Highway 99
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
THE SISTAH SOULJAH MOMENT. Earlier today, there was a brouhaha (or was it a kerfuffle?) concerning photos of John Kerry wearing a jacket with a rather eye-catching yellow daisy-shaped zipper-pull.
Glenn Reynolds kept updating the story throughout the day as more and more bloggers chimed in.
But the one comment of Glenn's that really got my attention was his description of the yellow daisy as "an obscure hip-hop reference." Well, I had to click on that link to find out what was going on.
It was worth it.
A heavy dose of street cred? Kerry?'I'm fascinated by Rap and Hip-Hop' says Democratic presidential candidate, John Kerry during an MTV Choose or Loose [sic] forum. Offering up a heavy dose of street credibility, Kerry defended gansta rap, freedom of speech and the realities of street life.
And I don't think this is a parody site -- it appears to want to be taken quite seriously.
Yeah, I can picture John now, hanging around the mansion, rapping along with Nas . . .The Boston-born heir by marriage to the Heinz Ketchup fortune, offered his perspective on rap music as the voice of the streets.
"I'm fascinated by rap and by hip-hop. I think there's a lot of poetry in it. There's a lot of anger, a lot of social energy in it. And I think you'd better listen to it pretty carefully, 'cause it's important."
Does this guy ever say anything that isn't either scripted, or complete gobbledegook?When questioned about offensive rap lyrics, Kerry said there is a line to be drawn, but defended freedom of speech.
"I think that there is a line you draw between government intervention and the right of speech and the right for people to express themselves, but do I think there are standards of decency in that? Yes, I do.["]
AT LAST! JOHN KERRY'S SISTAH SOULJAH MOMENT!["]Do I think that sometimes some lyrics in some songs have stepped over what I consider to be a reasonable line? Yeah, I do. I think when you start talking about killing cops or something like that, it bothers me."
Oh, I give up. Read the original here.Calling rap a "reflection of life", Kerry empathized with the struggles reflected in the music.
"I'm still listening because I know that it's a reflection of the street and it's a reflection of life, and I understand all that. I'm not for the government censoring or stepping in. But I don't think it's inappropriate occasionally to talk about what you think is a standard or what you think is a value that is worth trying to live up to."
Update. I clicked on the links above to make sure they worked, and noticed that the second link's article had been changed slightly: the "says" in the first sentence had been changed to "said" and the misspelling in "Choose or Loose" had been corrected.
Another update. It's also worth checking out this discussion forum, where the hip-hop site's readers discuss whether they think Kerry was honest in his remarks or just pandering. As of a few minutes ago (it's 10:15 p.m. California time), Kerry wasn't doing too well. With one or two exceptions, nobody leaving comments likes Kerry; with (I think) one exception, nobody likes Bush either. The people who say they're going to vote for Kerry say they'll do it purely to vote against Bush. Not really a bunch of happy campers tuning in to this particular hip-hop site. Surprising how typical they are of the Democratic party as a whole this year.
I need to update a post from earlier this month, in which I suggested a no-frills approach to campaign advertising that could act as a form of alternative news media by widely disseminating important facts that the liberal news establishment won't report.
The post included a list of specific chunks of information that could be publicized via these commercials and that might serve to shift the audience's general frame of reference.
Several items on the list dealt with facts about France and Germany that most Americans might not be familiar with. The point of these ads would be to disarm Democrats who try to idealize Old Europe, especially when they're trying to sell Americans on the joys of socialized medicine.
Specifically, it's item #8 on the list that requires updating. I wanted the commercial to feature the idea that at the last election -- the one in which Le Pen came in second -- about 40% of the French voters opted for either a Communist or substantially Fascist political party. I don't think most Americans know about this, and I think they'd be rightly appalled if they did know.
The update? Well, as you might have heard, the French held another election a few days ago, and Chirac's party apparently got trounced. But the part that hasn't gotten so much publicity is where all those former Chirac voters went. Here, let Mark Steyn fill in the details:
Read the whole thing; the column isn't really about the French elections, it's about how Germany is paying through the nose to uphold the European Union, and it contains a lot of information I'd never heard before.This weekend, for example, nearly 60 per cent of French electors voted Socialist, Communist, Fascist or Green. Most of the rest voted for the "ruling centre-Right" - ie, Chirac. Does that sound like an "ally" that's ever again likely to grant overflight rights to the USAF? Better a nice clean flight plan direct from Missouri or Diego Garcia.
Feline invasion! Courtesy of Being American in T.O., here's a parody video that might leave you pondering what a creepy tune Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" really is.
Back in February, I pointed to evidence that Howard Dean was receiving illegal campaign contributions from French citizens, and wondered whether anyone was investigating. Since Dean had already begun his decline and fall, however, it didn't strike me as a particularly urgent question.
Lately, given the popularity of John Kerry in Europe, and especially in our best buddy-ally France, I've been wondering along similar lines . . . if French citizens would send money to Dean, doesn't it seem likely that they'd also send money to Kerry?
This possibility is more plausible than ever, considering that Kerry's campaign has now been accused of breaking campaign-finance laws by coordinating efforts with the pro-Kerry 527 soft-money organizations.
So I'll say now about Kerry's possible foreign funding what I said in February about Dean's: I hope someone in a position of power is looking into this.
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Okay, I'll take the job, but I don't do windows. Notable "help wanted" ad on page 19 of the March 13th issue of The Economist:
I was negligent not to post this sooner; if any of my readers miss out on getting the Director-General's job because they didn't know the deadline for submitting their CV, I'll be conscience-stricken.BBC
Director-General
At the heart of the national life of the UK, the BBC is a large, complex multi-media and cultural organisation. Publicly funded through the television licence fee, and also having a number of commercial operations, the BBC operates under Royal Charter and an Agreement with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport.
The new Director-General must be fully committed to the BBC's public service role and will lead the BBC through and beyond the review of its current Royal Charter and Agreement, which expire in December 2006.
Applicants must have experience of operating in the public eye at the highest level and have the professional credibility, resilience and integrity to lead the BBC. Knowledge of the media business and proven leadership, strategic and financial skills will also therefore be prerequisites.
The appointment is made by the BBC Governors.
CVs should be sent in confidence to Stephen Dando, Director, BBC People, BBC Broadcasting House, Portland Place, London W1A 1AA by the 22nd March 2004.
BBC People? I assume that's the personnel-slash-human-resources department?
I'm just surprised that the BBC advertised for an employee outside the pages of The Guardian. A policy change due to the Hutton Report? Not that it means much, of course, symbolism aside. I'm sure they already have their candidate (or perhaps two or three) picked out.
I hope there are a few leaks as the selection process plays out. The official version of the story will be utterly dull, but the behind-the-scenes reality should be fascinating.
Sunday, March 28, 2004
Unless you get that kid a work permit immediately, we're calling the UN! There, that should scare 'em. How dare those Palestinian terrorists mess with the child-labor laws?
The statement went on to say, "Adults should also cease to exploit children by making them take part in such acts by standing next to Jewish kids when they detonate, blowing them to smithereens, ripping their limbs off, splattering their brains all over the interiors of Israeli shopping malls and restaurants--"Israel Defense Forces paratroopers caught a Palestinian boy aged 14 wearing an explosive belt at the Hawara roadblock, south of Nablus, in the West Bank on Wednesday afternoon.
. . . The family of the boy said that he was gullible. "He doesn't know anything," his brother, Hosni, said.
In a statement, the Israel branch of Physicians for Human Rights condemned the Palestinian militants for sending the teenager on a bombing mission.
The statement said, "Adults should cease to exploit children by making them take part in such acts." The Israeli branch of the physicans group often issues protests about Israel's practices in the territories.
Oops! My mistake. It actually didn't go on to say that at all.
(I keep forgetting: The deaths of Jewish kids don't count. When will I learn?)
How did it come about that liberals the world over are afflicted by the same pusillanimous, smarmy, cowardly, blind, masochistic, self-loathing moral idiocy?
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Canada has a new magazine, and I'm connecting to it here. The Western Standard, the gestation of which I've been following on Mark Steyn's website for several weeks, is open for business. It is the only media site I've been able to find in Canada that is not more or less left-wing (excluding several bloggers, of course). I've blogrolled the Standard, too.
These folks need all the help they can get; I've gotten the impression that it's harder to be any sort of non-leftist in Canada than it is in the U.S., Australia, or even Britain. Good luck to them; I hope I'll be able to link to some interesting articles in the months to come.
Adventures in 9/11 investigating, from the New York Daily News:
Ain't it funny how standards of evidence are so -- what's the right word? -- flexible? I could've sworn that it was the vicious warmongering Republicans who leapt into wars based on insufficient evidence and the scrupulous Democrats who required proof that would pass muster at the United Nations.Panel member Tim Roemer, a former Democrat congressman, told the Daily News that the U.S. should not have waited to make war on Al Qaeda [after the Cole bombing].
"Why do you need Bin Laden's fingerprints when his footprints are running you over? You don't need to trace this back to a cave," Roemer said.
Consider this a sequel to my last post, which looked at an essay by Kitty Clark that Tim Robbins tidied up (cleaning out the more blatant anti-Semitism) before using in the program for his play Embedded. One of the things I've been thinking about lately in connection with Robbins is the way political worldviews can get transferred from one generation to the next without the real world making much of an impression.
The reason I point this out is that Tim Robbins is the son of Gil Robbins, who was a member of The Highwaymen, the early-60s folk group best known for "Michael, Row the Boat Ashore."
All of the biographies of Tim Robbins I found on the web stressed the bohemian, protest-filled backdrop of Greenwich Village in which he grew up. The longest and most detailed bio I found was on a site called Tiscali; the opening paragraphs are so unintentionally hilarious I have to quote from them:
This hallowed league. God, what a fucking idiot.Whether it be due to fear, indifference or disaffection, it's notable how few of today's popular entertainers ever make a political stand. Award wins are taken as an opportunity to thank their manager and the studio/record company, those who've made them rich and will hopefully continue to do so. It seems the spirit of the Sixties, where art went hand-in-hand with revolution and artists believed they could use their talent and status to change the world for the better, is dying.
Yet in some quarters it's dying hard. Some artists still believe, still mouth off, still endanger their careers in the name of human decency. And surely close to the top of this hallowed league is Tim Robbins. . . .
National Review hit a lot closer to the truth:
And so I come back around to the New Republic's damning review of Robbins' play Embedded. Lawrence Kaplan found the same screaming inauthenticity in the play's depiction of the working class:The son of an acutal folksinger, Gil Robbins of The Highwaymen, Tim Robbins was raised in an atmosphere of leftist protest in Greenwich Village, where his family moved when he was two so that his parents could be more involved in the antiwar movement. . . . He studied theater at SUNY and UCLA and has spent his adult life working in the movie business. It seems unlikely that Robbins has had significant contact with conservatives or conservative thought except through the medium of an ideology acquired in childhood and unchallenged through an intellectually cocooned adulthood.
. . . Unlike his ancestors on the left who believed in the inevitable final triumph of socialism, Robbins has absorbed the pessimism and paranoia of latter-day leftism, in its long convalescence from the rise of Reaganism and the fall of Communism. . . .
In Cradle Will Rock, not only is the plug pulled on Marc Blitzstein's proletarian musical (which actually happened, sort of), but Robbins fabricates a subplot that culminates in a young Nelson Rockefeller conspiring with the famously lowbrow William Randolph Hearst to manipulate the course of art history. The plan? Smother the politically dangerous social-realist art of the '30s by showering money and prestige on politically innocuous formalists. . . .
The utopian hopes and unquestioned faith of the insular political communities that molded Robbins may be appropriate sources of inspiration for folk anthems, academic conferences, and Ralph Nader stump speeches. But for satire? Effective satire is more likely to emerge from experience, bitter knowledge, and disillusionment, as it does, for example, in The Player. In Bob Roberts, the underlying experience is unlived, and as a result the satire is unearned, unknowing, and mostly unfunny. With a box office gross of $4.3 million, its returns were likewise unremunerative.
What really got me thinking about this subject was Mark Steyn's review of the movie A Mighty Wind. I won't link to it because unfortunately articles don't stick around long on Mark's website. Instead, since it's a fairly short review, and fervently hoping that Mark does not sue me for copyright infringement, I will simply quote the whole thing here:Indeed, when it comes to peddling the noble lie, no one outdoes Robbins himself. About Embedded, Robbins has this to say: "I'm not interested in any polemic. I'm not interested in any lecture." But Embedded is all polemic--a talking political pamphlet that doesn't even aspire to be aesthetic. If it's true that all art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art, then Robbins has produced a masterpiece of artless propaganda. Nowhere is this truer than in his depiction of the everyday soldiers whose dignity he pretends to champion. Rather than give us human beings, Robbins gives us socialist realism: cardboard cut-outs who, when not being victimized by the cabal, do little but lament the number of welfare mothers in their ranks and the unpaid bills they have left behind. Even in the hands of socialist artists whose adolescent romanticism about their own everymen was considerably more sophisticated than this, the idealization of such characters was always something of a lie; in the much less capable hands of Robbins, the lie has only become more obvious. Embedded's treatment of its soldiers is dilettantism masquerading as solidarity, contempt pretending to be sympathy. Contempt not only for the soldiers themselves, but for the audience, too--which Embedded hectors in precisely the same manner that Robbins accuses the U.S. government of doing.
Gil Robbins' folk-music pseudo-populism of forty years ago is echoed in his son's dramatic pseudo-populism today; surprising how little it's changed. How on earth did two generations manage to keep the real world from seeping into their shared worldview? You'd think there'd have been a little leakage, no matter how cloistered these people had remained. But there's no sign that any such contact with reality took place. The longer you think about that, the scarier it seems.I always love it when some record from the "Sixties folk music boom" comes on the radio, and one can wallow for three minutes in comically twee clean-cut earnestness: the Kingston Trio, Peter, Paul and Mary, the Brothers Four and all the other college boys pretending to be field-hands. As for the songs, I cannot improve on this trenchant analysis of Pete Seeger's lyric style by Minnesota's real funny man, James Lileks:'If I Had A Hammer'? Well, what's stopping you? Go to the hardware store; they're about a buck-ninety, tops.Just so. Anyhone can have a hammer, and hammer in the morning, hammer in the evening, hammer out danger, hammer out a warning, hammer out love between one's brothers and one's sisters all over the land. In fact, for the cost of a restricted-view seat at a Peter, Paul and Mary revival, you could buy half-a-dozen top-of-the-line hammers and have a lot more fun, even if you used them on yourself.
But I think the fact that the thought is idiotic is the point. If it made sense, it would sound too polished, too written, too Tin Pan Alley. It can't be easy sitting in your study and writing brand-new "folk" songs when you're a long way from the cotton fields, and somehow these guys got it into their heads that, if you sounded like a simpleton, it would come over as raw and authentic. I once spoke to a Vegas pal of Bobby Darin's, who gave an hilarious account of Darin, coming out of his finger-snappy tuxedo phase, and re-writing and re-re-writing his "folk anthem" "A Simple Song Of Freedom" because he was worried it was insufficiently simple.
The legacy of this period is less musical than political: forty years ago, the self-consciously childlike "folk song" met the civil rights movement and helped permanently infantilise the left. I caught an anti-war protest in Vermont last year and the entire repertoire was from the Sixties, starting with "Where Have All The Flowers Gone?", which as a poignant comment on soldiering was relevant in the Great War but has no useful contribution to make in a discussion on Iraq.
And that's where Christoper Guest and his team seem to have bottled out in their latest mockumentary, A Mighty Wind. Guest has carved himself a nice niche as an observer of the dorkier corners of showbusiness - the past-it rock group (This Is Spinal Tap), am dram (Waiting For Guffman), pedigree dogs (Best In Show). He's not a satirist; he loves his characters in all their doomed pretensions. But he did capture their worlds completely - the absurd pompousness of rock, the upper-middle-class manager, the divisive bird, etc. When A Mighty Wind opens, it looks as if Guest and his co-writer Eugene Levy are once again on note-perfect form: a legendary folk impresario, Iriving Steinbloom, has died, and his son decides to get together all the old acts for a tribute concert live on public television: the New Main Street Singers, a "neuftet" that's more like a cult than a vocal group; the Folksmen, a grizzled old trio played by Guest, Harry Shearer and Michael McKean; and a once fey, now deeply damaged duo called Mitch and Mickey, played by Levy and Catherine O'Hara. The specially written numbers include "Old Joe's Diner", for the Folksmen, and "A Kiss At The End Of The Rainbow", for Mitch and Mickey, and they're not so much parodies as songs exquisitely poised at the same exact point of awfulness as the real thing. The Folksmen, who met up at the University of Vermont, sing lyrics about how "my daddy was the son of a railroad man" while wearing "dickie bows" - though, as they point out, "It wasn't retro then, but it's retro now. Then it was nowtro, if you will." If Spinal Tap was laugh-out-loud funny, this film is mellow enough to mooch along on wry chuckles.
But for once Guest's faithful recreation is oddly selective. In The New York Times Michael Hadju bemoaned the film's evasion of the politics of these performers. And, even if he sounded like a parody critic, he's still right. Guest simply eliminates the politics - no civil rights, no Vietnam, just an intro to a number about the Spanish Civil War ("In the late 1930s of the last century, Spain was racked by civil war..."). As if in acknowledgment that something's been left out, Guest and Levy cast their joke net so wide the focus sometimes gets lost: the New Main Street Singers are managed by a coarse bruiser from a forgotten sitcom trying to live off a catchphrase no-one remembers; Mickey has a new husband in the "bladder management business"; Laurie, a breezy good-time blonde of a certain age beautifully played by Jayne Lynch, used to work in porno flicks... These are very general jokes.
Aside from Miss Lynch, there are two very sweet performances, by Levy and O'Hara as Mitch and Mickey. Poor old Mitch, gulping up each word as if it's physically painful, is a walking testament of how you can OD on the relentless perkiness of faux folk. Incidentally, the best song to emerge from this period was Ervin Drake's "(When I Was Seventeen) It Was A Very Good Year", originally recorded by the Kingston Trio, though it only sounded good after Sinatra did it with a big dramatic Gordon Jenkins arrangement heavy on the plaintive oboe. Sinatra sounded as if he'd actually had some very good years. When the Kingston Trio did it in their usual upbeat jingle style, they sounded like eunuchs who wouldn't know a good year if it fell on their heads.
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
A couple of weeks ago, several bloggers linked to this New Republic review panning Tim Robbins' play Embedded. When I read the review, one passage in particular intrigued me:
That got me curious about the unexpurgated Kitty Clark essay. In case you've been curious too, you might want to check out the two versions of the essay I found, a brief one in the recently-notorious Adbusters (apparently they're going in for anti-Semitism in a more sustained fashion than we thought) and a longer version in Catalyst that includes a series of biographical sketches at the end. Both versions are titled "Leo Strauss," but the second also has a subtitle: "Could his broken heart have been the seed that grew into the war against Iraq?"What exactly are those theories [of Professor Leo Strauss's]? The cabal, despite its repeated shouts of "hail Leo Strauss!" (this, to a Jewish refugee from Nazism), doesn't give us much insight. Fortunately, the program for Embedded, which contains an essay by someone named Kitty Clark, does. (For the New York production at least, someone in Robbins's orbit had the good sense to expunge from the original essay, which I found on the Internet, several pointed references to the Jewishness of Strauss and his supposed adherents.) In the program's telling, Strauss believed that democracy "was best defended by an ignorant public pumped up on nationalism and religion. Only a militantly nationalist state could deter human aggression."
The bizarre subtitle refers to one of the biographical sketches:
Ye gods, where to begin? This is asinine even by left-wing standards. It reminds me of the Boondocks strip from a few months back that attributed Condi Rice's political views to the idea that she had no boyfriend (and how the hell would they know whether she does or doesn't?).Hannah Arendt
If the brilliant and beautiful Hannah Arendt, the German-Jewish intellectual who famously described the "banality of evil" at work in Nazi Germany, had not spurned a young suitor named Leo Strauss, would Americans be killing and dying in Iraq? Not only did Arendt reject Strauss' affections, she panned his ideas. According to Arendt's biographer, she told the embittered Strauss that a political party advocating his views could have no place for a Jew like him. Strauss bore the wound of her words for decades. Even today, his followers, the Straussians, despise Arendt. Could her rejection have been the stirring of a butterfly's wings that led to the inevitable desert storm?
Let's see, would Americans be fighting in Iraq today if Arendt had only gone out on a date with Strauss? Hmmm . . . invasion of Kuwait . . . threatened invasion of Saudi Arabia . . . al-Qaeda training camps in the north . . . attempting to assassinate a U.S. president . . . slaughtering over 100,000 Kurds and Shi'ites, including with chemical weapons . . . torturing and murdering any opponents of the regime . . . acquiring equipment in defiance of UN sanctions . . . not accounting for known WMD in Iraq's possession . . . throwing UN inspectors out . . . only letting UN inspectors in when Allied armies are massing at the borders, then jerking them around with cover-ups at the inspection sites . . . trucking something (WMD?) over the border into Ba'athist Syria in the weeks leading up the war . . .
Arendt. Saddam. Which one caused the war? Huh. It's a toss-up. I can't decide.
And if Straussians do in fact despise Arendt (and I'm not inclined to take the word of Kitty Clark on any subject without fact-checking the hell out of it), could it have less to do with her relationship with Leo Strauss, and more to do with her lifelong passion for the Nazi philosophy professor Martin Heidegger?
This whole episode just reinforces the impression that the Left is now overwhelmingly the main purveyor of anti-Semitism worldwide.
Wonder if this portrait of Elliot Abrams is another part of the Clark essay that Tim Robbins judiciously sliced out of the version that appeared in his program?
Convicted in the Iran-Contra scandal, Abrams holds the Middle East portfolio at the National Security Council. An unequivocal supporter of Israel, he is the son-in-law of Norman Podhoretz, editor of the Jewish journal Commentary.
Tuesday, March 23, 2004
Did they really think that acting like weasels would keep the hunters away? An Islamic group was discovered to be preparing an assassination of German President Rau, causing the cancellation of Rau's trip to Djibouti. Apparently going up against the United States on Iraq is not enough to inoculate a country against Islamofascist violence after all.
Sky News reports:
When are the Europeans going to figure out that they have only two choices, fighting the terrorists or surrendering completely?'PLOT TO KILL' LEADER
German President Johannes Rau has cancelled a visit to the tiny east African state of Djibouti after German security services warned of the "concrete threat" of an assassination plot.
His office said the German intelligence service had received information that an Islamic group was preparing an attack.
He was due to have made a stop on Wednesday to visit a German frigate moored in Djibouti's port.
It is one of several warships monitoring the Gulf of Aden as part of Enduring Freedom - an international anti-terrorism programme launched by the US in the wake of September 11.
The German president was now set to return directly to Berlin from Tanzania, where he has been on a visit.
It would have been the first visit to Djibouti by a German head of state.
Last week I posted on the possibility that some Spaniards were protesting the way their election was handed over to murderous thugs, but I wasn't able to find a link.
I've found one now. Reuters, of all unlikely places, is reporting the story:
Well, the elections weren't a robbery, in the usual sense of a stolen election. It's worse than that. A plurality honestly wanted the People's Party out. I'd have a higher opinion of the Spanish electorate if the election had been stolen.Thousands protest in Madrid against Socialists
Several thousand protesters have taken to the streets of Madrid to back outgoing Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar and accuse the Socialists of exploiting the train bombings to win power.
"The elections were a robbery," said high school student Maria Garcia, wearing stickers of Aznar's Popular Party (PP) on her jacket, at the protest outside party headquarters on Wednesday.
"The Socialist party has exploited the subject of terrorism so that the PP would lose, after saying throughout the campaign that we shouldn't use terrorism for political purposes."
. . . At Wednesday's protest, banners read "Zapatero: president ...of al Qaeda" and some protesters shouted "Zapatero is Terrorism," reflecting a view among many PP supporters that Zapatero would be too soft.
"All of us in the PP want to support Aznar after the totally unjustified insults he has received," said estate agency owner Cristina Maestre, 58, at the protest.
"They've even called him a killer when he's done more than anyone to fight terrorists. In his eight years in power, more terrorists than ever have been arrested. It's very sad. I hope we can sort it out in four years."
Let's hope they really can sort it out in four years. If Zap is a typical socialist, four years should be ample time for him to run the economy into the ground.
Hat tip for the Reuters story to Bite the Wax Tadpole, a blog whose name always causes Toad the Wet Sprocket songs to start running through my mind.
Monday, March 22, 2004
Ever want to read for yourself the September 12, 2001 editorial by Jean-Marie Colombani in Le Monde, "We Are All Americans?" Here it is in English translation:
God, I'm so choked up by their touching display of empathy.The reality is more certainly that of a world with no counterbalance, physically destabilized, and thus more dangerous since there is no multipolar balance. And America, in the solitude of its power, in its status as the sole superpower, now in the absence of a Soviet counter-model, has ceased to draw other nations to itself; or more precisely, in certain parts of the globe, it seems to draw nothing but hate. In the regulated world of the Cold War, where the various kinds of terrorism were more or less aided by Moscow, a certain degree of control was still possible, and the dialogue between Moscow and Washington never stopped. In today's monopolistic world, it is a new barbarism, apparently with no control, which seems to want to set itself up as a counter-power. Perhaps, even in Europe, from the Gulf War to the use of F-16s by the Israeli army against the Palestinians, we have underestimated the intensity of the hate, which, from the outskirts of Jakarta to those of Durban, among the rejoicing crowds in Nablus and Cairo, is focused against the United States.
But the reality is perhaps also that of an America whose own cynicism has caught up with. [sic] If Bin Laden, as the American authorities seem to think, really is the one who ordered the Sept. 11 attacks, how can we fail to recall that he was trained by the CIA and that he was an element of a policy, directed against the Soviets, that the Americans considered to be wise? Might it not then have been America itself that created this demon?
Basically what Colombani was saying was: Listen up, American imperialist pigs, you have two choices: You will be counterbalanced either by us Europeans (led by France) or by the Islamist barbarian hordes. Wise up. Acknowledge the Europeans as your superiors and come groveling to us for help or we'll abandon you to the murderous savages waiting in the wings.
This is the supposed goodwill that was supposedly squandered by George Bush in his supposed unilateralist arrogance. At least, that's what John Kerry supposes. Or it's what he would have you believe he supposes, though I suspect he knows better.
Cold-blooded French bastards, pretending to give a damn about America but really wanting to see it crawl. (I am, of course, including John Kerry as one of these cold-blooded French bastards . . .)
Sunday, March 21, 2004
If you would like to read a somewhat condensed version of the letter threatening France with terrorist attacks over the headscarf controversy, you can find it here.
Gee, kind of takes the concept of fashion victim to new heights, doesn't it?On 10 February 2004, a new height was reached in the war being waged against Islam by the Coalition with the passage of a law barring the hijab from grammar and high schools and public places by the Assembee [sic] nationale. . . . We had excluded you from a certain category among your infidel brethren because of your opposition to the unjust aggression of the Crusaders in Iraq but you yourselves have taken the decision to put your names on the list of the most dogged enemies of Islam. . . .
We take France for an avowed enemy of Islam along with the rest of the Coalition and the Maghregan and Arab governments that collaborate with you and we intend to retaliate. With this hateful, discriminatory and anti-Muslim law, you have shown the whole world and all Muslims that you were well and truly on the side of the devil and we shall treat you as such until the Final Day unless you reverse your decision and comply with the will of Allah who is also your God.
Friday, March 19, 2004
In a post last week I proposed a long-term (next five to ten years) strategy for libertarians and conservatives to achieve something closer to parity with liberals in access to major popular news media.
I've also been thinking about what we can do to get a message across to the voting public in the shorter term, i.e. before the November election.
The obvious medium to concentrate on in the brief time before the election is the commercial. But I want to argue for a shift in thinking about campaign commercials that would make them more effective for our side.
The traditional way of designing campaign commercials is to have them play off of information that the audience is presumed to know through the standard media. The news media supply the actual information, then later the campaign commercials come along and supply the spin on the news events already in the audience's memory bank.
This works well for Democrats and other liberals, who can count on the establishment media supplying the kind of information that liberals want the audience to have. Most mainstream media select and spin as if they were working on direct orders from the Democratic National Committee.
Freed from the need to deliver to the audience of voters the primary raw material of left-biased news, Democratic campaign directors need only take up where the news media leave off, supplying additional touchy-feely spin to events the audience already knows. This saves the Democrats a lot of time, money, and effort.
Unfortunately libertarians and conservatives have a much smaller corps of news-suppliers they can count on. As a result, when Republicans (or, on rare occasions, Libertarians) make their campaign commercials, they have to try to spin and put their own emotional gloss on events that are in the audience's mind to begin with only because the liberal media selected them to report on. Once again, because of the slant of the media, the Republicans are forced to swim upstream.
Campaign commercials could be made much more effective for libertarians and conservatives if we make a crucial mental shift and start thinking of the commercials not as emotionally evocative spin on the news but rather as a form of alternative news media. That is, we have to start supplying that primary raw material of information ourselves, rather than just commenting on information the biased news media have supplied to the audience.
Since such ads would have a different function than standard campaign ads, they could also have a different form. For most of these ads, stark white-on-black or black-on-white text accompanied by a narrator reading the text, and also accompanied where appropriate by charts and graphs, would do the job. This might sound unappealing for campaign commercials; but remember, we are talking here about a new kind of campaign commercial, one that aims not to stir the audience's emotions but rather to deliver easily assimilable chunks of information to the audience in order to change their frame of reference. Other, more traditional commercials could follow, closer to the election itself, that would play on the audience's emotions in the more familiar way.
This text-oriented style has the significant advantage of being very inexpensive to produce, which would leave funds for as thorough a saturation buy of air time as possible. Remember, we are trying here to reach people who are relatively apolitical and don't read or watch a lot of news, the sort of people who pick up information on world events by osmosis. I wrote in my previous post that we needed a sympathetic national newspaper and weekly newsmagazine to sit beside USA Today and Time and Newsweek not only because of the content of the paper or magazine but because many people get a general view of how things are going from headlines and magazine covers and never bother to read the articles. Headlines broadcast from newspaper dispensers at the curbside and garish magazine covers in the racks at the mall or in the grocery store serve the same function as political posters, billboards, and murals in dictatorships: They create an atomosphere of propaganda from which it is difficult or impossible to escape. If a swing voter uninterested in news or politics, standing in line for several minutes at Wal-Mart on Saturday morning, sees Time and Newsweek covers screaming from the check-out stand their assumptions of quagmire and failure, complete with photos of weary, forlorn-looking GIs, then that person might very well absorb the assumption of quagmire and failure and react accordingly -- even if the assumption is completely wrong and utterly unsupported by any evidence.
It is this swing voter we have got to reach with the vital news he or she is not now receiving. We've got to put it across on every network that will accept campaign advertising: MTV, VH1, Lifetime, Nick at Nite, TV Land, the Cartoon Network (I'm not kidding -- these networks have a lot of adult viewers), Spanish- and other foreign-language networks, ESPN, the Discovery and Learning Channels and so on. We've got to advertise on sports events and soap operas and Jay Leno and David Letterman and Saturday Night Live and the Daily Show.
An additional advantage of the text-oriented commercial is that it delivers its message on some level even if the viewer hits the mute button during the commercial break. And I suspect the swing voters we're trying to reach have a higher than usual propensity for hitting the mute button, particularly when a political ad comes on. A stark visual message gets around this problem.
If the thirty-minute network newscasts are actively against us, we can counter them somewhat using thirty-second mini-newscasts.
In case it's not clear what sorts of information these commercials could deliver to the audience to make up for what the establishment news types aren't telling them, let me give a few examples.
1. Last October I linked to a post by Iain Murray concerning who is and who is not uninsured (and, among those uninsured, who is uninsured voluntarily). These numbers are truly eye-opening; if they were widely known, they could completely change the debate on government involvement in health care. The Republicans are crazy if they don't publicize the heck out of them.
2. The vast majority of jobs lost in the past few years have been lost to a startling surge in productivity, not to outsourcing, as the numbers in this BusinessWeek article show: One Forrester Research estimate quoted in the article stated that out of 2.7 million jobs lost in the last three years, 300,000 were lost due to outsourcing. This news wouldn't eliminate the outsourcing debate, but it would put it in a new perspective.
3. Here's a graph showing the unemployment rate before and after the signing of the Bush tax cut. After a brief time lag, the unemployment rate starts going down after the tax cut. The graph is simple but surprisingly dramatic. It certainly indicates a correlation between the tax cut and the lowering of unemployment, and a plausible case could be made for causality as well.
4. Median incomes are rising. For the native-born, inequality is falling, not rising. Household incomes go farther because households today are smaller. Household wealth hit a new record high, surpassing the previous record set in early 2000. The gender wage-gap has narrowed. There is plenty of good news in the employment picture for Americans, according to this article in The Economist. The only problem is that most people are not aware of it.
5. Most Americans have no idea of what the French and German unemployment rates are. Democrats often compare America unfavorably to European countries, particularly when they're touting socialized medicine. Make sure the American people know what socialism does to economies, especially to unemployment rates. The Democrats bitch about the current 5.6% unemployment rate under Bush, then in the next breath espouse cradle-to-grave welfare state policies. This sort of hypocrisy will be harder for the voters to swallow if they know that France's unemployment has been hovering around 9.5% and Germany's around 10.5%.
6. Unemployment is now down to what it was in the mid-90s, under Clinton. Show the graphs.
7. Illustrate the crime rates in Europe and America. Make sure people understand that rates of violent street crime in Europe surpassed those in the United States some years ago and have remained higher ever since (with, I think, the admittedly important exception of homicide). Liberals idealize the European welfare state. Rub their noses in the social problems that welfare state has helped produce.
8. Something like 40% of the French electorate voted for either a Communist or substantially Fascist party in the last French elections. I'm sure most Americans have no idea that this is the case, and would be rightfully appalled if they did know. Make sure they become familiar with the loathesome voting habits of our enemy France. France has no moral authority whatsoever to preach to America -- on any subject, including war and peace.
9. As the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal develops, keep people informed. I certainly wouldn't trust the slavishly pro-U.N. establishment news media to do it. Make sure people understand that this scandal dwarfs the Halliburton overcharges and even the Enron collapse. Make sure people know how much American money is unaccounted for, and how much this cost the average American taxpayer. Make it personal.
10. Depending on how the public is reacting to war news as the campaign progresses, it might be appropriate to show graphs of the sharply declining casualty rate, or the reenlistment rate now compared to the reenlistment rate during peacetime. This area is tricky, of course, because any mention of casualties or reenlistment might be seen as negative, as irrational as that might be. But such graphs could be used as a rapid-reaction device to counter any unfair accusations the Democrats might make.
11. Show the very heartening results of the many polls that have now been taken of opinions among the Iraqi people. This is one of the most positive continuing stories coming out of Iraq, and it keeps getting buried by the media (intentionally, I suspect).
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
Blair, unflinching as always.
What strange turns events can take. I remember how bad I felt for John Major when the Tories were crushed in the election of 1997. The party of Margaret Thatcher, routed by a guy who banned handguns and was against the death penalty and called himself a socialist. To say this was a development not to my liking would be to put it mildly.
Now I look back from the vantage point of 2004 at myself on that night in 1997, and I marvel: How could I have known I was witnessing one of the greatest strokes of good fortune my country would ever receive?
If you are British and pro-American, know this: You are appreciated. Do not let yourself be brainwashed by the media. You are not taken for granted. The feeling of partnership is real. I am not the only one who is grateful for your friendship and support. Millions of us feel this way. Please, never forget that.
And speaking of Drake's Drum, Sir Francis has a post reacting to the Spanish election, in which he states his belief that "I don't believe the British or American electorates would react the same way."
I wish I could be as sanguine. I fervently hope Sir Francis is right.
Even more fervently, I hope we don't get the chance to find out.
But I'm not optimistic.
Uh-oh. You mean people actually read this stuff I write? I was catching up on posts at The Edge of England's Sword when I read one that recommended the "Anglospheric worldview" of a blog called Drake's Drum.
If there's one good way to get me to sample a blog, it's to describe it as pro-Anglosphere. So I clicked.
And there it was.
I'd been blogrolled.
Highway 99 was nestled right between England's Sword and InstaPundit. Oh, the joys of alphabetical order.
Now I really wish I could be blase about this. But forget it. I can't. This is the first time I've come upon myself listed on anyone else's blog. Sir Francis, thank you; I'm honored.
I've returned the blogrolling favor, not only because one good turn deserves another, but because Drake's Drum is a terrific website. (Really. I went back and read every one of Drake's posts, just to make sure.) I can understand why Iain has invited Sir Francis to post at England's Sword.
In fact, this discovery was a twofer: As a result of frequent links in the posts at Drake's Drum, I've begun reading another new blog worthy of listing, Plastic Gangster. You will find Plastic joining the gang listed to your right as well.
Just when I need it, I come across this analysis of the Spanish election by professional number-cruncher Iain Murray.
I'm trying to concentrate on the Spanish citizens who voted for the People's Party in spite of the bombings. There were, after all, a hell of a lot of them.
The Belmont Club:
Actually, these I feel gratitude to, and the rest I feel contempt for. We have to bear in mind, of course, that this was a multi-party election, and that both the People's Party and the Socialists got significantly less than half the vote; and that even among the People's Party voters, there were undoubtedly a lot whose primary motive was something other than staunchness in the War on Terror or solidarity with the Americans -- sheer habit or family tradition or economic fears about the Socialists. Even so, I'd bet that most of the PP voters felt motivated by the same sort of anger I felt after September 11th. I wish I had an estimate of the number who voted for Aznar's party for that reason; it's probably large -- in the millions? -- and knowing it would make me feel considerably better right now.Although many commentators have excoriated the Spanish electorate for its capitulation to terror, we must never forget that the slightly smaller half decisively rejected it. These we honor and the rest we pity.
And it could also be that some of those Aznar voters are very angry right now about the way the election turned out: that's what this comment at Little Green Footballs indicates. Unfortunately it doesn't include a link to the BBC article it refers to, and my search of the BBC website didn't appear to dredge up such an article. Hat tip to Yehudit's comment on Roger L. Simon's post.
Monday, March 15, 2004
I've been too angry and depressed over the Spanish election results to want to write anything for awhile. So the Socialists and the People's Party went up against each other, and al-Qaeda won. I wonder if the Spanish people have any idea of the Pandora's box they've just opened. It's not just that I feel sorry for Aznar, though I do; as a good ally of ours, he has my loyalty and gratitude. Mainly, though, I am apprehensive about the future, about the poisonous long-term results that this election is bound to yield.
Do the Spanish people really not understand that they have just given the go-ahead to every terrorist organization on earth, including their own ETA?
The sick feeling in my gut that began when I watched the protests on Saturday morning continues. As I said at the end of my Saturday post, the election results would be the first big indication of which direction European sentiment would go concerning the proper response to terrorism. Well, we got our indication, all right.
I remember a few months back when Mark Steyn wrote a column saying that Europe and America were already in the process of splitting apart as allies, and that the inevitable end-point of the process was going to be the death of Old Europe. I wonder if we've just experienced a major lurch forward in that process. I also worry about what constitutes Old Europe and what constitutes New. Might all of Europe abandon us? It's not that we couldn't defend ourselves, by ourselves; I'm sure our military is strong enough to stand alone if necessary. But I admit I am bitter at the prospect that we should have to stand alone.
Collaborators used to get executed. Now they get elected.
Sunday, March 14, 2004
John at Iberian Notes is reporting that three out of four Spanish TV networks are projecting that the Socialists are going to beat Aznar's People's Party in today's elections; the fourth network has the People's Party in the lead. Not looking good, but as John points out, it's still too early to call.
In his previous post, John makes a prediction that this election will see Spain divided more sharply than before into left-wing and right-wing factions. If he's correct, this will mean that Spain is experiencing what other countries, not least the United States, have gone through recently.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
I've been watching the protests in front of the People's Party headquarters in Madrid for the past hour or so. The Fox News people keep describing the demonstration in terms of the Spanish people expressing disgust with the terrorists and solidarity with the victims; commentators (former Ambassador Marc Ginsburg, Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney) have said that the murders will cause the Europeans to realize that they have to support us more strongly in the War on Terror because it's their war, too.
I wish I could be as confident as the news people are. Spain just announced the arrest of five suspects, three from Morocco and two from India. The nationalities make the suspects sound as if they are Muslim, though the Spanish have said that the Indians have a Hindu background and the headline crawl along the bottom of the screen said the Spanish still claim ETA is the main suspect organization.
Why are the news people assuming that, if the terrorists turn out to be Islamists, the Europeans will take it as a sign they should get closer to America? They might well conclude exactly the opposite, that this is Spain's just desserts for cooperating with America.
In the demonstration I'm watching, the demonstrators are shouting and chanting angrily -- significantly, in front of the headquarters of Aznar's party -- and they're holding up signs that say "Paz" and "Guerra No." Seems to me they're more furious at our ally Aznar than they are at the terrorists. (Must be left-wingers.)
I hope the Fox commentators are calling it correctly. I want to be wrong on this one.
The Spanish elections take place overnight by California time, so by tomorrow morning we'll have our first big indication of which direction European sentiment will go.
Update, 1:05 p.m. Going out now, but as I leave, the tag line on Fox is still "ANTI TERROR DEMO IN MADRID OUTSIDE GOVT HEADQUARTERS." They have, in the hour just past, been discussing the possibility of anti-People's Party repercussions; but their emphasis is still on the crowd being anti-terrorism rather than anti-War on Terror. Hope it's not misunderstanding, or wishful thinking, on Fox's part.
Friday, March 12, 2004
The Susan Lindauer arrest: CNN vs. Fox News. If you have any doubt as to why I think libertarians and conservatives need to make media acquisition a top long-term priority, as I discussed in my last two posts, let the following two news stories illustrate.
This afternoon when I heard the breaking news about Lindauer's arrest, I checked out how the story was being handled on the websites of the two big 24-hour news networks in America, Fox News and CNN.
The differences were so glaring and so damning of CNN's pro-Democratic Party bias I didn't know whether to laugh or get angry; I wound up doing both.
Both websites used the same Associated Press wire service story. The Fox News story took up three pages on my printer; the CNN story, two pages. The reason for the different lengths? Well, it's because CNN deleted certain paragraphs of the AP story that Fox News left in.
And which AP paragraphs did CNN cut out before putting the story up on its website? Any paragraph containing a reference to Lindauer (1) having worked for years for Democratic politicians, (2) having worked for years in "mainstream," establishment journalism, (3) referring to herself as "an anti-war activist," or (4) living in "a city known for its liberal views," which is how the AP story refers to Takoma Park.
I will give you the links to the CNN and Fox News stories at the end of this post. However, since the stories have been continually updated over the course of this afternoon and evening, and since I'm not sure how they might continue to change, I'm going to give you both stories in their entirety as I printed them off the websites this afternoon.
First the CNN version:
Now the Fox News story. Notice the different impression you get of who Susan Lindauer is and what she believes when you read the paragraphs CNN cut out:U.S. woman charged with spying for Iraq
NEW YORK (AP) -- An American woman was arrested Thursday on charges that she acted as an Iraqi spy before and after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, accepting $10,000 for her work, prosecutors said Thursday.
Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Maryland, and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.
She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and with engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the Iraqi government under Saddam Hussein.
According to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Lindauer made multiple visits from October 1999 through March 2002 to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in New York.
There, she met with several members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the foreign intelligence arm of the Iraqi government that allegedly has played a role in terrorist operations, including an attempted assassination of former President George H.W. Bush, the indictment alleged.
The government said she accepted payments from the Iraqis for her services and expenses amounting to a total of $10,000, including $5,000 she received during a trip to Baghdad in February and March 2002, where she allegedly met with Iraqi intelligence officers.
Her acceptance of the money and her willingness to bring it home from Iraq violated a law prohibiting transactions with a government that sponsors international terrorism, the government said. The indictment did not specify a motive.
The charges against Lindauer were included in an expanded indictment in the case against Raed Rokan Al-Anbuge, 28, and Wisam Noman Al-Anbuke, the sons of Iraq's former liaison with United Nations weapons inspectors.
The brothers were charged last year with acting as Iraqi government agents and conspiring to do so, prosecutors said. The indictment said Lindauer conspired with the brothers.
On January 8, 2003, prosecutors said, Lindauer tried to influence U.S. foreign policy by delivering to the home of a U.S. government official a letter in which she conveyed her access to and contacts with members of Saddam's regime. The official was not identified in the indictment.
The United States invaded Iraq last March, and the government fell the following month.
The indictment said Lindauer met on two occasions in Baltimore in June and July with an undercover FBI agent who posed as a Libyan intelligence representative who was seeking to support resistance groups in postwar Iraq. It said she discussed the need for plans and foreign resources to support these groups.
According to the indictment, she continued to correspond with the undercover agent until last month and followed the agent's instructions to leave packages on two occasions in August in "dead drop" operations.
Lindauer, who has not yet been assigned a defense lawyer, faces up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she is convicted, prosecutors say.
I find it funny that two of Lindauer's neighbors are named Castro and Paris.American Arrested as Iraqi Spy
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Associated Press
NEW YORK -- A former journalist and one-time press secretary for four members of Congress was arrested Thursday on charges she served as a paid agent for the Iraqi intelligence service before and after the U.S. invasion.
Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Md., and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.
She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein. Prosecutors say she accepted $10,000 for he [sic] work.
"I'm an anti-war activist and I'm innocent," Lindauer told WBAL-TV as she was led to a car outside the Baltimore FBI office. "I did more to stop terrorism in this country than anybody else. I have done good things for this country. I worked to get weapons inspectors back to Iraq when everyone else said it was impossible. I'm very proud and I'll stand by my achievements."
Lindauer worked at Fortune, U.S. News & World Report and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer before beginning her career as a political publicist.
She worked for Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. in 1993 and then Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in 1994 before joining the office of former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun as press secretary in 1996. From March to May 2002, she worked for Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.
"Her position was eliminated in the downsizing following the 1994 elections," said Josh Kardon, chief of staff for now-Sen. Wyden. "She worked for us a short period of time."
Braun's current spokesperson, Loretta Kane, said the former senator does not remember Lindauer.
According to an indictment filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Lindauer made multiple visits from October 1999 through March 2002 to the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations in Manhattan. The indictment makes no mention of her congressional staff work.
There, she met with several members of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, the foreign intelligence arm of the government of Iraq that allegedly has played a role in terrorist operations, including an attempted assassination of former President George H.W. Bush, the indictment alleged.
The government said she accepted payments from the Iraqis for her services and expenses amounting to a total of $10,000, including $5,000 she received during a trip to Baghdad in February and March 2002.
Her acceptance of the money and her willingness to bring it home from Iraq violated a law prohibiting transactions with a government that sponsors international terrorism, the government said. The indictment did not specify a motive.
The charges against Lindauer were included in an expanded indictment in the case against Raed Rokan Al-Anbuge, 28, and Wisam Noman Al-Anbuke, the sons of Iraq's former liaison with United Nations weapons inspectors.
The brothers were charged last year with acting as Iraqi government agents and conspiring to do so, prosecutors said. The indictment said Lindauer conspired with the brothers.
On Jan. 8, 2003, prosecutors said, Lindauer tried to influence U.S. foreign policy by delivering to the home of a U.S. government official a letter in which she conveyed her access to and contacts with members of Saddam's regime. The official was not identified in the indictment.
The United States invaded Iraq in March of last year, and the government fell the following month.
The indictment said she met on two occasions in Baltimore in June and July with an undercover FBI agent who posed as a Libyan intelligence representative who was seeking to support resistance groups in postwar Iraq. It said she discussed the need for plans and foreign resources to support these groups.
According to the indictment, she continued to correspond with the undercover agent until last month and followed the agent's instructions to leave packages on two occasions in August in "dead drop" operations.
Lindauer, who was not immediately assigned a defense lawyer, faces up to 10 years in prison on the most serious charge and five years on the lesser charge if she is convicted, prosecutors said.
More than a half dozen FBI agents could be seen searching Lindauer's residence in Takoma Park, a city known for its liberal views. Her neighbors recalled her as friendly.
Joao Luiz Vieire de Castro, 39, described Lindauer as "a regular American who walks her dog in the mornings and the afternoon."
"It's a big surprise. Who would think that it's (espionage) in your neighborhood?" said Dean Paris, 45, who sometimes greeted Lindauer on the street, which is less than a mile from the District of Columbia line. Paris said he never saw anything suspicious.
But Malvina Lacey, who lives next door to Lindauer, added, "She lives in a fantasy world."
As I said before, the stories keep getting updated, but in case you'd like to compare them as they appear now, here are the links:
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/11/iraq.spy.case.ap/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113923,00.html
I realize you shouldn't throw around the word "censorship" lightly, as Howard Stern has been doing lately; real censorship is a government action, not one performed by a private-sector entity like CNN.
Yet deliberately cutting out politically-charged information from a news story the way CNN did comes about as close to private-sector censorship as anything I've seen.
One more remark about the long-term goals I talked about in my previous post: In media markets where it's appropriate, we need to have foreign-language versions of the print and electronic news outlets I mentioned. Obviously the first language to work on in this regard is Spanish. I wonder how much of Hispanic-Americans' loyalty to the Democratic Party can be attributed to the leftist slant of Spanish-language media? Let's try to find out, in the most practical way possible.
Thursday, March 11, 2004
I've been watching the way the establishment media are processing John Kerry's message as opposed to the way they're processing George Bush's, and I'm more convinced than ever that for the forseeable future the media are hopeless cases. They cannot be rehabilitated. And as long as the liberals and Democrats have the free media on their side, people of libertarian and/or conservative inclination are at a permanent and often decisive disadvantage.
The inevitable conclusion is that libertarians and conservatives have got to begin a massive movement of founding alternative media -- but by alternative media, I do not mean some precious little esoteric journals or low-rated public access TV programs.
I mean that there has got to be a deliberate strategy of providing at least one mass-market alternative showing our point of view, in each form of media, and in each media market. It's not enough to have Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Post, and The Washington Times.
We need a wire service. UPI I'm not too sure about -- but AP, Reuters, the French service AFP? Garbage. There's a particular need for a wire service to supply stories to small-town newspapers and TV and radio stations so that they don't have to rely on sources like The New York Times.
We need college and university schools of journalism, both undergraduate and graduate.
We need an alternative newspaper in every market, not just the large markets that are currently unserved, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, but smaller markets all over the country (and this is where that wire service would play an important role).
We also need a national newspaper to compete with USA Today, complete with distinctive dispensers to sit side-by-side with every USA Today dispenser. This is important because the headlines that blast out from these dispensers have a real if subtle visual impact, almost the equivalent of the government-sponsored propaganda posters that appear everywhere in dictatorships. (About a month ago I noted a viciously misleading USA Today headline that implied Bush was told in 2002 that there were probably no WMD in Iraq. You had to read several paragraphs into the article to see that the reality was nothing like the headline. Yet that lying headline screamed out from every sidewalk in the neighborhood I was visiting all that Friday, Saturday, and Sunday.)
We need a weekly news magazine to compete with Time and Newsweek. Again, it's not just the news inside the magazine that's important; what appears on the cover affects the thinking of a lot of people who don't even read newspapers or magazines. They are among the most important people we have to reach.
We need a headline news service. I don't know that CNN's headline news channel gets big ratings among ordinary viewers in households, but over the years I've seen it show up on TVs in public places having what you might call a captive audience, places such as airports, jury-duty waiting rooms, and dentists' offices. As with the newspaper headlines or the news-magazine covers, this sort of thing influences people who don't pay close attention to the news but who very well might vote. These are the people we most need to reach.
We need a local TV station in every large market and in as many smaller markets as possible. Most local stations show local news several hours per day, morning, afternoon, and evening. They are an important source of information for many people, not just about their local area but about the whole world. We need to have at least one equivalent of Fox News in each of these local markets.
We also need to produce documentaries to offer to local stations that need to fill air time. These documentaries should be offered at low cost to these small stations, or, in special circumstances (such as in the run-up to an election), even offered with a payment to the station to show it, the same sort of deal stations get when they run infomercials. (First subject I'd like to see tackled: the establishment news media. That would make for one hell of a series of investigative pieces. God knows there's plenty of dirt to be exposed. It would blow most people's minds to find out what's been going on for decades. The majority of people haven't got a clue as to how they're being manipulated.)
We should also sue PBS and NPR. I'd rather just see them abolished or privatized, but if that can't happen immediately, at least they should be forced to represent all points of view, not just those ranging from left-of-center to even-farther-left-of-center.
The founding of National Review was groundbreaking. The conversion of Commentary magazine from left to right had repercussions that are still being felt. The founding twenty to thirty years ago of several think tanks and related magazines was another important form of preparation; so was The Weekly Standard.
But it was the two big developments in really popular media that have probably made the biggest difference in the political culture. First talk radio, then Fox News, have exposed large numbers of non-political junkies to alternative perspectives on the news, and this appears to be having a real impact.
This is the part we've got to accelerate. Of course we should continue to fight for space in the more "serious" parts of the political/media world.
But it's the popular culture we've got to influence now, or we'll never win.
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
There's an English translation of the new interim Iraqi constitution here at the Fox News website. Hat tip to Steven Den Beste.
And Steven has an intriguing analysis of the merits of the Iraqi constitution, and why he thinks it's going to work, here. It contains some striking comparisons between the Iraqi constitution and the American one.
Considering Steven's unusually good track record when it comes to Middle East predictions, his optimism is notable.
I wish I could believe that the low turnout at the Democratic primary polling places reflects low enthusiasm on the part of Democrats. That may well be true, of course -- I'm hoping that it is -- but it could also be simply a reflection of people's assumption that Kerry will win and that therefore their vote isn't going to make a big difference. If the race were still competitive, turnout might be a lot higher.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
'Freed Suspect has Returned to Terror' - Rumsfeld. From PA, a British newswire service:
A terrorist suspect formerly held at the American Navy base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba has reverted to terror, United States Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said tonight.
Rumsfeld said he did not recall specifics about the suspect and defence officials later said they were unsure if they could release any.
"I've been told by senior people in this department, that of the people that have been released, we know of at least one who's gone back to being a terrorist," Rumsfeld told reporters at the Pentagon.
Of more than 600 people originally held at Guantanamo, 105 are no longer there. Eighty-eight have been freed, and 17 have been turned over to their native countries.
Weasels Licking Weasels #4: Person or Persons Unknown Lick Kerry. It's been awhile since I did a weasels-licking-weasels post, but if ever a situation merited one, this is it.
In honor of John Kerry winning the weasel vote, I offer the following ideas for new bumper stickers:
(1) "Kerry-Chirac '04" (with appropriate pictures of the two weasels on either side of the words)
(2) "THE DEMOCRATS: America's Own Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys"
(3) The Democratic Party symbol, a kicking jackass, with an Eiffel Tower sticking out of its ass
On the flip side, Stephen Pollard is reporting that Tony Blair would prefer that Bush win the election. I've been unable to find the other comments on this subject that Stephen refers to, but I haven't had much opportunity to look for them yet. I hope it's true. Stephen is promising more on this theme. I'm looking forward to it.
Monday, March 08, 2004
I never thought I would be saying this about the party of Margaret Thatcher, but I am beginning to get fed up with the Tories.
Yesterday I posted on the possible, unacknowledged reluctance of the British government to get their Guantanamo prisoners back.
Apparently they're not the only ones who are less than eager to receive their errant citizens back into the fold -- at least, it appears that way if you're willing to take a leap of faith and trust al-Jazeera:
I think they mean "are not retroactive," but either way, the point is taken. And the point is also taken that our good allies (as opposed to "allies" such as the French) are serious about fighting the terrorists. When you're in a fight for your life, thank God for real friends.Five Britons will soon be freed from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but the Australian government has refused to press for the release two [sic] of its citizens held at the US base in Cuba. . . .
Meanwhile, the Australian government refused on Friday to bow to demands by lawyers and civil liberty activists to press the US to release two suspected terrorists because they could not be prosecuted here.
Former kangaroo hunter David Hicks and Egyptian-born Australian Mamduh Habib will remain in detention despite the release of five British citizens and one Dane, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said.
Australian anti-terrorist laws were not introduced until after the attacks on New York and the Pentagon and are not retrospective.
It's been interesting to see the contrast between the British and Australian media, on the one hand, and the American media, on the other, in coverage of the Peter Foster story. The British and Australian media are all over it, though thankfully they are all stressing the con-artist background of Foster and reporting his claims with palpable skepticism. (This does not prevent several of them from taking swipes at Blair's "vulnerability," a manner of presentation that is becoming routine.) The American media are notable for their deafening silence on the whole issue -- I haven't seen one reference to it in any U.S. media outlet, including the blogs. For that matter, the U.S. media never covered Cheriegate when it first erupted (except for a single paragraph I noticed in either National Review or The Weekly Standard) and have given it no attention since -- so even if they did start to cover the story now, most Americans would have no idea who this whole cast of characters are.
I hope that, one way or another, this whole saga is brought to an end soon, like a lanced boil that's finally allowed to heal over. Either Foster is telling the truth -- very small chance of that -- and the story bursts out into the open (and Gordon Brown gets to move next door); or, much more likely, the media demand evidence that Foster doesn't provide, the media gradually quit paying attention to him, and the rest of us don't have to take notice of him any more. Most Americans, for that matter, will, fortunately for them, never have to take notice of him to begin with.
As the English-speaking media overlap more and more, thanks to cable and satellite and the internet, I will be curious to see how much longer this sort of invisible wall between national media clusters can be maintained.
Update 3/9/04. Actually I was wrong about the U.S. media completely ignoring this story; I forgot that Vanity Fair will be publishing an interview with Peter Foster in its upcoming issue.
I've been wondering lately if Christopher Hitchens might not be considering another change of job venue. I seem to recall that Hitchens had conflicts with his fellow staffers at The Nation when the liberals lined up to defend Clinton's assaults on women, conflicts that apparently escalated beyond the bearable when the War on Terror began. These frictions seemed to be what motivated Hitchens to leave The Nation and take a job at Vanity Fair.
But considering Graydon Carter's publicly stated aim to do everything in his power to unseat George Bush, I have to wonder whether things are becoming uncomfortable again for Hitchens. Talk about a hostile atmosphere in the workplace. Maybe Hitchens can sue for harrassment.
I wonder if somebody somewhere is starting a betting pool to guess what publication Hitchens will attach himself to next.
I'm going to take a leap into the unknown here and guess that he'll end up doing some work for Reason magazine, in spite of its recent anti-war editorial stance. (While coming out against the Iraq War, Reason provided space to strong pro-war critics, including Hitchens, and while the Reason editors are no great friends of George Bush, neither are they maniacal Bush-haters.)
It's possible that the upcoming Peter Foster story is just part of Graydon Carter's anti-Bush vendetta; when he's not attacking Bush directly, he can attack Bush indirectly, by attacking Blair. Hard to imagine otherwise why Vanity Fair would give the likes of Peter Foster the time of day.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Guantanamo: Behind-the-Scenes Anglo-American Cooperation? Does it sound strange if I suggest that the long delay in release of the British detainees at Guantanamo Bay is an example of hidden cooperation between Britain and America, rather than an example of strained relations?
I suggest it only because of a couple of brief, intriguing references over the past several months in a publication I tend to trust, The Economist. Contrary to all other descriptions of the situation that I've read in other newspapers and magazines, running the gamut of political views -- and indeed in contrast to all other descriptions of the situation that I've read in The Economist -- these two passages indicate that there may be a lot more going on than meets the eye.
The earlier such passage, which took me very much by surprise when I first read it, appears on page 46 of the July 19, 2003 issue, in the column by "Bagehot." In "A poodle that snaps," in which he advises Tony Blair to be more assertive in his relationship with George Bush, Bagehot writes:
There's plenty I disagree with in Bagehot's assessment, mainly his assumptions that the Guantanamo detentions are unjustified and that Blair is behaving like a weakling. But I can find that nonsense anywhere -- it's Bagehot's flatly stated premise that Britain has actively avoided getting its prisoners back that interests me. It certainly sounds like there's no doubt in Bagehot's mind about the veracity of his statement. I'm very curious to know who his source is for this information. Surely it must be somebody pretty high up in the government? Perhaps even more than one somebody?Keeping things private also means that Mr Blair does not get credit for disagreeing with Mr Bush either, as the British prisoners being held at Guantanamo Bay illustrate. Ever since their detention, there has been unease about their treatment and eventual fate (although it is not the case, as some presume, that the Americans have ignored British demands for their repatriation: the British government has no wish to have them back).
Instead, the Foreign Office has tried to persuade the Americans, with much behind-the-scenes petitioning, that the proposed military tribunals are both a propaganda disaster and a denial of justice--for all the prisoners, not just British ones. But this has done little to impress MPs, who say the men may be terrorists, but they're our terrorists and should be prosecuted in a British court. Belatedly, Mr Blair seems to acknowledge that he should be seen to make a principled stand over the treatment of these men, but he sounds too much like a timid supplicant.
A follow-up reference along the same lines comes on page 53 of the November 22, 2003 issue, in an article titled "The special relationship: What's in it for us?" (Do you notice a pattern emerging here?) In the article, written in the run-up to George Bush's visit to Britain, the anonymous author (nearly all articles in The Economist are anonymous) writes:
Again, I reject the notion that the Guantanamo detentions are reprehensible, but it's that assertion that Britain has avoided taking its own citizens back that is the really striking part.One of the issues that rankles most in Britain is the plight of British detainees in the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Their continued detention may be reprehensible, but it is not a symptom of failure on Mr Blair's part. The British government is not strident in asking for their return. In truth, it would probably prefer that they get a fairish trial somewhere else than have to deal with them at home.
The author of the second article sounds a shade less definite about it than Bagehot did. I'm going to hazard a guess here that Bagehot might have been dealing directly with his own trusted source or sources, whereas the second author might have been getting the information from the same sources, secondhand, through Bagehot.
If a question enters your mind at this point as to why the British government wouldn't want its people back, the answer begins to appear in later issues of The Economist. Here, for instance, is a passage from page 49 of the December 6, 2003 issue, in an article titled "Terrorism: Guantanamo-on-Thames?"
So the British government could rest reasonably assured that their citizens wouldn't face anything too harsh at the camp, whether before, during, or after trial.Nine of the 660-odd terrorist suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay are British. Tony Blair has repeatedly voiced concern over their "irregular situation", urging Washington to "move rapidly toward a trial in accordance with international law". After talks between the prime minister and President Bush last July, Mr Blair was assured that the two British detainees so far singled out for trial would not be subject to the death penalty, that they would be able to choose their own civilian defence lawyer, and that, exceptionally, the conversations between them and their counsel would remain confidential.
But the British have been holding out for more. In particular, they are insisting on minimum guarantees of a fair trial and an independent appeals procedure. Recent rumours that the nine Britons could be released among "scores" of other detainees--as many as 140 has been suggested--have been discounted by almost all those involved. But the Americans say they are gradually reviewing each case with a view to releasing those who no longer "pose a threat to American security". A total of 88 detainees have so far left Guantanamo, so the Britons there may find their freedom before their counterparts at home.
But the probable real reason the British government didn't want the prisoners back emerges on page 53 of the February 28, 2004 issue, in an article headlined "Terror detainees: What now?" and subheadlined "The difficulty of dealing with Guantanamo Bay detainees." The anonymous reporter writes:
An already interesting situation promises to get even more interesting, so stay tuned.After being held for more than two years without trial, five of the nine British detainees at the American base in Guantanamo Bay are to be released and, probably, returned to Britain within the next few weeks. What then happens, however, is unclear. David Blunkett, the home secretary, has claimed that none of the men "poses a threat to the security of the British people". This has led many to assume that they would simply be let free. But Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, has indicated that they could be arrested for questioning about "possible terror activities". It would then be up to the police to decide what further action to take, he said.
But they are unlikely to be imprisoned again. It would be difficult to prosecute them for offences committed outside Britain, and much of the evidence collected by American interrogators would be inadmissible in English courts. Hence, perhaps, Mr Blunkett's surprising suggestion last month of special trials for suspected terrorists, held behind closed doors, without juries, and with a lower standard of proof than normally required. This proposal met with general hostility, which was probably why it did not appear in Mr Blunkett's anti-terrorist discussion paper, published this week, on reconciling collective security with individual liberties.
. . . None of the Britons has been charged with a crime, let alone convicted. But this does not necessarily say anything about their innocence or guilt. Until this week, when two Guantanamo detainees were charged with "conspiracy to commit war crimes", none of the other prisoners at the camp had been charged either.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Great Moments in Middle East Initiatives, Part II. Oh God, the gruesome twosome are at it again.
Hmmm. The Palestinian-Israeli conflict settled -- in whose favor, I wonder?Amid a flurry of Middle East initiatives, France and Germany unveiled a new joint initiative for reform in the Middle East, stressing that Islam is compatible with modernity and making the settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict a cornerstone of the new initiative.
Can anyone imagine a "distinct approach" touted by the French that would by any remote definition of the word be "complementary" to whatever the United States does?The two heavy-weight EU members has [sic] moreover called on the bloc to define a "distinct approach" which would however be "complementary to that of the United States," according to Agence France-Presse (AFP).
Go ahead, I'll wait.
No, neither can I.
Now there's a surprise.The Franco-German plan, judging on [sic] the statement released by its sponsors, appears to support the views of the Egyptian president, one of the US plan's chief critics.
See, it's that kind of clear, incisive Arab logic that has produced so much progress in the Middle East.Mubarak also said he would ask Bush to specify what he means by the concept of a Greater Middle East "and what it implies".
"I don't know what he is implying, but I feel something strange. It's a feeling. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right. I can't tell you more than that."
Rumsfeld is trembling.The Arab leader - one of the closest U.S. allies in the region - indicated he would have strong words for U.S. President George W. Bush when he visits the Bush ranch in Texas for talks on April 12.
Actually, anything most Arab governments do participate in is doomed to failure, if history is any guide. No wonder they get along so well with the French and the Germans."I will ask him to specify the content of his reforms, which are still obscure. I will explain to him that without our participation, this initiative is doomed to failure."
Great Moments in Middle East Initiatives, Part I.
An Arab summit that set out to provide a home-grown alternative to American ideas, only to end in ineffectual disunity? How unprecedented! Who could have predicted such an outcome?Arab foreign ministers adjourned a four-day meeting Thursday without producing a unified position outlining how to reform their societies, officials said of what essentially was expected to be an Arab response to the Bush administration's strategy for opening up the Middle East.
Hey, why didn't we think of that? Restore stability in Iraq. This is a great idea. Somebody get Bremer on the phone.Moussa repeatedly has said that Arabs cannot support the Bush administration's new strategy unless the United States addresses the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and restores stability in Iraq.
Of course, the laughable part is that they predicate their cooperation with America on two outcomes, genuine peace between Palestinians and Israelis and genuine peace in Iraq, that they are doing their damnedest to sabotage.
Actually the main problem with the Middle East is that Arabs have played too large a role in running their own affairs. If America had played a larger role in the Arab countries, they'd be in better shape today.The ministers' discussions focused on an Egyptian-Saudi initiative that encourages Arabs to play a larger role in running their political, economic, social and cultural affairs.
Oh well, I suppose those minor details can wait, just as long as they've got the really important stuff taken care of.The Egyptian-Saudi initiative lacks specifics, such as the status of women, human rights questions, how to upgrade education systems and opening up rigid political systems.
If this thing works out, it will be cause for celebration.
Admittedly, having the best constitution in the region isn't a huge boast when your region is the Arab Middle East. And the future also depends on how well the law is applied, not just how good it looks on paper.Iraqi leaders agreed early yesterday to the interim constitution that would serve as the framework for the government through next year, Iraqi officials said. Intifad Qanbar, an aide to Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the Governing Council, the Iraqi authority appointed by the American occupation authorities, said the constitution would be signed tomorrow. . . .
Even before the hard bargaining began, there was agreement on many of its features, including the freedom of speech, press, assembly and the free exercise of religion. The constitution provides for equal treatment under the law, regardless of sex or ethnicity. It also provides for civilian control over the military.
"This document protects the rights of individuals more than any other document in the region," said Feisal al-Istrabadi, an Iraqi-American lawyer who helped draft it.
Even so, this is remarkable progress.
I wonder how the Democrats and their media poodles will find some way to bitch about it?
