~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Saturday, December 13, 2003
A Triumph Over Fantasy Ideology
The dream of EU Apparachics everywhere has met the irresistable force of reality, and has been crushed:
Many issues could have tripped up the summiteers
You can say that again. It goes on:
Many issues could have tripped up the summiteers, but the voting dispute involving Poland and Spain on the one side and Germany and France on the other was the deciding factor. . .
Today there was no sign of any concession from the Spanish and Polish leaders, with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder equally tough in insisting that any deal reflected their greater EU muscle.
Proves that the rest of Europe isn't going to be the catspaws of the Frankenreich.
If you're interested but can't bring yourself to wade through the tangled, unclear syntax of the EU Draft Constitution, there is a translation from Bureaucratese-to-English available now.
In honor of the decision not to revoke Walter Duranty's Pulitzer, I decided to create the Walter Duranty Award for Foreign Corespondence to be given annually to the most deserving foreign corespondent working for an American news organization.
Readers are invited to submit nominees for the 2003 Walter Duranty Award for Foreign Corespondence. Please provide reasons why the nominee should be considered for this award. Note that it is limited to foreign corespondents who worked for a news organization based in the United States.
Yes, yes, this is jingoism of the worst order, highly discriminatory against the many deserving journalists from other countries who would otherwise be able to compete for this prize. Perhaps we'll create a Robert Fisk Award as well, to be given to the most deserving journalist working for a news organization not based in the United States.
The first Walter Duranty Award for Foreign Corespondence will be given out early next year. Selection criterion for the winner will be complex (read = a mystery). Nominations will be accepted up to the end of the year. I do need to say that Michael Weisskopf is disqualified from consideration, on the grounds of actions incompatable with what the Duranty Award stands for.
Britian is conducting a major review of military needs, aimed in part at maintaining compatability with America's military "transformation". Check this out, and this as well:
Overburdened, put on and underfunded, the Navy, Air Force and Army soldier on, always ready to deal with the next crisis and put steel into Tony Blair's urge to wage "progressive" war and fight the good fight.
Yet the Prime Minister's smiles and blandishments cannot keep ordinary Servicemen in the ranks. Because they are volunteers, they are free to leave when their time is up.
The BBC World Service radio News portrayed this as simply Poland (and perhaps Spain) threatening to derail what the rest of Europe ("led by France and Germany") wanted, and that this Draft EU Constitution was the only possible way of doing things and if it is scrapped because of an uncompromising Poland, then that would destroy the possibility of European integration.
Of course, to present things that way, they not only slipped this down the memory hole, but made no mention of this In fact, more EU countries have serious doubts about the Draft Constitution than are for it, but the BBC's EUBC's radio program presented things quite differently - not referencing things that the BBC's own website does - because it would undermine the sense they strive to convey that this Draft EU Constitution has widespread consensus support, which is far from the truth.
We allow the BBC to continue being the "EUBC", but in exchange, the BBC doesn't charge me their onerous license fee. After all, I hate their propaganda, and seeing my hard earned cash going on such things turns my stomach. However, presumably the various Eurocrats love it, so I think -they- should pay for it.
I'm sure d'Estaing would appreciate that, an opportunity to make a selfless donation to the Voice of the People.
They can pay for their propaganda out of their own pocket, not mine.
I think that's perfect.
Note also that this EUBC article mentions the EU "avant-garde" nations. See here, here and here for more on their "Vanguardism" (also here). The BBC radio news program's news-spinners were also keen to emphasize that the Draft Constitution was "more democratic". Well, regarding that, I refer you to my "A Constitution for Bureaucratopia" series if you haven't already read it
On the other side, taking cues from one member of the terror cell to free others. More to the story than meets the BBC's eye. Perhaps more on this later (blogging somewhat limited today).
I agree with this, but I guess my expectations regarding reliable, honest journalism have hit the point where I'm no longer shocked or surprised at their slanted coverage.
I guess it was things like this, and the fact that our free, anti-censorship press decided to pay their own Ba'athist Minders to insure that stories continue to get the appropriate anti-American quotes and keep people from saying anything positive, was the last straw. Of course, there are exceptions, but that just makes the typical stuff stand out even more for what it is: Good, solid, honest reporting can be done. It's just that most "news" organizations have no interest in that, and the vast majority of their reporters are even less interested in it. It makes things like this all the more vital, even for our free society with its free but incorrigibly slanted press.
Update: One other thing. One of the reasons I didn't know about this was the fact that I never heard the BBC EUBC report it on their World Service radio news hour. Maybe they mentioned it, but if so I certainly missed it. They were too busy harping on other things in slanted ways that promote their agenda to get around to focusing on something that discomforts their vision.
Another guest blog post. Ray Phelps writes, via e-mail:
I have come to the conclusion that our generation is terminally screwed.
Let me tell you about a conversation that occurred at lunch today. My usual lunch cadre consist of my former boss, who is a Baby Boomer a couple years over 50. My current boss is a guy a couple years younger than me. And a handful of other coworkers.
Our cafeteria has some TV's that are usually turned to CNN (they won't let us tune in FOXnews, bastards ;) ) and we usually have jovial conversations about some of the more ridiculous news items. Anyhoo, there was a bit about the new prescription drug plan and I made a comment that it will vastly outgrow its projected cost. My former boss (the 50+ Baby Boomer) said he was glad it passed. He said he didn't want to have to pay for his parents prescriptions drugs.
So I asked, "What, you think that I should have to pay for YOUR parents drugs, or my other coworkers should pay?" When I pressed the issue I got same lame excuse that I was gonna have to pay the taxes anyway so I basically should just accept it. Why was it ok that I have to pay for his parents prescription drugs but not him. My current boss (the slightly younger than me guy) wondered aloud when did we become a socialist country? Afterwards, I thought of a great response. If he wasn't willing to be responsible for his own parents, what makes him think that I should be.
So on the way back upstairs, my current boss and myself talked about this a little more. His final comment on the subject was that it appeared to be more and more rewarding to just sponge off the government than actually do any work. Atlas shoulders are starting to twitch.
Why do I think our generation is terminally screwed? Because quite frankly, we don't get out and vote. The current crop of seniors and the Boomers vote by the bushel. And the Boomers are setting themselves up nicely to reap the forced windfall of their childrens labors. I have no delusion that this situation will change in the foreseeable future because of voting and age demographics
trends.
This actually worries me about the future of our country (and is in my opinion part of the leftists secret plan for bringing the country down). Social spending by the government is gonna go thru the roof over the next few years (hey, its already trending that way, check out those federal budgets over the last ten years) which means more and more tax money is gonna have to be raised to pay for it. Even a thrifty conservative like myself can see the writing on the wall. This is what I call the 'Franceification' of our economy. Its the point where government spending, and the taxes required to keep it going, reaches the point that it starts killing the golden goose. And what little money we have has to go to keep the welfare state going. Forget a decent military to defend the country (and we better hope the WOT is over at that point).
I know not all Baby Boomers feel this way, but I know a large majority of them do. Maybe our children will be able to reverse some of whats going on, but like I said, it will be too late for us.
The 'gimme generation' indeed.
Well, if it's any comfort, the good news is that the older generation(s) aint gonna live forever. We'll just have to do what we're here for and follow with the shit-scoop, sweeping up after them and getting nul respect for it. As always.
A Guest Blog post. My uncle, the one whom I have mentioned in a few posts, sends a copy of a letter to the editor he submitted to the Montrose Daily Press. Before I let you get to what he wrote, let me just remind folks that he served in the Army, in the Rangers & Special Forces. His son and daughter both served, as did his son-in-law. Also worth knowing is the fact that his son, my cousin, lost a good friend in Iraq less than a month ago: on November 17th his best friend from high school died there. My uncle writes as follows:
“I went to Salt Lake City last week to bury a soldier”. I reported that fact to get your attention, and it worked. A number of people have engaged the conversation wondering “is it worth it?”
The answer is yes. Defending the United States and the American way of life to secure freedom of action for Americans is worth his life, and it is worth my life, and it is worth my son’s life, and it is worth my son-in-law’s life, and it is worth my grandson’s life.
One has to seriously wonder why an American could ask that question. You have to know. In order to know you must have a serious, decent education. I was fortunate to have what used to be a routine, thorough-enough old fashioned liberal arts education, all of it in public schools, before liberal arts was hijacked by the Liberals. So I know these things, having been taught where American style freedom came from, and how hard fought it was to achieve by people making real sacrifices of life, blood, and fortune. Simple gratitude forces me not to give up what they achieved for me without a to–the-death fight.
You have to know that it was Western philosophy that concluded that each individual has the right to be free. You have to know that until the United States, governments viewed it as their right to suppress that freedom. You have to know the historical facts of concepts such as “The Divine Right of Kings”. You have to know that it is a historical fact and a fact of human nature for governments to suppress individual freedom as an impediment to their efficient exercise of power. You have to know that it is a fact that no other culture or government on earth affords the opportunity for the individual to flourish as does ours. You have to prefer to be free, and not submit to government that seeks to control you for your own good. You have to prefer to be free, and not make yourself slave to a government that will take the fruit of someone else’s labor and give it to you.
You have to know that freedom without the personal restraint imposed by morality empowers government to legislate every facet of your behavior. You have to restrain yourself, and actively restrain your government.
You have to know these things from learning the facts of history and questioning from a perspective of a desire to know the answer rather than sneering at the conclusion.
You have to know that other cultures and civilizations do not share Western philosophy. You have to be able to recognize what you can simply observe: that other cultures do not permit the freedoms that allow individual talent to flourish, and their lives are therefore hellish; that Americans have not earned their hatred, that hatred is conferred upon us because of the goodness of Americans and the rightness of freedom.
Americans are the most, and almost the only decent, altruistic, fair, and effective people on the planet. Most common people around the world only wish that Americans would be more aggressive, and are disappointed by American modesty.
I have been around, and I assert this and will not back away from its accuracy and rightness: all the good that mankind experiences on this planet originates with Americans.
You have to know these things in order to make the personal decision of a free man, that the American way of life is worth defending with your life.
Responding to this post from yesterday, Christopher Smith sends, via e-mail, a link to this article from Tuesday's Guardian:
The government should not approve an EU constitution drawn up by a self-selected European elite, Labour's representative on the convention that drew up the draft constitution said yesterday.
Gisela Stuart also demanded that all MPs be given a free vote on the ratification of the treaty if the government continues to rule out a referendum. She went as far as she could to back a plebiscite without breaching government policy.
"Self-selected European elite", eh? Sounds like what I've been saying about that lot.
Of course, it sounds like what a lot of people have been saying about that bunch, but they used to be invariably dismissed as xenophobic Europhobes. But the reality is becoming too obvious for people to ignore:
Other MPs, including some loyalist ministers, privately signalled their support for her comments, surprising Ms Stuart, who had expected to face widespread criticism.
Ms Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston, who was born in Germany and went to school there, was appointed to the convention by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw. She has long been a critic of the centralising direction of the European commission, but the scale of her disenchantment with the convention's federalist mentality has startled Westminster.
Ok, I guess it's time for me to make a post on the United States Supreme Court that I've been pondering making for awhile. I held off because I didn't want it to be associated with any particular recent decisions (though I really won't mind if you associate some of the musings in this post with this decision).
Of all the columnists on the Right, Ann Coulter is not one of my beloved ones. I know many people like her work very much, but I happen to not be one of them. In any case, she has a piece that displays her in full form, both the wit and the irritating style (including talking about killing abortion doctors in a rather cavalier manner, to take just one example from a piece replete with them. One may not like abortion; and Coulter is careful to not suggest she endorses killing those who perform them. But there is something unbecoming in the way she writes about it - and she doesn't care. It's deliberate, as usual). Anyhow, the piece creates an entire into what I have to say. She writes:
Judges are not our dictators. The only reason the nation defers to rulings of the Supreme Court is because of the very Constitution the justices choose to ignore. At what point has the court made itself so ridiculous that we ignore it? What if the Supreme Court finds a constitutional right to cannibalism? How about fascism? Does the nation respond by passing a constitutional amendment clearly articulating that there is no right to cannibalism or fascism in the Constitution?
Is there nothing five justices on the Supreme Court could proclaim that would finally lead a president to say: I refuse to pretend this is a legitimate ruling. Either the answer is no, and we are already living under a judicial dictatorship, or the answer is yes, and – as Churchill said – we're just bickering over the price.
It would be nice to return to our federalist system of government with three equal branches of government and 50 states, but one branch refuses to live within that system. How about taking our chances with a president and the Congress? Two branches are better than one.
Walter E. Williams, who I like far more, writes today on a similar subject, but one that might give Coulter pause in thinking that the other two branches are fully faithful to the Constitution. But be that as it may, let us pass over that for now.
The interesting thing about this country and the attitudes of people in it that it is rather widely believed that the Supreme Court is the most powerful branch of Government, or at least the first among equals: it, not Congress, not the Executive, not the States, is the final authority on any subject, the one all others must defer to.
But it's power is not very concrete. Its power stems solely from the widespread and deep respect for the Rule of Law the American people have (and if you doubt that exists, just ponder places where it is absent). Look at it this way - the Judicial Branch has no money. Congress has the purse strings and decides who gets funded and at what level. I suppose that in a country as rich as this one, if Congress decided to eliminate funding for the Supreme Court, or even the entire Federal Judiciary, the Court(s) could exist on donations. How would you like to see Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg conducting PBS-like Pledge Drives? Indeed, Congress has Constitutional discretion over the existence of Federal Courts below the Supreme Court - they are constituted as Congress determines.
The Supreme Court has no independent power to enforce its edicts. It depends upon the Executive Branch for enforcement. Indeed, Andrew Jackson, the President after which "Jacksonian America" is named, said in retort to one Supreme Court decision that "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." We tend to find that attitude rather shocking, and it has not been widespread in our history - certainly not at the Federal level.
The last widespread refusal to enforce Supreme Court decisions was undertaken by several States in the South regarding Civil Rights decisions they did not like. The Supreme Court lacked any power to compel them: it was the Executive Branch that dispatched forces under its authority to enforce the decisions. Of the Branches, the Judicial Branch is actually the weakest in concrete, materiel terms. If it was ignored, it would be impotent. But in our system, it is treated as the most powerful, the one with the prerogative not only to interpret the rules by which all the rest of us, including other institutions of government, are to follow, but increasingly to determine those rules or even create them. What would be the consequence of ignoring the Supreme Court's decisions?
Ann Coulter forgets herself. She forgets, or actually is one of those conservatives who never really learned, the Law of Unintended Consequences. I myself sometimes wonder if there could be some other, better, way of enforcing the Constitution, interpreting it, and ruling on what its provisions provide. Some other institution that, in theory, if established would be a surer guide. There is not: the same tendencies and temptations that have resulted in the current situation would affect any other institution.
Doing without the Judicial Branch, doing away with the Supreme Court and with it respect for the Rule of Law is not a positive option. Even if this Branch itself decreasingly represents the Rule of Law, and increasingly represents the Rule of Men, themselves, making ad-hoc decisions and even resorting to the invocation of how things are done in Mugabe's Zimbabwe as Justice Stephen Breyer recently said he found "useful", rather than our own Constitution and laws. I'm sure they find this recourse, at their discretion, to foreign and international rulings "useful", as a means of rationalizing the fact that their decisions are governed more and more by their whim rather than a solid basis in our Constitution, law, and past jurisprudence.
But a situation such as Coulter proposes, where in effect everyone, rather than Nine Robed Masters, in a variety of jurisdictions, are doing just that, is hardly an improvement. A Constitutional Republic shall not long survive its citizen's apathy in refusing to insure sound governance. Why can the Justices on the Supreme Court do as they do? Because we do not demand better Justices (indeed, increasingly we permit worse ones, like the aforementioned Breyer, to gain the plaudits, and disparage any who aren't that creative in finding ways to make their whim the "law of the land" - a Legislative phrase, by the way, rather than Judicial phrase). Except for a small fringe of right-wing extremists, we do not demand that our elected legislators confirm judges and Justices who are sound on the Law, instead praising those who promote the idea that political ideology, in Senator Schumer's formulation (followed by the vast majority of his party), be the determining factor of who should or should not sit on the bench. But that is, again, the prerogative of elected Representatives. Judges and Justices are to administer the Law and Constitution, not the ideology-of-the-moment: that should be legislated via the appropriate means, and if the Constitution does not empower some thing to be done, our "United States of America Owner's Manual" has a provision for amending the Constitution, legitimately, through Constitutional means - rather than extra-Constitutional ones.
Coulter's proposal is no more Constitutional than the things she deplores. Her proposal that we simply act as if one Branch of the Federal Government was a dead-letter is hardly a way to revive respect for the Constitution-as-written. It simply sends us further down the path we are on. If We the People want this fixed, and Constitutional Government and our freedom of political speech restored, we're going to have to demand it, and elect representatives who will do so, and who will nominate and confirm Judges who will do so, and who will use the Constitutional provisions for removing those who do not respect the Constitution from office (remember, Justices do not serve for life. They serve for "good behavior"). After all, it isn't as if the Judicial Branch created the Political Speech Regulation Act of 2002 on its own. It simply refused to rule an unConstitutional law passed by the Legislative Branch and signed into law by the Executive unConstitutional. All three Branches are in breach here. And I myself plan on voting next year for the man who signed the Political Speech Regulation Act of 2002 into law.
So we get what we deserve, and there is no way around it, no easy solution, no matter how much the Coulter's of the world might dream their is - in no small part by imagining the problem more narrowly confined than it is and that the other two Branches would be sound on Constitutional matters if only the United States Supreme Court were voided. As if.
What Part of "Congress Shall Make No Law" Don't You Understand?
The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, has upheld the Political Speech Regulation Act.
Scalia called it "a sad day for the freedom of speech."
"Who could have imagined," Scalia wrote, that the same court that gave free-speech protection to tobacco advertising and sexually explicit cable TV shows "would smile with favor upon a law that cuts to the heart of what the First Amendment is meant to protect: the right to criticize the government."
One doesn't have to wonder how the people who complain about "a chilling effect on speech" when one of us uses
our freedom of speech to criticize them will react towards this. They'll praise it.
Meanwhile, if one really cares about civil liberties and the loss of them, then today is a dark day.
I hadn't thought of it quite this way, but that is pretty impressive.
I mean, I have thought of the risks, and the impact in getting out a different perspective such folks have. And I voted for Healing Iraq and The Mesopotamian in the "Best Up-and-Coming" category. But I hadn't thought of it in the way Jeff Jarvis puts it, and looking at it that way highlights how really impressive it is.
Or not. Whatever. But the Fighting Whites t-shirt sale is under way. I like 'em 'cause their main mascot reminds me a bit of Bob Dobbs, but without the pipe.
Remember this when the scions and appologists of the "International Community" prattle on about their respect for dissent and concern for freedom of expression and distaste for chilling it.
My friend Last Toryboy writes, via e-mail, about a subject reminding the British Monarch of her Royal duties:
A blogger sent this as an open letter to the Queen. I heard in the Telegraph a while back that the Queen was worried about the EU constitution, so maybe this sort of thing is on her mind...
Slender hopes to be had here, but I'll take what I can get.
LTB didn't send me the link and isn't online at the moment (looking at ICQ) for me to get it from him. But he did send the text of the letter, apparently in its entirety. If I can get the link, I'll link to the site of its origin later:
Your Majesty, I have seen a report in one of the weekend papers that you have received many appeals from British Subjects to veto the proposed EU constitution, and apparently your position is that it is up to your ministers to decide such matters.
Well, i[f] that is your position, it is my duty to advise you that you are mistaken.
Just like your subjects, you are bound by the terms of Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights (1689).
Magna Carta requires that the monarch guarantees the liberty of the subjects, while the Bill of Rights prevents their being handed over to the government of any foreign power.
The raison d'etre of the EU is the destruction of the nation states of Europe, and the creation of a single country that spreads from the Atlantic to the Urals.
No group in our society, however exalted its members might be, has any authority to ignore, amend or overturn Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights.
For that reason, should Parliament pass any bill which accepts the EU constitution as binding on the British people, you are legally and morally obliged to veto it.
The Royal Prerogative may not be used innovatively, i.e. against the interests of the British people. Should any minister or ministers use the Royal Prerogative to sign any treaty to enforce the EU constitution as binding on the British people, you are similarly legally and morally obliged to veto it.
You are now the only person in this country with the authority, and the power, to protect and preserve our constitution and our liberty. The survival of our country, your subjects, and your crown is now in your hands. Please preserve and defend them.
A couple months back I linked to One-Sided Wonder, and suggested folks check it out. A few weeks ago there was a brief little exchange on the subject of friendship (which, naturally, I came out best on, of course). I voted for OSW in RWN's 2nd Annual Warblogger Awards, in the category "most underrated", and, of course, being underrated, it didn't win (btw, if you haven't seen it already, check out RWN's top 20 most annoying libs).
Well, our One-Sided Wonder is getting attention from Natalie Solent and Tim Blair now (but, so far as we know, we have the privilege of having linked to OSW first). So, if you foolishly ignored my earlier suggestion:
1) Let this be a lesson to you. Don't ignore my suggestions.
and
2) Go check it out now.
One-Sided Wonder is going to be a pretty cool blog. Even if Anne isn't always right.
Henceforth, this website is intransigently dedicated to the utter and complete political defeat of the Democrats in 2004. "So in other words, no change" you say. Not quite. The key word, I suppose, is "intransigently".
Before, I had hoped that they might take a different tack. Now I know that they will not: they are intent on politicizing the war. What's worse, I shall know now that any attempt to "move to the middle" will be purely political, and done only after having secured the support of, made common cause with, and thus preserved the political relevance of, the worst elements in American politics.
They, who perhaps alone could do so, will not do anything to marginalize those on their side of the spectrum who should be marginalized, because they are addicted to their support and indeed see these people as enlightened and of high moral principle. Thus, the worst elements in today's American political landscape will play a - perhaps the - decisive role in choosing their candidate and the direction of their politics. They not only will do so, they are doing so, and the Democrats are currying favor with them, conciously and deliberately.
I am intransigently opposed to these factions in American politics. For some reason, it is acceptable to have such opposition to, say, the Falwells and Robertsons of the world and take political stands based on that, but not when it comes to the Left. Well, I've never been one to have my positions and beliefs dictated by fashion.
Here is a good policy, which is of course opposed by those who think there should be no consequences to their opposition to the U.S.
But, then, they don't want to be in Iraq, right? So we're only helping them keep their high principles. Now, I do know that this policy will not only be opposed by those nations that did not support us, but also by Democrats who would rather curry favor with those who oppose us than reward those who help us. But see my next post (above).
Richard Meixner sent this link to me last night; and yes, I have seen it and no I haven't forgotten it. Because of some other matters rattling through my head, though, as I viewed it again something came together.
From the same wellspring that causes me to want to see those who did that, those who supported that, and those who might commit, participate, or support similar or worse in the future, destroyed utterly, also causes me to be intransigent regarding those who would wrong such friends as I have. From the same sentiment that causes me to be protective of friend and family, issues forth the desire to see nation and country protected.
And yes, I too have a sister, and she lives on Manhattan. I too have a friend, and she lives in New York City. I am under no illusions regarding what the likely targets are. After all, after they hit the World Trade Center the first time, they did not then, later, switch to hitting something in small-town America. They hit it again, harder. Would that we - including myself - had paid more heed to the first attack. I had wished we had done more after the first attack, but that does not mean I made it a priority. Thus I have a hard time pointing fingers at others who also did not treat it as it should have been treated.
New York City, Washington DC, Rome, Paris, London: these are the places that were and now remain the most likely targets.
Unlike those who, when attacked, wonder what we did wrong to cause others to attack us, I see an attack on our nation as an attack on me. I see a wrong committed against a friend as a wrong committed against me. It matters far less why they did it than that they did it, and the reasons for their action are only important to me to the extent that knowing one's enemies helps defeat them.
Oh, and to make a political point out of this, since the Democrats have already gone far, very far, in politicizing the war: one will never find me making common cause with those who don't think this way. Yes, arguably such elements are a minority in Democratic politics, but the Democrats have decided they cannot win without that minority and thus will do what they need to do to placate that faction. I have tried to argue there is another path, one that led Truman to triumph in '48, but no one is going to listen to the voice of one small blog. They won't even listen to the likes of Susan Estrich or Zell Miller or Andrew Cuomo on that. Why would anyone listen to me.
Obviously, they won't. There was a Panderpalooza! event last night, catering to this faction that the Democrats have made common cause with. Andrew Sullivan has it covered. I really don't have the interest - or the heart - to focus on it myself right now.
That was once a great American political party. I donno, is it now a World Community political party? You Democrats tell me. Or not. Tendentious arguments will get the replies they deserve - vicious and merciless.
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he who, in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of the darkness. For he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know I am the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon you."
The humane anti-war crowd says little about things like this, for good reason. It contradicts their self-image as the humane people to have to think about whether it would be a good idea to put a stop to things like that. Sure, that wasn't the reason Bush offered for the war, or the main reason for it. But I thought these people considered themselves the ones who could think for themselves, and thus maybe have their own reasons for supporting - not just opposing - action.
commit[ed] African countries to setting and policing standards of good governance across the continent, respecting human rights and working for peace and poverty reduction in return for increased aid, private investment and a reduction of trade barriers by rich countries.
But right from the start, Robert Mughabe's behavior in Zimbabwe was a test of this commitment, which they have persistently failed while simultaneously expecting that the aid and investment be given as if they had followed through on this. Then they blame everything on racism.
Well, it's the same old cycle. So NEPAD gets an F: same attitude in a new package, and Africa no better off than before. Sorry, guys, but no one's going to invest much in your countries until you actually start following through with these commitments, not just talking about them and expecting a reward for platitudes without follow through and action.
You're not France, you know; getting praise for platitudes sans action only works for the French.
Update: Plus, with all the money my friends in Africa are offering me nearly every day, we're talking millions here, tens of millions, even, it doesn't really seem like they need an influx of cash. They seem to have more than they know what to do with. I just got the following lucrative offer from a friend in South Africa that I didn't even know I had:
It is my great pleasure to write you this letter on
behalf of my colleagues. I got your information from a
colleague in the chamber of commerce in my country
while searching for a reliable partner to assist in
this proposal. I have decided to seek a confidential
co-operation with you in execution of a deal hereunder
for the benefit of all parties, and hope you will keep
it confidential because of the nature of this
business. Within the Department of Mining Resources
where I work as the Director of Project
Implementation, with co-operation of two other top
officials, we have in our possession, an overdue
payment in US funds.
The said funds represent certain percentage of the
contract value executed on behalf of my Ministry by a
foreign contracting firm, which we the officials
over-invoiced to the amount of US$26.5M. (Twenty - Six
Million Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars).
Though the actual contract cost has been paid to the
original contractor, leaving the excess balance
unclaimed.
The Government of the Republic of South Africa believe
that private investment in general, and foreign direct
investment in particular, are the real engines for
sustainable economic development, for which reason it
has continued to encouraged investment in the key
growth-oriented sector of Mining with sincere
determination to pay foreign contractors
all debts owed to them, so as to continue to enjoy
close relationship, and mutually beneficial
co-operation with foreign governments and
non-governmental financial agencies. As a result we
included our bills for approvals with the co-operation
of some officials at the Department of Finance and the
Reserve Bank of South Africa (RBSA). We are seeking
your assistance to be the beneficiary of the unclaimed
funds, since we are not allowed to operate foreign
account. The changing of beneficiary's information/
details and other forms of documentation upon
application for claim to reflect the contract money
and its approvals will be secured on behalf of your
company or your self.
I have the authority of my colleagues involved to
propose that, should you be willing to assist us in
this transaction your share as compensation will be
20% while my colleagues and I shall receive 70%, and
the balance of 10% shall be used to reimburse all
expenditures, taxes and miscellaneous expenses so
incurred. It does not matter whether or not your
company does contract projects of the nature described
here. The assumption is that your company won the
major contract and subcontracted it to other
companies. More often than not, big trading companies
and firms of unrelated fields win major contracts, and
subcontract to more specialized firms for execution.
This business itself is 100% safe, provided you treat
it with utmost confidentiality. Also your
specialization is not a hindrance to the successful
execution of this mutual beneficiary transaction.
Please kindly notify me for further details if you are
interested or not in this proposal by emailing me at
my above email
Regards,
ENGR.STEVE TUTU
So I'm thinking that, when it comes to money, they have more than they know what to do with.
Putin gains the upper hand in Russian Parliamentary selections (more here), while the Communist Party has its vote share halved.
On the drive into work today listening to the BBC, Claire & the rest were really broken up about the collapse of the CP vote. In between their lamentations over the decline of the party that did sooo much for the Russian people during its seventy year rule, they managed to talk about how the new pro-Putin Parliament will work to enhance the powers of the Presidency. I'm sure that's true, and that's a real concern. But what does he need that he doesn't have? A crown and a scepter? A mandate calling for all portraits of him to include a halo around his head? The title "Equal of the Apostles"?
Update: My friend Solmyr comments, via ICQ:
Heh.
Well, one thing he doesn't have is, say, presidency for life or something similar.
Well, not officially. But neither does Robert Mughabe, but it doesn't mean Mugabe's democratic credentials are bright and shining.
Titles like "Maximum Leader", "Generalissimo", and "President for Life" are unfashionable, and the global elite don't mind undemocratic, but unfashionable is right out.
A lot of people are blogging about Gore endorsing Dean. I guess I don't care.
About the only endorsements that matter anymore in politics are:
Who a newspaper endorses, because they slant their news coverage in that person's favor and against their opponent.
Who an organization (fundraising/ "independent expenditure" group) endorses, because they spend money on your behalf (or, most likely, against your opponents, making negative ads so you don't have to).
Who a Union endorses, because they'll give you $$ out of coerced union dues and put their facilities & organization (likewise built out of said dues) to work on your behalf.
Who a Governor in a key state, or mayor with significant political clout (rare nowdays) endorses and will put their political machine to work on your behalf.
Everything else doesn't really matter too much. Ex-office holders like Gore are like an appendix. You've got one, but it doesn't matter much. Anyone who likes Dean will be glad to have Gore on board, those who are against him or undecided are highly unlikely to have their views influenced by the fact that Gore likes Dean. So it's no biggie.
(Yah, I know this is a longish post for something I think is small beer: I had to explain why I thought it wasn't worth paying much attention to, and that took up most of the space). (I guess a Dean supporter could write and say my post shows that it does matter and I'm just trying to minimize it. I'd be more impressed by a non-Dean supporter who wrote to say that, gosh, because of Al Gore, he's seriously considering switching support from Lieberman, who he was supporting 'cause he thought Al Gore would have wanted him to, to Dean now, because Al Gore told him Dean was the man. Actually, I wouldn't be impressed by such servility, but it would show I was wrong).
Regarding yesterday's quasi-review, Jacob Proffitt writes, via e-mail:
Thanks for the review. I haven't seen it yet and probably won't now. Not because of the concern you had or anything. I'll check other reviews to make sure I'm not over-reacting, but it sounds like Yet Another Anti-Gun Diatribetm. Good guys refuse to use guns, bad, venal, dishonorable people use them to win. It's better to die than to compromise on gun control. Sounds like more of the same ole that I am really getting tired of from Hollywood.
P.S. Standard "I'm not a nut-job disclaimer": I don't actually own a gun and don't really want to, but I am awful tired of the whole liberal true-faith nonsense we get non-stop and want to be able to buy a gun if I ever change my mind.
The reason I'm posting this is because I think it means I have to re-clarify something.
I would not say it's an anti-gun movie. I guess it could be seen that way, but that's not really what I detected. It's certainly not an anti-violence movie.
What it is, what I saw, was a nostalgia movie, an anti-modernity movie romanticizing pre-modernization Japan and the elements of post-modernization Japan that arguably produced some of the worst elements of Japanese society in the first half of the 20th century. To the extent to which it's anti-modernity, it is as a consequence also anti-gun (as a emblem of modernity), but that is not the focus. There was also more than a dash of an anti-Western attitude in the film, with the Western (especially American) figures being the plague-carriers spreading the bad things & ideas that threatened the Way of the Samurai. But not so large a dose of that to turn me against the movie (and I'm very affected by these things).
I wouldn't really call my post a review of the movie. As I said at the start of my screed, it fixates on one element that bothers me in a film that I otherwise enjoyed. I had thought of titling that post "the perils of nostalgia" and noting my own nostalgic streak, which is about ten miles wide and arguably includes luddite tendencies (I too have a fondness for pre-modern eras and some aspects of pre-modern society, while simultaneously striving to not romanticize it and certainly recognizing that given the choice, all other things being equal, it is much better to live now than it would have been to live then).
My post is not even a full review of my entire reactions and thoughts about The Last Samurai, just the aspects that bothered me enough I wanted to post them - that's why I'm reluctant to call it a review. I would still recommend the film.
Update: Mark Sloboda writes, via e-mail:
You're right that they added that strong anti-modernist element to the
movie, which made it into a worse movie than it should have been; but
basically I thing The Last Samurai was carefully written by the marketing
department, to make money in two huge markets. They had Cruise next to
Watanabe to bring in the young women in the US/Japan, enough violence to
keep the young guys happy, and the storyline was carefully crafted not to
upset various segments of the Japanese market.
Yep, and it's pretty kickass in those departments. I even found Cruise's love interest endearing, even though that was pretty much a stock role. What can I say? I'm a sucker and a sentimental romantic.
Too bad it offered such a cartoonish view of modern nation states.
So I snuck off to see The Last Samurai this evening. The below shall constitute part of my reaction to the film.
I'm not going to deliberately include spoilers but neither am I going to go out of my way to avoid them. So, for those of you who'd like to read on, go for it, and for those of you who'd like to know what it's about but without any spoilers, it's about two and a half hours (nyuck nyuck nyuck. An oldie, but a goodie. Well, ok, an oldie).
So, before I launch into my screed I just want to say this was a good film, or at any rate I liked it and I didn't let what bothered me (see below) ruin my enjoyment of it. My criticism is peculiar enough that probably I'm the only one who would make it, though I guess some people might share aspects of it. But it is a good film as what it is.
In 1261 the Mamluks of Egypt defeated the Mongols at Ain Jalut. The Mamluks were a skilled warrior class, and their feat of defeating a Mongol army while the Mongols were still at or near the peak of their strength was only matched by the Samurai of Japan (and the later received providential help in the form of a Divine Wind). The Mamluks resembled the Samurai in one other way, in that they came to dominate the politics of their country (Egypt) in much the same way the Samurai would under the Shogunate, reducing the ruler to a titular role. But the Mamluks failed to adapt to changing circumstances, and the Ottomans crushed them decisively early in the 16th century.
At that time the Ottomans were at the peak of their strength, with an elite warrior caste (actually, several distinct ones) forming the most powerful state in the Mediterranean world at the time. It included the most disciplined and highly trained soldiers of the era and the most advanced gunpowder artillery as well. But the Ottomans ossified, in no small part due to the influence of their warrior caste to prevent change and adaptation. Only when it was too late (in the late 19th century and early 20th century) were steps taken to try and catch up, but by this time the Ottoman Empire had long been "the sick man of Europe" (a role currently occupied by the EU).
Note that I called the Ottoman Empire "the most powerful state in the Mediterranean world at the time", not the most powerful state in the world. That privilege belonged to China, and had for many centuries. Indeed, China invented many of the things that other nations then adopted for their own use, from gunpowder to paper and the printing press. China produced iron in industrial quantities and had a powerful ocean-going navy. But they stopped advancing, confident in their pre-eminence as the Ottomans were in theirs, and eventually once-dominant China became dominated by foreign barbarians.
Japan, long influenced by China, observed this and was influenced by it: a circle of politically influential men around the Emperor decided to take decisive action so this would not happen to their country. In their way stood not foreign nations, which were happy to sell Japan the tools to modernize, but, as in the Ottoman Empire and Mamluk Egypt, a warrior caste bound to preserve its traditions, and its traditional role.
The real tragedy, all but lost in the film, is that it didn't have to be this way. This same warrior caste had, in earlier centuries, shown itself adaptive enough to use troops wielding gunpowder weapons in forging a military despotism (the Shogunate). They then banned such weapons, realizing, as European Knights did, that they were a threat to their status. The European Knights could not accomplish a ban because of the fragmented state of Europe. But the Shoguns and Daimyos of Japan could. However, when it was not to last, they could have adapted, as their ancestors had.
But the Last Samurai were armed with the traditional Katana, Wakizashi,and Daikyu, and the troops under their command were equipped with traditional weapons. The conflict that is portrayed in the film came about because of a refusal on their part to adapt. Japan faced an unforgiving choice: adapt, or suffer the same fate as so many other countries. Everything is a tradeoff, and some things are lost as others are gained. This happens in our own history, as we have made great gains so some things we look back upon wistfully are missing, or their roles in our lives and society reduced or altered. But the tradeoff has purpose because gains outweigh losses.
For me, the very real tragedy, in the true sense of the word, is truncated in The Last Samurai, as the Samurai and Daimyo class are portrayed idealistically, with the flaws of this system glossed over. The Samurai and their Daimyos were not selfless, they were, after all, attempting to preserve their own position and status. As they are portrayed idealistically, so are those on the other side of this conflict portrayed in the worst light possible - only the briefest and most superficial mention is made of the imperative behind the Meiji modernization thrust, but by and large the motives behind it are portrayed as venal and corrupt. In this sense it is in some ways Howard Zinn's Noam Chomsky's The Last Samurai (though I wouldn't push that point too hard).
There is, of course, a climactic moment when it is rather bluntly. . .illustrated. . .that the Samurai clinging to their traditional fighting methods and equipment would not serve their Emperor, would not serve their nation, in the face of an army equpped with modern weapons. Adapt, or die.
I too shed a tear during that scene. For the nobility and honor, the integrity of fighting for - and how - one believes. But the tear was in part sorrow over the waste. As I said, in dying, they did not serve their Emperor, and they did not serve their nation. The film ends on a faux-happy note, with the Meiji Emperor embracing the code of the Samurai and vowing that it will be preserved. The Code of Bushido will exist, but the Samurai are gone.
Perhaps I am influenced some by what Steven Den Beste recently wrote on the subject, in his review of several Anime series. But I think I would have reached the same conclusion on my own: this was not an unmitigated blessing. Perhaps things might have been different if the Samurai had served their Emperor in life rather than death; if they had been willing to adapt rather than ridged. They could have served better as examples to emulate - if they really resembled the idealized Samurai of the film (which is debatable to some extent). after all, if they had been as noble and selfless servants as portrayed in the film, they would have been willing to sacrifice more than just their lives in the service of their Emperor and nation. But we will never know how things might have gone, because they were not.
I do identify with what it means to live by a code that can sometimes be demanding. Mine is not Bushido, and I am far from perfect and neither is my own code (which, for example, demands that when slighted, restitution be given or consequences will be exacted). It does, however, sometimes mean that I cannot do something that I might wish to (as at least one reader may know, though apparently this reader does not read my blog as religiously as I thought). I can only be as I am, and to do otherwise, even when it might be desirous or gain me something I want, is in some cases not possible.
The film centers on this in many ways. But it does so in a manner that, as I said, truncates the tragedy of it, by failing to treat the situation in the way it should have been. By making one side the "white hats" and the other the "dark hats", it blurs this factor. It becomes a doomed but noble fight against the forces of venality and corruption, rather than a tragic situation where one's adherence to principle leads one into conflict with those who are also acting in what they see as the best interests of all, with a dreadful outcome.
Early on in the film this is illustrated, after the battle in which Tom Cruise's character is captured. The general of the defeated Imperial army commits Seppuku. The reason that is offered is that he cannot live with the shame of defeat. This is true, but in my opinion it is only part of it. This man had fought alongside Katsumoto (leader of the Samurai) and felt honour bound not to fight him. However, his duty as he saw it lay with serving the Emperor. For him, these two demands conflicted: so he did not fight in the battle, was captured, and committed Seppuku because there was no course of action which would not dishonor him.
In some ways, in many ways, this is The Last Samurai in microcosm: the Samurai must serve the Emperor, but be true to their code of honour, and because of the way they interpret this code, it comes in conflict. The only honorable out for them is a frontal horse-mounted charge on a ridge lined with howitzers and gattling guns. This, of course, is suicide.
They died with their honour, but the nation they served would, perhaps as a result, lose its, and has yet to come fully to grips with the shame of their actions in the first half of the 20th century.
There is much to admire about the film, and much to admire about the country it is set in. It is my
