult type of intelligence: human intelligence, paid spies on the ground who will tell you what's going on. Human intelligence is expensive, it's slow, and it's often frustrating. It's also irreplaceable. We don't have enough of it, and should probably be addressing that. Too bad some people, intent on bashing the President rather than using their common sense, will make that a tough discussion to have. By the way, Hoagland also notes something I've said before: Hillary has been exemplary on this whole thing. If she keeps up this kind of behavior, I might even vote for her in 2008.
Georgia is looking to enact a constitutional amendment banning Gay Marriage in the state. Michael has the details.
If you live in Georgia and you are against the ban, please make your voice heard. Click this link to make your voice heard. If you do, let Michael know in his comment section.
January 30, 2004
Hey. I'm a day late and a dollar short, but:
Love ya, babe. Rose loves ya too. Best quote? "Lesson Number One of blogging: People with strong opinions, who are often feisty, accusatory and belligerent and don't have comments enabled are cowards. I braved the storm and kept the comments open and I think I'm a better person for that. I have learned, I have been schooled - in short, I got served. "It's a good thing to be humbled once in a while. It keeps you honest. At least, it should. And I've been nothing if not honest with you all these years. A Small Victory: WYSIWYG." Yeah. Exactly.
Periodically, I re-post the following quiz. Because, while it may well be in congruence with Kinsell's Law, it should be remembered anyway. A gay man named Paul Varnell wrote the following quiz. Can you answer these questions correctly?
LET'S TAKE A QUIZ. No peeking at the answers directly below.There's More...
In the following essay, Diana Muir writes about one collegiate newspaper columnist whose arguments against Israel are built on extremely false pretenses.
-- Tim Machesney LIES, DAMNED LIES, and ANTI-ISRAEL ARGUMENT by Diana Muir The Daily Illini is the student newspaper of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. On Dec. 11, 2003, a Daily Illini columnist printed a well-known false quotation slandering Israel. I was particularly concerned because this is at least the third time that this particular columnist, Mariam Sobh, has printed material slandering Israel that she knows -- or ought to have known -- to be false. Ms. Sobh is a graduate student in the journalism school. There's More...
I am honored to note that the Watcher of Weasels Council has chosen to give a nod to Dean's World once again.
"You like me! You really, really like me!" I am not worthy.
Rick DeMent (and yes, that really is his name, so spare us your jokes) recently left a comment here on Dean's World. In it, he observed the following:
99% of all internet arguments boil down to definitions and assumptions. He's right, you know. Although I will add to it this corrolary: "You can remove the word 'internet,' and the statement will still stand as-printed." Other than that, he's right, don't you think? By the way, you can find Rick's weblog right here. In it, I think you shall discover that Rick is always wrong about everything. I curse him for that. ;-) A whore should be judged by the same criteria as other professionals offering services for pay -- such as dentists, lawyers, hairdressers, physicians, plumbers, etc. Is she professionally competent? Does she give good measure? Is she honest with her clients?Robert Heinlein, probably my favorite author, penned the above lines. Glib and clever, they seem. Whether he believed them or not I don't know; he put them into the mouth of a fictional character named Lazarus Long, who often said outrageous and occasionally contradictory things. But I believe that, whatever superficial truth there may be to those words, on the most fundamental levels they are utterly wrong. For, while prostitution may be an inevitability, there is very little in this world that is more sick or awful. I suppose my Libertarian-minded correspondants will be scandalized for my having said so. Ditto my atheist friends. Yet, as a non-theistic naturalist, I stand by it: there is very little more degrading to the human soul than prostitution. To refer to it as "a profession" demeans humanity even more. A grammatical note here: a man who solicits the services of a whore is generally referred to as a "john." That's how the whores refer to him, and that's how the cops refer to him. "I arrested two hookers and a john," a cop might say. "I got three johns tonight," a whore might say. The gender-feminists (or, as Tanya would call them, the "feminists") are, as usual, utterly full of it. Prostitution is not about "exploitation of women." Indeed, in most ways, that is the exact opposite of the truth. Leaving aside the role of the pimp or madam, we should be adult enough to acknowledge a fundamental truth: If anyone is being exploited in the whore/john relationship, it is the john. A whore is a predator. She feeds upon her john's loneliness, insecurity, and need. Meanwhile, by paying her, he trivializes her humanity. I do not condemn women who fall into prostitution. At all. Nor do I hold in contempt men who use their services. In all the years of my life, I have done many things I am shamed by, and I do not consider myself above other human beings. In fact, the whole notion that I am "better" than most other people is rather repulsive to me. But prostitution is a sick, and sickening, relationship. No matter how you look at it, and no matter what veneer that you may put upon it, it cannot do anything but degrade those who take part in it. Yes, even for the high-class, highly-paid variants. Or the watered-down versions of it that you find in strip clubs. It is mostly women who wind up being whores, although certainly the world has its gigolos. They are rarer, but they exist. Indeed, there is a whole stratum of young boys who make their living servicing the sexual needs of wealthy men. But still, ultimately, you are dealing with a profession where one preys upon another person's loneliness. It is not, and never will be, a simple matter of a biological rubbing together of moving parts in exchange for pay. And what is the life of your average whore? A cluster of venereal diseases that eventually end your life. If you're female, perhaps a half-dozen or more abortions, unless you decide not to have one--in which case your career ends a few months before the baby arrives. Or you raise the child in the most dyfunctional of environments. In any case, if you are a whore, you prey upon other people's most deeply-felt needs and insecurities--and you do it for money. If you hire a prostitute, you are paying for something you wish you didn't have to pay for at all. While there may be a tiny percentage of women who are cut out for such a life, I suspect that, in the vast scheme of things, it can only end in misery and regret. Or am I wrong? If so, tell me how.
January 29, 2004
Heh.
Heheheheheheh. BWAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA!!!!! "A different kind of campaign." BWAHAAAAAAAAAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHA!!!!!! Have they closed off the comments on that moonbat weblog of theirs yet? It's surely only a matter of time. [wiping eyes] There's More...
In 2000, political conservatives backed George W. Bush, knowing perfectly well--if they were paying attention at all--that he was a moderate centrist, with a few positions to the right, a few to the left, and most of them right down the middle.
Now they're mad at him for governing exactly like that. Political liberals are even more amusing, for they continually try to portray Bush's fundamental centrism as "hard right wing" extremism. But anyone who actually looks at the record knows that, on all but a very tiny handful of issues, Bush is virtually indistinguishable on a policy level from Bill Clinton. Hell, even on the war issue, not only did Bill Clinton make it the stated policy of the U.S. government that we needed regime change in Iraq, but Clinton was very supportive of the Iraq invasion when Bush was proposing it. So was Al Gore, by the way. So when I read things like this John Cole article, or this by One Fine Jay, I merely crack a little smile and laugh. Bush is a moderate centrist who is actually to the left of his own party on several major issues, guys. He ran his entire 2000 campaign that way, and now you're baffled and angered by it? Did you, you know, even bother to listen to what the man said when he was running for President, or look at any of his campaign literature? Indeed, here's my prediction for this year's election: Bush will spend a good bit of time trying to outmaneuver Democrats on the left on the issues, forcing them to take more extreme positions than they want to, while Democrats try to outmaneuver Bush on the right in exactly the same way. That most people will be utterly clueless about this will be amusing to watch. Indeed, I don't know which will be more amusing: watching the left continually try to portray Bush as a "hard right winger" while anyone with a working brain will be able to see that he isn't one, or watching the right bloviate about how "betrayed" they feel by a President who has governed according to every one of the principles and policy proposals he laid out in his 2000 election campaign--indeed, a President who has quite obviously worked hard to keep all his major campaign promises, promises he made when conservatives showed up by the millions to vote for him. Politics sure is a funny beast. Especially when you step back and take the long view of the parties and candidates.
A few different sources have been showing, before and after, John F'ing Kerry pictures. Drudge has some up and Fox and Friends did it this morning.
I'm not sure that it has been confirmed by anyone, but the rumor is Botox. It isn't news that Kerry's wife does it, so maybe it isn't such a stretch. Except, all the before pictures show Kerry making faces (grimacing or raising eyebrows). His after pictures are smiling or expressionless. As a woman, I know for a fact that smiling in certain ways or maintaining a calm expression will not flaunt forehead wrinkles. Frowning or raising eyebrows will crinkle up the forehead of anyone over the age of 5. Age will determine the severity of the forehead wrinkles. Either way, it's gossip. The pictures don't prove anything. Even if, he did do something to his appearance, SO WHAT? He looks better. What's the big deal? Everyone wants to look their best, especially in front of a camera. Elections are about issues not wrinkles. Get over it.
Occasionally, on this weblog, I express the fact that I hate certain people.
Hate them. Every time I express this, some friend tells me that hate is a bad emotion, that it's destructive, that it's hurtful. That it does nothing good, and just sickens your soul. They are--usually--mistaken. To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven: You think that hate is, all by itself, a bad thing? If so, I would like to ask you a few simple questions: Can love become perverse and destructive? Can joy ever be inappropriate? Can weeping ever become excessive? Can nurturing reach a point of excess? Think hard on it before you answer those questions. Without doubt, Hate is a powerful and dangerous emotion. It is a deeply destructive emotion. But so is love. So is despair, and so is elation. Every one of these emotions can be perverted and twisted. Every one of them can come to dominate your life, and every one of them can sicken and twist your soul, if you let them overcome you. Including love. That said? In its place, kept under control like any other emotion, I assert that Hate is a healthy emotion. An utterly appropriate emotion, in fact, so long as, like all other emotions, it is kept in its place. Indeed, I go further: if you cannot hate, then there is something fundamentally wrong with you. If you tell me that you cannot or will not feel hatred, then there are only two possibilities: you are either a liar, or there is something dark and twisted about your soul. If you cannot hate Mao, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Stalin, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Castro, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Arafat, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Mugabe, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Mengistu, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Amin, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Saddam, there is something wrong with you. If you cannot hate Kim, there is something wrong with you. In fact, if you cannot or will not ever feel hate, then I assert that, ultimately, you are perverse. Because hate is an entirely normal, entirely healthy emotion. When, like all other powerful emotions, it is kept in its appropriate time and place. You don't agree? Then tell me why I am wrong.
We still get mail all the time from people who want to help with Operation Give. Our buddy Val catches most of those emails. He got one recently that made me think, "Wow. We're really doing this thing, aren't we?" Thought I'd share it with you:
Hey. What are you waiting for? Someone to say "go?" Okay: GO!
January 28, 2004
Hey, the latest Carnival of the Vanities is over at Sean's place!
I just wanted to thank everyone for the kind words and support. I was burned out and I badly needed a break. Thanks for the love.
On the plus side, I've been releasing my venom by working out twice a day. I love Pilates. Oh, and a very special Thank You to Steven Malcolm Anderson. Everytime I read a comment by you, I felt like you were holding up a lighter with a silent plea for an encore. You made this Evil Queen feel like a Rockstar! **Update** An extra special, superduper Thank You to, my secret love, Michael Demmons! He prayed for me everyday. What more could I possibly want? More pictures of his handsome mug online would be a good start. You are the married woman's perfect crush - handsome and gay! Vermont Bedtime Story --- Dean claims he provided health insurance for 99% of children in Vermont. He didn't exactly do that though. Bill Clinton and the Republican Congress did it with the CHIP program. Vermont is using Federal grants provided by CHIP to cover its children. Just like many other states. Regarding the 99% figure, according to Kaiser Family Foundation only 89% of "uninsured" children are covered by the State. Leaving 11% of poor "uninsured" children in Vermont... uninsured. In 2000, there were 139,560 total children in Vermont. Even taking the numbers out of the whole population of children: 4% of children in Vermont still have no health insurance. Where is he getting 99% from?
What does an evil dictator think about Howard Dean? After the "I Have a Scream" speech, "former Vermont governor is a ‘madman,’ says madman."
Does anyone else think Howard Dean is eerily similar to Dr. Jekyll (New Hampshire) and Mr. Hyde (Iowa)? Hat Tip: Juliette
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. ---Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882)
Casey Tompkins has a weblog The Gantry Launchpad. It's now on my blogroll.
(Is there anyone else out there I owe a reciprocall blogroll link to, by the way? Or who needs help settng up a weblog? If so just let me know, I get behind on these things.)
So, Dr. Dean. Now that you've gotten yet another ass-whupping (which you richly deserved by the way), here are two lessons I want you to ponder:
1) You once again outspent everyone, and you once again lost. Because money doesn't win elections. Never has, never will. 2) Throwing raw meat to the party faithful. inflaming their animosity, resentment, paranoia, and delusions, has never been a decent way to win an election. You get mobs to scream and cheer for you, but usually go down as a "noble loser" in the eyes of your worshippers--and as someone that everyone else is glad to be rid of. You've been the Pat Buchanan of your party for most of the last year. If you don't sober up and grow up, you deserve to keep that status.
Well, I always wondered. But maybe I just knew and didn't want to ask.
(Via Admiral Quixota and Allison.)
January 27, 2004
Sharon, Ith, and some others have set up a mailing list for people who like to discuss literature without the fear of a sneering and snotty accusation of racism/capitalism/westernism/whathaveyou. Non-Leftist Literati, I guess you might call them.
If you think that sounds like you, well... go check it out. I've run into discussion groups about literature that left me repelled by postmodernism and a general haughty anti-Americanism myself, so I understand what they're all about, even if part of me quivers a bit at the thought of having to segregate yourself just so you don't have to apologize for your view of the world. Goodness knows, if the novel I'm working on now ever sees the light of day, some people are going to be mighty offended by it. Good luck with your group, ladies.
Finally, a Presidential candidate that real Americans can get behind.
Also real Canadians, as it turns out. (Thanks, Jerry.)
On the 19th, I mentioned this Wall Street Journal opinion piece opposed to illegal alien liberalization policies, and mentioned that I disagreed with it. Some folks sure got mad at me.
Now today, the same Wall Street Journal published a defense of illegal immigrant liberalization policies that pretty much says everything I would want to say. Too many people who pride themselves on "pragmatism" refuse to take these simple arguments seriously. We currently spend more in real dollars than we have ever before to stop the flow of illegals coming in from Mexico. We've built huge walls over the easiest parts of our border to cross. We have motion sensors and observation towers that can spot the motion of even small animals from many miles away. Since 1990 we have more than quintupled the budget for border enforcement, and are now spending $3.8 billion annually just to stop people from crossing the borders--far more than we ever have, with more manpower devoted to it than at any time in our history. Yet the flow of illegals has only increased during that time. Although more of them die in the attempt now than used to, because we're forcing them to take more dangerous paths to getting here. My question for the restrictionist Right is simple: you complain often enough about how much money it supposedly costs us to have these people come here. By comparison, how many more billions do you want to spend to build a giant wall that these people will only tunnel under or vault over, or find some way to damage? Or get around by sea and air? How many thousands more border patrol agents do you want to hire, and how do you plan to pay for them? And by the way, how much more will you be paying the Coast Guard to stop them from coming by water via the Gulf of Mexico and the California coast? In the 1980s we started requiring employers to verify citizenship or green card status--the net effect was the creation of a gigantic false identity black market, which is now bigger and more all-encompassing than it's ever been. What's next? Fingerprint IDs for all citizens? Voice prints and retina scans before you can get a job? I suggest to you that the restrictionist policies you advocate have, to date, been proven utterly worthless, and actually damaging to national security in the long run. If pragmatism rules, then at what point do we start admitting that the cost of keeping people out just might be greater than the cost of trying to make it easier for people to get here legitimately? I continue to suggest that allowing people to plea bargain down and pay a fine, get legal worker status, and offer all illegals currently being paid substandard wages or working in substandard conditions a reward for turning in their employers, is the most prudent and practical and effective policy. Or would be, if we were just smart enough to do it. That reward for illegals to turn in their scumbag employers should include a green card, and a promise that those who cooperate in prosecuting their employers for breaking the law will be given worker visas that let them work legitimately, make it easier for them to go back home if they want to, or stay here if they want to. If we combine this with a system that makes them ineligible for welfare benefits until they have worked at legitimate jobs for X number of years, and we otherwise get them on the payrolls, they become net economic contributors, and not drawbacks. Doing this will also cripple the forged document market--which, by the way, is right now a great boon to organized criminals and potential terrorists. Stand on your moral high-horse principles all you want. How much more of my money, and my security, are you willing to bargain away just so you can angrily say, "I came here legitimately, so should they?" All just to keep out people who want... uh... jobs. Jobs that would, in many cases, be exported overseas if we didn't have that vast unskilled labor pool to help fill them here. An unskilled labor pool that, often, does in fact improve itself and turn into skilled labor. Or that produces children who do. Throw away all that, just so we can keep out people who just want to... work? Does this really make sense?
Since we're talking about Jews today (see "About Jews" below) I thought it would be fun for another trivia contest. Since I'm feeling generous today, I thought I'd give you not one but two chances to win!
For 50,000 Trivia Geek points: Who penned the following bit of mild, but snide, anti-semitic doggerel?
For 50,000 Bonus Trivia Geek points, who penned the following gentle riposte?
Special Double Super Point Question, which only non-Jews are allowed to answer: there is another riposte, which goes like this:
What exactly does that riposte mean? (Jews usually know. Most gentiles don't.) No search engines allowed. Honor binds all participants.
Don't forget to check out the latest Duck Hunt before heading to the polls today!
I especially recommend Kate's entry, by the way.
My friend Ed recently shot me a note, asking if I could recommend a good book on the history of the Jews. He's been reading a lot lately about the Arab/Israeli conflict, and has been curious about why the Jews have been such a hated group for so long.
I wrote him a response that I thought you all might like to read too, and it is as follows: Ed, If you're looking for really in-depth, try this one: A History of the Jews by Paul M. Johnson. My Jewish friends* all speak highly of it as an excellent and very fair reading. My own, take, for what it's worth: The real problem with the Jews is that theirs is an hereditary religion. You can convert to Judaism, of course. They are open to that. But a Rabbi is supposed to at least try to talk you out of it. Unlike Islam or Christianity, they don't go out of their way to get people to join--although, oddly enough, non-Jews are always welcome to come worship the God of Israel in (almost) any Synagogue without being asked to convert. Anyway, the bottom line is, you mostly become a Jew through birth. Secondarily, sometimes through marriage. Simply doing it for personal reasons is rarest of all, and isn't very common. Furthermore, as with most religions, sometimes kids fall away from the faith. Thus you usually have "ethnically Jewish" people who really have abandoned the faith--and when a lot of those have kids, they cease to raise them as Jews, and wind up blending into whatever the majority ethnicity or religion is. This means the Jews are a minority most anywhere they go, because their religion is mostly hereditary, and a certain percentage of the kids always fall away. Those who stay faithful, however, are usually pretty fierce about it. As a result, the Jews are almost always separate and distinct from the other people they live among in any given land. It's been that way the last 2000 or so years as they've spread across the world. Throughout history, when things start going really badly, there is usually someone who wants to start blaming a minority group, or taking things away from a minority group. Jews are usually handy that way. So they've been kicked around by just about everyone in the last 2000 years. Although that's the thing: unlike other minority groups, the Jews have also managed to survive. This is rather inspiring, to me anyway. Other minority groups have been wiped out of history (including some of my own tribal ancestors), but the pesky Jews just refuse to die out. Stubborn of them, eh? Anyway, the fact that they, as a people, regularly find peace only to, after a few centuries, wind up getting kicked around again, is the whole reason they wanted the state of Israel in the first place. They wanted a nation where they were no longer a persecuted minority, but actually had a place of their own. Israel remains a subject of passion for Jews not just because it's central to their faith, although it is, but also because the great hope of the Zionist project--the creation of a secure, stable Israel--looms large in the minds of a people who have for thousands of years wanted a permanent home where they as a people could feel safe. Or a place to flee to if things start to get crazy wherever they're at. Anyway, Paul Johnson's book seems to be the one to read. * - No, I'm not a Jew. But I play one on TV.
January 26, 2004
A man posts a public message on the internet, saying he wishes to die, and he has a fantasy that someone will eat him.
Another man contacts him, says he has a fantasy about killing someone and eating him. They meet. The second man slays the other, and eats him. Have they done anything wrong? Guess what? It's not a hypothetical question. Thanks to my buddy Joel for sending me this happy cuddly fuzzy story. I'll sleep well tonight, all safe and sound in my blankets. [shudder].
Headline says it all, really:
Iraq Pilgrims in Saudi Thank God for Saddam's Fall. Not much else to say, is there? Well, yeah there is. Too bad it says "Saudi" instead of "Mecca."
Election coverage. War on Terror coverage. Iraq coverage. Op-Eds from a variety of perspectives.
Some of the best, fastest-updated news coverage on some of the hottest topics of the day are covered on The Command Post. It really is one hell of a weblog, a great tribute to what weblogging makes possible. Worth hitting on a daily basis. Open-Source journalism at its finest. (This posted because I have forgiven Michele. For now. Oh yeah, and also because The Command Post really is that good.)
Okay, so check this out:
The Christian Science Monitor reports that only 10% of the homeless in America are chronically homeless; for the other 90%, homelessness is a transitory problem which winds up resolved within a few weeks or months. Which, actually, anyone who's done any research on it has long known to be about right. The homeless "crisis" is usually blown way out of proportion, with the false notion that millions of families are destitute on the streets. That's never been true; you will occasionally see families out of their homes due to severe economic hardship, but almost all of them wind up in short order either living with relatives until they can transition to independence, or in some form of church-run or government-run shelter for a short while until they get back on their feet again. The chronically homeless are, almost without exception, either severely mentally ill, or severely drug addicted people who fell out of mainstream society because of their illness or addictions. (And no, not the other way around.) But the city of Columbus, Ohio, has found that by spending only an extra thousand dollars per homeless person, they can give better service and produce better results for the chronically homeless population. "Only?" While I find the goal of helping the homeless admirable, am I the only one who notices the disconnect here? "Only" a thousand bucks a head more, per year? For how many thousands of people are you talking? You know, it's not that it's a bad thing to reach out to help the destitute, but is that actually the most useful way to sell a concept like this? "For only 10 million dollars a year, you too can give drug addicts and severe alcoholics a nice home!" Of course, you could well argue that this will be more effective than vagrancy laws which throw such people into jail or run them out of town. But I could think of better ways to sell the benefits of a program to help the destitute than that. If these people really want to get taxpayers to believe these programs are worthwhile, they should try crunching some numbers to show how such programs might actually save money in the long run, in terms of costs to the criminal justice system, helping people who are drains on the system transition into productive (or at least semi-productive) work, improvements to property values, lessening of petty crime, and so on. Because such programs might actually do that, you know. Putting people in jail for vagrancy costs money too, in more ways than one. Piling 'em up outside the city limits isn't without its costs either. It's not like having your neighborhood's homes value go down due to drug addicts hanging out isn't without its costs. What is with people on the left sometimes? If you want to convince the right, you don't appeal to their better nature--they may not have one. You should appeal to their self-interest, which is always more reliable anyway. Especially because conservatives do have a strong moral argument when they ask why they should be obligated to help people who have, often, screwed up their own lives due to their own choices. Acknowledging that now and then would probably help too.
Those who believe that firearm ownership is a sacred, fundamental human right often make a fundamental mistake. Or, rather, two fundamental mistakes:
1) Preaching/ranting to the choir. 2) Arguing with people whose only frame of reference is their own fears and what they see out of Hollywood. As Suman Palit notes, if you are really a serious believer in the right to keep and bear arms, there is only one way to truly convince people. You civil rights advocates who support the 2nd amendment ought to be following Suman's lead.
And so the forces of evil overcome yet another once-great blog. Pity, really.
Joe and the boys are hosting the latest Carnival of the Capitalists. Economics geeks take note.
The Wall Street Journal reports that conservatives are increasingly annoyed with Bush for doing too little to cut spending. This isn't news to John Cole, who's been railing at the Bush administration about this for some time now.
I'd only like to point out a few things about this: 1) No Republican administration in living memory has ever cut the size of government. No, not even the sainted Ronald Reagan's administration. 2) Anyone who thinks the administration can simultaneously muster the political capital to prosecute a war on multiple fronts and fight endless battles with a very closely divided Congress in order to substantially cut spending is fooling himself. The art of getting what you most want in politics is to give in on areas that are less important to you. 3) The triple irony here is that if the Right is mad at Bush for not cutting domestic spending, you have to wonder why the Left is so angry at Bush for signing massive funding increases for environmental, education, and other domestic programs. What's the answer? One word: Politics. Heh.
Dr. David A. Kay, who recently resigned as America's chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says that Saddam's scientists and underlings lied to Saddam about the state of Iraq's weapons programs, making off with much of the money themselves while doing only meager amounts of actual development work, especially starting around 1997, when the Clinton administration was bearing down hard on the regime but Saddam was again resisting inspections. Kay also says that some of the missing stockpiles that weren't destroyed, or didn't simply decay, are likely in Syria.
He says U.S. intelligence sources have been flawed for most of the last decade, and refuses to blame either the Clinton or Bush administrations, or the British government, for these failures. He does recommend that the CIA conduct a thorough review of its intelligence capabilities, saying that in some cases, intelligence analysts came to him literally in tears over the failure to find things that those career professionals were sure would be there. Those of us who understand that there is no such thing as foolproof intelligence find this disappointing but not shocking. Those who seek partisan cheap shots, however, or are simply ignorant of how intelligence agencies really do their jobs, will of course use this as a campaign issue come November, their obsession with winning elections greatly overriding any sense of fairness or, really, any genuine interest in strengthening national security. There is, of course, only one person responsible for this result, one person upon whose desk this buck stops: Saddam Hussein's. So the stage is now set for Campaign 2004: those who wish to blame Bush, vs. those who wish to blame Saddam. I'm tired of having my country and my President bashed by people who seek only partisan cheap shots and easy points while we're in the middle of a war for the future of Western civilization. We did the right thing in Iraq, for the right reasons, and were not lied to by anyone but Saddam and his minions--as any reasonable person should conclude. Just as any reasonable person should conclude that both America and the world at large are better off with this madman out of power. Indeed, it is to our great shame as a nation that we did not act as we did long, long ago, having instead chosen to cripple an entire nation just to keep a dangerous dictator in power with "sanctions" and "embargos" and "no-fly-zones"--all while Iraqis died by the hundreds of thousands, a lunatic police state refused to cooperate with its surrender terms, its government cooperating with and sponsoring terrorism, and while forbidden weapons programs were continued. I, for one, am proud that we finally did the right thing. For all the right reasons, and with honor. I'm not looking forward to another long year of people spreading delusions about how we were told our primary reason for going to war was the imminent threat of Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who actually remembers the year-long debate we had in this country over that knows that there were well over a dozen reasons given, all of which wound up in the war resolution passed by the Congress, and which you can read for yourself by just clicking here, and that WMDs became the central focus of our arguments to the UN after we, the people, authorized the President to act. But hey. It's politics. We won't let facts get in our way. Why expect honesty from partisans who think of the great issues of our generation as merely sport, or worse, some kind street fight? It won't stop disgusting me to watch, though.
Veteran Scott Koenig notes that a second front has been opened. Say a prayer for 'em, people.
|