soapgun

In the house...

2006-10-06T13:54:00.001-04:00

I'm back. Yay.

One year. A vacation of a sort. Out on parole. The soapgun worked, I guess.

Haven't plowed any furrows or read many books. Learned (learning) to surf. Have had worldview deconstructed. Grew some sideburns. Bought $ 175 Johnston and Murphy dress shoes for $ 5 at Marshalls. Score.

Learned how much I actually don't know. "Infinity minus one", as my 5 year old, Owen might put it.

Still don't have much to say, and plenty of time to say it.

I'll try to avoid random navel gazing stream of consciousness blather. I'll not let you in on the fairly interesting day-to-day events of my life. Writing should inform and entertain (hat tip William F. Buckley). Anything else is just solipsism. All those wretchedly self-centered memoirs lining the shelves at Barnes and Nobles. . Nothing more annoying than a damned solipsist. Except maybe a pedant. And maybe people who use words like solipsism and pedantry.

So I will also try to avoid all that. And amateur political analysis. Amazing how boring that stuff can be. I might go back to the autism stuff though, that was interesting.

I've toyed with new blog names, but I still like this one. But I have changed my Latin motto. We all should have a Latin motto.

Amor fati - not very mellifluous, but not much in Latin is.

Anyway, what should I write about?

Goodbye

2005-10-14T12:52:00.000-04:00

I'm off to the real world now.

Wish me luck.

"No One Owes Us Anything!"

2005-09-26T12:54:00.000-04:00

What should be done about international aid to Africa?

More than 1 trillion dollars has been provided to African countries over the last several decades, in the form of humanitarian and developmental aid, yet almost every sub-Saharan country is worse off today than they were in 1950.

The average lifespan for most Africans is under 40 years, in some countries, under 35. Per capita income runs, on average, a few hundred dollars a year. Since 1950, tens of millions of Africans have died from famine, disease, and civil wars.

Despite the generosity of the west and the hard work of thousands of aid workers, Africa seems to slip further away from the rest of the world. It is clear that the model that has been in place for decades has not "worked".

But what is to be done? There is an interesting "point/counterpoint" over at bbc.com on the subject (links below).

Is the current amount of aid enough to "solve" Africa's problems? Or should we provide more?

Noted economist Jeffrey Sachs wants to ramp up aid dramatically , calling for a "massive push" over the next few years. While Sachs clearly has a "plan" that addresses the problems with aid distribution, (including massive micromanagement of the aid programs that would be funded with the increase in funds), he also makes it clear that the amount of aid provided has not been enough. In particular, he points to the wealthiest nation in the world:

"All donor countries, including the US, have committed to making concrete efforts towards the target of 0.7% of GNP in aid, but the US, unlike Europe, has not followed through."

(Last time I checked a map, France, Germany and Great Britain were all part of Europe. None of these countries have met the .7% commitment. Currently, only Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Holland and Sweden are at this level. A curious bit of misinformation on Sachs' part.)

OK, more aid, problem solved. Actually, it is hard not to want to agree with Sachs. Only the hardest heart would not want to help the poorest of the poor. And, for many in the West, "help" comes willingly with a dollar sign.

On the other hand, are we providing too much aid? Is the aid itself part of the problem? Have we made the poverty of Africa worse by creating a cycle of dependence and corruption?

Frederick Erixon, of the Swedish think tank Timbro wants to curtail aid, at least to the extent that it is tied to strict economic and political guidelines. He sees the African aid "project" as a failure.

"The new 'big push' of development aid has been tried many times before but always with dismal results. The call for redoubling aid to eradicate poverty has been responded to many times over, but it has never delivered what it promised.

In spite of more than US$1 trillion in aid to Africa over the last 50 years, the big push in development has yet to occur."

Why?

To Erixon, the system of providing massive aid to spur development itself is flawed.

"Why has aid failed to deliver higher economic growth for developing countries?

Partly because aid has not been spent in the way it was intended. Instead of gearing up investments, money was spent on current spending and public consumption - which, in turn, led to a rapidly growing public sector in the economy."

And, Erixon points out what seems to me to have been the "Achilles heel" of African economic development in the last 50 years, the embrace of socialist and Marxist economic policies:

"Needless to say, this strengthened other socialist tendencies in the economy and investment became, in many developing countries, mainly a government activity.

In addition, aid boosted fiscal budgets and led to a rapidly growing number of parastatals and state-owned enterprises. Largely supported by the donor community at the time, these soon became arenas of corruption and this corruption spread like wildfire to other parts of the society. "

Instead of feeding people, aid has fed bureacracy.

They say, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", but the "good intentions" of the west and the aid world does not seem to have adequately paved the roads of Africa.

Erixon sees a solution in both a halt to additional aid, and strict guidelines for current, committed aid programs. He would rather focus on economic policies, such as trade agreements and the promotion of free markets. His mantra is "trade, not aid".

In the end, however, this is not a debate of "aid vs. no aid". Sachs will not guilt the US into .7% of its GNP, and Erixon will not see a dismantling of the aid industry. The debate is about and should be about "more aid vs. more accountability".

And, ultimately, neither Erixon or Sachs will be able to "solve" the problem of Africa. I am convinced that only Africans will be able to do this.

I have noted this before, in a post referencing an article by South African intellectual Moeletsi Mbeki.

Mbeki is one of a growing number of Africans that are calling for an end to what they see as a debilitating cycle of aid, dependence and corruption:

"Successful development in Africa will not be achieved by throwing more fuel on the flames. Merely handing more aid money to African governments only reinforces the pattern of abuse"

His solution involves developing and supporting western style economic solutions, including improved individual/private (as opposed to communal/state) land ownership rights, reduction in the notorious African red-tape and regulations related to business development, and more favorable trade agreements with established economies.

I have a feeling that this view, in Africa, is more common than is is generally thought. Africa may be "tragic" but I refuse to believe that Africans do not have the interest in, and capability of, fixing their own problems. This is not indifference on my part, it is faith in human perseverance and ingenuity.

A refreshing, (albeit obviously anti-aid) perspective can be found at the Nigerian blog African Bullets and Honey. The blog links a recent William Easterly article from Foreign Policy.com critical of the "aid industry", and offering views similar to Erixon's and Mbeki's.

(Read more of the posts at this site, however, for some great insight from someone born and raised in Africa. Westerners can be written off as cold and uncaring when they criticize aid, but what of Africans? )

Finally, while not explicitly referring to developmental aid, Paul Kagame, president of Rwanda, has an interesting response to a question from journalist Akinyi Arunga, that may hold the answer to this dilemma.

(Read this entire post as well, preferably after you have watched Hotel Rwanda. A brief but very interesting account of life in post-war Rwanda. )

Kagame, looking to the future of a country that may represent the iconic modern African tragedy, when asked about what Rwanda may have learned from "genocide", stated emphatically:

"No one owes us anything!"

This comment, to me, is not a reaction to the paternalism of donors, but a larger statement about the need, ultimately, to fix one's own problems.

This holds true for individuals, it is what we teach our children. And it holds true for nations....

Kagame:

"...he gave this answer very quickly and then continued to elaborate that if you make a habit of ignoring your problem, choosing not to understand it and then effectively deal with it, then the ultimate result is what happened in Rwanda."

Rather than looking to the west for answers, Kagame seems intent on looking at Rwanda, and perhaps Africa, itself.

In the long run, it is this attitude, not the largesse of the West, that will help solve Africa's problems.

An American in Lebanon

2005-09-22T13:29:00.000-04:00

Michael Totten has travelled to Lebanon, and will be in the region for the next six months. This should be a great way to get interesting reports from the Middle East from a smart, observant reporter. Make sure you visit his blog every few days to get the updates. And, always make sure you read the comments section.

This will help you stay informed, and get better info than Time or Newsweek. Just a few minutes a day, and free!

Here is a recent post from Totten about a Syrian friend that has just become an American citizen. This now allows him to go back to Syria to see his family, without fear of being arrested or conscripted. Its a nice story.

Hotel Rwanda

2005-09-20T16:31:00.000-04:00

When I was in high school, the TV mini series Holocaust aired. Like much of the TV I watched over 20 years ago, I can only remember bits and pieces of the show. Mostly.

I vividly recall the horror of the Auschwitz "shower" scenes, the herding of bald, naked, emaciated women and men and children into large rooms for "delousing", the locking of the doors, the tablets of poisonous Zyklon-B dropped through cleverly designed holes in the ceiling, the gas that looked like steam, the screams and moans of those inside as they choked to death, the piles of bodies left to be burned, the inhuman satisfaction of the Nazi guards. I can close my eyes and see this re-creation of history's greatest crime, and I see it not as acting, but as reality, as if it was filmed live, as it happened.

These scenes helped me, and I am sure many others, make a visual connection to the stories of the Holocaust that, somehow, the written word alone cannot convey. And I know that, later, as I read more about World War 2, these scenes also helped me try to understand the true evil that had taken place, just decades before.

Hotel Rwanda, which I just rented and watched, hopefully, has the same effect today.

I have mixed feelings about the movie.

First, let me say that Don Cheadle, the lead, is the best actor working today. I just wish he'd make more movies. (Do yourself a favor and rent Out of Sight, probably the best Elmore Leonard movie adaptation, starring George Clooney and, of all people, J Lo. They are both very good, but Cheadle steals the movie with the playing a very, very bad guy named Snoopy.)

And he does not disappoint playing Paul Rusesabagina, a Hutu (the majority) trying to save over 1000 Tutsi (the minority) by sheltering them in the 5 star hotel that he manages, during the Rwandan conflict of 1994. A compelling story, the movie has been called an African Schindler's List.

But I have to say that I was a little disappointed, the movie's relatively weak script and, (other than Cheadle) very thinly drawn characters took away from the urgency of the drama. Nick Nolte has a couple of interesting scenes, but Liam Neeson barely shows up.

And, surprisingly, I thought that the movie actually underplayed the horror of the massacres. There was no scene that even came close to the simple brutality of the Holocaust Auschwitz shower scenes.

But I suppose any attempt to represent the actual events would have turned the movie into the bloodiest film ever made. Around 1 million men, women, and children murdered, mostly hacked to death with machetes, in a little over three months. About 10,000 murders per day.

The most "efficient" slaughter in history.

The only scene that allows the viewer to glimpse this scale of the genocide, while effective, is filmed (purposely?) in pre-dawn foggy half-light. Its almost as if the makers of the movie were afraid to show the bodies, to reveal the true horror. And, while I don't want to give away the ending, lets just say that it potentially lets the audience off the hook.

The movie is disturbing, but you probably will have a full night's sleep after it. Considering the story, you shouldn't.

Also, this is not a criticism, just an observation, but at the end of the movie, while it is pointed out that close to 1 million Rwandans died in the 100 days of the fighting - almost all civilians, it is not mentioned that three times that many were killed in the subsequent civil war that spilled over into Burundi and the Congo.

Four million dead in the space of a few years.

While the genocide that the movie focuses on is clearly seen as a result of the ambivalence of the west, the UN, US, France and Britain are all chastised (rightly in my opinion) for not doing enough to stop the killing, the war that followed is not as easily pinned on foreign governments. African leaders, particularly Laurent Kabila of the Congo, exploited the Hutu/Tutsi hatred well after the Rwandan genocide of 1994 "stopped". Refugee camps became military bases, humanitarian aid indirectly funded weapons purchases and army salaries, and the slaughter continued. A more aggressive intervention may have stopped the killing momentarily, but may only have delayed the inevitable civil war(s).

Flaws aside, this is still a better movie than most. Cheadle, as mentioned, is just an incredible actor, and the film would be worth watching just to see him. I'd pay to watch him read the back of a cereal box, and he does deliver his usual flawless performance.

And, because of the story, a true horror story, Hotel Rwanda should be seen by everyone. Really. An average movie about an important, real-life subject is worth your time more than a well made piece of fiction, and certainly more than most movies that are out there today.

This Friday night, you may want to rent the latest Adam Sandler or Vin Diesel masterpiece instead, but, for once, don't. Rent this. Watch it with your family. Talk about it.

Read about it

And, then ask "why?", but don't settle for the simple answers - "its western colonialism", "its tribal history", "its the UN".

When basically good people are confronted with pure evil, the temptation is to pick a simple answer and run with it. But the tragedy in Rwanda was not the "fault" of the UN, or Bill Clinton and the US, or ex-colonialist Europe, or the African leadership and military. Some combination of these actors, and the rotting African economic and governmental system has led to failed states and economies like Rwanda's, from Angola to Zimbabwe, over the last 50 years. Making analysis even more complicated, the cycle of aid, corruption, and dependence that a generous world has created to try and "solve" poverty and hunger in Africa has, lately, also been recognized part of the problem.

The Rwandan genocide was a symptom of a complex and insidious disease, not the disease itself.
.
This complexity makes it harder to answer "why", harder to say "that's horrible" and "go back to our dinners" as one American journalist points out in the movie. But responding with guilt or blind anger and accusations does no one any good. The answers are somewhere in between.

The least we can do is try, very hard, to understand.

What to Read, What to Read.....

2005-09-16T12:03:00.000-04:00

Asymmetrical Information (aka Jane Galt) has a great thread with book recommendations from over 100 commenters.

Fiction, non-fiction, its all there, probably a 2-3 hundred suggestions with brief descriptions. My advice would be to print out the list, highlight 10 or so books that look interesting, and buy one or two on Amazon (used will save you some dough) and get cracking. Then you'll have no excuse that you have "nothing to read."

What else will you be doing with your evenings, watching the new fall TV season?

If so, may you be cursed with nagging guilt as you watch CSI-Des Moines, Two and a Half Men or God forbid that Jim Belushi abomination of a show.

Law and Order is ok though, but not the SVU one, with the "super-genius" detective. Boy is that guy annoying.

UPDATE:

I stand corrected. Its not Law and Order SVU, but Law and Order Criminal Intent. (Reminds me of the Simpsons Spoof - Law and Order, Elevator Inspector Unit.) Thank you for pointing that out, anonymous. Your soapgun coffee mug is on its way.

By the way, did you know that the Law and Order franchise is expected to generate over a billion dollars (he said, with pinky to corner of mouth) in revenue, from its inception and over the coming years, primarily through syndication rights?

Diversity and The Supreme Court II, or, The Exception to The Rule

2005-09-14T13:16:00.000-04:00

For groups like People for the American Way, qualifications and intelligence take a back seat to identity - race and gender - in their quest to build a perfect society, (but, as previously noted, apparently only for the Supreme Court, Corporate Boards, and college campuses - not for People for the American Way.)

However, there are some minority women that cannot be part of this utopian elite.These are the apostates, the heretics. These are the minority conservative/libertarian prospective nominees, like Janice Rogers Brown.

She is very tough and smart, a strict constitutional constructionalist and not a big fan of judicial activism. Brown has been declared an "enemy" of women and minorities, mainly because she would like to limit the size and scope of government, because she believes that girls under the age of 18 should have to notify their parents before having an abortion, and because she thinks broad-based affirmative action may not be such a great idea. In other words, she is a traditional ideological conservative.

Normally, this would be understandable coming from the stereotypical "white middle aged man", but from a black middle aged woman, it is unacceptable. Like Condi Rice, Alberto Gonzales, Colin Powell, Linda Chavez and many, many other minority public servants who happen to be politically conservative, Brown is just "acting white".

I like Brown, not because she is black or female, but because she is, as mentioned, tough and smart. Here she is in her own words, from a speech in 2000. Read for yourself, and then "judge" her. (Pun intended).

Anyone referencing Thucydides and F.A. Hayek in the same speech gets my vote.

And, she is quotable:

"Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands when its failures increase"

Good stuff.

It matters not. She'll never get nominated.

I guess she's just too smart, too tough.

A Discussion About Diversity and The Supreme Court, or, Pot Calls Kettle White

2005-09-13T15:26:00.000-04:00

On Cspan over the weekend, I happened to catch a women's rights groups panel discussion Justice For Women - Changes in the Supreme Court, on the impending Supreme Court nominations, John Roberts and a "Justice to be named later". And to think I used to watch college football.

No free transcript available, but there is a link below to a page where you can purchase the video for $ 60. (If you act now, you get a melonballer thrown in for free).

But put your checkbook away, I'll give you the lowdown right here for half that price. (Email me for the address to send your check to.)

Interesting takeaway - while the panel officially opposed his nomination, there seemed to be a consensus that John Roberts was the "best possible outcome" of the recent vacancy, and that his approval was a fait accompli. Roberts was acknowledged as very intelligent, and even a "moderate" conservative. The discussion, and the concern, focused on the next nomination, with the fear that President Bush would put up a "Scalia type".

None of this is groundbreaking news, but it seems that the Roberts nomination may have taken a little of the anger out of the rhetoric from the left.

(But just a little. There is still a fair amount of anger manifesting itself as unhinged nuttiness. During the audience Q&A to the panel, one woman commented:

"I hope I'm not the only conspiratorial-minded one here, but I think the bastards did Renquist in while the country is focused on the Hurricane".

Yikes.

To her credit, panelist Eleanor Smeal could be seen shaking her head during this comment, but no one on the panel addressed or dismissed it - it was just ignored, and the woman's real question was then answered. I was too dumbfounded by the comment to remember her question.

Sigh.)

Anyway, back to the panel.

Much time was spent pointing to the "lack of diversity" on the current court.

"America does not look like the court", in that the SC is dominated by (late) middle aged white men. Nominating a woman, preferably a minority woman, would help rectify this imbalance.

Fair enough. This is what Democracy is about - groups and constituencies trying to push their particular agenda, in this case, the "protection of women's rights". No different than trial lawyers or doctors or unions wanting to keep an eye on the nominees.

But wait...

IRONY ALERT! (I'm too nice to call it a HYPOCRISY ALERT!)

As I watched and listened to this discussion, I found it interesting that the panel - possibly three of most influential feminists in the country, calling for greater diversity on the Supreme Court - were, all of them, white and (late) middle aged.

Here they are. A fine looking group, but a little pale, no?

This got me thinking, so I looked into the people "behind the scenes". One of one of the organizations represented on the panel was the ubiquitous People for the American Way.

Ralph Neas and Norman Lear, (yes, that Norman Lear), are both pictured on the main web page for the group. Hmm. Well, I guess there is a little more diversity here. One is a middle aged white man, and the other is a late middle aged white man.

Here, courtesy of Google Images, are pictures of the rest of the staff.

Margery F. Baker, Chief of Staff
Carol Blum, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Nick Ucci, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
Elliot Mincberg Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Legal Director
Mary Jean Collins, Senior Vice President/National Political Director
Andrew McGuire, Vice President for Institutional Development
Jeffrey Berman, Western Regional Director

About as diverse as an Upper West Side High School debate team. Whiter than the front row of a Neil Sedaka concert.

Pot, meet kettle. Gander, meet goose.

Now wouldn't a little diversity be in order here?

Shouldn't the staff of an organization demanding a more diverse Supreme Court be more diverse than the Court itself?

Maybe I'll put a panel together to discuss and debate.

Or better yet, we could all just start to look past surface differences and judge people exclusively "by the content of their character".

(But wait, is there an exception to the diversity rule?)

Soapgun Sleepy...

2005-08-31T09:33:00.000-04:00

"Not forever.
Just for Now"

Until I return, read these blogs instead:

Belmont Club
Belgravia Dispatch
Michael Totten
Chicago Boyz
Jane Galt
Vodkapundit
Gateway Pundit

And of course, if you only have one website to visit, go to

ALDaily.com

Now be gone! So sleepy....

One Free Korea hosts the Carnival of Revolutions

2005-08-30T11:21:00.000-04:00

And here it is!

I have not read through it yet - I'll check it out at lunch, but it looks pretty thorough.

More later....

Michael Yon Posting from Iraq

2005-08-26T10:39:00.000-04:00

Read Michael Yon's latest post, a first hand account of American soldiers fighting Iraqi insurgents in the streets of Mosul.

Amazing stuff.

Song of the Week 24

2005-08-25T11:21:00.000-04:00

Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner - Warren Zevon

Track 6

The only song I know about the 1960s civil war in The Congo. I had always liked the song, but the lyrics make more sense now that I am reading The Fate of Africa.

Personally, I'd side with CIA agent Van Owen instead of Roland.

Mysterious Pianist Identified

2005-08-24T13:15:00.000-04:00

(Go ahead, say the post-title out loud. Tee-hee)

Anyway, the mystery of the "Piano Man" has apparently been (partly) solved.

This story reminded me of another mysterious figure from history, that of 19th century "wild child" Kasper Hauser.

MysteriousPeople.com has a great summary of that fascinating story. It starts:

The 26th May,1828, was a major holiday and the streets of Nuremberg were almost empty. Between four and five o'clock in the afternoon, Georg Weickmann, a shoemaker who lived in Unschlitt Square, noticed a strange boy of between fifteen and eighteen years old, dressed in coarse peasant clothes and walking strangely as if drunk. The shoemaker approached him and the boy held out a sealed envelope addressed 'To the Honourable Captain of the Cavalry of the Fourth Squadron, of the Sixth Regiment of the Light Cavalry in Nuremberg.' On seeing the address Weickmann took the stranger to the Guard Tower in front of the New Gate, to find out where the captain lived, and then on to the captain's house.

When they arrived at the address, they found that the captain was not home, and were asked to wait. The servants offered them food and drink, but the boy spat out the beer and sausage given to him as if he'd never tasted such things before. In the end he accepted a meal of plain black bread and water, and ate as if starved, though he didn't seem to know how to use his fingers properly. The boy appeared to be in extreme pain and wept continually, pointing to his feet. Weickmann and the servants tried to talk to him, but the only answers they got were 'I don't know', and 'I would like to be a rider the way my father was.' Finally, thinking him some sort of wild man, they put him in the stable, where he immediately fell asleep.....

Read the rest of the story. Very interesting.

(Apparently, he got the "wild child" label after spitting out beer and sausage - I mean, only a crazy person would do that.)

And if Kasper Hauser were alive today, what would he think of the Mysterious Pianist?

I suppose he would be jealous. Big case of pianist envy.

(Rim shot) Thank you, I'll be here all week!

Advice for the Day

2005-08-24T11:26:00.000-04:00

"If when you die you get a choice between pie heaven and regular heaven, choose pie heaven. It might be a trick but if not mmmboy"

- Jack Handey

The Fate of Africa

2005-08-23T11:14:00.000-04:00

Currently reading The Fate of Africa, by Martin Meredith, about the recent (last 50 years) history of that embattled continent.

The book covers lots of ground in its 700 pages, with names as prominent and familiar as any 20th century western politician's -- Idi Amin, Haile Selassie, Neslon Mandela, Gamal Abdul Nasser, Robert Mugabe. Even Che Guevara makes an appearance. But this is vaguely familiar history - most of us just know the names, and very little of the stories behind them.

They are not pleasant stories. The Fate of Africa is similar in tone and effect to Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, a book that I could only read one or two chapters at a time. (Of course, I read Wounded Knee in my more idealistic early 20s - I am now a little more aware of its failings as "history" - nonetheless, it still was a difficult read)

Africa's plight today - massive debt and endemic disease and hunger, corrupt and authoritarian governments, brutal regional and civil wars - begs for answers. And, in today's political climate, it is tempting to point fingers.

Colonialism and imperialism gave way, in the 1950s, to the hope of self-rule, and even plans for a "United States of Africa". But in the 1960s, regional violence, border disputes, and tribal conflicts combined with massive corruption and disastrous Marxist/Socialist economic policies led almost every single African country down the road to the ruin that we see today.

So is colonialism or socialism at the root of the problem? Western capitalists or Marxist revolutionaries? Not sure.

The colonialists left, some by force, some voluntarily, in the 1950s. The revolutionaries left - including a frustrated Che (viva la revolucion!) in the 1960s (and early 1970s). The leaders took power, almost exclusively by force, and held on tight. Many of them, such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Omar Bongo in Gabon, or Teodoro Mbasogo, who took over an absolutely shattered Equatorial Guinea in 1979, have ruled unopposed for decades.

The west, the east, and the African elite, all share in the blame.

It struck me that Africa is like one of those child actors we read about, talented but naive, that is exploited by everyone they come into contact with; agents, advisors, even family. We know how these children tend to turn out as adults, abandoned and dysfunctional.

I'm about halfway through the book, which was published this year, a year that has seen news coverage of the crisis in Darfur/Sudan, a reminder of the 10th anniversary of modern genocide with Hotel Rwanda, and efforts by the world to address Africa's many problems at the recent G8 conference.

I'll keep reading, even though I know the sad ending.

Shifting Attitudes in the Muslim World ?

2005-08-22T13:57:00.000-04:00

What happens to al Qaeda's popularity when their victims are not primarily Jews or Americans?

From a Michael Barone US News and World Report piece last week, quoting a recent poll from the Pew Global Attitutes Project.

"Most important, support for terrorism in defense of Islam has "declined dramatically," in the Pew report's words, in Muslim countries, except in Jordan (which has a Palestinian majority) and Turkey, where support has remained a low 14 percent. It has fallen in Indonesia (from 27 to 15 percent since 2002), Pakistan (from 41 to 25 percent since 2004), Morocco (from 40 to 13 percent since 2004), and among Muslims in Lebanon (from 73 to 26 percent since 2002). Support for suicide bombings against Americans in Iraq has also declined. The percentage reporting some confidence in Osama bin Laden is now under 10 percent in Lebanon and Turkey and has fallen sharply in Indonesia "

So, while anger and criticism about the war in Iraq seems to be escalating in the US, the discussion in the Middle East and the larger Muslim world is quite different. And, it is interesting that the largest drop in support for terrorism has occurred in Lebanon, a country that has arguably seen the most significant moves towards Democracy in the Middle East since 2002.

More from Barone's article:

"Muslims around the world cannot help but notice that Iraq is moving, however imperfectly, toward representative government. They can't have missed the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon and the expulsion of Syrian forces from Beirut. They may have noticed the small concessions to democracy in Saudi Arabia."

And the "Arab Street"? Is the talk of the evils of Sharon and Bush, and western imperialism?

Not exclusively:

"They may also have noticed that Egypt will have its first contested election for president this year. "There were no arguments over the United States, Israel, Palestine, Iraq, or any of the other 'hot spots' that used to dominate every meal and spill over into tea, coffee, and dessert," writes Mona Eltahawy in the Washington Post of her trip to Egypt this summer. "This time, all conversations were about a small but active opposition movement in Egypt that since December has focused on ending the dictatorship of President Hosni Mubarak. I have never heard so many relatives and friends take such an interest in Egyptian politics or--more important--feel that they had a stake in them."

Every IED or suicide bomb exploded in Baghdad, particularly ones targeting and killing Muslim civilians, offers moderate Muslims around the world an opportunity to consider their own future, and the future for their children.

In 2002, unhappy with their own governments, and shamed by decades, centuries of cultural and economic stagnation, many Muslims looked to bin Laden and al Qaeda with hope and pride, as gallant "anti-heros", ready to defeat the western "infidel", the hated Jews, and even their own corrupt and decadent leaders.

Even moderate in the Arab/Islamic world celebrated the deaths of 3000 Americans on 9/11, an attitude that is clearly reflected in the 2002 Poll numbers shown above. Once again, in 2002, "73%" of Lebanese polled "supported terrorism in defense of Islam".

But that was three years ago.

So while most Arabs and Muslims do not look to the US as a savior, they seem to have a clearer understanding what "terrorism in defense of Islam" really means. And, they understand that instead of choosing between Islamic fundamentalism or the repressive status quo in their own countries, they may just have a third choice - democratic reforms.

We'll see what the polling numbers look like in three more years.

Iraq - The Pendulum Swings

2005-08-19T12:48:00.000-04:00

The pendulum swings. Or maybe, the river flows.

The re-election of George Bush (as well as Tony Blair and Australia's John Howard) was seen as a general endorsement, by the average voter in the west, of the war in Iraq, and the larger war against Islamic extremists. The Iraqi election in January, where 8 million Iraqis bravely "gave the finger" (the purple stamped voting index finger that is) to the terrorists, may have been the high water mark for public opinion about the war, and was a hopeful sign for Iraq's future. Subsequent events, such as Syria's withdrawal from Lebanon further buoyed hopes for peace and freedom in the Middle East. That was all in the spring.

It is now almost Labor Day. Lebanon and Syria are no longer in the news. London has been attacked, and the British public seems to consider Tony Blair the culprit, not the extremists that built and detonated the bombs. Violence continues in Iraq, with horrific bombings targeted primarily at Iraqi civilians and security forces, resulting in hundreds of deaths. Iraq's drafting of a constitution, and their progress towards autonomy, has seemingly stalled. Public opinion has turned against the war, and moves towards favoring a Vietnam-style US withdrawal.

In March, the anti-war left, as well as "paleo-conservatives" such as Pat Buchannan, seemed to be fighting a losing battle. Now, in August, the American people are starting to listen to them, or are at least starting to weary of news of young American soldiers dying for the freedom of a people that do not seem to want freedom themselves.

It is honestly difficult to be a supporter of the war under these circumstances, just as it may have been difficult to have opposed the war as Sadaam's statue was being pulled down in Baghdad, or as the Iraqis entered their polling stations.

But, without trying to grasp at straws, I do believe, for the most part, that things are never as good as they seem, and they are never as bad as they seem.

The violence and hopelessness that seems to predominate in Iraq today will give way to the same force - a desire for freedom and peace - that brought millions out of their homes in January, in defiance of the terrorists. The hatred and fear that fuels terrorism will then, again, predictably, defy this hope. The pendulum will swing back and forth.

On second thought, pendulums do not advance. They mark time, they are predictable, but they do not progress. .

Heraclitus said, centuries ago, "You cannot step into the same river twice". Life changes, what you see and understand today will not be the same as what you see or try to understand tomorrow. Life, like a river, can be unpredictable, but it is inevitable.

It has only been six months since the hope of an "Arab Spring" seemed real and imminent, but the river flows. We now have a different Iraq. In another six months, we will have another Iraq. A year from then, yet another.

The struggle for freedom and democracy against oppression and tyranny is not a zero-sum game. It is not measured in equal parts like the swing of a pendulum. It is Heraclitus' river, unpredictable but moving forward, progressing.

We are in the rapids currently, but just around the bend....

Thoughts on Cindy Sheehan

2005-08-18T15:04:00.000-04:00

A moving editorial in the Wall Street Journal from Ronald Griffin, father of a soldier killed in Iraq, on the controversy surrounding Cindy Sheehan.

Grief manifest itself various ways. At the death of a loved one, some turn to God, some turn inwards, and some lash out and assign blame. These responses can be equally "valid" and legitimate, especially to outside observors. Death is a sensitive and private subject, and the loss of a son or daughter - not necessarily a "child", is particularly sad.

Cindy Sheehan, camped out in Crawford, Texas, protesting the war that her son died in, has chosen to take her grief public. There is no shame in this, and I have no interest in analyzing her motives, background or goals. I have nothing to add that both sides of the debate have not already said about her and her actions.

(It is clear that this is not about Iraq alone. Sheehan's comments about our support of Israel and the Israel/Palestinian conflict make it clear where she stands on broader political questions. She also told Chris Matthews recently that she would probably have felt the same way she feels now (about the Bush administration and her son's death) if Casey had been killed in Afghanistan.)

But, regardless of where one stands on the war, her anger is understandable. Of course, as most who have lost loved ones may understand, this anger is ultimately pointless - even if is tied to "political" issues. As one mother of a soldier killed in action points out in the WSJ piece, she "cannot add the additional baggage of anger" to her grief.

My hope for Ms. Sheehan is that she can someday respect and honor his decision to volunteer and fight for his country. Short of that, I hope that she will eventually be able to look at a picture of Casey and not feel the anger she likely feels today.

"A disappointed Gaza could not be reached for comment"

2005-08-16T11:10:00.000-04:00

(title - hat tip -1970's Weekend Update)

--------
Michael Totten has a great post on the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, with a link to an AP summary of the story.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has become embedded in our cultural discourse, and is often held up, by the left and by the Arab/Muslim world, as a singular example of western "oppression". Here is my attempt at defining the two sides of the discussion.

For the pro-Palestinian crowd, primarily on the left, but with a healthy contingent of right-wing anti-Semitic groups and of course, most of the Islamic world, the simple analysis is:

Britain and the west took land from the Palestinians and gave it to Jews, creating hundreds of thousands (millions?) of refugees. Displacement, followed by occupation enforced by the US funded Israeli Army, are the central grievances of Palestinian supporters.

On the other hand....

The right, and supporters of Israel (even some on the left like Alan Dershowitz) blame the current and past problems primarily on Arab intransigence, and their reliance on terrorism and violence to acheive an unreachable goal - the elimination of the modern state of Israel.

Israel was created in 1948 to allow both Arabs and Jews to share the land. But at no point in the last 57 years was Israel allowed to live in peace. The Arab world has refused to improve the plight of the Palestinians in order to perpetuate the fight against Israel. Attempts at compromise, reasonable offers to settle land disputes, and peace treaties, all were rebuffed by Palestinian and Arab leaders.

So who is right? Are Arab Palestinians victims or aggressors?

The Jewish/Muslim question is vital to global stability, as important, in the long-term, as anything that is happening in Iraq or Afghanistan. Read Totten's post for some interesting background on the subject. (My thoughts in parentheses).

As always, there is a very informative point-counterpoint in the comments section on Totten's post. (As a side-show, the slug-fest between TallDave and The Commenter is classic blog warfare, not to be missed. Navajos, Bantu tribesman, George Washington all make an appearance.)

Siding with the Prosecution, we have comments from someone who calls himself "Crouton" (using a classic "victim" analogy)

"By massacring and stealing the land of the Native Americans, The English settlers placed themselves in clear and present moral danger by surrounding themselves with fanatics who want them dead.

I will never understand the insanity of you people. Up is down, down is up. Is your judgment so impaired that you can't see how morally corrupt the above statements are?

I give up.

I hope the air is pleasant on the planet you are on. I only wish that you could comprehend that these attitudes, born out of either stupidity or a basic lack of human decency - a lack of empathy for the millions of dispossessed Palestinians rotting unjustly in refuge camps, for decades - are the reason they hate us. "

(Not very civil, but to the point. And, very representative of the pro-Palestinian argument).

Commenter Kevin Peters responds:

"Rotting in refugee camps. You are right. Some of the longest lasting refugee camps in the history of the world. And just think, surrounded by arab neighbors who share their language and share their religion and many of their customs. And yet none of them took in their Palestinian brothers who they are so concerned about. In fact many of them make them carry special passports that only allow short stays or they do not allow them in at all. I wonder why. Maybe we should have copied that lovely middle east custom and kept the Cuban refugees in the prisons. "

For a more historical perspective, we have a summary of the "land" question in Palestine, and some reasons why the Jews are there in the first place.

From LibertyDad:

"Palestine had long been under the Ottoman's. Zionist Jews had begun emigrating there since the late 1890s, and were peacefully buying it. And making it more productive, thus more attractive to the economically less advanced non-Jews. Before WW I the Ottoman Turks controlled it, including deciding who owned what; afterwards the British the French controlled it, deciding who owned what, and trying to stop Jews from peacefully coming, while allowing more Arabs. Then WW II, including the fact that Hitler's Muslim Mufti of Jerusalem was calling for more Jew-hate murder.

Holocaust (Shoah), many survivors to Palestine, a two-state UN plan discussed, Arabs disagree, Jews declare independence. Israel/Jewish independence very similar to Burma's independence, or India's, except that a) the Jews wanted a Jewish state, and b) the Arabs around them, who did not control Palestine, nevertheless didn't want the Jews to, and c) Egypt and other Arabs attacked Israel while calling for Arabs in Israel to leave."

(In other words, the State of Israel, conceived through Zionism and supported in the early 20th century by Britain and diaspora Jews, had only become a reality because of the Holocaust. This is why Holocaust revisionism is so important to the anti-Israel crowd.)

And what are the origins of the Palestinian refugees?

"Today's Palestinians are those Arabs who followed the Jew-hating advice to leave, so as to allow more slaughter of Jews. And in the wars, the Jewish Israelis won; and won; and won. Arabs who didn't leave are doing fine as Israeli citizens."

(Palestinians originally left the area primarily on the advice of the leaders of the Arab world, who planned, in 1948, and in subsequent wars, to roll into Jerusalem and "drive the Jews into the sea". Didn't want to unnecessarily harm any Arabs in the process.

Things didn't work out as planned. Israel repelled every attack by the Arab world, each time keeping land won in these wars. To the victor goes the spoils...)

The future?

Again, LibertyDad,

"Gaza is soon to be Palestinian land; and Pali land only. The problems there, which are likely to be many, will be Pali problems. If the Palis can't create a peaceful society there, they won't deserve any more in the West Bank or Jerusalem. "

------

This will be the next question. Do the Palestinians take Gaza, embrace peace, and try to build a normal, modern society for their children? Or, does Hamas and al Fatah continue to rule the Palestinians in a culture of violence and anti-Semitism?

Will Palestinian leaders and the larger Arab world still want to "drive the Jews into the sea"?

At some point, hopefully in my lifetime, we will be able to see a productive, peaceful Palestinian state. Maybe, this week, we have seen the first real step in this direction.

(Well, maybe in my children's lifetimes.)

Jumping Jack Ass

2005-08-12T13:51:00.000-04:00

In advance of their upcoming world tour (tentatively called either The Senior Citizens Can Rock, Too Tour, or Geritol-apalooza), oldies station favorites The Rolling Stones have decided to become "political". 62 year old Mick Jagger is courting controversy with a new political song that takes shots at George Bush and his administration.

The song "My Sweet Neocon" includes references to Halliburton and the Pentagon, and includes the lyrics:

"You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you're full of s---,"

Clever. So much for symbolism. I guess Wild Horses, was probably just about, you know, untamed horses.

I can see the scene, probably on a Gulfstream jet or at some 14th century English castle:

Mick - "Hey Keith, what rhymes with "hypocrite?"
Keith - "mumble mumble mumble"
Mick - "Oooh, cheeky!"

Really, I did not expect such deep political insight from a pampered multi-millionaire. And the subtlety! Can't wait for the follow up - "Tony Blair is a Douchebag"

Actually, after the initial buzz on the song, Jagger is now backtracking and claims the song is not about George Bush. This is an obvious misunderstanding, in the same way that my unpublished poem, Mick Jagger is a Decrepit Old Fool is not really about Mick Jagger, but about the plight of California produce workers.

I suppose its hip to be political when you are a filthy rich rock star, and anyone who qualifies for social security and still calls themself a rock star needs all the help they can get. Got to "keep it real with the kids" and all that.

But I just can't help thinking that this is just an effort to distract fans from the fact that the Rolling Stones have not recorded a decent song since 1978, yet still charge $250 for a concert ticket.

Honestly, the Stones have done nothing special since the release of Some Girls 27 years ago. (Sorry, Start Me Up is just awful. "You'd make a dead man- what?)

I can see the box-set now: The Rolling Stones - 1978-2005 Three Decades of Nondescript Filler

Future generations will listen to Sticky Fingers and Exile on Main Street, and then theorize that Jagger and co. were replaced with talentless robots after their hastily covered-up deaths in 1978.

There is just no other reasonable explanation for Emotional Rescue.

Song(s) of the Week - 22 and 23

2005-08-11T11:51:00.000-04:00

Well, didn't post the Song of the Week last Thursday. So this week its a "two-fer".

First, we have

David Francey - Paper Boy

This guy is very talented Canadian singer/songwriter, (with a Scottish brogue). His website has the full song (Middle CD on the home page - Far End of Summer) . I highly recommend you go on over and listen to it. Its just a great tune.

and, your bonus SOTW!

Ballboy - You Can't Spend Your Whole Life (Hanging Round With Arseholes)

Its true you know.

Track 3. Catchy and danceable, from England's best gay pop band.

New Pro-Private Sector Blog

2005-08-10T11:40:00.000-04:00

Daniel Drezner plugs a new blog by two World Bank guys - The Private Sector Development Blog (I agree with Dan, bad name).

This is a great example of one of the better applications of the blogosphere, that of an information "clearinghouse", providing short introductions and links to other sources, centering around a common theme. In this case the common theme is, as described on the home page of the blog:

"news, resources and ideas on the role of private enterprise in fighting poverty."

For example, the blog links to a Washington Post profile of Cameron Sinclair, called the Bob Geldof of architecture, who has a vision to develop "sustainable structures to improve the lives of over 1 billion slum dwellers around the world".

Or, this post about an online contest to find innovative "market-based" ideas to help the world's poorest people.

While governments and aid agencies continue to give fish to the world's poor, the invisible hand offers rods and bait.

In addition to Drezner's recommendation, I would add the blog of Johan Norberg, author of In Defense of Global Capitalism.

Thimerosal and Autism on Meet the Press

2005-08-09T11:16:00.000-04:00

The thimerosal/autism debate may have entered a new phase, with David Kirby's appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert this past Sunday. Non-scientist Kirby debated the head of the Institute of Medicine, Dr. Harvey Fineberg over whether there is any link between the mercury-based vaccine preservative thimerosal and autism.

Here are the links to the video and to the transcript .

I had first picked up on the debate through the Imus in the Morning radio show, where Kirby had received valuable free exposure for his book Evidence of Harm. Here are my posts on the subject. A quick glance will tell you where I stand.

Mercury, Autism and Imus

Thimerosal and Autism, Yet Again

Brian Williams and Chris Dodd Drink the Thimerosal Kool-Aid

Autism and Mercury, What to Read on the Subject

(By the way, once again, Imus again chose to waste my 25 minute Monday morning drive time with this discussion, crowing about Kirby's performance on and repeating his calls for "more investigation". I'd rather listen to him pitching his salsa.)

The Meet the Press piece, in my opinion, is probably the result of Russert's regular appearances on Imus. In addition, Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News anchor, appeared on Imus a couple of months back and promised to take up the subject at the network. I would expect to see more coverage from big media on this, probably favoring Kirby, over the next few months.

As mentioned in my posts on this subject before, I am not an expert in this area, and I don't have any particular reason to spend a lot of time on the subject.

But the best sources on the autism/vaccine debate, in my view, are three bloggers that are very familiar with the science and research on this subject:

Orac Knows
Skeptico
Autism Diva

Anyway, I have three healthy kids, I am not on the payroll of Big Pharma, (although I am open to offers), so my interest in the subject is purely academic. But I am leery of conspiracy theories, quack medicine and junk science, and I think that the thimerosal/autism debate is replete with all three.

People like David Kirby, a journalist, and Robert F. Kennedy, an "activist" have taken up this cause, in my view, more as a crusade against big business and government agencies than in the name of science or medicine, and that bugs me too. When respected career scientists and physicians get on their side, perhaps I'll start to listen. But I doubt that will happen.

That said, Kirby is an effective spokesman, and unfortunately, seemed to win the debate on Sunday. Kirby has the advantage of course, relying on conjecture, anectodal evidence, and the vicarious emotions of distraught parents, while Fineberg, the IOM, and the CDC, just have data. Overwhelming, boring, data.

(Apparently, the "EOH" crowd is thrilled with Kirby's performance, as indicated by the new blog supportvaccination.org. This site also provides some interesting analysis of the Kirby/Fineberg debate)

Kirby came across as prepared and professional, not at all intimidated by a real Doctor.

Dr. Fineberg obviously knows his subject, but came across as clinical and almost polite. While he refuted all of Kirby's points, this would only be apparent to someone who was somewhat familiar with the debate. Any viewer just stumbling on the discussion through this show would likely come away concerned about vaccines. Just my guess though.

Of course, Russert helped a little, "teeing it up" for Kirby with his opening question:

RUSSERT:

Dr. Fineberg, Mr. Kirby, welcome both.

In your book, Mr. Kirby, you raise early on two questions. "Why did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allow mercury exposures from childhood vaccines to more than double between 1988 and 1992 without bothering to calculate cumulative totals and their potential risks? Why ... was there a corresponding spike in reported cases of autism spectrum disorders? Why did autism grow from a relatively rare incidence of 1 in every 10,000 births in the 1980s to 1 in 500 in the late 1990s? Why did it continue to increase 1 in 250 in 2000 and then 1 in 166 today?" Have you answered those questions?

Kirby's response was predictable, but Fineberg's was surprisingly vague:

DR. HARVEY FINEBERG: There's definitely a huge number of cases diagnosed with autism, Tim. What is clear is that number recognized has increased dramatically. It's also clear that the definition was broadened markedly in the 1980s and 1990s, and there were increased incentives to recognize children from increased awareness and availability of services. No one knows with certainty what part of the increase is genuine, a genuine increase in numbers, and what part is from increased recognition of people who were already there but not previously recognized. Remember we're talking about a spectrum of diagnoses here, autism spectrum diseases, which range in severity from relatively mild to relatively severe.

This could have been said more clearly, and I would have been happy if Fineberg provided some perspective on the "1 in 166" number. My understanding is that there is a fairly close correlation between the increase in autism diagnoses and the decrease in diagnoses of various forms of what used to be termed "mental retardation". But in terms of the debate, Kirby has offered statistics, and Fineberg has responded with medical terms like "autism spectrum", apparently ceding the statistical "evidence" to Kirby.

The balance of the discussion was similar, with Kirby rehashing statistics, using medical terminology, questioning CDC and IOM studies and generally putting Fineberg on the defensive. Fineberg took the high road, generally treating Kirby as an equal, and seemed to not want to offend the anti-thimerosal crowd.

Even at the conclusion of the debate, where Russert wants to assure "viewers" that "there is no thimerosal now in vaccinations, other than flu vaccinations, so its safe for your children", Dr. Fineberg adds "even some flu vaccines for children are now available without thimerosal, as well".

It would have been much more helpful for Dr. Fineberg at this point to remind viewers that the evidence clearly shows that thimerosal-based vaccines has always been "safe for children", or to explain why preservatives are needed in vaccines in the first place. Some emphasis on the millions of lives saved and improved by vaccines would have been helpful as well.

The IOM, CDC, and the drug companies are up against it in this debate. It is counterintuitive to most people that mercury could have any positive use, particularly in children's vaccines. Thimerosal has been removed from vaccines, which of course, implies that there may have been some danger recognized but not revealed, by the IOM. Suspicion of "big Pharma" and government agencies is fueled by otherwise respectable media personalities like Don Imus and Brian Williams, and of course, able spokespeople like David Kirby and RFK Jr. And thousands of parents of autistic children desperately seek answers.

But the facts are the facts. Exhaustive studies have not shown any link whatsoever between thimerosal and autism. Period.

Dr. Fineberg basically said as much on Meet the Press, but in an indirect, conciliatory way. I just wish the IOM had someone who could be more blunt about this, and have given David Kirby the intellectual body slam he needs.

The War in the Pacific - Recommended Reading

2005-08-05T10:09:00.000-04:00

As we approach the 60th anniversary of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, and of course, the end of the War in the Pacific, which meant the end of the bloodiest war in history, I thought I'd recommend a few books on the subject.

The Rising Sun by John Toland

The Making of the Atomic Bomb and Dark Sun - The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, both by Richard Rhodes

These three books are appropriate for the average reader who is not just interested in World War 2 history, but in 20th century history.

Toland, like William Shirer, (author of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich), was a journalist, lived in Japan and China, and is considered to have been on of the preeminent experts on the subject.

His account of the rise of nationalism and militarism in Japan in the early part of the 20th century is the important back story to the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And, the chapters on the battles in the Pacific are gripping, and a little depressing.

Rhodes' books are long, but extremely readable, and deal in depth with the science and politics behind the development, and eventual use of nuclear weapons.

And, as mentioned, I am currently reading Downfall, Richard Frank's history of the end of the war. Densely packed with statistics, it is a little less readable than the above books, and I would recommend reading the others first. But so far, it has been an eye-opening read.

Any other suggestions?

Hiroshima 60

2005-08-04T14:54:00.000-04:00

Richard Frank writes in the Weekly Standard about the 60th anniversary of the use of atomic weapons in Japan.

I am in the middle of reading Downfall, Frank's history of the last few months of the war in the Pacific, and it is a fascinating read. This article summarizes much of the book, both of which Frank bases on primary sources such as declassified notes from meetings between Truman and his advisors, as well as decoded Japanese messages (primarily Magic and Ultra intercepts).

It is accepted that the bombs saved American lives, but did it save others?

This may not seem like a logical question, considering that approximately 240,000 people died as a result of the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Without "the bomb" however, there were only four other alternatives to ending the war, a combination of which would have likely been the substitute for the use of atomic weapons:

(Military)

Land Invasion
Conventional bombing

(Non Military)

Blockade / "Containment"
Diplomacy and negotiation

I had posted on the subject of a planned land invasion back in June, on the anniversary of Truman's approval of Operation Olympic, the first phase of the expected landing, planned for November 1945. But Frank's article underscores the point that it is unlikely that Olympic (or its follow-up, Coronet) would ever have taken place, due to the massive casualties that were expected:

it is now clear that the long-held belief that Operation Olympic loomed as a certainty is mistaken. Truman's reluctant endorsement of the Olympic invasion at a meeting in June 1945 was based in key part on the fact that the Joint Chiefs had presented it as their unanimous recommendation

With the Navy's withdrawal of support, the terrible casualties in Okinawa, and the appalling radio-intelligence picture of the Japanese buildup on Kyushu, Olympic was not going forward as planned and authorized--period. But this evidence also shows that the demise of Olympic came not because it was deemed unnecessary, but because it had become unthinkable

Without Olympic, the war would still have continued at its brutal pace, possibly into mid-1946, (when, most Americans at the time believed the war would end).

Conventional bombing

Even without a land invasion, thousands of Japanese civilians would have been killed by the continuation of the conventional bombing campaigns that had been visited on them by the Allies for months.

Blockade/"Containment"

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, were potentially at risk due to the famine that was developing in the country. Japan relied heavily on food and salt imported through Korea, and this had been essentially cut off by Allied mining and attacks on Japanese merchant shipping.

And, aside from those in Japan, there were millions at risk in Japanese occupied Asia.

As Frank notes, referencing historian Robert Newman's work, any assessment of the end of the Pacific war must include the horrifying consequences of each continued day of the war for the Asian populations trapped within Japan's conquests. Newman calculates that between a quarter million and 400,000 Asians, overwhelmingly noncombatants, were dying each month the war continued.

Even at the low end of this estimate, it is not inconceivable that Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, even if it only shortened the war by one month. And this is only in mainland Asia.

Diplomacy and negotiation

As for diplomacy, there is much room for debate. 60 years later, some offer a view of Japanese government cut to its knees, on the verge of surrender.

But the picture Frank paints is of a stubborn, fatalistic Japanese leadership, unlikely to surrender under almost any circumstances. They viewed Japan as a fortress, sacred ground, and girded the population to fight "to the end".

Japanese leaders certainly had no problem with sacrificing civilian lives for their honor, as the previous months had indicated. If Japan had not surrendered after the devastating fire bombings of their cities of 1944 and early 1945, why would they now?

The Japanese government, by almost all accounts, was in the grips of a small group of ultra nationalists who were determined to salvage "honor" by avoiding unconditional surrender. But avoiding unconditional surrender was probably about more than just "saving face". Conditional surrender would have allowed some sort of continuation of the government in place, and would have preserved at least some power for the men in charge. Frank explains the concentrated nature of the Japanese ruling elite of the 1940s:

An inner cabinet in Tokyo authorized Japan's only officially sanctioned diplomatic initiative. The Japanese dubbed this inner cabinet the Big Six because it comprised just six men: Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Foreign Minister Shigenori Togo, Army Minister Korechika Anami, Navy Minister Mitsumasa Yonai, and the chiefs of staff of the Imperial Army (General Yoshijiro Umezu) and Imperial Navy (Admiral Soemu Toyoda).

Their attempts at diplomacy at the end of the war were limited to reaching out to the Soviets:

In complete secrecy, the Big Six agreed on an approach to the Soviet Union in June 1945. This was not to ask the Soviets to deliver a "We surrender" note; rather, it aimed to enlist the Soviets as mediators to negotiate an end to the war satisfactory to the Big Six--in other words, a peace on terms satisfactory to the dominant militarists. Their minimal goal was not confined to guaranteed retention of the Imperial Institution; they also insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled.

Truman and his advisors no doubt hoped for a diplomatic end, but they had to prepare for a military finish. The signs they received from the Japanese were not positive. Referring to the thousands of Japanese military messages that the Allies decoded in June and July of 1945,

Frank concludes that:

"The intercepts of Japanese Imperial Army and Navy messages disclosed without exception that Japan's armed forces were determined to fight a final Armageddon battle in the homeland against an Allied invasion.

Right to the very end, the Japanese pursued twin goals: not only the preservation of the imperial system, but also preservation of the old order in Japan that had launched a war of aggression that killed 17 million."

There will always be those who claim that Truman was "playing chess" with the bomb, that he wanted to show Stalin that we had nuclear weapons, and were not afraid to use them. Or that there was a grander strategy of keeping the Soviets out of Japan by taking sole credit for the surrender.

But, it seems clear that the truth is Truman just wanted to win the war, quickly, and at the cost of as few American lives as possible. This was accomplished at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The benefit to the rest of the world was perhaps not as clear at the time.

In the end, those two cities were not victims of American/Soviet realpolitik, but of their own ultra-nationalist, unrelenting, facsist leadership.

The Holocaust and Journalism

2005-08-02T11:08:00.000-04:00

Orac at Respectful Insolence offers some interesting analysis of a NY Times piece on World War 2/Holocaust intelligence.

The Times article takes a look at a recent report on the attempts to decipher wartime German military messages that included information on the numbers of Jews being killed in concentration camps.

The article and report add to the running debate over whether the Americans and British could have done more to prevent the Holocaust. The author seems to hedge on this question, but Orac provides what seems to be a reasonable conclusion:

"though many historians criticize the Allies for their inaction, there has been no consensus as to what, if anything, could have been done to decrease the killing, and this report is unlikely to change that"

In other words, even if Roosevelt and Churchill knew every fact related to the death camps and exterminations in Europe during the war, there was not much more they could have done, other than to keep trying to defeat the Nazis.

It may have been a choice between trying to rescue those trapped inside a burning building, or putting the fire out. A difficult choice, but first and foremost, the Nazi fire needed to be extinguished.

But while the actual decisions that could have been made by the Allies during the war may not have had much of an impact on the final toll of the Holocaust, it may help to dig deeper into the subject, particularly to try and understand how and why most Americans would be largely indifferent to the stories of the Holocaust that did come out of Europe in the 1940s.

In a 1996 lecture, noted author and intellectual Marvin Kalb analyzes The Journalism of The Holocaust.

Beginning with a moving account of Kalb's 1956 visit to his ancestral home of rural Ukraine, the essay/lecture attempts to address the issue of Allied reactions to the Holocaust as it took place, and in particular, the apparent indifference of the American people and the American press.

Kalb maintains that rather than being baffled by coded Nazi messages, Roosevelt, his advisors, and the American press, had plenty of evidence of the genocide taking place during the war. This evidence, primarily from Jewish refugees, was not necessarily ignored , but it was not prioritized either.

Kalb attempts to answer the questions:

"How could Franklin Roosevelt, who knew about the Holocaust, not lead the Allied charge against it?"

and, reminding us of the turning away of the 930 Jewish refugess on the St. Louis in 1939,
"How could the USA not open its doors to those Jews who could escape the Nazi onslaught".

In other words, how could America, in the 1940s, have turned away from the knowledge of the murders of millions of Jews?

Kalb presents five reasons, and at offers some fascinating and disturbing insight into the attitudes of politicians and average Americans in the 1940s relating to Jews and to the news coming out of Europe.

Some combination of pragmatism - a focus on winning the war, American anti-semitism, incredulity at the stories reaching America, and what Kalb describes as "the strange silence of American journalism" led to American inaction on what Roosevelt referred to as "the Jewish problem".

But Kalb reserves his final reason, for, ironically, "the people who ran The New York Times". He offers this as a separate and distinct reason for American complacency towards the plight of European Jews.

According to Kalb, men like Arthur Hays Sulzberger, the NY Times publisher during the war, and Walter Lippmann, one of the most famous and successful journalists of the 20th century, "failed their journalistic responsibility during the war" by "not covering the Holocaust".

Sulzberger oversaw a newspaper, the most respected in the world, that, according to Kalb, consistently downplayed stories of Nazi atrocities against Jews, and Lippmann "never wrote a word about the Holocaust, and never once mentioned the death camps", and, "dismissed Hitler's antisemitism as unimportant".

Why? Well, here is where Kalb makes what seems to be a difficult argument.

Sulzberger and Lippmann, as well as others like Bernard Baruch were part of an aristocratic American Jewry (my term), that wanted to "minimize, if not ultimately deny (their) Jewish identity".

Kalb describes Sulzberger as an "ultra-assimilationist, a civilized man who simply wanted to avoid being categorized as a Jew".

Clearly, Kalb feels that Sulzberger, and men like him, were part of the problem, when they could have, and because of their ancestry, should have, been part of some solution.

But in the 1930s and 40s, American antisemitism was as much a part of life as racism, as Kalb clearly shows in the Gallup poll information in his lecture. In a 1938 poll, when asked "What kind of people do you object to, 38% of Americans polled answered "Jews". 53% of those polled in 1939 thought Jews were "different" and deserved "social and economic restrictions".

As late as 1944, 15% of Americans would have actually supported an anti-Jewish pogrom, with another 25% "sympathetic" to one.

Kalb reserves a special condemnation for Sulzberger and the NY Times, but also points out that Time, Newsweek, Readers Digest, and every other major publication in America downplayed the Holocaust as a story.

So while Kalb would want us to believe that Sulzberger suppressed Holocaust stories out of self-loathing, it is more likely that Sulzberger just did not want to "break ranks" among his journalistic peers, and was possibly overly sensitive to the prevalent antisemitism. One would hope at least.

In the end, Kalb's arguments, like those presented in the recent NY Times article, offer no real answers, and no reasonable alternative history to the tragedy of the Holocaust. It is difficult and pointless really, to assign even a small amount of blame for such an immense crime to any person or group outside of Hitler and the Nazis.

And ultimately, the failure of the Allies to protect Europe's Jews (and Slavs and French and British etc. etc.) was not related to the codebreaking or journalism of the 1940s , but to the diplomacy of the 1930s. Europe's Jews had their fates sealed in Munich in 1938, when Chamberlain proclaimed "peace in our time", and when Germany's aggression in the Sudetanland and Austria was not punished, but rewarded with appeasement.

From there, a close reading of Mein Kampf, Hitler's blueprint for German/Aryan dominance, would have provided more clues to those who wanted to know the future.

But by 1942/1943, it was too late.

Carnival of History

2005-08-01T13:29:00.000-04:00

Light blogging lately.

But check out The Carnival of History at Willisms this week.

Its historiffic!

Song of the Week - 21

2005-07-28T13:39:00.000-04:00

Gram Parsons - Still Feeling Blue (Track 1)

The original alt-country star.

Taught the Byrds and the Rolling Stones how to play country music. Inspiration for Jackson Browne and the Eagles, and later, of course, for the Jayhawks, Uncle Tupelo, Wilco, Ryan Adams/Whiskeytown etc.

Dead by 26 (overdose, 1973). Get his full bio here.

Now don't be afraid of country music. This is goooood stuff.

Blogs. Where to begin?

2005-07-28T09:15:00.000-04:00

Lets say you've stumbled on this site, and after a few minutes poking around, you wonder where the interesting blogs are.

4 or 5 million blogs out there, can they all be like this one?

Fret not, there are a handful of blogs that you might actually enjoy reading. Bloggers that write about culture, law, current events, and of course, politics, in an intelligent, even-handed way.

Like these, written by egghead intellectual types, with comments from (mostly) sane readers. (Just click the name and be magically transported):

Volokh Conspiracy Group blog written by attorneys and academics, like UCLA Law Prof. Eugene Volokh. Lots of law and economics content, but very interesting nonetheless.

Daniel Drezner U Chicago Ph.D/Professor of Political Science writing mostly about politics and culture.

Pejmanesque Another U Chicago grad, practicing attorney, American-Iranian-Jewish, blogging about law, politics, and occasionally, chess.

Do these blogs skew conservative? Sure, but they are moderate/secular conservatives, and you are open-minded and reasonable.

You could also check out blogs on "the left", like the very popular:

Washington Monthly (Kevin Drum)

and

Dailykos

(I would not consider these sites to be "moderate" however, but they certainly cover the issues. The comments are usually "interesting" as well - so it might be worth a look).

Finally, although it is not technically a blog, another great site to visit on a daily basis is www.aldaily.com.

Three new articles posted every day from magazines, websites, blogs and newspapers, on a variety of topics. One essay, one book review and one "article of note". All free. Great stuff.

Oh, and you can come back here occasionally to see how the amateurs do it.

Have fun.

Welcome to The Carnival of Revolutions - Monday, July 25, 2005

2005-07-25T12:23:00.000-04:00

"We stand at the gates of an important epoch, a time of ferment, when spirit moves forward in a leap, transcends its previous shape and takes on a new one..... A new phase of the spirit is preparing itself. Philosophy especially has to welcome its appearance and acknowledge it, while others, who oppose it impotently, cling the past."

--- G.W.F. Hegel, 1806

"There is no other place I want to be.
Right here, right now.
Watching the world wake up from history."

--- Jesus Jones - 1991

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Welcome to the Carnival of Revolutions!

The blogosphere's weekly roundup of news related to the global struggle for democracy and freedom.

Thanks for stopping by. And thanks to anyone who submitted a post or a suggestion. This was the first time I've hosted the COR, hopefully it won't be the last.

So, buy some cotton candy and take a stroll around the grounds. (Just watch out for the carnies. They are not to be trusted.)

Feel free to leave comments at the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

First, I wanted to highlight a few posts that I found particularly interesting and important:

1) From Firepower Forward, a blog by a soldier in Afghanistan, a moving, eloquent account of his role in accompanying a Special Ops soldier killed in action, on the first leg of the journey home.

At first, I was not sure how this might fit into the Carnival's theme, but I came to conclusion that the American soldier is the hub to which the spokes of many of the stories below are attached.

They are the frontline of the modern liberal Democratic revolution.

What are they fighting, and dying for? Afghan Warrior gives us one small, but important example.

2) Freedom's Peace, a blog by R.J. Rummel, a former Nobel Peace Prize finalist and serious intellectual, offers a summary of the audacious tyrrany of the government of Burma (Myanamar), where

"the 42.7 million people in this South Asian country are 89 percent Buddhist, have a life expectancy of fifty-five years, and earn in purchasing power parity $1,200 a year. They are ruled by a socialist military regime, which allows no freedom. Life here is hellish, due to the military’s savage repression of dissent, and their barbaric response to the rebellion of nearly a dozen ethnic minorities".

Rummel is a Human Rights activist that is not afraid to make the connection between unchecked socialism and totalitarianism.

The remainder of this post is depressing and infuriating. Please read the whole thing.

3) Will at Willisms offers some incredible photographs of the riots in Yemen this week, along with the astute observation,

"If ever there was a country in need of short-term instability-- out of which long-term freedom can arise-- it's Yemen"

4) Will also links to Freedom House, which is a great resource for information on this subject. Check out their press release, The World's Worst Regimes Unveiled

5) Stephen Green at Vodka Pundit on Richard Holbrooke's assesment of Bosnian, ten years after intervention, asking; Was it worth it?

6) Fresh from her warm welcome in Sudan, future President Condi Rice makes a surprise visit to Lebanon on her way home.

Publius Pundit and Gateway Pundit offer fantastic coverage of her trip. These guys are a daily Carnival of Revolutions.

7) And Boxing Alcibiades offers some thoughts on the march of freedom in the world over the last 15-20 years or so, noting that within his lifetime,

"there is an overarching theme: more people on this planet are free from tyranny than at any point in human history"

Seems to be what this is all about.

Anyway, these are just a few of the pieces that I have read this week that helped to fill me in on the world outside of my own little bubble.

Now, in alpha-geographical order, here are the rest:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

AFRICA
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

- In line with my own beliefs that African countries need a "free-market" economic revolution, the blog African Bullets and Honey argues that the continent "needs more millionaires, not aid".

* Ethiopia

- Ethiopundit offers up a veritable "Carnival of Ethiopia", with her latest post, "Another Red Season" providing wry commentary on the dire and depressing situation there, and offering about three dozen links to other Ethiopia related sources and sites.

She describes the country as being ruled by a "revolutionary aristocracy" with "70 million hostages". Its no wonder that she advises those who want to understand Ethiopia's plight to read Animal Farm and watch The Godfather I and II.

* Kenya

- Publius Pundit, as usual, offers superior some superior coverage of a developing story. In this case, it is on the anti-Government riots that Kenya saw this week.

* Sudan

Some good news, finally, out of Sudan?

- The "situation is improving" in Darfur, according to the head of The African Union Mission. More at SudanWatch.

- But Commoner Sense has a more sobering assesment of this "positive" news. (By the way, any blogger that quotes a Leonard Cohen lyric while posting is ok in my book)

* Zimbabwe

- The Zimbabwean Pundit, (Zimpundit), is the "go-to" blog for information on the travesty of a government that Robert Mugabe has been running.

This week, the blog gives us another lesson in modern African economics, highlighting the bizarre fuel crisis that the country is facing, and again underscoring the "root" cause of much of Africa's plight, a lack of basic economic freedom for Africans.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

AMERICAS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Bolivia

- MABB writes about a recent trend in vigilantism in Bolivia, known as "Justicia Communitaria".

* Cuba/Venezuala

- BabaluBlog links to an essay by Venezuelan Gustavo Coronel about the doctors "imported" by Chavez from Cuba into Venezuala. A very interesting view from inside the country.

(I like the reference to Chavez and Castro as "Pirates of the Carribean")

- And Bad Hair Blog has a must-read post, chock full o'links, on the political climate in Cuba and Venezuala, now otherwise known on the blogosphere as Cubazuela.

For Venezuala's sake, let's hope Chavez does not have Castro's longevity.

- The Devil's Excrement, (winner of the soapgun blog-name of the month award) posts about Hugo Chavez' admiration for South American dictators of the past.

(The blog name actually has an interesting, and logical story behind it. Go to the site to find out what it is.)

* Haiti

Boz has an analysis of opposing op-eds on Haiti, one from the Prime Minister of Haiti, one from human rights activists.

* Nicaragua

Revolutionary Joe! The Java of choice for the Blogosphere.

As seen on Instapundit and Publius Pundit, brought to you by Boli-Nica.

- Beautiful Horizons makes my job easy with his roundup of political happenings in Brazil, Chile and Colombia

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASIA (CENTRAL)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Christopher Walker of Freedom House offers a comprehensive summary of the political climate in the Central Asian Republics in The former Soviet Union's next wave of Democratization, over at Eurasia.net.

- In the Weekly Standard, Stephen Schwartz offers some background information for Donald Rumsfeld on his upcoming trip to "the stans". Great summary of the history of Islamic fundamentalism in the country over the last 15 years.

* Armenia

OneWorld offers some thoughts on Armenia's constitutional changes. The site also provides comprehensive information on Armenia's history and people, as well as background on regional political issues.

* Azerbijan

- Coverage of the upcoming Parliamentary elections over at Young Eurasia, link via Katy at Blogrel.

* Russia (Europe, Asia? Whatever.)

- The New Mongols, (great name for a band) on a new book that profiles Vladimir Putin and his "path to power". Kremlin Rising is a " powerful indictment of Putin’s years as president".

- More on Putin from David at A Step at a Time - When Despots Get Together.

* Ukraine

- Ultima Thule on the 6 month anniversary of the "Orange Revolution

- Siberian Light writes about a curious lack of traffic police on the streets of Ukraine. Looks like it might be an interesting "end-run" strategy to reduce corruption.

* Uzbekistan

- Registan links a fascinating article on Islam and politics, in relation to Uzbekistan, but with much broader implications.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASIA (EAST)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Burma

- The CS Monitor reviews Emma Larkin's book "Finding George Orwell in Burma", which traces Orwell's steps there as a police officer in the 1920s, but also offers details on the daily lives of the Burmese people.

The author of 1984 and Animal Farm would no doubt see the irony of his Burma becoming one of the most brutal, repressive countries on the earth. Socialism at its finest.

* North Korea

"Democracy is for everyone" - Natan Sharansky, July 2005

- One Free Korea writes about Sharansky's recent Freedom House speech on North Korea, and on freedom, here, and the subsequent press conference/Q&A monitored by Sen. Sam Brownback. Sharansky is compelling, brave and highly intelligent.

- Strategy Page points out that South Korea "has been quietly preparing for the eventual collapse of the communist government in the north".

An economic collapse that would save thousands and thousands of lives.

- I provide my feeble two cents on North Korea with a comment on a New Mongols post from last week.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIDDLE EAST

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Bahrain

- Is there a chance for an Islamic peace movement? Well, there may be some recent (20th century) historical precedent at least. Chan'ad Bahraini profiles Abdul Ghaffar Khan (1890-1988) a sort of "Muslim Gandhi" .

* Iraq

- The upcoming trial of Sadaam Hussein will hopefully offer a helpful turning point for the Iraqi people, providing justice and catharsis, and a reminder to the world of the true monster that Hussein was, and is.

- M. Cherif Bassiouni at Foreign Policy.com has some suggestions for the prosecution.

- Thinking East has a heart-rending account of Sadaam's 1988 chemical weapons attacks in Halabja

- Iraq the Model, an indespensable resource, is a great place to get running coverage on the trial.

- And, as always, Arthur Chrenkoff offers pages and pages (47 this week) of reasons to be optimistic about Iraq's future at OpinionJournal.com Despite the media's penchant for focusing on the "insurgency" and suicide attacks, Chrenkoff points out that there are many signs that Iraq is progessing, politically, economically, and culturally.

- From Chrenkoff, regarding the current battle for security in the country, an interesting quote:

"I love serving my country. I want to be a man who enforces the law instead of someone who sits around doing nothing."

Who said it?

"Ahmed Ali Mohammed, a Sunni Arab serving in the Iraqi army north of Baghdad. "

This is from a three part series in Stars and Stripes (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3) on the training of Iraqi soldiers and police by Americans. The "insurgency" should be nervous. Its a quick, but eye-opening read.

The Iraqi "insurgency" should be nervous.

* Iran

- More riots, this time its the Kurds in north-western/Kurdish Iran. The success of Kurdish Iraq must be a little nerve-wracking for the Mullahs.

- Iranian Truth on jailed dissident Akbar Ganji , who is apparently near death.

- Cox and Forkum on Ganji , with a stark visual representation of the power of tyranny over the individual

- Not sure if Iran is that big of a threat to global stability? Just read this, from Regime Change Iran. Chilling.

* Israel and the Palestinians

- Kirk Sowell at Arab World Analysis discusses the impending (August) withdrawal of the Gaza Strip by Israel, and his worries about factional in-fighting among the Palestinians as they try to build their government.

* Lebanon

- Michael Totten (one of my favorite bloggers) links an article he wrote for the Daily Star in which he calls for a Middle East "NATO" style coalition, led by Iraq and Lebanon.

Now we're talking.

* Syria

- Joshua Landis at Syria Comment offers a highly informative forum on US Syrian relations, conducted among US and Israeli academics and former government officials.

* Yemen

- Riots.

- Armies of Liberation provides unmatched coverage on Yemen, including this piece on the Yemeni government's funding of religious "education".

AOL warns that:

"The Yemen goverment is financing the spread of Salafist ideology among Yemeni children basically converting them by force."

Sound familiar? Pakistan, Saudi Arabia?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ok, my turn. Hope you can indulge me in one last link and some final thoughts.

The Hegel quote at the top of the post is cribbed from Francis Fukuyama's book, The End of History and The Last Man. (The Jesus Jones lyric is a little cheesy I know, but I couldn't resist. Imagine, a song celebrating the fall of communism.)

Fukuyama's book, which I think was widely misunderstood when it came out in 1992, makes the simple point that modern liberal democracy is the inevitable form of government for all nations.

Here is the full text of the original essay.

Of course, there is quite a bit more to the book, and much more to the discussion than this straightforward conclusion, but it does surprise me that some might read the stories here about the daily struggle for democracy and freedom in the world, and come away with a different conclusion.

Anyway, read the essay, and check out the book.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, thanks again for stopping by. If you have time, feel free to bounce around on my site. Its not much, but its home. Once again, comments are always welcome.

And, if you can, stop by every Thursday for the "Song of the Week".

Finally, thanks to Will at Willisms for letting me host. In addition to offering great daily content, Willisms is the home base for the Carnival of Revolutions. Stop by to get the schedule, or to let Will know that you are interested in hosting at some point.

Next week, August 1st, the Carnival will be at SophistPundit. See you then!

Supersize This, Morgan Spurlock

2005-07-20T13:41:00.000-04:00

Morgan Spurlock Watch is a great new blog from Radley Balko, who is known for The Agitator, a Libertarian blog.

Just who is Morgan Spurlock, you ask?

He is the self-appointed protector of America's health that produced the successful independent film, Supersize Me, about his efforts to eat nothing but MacDonalds food for 30 days. Hilarity ensues when Spurlock's cholesterol count hits something like 12,000, he loses his sight, becomes impotent, and starts sweating grease.

Or something like that. I haven't seen the movie, but I'm pretty sure all of that happens.

(The lesson? Don't eat triple cheesburgers for breakfast, lunch and dinner for 30 days straight. There, I've made a note to myself on this. Thanks, Morgan!)

Well, now that our fearless crusader has recovered from his life-threatening project, (after returning to his regular diet of lemongrass and ginkgo biloba), he has found himself a bit of a celebrity. Spurlock has supersized his 15 minutes with a spot as the host of a show on cable called 30 days, where he attempts to point out all of the other things wrong with America, like the minimum wage and Islamophobia (two recent shows). The gimmick is 30 days of minimum wage, 30 days of living as a Muslim, etc. etc.

Spurlock probably wants to be a cross between George Plimpton and Upton Sinclair I guess. But his combination of lefty political suspicion and outrageous stunts makes him seem more like a cross between Michael Moore and Johnny Knoxville to me.

Someone needs to shadow and debunk this guy, and Balko is up to the task. (I have eaten far too many Big Mac's to have the brainpower to do this myself.)

Here is Balko, explaining why he feels it is important to challenge a guy like Spurlock:

"It's tempting to dismiss Spurlock as an unserious guy whom serious people don't take seriously. That's probably true. But young people, people who aren't naturally skeptical, and people who are already suspicious of corporations do take him seriously.

His TV show debuted to 3 million viewers. The NY Times recently fawned all over him. And of course, Super Size Me was enormously successful.

There's certainly no questioning Spurlock's talent with a camera. And he has a bit of charisma that makes him likeable, and believable.

The problem is that he's fast and loose with the truth. He's consumed by a loathing of business and capitalism -- to the point of refusing to allow accuracy to get in the way of making his point. And I think someone needs to hold him accountable. I'd like to prime the people who watch his show, read his books, and take his advice to take in Morgan Spurlock, Inc. with a super-sized portion of skepticism."

So, the next time this Spurlock character invades your living room, remember to get your antidote at Morgan Spurlock Watch.

Carnival of Etymologies

2005-07-19T09:12:00.000-04:00

Speaking of Blog Carnivals, found a great one - The Carnival of Etymologies (word origins) a subject that I find very interesting. It is over at the blog Done With Mirrors, which looks like it has some interesting posts on other subjects as well.

Lots of great stuff here. My favorite was the origin of the word "fornicate" (at the end of the post). Anyway, if you like word origins - and who doesn't? - check out the site.

Here is my (ironic?) contribution to the subject. The word trivia, - useless information, is from Latin, meaning crossroads, (literally "three roads" - tri - via). Roman women, typically on the way to the local river to do their wash, would meet their friends at the crossroads, stopping to chat and gossip. Obviously, the Roman men thought they were just wasting time on "trivial" discussion.

Take that, Alex Trebek.

Carnival of Revolutions Submissions Please

2005-07-18T09:11:00.000-04:00

OK, next week - July 25th, I'll be hosting the weekly Carnival of Revolutions.

For those unfamiliar with the format, all bloggers (and non-bloggers - I guess that about covers everyone) are invited to submit posts related to global political events, particularly those that deal with the spread of, or lack of, democracy in various countries around the world.

You can check out the latest Carnival at Boxing Alcibiades (great blog name, and great blog) to get the flava.

For consideration, please submit a link to your post, or if you are not a blogger, just send the text along, by email, to me at soapgun99@yahoo.com. Try to get this to me by Sunday afternoon or so.

In addition to reviewing and posting submissions, I'll be scouring the internet like an old pan (with burnt macaroni) this week for relevant posts. Other priorities - job, family, reality TV, will have to wait I guess.

Now what are you waiting for? Get cracking and send me something.

Thanks. I'm looking forward to some great reading.

For Your Daily Dose of Global Current Events

2005-07-15T11:38:00.000-04:00

I have not posted about Iraq or the War on Terror lately, but it has been on my mind of course.

I have posted about this before, but I thought I'd make some suggestions for those who might want access to daily, in-depth, objective analysis. These are big issues, and it takes time to get through even the basics, but if you want to be better informed, try these sites out - (each linked to a particularly interesting post):

The Belmont Club

(Linked piece (w/263 comments!) on the recent terrorist attack in Iraq that killed 32 children)

Austin Bay

(Discussion of the Dutch trial of Theo Van Gough murderer and European Islamism)

Belgravia Dispatch

(Analysis and discussion of military headcount in Iraq)

(The first two sites tend to focus exclusively on Iraq/Middle East, while BD has a little broader scope. )

Every morning, I'll take 20-30 minutes and read the latest posts on these blogs, along with the comments section (very important).

All three of these sites are authored by scary-smart people, and because of this, they tend to attract smart readers (present company excluded) who leave informative comments. (Austin Bay tends to get fewer comments for some reason). So, this combination of "call and response" journalism provides more of a "forum" and less of the editorializing one would see in the mainstream press.

Strategy Page is also an excellent site, focusing mostly on military analysis, but with incredible insight into the situation "on the ground" in the Middle East, esp. Iraq and Afghanistan. Less of an interactive blog - more of a traditional news and analysis source.

I am constantly amazed at the level of sophistication of the posts on these sites. And, when comparing the comments section with these posts and those of many popular political blogs on the left, such as Dailykos, Kevin Drum, or the Huffington Post, I am reminded why I have drifted into the "conservative" camp - check these sites out for yourself and compare the level of discourse. One group rants and raves and complains, the other (generally) discusses.

But honestly, this is not a left/right comparison. In fact, there is surprisingly little political fighting on these sites, probably because they are visited primarily by conservatives and "neocons", with a smattering of moderate liberals.

The blogs listed above, imo, can help anyone who is interested in these subjects sort through the confusing and conflicting information that we are otherwise bombarded with by the mainstream media.

You may not want to stop reading the NY Times or The Boston Globe, but, you can feel better if you just stick to the Arts or Sports sections, and get your in-depth world events coverage from these sites.

Song of the Week - 20

2005-07-14T15:25:00.000-04:00

Screaming Trees - Lay Your Head Down - Track 6

(Hat-tip Zombyboy/Resurrection Song)

After some consideration, I've chosen this particular song from the Trees' body of work, as their entry into the SOTW posts. But really, almost any of their songs, and almost any song from Mark Lanegan's solo albums, would be just as appropriate.

Forget Nirvana, and for God's sakes, Pearl Jam. The Screaming Trees, song for song, were the best band of the 1990s.

The Pixies ceased to be, REM remade the same album over and over, and Kurt Cobain spawned tortured one-note angst with bad guitars from countless imitators. But we still have a few flawless albums from the Screaming Trees to let us fondly remember the 90s....

(And don't forget to check out some of the other Songs of the Week.)

North Koreans, "Stray Dogs"

2005-07-12T11:05:00.000-04:00

"stray dogs in third-world shanty towns have a better quality of life than most North Korean humans" - From The New Mongols post on North Korea

------------------------------------------------

As mentioned, The Carnival of Revolutions is up at Publius Pundit. Hours of great reading there, but I wanted to point out one blog post in particular. It is a difficult read, but one that should be required for any person that professes to care about his fellow man.

The New Mongols blog posts on the current conditions in North Korea. with excerpts from an LA Times article (free registration required)

It looks as if the North Korean economy in the country has ground to a halt. With Kim Jong Il still pouring his resources into developing nuclear weapons, and supporting his military, very little is left over for his citizens.

Famine, which killed millions in the country in the 1990s, has returned, (or has never left.) And, with no ability to earn income for themselves, millions are reduced to scavenging for food for their families.

The article begin with a scene that seems post-apocalyptic:
.
His day begins at 4:30 a.m. The 64-year-old retired math teacher doesn't own a clock or even a watch, but the internal alarm that has kept him alive while so many of his fellow North Koreans have starved to death tells him he had better get out to pick grass if his family is to survive.

Soon the streets of his city, Chongjin, will be swarming with others doing the same. Some cook the grass to eat. The teacher feeds it to the rabbits his family sells at the market."

The remainder of the article is similarly disheartening, but it should be read.

As I mentioned yesterday about Africa, North Korea's problems, and their solutions, are economic.

North Korea, economically, is a medieval country. For an incredible visual representation of this fact, see these satellite pictures comparing North and South Korea at night.

This is an apt metaphor for what must be the darkness of everyday life for a North Korean and, should be a "shining" example of the endgame of Marxism, communism, and socialism.

When a government tries to control every aspect of its economy, when it prevents its own people from developing businesses or engaging in trade, the results will be failure. And failure, as far as North Korea is concerned, means poverty and death for its people, and global instability for the rest of us.

While the protesters and "anarchists"at the G8 waste their energy railing against capitalism and the west, and hope for their own Marxist "revolution", they ignore the hell that is communist North Korea. They ignore the true modern "beneficiaries" of Karl Marx's ideas.

And, just as protesters of the liberation of Iraq ignored (and still ignore) the effects of tyranny of Saddam Hussein on the average Iraqi, the left, and isolationists everywhere, want to pretend that North Korea does not exist. (Notice that when the left discusses North Korea, the subject is always their nuclear ambitions, not the economy. It is more convenient to point a finger at George Bush than Communism.)

I am convinced that this attitude, is, at best, is the result of ignorance and narcissism, and at worst, represents the most insidious form of racism and prejudice. It is held by many on the right, and most on the left.

It manifests itself as "isolationism" and is defended by the idea, most often unspoken, that American lives are more valuable than non-American lives. (And they call me "conservative"!)

And, it sentences millions to short, dismal, hopeless lives.

Those who ignore the actual plight of North Korean people in the 21st century deny the North Koreans their humanity. So much for the "progressive" left. All of their talk of a "global village" or support for international unity is dismissed by the reality of North Korea. At least conservative isolationists are playing to type, but they are just as complicit.

And those who are too dim to understand that the problems in North Korea are entirely home-grown, and are the inevitable result of opposition to free markets and capitalism, are ignoring the North Korean people.

The next time someone starts complaining about the evils of capitalism and globalization, ask them what they know about North Korea.

After a few seconds of silence, try to fill them in.

An African Economic Revolution?

2005-07-11T15:20:00.000-04:00

Welcome Carnival of Revolutions readers! Thanks for stopping by. And, any comments/thoughts on this or any other posts here are welcome and appreciated!

And for regular readers, be sure to head over to Publius Pundit for this week's Carnival.
Its Carnivalicious!

--------

The G8 has decided to double aid to Africa over the next several years, from $ 25 to 50 billion annually.

However, it is clear that the billions of dollars in assistance that has been poured into Africa over the last few decades has not helped Africans. While the rest of the developed and developing world has seen incredible economic growth during the last 40 years, sub-Saharan Africa has been left behind.

And, while it is important to focus on the results of this economic stagnation (starvation, disease, civil wars) very few seem to be focusing on the causes. Is it possible that the abundance of ready aid and assistance to Africa has actually hurt economic development on the continent?

This is a controversial point, one that few US or European politicians would take up. It is one, however, that many Africans are now starting to make

At the Cato Institute, South African Moeletsi Mbeki writes that the solution does not lie in aid or assistance, but in focusing on the source of Africa's problems:

"At the root of Africa's problems are ruling political elites that have squandered the continent's wealth and choked its productivity over the last 40 years"
.

Here, Mbeki does what many politicians in the West are afraid to. He is asking Africa to hold a mirror up to itself.

And, Mbeki argues, the focus on aid and assistance allows us to miss the more important point:

"Successful development in Africa will not be achieved by throwing more fuel on the flames. Merely handing more aid money to African governments only reinforces the pattern of abuse."

His solution?

"The key to development lies in a dynamic private sector. For a country to produce more, private individuals must generate savings and plow those savings back into the production process in the form of new and improved techniques, processes and products."

Long-term economic problems are solved from the bottom up, not the top down. This is the "give a fish/teach to fish" choice that comes with the question of aid and development.

Mbeki castigates the ruling elite, but also implicitly indicts the kleptocratic economies that have sprouted from the Marxism and command economies that African countries have toyed with for years. He is calling for an overthrow of the system that is keeping Africans poor, hoping for an economic revolution:

"Future development in Africa requires a new type of democracy -- one that empowers not just the political elite but private-sector producers as well. It is necessary that peasants, who constitute the core of the private sector, become the real owners of their primary asset: land.

Private ownership of land would not only generate wealth but help to check rampant deforestation and accelerating desertification. The so-called communal land tenure system, which is really state ownership of land, ought to be abolished. Moreover, peasants need direct access to world markets. The producers must be able to auction their own cash crops rather than be forced to sell them to state-controlled marketing boards."

Economic assistance from wealthy countries may temporarily alleviate the problems faced by Africa, and may make westerners feel better, but it will not solve anything permanently.

Anything short of complete support for free markets in Africa will doom its desperate population to decades more of hunger, poverty and disease.

Africa's revolution, if it happens at all, will be a capitalist revolution.

Song of the Week - 19

2005-07-08T20:41:00.000-04:00

Billy Bragg - Greetings to the new Brunette (Shirley) - Track 1

A little British music, please.

With one of the greatest love song lines of all time:

I'm celebrating my love for you
with a pint of beer and a new tattoo

Billy and I might not see eye-to-eye politically, but that doesn't mean I can't like his music.

London - 7/7/2005 - "Victory in Spite of All Terror"

2005-07-07T15:02:00.000-04:00

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

The London subway bombings. There are many dissimilarities, but it is probably not an exaggeration to say that this is Britain's "9/11".

This will be, and should be, the biggest story of the year. It also may be an important turning point in what will be a long fight against Islamic fascism. Many questions. Does this signal a strong or weak al Qaeda? Will this be the start of a new "wave" of attacks on the West?

What does this tell us about the enemy? Is there any solution to Islamic terrorism?

"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

How Britain reacts to these attacks, and more importantly, how the Islamic world and moderate Muslims respond are really the stories to watch and understand in the coming weeks.

"One ought never to turn one's back on a threatened danger and try to run away from it. If you do that, you will double the danger. But if you meet it promptly and without flinching, you will reduce the danger by half."

Will Great Britain respond as Spain did after the train bombings of 3/11/2003?

"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."

Or, has al Qaeda picked the wrong fight this time?

Al Qaeda must be reckoned with, but its leaders clearly have not read their history.

Britain has dealt with much more formidable foes. The largest, most aggressive, and most powerful military force in history could not defeat Great Britain in the 1930s and 1940s, what are the chances of a desperate group of religious fanatics?

What are their chances against a country that produced Winston Churchill, the man who uttered all of the quotes referenced here?

Churchill, when faced with the overwhelming might of Hitler's forces, and the choice of a "separate peace" for Great Britain, one that would have sentenced millions to Nazi oppression, responded with contempt for his enemy and faith in his people.

Winston Churchill knew the true nature of the fight. There would never be "peace" with the Nazis, and Britain's only real choice was to struggle for victory,

"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."

Islamic fascists and Nazis have a lot in common. Underestimating the British can now be added to the list.

"Which Side Are You On, Boy"?

2005-07-06T16:11:00.000-04:00

"Anarchists" at the G8 summit.

Hundreds of protesters clashed with riot police and attacked shops and other businesses ahead of the G8 summit in Scotland. The violence saw running battles being fought with police as groups of demonstrators smashed cars with iron bars and hurled bricks through the windows of a Burger King in the Springkerse retail park on the outskirts of Stirling.

And just what are they protesting?

Official G8 Summit Website

Which side are you on?

I Was Once an Insignificant Microbe....

2005-06-30T11:04:00.001-04:00

Now, I am a Slithering Reptile! ("Flappy Birds", here I come)

And, I have Non-Scientist David Kirby to thank, in a way. My handful of posts on the mercury/autism hysteria apparently brought me more than a few visitors (although very few comments). Enough for a significant TTLB ecosystem promotion.

What to do with my newfound fame? Well, "pay it forward" of course!

I shall now link to the last blog on the TTLB Ecosystem. I have not read it and cannot vouch for it, but I'm sure its fascinating.

And, my puny contribution might move it up from the humiliating, degrading spot that it is in right now, as the most insignificant of Insignificant Microbes, the last of 32,132 blogs listed at the TTLB site.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you:

Independent Catholic/Orthodox Blogs

Now please excuse me while I slither off to the lake for my 4th of July holiday weekend.

UPDATE:

No good deed goes unpunished. Apparently, I have been demoted (back) to Crawly Amphibian over the last few days.

And, do I get any love from Mr. Independent Catholic/Orthodox Blogs? Not in this lifetime.

Karma, my ass.

Song of the Week - 18

2005-06-30T11:04:00.000-04:00

X - Fourth of July - Track 3

Trivia tidbit: John Doe, lead singer for X, makes a brief appearance in Boogie Nights as Julianne Moore's ex-husband.

Now please promptly forget this useless information.

Bush Iraq Speech

2005-06-29T14:43:00.000-04:00

Check out Daniel Drezner's blog for an interesting take on the Bush/Iraq speech. Its an "open thread", with several dozen comments. Drezner's blog gets some pretty bright people from the right and the left, and there is no hotter subject than this one right now.

Great example of the open dialogue going on only on the blogosphere. Reading through the comments, you can probably find reasons to believe what you believe, and reasons to change your mind on this subject. Which is always good.

I caught most of the speech last night, and on the whole, I thought Bush did well. He looked confident, and probably accomplished his main mission, to let the world and US military know that we are "standing firm" in the war on terror. Rhetoric I know, but that's what Presidents are supposed to offer.

His approval numbers are down considerably, and American support for the war is very low (around 30-35%?), so he is up against public opinion, and I'm not sure that there is anything that he could have said to make the opposition (the left/paleocons/NY Times et al.) happy, short of "I'm sorry, you were right, I was wrong".

The most interesting thing about the speech is the fact that Bush mentioned 9/11 six times, and did not shy away from making connections with those attacks, and the war in Iraq. At first, I was sure that this was a tactical error on Bush's (and his advisors') part. What is to be gained by emphasizing a point that is continually criticized as "deceptive" by the press and by his opponents?

After some consideration however, it seems that Bush is upping the ante in this debate.

The left and others who oppose the war want to claim that there is no connection at all between 9/11 and the war.

George Bush believes that there is a connection.

At no point does he say or even imply that Saddam had any direct involvement with 9/11, but that is not his point. The connection between al Qaeda and Saddam's Iraq was a deep hatred for the US and the west, and the need for chaos and instability to survive.

There are some similarities between the al Qaeda/Iraq discussion, and the links between Japan and Germany in the 1930s. They each had their own agenda, their interests overlapped, and they had common enemies. Hitler had no idea that Pearl Harbor was to have been attacked, (in fact, Germany (von Ribbentrop and Hitler) had been assured that no attack would take place by Japan without Germany's knowledge). But, he saw strategic advantages to the attack for Germany, particularly in its diversion of US focus away from Europe. (Or so Hitler hoped), and he applauded Japan's efforts.

Anyway, it does no good to draw any grand conclusions from this analogy - the circumstances are very different. But no one would make the point that there was no "connection" between Japan and Germany in 1941, even though each represented a distinctly different threat to the United States and the world.

Why is it so difficult for some to see similar connections in the current circumstances?

George Bush is often accused of being simple, of lacking "nuance". Well, it seems to me that those who cannot see any connections between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda are the ones that might be lacking "nuance" in their analysis.

Hiroshima and Operation Downfall - 60 Years Later

2005-06-28T12:04:00.000-04:00

In the next few weeks, we will start to see mainstream news coverage of the 60th anniversary of the bombings of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9). Thought I'd get a little head start on the subject.

There will be solemn commemorations, and ceremonies to remember the approximately 200,000 victims killed or injured by the only nuclear weapons ever used in war. And, no doubt there will also be renewed criticisms of the decision to drop "the bomb", along with efforts by activists and editorialists to castigate the US for its barbaric "militarism".

The further that the summer of 1945 recedes from our collective memory, the easier it is to see the use of nuclear weapons in Japan as an inhuman act inflicted on a weakened enemy.

This was the "end of the war". Japan was ready to surrender, but the US wanted to flex its muscles, right?

Wrong.

To provide some perspective, and some interesting insight into the matter, it helps to know about "Operation Downfall", the military alternative to the use of atomic weapons to defeat Japan.

This summary at the Silent Running blog (from 2003) is a great synopsis of the subject, as is this article.

For a very detailed analysis of the military preparations on both sides, read this, (from www.ibiblio.org a very interesting site)

Operation Downfall (two phases, Olympic and Coronet), was the contingency plan for the land invasion of Japan by US forces. This plan, approved 60 years ago today by Harry Truman, would have resulted in the largest, and likely the bloodiest, battle in history.

The US had plans to deploy up to 5 million soldiers in the course of the battles, with around 550,000 servicemen landing in the first hours and days at Kyushu, the southernmost Japanese home island.

Due to some very good guesswork by the Japanese military, Kyushu was already heavily fortified, and would have been very difficult to take. (American intelligence expected a 2:1 or even 3:1 advantage at Kyushu, the reality is that the ratio was likely 1:1, or even 2:3) . Operation Ketsu-Go was the Japanese defense plan.

This battle that never occurred would have made Normandy look like a gentlemen's duel.

Once a foothold on the Japanese mainland was established, there would have likely been several months of fierce fighting ahead, (Operation Coronet, scheduled for March 1946), and tens, if not hundreds of thousands more casualties.

How many would have died?

This is a subject of contentious debate, with a wide range in the estimates. Wikipedia's
entry on the subject might be a decent place to start. Certainly the number of American casualties would have been in the 100,000 plus range within the first 90 days, with some estimates at the time running about 1 million total expected American casualties.

Expectations of US experts at the time were grim. As Wikipedia notes:

Nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the casualties resulting from the invasion of Japan. As of 2005 all the American military casualties of the following sixty years—including the Korean and Vietnam Wars have not exhausted that stockpile.

But it is safe to say that the Japanese people would have suffered the greatest casualties in the invasion. Here is another objective, and helpful summary of the subject. As this article notes, in prior Japanese/US battles, "on average, 5 Japanese soldiers died for each American death".

There were approximately 2.35 million Japanese soldiers on the mainland, with millions of civilians also prepared to fight. The national slogan of Japan at the time, "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation", was not just propaganda.

It does not seem a stretch of the imagination to say, as the article linked above, that "certainly Japanese casualties would be in the multiple millions. "

In addition to the millions of potential battle casualties, Japan was on the verge of famine due to blockades and the war effort. An extended battle for the homeland may have led to "tens of millions of Japanese deaths from famine". (This is from the excellent comments on the Silent Running post above)

There are other considerations, including the hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war that likely would have been executed upon an American invasion, and potential casualties of a Russian invasion of northern Japan.

104,000 Japanese were killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945, victims of a horrible new weapon technology. On August 6 and 9, these people should be remembered and honored.

But it is very likely that hundreds of thousands of American men, and millions of Japanese men women and children lived on, because of these same weapons. This should be remembered as well.

From Azerbaijan to Zimbabwe

2005-06-28T09:37:00.000-04:00

The Carnival of Revolutions is up at Willisms.

Only a few weeks until my turn....

Autism and Mercury - What to Read on the Subject

2005-06-27T11:44:00.000-04:00

Recently, over a beer, a friend mentioned that one of his buddies just had a baby, and was very concerned over the potential "dangers" of mercury in vaccinations. Very interesting to hear this, given the subject matter on this blog over the last couple of weeks. I said I was done with the topic, but like Michael Corleone, when I want to get out, they pull me back in.

Now where did this new parent learn about the "risks" of inoculation? Well, Imus in the Morning of course. Great to know that radio personalities are chipping in on the effort to add to already elevated stress levels of parents of young children.

Thanks, Imus!
.

Having children is a joy, but it also brings worries and concerns out in the open that will literally keep a new parent up at night.

Just what should a parent worry about?

Well, as a parent, I could worry about the horrors of childhood leukemia, rare but devastating, or I could worry about the much more common risk that a minor car accident could injure or kill my child due to an unsecure baby seat. And, of these two worries, there is only one that I can do anything about.

Thanks to vaccinations, however, I don't have to worry about my kids dying from measles, going deaf because of mumps, or being crippled by polio.

But autism is a mysterious, and seemingly "modern" condition. Its not for me, or for anyone, to tell a new parent not to worry about it.

We don't know what causes autism. The best guess is that it is genetic, (data on autistic twins
seems to back this up) . However, symptoms do not show up until a child is 2-4 years old, right around the most active part of a typical vaccination schedule. This has led many to assume that there is a link. And the culptrit in this "link" has been thimerosal, a mercury based preservative found in most vaccines. Now, some are claiming that this mercury in vaccinations has caused an autism "epidemic".

However, there is no scientific proof of this. None.

Years of peer-reviewed studies by the top scientists in their fields on this subject, and no proof. I won't go through the details here, you can check some of my recent posts, or better yet, click to the more thorough and knowledgable blogs I have listed below.

I have said before that if doctors and scientists start coming out and expressing concern, I will listen. But we only hear from journalists (like David Kirby) and activists (like Robert F. Kennedy) who want us to believe that anyone denying a link is on the payroll of big drug companies or has some other sort of conflict of interest. This focus by laymen on a very complicated scientific subject is a red flag, to me.

(By the way, there really is no sign that there is an autism "epidemic" either. The rise in diagnoses of autism in the last 10-15 years coincides with a similar drop in diagnoses of "mental retardation". Its likely that the autism "epidemic" that anti-vaccination activists point to is simply due to a change in terms and definitions.)

Every parent should learn about this issue. But it seems that, with the help of Don Imus, parents are more likely to hear hysterical conspiracy theories than facts. So, it is up to each parent to do their own detective work.

The best sources that I have found (outside of the CDC or NIH websites) for this issue are a few blogs that recently have specialized in "debunking" the autism/mercury hysteria:

Orac Knows

Skeptico

Autism Diva

(A recent Wall Street Journal editorial on the subject, and on Robert F. Kennedy's incessant activism, is also useful)

All three of these bloggers have been relentless and meticulous in dismantling the mercury/autism "links", and have no ulterior motives (that I can tell) for taking the positions that they do. My advice to any new parent is to read these sites and judge for themselves.

And once again, my advice to Imus is to stick to his unique brand of social satire, and to understand that he is doing more harm than good with his coverage of this subject.

Song of the Week - 17

2005-06-24T15:57:00.000-04:00

John Cale - Andalucia (Track 4)

Now, my favorite John Cale song is Hallelujah, (track 20, written by Leonard Cohen), but Shrek just absolutely ruined the song for me. One of the most beautiful songs of the last few decades, and its used in a cartoon about a flatulent green monster. Bad idea.

In the movie, they should have played the part where Cale sings:

There was a time you let me know
What's really going on below
Now you never show it to me, do you?

That would have raised a few eyebrows.

Anyway, Andalucia. Good song.

"Conservative" Blog Endorses French Author!

2005-06-24T10:53:00.000-04:00

Very interesting interview with French author Michel Houellebecq in LA Weekly, via www.aldaily.com.

(Once again, if you only have an hour or so here and there to read, and want access to great articles on everything-under-the-sun, bookmark the aldaily website and visit every day. )

The article describes Houellebecq as "the most celebrated French writer of his generation".

High praise, I guess. A French Dan Brown. Ha ha. But he is also pretty much reviled in Europe for his writing, which has been sharply critical of, well, it seems, just about everything in the modern world. (Although he is mostly notorious for his contempt for the Islamic religion, for which he was actually put on trial in France recently - he was acquitted).

It is safe to say that Houellebecq is not happy about much, and apparently writes fairly well about this. Just what the world needs, another disaffected, pretentious, post-modern bore, railing against the system. A real "nihilist", all ennui and smelly french cigarettes.

But not really.

Consider this exchange, on religion, in the interview:

I asked Houellebecq if Europe’s status as a largely post-religious society was a major factor in his writing.

"Yes. I think it’s one of the most important points in the life of people, in society in general," he replied. "

And what do you think of a society that is post-religious, or not religious?"

"I don’t ask myself if it’s better or no, because it’s not a choice. People don’t really choose to believe or not. I think it’s more difficult to live without a religion, definitely."

"Is that part of the unhappiness that you’re describing?"

"Yes, certainly. I think after a certain number of generations you forget the hope itself. "

Of course, this does not make the author a religious "apologist". Houellebecq hardly seems like a religious person, but does recognize the role that religion plays in our lives. Seems like a simple concept, but those are two thoughts that many modern (and post-modern) authors cannot seem to keep in their head at the same time.

One can be agnostic and still appreciate religion. I should know.

And then there are these sharp, insightful comments about the disconnect between most authors and the real world:

"I think that if writers don’t speak about real life, it’s because they don’t know it," he told me when I asked him about the gloomy realism that pervades his work.

"Many writers are journalists or teachers, so they are in a special milieu already. They don’t know the life of basic people. That’s why they don’t describe it. I think the explanation is as simple as that."

Again, no deep metaphysical analysis here. Just clear observation. Comments you might expect from Elmore Leonard or Tom Clancy, but probably not from the preeminent French novelist of the day.

Houellebecq seems to have no allegiances, no real agenda. Yes, he is pretty unhappy with everyone, everything, with "life". The introduction to his book about horror writer H P Lovecraft ( a real nihilist, by the way) starts with the line:

"Life is painful and disappointing".

Ouch.

The alcohol, espresso, cigarettes, mistresses, and world-weary cynicism that you would expect from a French literary intellectual, they are all there.

But he also seems to have a real appreciation for the world, and for people, something that disqualifies him as a nihilist, and probably makes his "post-modern" peers a little uncomfortable. Hard to explain, this just somehow comes through in the article. (Read for yourself and see if you agree).

As the article's author sums up,

"In an era of phony rebels, Houellebecq is the rare real thing".

I think I like this guy Houellebecq. I'm off to amazon.com to check him out.

Back to Iraq. Jack.

2005-06-23T15:51:00.000-04:00

Weaning myself off thimerosal kick. Withdrawal symptoms severe. Must... link... via Instapundit on.... unrelated subject.

Hold the phone. A positive story from the BBC about al Jazeera's criticism of the Sunni Baathist terrorists in Iraq? Satan's minions are whipping up a batch of frozen daquaris as we speak!

Apparently, the savage, indiscriminate violence of the Iraqi "resistance" over the last several months, which has been been largely ineffective against the American "occupiers" but has succeeded in killing hundreds of innocent Iraqi men, women and children, is starting to bother the Arab media.

As the linked BBC story on Arab media coverage of the Iraq war points out:

The coverage of the violence in Iraq by Arab satellite television stations has undergone a perceptible change in recent months.

Eyewitnesses are shown denouncing them as "terrorists" - condemnations that are echoed by a parade of Iraqi officials and religious authorities.

The militants are no longer referred to as the "resistance" but as gunmen or suicide bombers.

Hey, I thought one man's "terrorist" was another man's "freedom fighter".

What's with the change of heart?

One recent attack drew this comment from the al-Jazeera reporter: "Most of the time it's civilians who pay the price for the violence that has cost thousands of their lives"

Where is Ward Churchill when you need him? He needs to explain that these "innocent" civilians are nothing more than "little Eichmanns".

And, is there a "domino effect" at work?

In the wider Arab world, several newspapers have condemned the killings in Iraq - for example, the Saudi al-Jazeera - unconnected to the television channel - said that they were a "black mark on the whole Islamic world"

They are just realizing this now?

There was dancing in the streets on 9/11, but now, I guess that the "chickens have come home to roost". (Another Ward Churchill favorite).

Seriously, maybe this is where the tide turns. The US was never very good at "winning hearts and minds" (as if we ever could against the stacked PR deck that is the Arab Middle East.) But this may not matter much.

It seems more likely that al Qaeda, with their brutal and clumsy terrorism, will just continue to lose the "hearts and minds" there.

Brian Williams and Chris Dodd Drink The Imus/Autism Kool Aid

2005-06-22T14:51:00.000-04:00

You know, I promised that I would move on, but it seems that every morning, when I tune into Imus on my ride to work, I get an earful of nonsense about mercury and autism. So, I am compelled to comment, yet again.

Today, Imus had Sen. Chris Dodd from Connecticut on, who apparently raised the issue himself, and promised that there will be "Senate hearings" forthcoming on the purported links between thimerosal and autism.

Imus continues to couch all of his statements with the "I don't know the truth but don't you think we should look into this" line, trying to sound objective. But, when he complains to Sen. Dodd that the Drug companies "have ruined thousands of lives" and should be held accountable, you know where he stands on the subject. Seems pretty close to a slanderous statement to me.

Sen. Dodd's statement that "someone should be looking into all of this" seems to negate all of the hard work that hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists and researchers have already put into the subject. I suppose that "someone should be looking into all of this" until they find that the Drug companies are to blame for autism.

Oh, well. Have at it, Senator. But make sure you follow it up with an investigation into my theory that we are all descended from Martian grasshoppers. It may not make sense to you, but no one has proven that we aren't descended from Martian grasshoppers yet, right? A Senate panel should get to the bottom of that one as well.

At this point, I'm a little annoyed, but of course, Dodd is not exactly Jonas Salk.

After Dodd, NBC News anchor Brian Williams, who I happen to like, gets on the line.

Imus does not lead with the autism/mercury issue (to his credit), yet Williams brings it up in a bizarre segue from a discussion about Senator Durbin's recent "Nazi/Guantanomo Bay" remarks. Williams was so obviously intent on kow-towing to Imus that he just skipped right past the subject at hand and jumped into an assurance that NBC Nightly News will be addressing this issue shortly. Stay tuned. I'm sure they'll do a fantastic job covering the subject.

Williams' motivation? Well, apparently he has some friends with an autistic child. Now that is unfortunate, I guess, but what does this say about his journalistic objectivity?

Now, I'm pissed.

We have RFK Jr, Chris Dodd, Harold Ford, Don Imus, and Brian Williams all joining up against the prevailing wisdom, and solid science, that shows that there is absolutely no proof of a causal link between mercury/vaccines and autism.

Imus, I enjoy your schtick. Funny impressions of Richard Nixon and Dr. Phil, song parodies, wacky sportscasters, all make for an interesting ride to work in the morning for me.
And, to hear politicians and journalists kiss your ass daily, well, that is priceless.

But stay away from science and medicine.

And, this is my last post on the matter, really.

Welcome Yahoo Group Visitors

2005-06-20T13:52:00.000-04:00

I notice that I am getting quite a few visits via the Yahoo EOHarm Group. I encourage you to leave comments.

My guess is that we might not see eye-to-eye on the subject that I have posted about recently, but I am open to thoughts and dialogue on the matter. If you click around the site, you will see that I only started posting about thimerosal last week, and that I am not a "vaccine blogger". I do however, have some strong opinions on this subject.

In any event, thanks for coming by.

Japanese Autism Study

2005-06-20T13:05:00.000-04:00

Probably the last post here on this subject. Promise.

More proof in a sea of data showing no correlation between thimerosal/mercury and autism.

Results of a recent Japanese study, as related at MedPage Today, and published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry back in March.

In the study, which tested recipients of a MMR (measles-mumps-rubella) vaccine,

"researchers tracked the records of 31,426 children born in one district of Yokohama between 1988 and 1996. Study results revealed that autism cases doubled even after the combined vaccine was withdrawn: there were 48 to 86 cases per 10,000 children prior to withdrawal of the vaccine and there were 97 to 161 cases per 10,000 children afterward. The triple vaccine was removed in Japan in 1993."

Autism rates rose, doubled, after the vaccine was discontinued. This study seems to prove what the numbers show in Canada and Denmark, where thimerosal has been out of vaccinations for ten years. That is, there is no causal link between thimerosal and autism. (Thimerosal/mercury was not mentioned in this article, but I assume that this is the reason for the study - I'll track down the actual study next and correct this post if that is not the case).

Anyway, no evidence of a link, no "evidence of harm". None.

Something is "causing" autism, but its not vaccinations.

Thimerosal and Autism, Yet Again

2005-06-20T10:24:00.000-04:00

Somewhere, this morning, there are some very busy, happy trial lawyers, building a case, while they are dreaming of building a third home....

Orac follows up on the thimerosal/autism debate, and it looks like he is running out of steam on the subject. That's fine, because he probably needs a break, and I'm not sure that there will be any way from preventing the likes of Robert F. Kennedy and David Kirby from continuing to whip up hysteria on the subject.

Orac does lay out a reasonable case for some sort of resolution to the discussion, by pointing out that:

"the last lot of thimerosal-containing vaccines expired in January 2003."

That's right, no more mercury in vaccines folks. Should help calm fears, no?

If one believes that thimerosal causes autism, then we should start to see autism rates drop, and drop dramatically, in the US, over the next 5-10 years.

Just as we can look to Denmark and Canada, where thimerosal was banned in 1995, and we can see that...

Autism rates have stayed about the same in those countries.

I'm not a scientist. I am not an expert in epidemiology, biochemistry, neurology, cognitive disorders, immunobiology, or anything even closely related to these subjects.

But, the example above seems like a pretty good place to start when trying to figure out whether there is a link or not. Let me put it in a way that a non-scientist like myself can understand. If we thought ice cream caused cancer we would probably ban ice cream. If, ten years later, we saw no change in cancer levels in the population, we would probably understand that we were wrong about ice cream. We might even reconsider the ban on ice cream.

Seems to me that the proof of the lack of any link between thimerosal and autism is in Denmark, and in Canada. Of course, this is ignored by David Kirby, Robert F. Kennedy, and many others who continue to push the thimerosal/autism "link". For them, this crusade is not about science, but about some form of "justice" I suppose.

Orac commented in a post below that he saw similarities between creationists and the anti-vax/anti thimerosal crowd (yes, I know they are not one and the same, but they eat at the same table). Some obvious differences of course. Creationists are largely "conservative", and the anti-vax crowd seems to be primarily liberal-left. Both however, share a suspicion of science, and by extension, the "authority of reason" that science represents. And, both groups are good and getting better at using "science" to back their claims. So, as Orac points out, they are becoming better than the real experts in these areas in getting their message out and convincing the average person of their claim.

And, like creationists, the thimerosal/autism believers refuse to acknowledge any proof that would make them question their fundamental beliefs. This debate is not about science, no matter how technical this discussion gets.

The most interesting similarity however, between the two groups, is that they both start with the "answers" and work their ways backwards the "facts". This really is the fundamentalists approach to logic and reason.

When faced with difficult questions, it is human nature to want simple answers. The tragedy of autistm is as difficult and heartrending as any subject I can think of. What is the simplest answer? If you muddle through the shoddy science of the anti-thimerosal crowd, you will see a common thread, a consistent group of culprits conspiring against American families. As liberal cartoonist Tom Tomorrow puts it, he sees an " ....unholy alliance of bottom-line Big Pharma, lapdog politicians and arrogant physicians conspired to keep this information from the public" behind this controversy.

For emphasis, he adds "First, do no harm, my ass".

For Tom Tomorrow, and probably many others, the villains are not just "Big Pharma" or politicians, but the entire medical community. Any doctor who does not sign on to the anti-vax hysteria is a conspirator, guilty of violating the Hippocratic Oath.

Now that is fishing with a wide net.

Big, easy targets, case closed. Fatcats in suits, "arrogant" Doctors, weasely politicians. The usual suspects, no matter what the controversy. This is why you have RFK Jr., and not say, C. Everett Koop leading the "fight", and in the end, why reason and empirical evidence will not matter in the discussion.

So, I agree with Orac that, by the time it has been definitively proven that there is no link between mercury in vaccines and autism, the discussion will have already shifted. It will be the next vaccine preservative, or the actual vaccines themselves (as many already in the anti-vax crowd now claim) that causes autism, or some other tragic, naturally occuring disorders and diseases.

As I said, its human nature that we want simple answers to difficult questions. I just don't think that this is necessarily a good thing.

The Real Danger Surrounding the Vaccination Debate

2005-06-18T08:38:00.000-04:00

Update on the Mercury / Autism "link".

JM O'Donnell at Immunoblogging (a new blogger from New Zealand) has a great post on the potential impact of anti-vaccination hysteria. Its a must read.

O'Donnell writes about a meningitis outbreak in New Zealand that has killed hundreds, and the NZ government's efforts to immunize against the disease:

Now with the option of a vaccine, we see all the cranks come out of the woodwork. Although the spectacle of watching them generally flaunt their ignorance about the origins of the vaccine, how vaccines work and more is mere amusement to someone trained in immunology or any other medical field, to the general lay person they sound fairly convincing. When it comes to playing with peoples lives with utter nonsense you really do have to be worried. Some parents have already withdrawn their children from the immunisation campaign. Although they are lucky that compliance rates are high, around 89% so herd immunity should still apply, if mass people left the campaign things would fall apart fairly quickly. Worse, I hope that these withdawls are not concentrated in any particular area, which could lead to a small local outbreak among the non-immunised individuals.

Parents of autistic children may find some sort of solace in a mercury/autism link, in that it might provide "answers" about a mysterious condition, and offers hope through a "cure" through alternative therapies. This desire for answers and a cure is understandable, and I have no problem with it.

However, the long term effects may be a dangerous suspicion of vaccines, a modern technology that has literally saved millions of lives.

The Immunoblogging post points out just one problem with the anti-vax trend, that even limited non-participation in vaccination campaigns can lead to ineffective immunization efforts for the larger population.

Vaccinations should not necessarily be compulsory, but the groups that are creating and feeding off of supposed "links" between thimerosal/mercury and autism should understand the serious and potentially deadly game they are playing.

This is the real danger to think about when discussing the issue of vaccinations.

Mercury, Autism, and Imus

2005-06-17T10:31:00.000-04:00

OracKnows provides consistently smart analysis of the mercury/thimerosal/autism "link" debate, and this morning, has a comprehensive fisking of a Salon/Rolling Stone "expose" on the subject.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who wrote the article in question, has decided to crusade on this issue, which is being positioned in conspiracy and "cover-up" terms. The culprits of course, are big Drug companies and Government agencies, the victims, families and children. This probably makes sense to a lot of people, that Eli Lilly and the US Government have essentially joined forces to cause an autism epidemic by using mercury in vaccines, and are covering up the evidence so well that no scientist has been able to prove any of it.

Thank God self appointed activists like RFK Jr. can step in to reveal all of this to us. We can trust him, but not scientists.

Coincidentally, David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, was on Imus in the Morning today. Don Imus, who has significant influence with politicians and journalists, has also hopped on the mercury/autism bandwagon, although he is good at talking out of both sides of his mouth on the subject. On one hand, he emphasizes that there is "no scientific proof" of a link, but at the same time, he pushes Kirby's biased, unscientific book, and he urges Senators, Congressmen and journalists to investigate. (I think RFK Jr. was to have been on, but I had to get to work).

I have heard Imus bring this subject up with John McCain, Congressman Harold Ford, and this morning, Chris Matthews, and none of them have questioned the "link" between autism and mercury. Imus needs to stick to subjects he knows, like political parody or country music.

On the Imus show, Kirby once again played the "objective" reporter just looking for the "truth", and Imus congratulated him on this objectivity, and his book's "balance". Ridiculous.

Two interesting points that Kirby brought up.

One, he claims that autism rates among 3-4 year olds in two states - Indiana and (NC? not sure of the other one) are dropping. He refered to "a study"that is showing this to be the case, and is making a direct connection to the removal of thimerosal from vaccines for these states in 2001. However, he did not name the study, or provide any other information on it, and he referred to "slight drops" in the rates, which of course could be, and will probably be, statistically unimportant. Kirby conveniently leaves out the fact that while Denmark and Canada removed thimerosal from vaccines in 1995, there have been no measurable drops in autism rates in those countries. From the OracKnows post:

In any case, if thimerosal in vaccines were the cause of autism, we would expect autism rates in Denmark and Canada to have plummeted recently, because Denmark eliminated thimerosal from its vaccines by 1995 and Canada removed them around the same time. No such decrease in autism rates has occurred in either country, even though there has been more than enough time for such a decrease to make itself apparent if there were truly a link between mercury exposure and autism

and

That there has been no such decrease is very strong epidemiological evidence that there is no link.

This is how science works, but many, RFK, Don Imus, and unfortunately, desperate parents of autistic children, refuse to acknowledge this.

Second, Kirby bluntly stated that he expects congressional hearings by the fall on this subject. I suppose that this would be good and bad, but mostly bad. The facts and good science could win the debate in a forum like this, but the media will of course spin the story and offer soundbites from grieving parents and spotlight whore activists.

Congressional investigations will just lead us to where we are now, with thousands of parents of autistic children clinging to bad science and useless speculation in an attempt to ease their pain. But none of this will help them, or their children.

Imus, David Kirby, and Robert F. Kennedy should be ashamed.

Don't Know Much About the Iranian Election?

2005-06-16T13:23:00.000-04:00

Well, its tomorrow (Friday), its a bit of a joke, and its well summarized in this "cheat sheet" from the current issue of Foreign Policy.

Its interesting to see how "democracy" works in a non-democratic country. I guess its something like being a little bit pregnant.

UPDATE:

To learn more, check out the blog Regime Change Iran

Song of the Week - 16

2005-06-16T13:04:00.000-04:00

The Sheila Divine - Hum

Track 4 - Good sample of song.

One of the best loud, catchy, pop/rock songs of the last several years. Sounds like its from 1988 or so. The band had a spotty career, and are now defunct, but boy, this is a great song.

Just What is A Carnival of Revolutions?

2005-06-16T10:24:00.000-04:00

In my previous post, I mentioned that I was going to try to draw out some deep meaning to the phenomenom of the Carnival of Revolutions, the weekly roundup of blog coverage of global-political events.

After meditating for three days in the desert, wearing nothing but a hair shirt (and hair pants), and subsisting on lizards, peyote and power bars, I have come up with some answers.

First, here are links to a few recent Carnivals:

Registan

Willisms

Gateway Pundit

Go to any Carnival, pick a subject, country or region, click away, and learn. What is going on in South America? In Ethiopia?, in the Middle East? Its all there.

Concise, clear analysis, links to essays and articles, vibrant discussions, coverage on global issues that rivals or beats most of the coverage in the mainstream media. An hour or two each week with the Carnival will put you at the head of the class on these subjects.

But what is the Carnival of Revolutions all about?

To me, it is about the spread of democracy in the modern world, the resistance to this process by authoritarians, and the complex factors underlying this "exchange". And, it is about technology. The tug-of-war between freedom and oppression that has gone on throughout history is now broadcast live, on your computer, courtesy of thousands of bloggers, many showcased weekly at the Carnival of Revolutions. .

(A great example of the technology/freedom interaction is the estimated 75,000 Iranian bloggers who have a sort of freedom of speech that their clerics and leaders would probably prefer they not have.)

OK, so that is what the COR is about I guess - where technology meets liberty. Pretty simple.

Well, you say, "sounds interesting, but these are stories about far-away places, and foreigners who have nothing to do with our lives, right? And, I have many other things to think about. My job, my family, the Red Sox, my golf game. Reality TV. You know, important things. Where does the Carnival of Revolutions fit in to all of this? Isn't it a little pointless to learn about Uzbekistan or Zimbabwe or Venezuala?"

"Why should I/we care about something like the Carnival of Revolutions?"

Well, consider this:

On and around September 12, 2001, we started to hear that Americans knew nothing about the rest of the world.

(The implication of course, was that this lack of knowledge equated a lack of concern and was a sign of our arrogance. And, ultimately, this all related to the "root causes" of the terrorism that we had experienced on 9/11. I'd strongly disagree, but that is a different subject.)

Anyway, the fact was that on Sept 11, 2001, we (most Americans) were largely ignorant of global issues. At the time, while I felt that I may have known more than the average bear about these issues, I did not know the difference between a Shia and a Sunni, and actually initally confused Osama bin Laden with the Blind Sheik of the prior WTC attack. My knowledge of foreign policy was extremely limited, and, as I tried to process the horrifying events of that Tuesday morning, I realized that I needed to understand. I needed to "go to school".

The first step for me was to go to the library and find a book on the Middle East. My instinct told me to stay away from recent anaylysis. One studies anatomy and physiology before learning surgery, and I knew that I would rather read raw history than some current expert's opinion, at least in the beginning of the learning process.

So I picked up a copy O Jerusalem, a history of Israeli/ Arab-Palestinian relations in the 20th C (up to mid 70s, when the book was written). By the way, fantastic book, written (as far as I could tell) objectively, with an equal Arab/Palestinian and Jewish perspective. What I learned from this book is a fraction of what I needed to understand, but an important fraction.

Since then, I have continued to read; books, journal and magazine articles, editorials. I've watched PBS documentaries and Cspan panels, and talked and argued with friends and family, all to try and understand.

And, of course, I have read blogs. Austin Bay,, Belgravia Dispatch, Belmont Club, Michael Totten. And now, Publius Pundit, Gateway Pundit, Willisms, (blogrolled if you need to link) and many more that may be asking the same questions that I am, but who seem to have more answers than I do.

There is a cycle here. I found that I needed to know more about global issues on 9/12, to learn about subjects that I did not care about on 9/10. So, I read books. The more I learned, the more interested in the subjects I became. The fact that I did not find any "answers" did not deter me. It actually spurred me on. So I found blogs. (Still reading those books occasionally - guess I'm old fashioned).

And, between books and blogs, I know that I would never know enough, but I will always know more today than I did yesterday. This is exciting, but when it comes to the traumatic events of 9/11, for me, it is also comforting.

But what about the quality of the blogs? Well, judge for yourself, but I would make the case that while there are many bad blogs, there are also many bad books. Caveat Emptor.

Much of the blogosphere, including what is included here, offers what I like to call "karaoke journalism". Looks and sounds like journalism, but its really a group of amateurs with some technology behind them. Not that there is anything wrong with this. Karaoke seems to fill a need for many people, and it is actually very entertaining to watch. But one does not watch/listen to karaoke for the quality of the music, and one does not generally read blogs for the coverage of important world events.

Except for the handful of offerings like the blogs mentioned, and of course, the Carnival of Revolutions.

The COR coverage, more than Time or Newsweek, more than Fox or CNN, certainly more than discussions with your brother-in-law, even more than in-depth journals like Foreign Affairs, allows a reader to "go to school" on global issues.

The scene shifts from a smoky barroom with a karaoke machine to a brightly-lit university classroom.

The best blogs offer graduate level discussion and analysis. Go to the comment section on any Michael Totten or Jane Galt post, and I guarantee you will be floored by the depth of knowledge and insight from both the bloggers and the commenters.

And while the Carnival of Revolutions contains posts as sophisticated as any found on the internet, it is set up so that anyone can step in and learn about global issues.

So, for someone just getting their feet wet, who has graduated from Bill O'Reilly or Air America, at least in the sense that they are tired of having someone else provide "answers" for them, the Carnival of Revolutions is a great place to start.

And, for those, (primarily on the left), who enjoyed pointing out how much we did not "know" about the world in the fall of 2001, well, at least we are now making the effort.

That is really what the Carnival of Revolutions is all about.

You Say You Want a (Carnival of) Revolutions

2005-06-13T14:38:00.000-04:00

Well, then go on over to Gateway Pundit!

I will be hosting the COR in late July, and I have to say, I'm a little nervous.

The quality of the Carnivals over the last several weeks has been outstanding, hosted at blogs that make my site look like the product of a monkey jumping on a Commodore 64 keyboard.

Not to mention that my monthly hits would make a decent hour for Publius, Gateway Pundit, and Willisms.
.
For regular readers of The COR, the soapgun version might be a little like seeing a no-name independent musician in a tiny club right after the U2 and Rolling Stones concerts. But the size of an audience does not necessarily correlate to the quality of the music, and hopefully this holds true for blogging, or at least for this blog. And, "from the tiny acorn" and all that....

I feel that I have a decent grasp of the issues at the heart of the Carnival of Revolutions. (If you care to click around on the blog, you may judge this for yourself. Try this one. Or this one. Or even this one. (These examples are admittedly Islam/Iraq centric). Even so, the quality of all of the other Carnivals and the annoying expertise of the uber-bloggers behind these efforts, has me concerned.

My blogging coach, Sven, (5 time blogging medalist, Copenhagen, 1986) has advised me to write primarily COR type posts for a while. This focus, (plus blood doping and little white pills), should allow me to compete at the next level.

So for the next several weeks, I will spend most of my blogging time writing about the issues at the heart of the Carnival of Revolutions. (Don't worry, you'll still get the homespun wisdom, folksy tall-tales, and ribald humor that brought you here).

The first order of business will be to try and define the general issues at hand.

What binds Ethiopia with Bolivia, Iraq and Kyrgystan? What is it about these disparate places that inspires otherwise average people to write, and write expertly (present company excluded here) for no pay, and little recognition?

Or simply, just what is a Carnival of Revolutions?

I'll do my part to figure some of this out, and present it here over the coming month. Most of what I will say will probably have been said before, but in the process, I'll learn a few things myself, and, in the end, offer up a Carnival that does not disappoint.

Song of the Week - 15

2005-06-09T14:10:00.000-04:00

Jonathan Richman - That Summer Feeling

(Click, scroll down - track 7. Clip does not really do the song justice.)

I've been trying to come up with some good summer songs, and this one is currently at the top of my list, but I'm sure that there are many, many more that I am not thinking of.

JR may be a bit of an acquired taste, but worth the effort. He's kind of goofy, but offers some seriously well written songs. He has been prolific over the last two decades, and has admirably stuck to his own unique style.

This song just nails the bittersweet nostalgia that comes along with summer every year. At least for me.

Here's the intro:

When the cool of the pond makes you drop down on it
When the smell of the lawn makes you flop down on it
When the teenage car gets the cop down on it

That time is here for one more year
And that summer feeling is gonna haunt you one day in your life

(shoop shoop)

And then he is even able to rhyme "catamaran" with "flat of the land". Now that's good songwriting.

(By the way, this is song 15 for the Soapgun Compilation disc. All who have responded will get one - just give me a week or so. Thanks.)

There really is "Power" in a Union

2005-06-09T13:53:00.000-04:00

File under "Union Benefits" - From MSNBC today:

BOSTON - The state is investigating allegations that longshoremen’s union locals in Boston have placed children as young as 2½ on the payroll in a scheme to give them higher wages as adult dockworkers.

Gasp. Crooked union members fleecing the system? Next thing you know, they'll be "gambling at the casino".

An industry official involved in the investigation told The Boston Globe the alleged scam was uncovered earlier this year when shipping officials noticed that a new union member had the same name as the 10-year-old granddaughter of a prominent longshoreman....

Of course union officials were unaware of the goings-on:

We were absolutely shocked," Massachusetts Port Authority spokeswoman Danny Levy told the Boston Herald.

Well, at least somebody was shocked by the news.

This makes it much harder for me to sympathize with those complaining about jobs that are being lost to overseas competitors.

Jane Galt vs. The Gray Lady

2005-06-08T12:59:00.000-04:00

Jane Galt takes the NY Times to task for statistical shenanigans in their editorial on the US government's aid to Africa.

Once again, we are being chided for not being generous enough, with predictable comparisons between humanitarian aid and military spending. The implication of the editorial is that the aid issue is zero sum. Money spent on bombs should/could be spent on grain/medicine.

Apparently, even the sophisticates at the NY Times think that the world is that simple. Bumper sticker ideology in the pages of the most "respected" newspaper in the world.

But military spending is not the only culprit. The Times also throws in a comment about corporate tax cuts, which, according to the paper, amounted to "$140 billion" last year. (I suppose they could include all of the money Americans spend on say, eating out at the Olive Garden or attending pro baseball games. That stuff adds up, and well, the 8.95 pasta/salad bar would feed a family of 5 for a month in the Congo. Don't even ask about the hot dog/beer numbers.).

Not to be glib, but this is where the argument can go once you start equating our corporate tax structure with the plight of Africans. Forget the actual jobs provided by these corporations here and abroad, and the private donations generated, mostly by Americans, to ngos. I'd like to see that editorial in the Times.

But a $ 140 billion tax cut last year? That does sound like quite a bit of money. Maybe they have a point....-

Thankfully, this is where Jane's antannae went up. $ 140 billion is quite a bit of money. She writes:

This last sentence surprised me. I follow tax policy pretty closely, and I hadn't noticed a corporate tax cut last year. And a $140 billion tax cut would be pretty large, given that, according to the IRS, the corporate income tax only generated $167 billion dollars last year. I felt like I would have noticed an 83% tax cut.
So I searched around for the number, and here it is. It's the ten-year estimate for the cost of tax cuts in last year's change to the export subsidy, before the various clawbacks in that bill are subtracted.

So, the Times takes a ten year projection and uses it as a one year number, to make a point. This is typical of the slippery analysis from the left that we have seen on economic issues, at least since I have been paying attention. Tax cuts, budget and trade deficits, budget cuts, all are extrapolated when it helps make their case.

For the Times, accuracy is probably not important. The ideological end justifies the specious means.

If their readers are reminded that the source of the problems, in Africa and other places, lies here at home, and are related to our reluctance to throw more of our wealth around, then their job is done.

The Times may be perceived as standing up for a noble cause (aid to Africa), but if their case was as strong as they suggest, they would not need to print deceptive statistical information to make it.

This deception, whether willful ignorance or just plain lazy journalism, does not help anyone, except perhaps to reinforce strongly held beliefs on the left.

The Carnival of Revolutions Will Not Be Televised

2005-06-07T15:26:00.000-04:00

But it can be seen over at Publius Pundit this week.

Comprehensive coverage of the struggle for freedom and democracy all over the globe.

Horror in Zimbabwe

2005-06-07T11:03:00.000-04:00

I've been pre-occupied recently. Work, family, a charity event, home projects. Its easy to get away from a little hobby like blogging. Its a diversion, and not very productive I guess.

But it has kept me "involved" in issues larger than myself over the last few months, forced me to keep informed, and to try and form coherent views, to try and "understand". But it seems that the more I think I "understand" about the issues addressed here, the easier it is to get away from the blog, to focus on day-to-day concerns.

So, a few days go by, and no entries.

And then, I read something that brings me back to "reality". Heart rending, nauseating reality. Somewhere in this Belmont Club post is the reason that I bother blogging. Its not for "fun", and its not to "make a difference" or even make a mark. For a while, it might have been a little about vanity (My first and only 100 hit day felt pretty good - check my stat counter now however - not so hot).

Its more like therapy.

The stories in Zimbabwe, or North Korea, or Sudan, or Iraq should remind us of our humanity, and of our luck.

Soapgun CD Compilation Offer

2005-06-03T13:27:00.000-04:00

Here's the deal. Every Thursday, I pick a song that I particularly like, and post a link to a sample of that song. As you can see from yesterday's post, I am up to 14 songs. Now, I've recently made some CDs for some friends, of these songs, all of which I have on my beloved Ipod. I'd like to lend one to you.

Yes, you, faithful reader. I am not selling CDs, nor am I "giving" them away, just "lending". Listen to it for as long as you like, and then lend it to someone else. I'll cover the cost of both the CD and the mailing. No cost, no obligation, just the hope you like the CD and that you might tell a friend or two about the blog. If you'd like, every few months I'll send you another one, with 14 new songs.

If you'd like one, just leave me your email in the comments section. If you'd like to remain anonymous, you can send me an email at paul_f_barry-at-ml-dot-com, but I'd prefer to minimize the use of that particular address. Comments section is preferred. If you have a blog, just link your blog instead of a private email and we can work out the details.

I will not use your info for any other purposes, will not contact you for any other reason, and will not give your email address to any person or business. I'm just doing this because I like music, especially music that might not be played on the radio, and I'd like for other people to enjoy what I enjoy. I do reserve the right to limit the number of CDs. Don't worry about the number, I'll let you know when/if I get close to an unmanageable amount.

I am aware that some might have a problem with my "lending" copywritten material, that this might be a form of pirating, but here is my take on it. I think that it is likely that anyone hearing a song that they might not otherwise have heard will then play it for others, and so on, increasing the artists exposure, on a small scale, but exponentially. This is very good for musicians that make good music, because it will eventually lead to CD and concert ticket sales.

So, leave a comment, or send an email, and I'll take care of the rest. And, while you're at it, leave a comment to let me know what you think of this idea.

Song of the Week - 14

2005-06-02T16:25:00.000-04:00

The Connells - Stone Cold Yesterday

Track 1

Pure, unsullied late 80s pop/rock.

(Ok, check in tomorrow for the CD offer. No time today - putting out fires.)

Song of the Week Summary

2005-06-02T10:16:00.000-04:00

Here are the first 13 "Songs of the Week". Check back in later today for magical song # 14, and a special Soapgun CD offer!

Tasty New Music - Chris Canty

2005-06-01T12:32:00.000-04:00

Its not Thursday, so I can't legally put up the Song of the Week post, but I will link a site of a very good newish singer/songwriter - Chris Canty. You can listen to two songs and sample (and purchase) the CD at www.chriscanty.com. Traipse on over there already! (after reading the rest of this post of course).

I've complained here about the John Mayers and Jack Johnsons of the music world before. They get tons of airplay, are adequate musicians, but their music/songwriting lacks....something.

No offense if you happen to like these guys, but this Chris Canty fella seems much more worthy of your attention.

(Their bass player looks a little odd though, in a Kafka-esque way.)

Did I say odd? I meant mysterious.

Communication Quotes

2005-06-01T10:53:00.000-04:00

Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

- John Kenneth Galbraith

Do you listen, or do you wait to speak?

- Mia (Uma Thurman) to Vince Vega (John Travolta) in Pulp Fiction

Autism, Mercury, and Dr. Bill Maher

2005-05-31T14:11:00.000-04:00

Here is more on the mercury/thimerosal/autism "connection" over at OracKnows (great blog).

This may seem like an obscure topic, but it has elements of big business (drug companies, trial lawyers), good science (epidemiology, psychiatry), junk science (chelation therapy and god-knows-what-else), and, of course, politics (governmental agencies, populism).

And, Bill Maher has a starring role as the resident idiot. What more could one ask for?

In the final analysis, its clear that people like Maher care more about looking "smart" than helping the children at the center of this debate. Amazingly, the best scientists studying the subject cannot make a clear connection between mercury and autism, yet a second-rate celebrity like Bill Maher can.

Anyway, read the whole post over at OracKnows. There are some related posts there as well, as well as some great WWII-related entries. My kind of blog.

Thanks For Stopping By, Now Leave

2005-05-31T11:32:00.000-04:00

And head on over to the Carnival of Revolutions at Registan.

Welcome Complimenting Commenter Readers!

2005-05-30T11:15:00.000-04:00

Boy, I was getting a little discouraged by my anemic hit counter, and then, The Complimenting Commenter strikes again! Made my day.

Thanks for stopping by, hope you can stay for a bit. Feel free to leave comments, even (especially?) if you might disagree with some of the things I have written.

And remember, the more posts you read, the more points you rack up!

Come by every Thursday for the Song of the Week. Next week, I'll be posting the 14th S.O.T.W., with a special bonus CD offer (seriously).

Thanks again for coming by, and thanks to the mysterious CC.

Internet Memorious

2005-05-27T13:55:00.000-04:00

WARNING: The following post may be considered pretentious, and is not suitable for children under the age of 17. Contains tortured analogies and amateur lit-crit. (Sorry, no sexual content.)

Last week, I linked to a favorite short story of mine, Jorge Luis Borges' Funes the Memorious.

The character Ireneo Funes "suffers" from an ability to remember every last detail of every moment of his life, an affliction that is both debilitating and liberating. The narrator explains:

We, in a glance, perceive three wine glasses on the table; Funes saw all the shoots, clusters, and grapes of the vine. He remembered the shapes of the clouds in the south at dawn on the 30th of April of 1882, and he could compare them in his recollection with the marbled grain in the design of a leather-bound book which he had seen only once, and with the lines in the spray which an oar raised in the Rio Negro on the eve of the battle of the Quebracho. These recollections were not simple; each visual image was linked to muscular sensations, thermal sensations, etc. He could reconstruct all his dreams, all his fancies. Two or three times he had reconstructed an entire day. He told me: I have more memories in myself alone than all men have had since the world was a world. And again: My dreams are like your vigils. And again, toward dawn: My memory, sir, is like a garbage disposal.

Not that this talent in itself was useful;

Without effort, he had learned English, French, Portuguese, Latin. I suspect, nevertheless, that he was not very capable of thought. To think is to forget a difference, to generalize, to abstract. In the overly replete world of Funes there were nothing but details, almost contiguous details.

He could remember everything, but he could not reason. He is essentially incapacitated by his memories, overwhelmed by the unlimited information available to him.

I like to think of the internet as analogous to Funes. No information, no event, no quote, no detail too small, escapes its memory banks.

But information is not wisdom. That is where the Blogosphere comes in, collating and sorting the data, processing it through subjective points of view. There is not one person sifting the data, but thousands. Selective memory and shoddy reasoning cannot, in the end, stand against this combination of nearly unlimited information and watchful eyes.

With that in mind, read Will's post from May 2 over at Willisms on the reasons for the Iraq war. Trust me, there is a connection.

Bush and Stem Cell Research - Myth vs Fact

2005-05-27T10:23:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal has a nice summary of the tug-of-war that is going on over stem cell research, or more specifically, the funding of stem cell research. (Registration at the site is required - but its free).

The editorial clarifies the core issue, that George Bush has not banned or even called for a ban on embryonic stem cell research, just that he is trying to provide some specific guidelines on the subject, related to federal funding of the research. There is a big difference.

The Journal points out that, in 2001, the Bush administration supported a ruling that:

allowed federal funding for research on existing stem-cell lines where, he said, "the life and death decision has already been made." But it forbade funding for research into new lines, which entailed both the creation and destruction of human embryos.

George Bush, and many Americans, would like to have stem cell research continue, but would also like to have lines drawn somewhere on the related moral issues, especially as they relate to the "creation" of life.

But does this constitute a ban? Not even close.

Critically, Mr. Bush's decision applied only to federal funding; it did not impinge on the rights of individual researchers, universities, hospitals, private labs, public corporations or states to conduct embryonic research. In other words, the President did not "ban" anything. He simply refused to allow taxpayer money to be spent on a practice millions of Americans consider morally offensive.

So how has this "opposition" by the Bush administration affected stem cell research? The article continues:

..what's happened, research-wise, since 2001? Given the rhetoric of some of the President's critics, you might think the answer is nothing. In fact, federal funding for all forms of stem-cell research (including adult and umbilical stem cells) has nearly doubled, to $566 million from $306 million.

And,

At the state level, Californians passed Proposition 71, which commits $3 billion over 10 years for stem-cell research. New Jersey is building a $380 million Stem Cell Institute. The Massachusetts Legislature has passed a bill authorizing stem-cell research by a veto-proof margin, and similar legislation is in the works in Connecticut and Wisconsin.
Then there's the private sector. According to Navigant Consulting, the U.S. stem-cell therapeutics market will generate revenues of $3.6 billion by 2015. Some 70 companies are now doing stem-cell research, with Geron, ES Cell International and Advanced Cell Technologies being leaders in embryonic research. Clinical trials using embryonic stem-cell technologies for spinal cord injuries are due to begin sometime next year.

At the extremes of the debate, proponents and opponents of stem cell research would either have embryo "farms", giving no real consideration to the definition of human life, or ban all embryo research altogether. Most Americans, however, including George Bush, are somewhere in the middle on this issue, or possibly middle/right.

The Bush administration seems to be taking a traditionally conservative approach to this issue.
Politically, it is allowing the private sector to "run with the ball", while culturally, they are just trying to provide some moral framework and guidelines in the debate.

Think of this the next time someone starts to tell you about the Bush administration "banning" stem cell research.

The "Emotional" Debate over John Bolton

2005-05-27T10:18:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn is interviewed over at Hugh Hewitt's Radio Blog, and has some amusing comments on John McCain, and on George Voinovich and the John Bolton UN ambassador nomination vote.

There is an audio clip of Sen. Voinovich's dead-on Ed Muskie impersonation in front of Congress the other day (toward the end of the interview). Boo hoo hoo. Pathetic.

Ironic that a Senator that has criticized John Bolton for having a temper has a hard time controlling his own emotions.

I hate to be crude, but it seems that sissies don't really like ballbusters. I may not like them either, but I know who I'd rather have in charge.

Song of the Week - 13

2005-05-26T13:07:00.000-04:00

Uncle Tupelo - Still Be Around

The original alt/country/punk/americana/roots band. Spawned Wilco and Son Volt. Still sound as good as ever. Click the link, then track 5.

The Decline and Fall of the Left, Part I

2005-05-25T14:38:00.000-04:00

The talented Michael Totten links and comments on an article from the San Francisco Chronicle , by Keith Thompson, a life-long liberal who has some serious misgivings about the direction that "progressives" are heading in.

This article is a powerful indictment of the modern "progressive" left, by one of its own. No doubt Thompson has been asked to leave the reservation because of his views, but I think that he will find many reasonable fans who share his outlook. Like Christopher Hitchens, Thompson seems more concerned with being honest to himself than about what his "friends" may think.

Thompson seems to encapsulate the hypocrisy of the left with the following statement:

My estrangement hasn't happened overnight. Out of the corner of my eye I watched what was coming for more than three decades, yet refused to truly see. Now it's all too obvious. Leading voices in America's "peace" movement are actually cheering against self-determination for a long-suffering Third World country because they hate George W. Bush more than they love freedom.

But, he also points out, this is nothing new. The left has always been enamored of ideologies that seem fine for everyone else in the world, as long as they represented opposition to the US. Thompson relates a story of a dinner party in the 80s among his "progressive" friends, where the subject of Ronald Reagan's denouncing Communism as "evil" had come up:

When I casually offered that the surviving relatives of the more than 20 million people murdered on orders of Joseph Stalin might not find "evil'" too strong a word, the room took on a collective bemused smile of the sort you might expect if someone had casually mentioned taking up child molestation for sport.

My progressive companions had a point. It was rude to bring a word like "gulag" to the dinner table.

Radical Islamism is now for the left what Stalinist communism was in the past. One may not want to live under it, but only apostates denounce it.

Thompson does not talk about economic policies, or the environment, or education, as issues that caused him to question his views on the modern left. He talks about liberty. Eloquently, simply, he concludes that the demise of progressive leftism resides in their lack of recognition of the meaning of this word:

Leftists who no longer speak of the duties of citizens, but only of the rights of clients, cannot be expected to grasp the importance (not least to our survival) of fostering in the Middle East the crucial developmental advances that gave rise to our own capacity for pluralism, self-reflection, and equality.

And, in a stingingly accurate characterization of the core issue (I think) for the "intellectual" left, (that is, those who have actually thought these issues through and still cling to their views), he says:

A left averse to making common cause with competent, self- determining individuals -- people who guide their lives on the basis of received values, everyday moral understandings, traditional wisdom, and plain common sense -- is a faction that deserves the marginalization it has pursued with such tenacity for so many years.

Communism, socialism, and now radical Islamism, all seek to deny self determination for the individual, making the person less than either the state, or the strict tenets of religious law (in the name of "God"). The left has no real problem with this concept. Apparently, it is freedom and liberty that they are suspicious of. They camouflage this basic notion with terms like neocon or colonialism, or with abstract theories of the dangers of free market capitalism.

No matter.

The beneficiaries of the spread of democracy, in the Middle East, in Central Asia, hopefully soon in sub-Saharan Africa, will continue to ask for and work towards the dignity and respect that true liberalism offers. And many of those who call themselves liberals and progressives will likely continue down the narrow path of unconstructive criticism and self-importance, never contributing once to the causes that they claim to stand for.

Death of a Cockroach, Part II

2005-05-25T10:57:00.000-04:00

On May 12, 13 days ago, Gateway Pundit linked to Iraqi blogger Hammorabi's post on the rumored death of Iraqi terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, or as Iraqis apparently like to refer to him, The Big Cockroach. My post from 5/12 on this is here, with some speculation on his eternal fate.

Well, turns out, while he may not be dead, he don't feel so good.

So the media is picking up on these rumors, two weeks after blogs report on it? I suppose they just wanted to check their sources, or maybe they were just too busy chasing down important Koran abuse stories.

Wishing Zarqawi a speedy demise. He is a thug and murderer, the epitome of nihilist Islamofascism. Here is a profile of the man who would like to help lead a few hundred million Muslims.

Apparently, he is the best al Qaida in Iraq has to offer as a leader. His death will likely lead to a more rapid collapse of the insurgency than is already taking place. The sooner he is gone, the sooner Iraqis can have peace.

"Cops" meets The Untouchables in Baghdad

2005-05-24T12:45:00.000-04:00

The Politburo Diktat links an article about an elite Iraqi security force called the Wolf Brigade.

This is very encouraging, and helps to dispute any notion of a "popular" insurgency. There may be insurgents, but they are hardly popular.

In fact, the brave, tough force of 2000 Iraqis that make up the Wolf Brigade are the popular ones.

From the article:

While the nation's fledgling police and armed forces are derided as corrupt or incompetent, the Wolf Brigade is the exception. Their logo is a snarling wolf, and their TV show, "Terrorists in the Grip of Justice," is the most watched program in the country. Harassed parents silence noisy children with threats to call the Wolves. Housewives swoon over their "broad shoulders" and "toughness."

Ironic. The terrorists in Iraq tried to use the media to get their message out with decapitation videos, yet the most popular show in the country is one where insurgents, terrorists and criminals get their asses kicked.

The effect has been positive in improving security, and in restoring pride to the Iraqi people, both necessary ingredients for a stable Iraq. As one fan of the Wolf Brigade puts it:

"Every time I see them in the street, I feel safe," said Ahmed Kanan, 25, who works at a menswear shop in Baghdad. "I feel that we have a country with a government."

Almost. Almost.

The Carnival of Revolutions is up at Willisms

2005-05-23T15:31:00.000-04:00

Will at Willisms is hosting The current Carnival of Revolutions , a roundup of democratic developments all over the world. The focus in the mainstream media has been on the Middle East primarily, but that is just part of the story.

This entry from Freedoms Peace on North Korea and this one from Carnal Reason on Venezuala's Chavez and Cuba are both very interesting.

Head on over, there is much, much more.

On July 25th, I will be hosting the Carnival of Revolutions myself. The staff here at soapgun are already getting busy with the prep work. Lots of cotton candy to be spun, lots of highly flammable stuffed animals to purchase. If anyone has a good freak/carnie agency, please let me know. Wish me luck.

Skepticism and Debunking

2005-05-23T13:47:00.000-04:00

If you are skeptical by nature, be sure to check out the Skeptico blog.

I was particularly interested in the entry on vaccines and autism.

Don Imus has spent quite a bit of time on his radio show in support of the theory that the mercury in vaccines (used as a preservative) has led to a rise in autism in the US, despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that this is the case. There is a best selling book on the subject - Evidence of Harm, which is reviewed, critically, by Dr. Michael Fitzpatrick at Spiked.

This debate pits the big pharma/drug companies and government agencies against children and families. Real David and Goliath stuff. But the science just does not support the claims of the anti-vaccine camp. And while autism is tragic, the higher incidences over the last few decades could be chalked up to changes in diagnosis, and the terms that are used. Basically, it is much easier to handle a diagnosis of autism than mental retardation.

Anyway, visit the Skeptico site once in a while for a dose of debunking. There is also a bunch of sites listed there that provide similar content. Looking forward to visiting them all.

Also, read the wheatgrass post. Informative and very funny.

Short Stories - LIterature for Our ADD World

2005-05-22T12:12:00.000-04:00

Here are a couple of favorites:

Funes, the Memorious - Jorge Luis Borges

Funes = The Blogosphere? Neither forgets.

A Good Man is Hard to Find - Flannery O'Connor

A Tarentino-esque story, written decades ago, but just as chilling today. The last few lines will stay with you, if you are paying attention.

There, take a few minutes and read each.

Any other suggestions?

Carnival of Comedy # 4 is Up and Running at IMAO

2005-05-20T14:30:00.000-04:00

Once again, The Carnival of Comedy is gladdening hearts all over the land. Head on over to IMAO and check it out.

(This link takes you to the main page, just scroll down until you see the Carnival entry. Can't figure out how to link the actual post. "Not too bright. Head injury." - he says as he points to himself.)

Oh, and I'm in there somewhere with my recent Blogging Tips - The Real Deal post. Fooled them again, I did!

UPDATE: Hey, I figured it out. Link to the actual C of C post. But go to the main page and scroll down anyway, you will be able to read more of IMAOs stuff.

Women and Islam, Part II

2005-05-20T11:23:00.000-04:00

A few weeks back, I posted about Ayaan Hirshi Ali and Irshad Manji, two outspoken and very courageous Muslim women. Here are a couple of very recent articles, one a column written by Manji on the recent Koran/Newsweek debacle, and the second, an interview and profile of Ali. The more exposure they get, the better.

Of course, the fact that they live in free countries, Canada and Holland, is ironic. How many women in the Islamic world secretly hope for the rights that would only be available to them if they lived in Europe or the US?

Apparently, the answer is "Briefs".

2005-05-20T10:00:00.000-04:00

Saddam Hussein, Captain Underpants.

Pretty funny, but just wait for the backlash...

The Universal Hunger

2005-05-19T15:04:00.000-04:00

Michael Totten has some analysis of encouraging developments in Syria. In summary, "Lebanon's Cedar Revolution is reverberating powerfully inside Syria".

Read the whole post, plus comments. Just a great example of the clear analysis and measured debate that the best blogs offer.

While you are there, check out some of his best posts, archived on the left margin.

Also, Frontline World aired a fascinating segment this week on the recent changes in Lebanon and Syria, with interviews of some very nervous Syrian government officials. Try to catch a replay of the show if you are interested in the subject. Or tivo it if you are so inclined.

As an amateur, I can speculate on these issues without risk. And, I tend to be optimistic, maybe overly optimistic about things like the "march of democracy". But Iraq is a reminder that the road to democracy, in some areas, is no autobahn. However, events in Lebanon, and now possibly in Syria, may shore up my optimism.

Back in March, I felt pretty good about developments in Lebanon, and posted some thoughts, using an Austin Bay column (well worth reading) as the starting point. My gut told me that:

Syria (not Lebanon, where I think Democracy is a fait accompli) will be the next test, a virtual (not literal) battleground between totalitarianism and freedom. And, the Syrian people, not Assad, will have to allow this to happen.

Outside of North Korea, there is probably no other large country on the earth with a more closed society. The Syrian people are truly oppressed, and oppressed peoples do not revolt. So, they have a tough road to freedom.

Syrians truly are "foreign" to us. But, as Austin Bay shows us with his story of a Syrian friend, "There is a universal hunger for liberty."

Now these are not exclusively my thoughts of course, but I think it is important to take a side. And one does not have to be republican or democrat, conservative or liberal, to believe this statement about a "universal hunger for liberty". It is simple, probably simplistic, but irrefutable. A quote from Russian dissident Vasily Grossman, that I have used before, also applies here:

"A human can be a slave by fate, but not a slave by nature".

Here's hoping that Syria's fate is changing.

Move Over Noah Wylie!

2005-05-19T14:45:00.000-04:00

I've been searching for a physician, one that can cure the ulcer..... on my soul. I think I have found him.

The good Dr. was kind enough to blogroll soapgun, but as a comedy blog.

I think that we are more of a variety show, along the lines of Pink Lady and Jeff or The West Wing. You know, lots of song and dance combined with wacky skits, and edgy appearances by today's hippest stars.

And Harvey Korman. Lots of Harvey Korman.

Anyway, its nice to get the exposure. And check out The Medical Madhouse, but only if he is in your physician network.

Song of the week - 12

2005-05-19T11:33:00.000-04:00

Slaid Cleaves - Wishbones

As always, click the link above, then click "listen", then the song (on the left of the page). Wishbone is the first one. You get about 30 seconds of a great, depressing song.

Sample lyric:

"Did you hear the world gets lonelier and uglier with sin?
You'll never look at blue skies through young eyes again."

Hey, you're preaching to the choir, Slaid.

Blogging Tips - The Real Deal

2005-05-18T15:31:00.000-04:00

Welcome IMAO readers! Please take a few minutes and have a look around. Thanks for stopping by!
-----------

It seems that every day, I am inundated with questions about blogging. People see the money, the cars, the groupies, and of course, they are curious.

They say;

"How did you get so successful, soapgun?", or,

"I'd like to blog too, but I'm afraid. Your blog intimidates me".

Or, as one youngster asked me the other day, "Your blog is "dope", how can I be "dope" too?"

Well, people, blogging is just not as hard as it looks. Any moron can do it. And many do.

You might have seen sites offering blogging tips before, but, frankly, they are usually designed to throw new bloggers off, the work of inferior bloggers afraid of competition. So, you usually see worthless advice on things like "linking" or comments sections or site design. Please.

To cut through this b.s., I've come up with the five most common questions I get from aspiring bloggers, and my answers. With this "inside information" you too can be on your way to becoming a blogging superstar, just like me.

1) Who should I tell about my blog?

Tell everyone about your blog. Everyone. Your hair stylist, your driver. Your wife, your boss.

Especially your boss.

They'll all be thrilled that you are spending that much time on the internet, offering advice and guidance to the world. Much more effective use of your time than family, work, or charity-related tasks.

Be prepared, they may be so impressed that it results in an improved sex life and a promotion! But don't let that stuff cut into your blogging time.

Which brings me to my next tip.

2) How much time should I spend blogging?

During work hours, make sure you spend no more than 50-60% of your day blogging. (In the US, this is about 4-5 hours a day. In Europe, its 1-1/2 hours a day.)

Any more than that in the beginning, you'll burn out. (Don't worry, even though you have a lot to say, your audience will be patient.) However, any less than that, you will become stale. Blogging actually makes you more efficient at work because the time you are not blogging, you are trying to figure out how to get others to do your work for you.

And, if and when your blogging leads you to a promotion, (see tip 1), you will probably be able to offload everything to subordinates and spend even more time spreading your bloggy wisdom.

After work, well, who are we kidding? That's Miller time!

3) What should I blog about?

Well, anything goes, but the more personal the better. People are somewhat interested in things like foreign affairs and the economy, but that's what USA Today is for, right?

Your readers will want to know everything about you, so tell them about your trip to the dry cleaners, or your crazy brother-in-law, or even what you had for lunch. They'll be fascinated.

This is why you blog. You're life is too interesting to not tell strangers about.

4) How do I get people to visit my blog initially?

One word. Advertising.

Now, I have found traditional advertising, like tv and radio spots, are effective, but the trend with blogs is to use more creative advertising, such as billboards and "product placement".

So, for example, if one of the hot actors on the hit show "The O.C." were to wear a shirt with your blog name on it, you would be guaranteed hits. Also, any mention by famous rappers like 50 cent or Kool Moe Dee in a song will get you important "ethnic" exposure. These are just a couple of ways to get your name out.

One warning, this works on any network except UPN, and any major movie that does not star Ben Affleck.

5) How can I "cash in" on my blog?

Well, you have to be patient.

I would give it about 3-6 months of consistent blogging before you approach any Venture Capital firms (VC is probably the most effective way to "monetize" your blog, although very successful blogs could go straight to the investment banks). In any event, don't limit yourself to one firm. Talk to several, start a bidding war, then kick your feet up and watch them fight over you!

So there you have it. Blogging 101. Now what are you waiting for? Get out there and Blog!

Oh, and you'll probably need a computer with internet access.

UPDATE: Ok, if you've read this far, you deserve the Carnival of Comedy BONUS of the day:

Saddam Superhero? Click away.

Thanks for coming, I'll be here all week.

Galloway calls Norm Coleman a "bath-taking, underpants-wearing, lily-hugger"

2005-05-18T10:34:00.000-04:00

Saddam Hussein toady and fiery Scotsman George Galloway, pictured here , testified before Congress yesterday about his alleged role in the Iraq oil for food scandal. Austin Bay has a link and some comments on the subject. I caught some of the coverage of the testimony, as well as the end of Galloway's appearance on Chris Matthews, and I would say that Galloway may have the upper hand in this discussion.

I hope that Senator Coleman or someone like him has some very good evidence against Galloway. He is repugnant, and has dealt with shady, despicable people, notably in Iraq, and he is simpatico with many fringe Muslim groups. But this does not mean he profited directly from the oil for food scandal. Lets find an offshore bank account or villa in the South of France.

At the very least, lets find a Willi Cici for Mr. Galloway. He could be guilty, but maybe he's just got "buffers"....

Senator Pat Geary: Mr. Cici, was there always a buffer involved?

Willi Cici: A what?

Senator Pat Geary: A buffer. Someone in between you and your possible superiors who passed on to you the actual order to kill someone.

Willi Cici: Oh yeah, a buffer. The family had a lot of buffers!

Bill Moyers, Victim of Right Wing Conspiracy!

2005-05-17T12:31:00.000-04:00

Will at Willisms has a great summary of the speech that I reference below, along with some sharp commentary.

Recently, I stumbled across a blog commenter who, in a rant about the "conservative domination of the media" , claimed that "even PBS is being controlled by the Republicans". That was a new one on me. I happen to watch a bit of PBS from time to time, a slice of Frontline here, a bit of a Ken Burns documentary there, and of course, lots of Dragon Tales and Clifford the Big Red Dog. Not exactly Fox News. I have very liberal friends who will only watch Jim Lehrer for their news, because they think ABC and CBS are too conservative. What on earth was this person talking about?

Well, the answer came to me on my ride home last night, as I listened to Pacifica Radio News (makes NPR look like, well, Fox News). Bill Moyers. You know, the guy who made his mark with a PBS series with Joseph Campbell back in the 80s. (Back then, I thought this Power of Myth stuff was real hip. These guys were talking about Darth Vader and Sumerian Goddesses! Problem was, the analysis was just pop-philosophy, Campbell was a minor league George Frazer and Moyers a wide-eyed pseudo intellectual at his feet.)

Fast forward, and Moyers has paid the bills through his PBS shows, including his most recent, the talk show, NOW. Apparently, this show was recently cancelled and Moyers is blaming, that's right, the Republicans. Seems that Rove and Bush were so upset about Moyers' crusading journalism that they engineered his removal.

Yes. Bill Moyers kept George Bush up at night. Gotta do something about that Moyers! What is it with these "intellectual" types that makes them think they are that important? Moyers, /like much of the far left, is delusional and narcissistic.

The speech was tedious and predictable. Here is a summary:

The US is heading toward some sort of totalitarian state.

Am I overstating this? Well, when Moyers quotes directly from Orwell's 1984, you know where he is going with the speech. This is such a stupid analogy, straight out of Jr High sociology class, that its not even worth deconstructing. But it is worth pointing out that a supposed intellectual like Moyers would reach for such an obvious reference. And, most of his other nonsense, like the Christ references that Will points out in his post above, makes it even harder to take the guy seriously. (That aside, he is a very good public speaker. All sizzle, no steak.)

Anyway, about PBS and those nefarious Repubs. Newsflash, Bill. No one cared about your show. Especially not the people trying to run the country.

Time to retire, which apparently was what you had in mind anyway, well before the fascist brownshirt Republicans decided to squash you. That is at least what this article from Feb 2004 reveals.

Veteran TV journalist, author and social commentator Bill Moyers plans to leave his weekly PBS magazine "Now" after the elections to write a book about his former boss, President Lyndon Baines Johnson, the public broadcasting network said on Thursday.

I learned a long time ago that there is a season for everything. My 'season' in public broadcast has lasted 32 years," Moyers said in a brief statement. "It's finally time to move on to some other pursuits that I want to accomplish while there are still enough grains of sand in the top of the hourglass."

Hmmm. The Republicans are forcing you into a retirement that you had already planned!
So much for the conspiracy.

Moyers is pedantic, condescending, and is frankly guilty of the very things he accuses the right of being guilty of. That is, he is an ideologue who wishes to blame one group for the world's troubles. So much for nuance.

Anyway, if the Republicans do really control PBS, can't they at least bring back the old Monty Python shows. I'm sick of Are You Being Served.

Idealists, Cynics, and Realists

2005-05-16T12:55:00.000-04:00

Over the last few years, the traditional connection between idealism and political affiliation has been turned on its head. This has been a major part of the shift towards a more "conservative" America since 9/11, I think. Many Americans who would not have had much interest in polical issues, particularly related to foreign policy, have chosen sides, not so much as traditional Democrats/Liberals or Republicans/Conservatives, but based on what their view of America's role in the world should be. And this might in large part be based on our individual beliefs about idealism.

With that in mind, consider these quotes:

"There is in most Americans some spark of idealism, which can be fanned into a flame. It takes sometimes a divining rod to find what it is; but when found, and that means often, when disclosed to the owners, the results are often most extraordinary."

Brandeis, Louis D. Supreme Court Justice (1856-1941)

"Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality the cost becomes prohibitive."

Buckley, Jr., William F.

"An idealist believes the short run doesn't count. A cynic believes the long run doesn't matter. A realist believes that what is done or left undone in the short run determines the long run."

Harris, Sidney J.

.
So while we are on the subject, pop on over to the Siberian Light blog, where they are hosting this week's Carnival of the Revolutions.

Interesting site, interesting topic.

Flypaper Iraq

2005-05-16T11:57:00.000-04:00

Interesting article on the nature of the insurgency in Iraq from the Washington Post. (Link via Solomonia.)

In response to my recent post Last Gasp for Terrorists in Iraq? , Troutsky asked how the US presence in Iraq might be affecting the recruitment and popular support for the insurgency. (I think he is implying that it is encouraging both.)

My response was that I did not think that there was much popular support, and what little there was was dwindling, primarily because of the large number of Iraqi civilian casualties killed by insurgents. I just think that this is obvious, and that the insurgents have and will continue to lose popular support in Iraq.

The recruitment question is more interesting. Who are the insurgents and where are they coming from?

The linked article above provides some details on these questions. While most Iraqi insurgents (90%) are native Iraqis (most of them Sunnis), most of the suicide bombers are "jihadis" from other Islamic countries, Jordan, Morocco, etc. Significantly, it looks as if up to 50-60% of the suicide bombers are from Saudi Arabia.

So, it is estimated that there are about 10,000 total fighters, with about 1000 coming from outside the country. (I'd be interested in seeing what the estimates were for Iranian fighters, which, if any, would be Shiite). The 1000 jihadis would probably comprise the most fanatical of the force, many of them coming to Iraq to willingly die.

Iraq is and has been a more secular country than most of its neighbors, so it is unlikely that there is a very large supply of young Iraqis willing to martyr themselves . However, the jihadi culture is alive and well outside of the country. Saudi Arabia and much of the middle east is filled with mosques and schools encouraging and teaching jihad, and they are looking to Iraq as their gateway to paradise.

Sunni Baathist insurgents are fighting to regain their minority iron-fist control Iraq, the jihadis are fighting for martyrdom and 72 virgins. Lets hope they only partially meet their goals.

Carnival of Comedy - You Like Me! You Really Like Me!

2005-05-13T08:54:00.000-04:00

IMAO is hosting the Carnival of Comedy this week, and I've been awarded 16th place for my blog post covering Stephen Spielberg's recent nervous breakdown at a private Star Wars screening. You must go there now to brighten up your miserable life. Just scroll down, its there, trust me. (This site is also well worth visiting on a regular basis.)

As for this prestigious award, I'm honored, really floored. You know, I haven't really prepared any speech, I just wasn't expecting anything. But let me just try and say a few thanks.

First, I'd like to thank God. Without him and Glenn Reynolds, none of us would be here.

I'd also like to thank Al Gore for inventing this crazy gizmo called the internet. Honestly, we all thought he was nuts at the time! Thanks as well to my inspiring role models of funny, Rip Taylor and Noam Chomsky. I have tried to emulate their unique approaches to comedy, hopefully with some success.

Thanks to my agent/lawyer/life coach, Sol. Of course, I'd like to send a special thanks to my three kids, and to my baby-momma.

Finally, I'd like to thank you, the fans. Back when this blog was just a crazy dream, I'd lie awake at night, thinking of this day. Then I'd drink some more and fall asleep. Now that its here, well, it makes me want to blog all that much harder. For you. Both of you.

Thank you, God bless you, and God Bless America!

----
Now to hand in my resignation at work.

Death of a Cockroach?

2005-05-12T16:17:00.000-04:00

Gateway Pundit has an interesting piece of speculation from Hammorabi, an Iraqi blogger (I stole the title of this post from his apt nickname for Zarqawi.)

Ayman Zarqawi possibly hanging out with 72 virgins? More likely, if its true, and there is an afterlife, he is hopefully facing this eternal fate. (Hat tip Dante A.)

As they wallowed in blood during their lives, so in Hell those condemned here are immersed in boiling blood forever, the depth of each according to the degree of his guilt, while fierce centaurs and the damned souls of people who had to be violent as part of their duty, but who enjoyed it, patrol the banks, ready to shoot with their arrows and other weapons any sinner who raises himself out of the boiling blood beyond the limits permitted him. The depth of the blood varies from ankle-deep to over a person's head. The sinners condemned to the banks wear the uniforms they wore in life, from all periods of history; their eyes are dull, expressionless and intent on their task.

Makes you really want to believe in Hell doesn't it? A few personal demons thrown in might be called for as well.

Anyway, that would be sweet news. It would be nice for him to be captured alive, but every extra day this vermin is on earth, more innocent people die, so we'll take it anyway we can.

Song of the week - 11

2005-05-12T11:08:00.000-04:00

M Ward - Carolina

"Better watch your soul, it'll leave you like a hundred bucks"

Brilliant young (28ish) singer/songwriter that you won't hear on FM radio. They're too busy playing poseurs like Jack Johnson and John Mayer, neither of whom is qualified to shine this guys shoes.

Listen to the whole song (left click) or download for free (right click) over at the site that the link takes you to.

(Hat tip -Johnny M.)

The Complimenting Commenter Takes the "Sin" Out of Sincerity

2005-05-11T13:08:00.000-04:00

Just when I was about to give up on humanity, I stumble on The Complimenting Commenter.

No one knows who this person is, or why he (or she?) has come to our planet. But this much is clear - they seem to lack any of a normal human's inborn cynicism. Spreading commenting love all around the blogosphere, The CC posts positive comments on random blogs, leaving dozens, perhaps hundreds of lonely bloggers with smiles on their pasty faces.

Please visit The CC's blog, before the inevitable reprogramming that they will face once The Company finds them.

Last Gasp For Terrorists in Iraq?

2005-05-11T10:26:00.000-04:00

Strategy Page offers consistently superior daily summaries of the situation in Iraq. Ten minutes on this site every day will keep you more informed on the subject than 2 hours with the NY Times or Boston Globe.

Today's post offers a brief synopsis of the recent violence there, particularly the recent string of horrifying suicide bombings. But rather than just a body count as we tend to get from the mainstream media, the site gives some perspective on the nature of these attacks, and the "insurgency" behind them.

While the daily attacks seem to prove that the insurgency is still strong, it might be just as fair to see the suicide bombings as the desperate attempts of a crumbling enemy.

Today's Strategy Page summary starts:

May 11, 2005; Terrorists continue to use suicide bombers to kill large numbers of civilians. Three went off in Central Iraq today, killing fifty and wounding over a hundred. Security officials believe that the terrorists are working off an inventory of car and personal bombs, prepared just for this "offensive." But it's also been noted that the quality of the suicide bombers has declined. Some have turned out to be people who were mentally ill (and easy to convince to kill themselves). In other cases, the suicide bombers are just carrying or driving the explosives, which are set off by remote control by someone else. It's suspected that some of the drivers in these cases had signed up to move explosives, not be there when they went off. This sort of thing has been done during other suicide bomber campaigns, and is simply a sign of difficulty in recruiting suicide bombers competent, or dedicated enough, to do the deed completely by themselves.

Almost all of the casualties of these attacks are Iraqi citizens - there have been very, very few coalition casualties recently. What little support that the insurgency has had has dwindled even further because of this. Iraqis may have been unhappy with American occupation, but they are incensed at the insurgents killing innocent fellow Iraqis.

I have felt that the insurgency will fail for two reasons.

One, they will, sooner rather than later, run out of suicide bombers, which is really their only effective weapon. I am sure that there are thousands of insurgents willing to pick up a gun and fight the Americans, but I am also sure that the percentage of those fighters willing to strap a bomb to themselves is very low.

In addition, the insurgents are continuing to lose what little popular support they had. This has been a Sunni insurgency from day one, and the popular support had come from some of this minority (Sunnis being only 20% of the population). Now that the victims of these attacks are primarily innocent Iraqis, with some Sunnis even among the dead, the average Sunni is losing patience. As Strategy Page points out, and contrary to what might be popular opinion in the US:

The terrorists are hated by most Iraqis, including many Sunni Arabs, which means more tips from Iraqis about where the terrorists are. Car bomb factories are being found, where people are arrested and documents and computers seized.

The insurgency cannot survive long without some sort of popular local support. As this support fades, more insurgents will be captured or killed. Or, many may just decide to disappear back into society and save their skins. This will happen with "ground troops" who are not the fanatical Islamists that the very top echelon bad guys are. The higher ranking operatives, many of which are Sunni Baath party types, will also start to give up when they see the alternatives (death or capture). These "middle management" types will be able to bargain their freedom by turning on their bosses, hopefully leading to the capture of guys like Zarqawi. These people may be different in many ways from your average westerner, but they will still be subject to the laws of human nature, especially the law of self-preservation.

This seems to be a plausible way for the insurgency to crumble. It may take many more months, but it will happen, and the attacks will diminish, and Iraqis can get on with rebuilding their society.

Georgia Bush

2005-05-10T12:06:00.000-04:00

George W. Bush in the country that loved him so much it took his name. via Gateway Pundit. Great video and pictures from his trip, where thousands of Georgians came out to cheer the man reviled in Europe.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said it was by far the largest gathering in the country since its independence, and it was certainly one of the largest Bush has ever addressed.

I'm sure that these wonderful pictures will just not register with his harshest critics, but isn't it clear that the people who have an understanding of what totalitarianism is, like citizens of former Soviet states, seem to really like George Bush?

Soon enough, he'll be back home facing tiresome protests from people who have never faced oppression. Enjoy it while you can GW (and Laura).

Famous Director Exposed as Unmanly

2005-05-09T16:23:00.000-04:00

Stephen Spielberg cries "like a baby" at Star Wars screening.

"I haven't cried that much since I read the reviews for The Terminal", blubbered Spielberg, blowing his nose with a $1,000 dollar bill.

"Hanks owes me 20 bucks" yelled Revenge of the Sith director George Lucas outside the screening, as he witnessed Spielberg's breakdown. Later, Lucas was seen taunting Spielberg, calling him "baby-face", "crybaby-head" and "the billionaire baby".

This is George Lucas's third attempt to get the famed director to cry. In 1997 he told him the truth about Santa Claus. Understandably, Spielberg was not phased by the news. In 2001, Lucas kicked him in the shins. That time, Spielberg whimpered and looked sad, but did not actually cry.
.

"I just wanted to show the world that he isn't the 'Hollywood tough guy' that he makes himself out to be", Lucas said, referring to Spielberg's supposed penchant for barroom brawls and biker gangs. "He's actually just a big p*ssy".
.

With his next movie, Lucas would like to make Ron Howard vomit.