Ciceronian

2002-11-13T23:12:00.000-05:00

But I AM NOT a Republican. I voted Republican, but I am a "liberal" in the TRUE SENSE of the word. I crave personal liberty above all else.

That's why I hope the Republican majority doesn't get its head all stuck up its butt and do stupid things, believing that they have a "mandate" for them. Here's my advice for the new majority:

Yeah, what he says. Most interesting is the parallel drawn between the "War on Drugs" and attempts to criminalize* abortion.

*I say "criminalize" rather than "ban," because the latter suggests that abortion will stop because of a few laws, which it won't. It will just make pregnant desparate women into criminals.

(link via Stephan Green)

2002-11-06T20:18:00.000-05:00

But, But, I'm a Federalist!

As much as I really don't like quizzes, this one just charmed me.

Which Founding Father Are You?

And, yes, I'm a Federalist, but that bank wasn't such a bad idea after all. Go me!

2002-11-06T20:04:00.000-05:00

But Will They Learn? Sources Say No

John Ellis thinks that a Democratic purge is "coming". I agree with his logic, that the Democratic party can't ideologically withstand the ratification of Bush's victory in 2000. However, I don't think there's automatically going to be a purge of the Dem leadership.

First off, no politician, especially not ones as hyped up on the fumes of power as modern day Democrats, is going to resign, a move equivalent to admitting defeat at the hands of the boy king. Ellis argues that the Dems are going to have to "think much more imaginately about the most important issues." Well, yeah, but only to win. There's no law saying that the Dems have to rebound from this immediately.

Who is going to do this thinking, pray tell? Gephardt is a sick old donkey; Daschle is a model for ineffective leadership; Terry M. is as useful as a rat in the pantry...so who? That's why Hillary is the only Democratic to gain from last night. She has a low enough profile that she wasn't visibly damaged by the defeat, and she has enough name recognition that she can, with a few smarts, waltz into power.

However, does Ellis really think that Hillary is the visionary leader that the Democrats need now? I sure hope not. The best we could hope for would be return to Bill-type policy, which, as has been shown over and over again, was not as great as we all thought it was.

I predict that there will be some internal reorganization, with individual Senators and Congressmen striving for recognition (voting against Bush, organizing bipartisan initiatives, the usual), but that it'll take until 2006 for the Democrats to fully regain power (2004 won't be successful because they haven't got anyone decent to run for President, which will hurt their party's entire campaign organization).

2002-11-05T21:19:00.000-05:00

Deja Vu All Over Again

Well, Fox News is reporting that the VNS service has crashed. VNS, for the uninitiated, is a joint project between a lot of the major news sources to report on exit polls and statistics. Basically, it's the backbone for the networks' statisticians when it comes time to call the elections. It's way cool (I was able to visit one of the stations using it, as I know one of the statisticians, so I've used it a bit, and trust me, if it works, it's awesome).

Problem is, it's not working. There isn't quite enough bandwidth on the system to have allowed all the networks to sign on, and even with that, there were a lot of worries that it would crash. Which it did. Two reasons why this isn't bad (it's actually a really, really good thing, provided it's not your job to call elections).

1) It'll cut down on speculation based on exit polls. Because of the portions of VNS that went down, the statisicians are left with raw information (plugged into a variety of models) as well as the results from past elections (divided up geographically as well as along party lines). As such, they're going to be really, really careful calling elections (not that they weren't already paranoid, the people I've spoken to refer to Florida like evangelicals refer to the Anunciation -- the beginning of a new era).

2) Television is going to be less frenetic tonight. Because they are going to have to work more, the stations hopefully won't harp upon the data, which is, to me, the least pleasent aspect of election night.

And, because the station knew I was a journalist, the condition on which I was allowed to visit was that I wouldn't report on how panicky everyone was that the system would crash. But since Fox News has broken it, I think they've scooped me.

2002-11-02T01:52:00.000-05:00

Yes, Grandpa Mondale

Intersting article in the NY Times today. It's talking about the growing "gerontocracy," supposedly the growing trend in seniors taking roles of leadership.

Two things I think the article misses:
1) It's not that people are working closer to the time when they pass on, it's that, with modern healthcare, people are living longer. What once were debilitating diseases related to aging are not so serious; people now regularly live into the 80s and 90s. The CIA Factbook lists US male life expectancy as 74.5 years. And nearly 13% of the population is over 65. Why is it so surprising that that a few (and the article only lists a few) of these people are sprightly enough to work?

2) When talking about elections, as this article beings by, age is good. Especially when one is an established politician beginning a campaign on short notice. Mondale. Lautenburg. Everyone knows their names; they would not need to campaign as much as a younger politician would. It's not experience or wisdom that's a factor here, it's the name recognition.

And please, no one mention Thurmond. He's (thankfully) a hapless aberration the likes of which we (if the heavens smile upon us) will never see again.

2002-10-21T23:49:00.000-04:00

Dearly Beloved, We Are Gathered Here Today...

As much as this depresses me, I think Becky and I are going to not update the blog as often as we used to. The blog is tons of fun, but real life just has this way of sneaking up on people, you know? School work is picking up (remember Junior year? Lovely, wasn't it) and both of us have this fervent desire to attend college. It's not that we haven't anything to say (quite the opposite), it's just that high school is hell and our school's attitude towards work is that it's "character building stuff" and the more the better (I was at school until 10 tonight, and the thought of updating the blog nightly frightens me).

We'll update as frequently as we humanly can, but, unfortunately, that won't be happened daily.

2002-10-15T21:39:00.000-04:00

Oh yea. Forty-one minutes and two seconds of uncut, uncensored Goldberg. Click on the link through No Left Turns. (You need Real Player) It's amazing. I loved every second of it.

2002-10-13T11:50:00.000-04:00

Lucky Find

CNN is reporting that a tem of archaeologists in London have found the first plaque inscribed with London's Roman name, Londiniensium.

Quite cool.

2002-10-12T21:40:00.000-04:00

Hey! Who You Calling Curvy?

The Times reports that more and more teen fashion companies realize that the average girl isn't a size 2.

Teen magazines are also catering to their larger readers. They are putting more pictures of real teenagers on their pages. "One third of our format is showing real girls in real sizes," said Barbara O'Dail, managing editor of Teen People. "The average 16-year-old girl is 5-foot-4 and 135 pounds and is a size 10 to 14."
Next month, Seventeen is launching "Curvy Girl," a new section for larger girls. " `Curvy Girl' gets rid of all the old constraining rules," said Gigi Solis Schanen, a fashion editor for Seventeen. "No one is limited, especially now. All fashions — Bohemian, punk or sporty — are accessible for every body."

I laud their efforts, but there's a huge problem. "Fat," "curvy," or whatever, aren't compliments. They're just new labels. This issue isn't going to be solved until the world's cocoa beans shrivle up in a drought, or fashion execs -- the ones controlling the runways in Milan and Paris -- start parading their designs on normal women. "Curvy girl" doesn't get rid of any rules, just recasts them in a light that absolves fashion editors of their deserved guilt.

2002-10-12T21:30:00.000-04:00

I Hate My State

While Derbyshire has the most intellectually stimulating takedown of Amiri Baraka, I still think that he misses a critical point:

It doesn't matter how good a poet Baraka is.

Baraka could, for all I think it's relevant, be the next Walt Whitman. He could have the emotion of Catullus, the polish of Vergil, the imagination of Moore, and the subtle brilliance of Auden. But the minute he uses taxpayer money for the purpose of insulting any taxpayer, he should lose his position -- and be forced to return all of his government stipend.

Ignore the argument over whether the government should fund arts (which, as a libertarian, I think it shouldn't...but that's for another time). An article in the Weekkly Standard quotes Baraka as saying:

"We'll fight this," Baraka recently told the Star-Ledger. "We'll go to the Supreme Court. The only thing they'll do is put me in a position to defend the rights of poets and the First Amendment." Regarding the charges of anti-Semitism, Baraka is quick to point out other stanzas in "Somebody Blew Up America" that ask, "Who put the Jews in ovens" and later, "Who killed Rosa Luxembourg, Liebneckt" and "Who murdered the Rosenbergs."

If the government were trying to shut down Baraka for his hateful poetry merely becaues it was hateful, then Baraka should most definitly bring his case before the Supreme Court. But the government isn't doing that; rather, it is arguing that it has no obligation to pay money to someone spreading hateful verses. (Asking who murdered the Rosenbergs make him unbiased? Spare me.)

The Standard also says:

[Fomer Laureate Gerald] Stern says the effort to remove Baraka "smacks of state control."

Exactly my point. The state has the right -- indeed, the obligation -- to control where its funds are spent. Stern, a National Book Award Winner, spent the money holding poetry readings around the state. Baraka spent his reciting loathsome lies. The state took issue with the way he was spending his money (not to mention his abuse of his official endorsement).

The issue isn't any more complicated than that.

At least, until you take a step up the argument tree and examine the issue of government-sponsored poet laureates.

2002-10-12T11:50:00.000-04:00

	You are Fozzie! Wokka Wokka! You love to make lame jokes. Your sense of humor might be a bit off, but you're a great friend and can always be counted on..
*Take the What Muppet Are You?* Quiz!**

I don't want to talk about it...

2002-10-11T23:31:00.000-04:00

RE: SCOOP

You've also forgotten just how cool we are.

2002-10-10T23:54:00.000-04:00

We Got the Scoop!

Apparently, only now did Reynolds find out about Seventeen Magazine's college rankings. We found out about it, oh, a while ago.

Then again, he probably doesn't have a little sister who subscribes.

2002-10-10T17:14:00.000-04:00

Go USHR! Go USHR! You go you go you go. I am so glad they passed. Ever since I read the Economist's views on the war, I've been increasingly hawkish. Who knows? It may even be good for the market.

2002-10-09T22:59:00.000-04:00

Fr. Potter of Hogsmeade Parish

Dimpler Towers says that evangelical Christians are planning on co-opting Harry Potter to "spread the Christian message."

Shudder.

I disagree with the esteemed Mr. Dimpler on one point, where he recommends using the Narnia stories rather than the Potter quartet to "bring the kids in." While he is correct with regards to CS Lewis' rather overt Christian imagery, Potter is more overt with regards to morals. Voldemort: bad. Dumbledore: good. Hurting your friends: bad. Sticking up and being loyal: good. If the Church wants to reinforce their moral message as opposed to their evangelical one, Potter is the way to go. Plus, everyone knows Harry.

Dimpler concludes by saying: "There's nothing wrong with young Harry, but it is just fun fantasy. Nothing more."

Does this mean I won't be getting the Nimbus 2002 broomstick I wanted for my birthday? Dammit.

2002-10-09T22:44:00.000-04:00

Educational Highlights -- Or Not

Reynolds links to this blog post on buying pre-highlighted books. According to a study conducted by two researchers, buying these books hurts a student's grades if those highlights were put in by someone with a low IQ.

Agreed, somewhat. The point of highlighting a book is a) to focus on the importance passages but also b) to force yourself to read through the entire thing. Lazy people deserve to get bad grades if they can't be bothered to actually read the material. (That being said, I've been guilty of leafing through used books to find ones with the most annotations, especially for Shakespeare things)

2002-10-09T21:04:00.000-04:00

Revisionist Etymology

That infamous conference on Racism that just evicted all non-Africans (in the name of eliminating race-based bias, of course), has, on their website, a list of rather interesting documents. Examples, if I don't say so myself, of the amazingly high level of scholarship that has gripped our society.

This essay, on Africianism in America, is a prime example of twisting knowledge as a tool for the perverted goals of the conference. (One of which is making France pay for the Haitian revolution. I'm not Francophile, but there are limits). According to this essay, the word "bad," as used with a positive connotationis is found in the African language Mandingo. Also in this language, is "wicked" with a positive connotation (and here I thought that was a peculiarity of my strange Upstate NY friends). "Bogus" is also of African origin, from the Hausa word "boko-boko," meaning deceit.

Now, if I may, I'll draw your attention to the stalwart of the English language, the inimitable OED. According to the OED online, "bad" with a positive connotation is common, but indeed appeared first around the Jazz Age, which might confirm this paper, although the OED mentions that this was more of a "perversion" (perhaps to subvert the white authorities) and less of a derivative of any one language. Same for "wicked"; the OED finds the earliest positive usage of the word from Fitzgerald in "This Side of Paradise" (pub. 1920). Again, the word is traced from the society of the Jazz Age, where it is doubtful that the twisted connotations of the word was a direct effort to imitate a specific language.

Likewise, "bogus" is traced to 1827 in Ohio, where it was used to describe an apparatus for coining false money. The OED speculates that the etymology of the word is a Vermont slang term, tantrabogus, which itself is of Devonshire etylomology.

Great scholarship, don't you think?

2002-10-09T10:35:00.000-04:00

Happy birthday to Sarah. Happy birthday to Sarah. Happy birthday to Sar-ah. Happy birthday to Sarah.
On an unrelated note, I heard about this rich guy who's taking up a collection for a reward for anyone who finds the sniper. Good luck I say.

2002-10-06T17:38:00.000-04:00

Wimps
Over on a "respectable" blog, Andrew Stuttaford says that the new James Bond movie won't have martinis. Are they kidding? He already can't smoke because the producer, Barbra Broccoli (Al's daughter) is an anti-tobacco advocate. Now, not only can he not ask for a light, he now can't even have his martini, even though Aaron Sorkin (through his minion-- President Bartlet): :Shaken not stirred would get you cold water with a dash of gin and dry vermouth. The reason you stir it with a special spoon is so as not to chip the ice. James is ordering a weak martini and being snooty about it."

2002-10-06T13:11:00.000-04:00

For the Record

1) Over on WBW, some fools apparently believe that the opinions provided herein can be immediately dismissed because I link to MEMRI. For the argument as to why MEMRI is a great boon to society, click here. And does it bother anyone that something as small as that would render this blog's opinions worthless? If they thought the opinions were badly written, or inconclusively argued, fine. That's why I discredit their sites. But because I linked to someone? Puh-lease.

2) Birthday's next Wednesday. In my name, my mother donanted to the Give Jonah a Raise fund. Now they mail me a magazine every week. Weird. Wonderful.

3) Why do pundits always refer to the leader of Iraq as Saddam? News story, as far as I can tell, follow standard procedure and call him Hussein. So what's with the pundits? Three theories: first, they want to avoid confusing with the royal family of Jordan, and two, calling him by his first name makes him seem less official and legitimate, and three, to the Western ear, Saddam sounds like it could be a last name, and using it is unconcious. Any thoughts?

4) Sorry for the posting drought last week. Real life became busy. This week we'll be more active. Swear.

2002-10-05T20:13:00.000-04:00

So even though the Yankees losing will be "good for baseball," as it will allow other teams to get to the series, and I'd love it if Minnesota went all the way, to show Bud Selig that he doesn't know anything, I can still be said if my Yanks lose, right?

2002-10-02T19:45:00.000-04:00

David Perlmutter has an intriguinglook at the role Jewish leaders play in the Jewish community. He says:

So why have Jewish leaders not been at the vanguard--as some evangelical Christian leaders have--of exposing the Islamic fascist Fifth Column in America and the dominance of ideas of Islamic global conquest in many Muslim countries?...Why aren't we connecting the dots between Saudi intelligence services and 9/11 or between the origins of the Palestinian movement and the Third Reich? Why aren't we publishing and brandishing the names of the many foreign policy "experts" and "Arab-American leaders" who are, in fact, on the payroll of the House of Saud? Why are we so afraid to attack instead of defending and conciliating?

Why not? Because the Jewish community isn't sure where it stands at the moment. Traditionally, Jews are liberals, but the recent actions of the Democratic Party has been driving them right. Traditionally, Jews ally themselves with blacks (remember who marched next to King in Selma? A rabbi), but the self-proclaimed black leaders, Jackson, Sharpton, et al., have been allying themselves vehemently with the Palestinians. The government is somewhat our ally, but the Israeli-Palestinian issue is so volatile that no one knows where the Government stands day by day, not nearly enough time to build up a coalition.

We can't "attack," as Perlmutter suggests, because it's really hard to attack someone while standing on a see-saw. Essentially, the political ground beneath the feet of Jewish leaders is altogether too wobbly -- they are hesitant to go on the offensive when they aren't sure who is going to back them up.

Traditional supporters -- Democrats -- are lagging. The mythical Jewish lobby is a favorite target these days; McKinney and her supporters (essentially, most of the left) blamed it for her defeat. How can Jewish leaders mount an attack without supporters? The reason that AIPAC is a big political player -- and it is, but it doesn't "control" the government anymore than any other lobby -- is that it has a lot of supporters in the government, which it wouldn't if it followed the suggestions of Perlmutter.

Attack the Islamists -- regardless of their affinity for terrorism -- is risky at best. We've seen how hesitantly Senators criticize investments in Saudi Arabia. Heck, we can't even get Pat Roush her daughters back! If AIPAC were to start actively mounting an offensive against Arabs that went beyond the scope of Israel or terrorism against America, AIPAC would come under heavy fire from most of the left, thereby harming its primary mission.

Additionally, the government would have a hard time jumping wholeheartedly on an AIPAC-led bandwagon. How could it without appearing to cater to "Israeli influences"? What comment could be made by Jewish leaders that wouldn't immediately be discredited by the segment of the population that need to hear it the most? It's important that AIPAC and mainstream Jewish leaders stay out of the wider debate on the Fertile Crescent.

2002-09-30T19:55:00.000-04:00

I just hate the thought that in once red-state New Jersey, we may lose slimy Robert Toricelli for Slick Willy. That's right, he has a week to move if he wants to run. EW! Imagine the two of them in the Senate-- together? I know it's just conjecture, which makes me feel good. Plus, I was walking with a friend in New Rochelle and we saw the house that Will and Hill had looked at, which is now entirely Secret Service friendly, since a house must be so before an ex-President is allowed to even consider moving there. I don't know of too many houses in the Garden State with a command post next to the laundry room. Thank God.

2002-09-30T18:05:00.000-04:00

Going...Going...Gone

So, Torricelli just quit. His resignation speech was just broadcast over the radio (and what a maudlin, over-wrought speech it was!).

I'm glad he's gone. I support Bush -- hey, no one's accused me of being liberal -- but I don't think we should have a Republican Senate. The politics at the moment are too precarious to allow the President free rein over both the White House and the Senate. And I realize that the Dem's hold is tenuous at the moment, but it is something of a counter-weight to Dubya. Hopefully, the mid-term elections will spur Daschle and Co. on to greater efforts (maybe garnering some more blue seats). Maybe if the Democrats were more secure in their footing, they wouldn't be so reactionary, as they are now.

We need two strong parties right now, and Torricelli was a blemish on the Democrats. His standing was falling greatly (one poll had him behind by 13 points), and his chances of winning were minimal.

Now...who to replace him?

2002-09-29T14:35:00.000-04:00

Cool morning in NYC
So this morning, I walked in the Juvenile Diabeties Research Foundation Walk to Cure Diabeties. It was really cool-- it started in Battery Park, went around lower Manhattan, across the Brooklyn Bridge and back. Plus, I got to go to Ground Zero, where I'd never been.
It was also a good day for illegal street vendors profiting off of September 11-related merchandise, as I bought a NYPD hat (I forgot my sunglasses) and others in my group bought I Love New York stuff. I wonder if that's really as illegal and wrong as they say it is.

2002-09-29T14:31:00.000-04:00

If Illegal downloads are a drug and drugs support terror , does the money from illegal downloads go to terrorists?
It's a mobius strip of inane contributions!

2002-09-28T23:19:00.000-04:00

Ooh...Look Who's So Mature

Now, the RIAA is getting really nasty. Aside from Berman's Bill, they've now put up a website encouraging people to "care about illegal downloads."

"It's illegal and it's a drug!" proclaims the site, sponsored by a long list of music industry insiders. Its side table has a changing list of quotations, both informational blurbs, as well as quotations from a variety of artists -- from DMX to Gary Trudeau.

However, what really ticks me off -- aside from the multiple allegations that P2P sharing has hurt record sales, something which has been highly contested in light of the struggling economy -- is the "Parent's Page," a how-to guide for parents of burgeoning shoplifters.

The RIAA cuts right to the chase: But what if the offender is a minor? Well, for one thing, that doesn’t make the activity any less a crime. For another, it may subject the offender’s parents or guardians to legal action.

Police your child or we'll police you.

And, if that doesn't freak out the parents, the passage about how Kazaa supposedly publishes your entire hard drive on the web is sure to send any techno-illiterate parent into paroxysms of panic. Helpfully, the RIAA tells you how to protect your computer by uninstalling these dastardly programs.

How lovely. I think I may be sick.

2002-09-28T20:01:00.000-04:00

I did read the piece about Mr. Stein on NRO, and I would like to see him in more acting roles, but he's getting a little bit older, and you never know what happens.

Cool technology tidbit of the day--
As I write, I'm listening to BBC's Radio Five...on the internet! It's SO cool. I'm hearing people with those great accents argue about the future of Britain's Conservative party. I would have something to say, but the technological advancements are wowing me way too much.

2002-09-27T22:36:00.000-04:00

Anyone?, Anyone?

And the thought of the day is...

I did have a test today. That wasn't bullshit. It's on European socialism. I mean, really, what's the point? I'm not European, I don't plan on being European, so who gives a crap if they're socialists? They could be fascist anarchists. That still wouldn't change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism, or any ism for that matter. Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism - he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon: "I don't believe in Beatles - I just believe in me". A good point there. Of course, he was the Walrus. I could be the Walrus - I'd still have to bum rides off of people. -- Ferris Bueller's Day Off

While you're at it, read Michael Long's article in NRO about Ferris' econ teacher.

2002-09-27T18:09:00.000-04:00

Surprise Meter Reads 0

The New York Times reports that, since the College Board decided to cease marking the reports of students who recieve un-timed tests, there has been a flurry of 11th and 12th graders seeking classification as learning disabled. Students with this classificiation are entitled to special services such as un-timed standardized tests. These tests -- the SAT, SAT IIs, PSAT, AP, etc. -- are the backbone of American college applications and can make or break an application. All are administered by the College Board, a private organization (with the exception of certain state-specific tests, like the NY Regents Exams, which are run by state school boards).

There are two aspects to this issue: the right to conceal a learning disability from colleges, and the possibility for abuse. The Times reports:

The asterisk indicating that extended time and other accommodations were made to the test-takers will disappear from student records a year from now and will be removed retroactively from tests taken previously. That means 30,000 students, or 2 percent of the 1.3 million high school seniors who sit for the College Boards each year, will submit scores to colleges as if they had been tested under the same conditions as everyone else.

This change, part of the settlement of a 1999 lawsuit, has been hailed by disability rights groups and many educators who see unflagged, extended-time testing as a way to level the playing field for those with learning disorders.

Time is a really big deal on these tests. The SAT II American History exam, for example, has approximately 85 multiple choice questions in 60 minutes. One can imagine the difference 15 minutes would make, let along one hour. The SAT II Writing examination contains an essay, for which one is usually alloted 20 minutes. Can you imagine the obvious differences between an essay written in 20 minutes and one written in 45 minutes?

Sending scores from students who recieved this huge boon unmarked is a disservice to all 1.3 million students taking the test. Not only it is more than slightly unfair to those who took the tests within the proscribed time, but it discredits the image of the entire battery of tests. What is the point of these tests? To find the "diamond in the rough" students who weren't lucky enough to attend a decent high school? To give college admissions officers the ability to compare two students from different schools? Or to hide critical information about a prospective student in the interest of giving them an equal shot at acceptance?

The College Board would like to convince you of all three. Obviously the three goals are conflicting, and cannot therefore all be true. And what is the use of test whose purpose no one really knows? Sure, it's still great to tell Harvard that you got a 1550 (the SAT is out of 1600), but what that actually means is becoming more and more unclear.

Abuse of the system is one of the primary culprits in the dissolution of the SAT's worth:

"This further privileges the privileged," said Jane Brown, the vice president who oversees admissions at Mount Holyoke College in South Hadley, Mass., which is in the second year of a five-year research project on the effect of making the tests optional. "You have to be able to afford a diagnosis."

Dr. Alan Wachtel, a New York City psychiatrist with a specialty in attention deficit disorder, said it was "regrettably true" that some parents bid for the services of "hired guns." Their behavior contributed to an adversarial attitude in certain schools, he said, where he is sometimes asked, "What are the parents paying you to say this?"

I can imagine the high schools from which Dr. Wachtel's patients come. Dalton, Nightingale-Bamford, Dwight, Spence, Brearley, Trinity...anyone familiar with these schools must be rolling their eyes in agreement. The fact that the College Board continually overlooks these schools -- and their counterparts in other cities -- shows that it regretfully out of touch with the reality of college admissions. Numerically, these schools are minnows in the vast seas of American high schools, but these schools are quite significant. I believe all of them have Ivy attendance rates of 30% or higher. And that's not including the Ivy-equivalents of Amherst, MIT, CalTech, Williams, U of Chicago, Michigan. And yet, despite knowing this, the College Board takes measures that increase the opportunity for these snobbish Manhattanites to abuse it.

No one benefits from this change in policy. No one. To be fair, there are students who have a legitimate learning difficulty for whom that extra time would be a great boon. And, in reality, the ability to fill lots of little bubbles really quickly isn't a life skill: those students can get jobs that will fit their strengths and weaknesses. But still, shouldn't colleges know of this? If the extra time allotted to them allowed them to excell on the tests, their grades are high, their intellect obviously on par with the other applicants, what college officer is going to tell them that a genetic disorder with which the student has obviously coped well with is going to force the college to reject the student? Very few.

However, opening the door for further abuse (indeed, many students were diagnosed with ADD in 10th grade even when the reports were still marked) is egregiously irresponsible of the College Board, and runs counter to their efforts to rehabilite the public image of the SAT. For each of the 30,000 kids who it helps (and I estimate at least 8,000 of those students has only be recently placed on Ritalin), it hurts the rest of the 3.1 million who are forced to take a test that means less and less each time it is modified in the name of equality.

2002-09-26T19:14:00.000-04:00

Aaron Sorkin is my favorite liberal....
So, sure it was a BIT condescending, and as always, way too melodramatic, but you gotta love that the President refers to his wife as "Medea." And that two White House staffers would sit and throw rocks at an oil drum lid. All in all? B, maybe a B+ because I've been waiting so long.

2002-09-24T21:37:00.000-04:00

Welcome to Sunnydale, Check Your Sanity at the Door

(warning: spoilers for season premiere)

So, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer season premier ended just 20 minutes ago, and it was wonderful. Sort of. Not as good as the highlights of last season, but the ending was "peachy, with a side of keen." This is classic Buffy. They re-built the high school o' doom; Buffy goes bonkers on some goons in the basement, and the cages in the boiler room look suspiciously like the cages in the old library (but that may just be reusing of props). My only complaint is that the new Principal is a bit too suspicious. He's either a horrible actor or the writers have forgotten how to subtley indicate that someone is freaky. I mean, he walks up to Buffy, saying that he's been looking through her old school folders. She's not been a student there for a while (since she blew it up), yet this new guy knows her. And, on top of that, he keeps alluding to the "troubled kids" at Sunnydale, as if he knows some great secret. Plus, Xander does this whole "Look Buffy! His office is on top of the Hellmouth! Remember what happened in the library when that was on top of the Hellmouth?" Jeez.

But I'm being harsh. The ending -- Spike crouches on the floor of the basement, while some evil creature (the new monster for the season) walks around him talking about what's important in the world, and what is really essential to living. The nifty part is that as it talks, it progressively takes the face of all the villains of the series so far, moving backwards through all the greats -- Glory, Adam, Drusilla (got to love her!), the Master. It ends, creepily enough, with an avatar of Buffy, saying "It's about the power," which is also how she opened the episode as she was teaching Dawn (who's not as annoying, though, admittedly, that's not saying much) how to stake vampire.

Interesting theme for this season so far of the interconnected power of all things. Power -- pure, unadulterated energy (or mana, if you're a nerd) -- is a fascinating moral concept that I'm sure we'll all be thinking about differently as the season progresses. It's value-neutral and depends entirely on whose hand wields it, and yet, we all saw what happened to Willow*. Which is why, going back to my earlier statement, it's so interesting that it was the avatar of Buffy who said "It's about the power." We all now it's not Buffy (it's the new villain), but seeing it coming from her mouth does say something.

I'm not sure what to make of the scenery, on the other hand. This episode takes place entirely at the Sunnydale high school. Could this signify a return to the earlier, hanging-in-the-library, Buffy? Quite the opposite, I'm afraid. Dave Tepper write about how season 6 was a mid-life crisis of sorts for Buffy. I agree. We're back at Sunnydale High, but Xander is a contractor at the school, Buffy is a new guidance counselor, and Dawn is the student. Willow, meanwhile, is off in England with the rogue librarian. The scenery of Sunnydale is ominous, not because it's on top of the Hellmouth, but because it shows that this season is the start of something new: the Scoobies are, at long last, all grown up. What's that quote about the sea? "Water, water everywhere, and not a drop to drink."

Also, check out the Buffy BlogBurst.

*if you didn't see what happened to her, just know that she went psycho, took in too much power, turned in Badgirl!Willow, and tried to destory the world.

2002-09-22T17:36:00.000-04:00

Wouldn't the "Let's have a woman president before 2020" movement love this ? I might vote for her.

2002-09-21T14:30:00.000-04:00

A Summers Day in September

To add something to Becky's earlier post on Larry Summers, I'm recommending everyone read this speech delivered by Summers at the Memorial Church at Harvard on Sept. 17.

Snippet:

I am Jewish, identified but hardly devout. In my lifetime, anti-Semitism has been remote from my experience. My family all left Europe at the beginning of the 20th century. The Holocaust is for me a matter of history, not personal memory. To be sure, there were country clubs where I grew up that had few if any Jewish members, but not ones that included people I knew. My experience in college and graduate school, as a faculty member, as a government official -- all involved little notice of my religion.

2002-09-21T11:38:00.000-04:00

I bet Larry Summers isn't too popular with the Palestinian Liberation front at his university, but he's cool since the whole ROTC thing (for some reason, the article is mistitled, it's not about U Chicago) I've held him in higher respects. However, until Freshmen don't have to move in on Rosh Hashana, he's still in a bit of a spot. And I'm never applying there-- when I went, I didn't see any student who didn't have huge bags underneath his eyes or any student who didn't rush with that self-important Harvard walk.

2002-09-21T00:28:00.000-04:00

Spent Childhood Reading HHGTG, Not Marvel

Just noticed that Philip Bowermaster of The Ace of Justice has given Ciceronian a permalink. Agimus gratias tibi.

Check out AoJ...Philip doesn't update nearly as often as he ought, but when he does, it's well worth reading.

2002-09-21T00:21:00.000-04:00

451 Burned Books

September 21-28 is "Banned Books Week", according the ALA. Take a look around their website; it's got some really interesting info, like the most frequently challenged books.

I propose this for the blogosphere: every blogger read a book from the "other side" of the political fence. Libertarian? Go read Marx. Conservative? Pick up some Sontag. Communist? Milton Friedman's your man. This plan's not entirely in the exact spirit of "Banned Books Week" -- and you're all free to go read Harry Potter (#7 on the above list) -- but it's highly relavent to the overall spirit of intellectual freedom. Plus, we'll have some top-notch fisking going on all week.

For the record, I have read only 27 books on their list of most frequently challenged book (which I see now is only from 1990-2000). On their list of most frequently challenged classics, I've read 28. What are your numbers?

And would someone care to enlighten me as to why The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is number 72?

2002-09-20T23:55:00.000-04:00

Anglophile

The UK's foreign secretary has this to saw about inspections in Iraq:

'Iraq's Foreign Minister was not telling the truth when he said that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Iraq does retain the capacity to use chemical and other weapons of terror against its neighbours and its own people, as it has done before. By pretending this is not so, Iraq has reinforced the need for the UN Security Council to insist on intrusive inspections with an urgent timetable.'

(via the tremendous Cato the Youngest)

2002-09-20T21:16:00.000-04:00

Eye down't yuntersand y wreedink naeds 2 b a pre...prer....reezon 2 gradulate. Eye ken ged elonk good w. out wreedink.

[ed.--read the next post to see what she is talking about. It makes sense...kind of.]

2002-09-20T20:14:00.000-04:00

IIliteracy is Good, says School Board Member

John Hawkins has a wonderful post regarding the further idiocy of the public high school system. Apparently, someone who just got elected to the Des Moines school board doesn't think reading should be a prerequisite to graduate. Wow.

In New York State, the only state I have good info on, four years of English and Gym are required for a state diploma. (Even private schools have to abide by this, although they are exempt from most other requirments, like the Regents system of standardized tests). Anyone have info on other states/countries?

Public school is, as a general rule, badly run. Despite that, people manage to get good education, but it could be better. My darling mother used to be on the school board of my suburban town, and I've rarely seen her more stressed than when she would come home from board meetings.

For a long time, my town struggled with the issue of regionalization. The state school board wanted to merge my school district (high test scores, good college rates, fairly wealthy) with a neighboring town's (horrible scores, limited college attendance, poor). The state had already merged it with another nearby town, and, as a result, most of that other town now attends private schools. Additionally, the town with the bad school has a fair number of very wealthy residents (the town is divided in half by wealthy and, unfortunately, race), who also send their children to private schools. The state school board, rather than address the issue of funding, teaching, etc... in the failing district, decided that forced busing would be the perfect solution. Nevermind that two other groups had already "opted out" of this by seeking alternative education, and nevermind that no one in my town wanted it. This was the best solution the state could come up with.

Public schools are good, but they could be so much better. Bloomberg is right to seize control of the NYC public schools -- maybe now something will get done. Ditto for vouchers.

2002-09-19T22:06:00.000-04:00

Don't forget the best part of the McKinney saga: Jesse Jackson hopped on a plane from New York to Atlanta to denounce Denise Majette's aid from outside sources in the campaign. (Read it until it makes sense. You're all smart though, and should pick up on the wonderful hypocrisy of the good Rev.)

2002-09-19T20:09:00.000-04:00

Codeword: Sensible

John Nichols seems to think that McKinney's defeat was not her fault. No, he doesn't blame the J-E-W-S, but rather the cross-over Republicans allowed to vote in a system "designed by southern segregationist politicians to insure that all white voters could coalesce to defeat progressive candidates." Perfect quasi-conspiracy theory for The Nation's quasi-blog.

He begins by lambasting the trend in America towards moderate, non-inflammatory politicians, focusing on Barr and McKinney, both of whom lost their primaries. Because I'm less familar with Barr -- and because Nicholes focuses on him less -- I'm editing mentions of him out of segments. I'm not trying to misrepresent the article. Nichols says:

McKinney...stretched the limits of the political discourse...with her suggestions that the Bush administration might have failed to counter terrorist threats in order to pump up profits for corporations to which members of the administration and their families were closely tied.

If by "stretching the limits," Nichols means "falsifying incendiary stories for publicity," then, yeah, McKinney did that. Already his argument is faltering; if this is the radical politics he wants to see, why doesn't he support a repeal of the libel laws?

He also cites that she was not hesitant to "accuse Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of racial and ethnic insensitivity." So, who was sensitive? I'm sensing a trend here: McKinney attacks everyone, regardless of the vercity of her claims. Politics are politics; going at the leaders of both parties like that is not going to ingratiate McKinney with the Washington leaders. And much as Nicholes would wish it otherwise, that's important in Washington, not just for getting re-elected, but for getting things done. What good is a congresswoman if all she does is spout radical ideas, thus alienating possible supports and eliminating opportunities to help her constituents?

He continues:

When McKinney...pushed at the barriers of our politics -- even when [she] pushed too far -- [she] gave voice in Congress to the conversations that really go on in America. Freed of the stifling constraints of poll-driven centrism, [she] made a representative democracy more genuinely representative of all the opinions seriously in play in the land. As such, [she]...developed national constituencies -- in July, for instance, McKinney was the only Democratic politician invited to address the Green Party's national convention, and she continues to be boomed by some in that party as a potential 2004 presidential candidate.

Two problems. First, a "national constituency" means nothing. Neo-Nazis have a national constituency, but they're not going to win any elections. Same with the Libertarian Party. Neither wins elections, but both have supporters in every state. Whoo-hoo that she was the only politician invited to the Green Party's national convention. The Green Party has how many supporters? Maybe a lot in Florida, but not the numbers needed to sustain a politician career (even if your name is Nader). McKinney seems to have been a bad politician, in the truest sense of the world. She pissed off party leadership, and then aligned herself with an small independant party, neither of which are winning strategies.

Additionally, I doubt that it's key for Congress to represent all the opinions in the land. Now, coming from a Nation writer, I realize that Nichols is referring to the disillusioned opinions of wacky leftist pundits. Most of the country are moderates -- far-left and far-right are the definite minority. The problem with trying to represent a specific opinion sector as a politician is that McKinney pigeon-holed herself. Yes, during the 1990's, it might have been good to have her in Congress, but the post 9/11 government is one of consensus, and McKinney stuck out. She had outlived her usefulness and lost the election; it's not the first time it's happened. She didn't lose because she was a radical, she lost because there was no more need for her. The two are intimately connected, but there's a distinction.

But Nichols doesn't think that McKinney lost because she was a useless commodity in the eyes of votes. In fact, it's everyone's fault but hers that she lost!

Majette took advantage of a corrupt campaign finance system that allows a candidate who is unable to garner support at the grassroots in her home district to collect money nationally. And a good deal of Majette's national money did indeed come from supporters of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hardline policies -- just as a portion of McKinney's money came from supporters of Palestinian rights. But Majette's fund raising success...also benefited from the determination of Democratic Leadership Council types, good-old-boy southern conservatives such as U.S. Senator Zell Miller, D-Ga., and the business interests they represent to cleanse the Democratic party of outspoken critics of corporate abuses and free trade policies such as McKinney and Hilliard.

Was there anything McKinney liked? Israel, the past two Presidents and VPs, the leadership of both parties, whites, Northeners, free trade...the list is endless. But that's besides the point. Nichols is looking at this with blinkers on. Majette was able to market herself nationally -- although McKinney is supposedly the one with a "national constituency" -- and raise enough money to defeat the incumbant. McKinney got money from the Palestinians, Majette got money from the Jews. Both were out-of state. McKinney even got money from out-of-state Arabs during her term; Reynolds has a few postings about this (look through his archives). And money doesn't make the election; it certainly helps, but mostly for the name recognition. As an incumbant -- I believe McKinney had a highway named after her -- McKinney already had the name recognition. Money helped Bloomberg, but he wasn't running against an incumbant (Mark Green was largely unknown until the election).

Nichols draws two other false conclusions. One is that Majette's money came from Jewish hardliners, which it didn't. Much of it came from moderate, liberal Jews who were rightfully appalled by McKinney. Another is that the DLC wanted McKinney out because of her criticisms of corporate abuse. I'm not sure that the DLC, even if they wanted McKinney out, they had much to do with the election, as they have a "hands-off" policy with regards to primaries. Anyway, where was the Black Congressional Caucus? I'm not all too familiar with them, but is there a reason they didn't work harder to drum out the black vote for McKinney? (anyone have more info on this)

And lastly, we get to the "racists":

Majette, who like McKinney is an African-American woman, also took advantage of political processes designed by southern segregationist politicians to insure that all white voters could coalesce to defeat progressive candidates in Democratic primaries. Georgia law allows Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries, and they did so in droves in the McKinney-Majette race. While African-American Democrats turned out in tepid numbers, the Atlanta Journal Constitution noted that "a swarm of Republicans" took Democratic primary ballots. "The Republicans made a difference (in defeating McKinney)," explained the Rev. Joseph Lowery, the longtime Southern Christian Leadership Council leader who now heads the Georgia Coalition for the People's Agenda, a civil rights group. "They provided the margin (for Majette), which is unethical." Lowery is right; had Georgia primary voting been limited to party members -- as is the case in most American states -- McKinney might well have won.

I don't doubt that that is the explanation for open primaries, but that alone isn't responsible for her defeat. Democrats -- especially black Democrats -- didn't show up to the polls. Anyway, the point is somewhat moot, as, if the Republicans were such an influence in the primaries, they would have just defeated McKinney in the actual election. Again, Nichols tries to pin this on everyone one else, quickly passing over the mention of "tepid numbers," to go on to blame Republicans for voting. Hey, it's democracy, and you have to vote be to be heard!

With regards to Nichols original point that Congress is becoming increasingly moderate, I agree, but I don't think that it's a conscious effort on anyone's part. The left is in disarray. It's unable to mobilize anything with regards to Iraq; it can't stand up to Ashcroft; it had little hope of winning the White House in 2004, and minor hope of winning any sort of Senatorial majority in the fall. People like Majette -- moderate, sensible, not tainted by the Clinton-era -- might be to key. The Dems need to field a sensible team; rhetoric like McKinney's is painfully outdated. And it's time people like Nichols realized that and stopped blaming everyone else. Introspection hurts, but the Democrats need it.

2002-09-17T22:05:00.000-04:00

Oh yea. And if you go dissing John Adams again? I'll beat you with my copy of The Federalist Papers. Hard.

2002-09-17T20:07:00.000-04:00

Jesse Jackson...the originator, calculator, not-self-hater, race-baiter? I wouldn't worry.

2002-09-16T17:24:00.000-04:00

It's Almost Too Easy...

...to make Jesse Jackson look like a complete loony. But it's fun, so here goes (from the Washington Times):

The Rev. Jesse Jackson yesterday told about 600 Michigan State University students that America's democracy was 37 years old, not 200-plus, and that "democracy as we know it did not begin in Philadelphia, where a bunch of white men wrote the laws."

"These men's wives were not allowed [to vote], these laws were made at a time when only white men had the right to vote," Mr. Jackson said, noting that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the commencement of "true democracy."

Yes, John Adams forgot the ladies. But that doesn't make Colonial America all bad. That "bunch of white men" wrote the laws that eventually allowed someone like Lincoln to be elected, who was able, under those laws, to write the Emancipation Proclamation.

And what about that? Why isn't that when democracy started? Or when Lee surrendered? Or when Amendment 15 allowed blacks to vote (way back in 1870)? And, if we talking about women, why not in 1920, when women (white and black) got the right to vote?

Oh, probably because that's too far back in history for most of Jackson's followers to remember. And I doubt Jackson can capitalize on his "involvement" with those acts, like he capitalizes on his involvement with the Civil Rights Movement.

"America is a great nation," Mr. Jackson continued. "But we only represent 6 percent of the world. English is a great language but it is a minority language Jesus didn't speak it. We are a great nation, but we have to be of service, we do not have to be superior.

If we're on the topic of the UN and English supremacy, may I point out that the UNGA conducts its meetings in English? And that most documents in the UN are written in, ah, English? We could use Mandarian, because more people speak that, but we use English, because the US and UK's economies are the strongest in the world. It could be argued that English is used solely because the UK and the US were founded members, but I don't see China motioning to change the language.

And I'd bet good money that Jesus didn't speak English because there was no English at the time. He did, most likely, speak Latin, Hebrew, and probably a smattering of Greek. Imagine the conniptions Jackson would have if someone suggested we use Latin because Jesus spoke it.

The event here was poorly attended after student organizers predicted a crowd of 6,000. The group provided 2,000 free tickets to students and booked the arena area of the center, which has a capacity of 15,000.

Why am I not surprised. He's a buffoon; no one in the right mind would want to here him speak. At least Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky have some marginal academic value.

Mr. Jackson also disparaged the nation's economic order, using the university's labor force as an example. "You see them out there every day, planting flowers, keeping the place clean," he said. "But they are the working poor. And the cost of a loaf of bread is the same for them as it is for anyone else."

The labor force at Michigan State University is unionized, with all employees making above the minimum wage.

I doubt Jackson knew that last bit. What, exactly, would he rather have? No one keeping the place clean? What sort of order could replace the current free market system? Communism just makes everyone equally poor; socialism ditto; totalitarianism makes everyone poor but the ruler...

Ah, it must be that gun-slinger we have in the White House. Get rid of him and I'm sure Jackson will think everything is a'okay.

2002-09-16T16:08:00.000-04:00

With all my bashing of the Times yesterday (scroll down), I fell somewhat compelled to point out the good qualities which occasionally show themselves on its pages. This article is one of the good qualities. It's about the Iraqi mission to the UN, located on the Upper East Side (across the street from Bloomberg's apartment). Here is the homepage of said mission (fairly interesting reading).

I must have walked past that mission countless times; it's right near the 79th crosstown bus, which I take fairly often. I, somewhat biased, assumed that the office (which displays the Iraqi flag) was home to some sort of radical Islamist group. Suppose, in way, I was right.

2002-09-16T14:20:00.000-04:00

I don't know how cool you all think this is, but I am going to buy an IDF T-shirt with my name on the back in Hebrew. Not only that, but the website sends care packages to soldiers or kids in the hospital if you spend more than 15 dollars there. It's nice, and the site talks about how Israel could use the money. So it's making me glad.

2002-09-15T22:58:00.000-04:00

Um...right. About the whole "I'm on staff at this blog too...really!" thing. I've just been madly busy. I've found that in between school and soccer and reading Slander, I've just not had the time. I'll try. Oh, and the story that I bet you've been sitting on the edge of your seat waiting for goes as follows:

We're sitting in my History class Wednesday afternoon, talking about the Quaker Meeting when the people start talking about what they did afterwards. One girl I'm constantly sparring with, she being much too leftist for my taste, says something like "It should have been all day or there should have been more." Someone chimed in "In my next class, the teacher let us sit on the field and talk." I, glutton for punishment like always, said "I had a class the next period, and I liked it. There was something nice about moving on. It showed that even though September 11 [I HATE the phrase 9/11-- it's crass. Do they want Pearl Harbor day to be PH Day? I didn't think so.] was terrible, it's not the be-all-and-end-all." Well, we sat in silence for, about 15 seconds while the class detected an intruder into its liberal fortress. The girl was shocked, and expressed her displeasure. My favorite part was that because of the round table in the classroom (for fostering discussion, not question and answer history) I was sitting facing everyone, while I felt like a heretic in front of Torquemada. It sure was odd. I stil love New York, however. Where else can you buy a "Rolecks" for....ten dollars!

2002-09-15T13:56:00.000-04:00

That's it from me today; I'm off to the father's for supper, and then Kol Nidrei at BJ in Manhattan.

I wish you all an easy fast.

For on this day atonement shall be made for you to cleanse you from all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord.
Leviticus (Vayikra) 16:30

2002-09-15T13:49:00.000-04:00

TimesWatch Part V -- Tony Soprano, A Conservative?

The Times seems to be suggesting it.

At first glance, one might suppose that Tony was postmodern relativism personified — a vicious mob boss who resorts to psychotherapy in order to become a more effective criminal. But though he goes through the motions of introspection with Dr. Jennifer Melfi, he remains deeply skeptical of the anything-goes therapeutic culture that she represents. Instead, he longs for the simpler, less ambiguous America of his youth, a land of stoic men, supportive women and clear-cut rules of behavior.

In an article that is an advertisement for Stanley Fish, the reporter attacks the moral certainty of Tony Soprano, and appears to be drawing some connections to modern-day American.

Viewers could write off his moralism as purest hypocrisy. But he is no moral relativist. He really is trying to do the right thing, according to his lights. He is looking for what is truly good and bad, and surely it is at least as fair to see him as a symbol of man's divided soul, tainted by sin yet capable of goodness.

The reporter then comes to the a semi-strange conclusion:

Because Tony is a criminal, we do not take his values seriously, but we still identify with his belief in them, sighing guiltlessly for the lost world of moral certitude. No one could possibly call him a good man, but we know he could be a whole lot worse, so we regard him sympathetically in spite of his evil ways. After all, he's only doing what he thinks he has to do — just like us.

That's the spirit! Moral certitude is bad, because who are you to say that you're right? Look at Tony Soprano, he "kills people with his bare hands," and yet he thinks that he's acting as morally as he can. Look at the danger inherent in anything but moral relativism. Please, spare me you lectures on the benefits of post-modernism.

Oh, and this ought to get Rod Dreher mad:

It is no coincidence that in addition to being a moralist, Tony is explicitly religious...

Because those Catholics, you know, they're always so damn sure that they're acting morally. Shame, shame on them.

2002-09-15T13:37:00.000-04:00

TimesWatch IV -- But If the Army Does It, It's Bad

While Purdy is off writing how people are just fine with Hussein possessing chemical weapons, Rick Bragg and Glynn Wilson are busy writing how some folk in Alabama are worked up over a plan by the Army to destroy some arms containing nerve gas -- described by the reporters as "the most inhuman weapons ever devised."

Admittedly, the Army's plan sounds sketchy, but the utter hypocrisy revealed by the moral inconsistencies in these two articles is appalling

2002-09-15T13:30:00.000-04:00

TimesWatch Part III -- They Couldn't Find a Warblogger?

They're at it again. Personal interviews from the trenches on what the public really thinks about Iraq. In an article entitled Looking for the Elusive Two-Thirds Who Want War With Iraq, reporter Matthew Purdy goes up to Fishkill, NY to hunt down that 66% percent. What does he find?

What the hell do you think he found?

Mr. Sohan interrupts lunch preparations. "I'm a staunch Republican," he says, "and I want to see more proof." Mr. Sohan, 55, has three sons and says, "I don't want my sons doing what I did — without having the support of the country, without a clear intent."

If not the woman with the flowers, surely the soldier with an M-16 outside West Point's visitors' center wants war. "I hope not," he says. "A lot of innocent people would be killed."

Unfortunately, Purdy ran into some people who actual think Hussein is a bad guy. But no fear, he neutralizes them with a familiar tactic: turn them into a rabid conservative.

Thomas Kirk, a carpenter from North Carolina touring West Point, says Rush Limbaugh convinced him that Hussein was an urgent threat.

Got that? It's all Limbaugh's fault. Get him off the radio -- he's brainwashing Americans into thinking that a military dictator with many WMDs and a desire to see us burn like Sodom and Gommorah is a potential source of danger.

And then, following the liberal idea that veterans are the best judge of current foriegn policy, he quotes some vets, like Jim Chirico:

What about the risk of unleashing international mayhem? He worries about his grandson, a marine, but says: "I'm an old man, I've lived my life. Selfishly, I say it doesn't bother me."

To which Purdy snappishly writes:

Finally, the gung-ho spirit!

Really Mr. Purdy, is that tounge-in-cheek comment the best thing you can come up with? Jonah Goldberg is wittier in his sleep than you are on the front page of the Times.

2002-09-15T13:17:00.000-04:00

TimesWatch Part II -- Alaska All Over Again

I'm not even going to read the article, but here's a blurb from the front page:

Global Warming Omitted
For the first time in six years, an annual federal report on air pollution does not have section on global warming. The decision was made with White House approval.

Here's a novel explanation for that: global warming doesn't exist.

2002-09-15T13:11:00.000-04:00

TimesWatch Part I -- Wait, Who's Acting Legally?

[American Family Radio] knocked two NPR affiliate stations off the local airwaves last year, transforming this southwest Louisiana community of 95,000 people into the most populous place in the country where "All Things Considered" cannot be heard.

In place of that program — and "Morning Edition," "Car Talk" and a local Cajun program called "Bonjour Louisiana" — listeners now find "Home School Heartbeat," "The Phyllis Schlafly Report" and the conservative evangelical musings of Mr. Wildmon, whose network broadcasts from Tupelo, Miss.

The Christian stations routed NPR in Lake Charles under a federal law that allows noncommercial broadcasters with licenses for full-power stations to push out those with weaker signals — the equivalent of the varsity team kicking the freshmen out of the gym.

It's that horrible? The Evil Evangelicals are taking over NPR "translator stations," low-budget stations that relay the signal of other, bigger stations. According to the article, "The Federal Communications Commission considers them [the translator stations] squatters...anyone who is granted a full-power license can legally run them out of town."

Read the entire article, because the issue is fairly complex, but this is the essence: American Family Radio, along with many other independant Christian stations, have been rapaciously snatching up the rights to broadcast on the lower FM signals (typically between 81.0 and 91.1 megahertz). Previously occupying these signals were public radio -- like NPR -- translator stations, which had chosen to operate on the cheaper translator system rather than apply for full-power FCC licenses.

In the Times' own words:

The two public radio stations heard in Lake Charles, for example, were caught napping as American Family Radio maneuvered over several years to bump them off the air.

So, who's at fault? If you need to ask that, you aren't familiar enough with Raines' view on news reporting.

For many of NPR's 273 member organizations, the legal and administrative costs of competing against religious broadcasters are sponging up millions of dollars that they might otherwise spend on news and other local programming.

Get that? If it weren't for the Evil Evangelicals, the public radio stations could run better programming! Rather than focus on why the public radio stations were "napping," the Times focuses on how this harms public radio, and suggests rather overtly that the E.E.'s were targetting the -- obviously quite poorly run -- secular stations. The article opens with this:

"He detests the news that the public gets through NPR and believes it is slanted from a distinctly liberal and secular perspective," said Patrick Vaughn, general counsel for Mr. Wildmon's American Family Radio.

Here in Lake Charles, American Family Radio has silenced what its boss detests.

Even from reading the article carefully, I can tell that detesting the liberal slant of NPR wasn't what motivated American Family Radio: it was the fact that the signal was cheap, available, and legal, something the Times tries so hard to downplay.

Welcome to the Free Market; I hope the people in Lake Charles, LA like listening to radio-broadcast "conservative evangelical musings."

2002-09-14T21:23:00.000-04:00

Gimmie my Freedom! Now!

Shortly after signing into law the USA PATRIOT ACT, President Bush said “…one thing is for certain: These terrorists must be pursued; they must be defeated; and they must be brought to justice. And that is the purpose of this legislation.”

It might be the purpose, but is it the result? Perhaps, but the breadth of the legislation is unwarranted, the legislative equivalent of not allowing anyone to fly on an airplane in order that no one may hijack one. It solves the problem, but the solution is more problematic than was the initial problem.

Here's a short, primer article I've published on Ashcroft's post-9/11 legal wrangling.

2002-09-14T20:16:00.000-04:00

Free Cannabis!

Maybe some candidate could heist this idea as a campaigning tactic?

2002-09-14T19:13:00.000-04:00

Yes, They Really Are This Stupid

Some idiotic liberal has got it in his mind that people on the left (non-warbloggers) shouldn't go around fisking anyone. Rather, they should coulter them. The lefty says:

Afterthought: since Coulter's misrepresentations and outright lies certainly outnumber any of Robert Fisk's perceived sins by a factor of about a thousand to one, a suggestion to the blogosphere-- why not retire that tired and self-congratulatory "giving (blank) a Fisking" nonsense and replace it with more accurate nomenclature, i.e., giving someone a Coulter? As in, "Boy, he really got Coultered!"

I'm not sure where to start, so I'll start at the beginning. It's not called "fisking" because of any journalist sins of Robert Fisk. Although no one on the right would call Fisk a good journalist, he didn't warrent his own verb until he went to Afghanistan, got beaten bloody by the locals, and went on to commend their actions. It's the "beaten bloody" part of it that is conjured up by the word "to fisk," not the lack of journalistic talent.

With that in mind, what could it mean to be "coultered"? I think someone should stop playing Safire and get back to researching the possibility of being a human shield in Iraq.

2002-09-14T18:54:00.000-04:00

Galt is Good

Megan McArdle is a wonder.

2002-09-14T18:33:00.000-04:00

Kingdom of Fear (and Loathing!)

This interview makes me want to lie down and have a good cry. Hunter Thompson -- right up there with HL Mencken in my mind -- is calling for Bush to "quit".

I respect his desires -- he also wants Americans to get out and vote more -- but I hate how he expresses them. Quit? Of all the words Thompson could use, why must he pick "quit"? It shows how out of touch with reality most lefties are.

What does Thompson hope the accomplish? It appears, from the interview, that he wants to eliminate the absurdity in Bush's administration (I'm surprised he didn't call it a "regime"). Highlighting what he judges to be an overreaction to the Florida tip on terror, Thompson essentially accuses Bush of wanting to be King George. "They have a monarchial view of life, and they've created a kingdom of Fear...that's what Bush has created in this country," said Thompson, referring to Bush Sr. and Jr.

"I see a police state taking over the country," continued Thompson. Ick. I agree that Ashcroft and Co. have overstepped their constitutionally defined bounds, but a police state. It's a bit much.

This tendency in the left to go into auto-panic mode whenever Bush does something is increasingly distancing them from the normal public. Sure, McKinney can spew anti-American rhetoric all she wants, but just remember: it wasn't just cross-over voting that brought her down. I see the increasing number of Jews voting Republican as evidence of this. It's not just the Israel issue -- that's a symptom, not a cause. Most casual liberals, if it were put to nation-wide vote, would have a hard time pulling a lever in favor of Muslim terrorists and against Israeli democrats (small 'd' democrats). And yet, the leftist pundits and politicians are increasingly anti-Israel.

How would this confusion on the left -- resulting in their inability to coalesce into a unified opponent to the administration -- be resolved by Bush quitting? How would his quitting solve anything? Things wouldn't snap back to the way they were in the 90s; we'd just be all that most confused and, therefore, vulnerable. And, by the way, if Bush were to quit, Cheney would become president. Does Thompson think that would change things?

Rather than publishing -- with his brilliant prose -- moderating pieces designed to halt the partisanship of post-9/11 America, Thompson is publishing a book entitled "Kingdom of Fear."

Pardon me, I think I need that cry now.

2002-09-14T18:06:00.000-04:00

Seventeen Meets Acadamia...and Yes, the Boys are Hot

So, Seventeen Magazine (you know, the one read by all the 12 and 13-year-old girls) ran a feature in their October issue about colleges. Okay, I figure, why not steal it from my sister to read? (what? you thought I would read it for anything on fashion?)

Overall, I'm fairly impressed with their spread. It's not highbrow, scholarly reporting -- about Stanford is says, " As for boys -- ever see the hunks snapped in the tabloids with Chelsea Clinton...?" -- but it's relatively informative. And yes, I just called something in 17 informative. I wouldn't base my decision off of the information provided here, but I would read it through. The editors give a list of the top 50 US colleges, providing a small blurb of casual information on each, that seamlessly mixes schools small and large, rural and urban, nerdy and jock, etc. 27, for example, is Smith College, which 28 is MIT.

Rather unsurprisingly, the editors focus on the social aspects of the school, saying about Sarah Lawrence that "being gay is no big deal," and provides the boy-girl ratio for nearly every school profiled. Somewhat surprisingly, in the point ranking, they deducted points from the all-girls schools for not having balanced gender ratios. Albeit, the editors explain this by saying "Boys are good," but still, it's a nice break from the agressively empowering message teenage magazines try to send (that is, between advertisment with size 2 models).

One gripe: The list of "Top 10 Political Active Campuses." A selection:
1) U of Michigan - Ann Arbor (only $5 fine for smoking pot in public!)
2) U of California - Berkeley (if stealing conservative student newspapers counts as politically active)
3) Mount Holyoke (all girl school)
4) New York University (I'm unsure why this one made it...it's notorious for having a pathetic sense of community)
...
10) Evergreen State College (a school without grades, that encouraging students to be "self-motivated")

2002-09-14T16:56:00.000-04:00

Leaving a Papertrail

NZ Bear links to this presentation produced by the Blue Man Group in honor of 9/11. Watch it.

It really drives home this point on what really infuriated the terrorists.

2002-09-13T16:35:00.000-04:00

Radioactive Flooring

The FBI has a recently announced that the ship being detained off of the port at Elizabeth, NJ contains no harmful radioactive substances. Rather, the radioactivity was being emitted by ceramic tiles, some of which can contain trace amounts of radon.

Yes, the outcome is utterly absurd, but at least it shows that the system works.

2002-09-12T23:07:00.000-04:00

Obituaries can be truly fascinating sometimes. This one -- on Uzi Gal, inventor of the gun that bears his name -- is no exception. Read the obit, it's fascinating history. Only one small complaint (bear in mind that this is the New York Times):

He saw combat in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, to which he brought a homemade submachine gun. Afterward he went to officers training school. He went on to design the Uzi, which impressed army leaders.

The 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Hmm. The War Formerly Known As the "War of Independance."

2002-09-11T20:47:00.000-04:00

Oh, damn. I had this brilliant idea to post a poem, which I haven't seen too many bloggers doing, but Chad Dimpler, that evil knave beat me to it. Still going to post the poem though. Here are the last few stanzas from the poem In Memory of W. B. Yeats by W. H. Auden.

In the nightmare of the dark
All the dogs of Europe bark,
And the living nations wait,
Each sequestered in its hate;

Intellectual disgrace
Stares from every human face,
And the seas of pity lie
Locked and frozen in each eye.

Follow, poet, follow right
To the bottom of the night,
With your unconstraining voice
Still persuade us to rejoice;

With the farming of a verse
Make a vineyard of the curse,
Sing of human unsuccess
In a rapture of distress;

In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountain start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.

2002-09-11T20:38:00.000-04:00

Notes:

1) Becky, if she shows her head around here tonight, has an interesting story to share about one of her classes this afternoon. Damn those uber-liberal, New York, Upper West Side Jews.

2) I have a short article on civil liberties that I'll be posting shortly. The article I recently put up about UN anti-Israel bias shall soon be on an "official" site, once we coordinate a bit better with the webmaster.

3) And, as always, thank you for reading. You have no idea how much we value your feedback (even if just to say "You're horrible. I hate your writing.")

2002-09-11T20:31:00.000-04:00

Our school had an interesting -- and succesful -- commoration of 9/11. It was just an optional assembly, held for about an hour (supposed to be shorter, but ran over), that was run like a Quaker meeting. The principal of the Upper Division used to teach at a Friends School (he's Jewish, though), and he had the brilliant idea: have a few hundred high school students sit in the gym for 45 minutes silently, standing up one at a time to speak "when the spirit moves them."

Yeah, we all laughed too.

But it worked! It was slow starting; no one wanted to break the silence with irreverent words, but it eventually got off the ground. There were the platitudes ("People are Good. The World is Good."), but there were also some shockingly moving remarks. One guy who's birthday was this morning gave a little speech about people invading his country, his state, his island, his day, and trying -- but failing -- to steal it for their needs. Brilliant. There were no microphones to speak into, so I couldn't hear everyone, but what I heard, I liked. One thing that didn't surprise me too much was that the students were often more insightful than the teachers and faculty who stood up to speak. The platitude quoted above was from one of the Deans, and the birthday boy is only a Junior.

There were a few tears -- including one senior who started crying as he recounted a visit to a firehouse where he saw a remembrance photograph of a firefighter with the same last name as his -- but by and large, the students were all calm. If we hadn't had the assembly, I wouldn't have realized that it was a special day. It was a gorgeous day out; the field was recently re-sodded; and the atmosphere was relatively bouncy.

I was going to submit an essay to A Perfect Morning, but I decided against it. I started writing on it the last days of my vacation, and it was going nowhere. Not wanting to repeat everyone else ("It was horrible! So many died! America was altered forever!") I found myself deleting and writing and deleting and writing. The media has saturated us with phrases and catchisms about the attacks, and I found it hard to break out of their mold. How does one think about these attacks originally? It is possible? It is necessary?

I don't mean Noam "Dissenting from the Bush Admin. is revolutionary" Chomsky original, I mean actually original, saying something that hasn't been pounded into our heads for the past year. On the surface -- the non-blogging, non-political surface -- there are two options: "Get 'em" or "It's our fault." At the Quaker assembly today, I saw this emphasized. I could tell who was going to fall which way and, largely, I was correct. Knowing the students allowed me to predict which rhetoric they were going to copy.

Copying the sentiments of others was not my intention on this day, and so I didn't write any drawn out essay. You all know what I'm feeling; you're probably feeling it yourself.

2002-09-11T19:49:00.000-04:00

The Arab Newshas really surprised me today. Not only is thier front page contain a Letter from the Editor that essentially blames the Muslim world for not confronting its demons, but it ran reasonably decent 9/11 coverage (excluding the usual rants about how scary AIPAC is).

This article was especially interesting. It's about Muslim scientific culture, and is essentially the acknowledgment that not much is happening vis-a-vis science or mathematics in the Arab world. The concluding paragraph:

This certainly echoes the words of Dr. Abdus Salam, who was asked, "What happened to Islamic Science?" He replied "Nothing. Instead what we cultivated in Isfahan and Cordoba is now being cultivated in MIT, Caltech and at Imperial College, London. It’s just a geographical translation of place."

I wonder why. Perhaps the intellectual community -- not the Kurdish rebels, or the Iranian students -- will be our savior in the MidEast.

2002-09-10T20:53:00.000-04:00

Charles Johnson links to this story writen for the Financial Times by Walid el-Gabry. Read over his entry for some typically pithy remarks, but take a closer look at this paragraph: (bear in mind that this is in an article on how Israel is partially responsible for the US' violent anti-Muslim, and how the US overlooks Israel's terrorist connections)

I had been expecting a more historical analysis: Britain's 1917 Balfour Declaration;

Yes, the Declaration which said "His Majesty's Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

1930s German and British government collaboration with the Zionist movement;

Let me think. In 1933, the German government elected a lovely new leader who must be the one being "accused" of collaborating to help the Jews. Oh wait, I don't think Adolf Hitler ever did that.

...the ethnic cleansing of civilians...

Fine, he's admitting that there was a reason for the foundation of Israel. Wait...

...by terrorist bands such as Irgun, Unit 101, from whence Israeli leaders such as Begin and Ariel Sharon emerged;

Irgun, yes, was sort of a terrorist group, though it was by no means mainstream -- as Hamas is -- and was not embraced by the Jewish population as a means of achieving a new country. The marginalization of Irgun is not insignificant, especially when talking about the mentality of a culture as a whole, as is being done in this article. Irgun did not typify pre or post 1948 Israelis.

President Truman's unilateral recognition of Ben Gurion's 1948 declaration of statehood;

Allow me to introduce this thing called the "United Nations." You might be familiar with it, as you're trying to get them to do for you what they did for the Jews back in 1948. I doubt you'll attack the US President for "unilateral recognition" of your declaration of state.

the fact there are still Jewish Palestinians who have not taken Israeli citizenship.

Wow. I have never heard this before. Has anyone else?

2002-09-08T16:53:00.000-04:00

Speaking of the environmentalists, I just got to thinking about why Native Americans, who for years and years "lived off the land" by adapting it to their needs, don't get in trouble with PETA and all the other mor...I mean activists. They only seem to be at odds when the Native Americans want to build things. (Like, casinos for instance.)

2002-09-08T16:50:00.000-04:00

I should never leave my desk. You keep pitching me softballs. Procrastination? Sorry to my faithful readers, but on my list of things to do, blogging comes after hard things like Calculus and Soccer. Plus, I have no time to write since I'm trying to finish Ann Coulter's book before I have to read Sylvia Plath for English class. (YAY Ann Coulter!!! Boo Sylvia Plath!) Plus, I try to fall asleep reading the Economist, which means I have to get into bed at 7:30 to fall asleep at 10. Not that I don't love the Economist, it's just that it takes a long time to read it.

My Thought of the Day:
"You can't always get what you want. No you can't always get what you want. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, you just might find you get what you need."-- Mick Jagger

2002-09-07T19:30:00.000-04:00

It would appear that a group of British Muslims are planning on gathering on 9.11.02 in order to celebrate the "positive outcomes" of the attack, as well as celebrate the founding of the "Islamic Council of Britain." Al-Qaeda members will be welcomed to join, though the founder, Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammed, assures the AP that he "personally regret[s] the loss of life."

The biggest problem with this is not that this group of Islamofacists is allowed to celebrate the murder of 3,000 innocents. It's that they're naming their organization with such a benign name. The Islamic Council of Britian sounds academic, scholarly -- perhaps the sort of place that would hold Tuesday lunchtime lectures on obscure points of Islamic history. It doesn't sound like the sort of place that reviles in murder and mayhem. They should be forced to rename the organization "Islamic Council of Radical Fundamentalists" or "Council of Deranged Terrorists."

Hey, honesty is the best policy.

[ed. -- Here's another article on the same group.]

2002-09-07T18:59:00.000-04:00

Thought of the Day

"One should never allow chaos to develop in order to avoid going to war, because one does not avoid a war but instead puts it off to his disadvantage" Niccolo Machiavelli

2002-09-07T11:18:00.000-04:00

Right Wing News has a new page of enviro-mentalist quotations. Some of these are real gems:

Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. -- Pentti Linkola

2002-09-07T10:53:00.000-04:00

The tremendous Jay Nordlinger has an interesting take on Tiger Woods the Cablinasian. Definitely worth a read.

The most fascinating part is the connection people are trying to draw between Tiger and the Augusta Golf Club not permitting women as members. Who is he to say anything? Funny that the people demanding that he do something are the same people essentially saying "It's a black thing -- you wouldn't understand." Last time I checked, he was Mr. Woods. Do people really want Tiger to go in waving around the magic green jacket demanding changes?

2002-09-06T21:42:00.000-04:00

We needed a scientific study to show us this?

The worst procrastinators received significantly lower grades in a college course with many deadlines than did low or moderate-level procrastinators, a new study found.
The worst procrastinators were also more likely than others to use rationalizations - such as saying "I work best under pressure" -- to justify their behavior in school.

I could have told them that. "No, honestly, this article is so simple. Just 5000 characters. I can write it on Saturday and blog all Friday night."

[ed. -- This info sheet on procrastination is actually fairly interesting. This is the main problem with having a blog; I feel as if I'm learning (because I am) and therefore I'm working, but it's not getting my work done.]

2002-09-06T21:33:00.000-04:00

I have only one thing to say on this:

Free Luna!

2002-09-04T10:22:00.000-04:00

I'm baaaaaaaaaaack. My absence was due to a dearth of things to write about, followed by a Labor Day weekend getaway. But I'm back now. Let's go.
You can't honestly tell me that you think Harry Potter is comparable to post-9/11 America. That's just too...ninth-grade English essay due the next day and instead of writing, you sat up and watched the Buffy marathon, and wrote the essay on the way to school. Yes, the Harry books are coming of age stories, but have you ever read one where there wasn't a change in atmosphere? Isn't that the point of a coming of age story?
PS. Speaking of teaser trailers, has anyone seen one for the West Wing yet? Does anyone know when the premiere is?
PPS. Sopranos in two weeks!!!

Am I going to read the article on Dead Tree soon? Because I'm getting annoyed. Plus, I don't know if I want my Democrats piece on the internet. Is the whole backlogging thing on the web going to happen?

2002-09-03T18:28:00.000-04:00

The silence of the UNGA is deafening. In his speech, Negroponte also said: “For too long, the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council have been silent when Israelis are the victims of terrorism. Member States must reject the rationales given by Hama, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and others that their terrorist bombings are somehow justified by the state of affairs in the Middle East.” This blind spot was a heavily contended point with regards to the proposed Jenin fact-finding mission. Israel, arguing that Jenin was attacked because it was a hornet’s nest of terrorists, wanted the fact-finding mission to investigate not only the actions of the IDF, but also to look at the evidence that there were, indeed, terrorists working from the Jenin refugee camp. The UN refused. And this was despite the evidence that a captured Fatah document referred to Jenin as as-simat al-istashidin, which translates as “martyr’s capital.” In another press release from July 17, Annan says that “the Palestinian Authority should take immediate and specific action to prevent terrorist acts against Israel, and its leadership must do more to de-legitimize terrorism among the public.” There has yet to be a resolution in response to Annan’s words; Negroponte felt it necessary to reiterate Annan’s statement, saying that a condemnation of terrorism is “important, very important” before the US would lend its support to any further resolution regarding Israel.

I've posted an article of mine regarding the UN's blatant anti-Israel bias. Any comments or complaints are greatly appriciated. I would especially appriciate a comment if you disagree with the ideas I put forth in the article; I realize that it's heavily pro-Israel, and I'd be interested in speaking to someone who can look at this from the opposite point of view.

Keep your eyes open for another article of mine (this one on anti-Arab bias), as well as one by Becky (that one on the Dems in the Senate). All in good time, all in good time.

2002-09-01T18:52:00.000-04:00

I'm going to keep this short because Becky has threatened retribution if I spend too long dwelling on either Harry Potter or Buffy the Vampire Slayer (Sept. 24, season preview, UPN's teaser is pathetic).

Jim Schwab over at BlogCritics digs into JK Rowling for the time it's taking her to write Book Five. He says:

Apparently, J.K. Rowling's successful movie-making career and the success of the first four Harry Potter books has just plain drained her. What a tragedy. How Sad....I don't care if you are [suffering from Writer's Block] and if you're not, does that imply that you are just too busy with the nice life to make it worthwhile for the fans that have given you that nice life?

First off, JKR doesn't "owe" her fans anything. No writer does; writers write -- or should write -- because they want to, not because they have to. Even journalists on deadlines complain about the deadline not because they don't want to write the article, but because they don't appriciate their editor breathing down their neck about drafts and revisions. It's probably this sense that is putting the damper on JKR's creativity. If she feels that she "has" to write an amazing book, then I guarantee that she'll get stuck on writing. Orson Scott Card, on his website has said that the best way to find your muse is to write. He's correct, but it doesn't mean that what gets written is bestseller quality material. Harry Potter at first glance is nothing more than a really good children's book, but it is quite complex when seriously considered. It's not Tolstoy or Dickens, but it's not Dr. Seuss. Schwab reads the books with his daughter, something he aludes to in his post, which no doubt accounts for his opinion:

The "burgeoning sexuality" of the characters is also a total fucking non-issue...This is literature folks, not real life. If you're uncomfortable addressing such pre-teen and teen subjects, LEAVE THEM OUT. These books aren't about coming-of-age, they are about a story, plain and simple.

Oh boy. First off, literature is best when it is a successful imitation of real life. For fantasy and sci-fi, correct and detailed characterizations are essential to maintaining a good story; the environment is so radical that the characters must be what allows readers to connect with a story. I would have real issues with a story about two fifteen year old guys and one girl which contains no mention of "burgeonin sexuality". Would someone write a book about a Muggle high school and entirely ignore the romantic relationships of the characters? I think not.

And the Harry Potter books are a coming of age story that bears remarkable similarities to our post-9/11 world. Three children who have previously known only peace are thrust into a new environment where they are the targets, where people close to them have been killed, and where the enemy bears an irrational hatred to anyone of a certain ethnicity (Muggles). Sound familiar? I could go on, drawing parallels between Harry and America, but I won't. I gather that you can figure it out on your own.

In the meanwhile, if someone is so starved for Harry Potter material that they feel the need to write nasty letters to JKR, there are a plethora of more enjoyable alternatives. Go read other published sci-fi authors: Terry Pratchett, Neil Gaiman, Orson Scott Card, Diana Wynne Jones, George RR Martin...the list could go on. Or read Harry Potter fanfiction -- and I can feel Becky glaring at me for daring to mention this -- but there is a huge online community of HP fans who have produced some very impressive prose.

2002-09-01T13:50:00.000-04:00

"Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?"

The Onion strikes again.

2002-09-01T12:24:00.000-04:00

A Perfect Morning

PontifexExMachina is planning a website to commemorate 9/11. The idea, essentially, is to publish a bunch of essays written by bloggers (I'm probably going to submit something). Pretty simple, eh?

Except it needs submissions. I highly encourage everyone to take a look at what he's planning and if you're not going to submit an essay, then at least pass the word along.

2002-09-01T00:52:00.000-04:00

Yeah, it's awesome that these people support Israel, but it's severelyunsettling.

2002-08-31T14:26:00.000-04:00

We could do it alone, but it appears we won't have to.

2002-08-31T14:23:00.000-04:00

If the whole [Jo-burg conference] is such a farce, why does nobody call to shut it down? But here we have to get a bit more sophisticated. What is the WSSD about? It's nothing to do with improving the lives of people in the developing world, that's for sure. It's about giving a platform for the prejudices enjoyed by the well-fed, well-educated, intellectual elites of the Western world - and the gripes and cynicism are as much a part of that as the champagne and bureaucracy.

Jennie Bristow has a marvelous column in the new issue of Spiked Magazine. By confronting the duel specters of absurdity and imbecility that hang over the WSSD Conference, Bristow shows the conference for what it really is: a sham event, staged for the benefit of those too stupid to realize the uselessness of international environmental policy. Those people, Bristow marvels, seems to have an unnatural love for both international environment codes and anti-Americanism. She writes:

The crude anti-Americanism broadcast daily across the UK airwaves has nothing to do with whether President George W Bush attends the Johannesburg summit or not. It is about the kind of vision that Western commentators hold for the future of developing countries, and for the West. And for the perfect child's eye vision of this future, we need look no further than our friend, leading environmental campaigner George 'Small is Beautiful' Monbiot.

Monbiot is, of course, the self-same environementalist whom Lileks so thoroughly put through the wringer. This future that Western (ahem, European) commentators have in mind for Africans is perfectly absurd. Scratch that: the future they have in mind for the developed world is absurd. Costly and ridiculous projects are dancing through their vision like rabid sugarplum fairies. I've heard of "thinking big," but the is preposterous. Naturally, the US' suggestions have been the object of ridicule. The suggestions are:

An investment of $970 million by the U.S. Government, plus another $1.6 billion from the private sector, over three years, in the "Water for the Poor Initiative," to expand access to clean water and sanitation services.

Over $400 million from government and private sources in 2003 to provide "millions of people with new access to energy services and reduce respiratory illness associated with air pollution."

An "Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa," which will spur technology in agriculture starting next year.

A "Congo Basin Forest Partnership" to support forest management and a network of national parks in central Africa. The U.S. Investment will be backed by contributions from the European Union, the private sector, environmental organizations and host governments.

A commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing nations with $1.3 billion from the U.S. Government in 2003.

NGOs are complaining because the US wants to implement these via bilateral and multilateral partnerships, which would damange the agendas of green NGOs. Businesses, they fear, will cash in on providing these services to the populace, allowing the governments to shirk their responsibility. And that's a problem?

If a business wants to "cash in" by providing safe water to people currently suffering because they can't afford to water their crops, let them. Governments should oversee the projects to assure that no community is being swindled or overlooked, but the governments shouldn't be responsible for the small details. They have proven time and time again that they are incapable of doing so; the reason most of the world's citizens are in such a crisis is precisely because their governments fail to deliver safe resources. The complaints of the NGOs is telling; let the third world become developed, but do it exactly how we say it should be done.

This "think big" ideal of EU governments and NGOs is potentially lethal for the residents of the third world. And what is Greenpeace doing about it? Sueing the US government for causing global warming.

2002-08-30T23:36:00.000-04:00

Robert Mugabe is seventy-eight years old, and has repeatedly vowed to stay in power for the rest of his life. In this spirit of relentlessness, he has made it a crime, punishable by six months in jail, for two or more people in Zimbabwe to meet and discuss politics without obtaining a permit from the police at least four days in advance. The permit is just a nicety; the Public Order and Security Act (POSA), which elaborates the offense, allows the police to bar whomever they like from attending even an authorized political discussion, or to break it up at any time without explanation.

All this and more about Mugabe's racist regime.

2002-08-30T09:05:00.000-04:00

Yourish has a lovely mini-Fisk of a Jerusalem Post article. One additional point:

The UN envoy acknowledged that easing restrictions could pose new security risks to Israel, but he said failing to do so will fuel the very extremism Israel is trying to quell.

If a member of the United Nation is tacitly admitted that this is, indeed, a cycle of violence, doesn't that say something? Arafat and his goons have the world in a headlock.

2002-08-30T08:56:00.000-04:00

Here's why Bush's falling approval rating is a good thing.

2002-08-30T00:15:00.000-04:00

Cato the Youngest and I exchanged some thoughts on just how much of an obstacle the Iraqi army is likely to be. Austin Bay seems to have the answer.

The structure of his article is interesting, and he uses the article's structure to repudiate arguments before they even get a chance to be made.
,
...the gutty [North Vietnamese Army] tactic of getting close to U.S. infantry and staying close. U.S. fire support then ran an increased risk of hitting U.S. troops.... Motivated and well-led NVA troops now had better odds and an opportunity to send American soldiers home in body bags -- a key political objective on the part of Hanoi's high command...

However, the Iraqi military and the NVA have little in common, particularly when it comes to the commitment and discipline required to stick to a fight at close quarters.

This is the major issue: how disciplined is the Iraqi army? Not very. And, says Bay, the tactics that worked for Hamas in Jenin will be ineffective for Iraq's army.

This cold gambit -- human and cultural shields -- was designed to thwart U.S. advantages in long-range fire and create "targeting dilemmas" -- e.g., are these people Iraqi civilians or soldiers? The strategic objective was to buy Saddam more time to affect "world opinion" and portray Washington as a heartless murderer.

Yet the key to making Saddam's spider web work remained loyalty, and that, several analysts argued, he doesn't have.

Bay ends on a sour note, unfortunately. Although Iraq's army will be fairly ineffective on the ground, Saddam does have nuclear and bio-chemical capabilities, which would be his best bet for a win.

His entire strategy will center around these capabilities, Bay says. Which only makes it all the imperative he be overthrown quickly and efficiently.

2002-08-29T21:08:00.000-04:00

This unabashed greed is just sickening. Some people are purely heartless.

2002-08-29T01:04:00.000-04:00

Den Beste linked to this analysis by Ralph Peters on the reasons why some nations fail, which got me thinking. And then it got me laughing.

One of Peters' point is that the US, by dint of being such a huge player in the global economy, shapes actions everywhere, whether or not the US is actively aware of its influence.

Then I go on to reading articles on the J-burg Summit. A snippet:

Environmentalists denounced a proposal to bridge a North-South rift on the eve of the Earth Summit in Johannesburg Sunday as a sell-out to rich nations seeking freer trade and corporate globalization.

"It's making a farce of the Earth Summit," Greenpeace political director Remi Parmentier said, accusing the United States and European Union of pushing for corporate globalization without heeding its negative environmental side-effects.

Look at who they're accusing: the United States. Yes, you're shaking your head, wondering what my point is. It's this: we haven't even got a real name, which says quite a lot about us. We're the United States of America. Not France. Not Chad. There's no unique combination of syllables that represents our nation. Even Britain -- aka the United Kingdom -- has a few different names to call its own. We don't.

And just look at our flag. It keeps changing. I don't mean in the way South Africa changed its flag after apartheid ended, I mean that our flag is built in such a way that it was designed to change. I can just imagine what was going through the designer's head:

"Well, this here'll be the symbol of our bold new nation. Better make it easy to change. I'll just put this blue box here and leave 'em some flexibility with the stars."

It says quite a lot, and explains why we're a) so successful and b) so haughty and oblivious. First of all, we adapt. We're not so brittle that we collapse when faced with a challenge. I'm not talking about the checks and balance system; I mean that the mental conception each citizen has of the US doesn't waver when faced with a challenge. Add another state? Sure, just push over those stars and have a seat. Our national consciousness is constantly reforming; 9/11 is now as integral to our view of our homeland as Ben Franklin.

Which, in turn, explains why we infuriate Europe so deeply. Their nations have been around far longer that ours had, and have had time to cultivate their own attitudes. A French citizen is French. A US citizen is "kinda from Ireland, but then some people came over from Lithuanian -- you know, after the war -- and married a Greek, which is where the hair comes from and...". We're constantly the upstart because we refuse to set in stone who we are. We're a bouncing balloon tethered to the Constitution. And most of us are so deeply balloon-like that we haven't a clue why Europe gets so annoyed with us.

Our national consciousness is this: it depends. Some things -- freedom of speech, the idea of democracy -- are unquestioned, but beyond that, we're like an amoeba. Poke us and we'll just surround your finger and try to eat it.

[ed. -- it's 14 days before the one year anniversary of 9/11. Just thought you might want to know.]

2002-08-27T00:14:00.000-04:00

I'm not easily perturbed. This, however, has scared me. Downright horrifying. It's just words, but it's from a site of sample sermon's for Muslim leaders to deliver to the congregations. An excerpt:

The Jews are described in the Book of Allaah as those who distort words and facts and quote them out of context and this is exactly what they and their supporters from the tyrant regimes all over the world are currently doing. They use false terminology to misguide, confuse and deceive. What your brothers are committing in Al-Aqsaa are not acts of mindless violence, but rather it is a blessed uprising to resist and curtail the Jewish oppression and aggression: this is a legal right which all religions, ideologies and international laws recognise. Nobody could deny this fact except the ignorant, arrogant or evildoers.

2002-08-26T23:49:00.000-04:00

Kieran Lyons has some interesting links regarding authoritarianism, sustainable development, and free thinking.

Curious, but not surprising.

2002-08-26T14:22:00.000-04:00

The people behind the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) have concocted a poll on the global environment. Theoretically, the creators of the poll claim that the results of the poll will be shared with "worldwide leaders" with the goal of further educating them as to the needs of humanity.

I have more than a few qualms about the poll, both the concept and the execution. Internet polls are notoriously unreliable, and this is no exception. People don't take internet polls seriously; AOL places little disclaimers on all their polls repeating how the poll is "for entertainment purposes only." I see no difference in the execution of this poll and AOL polls. Additionally, the audience for this poll is skewed towards rich, education first-world consumers. How many impoverished Sudanese farmers are going to have this opportunity to share their opinions? Probably none.

Enough of that. Here are some of the more ridiculous questions.

Which of these statements comes closer to your own point of view?
a.Protection of the environment should be given priority, even at the risk of curbing economic growth.
b.Economic growth should be given priority, even if the environment suffers to some extent.

Um, what ever happened to the theory that economic growth will lead to a safe environment? Bjorn Lomborg has an excellent op-ed in today's NY Times in which he examines this hypothesis. The link between economic development and a cleaner environment should be fairly obvious. The brown cloud over Asia at the moment is largely attributed to "inefficient cookers, where fuels such as cow dung and kerosene are used to cook food in many parts of Asia." If Asia were richer, those cookers could be replaced by cleaner gas or electric stoves. I realize that's a small example, but the point is clear. The way the answers to this question are phrased falsely implies that the choice between protecting the environment and developing the economy is an either/or situation.

Which of these statements do you think is most true?
a. National governments will most often do what they think is best for their own country regardless of international environmental treaties and agreements.
b. Even if they are not always perfect, international agreements and treaties are the only way to effective deal with global environmental problems.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but aren't those answers both saying essentially the same thing? I see no difference between the two statements; they're looking at the same opinion, and merely stating it in two different ways. One could even combine them into a single sentence: "Although national governments frequently disregard international treaties in favor of national interest, such international treaties are the most effective way of dealing with environmental issues." God, this just reeks of transnational progressivism.

What is your religion?
Muslim
Christian
Hindu
Buddhist
Other

Oy vey. Just in case I forgot this was a UN poll...

(this poll is conducted by region, and I check on the Middle East region's poll, and it's the same, despite the fact that there's this little thing there known as the "Jewish state")

2002-08-26T13:38:00.000-04:00

Maybe we shouldn't be listening to these former leaders because we decided that we'd had enough of the governments they helped lead. Or, to be more specific, maybe people aren't listening to Baker and Scowcroft because they were Bush I Men. Just a thought. And maybe we shouldn't be taking advice on Iraq from the people who couldn't succeed there in the first place and maybe our government wants to separate itself from the last war on Iraq.

2002-08-25T23:23:00.000-04:00

There's a debate going on at the moment -- started by Andrew Stuttaford -- as to whether or not those who have been in the military have more "moral authority" when it comes to sending our boys into Iraq. Glenn Reynolds gets some good comments in as well (make sure to check out all the links in his post).

However, people are missing something critically important. "Moral authority" is a nice buzzword, right up there with "sustainable development". Morality isn't the issue at hand here; the issue is experience. Look at who is opposing: retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former Secretary of StateJames Baker, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft. These peope weren't puny infantymen; they were the leaders. And if these leaders are now saying something, wouldn't you want to listen? These are the cream of the crop when it comes to expert opinion, and the fact that they're being unilaterally ignored says something about the unrestrained eagerness of those pushing us towards war. As they say, "You can't handle the truth!"

2002-08-25T18:40:00.000-04:00

Now I get the motivation behind the actions of our former Saudi ambassadors. It's not that they're saying "Saudi Arabia is a great place," it's that they're saying "Oh, please, please don't make us pay $60 a barrel."

Keeping this in mind, I'm moved to take back earlier comments regarding our need to distance ourselves from the Sauds before we move against Iraq. By the logic in the Times' article, building a new nation in Iraq would weaken the House of Saud by loosening their monopoly on oil production. Two birds with one stone, so to speak. Of course, this is all highly hypothetical, and is forcing us to assume that the new government in Iraq would a) be US friendly and b) be highly efficient at producing oil. A look at Iran (and, increasingly, Afghanistan) shows that nation building doesn't always go as planned. The question then remains: do we allow ourselves to support the House of Saud now in the interest of taking out Hussein, knowing that there is a possibility the Saud's hold on their nation will weaken, or do we take a more proactive stance, placing the progressives in power, thus garnering both a true ally as well as control of their oil fields?

2002-08-25T17:24:00.000-04:00

I believe the Singaporian government is saying how to HAVE dates, not how to FIND them. There's an implicit difference. You'd think that with all your command of the English language, you'd get it.

2002-08-25T13:01:00.000-04:00

The government of Singapore is handing out advice booklets for singles, telling them how to have dates. "We aim to empower singles by helping them with basic courtship skills, showing them that it's really a natural process," said Tan-Huang Shuo Mei, director of the government's Social Development Unit.

Joe Bob Briggs reports this in his UPI Week in Review column. Am I the only one who wonders what those booklets say? And, ahem, where can I get a copy? That being said, the fact that Singapore has a "Social Development Unit" is kind of freaky; it sounds like something straight from Brave New World.

2002-08-25T12:45:00.000-04:00

But, theoretically, sustainability flies in the face of reality. From anthropology via physics to zoology, the world does not function in equilibrium, but rather on chaotic, non-equilibrium principles, whether in the stock market or with climate change. Sustainability is intrinsically an equilibrium idea seeking equilibrium solutions. It is easily employed to soften the fact of change and, in doing so, it undermines human dynamism and adaptability.

I not familiar with enough environmental science to comment on most of the article, but it's extremely interesting. Basically, the author's arguing that "sustainable development" is just another UN buzzword, and that the conference in Johannesburg is, scientifically, a sham. Based on past UN behavior, I can easily see how the entire UN community has invested everything into an imaginary concept rather than work on the nitty-gritty details of reality. But hey, if it makes the "international community" happy, who am I to complain?

2002-08-24T22:08:00.000-04:00

...It is easy to say that America's current war is for our survival and prosperity, but we are fighting for our ideals as much as we are for our physical well-being, so this war is not solely about bin Laden and al-Qaeda, but about whether the idea that succored them, radical Islamic fundamentalism, will destroy or be destroyed by American ideals.

And it just gets better from there. The author, Bala Ambati, lists seven great things about American culture. By culture, I don't mean the materialistic, gaz-guzzling, hamburger snarfing, greed that liberals have whipped themselves into a frenzy over, I mean true American values (like those enshrined in this document). Values such as the supremacy of the individual, the belief that everyone should have equal opportunities, and the belief that everyone has guaranteed freedom of speech (and that is a value as well as a right). Here's another gem:

Our system is intended to discriminate among persons based on their character and deeds, not on features of identity they were born with, principles codified in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and restated in the Civil Rights Act. These allow each citizen to dream the American Dream, the continual betterment of the material well-being of the individual and the country, a dream that has nourished entrepreneurship and progress.

Now go! Read the article.

(via Little Green Footballs)