January 2004 Archives

Another one for the flying pigs file. France does seem to be seriously acknowledging they have a serious and growing problem.

France to curb anti-Jewish Arab TV broadcasts

What kind of programming is this?

Of course, there's nothing that can be done (I'd imagine) about the more mundane, daily anti-Jewish bias in Arab media, but getting rid of the most blatant is at least a start.

If you'd like to see what some of this stuff looks like, don't forget that MEMRI has plenty of streaming video for your viewing "pleasure."

This is big news regarding the probably disastrous (in a war for world-opinion - don't spit - sense) hearing at The Hague concerning Israel's Security Fence. Note that many of these countries haven't suddenly become great friends of Israel, or decided they're in favor of the fence itself, it's just that the procedural matter concerning the jurisdiction of the court is actually trumping their habitual Arab public opinion pandering.

Whatever the reason, if Israel suddenly finds it has more "friends" than usual, it should take them where it finds them. This is not a fight Israel wants to risk.

Haaretz - Officials at UN: Int'l Court hearing on fence in doubt (Link via Meryl Yourish)

Neat looking site. Game is interesting for a few minutes. Makes me hungry. I wish sushi were cheaper.

tokidoki v2.0

The Volokh Conspiracy's Tyler Cowen links to this fascinating article about an old psychiatric experiment where a group of perfectly sane people feigned a symptom and submitted themselves for psychiatric diagnosis, and an individual who tried the experiment anew. Interesting stuff. It stands out to me because Dershowitz referred to it tangentially in his talk - I forget the exact context. (Obscure movie reference: "Say you're thinking about a plate of shrimp. Suddenly someone says plate, or shrimp, or plate of shrimp. Out of the blue. No explanation. No use looking for one either. It's all part of the cosmic unconsciousness.")

Anyway, interesting stuff (in The Guardian!).

Into the cuckoo's nest

A couple pointers from Blog Iran:

First is an article serving as a reminder of some of Iran's doings, and the threat it poses through infiltration and terror activity to our troops and mission in Iraq:

Iran's Threat to Coalition Forces in Iraq

Then, we have two commentaries concerning a possible Congressional trip to Iran. First, Why Throw a Lifeline To a Sinking Regime? by Shaheen Fatemi and Badly Played, Old Chaps. Badly Played, by Pejman Yousefzadeh.

Message to Senator Specter: With all due respect Senator...Dude, they're laughing at you. They have no reason to actually give us anything. Their regime's on the brink. The people have lost faith with it. It's a failed government, yet the individuals in charge have no reason whatsoever to give up their power by soft choices. The only thing you can possibly do is prop them up, and give them ammunition to go to their dissidents, and those being tortured in their jails and say, "You see? They don't give a damn about you. They're on our side." Is that what you want to do? Natan Sharansky, writing of his time in the Russian Gulag, said that every time the West stood up to the regime, and forced it to be accountable, conditions and morale would improve for them. So stand up Senator!

"Now is a good time" to improve relations you say? To what end. This totalitarian regime is accountable to no one but themselves. Not to their people, not to you, and not to any agreement the clasp hands on. The more they lose legitimacy at home, the more they are simply individuals afloat without a life-line. Do not throw them that rope.

Hat tip to Bouncer. This starts innocently enough, but it gets a little...bloody by the end. (You been warned!) Don't worry about the German, believe me, you don't need to know what they say.

http://w1004.hotel.cyclone.se/staplerfahrer_klaus.wmv

I've been watching with some interest the controversies swirling around Mel Gibson's upcoming film, "The Passion." Mostly, I've been excited to see it. The early reviews by those who have attended special screenings make it sound like something very much worth seeing. I've also been pleased to read that many Jews, and Christians who are certainly no anti-Semites have been also been saying that the film is in no way anti-Semitic.

Of concern to me has been the ADL's harping on the issue, mostly even before they have seen the film. As much as I admire much of what the ADL does and stands for, they are not the finally arbiters of legitimate expression - something that I think ought not to be stymied except in the most extreme of circumstances.

It was also, therefore, of interest and concern to me to read the snippet of an interview Peggy Noonan conducted with Gibson as pointed to and commented upon by David Bernstein of The Volokh Conspiracy:

This is pretty ambiguous talk from a guy who certainly knows the eyes of a large part of the world are upon him.

Bernstein:

Suggest you read all of Bernstein's comment. He's not condemning Gibson at this point, and neither am I, at this point it would just appear to be a..."bummer" for those of us hoping that the charges of insensitivity (yeah, I hate that word too, but it's the best one I can think of atm) against Gibson are without foundation.

It's disconcerting to read Sasha Volokh in a later entry on the same blog stick up for Gibson's minimizing (it would so far seem) statements - he's (Volokh) "not into the moral uniqueness of the Holocaust" and points to Clayton Cramer for explanation who speculates that the Holocaust probably has received so much attention "perhaps because Jews in the U.S. have been in especially influential positions in the publishing and media business."

Now I'm not going to go about re-discovering the wheel here, and putting down an essay justifying the unique aspects of the Holocaust - others I'm sure could do a better job, people who have given it a great deal of thought - certainly more than I'm likely to do in a quick late-evening blog-post. As well, it is a subject that I respect sufficiently to feel the subject ought to be addressed well and seriously, or not at all...else we risk diminishing it ourselves.

I would point out, however, that part of the evidence for the Holocaust's significance is right there, on Volokh's page. There is an item right below Sasha's pointing to some nasty anti-Semitism printed on the Palestinian Authority's web page - nothing unusual. And that's just it. The Holocaust was not just an isolated incident among many in the 20th century. It was a culmination of history, and that history isn't over yet. There are plenty of people out there waiting to pick up where Hitler (and the Hitlers before him) left off. The Holocaust did not die. It just sleeps.

There, well, I said I wasn't going to get into it, and I didn't, but I couldn't resist a comment. The Holocaust doesn't stand out because Jews in the media have made it do so, the Holocaust stands out and Jews have done their part to speak out for themselves.

I look forward to seeing the film. I heard that Gibson is putting some kind of tag statement at the end of the film, reported for the moment as "During the Roman occupation, 250,000 Jews were crucified by the Romans, but only One rose from the dead." That sounds pretty good (although, as one commenter points out, a bit light on the numbers, perhaps, but still, the spirit is on track).

I'm not sure what the final verdict of whether Gibson is really a Holocaust "minimizer" or not will matter as regards the film itself, but it would certainly add another dimension to how I will feel about it.

Update: Strange Women Lying in Ponds isn't exactly thrilled with the implications of this interview, either.

Update2: Sasha Volokh responds.

Update3: Follow-up post to this here.

It's about time I'd say. This is the guy, along with the execrable and arrogant BBC management that should have been keeping a handle on him, that's done immeasurable damage to one of the world's premier news services and a Government engaged in a noble cause. This guy is Jason Blair magnified, and he isn't exactly contrite going out the door.

CNN.com - WMD claim reporter quits BBC - Jan. 30, 2004

Update: Nope, not contrite at all.

Eric Scheie has some thoughts about Gay Rights, Islamism and Self-Defense. I decided to help him out with a few graphics. Choose your weapon:

Yahoo! News - Hamas Threatens to Kidnap Israeli Soldiers

A rare bit of correct context from Reuters in that last paragraph.

This one also goes into the "And Sheik Yassin is still alive why?" file.

JPost: Ten killed in suicide bus bombing

Another act of targeted mass-murder on a Jerusalem City bus. Another Palestinian indoctrinated in the culture of hate and death is sent out to destroy, and maim, and mutilate. Who had their life shattered today? Who's loved-one was destroyed? Have we lost more people who could have taught us about what it means to live as a human being? We have. That is a part of the loss we all suffered today.

You can watch a video of what the aftermath of such a bombing looks like here...if you've got the stomach for it. Pieces of bodies, shredded flesh - barely recognizable, hard to distinguish from so much shredded and bloodied cloth...is that a body part there on the ground? Or just a discarded backpack? Are those puddles blood, or just a bit of motor-oil?

A hand is there on the ground, shredded flesh trailing it like a horror-movie zombie's clothing - except it isn't cloth, it's flesh. Is this a Halloween prop someone forgot to clean up? No, it is real. A man is slumped over in his seat, struck dead on the spot. You can see his sneakers and bare leg...it's warm in Jerusalem, after all. Do the relatives recognize the pieces? Who's cell phone is that on the ground? Did the owner survive? Will he come looking for it, or was he talking on it nearby when the bomber performed for his people's accolades? Is that a child's school work blowing in the breeze?

I watch the cameraman walk slowly around the site and imagine that he looks down and sees he's standing on a piece of flesh. You wouldn't even know - so easy to mistake for a bit of debris blown out by the explosion. That's how bad it is.

All of this is just one tragedy among many, just one more description of the carnage that could result from any explosion anywhere. The bomb aimed at exploding an SS battalion encamped in a French city might create some of the same images. Both "sides" of the conflict could sit and compare pictures and video of horror and the layman wouldn't be able to tell the difference. But if these bones could speak...

...they'd cry out for context. They'd demand, they do demand that you understand why this happened, that not all carnage is the same, that the images are the end result, not the cause.

The man who did this, the PA policeman - and there are those who don't want you to know that, who don't want you to have the context, as Honest Reporting tells us, only Reuters out of all of the major media (no link yet) intentionally ommitted (it can only be intentional) a reference to the man's profession - that blew himself up today, did what he did not as an act of desperation, but as an act of intent and strategy. (As an aside, you know, of course, that the PA Police were armed by Israel as part of the Oslo Accords.) A predictable result of the culture of death he comes from - a product of depravity so divorced from the average American's realm of experience that we can scarcely understand it. In fact, most of us don't. Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook call it an act of Aspiration, not desperation. It's difficult to fathom in our society, where we protect our children so completely that reviewers often complain that animated Disney features are too violent. Some of the child-victims, like Walid Shoebat even escape and tell us their tale of mental torture, but is anybody listening? It is like tales of the Warsaw Ghetto before the War - too terrible to believe, as believing would demand we take action.

I can tell you one thing, if New York buses were to start exploding, and we could find out where the perpetrators, or the even the inspiration for the acts were coming from, there'd be a few cruise missiles launched - as an appetizer. We wouldn't put up with it for one minute, and we wouldn't wait arround to debate about anyone's victimhood, or their background, or their history, or the injustices their ancestors in the third generation suffered. We'd protect ourselves and our children first, and we'd do it hard, and we'd do it fast, and we'd do it completely, and then we'd let the historians deconstruct the tale later, and leave it to the Leftists of the future to convince us we should feel guilty.

At least there would be an us around to feel the guilt.

But it's amazing, tomorrow, or even now, as I type this, Israeli decision-makers are sitting around in committee, deciding on a measured response, weighing the dangers to civilians, getting opinions on International Law, and worrying over what measures the world will accept.

That would be us. We're the world, as well as all those other countries with an opinion to offer and no damn dog in the fight and no child in the crosshairs. As if it's any of our business we'll do our part to keep prolonging this. And many of us will condemn whatever response comes. Rather than being in awe, in awe of the poise and self-control it must take to bring whatever response comes, far less than we would do were our positions reversed, we will tut-tut while their dead lie shredded on the pavement and the murderer's people put up posters in his honor.

If my friend were to come to me, bloody and beaten, asking what he should do, I'd tell him...no...I'd demand that next time he at least try to defend himself. Instead, our friend is beaten before our eyes and we tie one hand behind his back and kick him out the door.

Jewish World Review editor Binyamin L. Jolkovsky just sent this email. It's true, reading the two pieces he points to take on a different dimension after reading this note. They're short, too, so take a look.

Update: Lynn B. says "Now is a time for crying." Indeed it is.

Ali at IRAQ THE MODEL isn't too impressed, to say the least, with something Howard Dean said.

It's sad the way American politics has become so polarized that on some issues, the rhetoric degenerates to the point that candidates feel they have to be in opposition on every major issue, rather than taking a position of, "Yes, that's OK, but elect me and I can do better..." If Howard Dean really feels that what we've done and are doing in Iraq is so bad that he's willing to risk the mission and the men's morale, and the morale of their families, then why isn't his position that we should pull out immediately rather than continuing "George Bush's War?" I would suggest it's because he knows damn well the facts don't match his rhetoric, but he (and he's not the only one) just feels that anything's fair on the road the White House.

Anyway, keep listening to those Iraqis.

Writing in today's Frontpage Magazine, Reza Bayegan has a good primer for thos e a bit confused about the functioning of the Islamic "Republic" of Iran. It can be a bit confusing for the neophyte to understand what's wrong with the system. There are, after all, "elections," and "reformers" standing in a parliament. So why then is it that most people in the know scoff at the idea of Iran as a democracy?

Imagine that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court were a hereditary position. Imagine, further, that he had ultimate authority over all law and policy, and that before each election, he got to choose who was allowed to run for office, and disqualify, for any reason he chooses, who he wishes. You could hardly call it a democracy, even though many of the trappings are there. Now one starts to get the idea of the problem with Iran.

Iran's Meaningless Elections

Norman Geras has more commentary on the reaction to the Hutton Inquiry by way of reaction to the complaints in certain press circles that the report is simply a "whitewash."

Previous item (with links) here.

Update: The BBC has apologized to Tony Blair.

What was it? Another man's penis, apparently.

SI.com - MLB - Indians prospect regrets doing gay porn

Tadano is a pitcher now, but it is unkown what position he played at the time the film was made. buh-dum-bump

Good Lord this is a gold-mine of bad jokes.

Good for him. I hope it works out.

And the Red Sox didn't pick this kid up WHY?

MEMRI has a translation of the article from that Baghdad paper that published a list of "270 companies, organizations and individuals awarded allocations (vouchers) of crude oil by Saddam Hussein's regime." The entire list is there. Fortunately, I am not on it. Or maybe not so fortunately. After all, will anything actually happen to anyone on the list, assuming it is accurate? Will anything actually be done by way of sanction? Really?

...and in style. This is via mal in the comments and Roger L. Simon. Paul Berman describes a conversation a lot of people have been having lately, with friends who think they've been betrayed somehow - with friends who you'd like to grab by the lapels and yell, "No! Please listen to me!"

A Friendly Drink in a Time of War by Paul Berman

Update: BTW, speaking of Michnik, here is an entry pointing to an article by Michnik back in May. The link still works, too.

The Hutton Inquiry report has been released in full, and it's looking very, very good for Tony Blari, and very, very bad for the BBC.

David Kaspar already has excerpts, so go take a look.

The headline in my CNN email alert says "Blair faces Hutton verdict," and the title on the article itself is, "Inquiry clears Blair over WMD report." One wonders when those headlines will start turning around and shining on the BBC and their reporter, Andrew Gilligan, who appear in all respects to be the guilty parties here. I won't be holding my breath.

This is a nice gift for my blogiversary.

Update: More links at Instapundit here and here...and here (BBC Chairman to resign?).

Norman Geras: "If, before the event, you'd tried to imagine the outcome Tony Blair wanted, this would have been it, no? You can be sure that, had it gone against Blair by so much as the width of a fingernail, those who want his head would in no time have been stretching this narrowness to reach across the land."

Ayup.

Update: Norm has more reaction to the fallout here.

Yes, a year ago today I made my first post on Solomonia.com - you have to scroll to the bottom to see it. When I started I didn't really know what "blogging" was, and didn't really have a firm grip on what I was going to be using the URL for in the long run. I certainly didn't know about "blogging software" and "permalinks." In all this time I don't think I've missed more than a handful of days - although I'm sure some days have been higher quality than others...

It's been somewhat therapeutic keeping this blog, and occasionally cathartic. After a year I think I'm still finding my voice.

Well, blogging about blogging has to be the most boring crap people can write about on their blogs, so that's that.

Thank you for reading.

Today is a day of solemn heroism.

On this day in 1945, soldiers of the Red Army liberated the Auschwitz death camp. There were only a few thousand prisoners left in the camp at that time, the rest (about 56,000) having been marched out by the Nazis in a mad rush west to mask their crime and finish their work.

I won't try, of course, to put to words in a simple blog post the things that went on in places like that. Others have done it far better than I could in both book and film.

But the reader may indulge me in a few thoughts.

For any person of conscience...of moral fiber...there must be in any life a desire to find greater meaning. A desire to act and achieve for the self, and also to do good for the world - to leave the earth a little bit better place than what we found it.

I can think of no greater deed, no quicker path to heaven, no more everlasting salve upon the soul of a man that must last until the end of his days than having the privilege of being the liberator of a death camp. It is...a perfect good.

In Band of Brothers, the most excellent mini-series about the 101st Airborne Division in WW2, a stand-out moment for me in a story with no weak sequences must be Episode 9 - "Why We Fight." That is the moment when the boys come out of the woods and find the concentration camp.

It stirs emotion in me, a strong one...I am jealous.

I have never served in the military - never marched with Martin Luther King, likely never will invent anything of importance, defend an innocent man accused of a capital offense, star in an inspiring film, nor write a great work. I must content myself with smaller philosophies as it were - respect the good, admire the heroic, ponder right and wrong - to teach it and influence where I can - mostly a neatly cloistered sphere in my direct surround. Supporting cast to an often greater humanity.

Yet here's the story of a bunch of guys who achieved true greatness - who, if there be anything approaching cosmic karma, have purchased enough indulgences to last three lifetimes. Not only did they have the privilege, those who lived, to liberate a continent from Nazism - achieve a victory on the grand scale - but they also did this so very personal thing. They opened the bars of a cage and let the sunlight in.

I cannot even put myself in their place. In my fantasy, I am the guy on the airplane that catches flak and explodes before I have a chance to jump, the guy who's parachute does not open, the one who catches a freak bullet the morning of the invasion and no one remembers for the closing credits.

I am Green.

From the stars, we can look down on the Earth, and imagine all the tiny people, and their petty wars, and their petty conflicts, and wonder why all those souls, who appear not even as ants to us floating up above, why they have to kill each other, why they must cause so much pain to one another when they are surrounded by so...much...beauty.

But then we remember...they kill each other, yes...but they...those tiny, tiny specks too minute for the eye to see...they save each other, too.

Your mental view shifted upward just now didn't it? You can imagine yourself in orbit above the earth, looking down at the view...like an astronaut.

January 27, 1967 is the day that three brave men, preparing to ride the tip of humanity's spear into the cosmos, the representatives of all of humanity's hopes and dreams for the future...died.

Edward H. White II, Virgil I. "Gus" Grissom, and Roger B. Chaffee were locked in to their Apollo capsule with no way out for a live test countdown in preparation for a later orbit mission when something happened. It happened so fast they hardly had a chance to panic - if they even knew how. A flash fire swept the concentrated oxygen environment of their capsule and incinerated the three men in seconds, leaving carbonized metal, melted plastic and nylon and three empty places at the dinner table.

They were there - like the men who died so their buddies could go on to beat the Nazis and save the innocent from the ovens - for us, because of us, because we sent them - so that you and I now know what it looks like to peer down at the Earth from a distance. At the very least, we owe it to all of their memories to pause and think about the significance of their sacrifice.

A few days ago some pages from the in-flight diary of Colonel Ilan Ramon were miraculously found, having survived the enormous heat of re-entry and then almost just as amazingly being found by a person here on Earth before they could be swallowed up by the elements. So the man we so envied not so long before, who we sent to risk all for us, who looked down at the smallness of us here on Earth and marveled in wonder at what he saw, renewed, in some way, his connection with us even in death - as if to say, "Here, at least take this, from me, of what I did and saw.

Perhaps we're not so tiny after all.

It is so very rare for anything to survive the flames. But then, Ilan Ramon's mother was an Auschwitz survivor, after all.

So January 27 is a special day. A day of sacrifice and savior. A day when men gave the totality of themselves in a hope of touching the heavens not to leave us all behind, but to lift us all up with them...

...and it was a day of man's inhumanity redemed.

Telegraph | News | A baby dragon, or a bad joke?

LGF, Merde in France and Roger L. Simon are all pointing to new allegations that "dozens of officials and businessmen worldwide illegally received oil in exchange for supporting former leader Saddam Hussein."

OK, this is cool. "Twist-o-flex" displays are on the visible horizon.

Global Home - Philips Steps up Rollable-Display Development - Royal Philips Electronics

The Archibishop of Canterbury has been at the forefront of quite a bit of what's been called European "idiotarianism" - in this form a sort of melange of anti-Americanism and anti-Israel apologetics. But credit where credit is due. He seems here in this report to be acknowledging a growing problem.

JPost: Archbishop of Canterbury warns against anti-Semitism

Evelyn Gordon, writing in the Jerusalem Post, compares original New York Times material to the versions re-published in the Times owned, but Paris published, International Herald Tribune and finds some subtle, but important changes. No surprise, the changes give a more negative view of Israel.

JPost: As edited by...'The Herald Tribune'

Ocean Guy thinks so. Interesting.

The results are in over at normblog! Interesting results. Only two of my pics were among the final top ten.

And clearly, it appears that Revenge of the Nerds will remain unappreciated in our lifetimes.

Annoying monkey!

As promised, here is my report on the screening of HonestReporting.com's film, Relentless, and the talk by Alan Dershowitz that followed.

Arrival and Intro

The event was sponsored by The Boston Israel Action Committee (BIAC), Boston University Students for Israel, Land of Israel Committee, The David Project, Combined Jewish Philanthropies, and the Jewish Community Relations Council. I found out about the screening through my subscription to the JAT-Action email list, and since I've been curious about the film but unwilling to shell out the 25 bucks to buy my own copy just for a peak, and since I'm always interested in hearing Professor Dershowitz speak, I thought this would be a worthwhile event to attend.

I suspected that attendance would be decent, and hoped it would do a bit better than the Dore Gold book signing I attended (I still say I'm owed something for that particular waste of time), and not feeling confident about Boston traffic these days I left early and arrived a full hour before the 7PM start time.

As a BU alum, I was familiar with the venue from my student days - the venerable Morse Auditorium. Somewhat ironically, the Morse was originally a Jewish Temple - the original home of Boston's Temple Israel Reform Congregation. As such, it was a fairly large auditorium with a vaulted roof. The seats have been replaced since I was a student, and I'd estimate it seats about 6 or 700 people, including a couple of rows in the balcony.

There were already some people there even an hour early, so I figured I was right expecting attendance would be good. I considered going back out to the car to get a book, but it was so damn cold I decided to just sit and people-watch.

Security was pretty tight. There were several cops as well as a couple of guys in suits with ear-pieces. People kept on coming and by the time the film started at around 7:15 it was a full house including the balcony as far as I could tell. Attendees seemed to be drawn from a wide range of ages, from college to retirement, male and female, with a large number of Russian accents within earshot of me. The organizers must have been pleased.

The Film

After a brief introduction by the hosts, the film began. I was anxious to see it, and nervous about the feelings it might bring out in me. How shocking will the images be? Will the film make me angry without providing an outlet for my anger (thereby engendering a series of ranting blog-posts...)? Will the film make me proud, or will it make me ashamed by making a good case bad through a piece of pappish propaganda?

I think there's something qualitatively different in watching something like this with a like-minded audience than the experience one might get watching it alone at home, or as an internet video-stream. It's not Return of the King, but a film like Relentless is a natural for a communal viewing experience.

The film? I'm not a film reviewer, but let me give you a few impressions. It starts with a quick history lesson on the founding of the State of Israel and the first few wars. Animated maps are used for this history lesson, which aims to show how the UN partitioned the land, who got what, and what the Arabs said no to in favor of going to war. The narrative voice-over is a major aspect of the viewing experience here, and throughout the film, and I found it to be the most questionable aspect. I only say it was "questionable" - not that I have the answer. Personally, I felt the over-produced voice gave the film an almost propagandistic, "play on the emotions" feel, and that made me worry a bit. [Edit: Listening back now to a bit of the film after having written this, and I'm not sure that I may to have over-reacted a bit to "the voice," but this was my initial impression so I'm going to leave it.] This is not the voice of Ken Burns' Civil War, this is a more commanding, reverberating voice. Maybe it's more effective that way, I don't know. I'm just saying it concerned me.

Interviews are used to punctuate the maps and video shots. Only one Palestinian representative is seen - the PA ambassador to South Africa, who's name escapes me. Blog-readers will recognize many of the other faces - Natan Sharansky, John Loftus, Caroline Glick (who's better looking than her Jerusalem Post photo makes her seem I must say), Joseph Farah, Tasbih Sayyed (Editor of Pakistan Today), Daniel Pipes and Itamar Marcus all make appearances and give measured balance to "The Voice."

The history is by way of prologue to the meat of the film, which is really a description of peace efforts post-1967, and particularly the Oslo era. Video and expert testimony from many of the above personalities is used to describe what Oslo was, what the sides were expected to do, and to hammer home the idea that Israel has substantially and in good-faith complied with all of its obligations and expectations, while Arafat's PA has not.

Itamar Marcus's Palestinian Media Watch is a prime source here. We see video of Palestinian TV. We see children being taught the glory of martyrdom. We are treated shots of Arafat smiling and talking peace for the Western cameras, and then the scene changes and we see him glorifying Hamas suicide bombers and praising Sheik Yassin. We see video of Palestinian children's "summer camps" which look more like Special Forces training. We see video of Palestinian Communications Director, Imad el-Falouji, exhorting a crowd and announcing that plans for violence had commenced in advance of Ariel Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount.

All of this is quite effective, and may be the most important aspect of the film, which leaves us hoping that it has proven the point it set out to make - that the Palestinian leadership is not a partner for peace, and not just based on surmise and "he said/she said," but on solid evidence.

The film finished and the lights came up. There was a tentative smattering of applause. Is this the type of film you applaud? Yes, decided the crowd, and there was much clapping.

Does the film accomplish its mission? Yes, if a mind is ready to accept the message. The trouble with the entire issue of Israel and peace is that it is a one-sided story - because it is a one-sided story. That makes it very difficult for even the most dispassionate description of events to appear as anything other than propaganda (in the negative sense), and that's going to leave it difficult for anyone but those ready to receive the message in danger of tuning out. "OK, OK," I can hear them saying, "but there's GOT to be another side..." The fact that there really isn't doesn't help, and that provides an extra hurdle for the film's producers. Forget the idea of a rich person purchasing an hour of network time to air the film on American television. That would just result in a responding salvo from the other side and in the resulting mess a whole bunch of average Americans disgusted and sick of the whole thing.

My strategy would be to keep a copy of the film on hand, ready to view, but only by those who want to view it - those who are ready to receive its message. Forcing this on anyone, or showing it to those who aren't ready for it bears a great risk of actually turning them off to the truths contained in it. For those who are ready, this film may bear an effective and powerful message, and brings graphic full-motion color to the sterile, dead headlines. I'm looking forward to finding the right opportunity to show it and getting feedback. Copies of the film were for sale and I did purchase one. Sadly, only in VHS, not DVD, since I was informed that the final 2 minutes of the DVD version were "messed up." Come on, guys, you gotta get that worked out. No one uses video anymore.

The Dershowitz Speech & Question and Answer Session

Dershowitz is clearly a practiced speaker. He spoke clearly, at length, and without notes. I won't go into everything he said, mostly because of course I only took a few notes and can't remember everything he said. He was funny and serious by turns, easily holding the audience's attention. He spoke about pro-Israel advocacy in general, and on campus specifically. He mentioned that one of the biggest problems he sees is that there is plenty of anti-Israel activity, and plenty of professors willing to speak out against Israel on campus, but all too often, too many pro-Israel professors are afraid to speak out. They call him to thank him for his efforts and tell him about their fears, but do nothing themselves. This is a big problem.

He spoke about the World Court and expressed his concerns about the upcoming Fence hearings, about the political nature of the Court, and about the fact that every Arab and Muslim country will be submitting briefs, but that the actual victims of terror would not be allowed to be heard.

He spoke several times against men like Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said and Norman Finkelstein. In particular, he chastized Chomsky for not having the guts to debate knowledgeable people, and ducking his challenges. He spoke loudly about the fact that he would debate Chomsky anytime, anywhere.

He spoke about the extraordinary lengths Israel goes to in making moral decisions in its war on terror, and its targeted assassinations. He described his recent trip to Israel, in which he was allowed in on one of the meetings that makes such decisions. I believe he said there was a panel of twenty persons - including military people, international law attorneys, ethicists, a mathmatician to calculate potential collateral damage, and including a discussion of the balance between potential civilian and Israeli military casualties, all while there was a live heat-signature display of the actual terrorist under discussion going about his business in his home. In the end, it was decided the risks to innocents were too great, and they would wait for him to move to a vehicle.

A few of my notes from the question period:

The first person asked what the Professor felt should be done about Homicide Bombings. Part of his answer was interesting. He discussed levels of culpability, and included the inciters and glorifiers as people directly responsible for the violence. As an example, he felt whoever planned the exhibit at An-Najah University glorifying the Sbarro Restaurant bombing (the display is shown in the film, by the way) had made themselves into a completely valid military target.

Another questioner asked about what should be done about some of the deeper settlements like Ariel...Dershowitz, IIRC, didn't give a specific answer, but he did mention some of the massacres of Jews during the War of Independence, and used the 1929 massacre at Hebron as an example, saying that Jews had lived there for 3500 years and that there is no reason Jews should NOT live there, but as a practical matter it may be necessary, unjust as it may be, that Jews may not be able to.

The third questioner was an interesting character. This guy was mistaken at the start of the night for a homeless person who had just wandered in off the street. He was tall and thin, disheveled, clearly a tad disturbed judging by his movements, and by the fact that when I had noticed him earlier he had been rather obviously wiping his nose on the back of his exposed forearm. As he approached the microphone, I noticed a police officer had moved toward the front of the room.

Before he spoke, Dershowitz introduced him himself. He said something along the lines of, "Let me introduce you to my intellectual stalker. He follows me around to every speaking event. OK, go ahead..."

The guy was well-spoken enough, actually, if a bit...strident. Maybe one of those 60's guys who dropped acid one too many times back in the day and blames the military-industrial complex for underfunding the Math Department and denying him tenure. Who knows. Anyway, he took Dershowitz to task for saying Chomsky hadn't debated him, when in fact he had on several occasions, which Dershowitz conceded was true, but "not for a long time." "The stalker" said Chomsky now refuses to debate Dershowitz because he calls Dershowitz a "mediocre intellect." He also brought up Dershowitz's writing and statements against Chomsky for his authorship of an Introduction to one of famed Holocaust-denier Robert Faurison's books, and his accusing Chomsky himself of flirting with Holocaust Revision. "The Stalker" claimed that Dershowitz was distorting the record and ignoring Chomsky's version of events.

Dershowitz gave the man his say, then beckoned the next person to step up to the mic, and "The Stalker" moved off.

Another questioner stated that his daughter, a student at Cornell, was having trouble getting the film shown there, that it had been called hate-speech and that Hillel was not supporting her. Dershowitz reacted firmly to this. He said the film is absolutely not hate-speech, that it is truth, and that the man should call his office, and that he personally would call the head of Cornell Hillel, and if they still couldn't get action that he, personally, would rent a hall and show the picture himself. This garnered much applause as one might imagine.

On the issue of media bias, Dershowitz said that he'd been reading the New York Times for years, and felt that they were overall dead-solid center good and fair in their Israel coverage. This garnered some murmurs, but he stuck to his story. He said the Boston Globe's hard news coverage was also very fair (I disagree), but that their Editorial Page is an unmitigated disgrace.

To show that those who hope that Dershowitz's support for Israel and the War on Terror generally might be causing him to shift some of his ideological ground, forget it. The Professor has way too many decades, too much writing, too much speaking and too much of his reputation invested in his position as a main-line Democratic Party liberal. He generally avoided discussing specifics and shied away from harsh criticisms of specific politicians, but he did get enough in to make it clear he was not a supporter of the war on Iraq, not a Bush supporter, nor a Sharon man.

He said he does not read the Wall Street Journal editorial page as it makes him physically ill. He will not appear on FOX, even though they are pro-Israel, because he thinks they are horrendously biased.

Based on these statements, and his showing himself to be coming from a New York Times viewpoint, I picture him as akin to the frog in the slowly heating pot of water. He doesn't even notice how the world has changed around him. He no longer recognizes his own biases, nor the biases of others so long as they match his own.

He mentioned that the way CAMERA gets specifics is an excellent way to combat media bias, and that NPR is terrible. They think they are fair by giving equal time to both sides, but that find moderate Palestinians and then put up either extreme Leftist or extreme Rightist Israelis.

He feels that there's no reason to have Palestinians entering Israel to work, that it is not humanitarian, that, in fact, Israel owes nothing to the Palestinians and that it should be up to Jordan to support the West Bank economy. He does not believe in ANY imported labor, but a return to the Labor Zionist (my words) days when Israelis did the work for themselves.

Speaking about the Geneva Accords, he felt that, among many problems, is the fact that it gives even more to the Palestinians than they were offered at Taba. He says, in the interests of never rewarding terrorists, the Palestinians should always be offered LESS after they turn down a deal. Unsurprisingly, the author of Why Terrorism Works thinks it's a big mistake to reward terror.

Conclusion

Excellent evening. Seeing Professor D speak was a treat. The film is a must-see for any pro-Israel person, and a must-own for showing when the conditions and audience is right. It can be a welcome experience for frustrated people seeking like-minded others to share an evening with - something that may be a familiar feeling for blog readers - and may help do a little good, as well.

Update: I just recalled OceanGuy's report on his viewing. He had some of the same problems thinking of what to "do" with the film.

I received this in my email box. I don't generally pass on chain emails, but I don't see anything wrong with posting it here.

Just returned from the screening of HonestReporting.com's film Relentless with talk following by Alan Dershowitz. I took some notes and a couple of pictures (which came out far too dark, unfortunately) and I'll write up some impressions when I get a chance to really sit down and think about it.

Just quickly I'll say it was a full-house (I've gotta do the math but I'm guessing about 7 or 800), I should have brought my book to be signed, Dershowitz is still that left/liberal guy in need of an epiphany and I'm glad I went.

Laurie Mylroie writes in National Review on some of the problems and absurdities the government (specifically our law-enforcement agencies) must go through to protect us from terrorism - Mishandling Terrorism: The law-enforcement mistake.

Mylroie gets into some of the specifics of the dangers of treating terror as a law enforcement issue, and more specifically "The Wall" put up between criminal and terror investigations and how this wall makes it more than just troublesome for our enforcement and investigative agencies.

After Mylroie's piece, you might want to check out this lengthy article by Heather Mac Donald, Why the FBI Didn't Stop 9/11 (Thanks to Mal in the comments with a timely pointer.). It gets into many of the same issues and then some, and in even more depth. Don't let the length turn you off, it's worth it.

Then, you can go back and review this concise Slate four part series on understanding the USA Patriot Act with a renewed depth of understanding of some of the important issues involved. There are no doubt still sections of the act to be concerned with, but concern is one thing, hysteria another, and unfortunately there's a lot of the latter floating around out there these days. The blathering of pundits and political hacks is no substitute for some of the nitty-gritty specifics elucidated in the first two articles. Highly recommended.

Or worse, a deserter? Bill Hobbs points to this piece by Donald Sensing describing how the charge is not only incorrect but, in fact, ignorantly made. (Are you listening, local talk host, Jim Braude?)

Speaking of Bill Hobbs and the Bush AWOL story, he has an entire category of posts refuting the allegation that are well worth checking out.

Remember that "Racist Rhyme" lawsuit? I put up an item about it last February. This is the case where two black ladies filed suit against Southwest Airlines because a stewardess announced over the intercom: "Eenie meenie minie moe, pick a seat, we gotta go" - the two were taking a bit long finding a seat. You know, one of those cases that has the effect of blunting the impact when a real instance of race-bias comes along. In today's Boston Globe, Jeff Jacoby takes aim at the extreme PC police, using this case, and the case of "African American" student Trevor Richards as his hooks.

Read the Jacoby piece if you need a refresher on the "eenie meenie" case. The horror. This dovetails somewhat with my Friday entry, Re-thinking Affirmative Action.

Boston.com / News / Boston Globe / Opinion / Op-ed / A little less freedom of speech

I hope to attend a screening of Honest Reporting's film Relentless - The Struggle for Peace in the Middle East tomorrow evening at 7PM. The event will be held at the Morse Auditorium on the Boston University campus (my alma mata) and there is supposed to be a talk by Alan Dershowitz following the film.

Should be interesting. I'm hoping to arrive early. Will report.

Via Blog-Iran:

Amir Taheri compares Iran's battle between the "reformers" and the "hard liners" to the days of the search for hawks and doves within the old Soviet hierarchy.

READING IRAN WRONG - Amir Taheri - Benador Associates

Boston.com / A&E / TV / Bob Keeshan, Captain Kangaroo, dies at 76

Reader msmordin found my entry on What I think and caught the first line, "I think that Affirmative Action probably seemed like a good idea at the time." He (?) sent me links to three articles on the subject, all of which I am happy to recommend. Now, if you're like I used to be, and still mired in the idea that one cannot possibly be against the idea of Affirmative Action as it has come to be practiced without being a racist, then it is likely you will get little out of reading them. In fact, you probably won't bother. If, however, you are ready to start breaking the bonds of your "more sensitive than thou" pose, you may get something out of them, and so I offer them up for your consideration.

The Weekly Standard: The Diversity Taboo, by Heather MacDonald

Frontpage: Affirmative Action, Negative Justice, by Barry Loberfeld

Harper's Magazine: The age of white guilt: and the disappearance of the black individual, by Shelby Steele

The third, by Shelby Steele, is particularly good. It's always good to read essays by fine authors. (For instance, if you're interested in Judaism, it can't hurt to read an introduction written by a guy like Herman Wouk.)

I found the following section interesting, as I think it explains much in both academia and, in many respects, the press (I touched on this phenomenon with regard to the press, although with far less depth and eloquence here.).

Everyone wants to be important. Everyone wants to make a difference. Combining importance with career advancement is a double-bonus. Speaking of prominent author James Baldwin, Steele writes:

Again, all three essays are good in their own ways, as the issue goes beyond mere issues of black and white and into the greater issue of human liberty. Enjoy.

Mr. Average Democrat calls his girlfriend...

*ringring*...Hi Howard! Yeah, it's me. How you doin' honey? Good...good. Listen...I'm not sure how to say this exactly, so I'll just come right out and say it...I, I think it's time we moved on...hun? You there? ...I know, I know it's kinda sudden...well, I had to do it some time, and it may as well be now...please don't cry...and don't SHOUT...okok, I'm sorry...oh yeah, we've had some great times together....yeah, I remember that trip we took...yeah, South Dakota, North Dakota, Virginia, Connecticut...honey, honey, stop, stop, I got it, I told you I remember. You've been a great traveling partner...oh yeah, there's no one I'd rather party with...those tequila shots down in Key West...the time with the donkey...oh baby, I'll never forget those good times...oh yeah...oh, I'll be honest...you're the best lay I've ever had...I mean, that thing you do with your leg...heheh...see? I made you laugh...hey, I know, I know...I may never find someone like you to click with and have a good time with again...Why? You want to know why then? How do I say this? Well...baby...I just feel like it's time for me to settle down...to get serious...I want to have a family...maybe a kid. Can you see US having a baby and being all serious together? Doing the Sunday morning newspaper and coffee thing? PTA? You've never even met my parents...I know...I know you're willing to meet my parents...I know they'll never actually see your piercings, but that's just it...you have PIERCINGS. In places they'll never see...now, now, don't cry...and don't SHOUT again...okok, I'm soorrry...nono, it's not the Jew...or the black guy...no, not the General, either - yuck!...no, there is no one else...yet...look, it's not about you, or anyone else, it's ME, it's about me. The fact is, you're too good for me. You're a Doctor! You should be out saving people's lives...I know you'd give it all up for me, but I don't want you to. I want someone to stay home and raise my kids, to keep house...that ain't you, babe...sorry.

Don't worry, I'll invite you to the wedding.

*click*

Lynn B points to Israeli historian Benny Morris's reply to some of the furor caused by his original HaAretz interview. If Morris is looking to calm the controversy his original interview engendered, then I think he's probably failed, although he may feel a bit better personally clarifying a couple of points concerning his personal feelings. The same people who were upset at what was said before will be little happier now, the people who liked what they read will certainly like this one, and the people who think it's just more Morris waffling will continue to be unimpressed. Regardless, in my view this piece is every bit as worth reading as the original interview was.

Haaretz - Right of Reply / I do not support expulsion By Benny Morris

The Washington Times reports that an Alaska National Guard unit has been activated as "the United States' first ground-based missile defense unit..."

U.S. activates Alaska missile defense unit - (United Press International)

That calls to mind this story from last March: North Korean Missile Warhead Found in Alaska. Nothing ever came of that, as I recall.

Diana West continues her thoughts on the Hijab and the French ban on religious clothing. Via Robert Spencer's Dhimmi Watch (who is quoted in West's piece). Previous item here.

French fashion II - The Washington Times: Editorials/OP-ED

Via Blog-Iran: Chicago Tribune | Germans study claims by source tying Iran to 9/11

This is the trial to keep an eye on. There are a lot of questions about the veracity of this Zakeri character, but if half of what he's talking about is true, it's still explosive.

Quick couple comments. I've stopped watching a bit short of the end (that's enough of that).

Winner: Kerry. Without a doubt. He looked good (for him). I could actually see his eyeballs under his Lurch-brows, where they're usually just dark pits. He spoke assuredly and on message. It's the first time in the campaign I've heard him where his cadence didn't sound affected and calculated to sound "Presidential." He sounded natural (relatively) and did an excellent job portraying himself as the man to beat Bush.

In second place: Lieberman. He was charming, well spoken and given to humor. Also sold himself well and justified his positions well. Sadly, not well enough to beat anyone.

Third place: Edwards. Actually, Edwards' performance was a bit disappointing. He went on too long in some of his answers without needing to because he was repeating himself and unsure on some of the issues. He was particularly weak when Peter Jennings asked him about dealing with the Muslim world and in his confusion on Defense of Marriage. His answer on why he voted against the $87 Billion on Iraq (that he wanted the President to come back with another proposal) was OK, and at least provided enough explanation to blunt the charge of rank hypocrisy.

Fourth: Dean, I guess. Peter Jennings actually gave him a softball in the beginning to explain his post-Iowa shouting, and he could have used that a lot better. Overall, though, he was unremarkable. Hmmm...as I think about it, he may have tied with Edwards.

Fifth: Kucinich. He held up charts again. The Martians are a scientific people, after all. DENNIS KUCINICH, WE OF EARTH DEMAND THAT YOUR KIN STOP TAMPERING WITH THE VEHICLES WE HAVE LAUNCHED TO EXPLORE YOUR PLANET.

Seriously, the man's redeaming factor is that in all honesty, he speaks well. He really does. You almost forget his freakish looks, and as he starts to tell you about how we ought to put Iraq and their oil resources in the hands of the UN again, you almost, almost start to think, "Yeah, that sounds like an OK idea..." before you snap out of it and realize "HOLY SHIT, WTF IS THIS DANGEROUS LUNATIC TALKING ABOUT?"

Bringing up the rear, and I do mean the rear, are Al Sharpton and Wes Clark. Sharpton sounded like the spoken equivalent of an essay test you take in school, where you have to fill three pages but only have about a half page of knowledge, so you BS the rest of the way through it with nonsensical filler. "Oh yes, the Federal Reserve...well of course, it's important, and it should continue to be both Federal AND a Reserve..."

Wes Clark is just both slippery AND slimy. I don't believe him. I don't trust him. I don't like that he wouldn't repudiate Michael Moore's comments about George W. Bush being a deserter, and used the very same excuse that got Howard Dean in trouble, "Well, you know, it's out there." You better look into it now, General. Letting someone else make a serious accusation in your presence without saying boo about it is a no-no. I also found his delivery occasionally good, at times bad, but mostly unremarkable.

So that's it: Advantage Kerry. Lieberman was helped. Clark hurt. No one else affected.

Edit: No, considering he had so much to gain tonight, and in view of his at best mediocre performance, I'm putting Edwards in the "loss" column.

Update: Roger L. Simon's take here. He has a very similar take to mine. Dean Esmay, here. He also had a very negative reaction to Clark.

Update2: Transcript of the debate is here at the Washington Post (found through my referrer logs(?))

Another hat tip to Mal in the comments. He points out this letter to Palestinian parents from an Israeli mother at the Jerusalem Post. Note the sub-text here: The Palestinian parents who "lost" their child and to whom the letter is addressed are reported to have registered their complaint with the Palestinian Authority only for the fact that their son was recruited for a poorly-planned mission, not that he was recruited for suicide in the first place.

Letter to Palestinian parents

Saw what I think is one of the above creatures, a black mink, romping through my yard last night. So I'm wondering, if I were to grab-hold of that guy and peel him for my own purposes, would I incur the wrath of the PETA people? Also, how many more may be back there in those woods? I'm thinking potential gold mine here. Hmmmm...

Awww...don't get upset. I'm just kidding, but I would like to invite the fella in to share some of our spoiled rabbits' treats (that is, the rabbits are spoiled, not the treats). Maybe he'd let us pet him...must be so soft...and warm...good for glove lining...nono, none of that, now. Perish the thought, perish the thought!

With a hat-tip to Mal, The American Thinker has a very good piece entitled Why Does the Left Hate Israel? by Richard Baehr. The piece examines the issue, finds seven potential explanations and comes to the same conclusion I do - that Israel, and I believe Jews generally, have, at this point in history, far more to fear from the political "Left" than the political "Right."

Ouch. Well, file this under "don't post your best stuff on other people's blogs when you should be creating content on your own." Roger L. Simon has a bit of a post-mortum on Howard Dean's Iowa fiasco. Go ahead and read Roger's interesting take. The discussion there inspired me to post about the issue, but rather than leaving my remarks buried on Roger's blog I figured I'd re-post it here. Anyway, here's my (re-posted) take:

I think Dean got caught up in his own echo-chamber. The rest of the world outside the close-on followers got a look inside that chamber during his Iowa fiasco and what they saw wasn't pretty. Dean's been showing signs of being surrounded by too many people who like the angry-man act, and that's OK at first but it will only carry you so far. He should have known it was time to start widening his appeal a bit but he lost perspective. The average, undecided voter doesn't like that angry stuff and the signs were already showing that something was amiss. What was it he said? "George Bush isn't MY neighbor." Sorry, that kind of thing is going to be a big turn-off to most voters. I've watched election after election here in Massachusetts as the Kennedy haters wonder why someone doesn't go after Teddy with more passion considering all the skeletons in his closet. Simple answer is because it does not work. The American people will not elect someone they perceive to be classless to the US Senate or the Presidency. Smart politicians get others to do the attacks for them, but again, Howard Dean got caught up watching the reaction of his cheering crowds and mistook them for the electorate as a whole. Big mistake.

So the "YEEEAAAGH" moment was just the frosting on the cake. I actually didn't think it in and of itself was so bad. To me it didn't sound nutty, it just looked unnatural. Governor, you're an MD politician. In short, you're a nerd. That means no break-dancing and no shouting "Yeehaw" (oh, and avoid riding in tanks - like the plague). Try either one and prepare to look very, very silly and also prepare to apologize to your staff who are going to have to run around the country trying to buy up all the video tape.

Thing is, he gave the media the hook they needed to feel important. One thing the press shares - left or right - they like to feel powerful, and taking down a front-running Presidential candidate is like hunting big-game for them, and Dean's performance of late has left him limping, weak and outside the protection of the rest of the pack. So now he gets to wear the Ross Perot albatross - the label of "nut." A candidate cannot survive with that label strapped around their neck, and it's Dean's turn to wear it.

Jeff Brokaw [commenter at Roger's place]:

"Not only are you 100% correct about Dean being an opportunist on the Iraq war, so is just about every other anti-Bush - oops I mean anti-Iraq-war - politician. Very of them said anything negative in the slowest "rush to war" in history; it was only after they saw political opportunity that they dug down deep and found some brand new conviction. A pox on all their houses. Take a stance and mean it, or shut up and let people with vision and courage drive."

Totally agree. Now we have Kerry as front-runner. This Bay Stater has watched Kerry from the beginning and I've been embarrassed watching his lame perfomance - his poor delivery, his absolutely execrable self-serving statements at every possible opportunity and his waffling. He's had it easy up until now since he's been nothing but a dissappointing also ran. Well that just changed so get ready Senator.

I do expect he'll have an easier time than Dean, though. Before the "nut" label, Dean was already getting the "can't beat Bush" label, which sub-consciously translates into the "not a serious candidate" label - front-runner or no. Kerry is still a "could possibly beat Bush," and that will keep him in good stead with at least a large portion of the press. The big question is how long that lasts.

But hey, who really knows. This could all be irrelevant. It's only Iowa, right?

=end quote=

As I think about this further, I've just thought of an example of one of Kerry's free-rides. The day Saddam was captured Kerry's remarks were self-serving and embarrassing. Even the local liberal talk-hosts were embarrassed for him. Dean's remarks were mostly decent, but the press focussed in on the one controversial thing he said - that Saddam's capture didn't make us safer, while Kerry got a complete pass for his lame response (No, I don't have transcripts or access to Lexis-Nexus search. These are just my personal recollections.). Now, no more free ride for Kerry.

Dovetailing with the discussion here, and don't miss Meryl's further post here on issues involving the Hijab, Diana West gets to some of the sub-text behind the cloth. (Via Dhimmi Watch)

Diana West: Off with their headscarves

The massive collection of bloggers pimping their own material is up over at PoliBlog, so go on and check it out. This week I chose to submit my review of America's Army (the computer game).

State of the Union Address

I really, really, enjoy the pageantry of these events. The SoTU is one of the great events of the greatest Democracy on Earth. There are all the branches of government gathered (was disappointed more Supreme Court Justices weren't there - what was up with that?) in one place - a historic place, and when you think of all the people who have passed through that place and sat in those seats it can be rather awe-inspiring. I also enjoy seeing the foreign dignitaries in attendance. I wonder how Adnan Pachachi was feeling?

GWB has a pretty good delivery when he's had time to practice. Very few verbal gaffs. Good job there.

Whenever they flashed the camera on Teddy Kennedy he seemed to be shaking that big face of his so hard I was afraid his jowls were going to burst.

Hillary must have been extra careful about her look this time. She took a lot of flack for the frowny-puss she was wearing the last time out, so this time she had a big, fake and frankly extremely odd and forced smile when the focus went to her. Be naaatural Hillary...you remember what that was like, don't you?

I liked what Bush said about the War on Terror. He was forceful. He stuck to his guns and didn't back down from his positions. The whole run-down of nations that are in Iraq with us was excellent. It reminded me of Howard Dean's bizarro-speech last night when he started shouting out all the states yet to come, only it was...good. Excellent, in fact. Unilateral my ass. "As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices." Yes.

I actually worried that he was spending too much time on issues of war, that he was actually sounding too bellicose for once (I usually find him, contrary to what the critics say, rather understated) - but I need not have worried. It was just a long speech (for Bush).

I was a bit surprised, and somewhat impressed, that he brought up something controversial like the Patriot Act, and that led to one of the better moments of the evening. The President said, "Key provisions of the Patriot Act are set to expire next year..." and there was applause from the Democrat side, but then he said, "The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule." Zing. Point Bush.

He talked about some spending programs, but nothing in the multi-billion-dollar range, thank goodness, or am I forgetting something? It all sounded good to me. I thought the issue of steroids in professional sports as part of the War on Drugs was an interesting thing to bring up, and frankly I think it was a pretty fair connection, and not a bad move (Hey! That's Tom Brady!).

Sooo...that's my quick-impression-after-the-speech-run-down for now. I liked it, but then maybe I would.

America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

Now here's a surprise. Officials, reportedly including - and here's a shock - IAEA and European officials, are worried that Iran is parsing the wording on their agreement to suspend all enrichment activities and hasn't, in fact...suspended all enrichment activities. Well, they haven't been actually enriching the uranium, they've just continued to build the centrifuges so that they can pick up where they left off - or a little ahead, in fact.

Libya, on the other hand, appears to be cooperating fully.

Iran Said to Renege on Nuclear Promises

Highlight of the evening:

Dean's Screech

Thanks to Nathan Hamm for the pointer!

Just speculation on my part, of course, but Baker's success in getting Iraqi debt relief is a very positive development.

Qatar forgives $4 billion of Iraqi debt

Study the Koran? - article by Daniel Pipes

Daniel Pipes warns against a layman reading the Koran and expecting to learn too much useful from it. An example snip:

It seems to me the message ought not to be "don't read it," but instead, "go ahead and read it" but bear in mind, reading the Koran will give you no more definitive idea of what modern Muslims actually believe as reading the Old and New Testaments will tell you what modern Jews and Christians believe and how they behave.

Update: Via Lynn B., As a feminist, Meryl Yourish doesn't care for what Pipes says about the hijab. I read it differently. I read it that Pipes is simply saying the "some Muslims believe..." and using that as an example of evolving justifications, not necessarily Pipes's justification. I really doubt Pipes himself is a hijab advocate.

This LGF entry draws attention to some flack anti-Idiotarian actor John Rhys-Davies of Gimli the Dwarf (among many others) fame is predictably getting for his decidedly anti-Idiotarian remarks.

I heard Rhys-Davies interviewed on Michael Medved's radio show, and my impression of the man is that he sounded like the very picture of British Class. The man was measured in his remarks and absolutely refused to jump to any bait whatsoever to criticize his fellow stars - including decidedly pro-Idiotarian, Viggo Mortensen, for whom he had nothing but praise.

I find his response to the flap, contained in the article linked above, excellent, and so I've reproduced it below. Yes, Rhys-Davies' remarks can easily be mis-used by the race-baiters, and yet his words and their intent are nothing of the sort, so I also find his statement particularly appropriate for Martin Luther King's Day. In this day and age, when two of our most prominent "Civil Rights" leaders - Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson - seem more interested in perpetuating problems for their own gain and for whom everything is a product of racism, it never hurts to take a moment and listen to the voices of the clear-headed.

Busy taking the day off today, so blogging has been light. I've been away from the computer and away from the news and away from thinking about the news and issues and now that I'm back I have little desire to write about them. Well, I have the desire, just not the...drive? Sometimes I get an issue stewing around in my head, in this case the incident with the Swedish "art" and the Israeli Ambassador, and I ponder doing a post on it, but until I do the piece, those thoughts have a tendency to block up the pipes and prevent anything else coming out. What's worse is that I may never getting around to writing about it at all, anyway.

Took the family out to do a little shopping - big excitement. We also stopped off and tried a local Thai restaurant. Damn good. I loves me Thai food. Calorie hell, though.

I've also done a little maintainance to the blogroll, it needs more, but I did add a couple of blogs and cull a few long-time (and not so long-time) non-reciprocators, as well as a couple more blogs that haven't been maintained in a long while (I would be happy to add them back if they go active again). If you have a blog that links to me and would like me to consider linking back, feel free to drop me a line. I tend to like blogs that have been around awhile, are updated fairly frequently, and have an ideological bent (if relevant) that's not objectionable. I consider the links a "feature" of the site, so I like them to be of value to my visitors.

Anyway, I went to Buck-a-Book and picked up a copy of the Ultimate Visual Dictionary and Laura Blumenfeld's, Revenge for short money. Added together with a couple of Christmas gifts in the form of Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel and Stephen Ambrose's D-Day and the couple dozen other books I have that I "need to get to" and I've got some real nice shelf fodder hanging out around here in my home office like a bunch of gargoyles keeping the evil spirits away. I hear if you actually manage to read them they become more powerful, though.

Oh, so the day's not a total bust, enjoy some optical illusions.
This one's cool, for instance.

Well, I took King up on his offer to watch the Patriots game at his place and I'm glad I did. Not only did I drink a lot of his scotch, but there was quite a good football game on TV as well! And it went quite well for our guys! Yay! Football is a damn good game, rendered even better when the team you're rooting for wins, hence today's game was fully satisfying. My only complaint is that they barely showed the cheerleaders at all. What's up with that? I even enjoyed most of the commercials.

See ya in two weeks! (for the SuperBowl)

Boston.com / Sports / Football / Patriots / Pats lay down the Law

Several good posts worth taking a look at over at Davids Medienkritik, so I thought I'd just bottle them up into one entry here:

Stockholm Art Exhibit Attack: The Other Side

The Reason Why We Can't be Complacent About Israel

Penn's Iraq Visit: dpa Sees it Differently

Meeting Reality Sometimes Helps...

Here's the latest from Palestinian Media Watch (not yet on line). This is an object lesson (one of many) in why the moaning of Palestinian officials that they can't do anything to control their population until Israel does x, y or z is a bald-faced lie. The glorification of death and murder in Palestinian society is wholely and fully within the PA's (and specifically Arafat's) control.

I leave it to better men than I to fisk Ted Kennedy's Op-Ed in today's Washington Post. One thing that strikes me as I read this, however, is the amount of projection contained therein. In the world of the Kennedys, *everything* is a political calculation. Every stance is about currying favor and winning elections, every speech about pleasing a special interest - so it comes as no surprise that these are exactly the same motivations ascribed to Kennedy's political opponents.

As one reads Kennedy's piece, one cannot help but notice that there is not one ounce, not one iota of possibility or credit granted that there may, just may, be something more behind President Bush's policy decisions on Iraq than simple electioneering. Despite the volumes written, the op-eds, the speeches and statements of argument, it all boils down to electoral manipulation.

No wonder the Democrats can't figure out why they're losing. They just don't "get" it. They ascribe all manner of dishonest manipulation to the White House to explain their own failure to lead when in reality, the only ones being fooled are the members of the Democrat establishment themselves.

A Dishonest War By Edward M. Kennedy

Update: Power Line has a take on the substance of the piece.

John Little, creator of BlogsofWar and now Eye on the Left has a new blog project that looks like it will be worth keeping an eye on: National Security Blog | Politically conservative perspectives on national security.

No politics in this article, just a little glimpse into the life of one of Israel's non-Jewish minorities and a look at one of Israel's mixed communities.

Boston.com / Travel / Rarities in Israel

A little entrepreneurship comes by way of the modern age...

The Jewish presence here is ancient, and the synagogue very old indeed...

The Druze, like the Jews, live as good citizens wherever they may be, and they carry ancient customs into modern times...

I certainly hope this is an in-apt comparison, but it is the one that springs immediately to mind. Is Musharraf leaving power a bit too soon? Is he correct in trusting whoever he's sacrificing his power to, or will he, like Lear, be betrayed having given up power too soon? It strikes me that a man who siezes power by force will live and die by the same. It is a profound wish to imagine, as Musharraf seems to be, that he can give up the base of his power - his military rank - and peacefully transition into the seat of democratic ruler. This incident shows to me that he is about to have a difficult time with it, as at least a good core of the people he needs respect from - the civil leaders - aren't having him. So is it possible he will have given up his military rank, never to get it back and be shunned by the civilian leadership as he is a person of name, but no real position or way to hold it, and thus, like Lear, find himself alone in the wilderness?

And once Musharraf is gone and shunned, which of his "daughters" will take his place? Once his power is sacrificed, he will have but little ability to influence events.

Boston.com / News / World / Pakistani leader faces heckling

Well, one thing you can do is play games. This being Saturday, I thought I'd focus on a little computer recreation, and this being a blog that often delves into issues of war and peace, and certainly supports our troops all the way, I thought I'd focus on one of the games I've been playing lately, America's Army.

America's Army is in the First Person Shooter (FPS) genre - where the player's perspective is the view out the eyes of an individual soldier on the battlefield. The emphasis here is on realism. Weapons here behave like the real thing, damage effects are serious and the speed at which a player can run around the battlefield is slower than in other FPS games like say, Counter Strike (also highly recommended), where the realism focus is slightly relaxed.

I should be clear for those who are not familiar with the genre that America's Army is a multi-player online game. You join a server where, from what I've seen, from 7 to 23 others are playing. I generally prefer servers with 14 or 16 players - 7 or 8 to a side. There are two teams, one with offensive objectives, and one on defense. Teamwork is key to success.

All of these screenshots are highly reduced. You can see them larger size and view video clips at the America's Army site.

The price on America's Army is quite appealing - it's free. That's part of what makes America's Army interesting. In this age where our poiticians often aim to score political points by railing against these types of violent video games, our government, specifically the US Army, has produced and is offering its own version free of charge. You just download it for yourself from the site. If the 650 megabyte download is a bit hefty for you 56K modem users, have no fear. You are invited to visit your local Army Recruiting Office where, one presumes, a friendly recruiting officer will be happy to provide you with a CD...and maybe a little sales pitch to go with?

The graphics are outstanding. You'll need a decent rig to play this game and enjoy it in full graphical glory. I'm running on a 1.44gig Athlon with 768megs of RAM and a GeForce Ti4400 graphics card and the game runs quite nicely for me.

The Army takes training seriously, and so does this game. Players generate an account on the Army's server and your statistics and training levels will be tracked. In order to participate in all of the missions available, the player needs to pass through various training excercises. Want to be able to use the sniper rifle? You'll need to pass sniper training with a certain score. Paratrooper? Pass the parachute missions. Want the ability to patch up your buddies? You'll literely need to sit through three classroom lectures, each with a multiple-choice test at the end. A word of advice: Pay attention! The first time I did the medic training I didn't expect a written test at the end. Doh! Even folks seeking Special Forces certification to play the Special Forces missions will not only need to field qualify in evasion techniques, but they will also need to pass a written, multiple-choice test.

Don't worry, it's not as bad as it sounds, and it does help ensure that the other people you meet on the servers will be serious about playing, and not just there to disrupt other people's good time.

Once you have all your training and certs (not all of which are necessary to play, they're only necessary if you want all the options available), there's still more to do to "Be all you can be." Once you start playing the game, in addition to your score, you'll see another statistic - Honor. This one carries with you from game session to session. It's a measure of time in the game and points garnered. I'm not sure of the exact system, but it seems to have less to do with enemy kills and more to do with successfully completed objectives. From the site:

Frag a bunch of your teammates, and not only could your honor could actually go down, but you may find yourself yanked off the server and staring at the walls of a cell in Levenworth.

You'll need at least a 15 Honor (you start at 10) to play on any of the Special Forces maps, and many servers have a minimum honor level needed to join. Oh, and once you get that 15 Honor, you can trick-out your weapon with your own choice of sights, suppressor, etc...

Don't live in the US? Don't worry. Says the FAQ:

Now if you'll excuse me, there's a downed chopper pilot that needs rescuing, and my Honor needs a bit of polishing after that momentary lapse in muscular coordination I had while holding an RPG...

(Via Angry Left, who always seems to have a lot of interesting links not always found elsewhere, much like the sadly missed Voice from the Commonwealth) This is worth a remark. The Arab satellite station Al Arabiya has decided to stop using the term "martyr" to refer to suicide bombers, and some people are none-too-happy about it.

Saudi station drops 'martyr' - The Washington Times: World

Language is a weapon in the battle, after all.

What's also interesting here is that we get yet another glimpse of how the press is manipulated and outright intimidated by totalitary thugs.

Yikes. Viking Pundit is reporting on Kerry's surge in Iowa. I may be borrowing a certain bird-meal from Roger L. Simon before this is done. My last post on Kerry was this one: Don't do it, John. Well, if things continue along this line, I can always fall back on the fact that I thought he'd be the one to beat when it all started.

CNN.com - Japan ground troops set to leave - Jan. 16, 2004

Why does this conjure images of the movie Freaks and that chant..."One of us...one of us...one of us..." The Islamists promising to hit Japan if they don't do as they're told? Sounds familiar. Having their people in harm's way draws Japan closer to the US position, and given the Japanese sense of honor (particularly on Koizumi's right), I doubt they'll be too quick to cut and run if something goes wrong. Let's hope they don't, of course, for many reasons, not least of which is that it will affect Japan's willingness to engage in such efforts in the future.

I've previously posted on the issue of the new proposed Boston Mosque and the pressure being put on Mayor Menino to alter the decision to allow construction on land the City has given at a massively discounted price.

Previous Solomonia posts on the Boston Herald series here and here, with a representative of the Islamic Soicety of Boston's response to the allegations re-posted here. Note: The original Boston Herald links are dead, but both articles are mirrored here: Part1, Part2. (With thanks to emailer Jonathan for several of the links used in this post.)

The story has picked up again with a post at Robert Spencer's Jihad Watch site here where Spencer points to this UPI report printed in the Washington Times that seems to bring new allegations against Islamic Center's Chair, Osama M. Kandil, specifically that he "is one of three directors of Taibah International Aid Association, a Muslim charity long suspected by investigators in the United States and Europe of funding international terrorism." Further, "records show during the past 15 years Kandil has surrounded himself with an array of individuals investigators say are working within the United States to support militant Islam's worldwide agenda..."

The Washington Times report is referring to a pair of new Herald articles, Hub Islamic leader’s radical links run deep and Islamic leader included in fed finance probe.

From the first article:

Sometimes what people don't say is just as instructive as what they do say:

Well, OK, maybe not, but after asking yesterday "And Yassin is still alive because...?", I wake up to this sensible headline:

Yahoo! News - Israel Says Hamas Leader Yassin 'Marked for Death'

Yassin is a General in the total war against Israel. He ought to be a high-priority target. Trouble is, these Hamas animals like to keep lots of kids and civilians around them at all times. Personally, I'd make sure I was never standing anywhere close to him.

See that guy? Keep your eye on him. That's Massachusetts Governor, Mitt Romney. I just got through watching the Massachusetts State of the State address. Yeah, I know it's a long way off, but I'm telling you I'm laying better than even odds this guy is going to be a serious contender to succeed George W. Bush in 2008. He can deliver a speech, keep his priorities straight and work with a liberal legislature in a liberal state while keeping his personal life clean as a sincere person of faith (AFAIK)...if he keeps it up, and things go well in this state...look out.

Cox & Forkum. Superb.

ABCNEWS.com : Nations Seek Trade Sanctions Against U.S.

There's something here I don't understand. If the sanctions were levied against foreign firms for damage done, why shouldn't the money go to the damaged entities? That just seems reasonable. It wasn't "the government" that was damaged. After all, if I win money in a civil suit, the government doesn't come along and take the cash - I do. So why should corporations (and their stake-holders) be any different? I realize this may be a difficult concept for some nations to understand, but we haven't devolved into a Marxist super-state just yet.

Report: Yassin personally authorized using female bomber

JPost: Blair: PA needs a security plan

Credit Blair with an all-too-rare common sense statement from a European leader. Blair has of course been picture-perfect on Iraq, but the rest of Britain's Middle East policy I'm not so sure about. They still seem to want to have their cake and eat it, too, with repect to the rest - whether it's criticizing Israel's steps for security, or snuggling up to Iran's Mullahs.

The arts aren't immune to Arab boycott, either.

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

The music must have been wonderful.

Never put it past some Arabs to find new ways of being petty and hateful. The Jordanian Fencing Federation was going to disallow the Israeli team from competing in the World Championship - an absolutely outrageous move in the world of sport. I find it hard even to imagine a particular sporting body deciding on their own to exclude some athletes for political reasons. It goes against everything sport is supposed to be about. You would think the Jordanians would be ashamed of doing such a thing, rather than defeating the Israelis fairly on the field of play - but never underestimate an "honor/shame" culture for finding new ways of behaving shamefully.

Following intense pressure, the JFF has allowed the Israeli team to compete - of course, they had to climb the pole and hang their flag themselves, and due to security concerns, the team stays in Eilat and travels to Aqaba daily for the competetion - all this with a country that Israel is nominally at peace with.

Fencers will compete; hoist flag in Aqaba

Go get 'em.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | 'Hole in sky' amazes scientists

Cool.

(Via LGF) FOXNews.com - Top Stories - Tests on Iraqi Shells Find No Chemical Agent

Previous item here.

David Kaspar reports on Gerhard Shroeder's latest poll numbers - with picture!

Important message from the crew at Blog-Iran:

I always enjoy a good Chomsky deconstruction. Norman Geras points to a new blog that looks to be worth keeping an eye on. Mick Hartley, among several interesting posts has a nice explanation of who Noam Chomsky is and where he's coming from. In part (read the whole thing), Hartley compares Chomsky to a cult leader (a comparison Hartley admits is not to be pushed too far) - a bearer of truth with nothing but raw contempt for those who refuse to acknowledge his revalations.

I've always thought of Chomsky in this way - as a sort of bearer of arcane information, a sort of Castanedian Don Juan, able to introduce his initiates through a gateway into an alternate reality that exists all around us but that only those who accept "the way" and follow their guide can experience.

That, I believe, is close to the experience that many a college freshman, discovering Chomsky for the first time, experiences. It's as though suddenly they've been let in on a big secret, and allowed access to some big truth that was withheld to them previously. It can make one feel smarter, enlightened...special. It allows one entry into new social groups wherein the members reinforce each other's egos by praising each other's moral sense while the moral cripples outside the group are vilified - all very seductive.

Most of us pass through this experience as little more than a stage on the way to maturation as we realize at some point that the Chomskyan view is a constructed reality that is less than satisfying for explaining the more real, consensual reality the rest of the world inhabits.

Sadly, some people never grow up.

Anyway, those are just a couple thoughts after reading Hartley's post, which I recommend.

Update: After reading this, are you confused as to whether I like or dislike Chomsky? Read here.

Judging by the trackbacks at Power Line, half the blogosphere is linking to this post, so I may as well jump in, too.

Laurie Mylroie has sent out an email debunking one of the key pieces of evidence in Paul O'Neill's new book. Take a look. If true, it's certainly a base and childish attempt to smear the President. Did they really think that this wouldn't be found out? But then again, O'neill and Suskind don't seem to mind piling on the idea that the Administration having plans for Iraq prior to 9/11 is somehow remarkable (it is not) - so perhaps they got cocky figuring they could get away with slinging their own bit of mud against the created reality that exists out there.

Power Line: Lid Blown Off O'Neill/Suskind Hoax

Update: Lots of O'Neill stuff from Daniel Drezner.

This post is for "King," who's protests regarding the lack of New England Patriots cheerleading on this site have become rather strident.

BTW, the game pics on the Patriots site really suck. Please tell Mr. Kraft.

I really do need to get into football more. It's a good game, but I've always been more of a baseball person. Of course, there are a few appealing things in football that almost anyone can enjoy.

OK, I'll try to watch the next game.

Ed Koch writes again about his support of George W. Bush in this Forward article reprinted at Frontpage. Previously, Koch has written on the reasons Jews should vote for Bush as a reward for his support of Israel, now Koch takes up the challenge of getting Democrats to vote for Bush due to the utter lack of seriousness on the part of the Democratic candidates with regard to national security. Previous item on Koch's support for Bush here.

Democratic Defection By Edward I. Koch

Israel Held Secret Talks With Syria

Why is it so imperitive for negotiations with the Arabs to remain secret? Because how can an Arab government like Syria's admit they're negotiating with people on the one hand, while on the other hand they tell their population that same people use the blood of gentiles to bake their matzah? A government that's sincere about peace would provide leadership and start preparing its population for what's to come. That's why there will never be peace in the region until a whole string of these governments go into the trash.

S-Train actually did. Blogger meets troll, hilarity (and good story) ensues. (Via D.C. Thornton)

Lovely. Here's what you get when conspiracy theory meets anti-American hysteria and rotten leadership. The effort to erradicate polio is meeting resistance because the effort is funded by the United States.

Boston.com / News / World / Muslims' fears pose barrier to fighting polio in Nigeria

And it's not just the uneducated masses and their demagogic leadership that are behind this:

I finish with what is really an aside. This is for those who want to blame everything on the goings-on in Iraq, but felt we were justified in Afghanistan, who need to understand that any effort by the infidel to defend themselves will be viewed as aggression across the Muslim world:

It isn't just about Iraq. It's about ignorance, and cultures where hate and shame cuts so deep a person would rather cut their own throat than be reconciled to a chosen enemy.

Excellent post over at Meaningful Distinction concerning Presidential security and the right of protest. Via Roger L. Simon who also has a thing or two to say.

David Kaspar does a little background-check on the folks responsible for the recent Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report on the Bush Administration's reasons for going to war in Iraq.

I've been noticing with frankly some amazement, that this report has pretty much been met with stony silence from this end of the blogosphere. Why? Because I think we know enough to hear about this report, and the media's fawning all over it (the BBC announced it all day long), and put it into its proper perspective - that of, "Oh great, yet another 'country' heard from..." Ho hum. No need to tell me what the Bush Administration did or didn't do, I lived it. I also think some of us hear about about some great "nonpartisan" group coming out with a new important opinion and immediately and appropriately think, "bullshit." After all, groups like Amnesty International are also "non-partisan." Unless all you're doing is providing data, not drawing conclusions, there simply is no such thing.

What Kaspar's quick check shows is that, while it doesn't discount at least the possibility of the report's usefullness (being a partisan doesn't necessarily mean your conclusions are wrong), there's well more than an even chance that all we have here is another set of people with an ax to grind seeking to influence and guide the debate for their own purposes, and doing it with the help of the imprimatur of their organization.

Davids Medienkritik: Carnegie-Report: Hardline Bush-Hater Presented as "Expert" / Carnegie-Studie: Entschiedene Bush-Gegner als "Experten" vorgestellt

I feel like it's the initial days of the invasion again, when we were all over stories like these. I've long since stopped posting "war rumor" news - not until it actually gets examined and corroborated, but this one looks worth posting and keeping an eye on.

CNN.com - Danes find suspicious Iraqi shells

Yup, they were. A small group of about ten people were standing around next to a busy street in an area I pass on the way to my office holding "Peace" flags and home-made signs like "$87 Billion for What?" Same place they'd been when they were demonstrating during the build-up and the early days of the Iraq invasion. They weren't blocking traffic or anything like that, just standing around making a spectacle of themselves. Dopy, but harmless. And I must say, the temperature is 4 degrees Fahrenheit out there right now in suburban Boston, and that's before wind-chill, so they are dedicated if nothing else.

It amazes me that people could be out protesting at this late date. Regardless of the what one may think of the WMD or terrorism debate, a real humanitarian can't possibly have missed the mass graves? They can't possibly begrudge the Iraqis the expenditure of billions of dollars in American Taxpayer money to re-build their country? They can't possibly think it would be better to abandon Iraq right now could they? And these are just a few of the purely humanitarian arguments for not running away now.

One woman was standing at the corner with her arm raised, waving at passing cars. The trouble is, she wasn't moving her hand or arm at all. I just couldn't resist the irony, so I raised my arm in return, and as I passed I heard her shout, "Thank you!"

I don't think she quite understood that all I was doing was returning her Fascist salute.

I just couldn't resist fixing Reuters' headline for this piece.

Iran Rebuffs U.S. Overtures to Start Dialogue

Another one of those images that needs spreading. Of course, my reason for displaying it is different than Arab News's.

Victor Davis Hanson has some info in his latest piece that I actually wasn't aware of:

No need to excerpt anything else as it goes without saying the entire piece is worth reading.

The Washington Post headlines this story, Palestinians Must Do More, Powell Says - No Criticism of Israel Is Offered. Sounds good.

Note the implication that Powell's statements aren't based on logical merit, but simply an election year ploy.

Powell also reiterated the Administration's appropriate hard line with regard to North Korea:

And, of course, the Post can't resist repeating the imminent threat lie (the paper's, not the administration's):

The piece's conclusion, however, is true, and Powell's statements are welcome, in which he seems to call Qureia on the statements he made in the item I posted below.

Clifford May writes about the common sense and common nature of Israel's fence in today's Frontpage. Good fences make good neighbors. Construction of the fence may help push the Palestinians to see the writing on the wall (so to speak) and allow a disengagement that could help calm the waters a bit.

Self-Defense Fence By Clifford D. May

And don't miss this story, Palestinian PM Says Two-State Solution in Danger, in which Ahmed Qurie performs the finest in Palestinian foot stomping by threatening the ultimate suicide attack - the voluntary disollution of the PA - only this time no one will be hurt. Now of course, there are things the PM could do, like taking a stroll down to the Education Ministry and getting hold of some of those text books that teach the kids to hate Israel and Jews and changing the lesson plan, but then that would require some acceptance of personal responsibility, wouldn't it?

Each wonderful in their own rights. I'm not sure they're exactly chocolate and peanut butter.

Watch this: The Ballad of Bilbo Baggins

Roger L. Simon and Allison Kaplan Sommer point to what Roger calls a "dramatic" interview with Israeli historian Benny Morris, and he ain't kidding. Do read it, and don't stop at page one.

Morris is the historian who has written on the events of 1948 with all the warts still in place. He's also viewed as a radical Leftist who spent time in jail in 1988 for refusing to do his Army service in the territories.

Yet more recently, Morris is beginning to sound like the Israeli version of an American "liberal" who's had his "9/11 moment." As I read it, reality and a practical review of history have kicked in as he's watched history unfold before his own eyes since 2000. He knows that whatever goes on in the next few years, whatever needs to be done - the groundwork, the background, the explanation for why that and not something else - is being laid out now.

And he knows that when viewing the events of the War of Independence, history didn't start in 1948, either. Maybe he's always known, and that's why he expresses surprise at the original reaction to his book - that others didn't also understand the context (note that the Ha'Aretz interview focusses exclusively on the sins of the Zionists), or maybe he's just discovered it for himself and it's a more recent transformation on his own part, I don't know enough about him to say.

Anyway, as someone who's not afraid of warts, as long as they're placed in their proper context and perspective (and assuming they exist - that is, that Morris's statements of fact are indeed, fact), I say read the interview.

Update: Tom Paine is impressed - "Just because a conclusion is unpleasant, doesn't mean it's not true." Judith says this transformation has been in process for some time now - "but bloggers aren't the only ones who haven't caught up." She's got some of what makes this change of views so interesting - perceived defections from the Left tend to result in excommunication - a heavy price to pay. Lynn B isn't all that impressed - "we've heard all of this before." Michael Totten is concerned that reports of the demise of total war have been greatly exagerated. "Total war is being waged as we speak by Palestinians against the Israelis. Don’t be so sure we are finished with it forever." Of course, that's one of the benefits/problems of institutions like the UN isn't it? - a body that's ostensibly there to make war more difficult ends up institutionalizing chronic low-level conflict. Peaktalk says Morris sounds bitter - "he’s not just a realist, but a bitter one at that."

Update 2: Here is the Efraim Karsh article referred to by Mike in the comments. Highly recommended. Revisiting Israel's "original sin": the strange case of Benny Morris.

Update 3: Israellycool is also less than impressed - "It's all been said before."

"Just say no." Missed this. Apparently, Don Rumsfeld turned down the offer of being Time Magazine's "Person of the Year," and that's how "The American Soldier" wound up with the honor. Another reason to like Rummy (although I wouldn't have held it against him if he accepted.) Via Dean's World.

Rummy declined honor as 'Person of the Year'=The Hill.com=

I'm with Wind Rider over at Silent Running on this. Silent Running: Wait and see on this one I didn't see the President's speech, but what I've actually read about it and the policy so far doesn't make it sound half as bad as the talk-radio fallout I heard immediately afterward. Disclosure: I consider myself a the "close the borders, enforce the laws" person, and have been agravated at both party's inability to do either. If the laws don't work properly, then that's a reason to reform, not ignore. A guest worker program of some sort makes sense.

I acknowledge that this is an extremely deep and complicated problem, and I'm willing to give a little patience to the administration for taking a stab at it - enough that I'll hold off final judgement on it until I see some really good explanation/analysis - if such a thing is even possible with such a horrificaly charged issue.

Update: Andrew Sullivan seems to like it. Jeff Jarvis says it's about outsourcing in a way. Kathy Kinsley thinks the fact that both sides are angry shows the plan may just be pretty balanced.

Update2: Citizen Smash has his own thoughts, as well as an extensive link roundup.

A meeting between Libyan and Israeli officials, at first denied, has now been confirmed as having taken place last month in Paris. This article (in the Boston Globe of all places) casts the entire event, and the hints of defrosting of long ossified positions across the region, as a product of American leadership backed up with the Big Stick.

Boston.com / News / World / Officials from Israel report talks with Libya

And yet I keep hearing administration critics argue we're not engaged in the Middle East, particularly with regard to Israel. I heard Wesley Clark try to make that point, and his solution amounted to, "Well, we need to talk, and we need to keep talking, and sending people to talk and talk and talk some more." That's been tried, of course. Bill Clinton was good on talking on the Middle East. I'll tell you what happened every time Clinton's envoy, Anthony Zinni, arrived in Israel to talk...some Palestinian blew themselves and a lot of other people the Kingdom Come in order to make a point. Im picking on Clark a bit here based on what I heard to make a point, even though what he actually displays as his position on his web site is pretty well identical to what the administration has already been doing.

What I take from that is that in spite of what the campaigners and the partisan commentators may wish for, Bush is doing about as well as can reasonably be expected given the material he has to work with. No more steeping off the train waiving a piece of paper in the air a la Oslo. What counts now are results.

Of course, conditions still aren't perfect, but that's something that can only change gradually. What the Globe doesn't tell you is what Iran changed the name of that street to - Intifada Street.

Update: Jim Hoagland in today's Washington Post: to paraphrase: "Good job in Libya, hands full in Pakistan."

Interesting OpinionJournal piece on how a multilateral agreement based around countries who agree on their own initiative to specific action trumps the UN's ability to be effective. The problem with UN, of course, is that its bureaucracy includes all manner of nation with differing interests and desires - even the countries who may be subject to its sanction. Under such circumstances, multilateral agreements by countries which share specific goals (like NATO before the fall of the Soviet Union), cannot help but be more effective.

OpinionJournal - The New Multilateralism - How the U.S., with international cooperation, brought Libya to heel

Current signatories include: Australia, Netherlands, Britain, Poland, France, Portugal, Germany, Spain, Italy, U.S., Japan, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Singapore and Turkey. Further, "more than 50 nations have signed on to PSI's principles and may be called on should their help be needed."

The weekly collection of bloggers pimping their own shiznit is up over at American RealPolitik. I've entered Bouncer's most excellent guest blog for ever more exposure.

Update: For upcoming Carnival locations, as well as an explanation as to what the Carnival is, visit the original home of the Carnival, Silflay Hraka, here.

From Honest Reporting:

I like to post entries like this because I think the image shown above can never be amplified enough. Read the Honest Reporting piece to see how the press portrays what happens and compare it to what seeing a picture like this does to your perception of events and the Israeli response. It makes it a whole different story.

Remember, there are many in Iran who crave a new relationship with the West - particularly the United States.

Geesou Atasheen on Iran on National Review Online

www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish..

No, I can't.

Not many details here, but there it is. Not good news for the Halliburton conspiracy theorists, as this seems to have been the one big issue against Halliburton, and now it's biting the dust. Oh, but it's just an Army report, after all...

Army clears Halliburton of overcharging - Report: U.S. Army clears oil services firm of overcharging government for fuel by more than $100M.

Update: After reading this post at Blackfive, I find that CNN has changed the story at the URL above from what it was this morning. The new story continues to imply wrongdoing on Halliburton's part.

At first sounding slightly alarming - the Sunnis? organizing? uh oh... - this is, in fact, a deceptively positive sign. Rather than working outside the system, which would result purely in frustration and violence, the Sunnis are continuing their moves toward political organization. They feel as though they'd better move, or they're in danger of being left out, and that's exactly right. Welcome to democratic pluralism - where the fittest organizers survive.

Feeling Besieged, Iraq's Sunnis Unite (washingtonpost.com)

An interesting tidbit:

Via Mutated Monkeys:

Martian Soil
Mars Rover Blog

(Via On The Third Hand)

I posted on the original raid here. Following the raid on the mosque, it didn't take long for the accusations of Americans desecrating Korans, etc...to surface. Fortunately (for those willing to listen to reason), the Coalition has video of the raid and it shows no such thing.

DefenseLINK News: Video Shows Coalition Forces Didn't Desecrate Mosque in Jan. 1 Raid

Is it my imagination or is Michael Ledeen's style getting to sound more and more like Victor Davis Hanson - and I mean that in a good way.

Ledeen seems to be nominating Iran's Mullah's to be top of the list of despots to be removed and discredited.

Michael Ledeen on Iran on National Review Online

CNN.com - Please don't call my son Saddam - Jan. 5, 2004

Damn right.

And that's one of the reasons he's no longer there. Anti-American rabble-rousers using hate as a weapon of demagoguery on a mass scale take note. Using hatred of the USA may end providing you with more trouble than it's worth.

Now taking applications for next despot to be discredited...

It's de rigueur for guys like Yasser Arafat to show one face in English, and another in Arabic, but it's a bit more "newsworthy" when a person usually regarded as a "moderate" does the same.

Martin Kramer catches current holder of the Edward Said Chair in Arab Studies at Columbia University doing the very same on Al Jazeera.

Martin Kramer's Sandstorm: Dr. Rashid and Mr. Khalidi (Rashid Khalidi)

This speech by Kenneth M. Pollack, author of The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, [You read that, didn't you? I rushed to get it read before the invasion, but believe me, it's still relevant.] and current Director of Research for the Saban Center for Middle Eastern Studies at the Brookings Institution given last Novemeber is a good read. Pollack starts with a run-down of some of the social and economic problems in the Middle East with some of the hows and why's for why the Arab world is so lagging, and then swings into why success in Iraq is so imperitive for changing this landscape and fighting terror.

Draining the Arab Swamp By Kenneth M. Pollack

Exciting events in the sky.

CNN.com - O'Brien: Spirit landed 'without a hitch' - Jan. 4, 2004

Previous item here.

And don't miss the picture of the comet's nucleus just sent back by the Stardust mission. Previous post here.

Mankind moves forward one step at a time.

Interesting and positive move on the part of the Administration. Expect internationalists and UN fans to cry that this isn't worthwhile because it only serves US interests, and involves interference in foreign sovereign states. Well of course, but then , they don't need to take the money, either.

(Via LGF) Yahoo! News - U.S. to Begin New Approach on Foreign Aid

Charles asks:

And that's the billion dollar question isn't it? To what level will this program be politicized to include people the Administration feels it needs to coddle, as with China's MFN status, and State's covering for Saudi Arabia's religious tyrrany?

Nevertheless, it is a potentially exciting development, and Bush has the clout as a leader who shows he understands the use of the stick to use a carrot like this without it coming off as a simple facade on yet another American give-away.

The following is taken from a BBS exchange I have been watching. The thread is primarily a critical look at the American War on Terror and our use of force. I enjoyed the response below so much I requested, and was granted permission, by the author to post it here.

The author is yet another traditional Democrat voter who has a realistic view of the War on Terror. He caught hold of a lot of themes that a "neo-con" (I use that term half tongue-in-cheek) like myself has internalized.

Without further ado, I give you "Bouncer", in:




The response to the "your violence is just making things worse crowd" or..."why rewarding bad behavior doesn't work."

Bullshit.

You're burying your head in the sand again. The US tried buying them off with Saudia Arabia and it didn't do jack shit but fund OBL. The US tried the opposite tack in ignoring them in the case of Afghanistan and that didn't work either.

You cannot buy yourself out from this. Ever. You need to get over this concept that enough time and money can change things in these countries. They haven't and they won't. UN pressure won't either, because no one is willing to back UN words up and none of these countries respect the concept of the UN, much less it's application. It is simply a tool to be manipulated in their view, and that's all it is. It's ideals are hollow nothings in their eyes. There is no fundamental respect for it as a body, and therefore it has no ability to change anything in these countries.

The only way to effectively deal with this is to engage each country directly. For those that we can talk to or (when necessary) who we can intimidate into compliance, we will. For those we cannot, they must know we will enter the country by force and remove the ability to wage war in this fashion and end the current regime.

Thing is, we are not just doing this for ourselves. We are, once again, acting to protect all of western civilization including some of our harshest critics. We're not making a deal with AQ or OBL or Khaddaffi, saying "The US is off limits but have at Australia or Canada or Germany or France and we won't do anything". Which I honestly believe (don't you?) is a deal France and probably Germany would make in a heartbeat. What we are saying to these countries is that state sponsored terrorism of this type must stop. It will stop. You will stop it. Or we will remove you and replace you with people who will try to stop it.

And you know what? That IS a more mature and balanced response. The whole thing of trying to bribe the religious bullies and cut throat dictators into something approaching reasonable behaviour has a legacy of forty years of abject fucking failure. I defy you to show me a single nation that has emerged from under the rule of either theocracy or dictatorship because of buying them off. You can't. Not one. It. Doesn't. Fucking. Work.

The brutish truth is that the invasion and occupation of Iraq has done more to restrain these bullies and theocracies in one year than either the UN or your view has accomplished in your and my entire lifetimes. That's the plain, nasty, ugly truth of it. It works. And this may surprise you ******, but I didn't think it would. But it has and it does. Khaddaffi's 180 degree turn ISN'T a product of anything but this new direct policy. Iran's sudden willingness to let IAEA inspectors in isn't a result of anything but this. The crackdowns in SA against AQ and associated elements isn't because of anything but this. The emergence of the Loya Jirga with actual live females sitting in it isn't the result of anything but this.

You see.. the fundamental difference is, you see the proper use of force as being not to use it at all. That is, to wave the possibility of force around in order to achieve compliance. And that sounds nice and keeps the body count low. But the thing is, if you're not ever really willing to use that force then eventually it stops being a realistic threat. Eventually the bullies stop BELIEVING you.

There is one universal truth in the ME right now. Do not fuck with the United States. Because gosh golly, they WILL actually do it! Holy crap on the Koran they're NOT toothless tigers that will run when the first blood is shed! They ARE willing to pick up the gun when necessary. That's the difference. They may not like us, in fact many of them hate us. But here's the weird thing. They actually respect us more because we stood up. Because they know for a fact that we're NOT afraid to take on the Holy Jihad. Their most powerful weapon has always been the noise of righteousness and the belief that we were afraid of them and their Holy War. And they now realize that guess what. We're NOT afraid. We're NOT afraid of them. We're NOT afraid of their god. We're NOT afraid of their righteousness.

And you bet your sweet ass that changes everything. You do a lot less thundering in the pulpit against the Harlot after she marches right down the aisle and kicks you in the nuts. Because now, to them, for the first time in a long time, the threat of American action is a real thing. Machiavelli said it best:

"friendships that are obtained by payments, and not by greatness or nobility of mind, may indeed be earned, but they are not secured, and in time of need cannot be relied upon; and men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity for their advantage; but fear preserves you by a dread of punishment which never fails."

He was right. He is right. Especially now, in the Mid-East. Nicolo cautions us though:

"Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred; because he can endure very well being feared whilst he is not hated, which will always be as long as he abstains from the property of his citizens and subjects and from their women. But when it is necessary for him to proceed against the life of someone, he must do it on proper justification and for manifest cause, but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony."

And this is why the US isn't declaring Iraq the 51st state or seizing it's oil fields or it's women. The US and the coalition is in the process of rebuilding Iraq, of that there can be no doubt. It is in the process of creating a civil government which is democratically controlled. Of that there can be no doubt either. The time table may be faster or slower than you or I or France likes, but consider that the US occupied Japan for SEVEN years after WWII and for FOUR years in Germany. It's not even been 10 MONTHS since the invasion began. Give it three years, and THEN start talking about how we've been there too long or how we're imperialistic.

Regards,
Bouncer

Very good. The Coalition is doing what it needs to - political correctness be damned. Balancing the risk of raising the ire of certain elements with letting those same elements know that even Mosques are not safe haven for terror, the guys in Iraq are making the right choices. Take note that they're doing this with the cooperation of and information given to them by Iraqi informants, and our guys are now feeling enough in control to start taking these chances. A good sign.

Boston.com / News / World / Mosque in Iraq raided; Sunni leader detained

I only caught a little bit of this the first time around, but it appears PBS is re-broadcasting The Perilous Fight: America's World War II in Color. This is old color film footage discovered, restored and assembled. The little bit I saw looked interesting the last time I saw it, so I'll be looking forward to watching it all tonight - even though it's a bit incongruous to have Martin Sheen as narrator on a show of this nature.

Two episodes are on my local PBS station tonight - check your local listings.

WGBH Programs

Starting just before, at 8PM is also this interesting sounding show: American Experience:
War Letters

Hat tip to Blog Iran. I found this by following their pointer to the Frontline piece Forbidden Iran which will be airing Thursday.

JPost - Iran: World should pressure Israel to disarm

So what else is new?

Caroline Glick has a good run-down on some of the current trends in the region and takes her government to task for failing to recognize and act on them now and in the past. Highly recommended, as always.

Israel News : Jerusalem Post Internet Edition - Column One: The vision thing

As far as negotiations with Syria go, I have to imagine that no one on the Israeli side, particularly in a Likud government, expects it amounts to anything more than show. That's not that I think the Israelis can't be serious, it's just that they have way too much experience to think that there's likely anything to be gained from a negotiation with a regime like Syria's. No more than there would be in cutting deals with Arafat, Kim Jong Il or the former regime of Sadam Hussein. Experience indicates these entities have so littel credibility it is virtually impossible for any but the most gullible to enter into a contractual situation.

This one's set to land on Mars tonight at around 11:29. Let's keep our fingers crossed.

Boston.com / News / Nation / NASA Mars probe in for rough ride

Now this is cool. It's just amazing to me that mankind is capable of a feat like this.

CNN.com - Spacecraft survives close encounter with comet - Jan. 2, 2004

Never mind the science. How cool would it be drink a scotch/rocks with ice from a comet? Umm...it is water-ice isn't it? OK, nevermind.

Awww...what a waste.

Boston: Demonstrators rally against Koizumi's visit to war shrine

Impression: The Marmot points approvingly to this reaction by the Flying Yangban who says, in part:

I can understand the feeling, yet I can't help but be left with an uncomfortable feeling about this visit.

oranckay in Yangban's comments:

Japan's pre-War record is bad...real bad. May I get away with that understatement? It was even Nazi-like (and I don't use the term lightly), with its feelings of racial superiority coupled with mass death - they even had their own Joseph Mengeles. There are some very good reasons why the rest of Asia is scared shitless (and a bit angry over the idea) of a military Japan re-ascendant.

Now, as The Marmot points out, lots of countries have skeletons in their closets, but what's a bit disturbing regarding the Japanese is, as a commenter mentions, the seeming lack of acceptance of any responsibility. Using a horrifically small sample as an example, that is, my wife (That's somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm quite confident that I'm on solid ground applying her as a specific example of a wider trend.), the Japanese are woefully uneducated on their WW2 history, particularly their own part in it. Watching NHK (Japanese PBS), which we get via satellite, the impression one gets of the Japanese viewpoint is one of Japan as victim. They may not have heard of the Rape of Nanking, but they know all about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In the case of my wife, she might not know why Tojo was hung, but she can tell you stories of Japanese hung as war criminals for trying to save American prisoners by serving them root-soup (and being accused of attempted poisoning).

And that's a problem. Because Japan is no more a victim of WW2 than a man who sticks his finger in a light socket and finds himself electrocuted is a victim of electricity. Combine a victim's mentality with an ignorance of their own past and for their own culpability and you may find you have a bit of a frightening combination.

It would be a bit more comforting if Japan could come to terms with, or at least acknowledge its past. America has its My Lai, and acknowledging it helps ensure that we don't repeat it as the military and civilian leadership incorporates its lessons - as only one small example.

So watching Koizumi visit Yasukuni, and having the feeling that even the War Criminals buried there are viewed as victims, and that the voices in Japanese society who attempt to speak the truth on their country's past are muted (At best, and for those thinking, "Well, it must be just as bad for those in the US who try to shine a light on your dark moments..." I would posit to you that things must be far, far worse in Japanese society - see the concluding parts of Iris Chang's book for one view of this.), one can only have an uncomfortable feeling. Some of the men enshrined at Yasukuni were mass murderers who were not only responsible for thousands, perhaps millions of deaths outside Japan, they were also ready to fight to the last Japanese to sate their sense of honor. (See Richard B. Frank's, Downfall or The Pacific War Research Society's, The Day Man Lost, for the story of just how close they came to getting their wish.) It would be nice, including to people like me who would like to see Japan shouldering more of its own defense burden, if Japan were to show a bit higher level of self-awareness in these regards.

I don't expect young Japanese of today to spend their days in self-flagellation for the sins of the past. That's not healthy, either, but I guess what it comes down to is that you must find a way to acknowledge the past on your way to reconciling yourself to it.

Update: Speaking of issues of the past and national reconciliation: Schröder invited to D-Day ceremony. I have one question: Were Bush and Blair consulted?

Matthew Kaminski says we need to start moving faster in implementing free-market reforms in Iraq. Freer markets will go a long way to changing a society run by state-control kleptocrats.

OpinionJournal - The Hare Always Wins - Economic reform can't afford to wait

Yahoo! News - N.Korea to Let U.S. Experts Visit Nuke Site

They may also simply be trying to wow them with Kim's secret stash of the finest Korean porn. They say the Great Leader has a large collection and them NorKs is mighty crazy. Who knows? Will be interesting to hear the after action reports.

Update: Even The Marmot doesn't know what to make of it.

Yahoo! News - British Airways Cancels Second U.S. Flight

I guess this - the fact that British flights are also being cancelled - puts to rest the idea (or at least, food for thought speculation) put forward by a local radio guy that the cancellation of French (and Mexican) flights was a sort of economic punishment by Washington.