Highway 99
Sunday, October 31, 2004
One more thought on subtle differences between the European and American outlooks on life. The first time I watched The Jewel in the Crown, back when it first came out, I misinterpreted one single phrase which in turn caused me to misinterpret a lot of the series. In the early episodes, two characters (I think it was two), one of them the father of the Layton family, describe Ronald Merrick as a "self-made man." Judging by this, I figured the other characters liked Merrick. I had never known the phrase "self-made man" to be used as anything other than an unambiguous compliment; indeed, it had never occurred to me that it could be used as anything other than an unambiguous compliment. It wasn't until near the end of the series that I began to realize that the other characters, especially the Laytons, looked down on Merrick. Little by little, I began to wonder if perhaps they meant the phrase in something other than a positive way, although I found this notion downright disorienting.
Repeated viewings of the series led me to believe that "self-made man" was in fact intended in a pejorative way. It blew my mind. It still does. How can anyone not admire a person who's a self-made success? And do the British, or Europeans more generally, still hold this negative attitude?
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
What class do you belong to?
This was surprising; I don't think I had ever read before that most Britons think of themselves as working class.A much praised website called 'chavscum' is dedicated to chavs, 'Britain's new peasant underclass' - the term 'chav' being of uncertain origin, though some say it's a nickname for yob-thronged Chatham. Chavs are conspicuously yobbish white urban proles, and chavscum, as Mount says, drips with hate, while claiming to be funny.
. . . Are the chavs a ruling class or an underclass? Clearly, the latter, though they are one to whom everyone is keen to pretend to defer. When John Reid, the health secretary, was discussing his reasons for not wanting to ban smoking in public places, he said he 'worried about the unanimity of middle-class health professionals' on this issue, and wondered what other sources of pleasure were available to a single mother in a tower block. Note here: 1. the implicitly derogatory twist to 'middle-class' - no politician would ever dare to use 'working-class' in a sentence explaining why he was discounting people's views; 2. that Reid's little cameo ignores the rights of the single mother's imaginary baby. He evokes the baby as a rhetorical counter and then acts as if the baby doesn't exist - which is politicians' Standard Operating Procedure when talking about the poor. But he is right to be wary. In the last major survey of the issue, two-thirds of all Britons announced that they consider themselves to be working class; 55 per cent of social groups ABC1 think that they are working class. In other words, when considering the issue of our own class, most of us express an inverse snobbery, and we either lie or are in denial. . . .
I don't have a link ready to hand, but I'm sure that I've heard and read, quite a few times over the course of many years, that the majority of Americans think of themselves as middle class.
This difference has interesting political implications. I suspect a country whose inhabitants mostly think of themselves as middle class is less susceptible to left-wing ideology than one whose inhabitants mostly think of themselves as working class.
I would be curious to know what the results would be if this question were asked in other countries, especially in the other English-speaking countries and in the continental European countries.
This difference in self-image between Brits and Americans ties in nicely with the different cultural assumptions of Europeans and Americans that I wrote about in my last post: that when Europeans talk of "independence," they seem usually to mean independence from private or commercial pressures, whereas when Americans say it, they seem usually to mean independence from the government; and that Europeans take it as normal that political parties will vote as blocs while Americans take it as normal that members of political parties will usually vote according to their own beliefs.
**********************
By the way, John Lanchester, who wrote the book review excerpted above, is the author of a novel titled Mr Phillips, which I read a couple of years ago. The novel was published before 9/11, but I read it shortly after 9/11. I mention this because there is a scene in the novel in which a character describes in gruesome detail a surprise air attack on America.
It was a distasteful, disturbing thing to read so soon after the real-life attack. It made me wonder if this was an idea that was surfacing from the collective unconscious (if there is such a thing) more than I had realized. Of course it was probably just a bizarre coincidence. But it did bring me up short.
If I can dig the book up again, I will excerpt the passages having to do with the airplane attack. It will make for eerie reading.
Monday, October 25, 2004
From the article "Pennies for their thoughts," in the September 4th issue of The Economist:
Hmmm. Think we'll hear a "thank you" from the Germans any time soon for this one?Take the issue of demography. If Germany has one chronic problem, it is that of ageing. Yet when the Berlin Institute for Population and Development, a small think-tank, wanted money to study demography and its policy implications, German foundations yawned; America's Hewlett Foundation finally stepped in.
This is the part of the article that interested me most. The idea was something I'd become vaguely aware of, but this was the first time I'd seen it stated bluntly in black and white: that to Germans in general (and, I think, to Europeans in general) "independence" means independence from private interests, whereas to Americans in general "independence" means independence from government pressure. I believe these different assumptions, which are usually unconscious on the part of the people who hold them, contribute to conflicts between Europeans and Americans on a whole host of issues that might at first seem completely unrelated (e.g., the trustworthiness of public broadcasters like the BBC versus the trustworthiness of commercial broadcasters like Fox News).Very gradually, think-tanks are becoming a factor in Germany's public policy. But life is still hard for Denkfabriken, as they are called--thanks to a rigid political system and career structure. That is more than a hypothetical problem in a country where the quality of debate is declining, political parties are increasingly content-free and the media ever more populist.
It is not that Germany has never heard of think-tanks; it has more than other large European countries. Josef Braml, a researcher at the Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik, itself a think-tank, has identified 123 not-for-profit, independent bodies aiming to influence policy. But they differ from America's equivalent, says Mr Braml.
. . . What is more, argues Mr Braml, there are striking cultural differences. Most German researchers cherish academic freedom and do not want to dirty their hands with politics. American think-tanks see private money as a way to stay independent from the government. To their German counterparts, public funds are a guarantee of being free of private interests--so they get their money from the state.
I really wish I could be glad for them concerning a development like this. Unfortunately, nowadays I have to figure that any "foreign-affairs journal" appearing in Germany would be more aptly called an "America-bashing journal." I hope it turns out not to be true, of course; but for the past couple of years, for purposes of self-defense, I have to assume the worst.. . . Competition is also forcing older think-tanks to change. The move of Germany's capital from staid Bonn to dynamic Berlin has prompted some keen youngsters to start their own outfits. One such is Berlin-Polis, which calls itself a "network" for the next generation. Another is the Global Public Policy Institute, which plans an American-style foreign-affairs journal.
This touches on another difference between Europe and America that it took me years to become aware of. When I began reading and watching television shows about British politics, I gradually began to notice that the reporter or narrator would says things like, "In an embarrassing defeat for the government, two MPs defied the party whip and voted against the measure," whereas in an American news article or TV show the reporter or narrator would say things like, "In a vote which broke down largely along party lines . . ." In other words, it is actually noteworthy in a House of Commons vote if anybody at all breaks party ranks; the normal way of doing things, which nobody would even think to mention, is for all members of a party to vote the same way. In a vote in the U.S. Congress, on the other hand, it is considered noteworthy if almost all of the members of a particular party end up voting the same way; the normal way of doing things, which nobody would even think to mention, is for members of a party to be all over the map when it comes to voting on a particular piece of legislation. The reason it took me so long to become aware of this difference was that the reporters themselves seemed completely unaware of it. But once I did notice it, it seemed to be representative of larger differences between European and American attitudes toward the individual versus the group, and how much it is reasonable to expect people to conform.. . . Will Germany's market-place of ideas ever resemble America's? Probably not, unless Germany's political system changes. It is a parliamentary democracy where strict party discipline stops legislators becoming true "political entrepreneurs" or traders in ideas. . . .
I fear that such differences in worldview, largely unconscious on the part of most of the participants, are responsible for at least some of the bad blood that exists between America and Europe (and perhaps between America and the rest of the world); and I fear also that these differences are not going away any time in the foreseeable future.
Friday, October 22, 2004
According to TV Guide, the movie The Green Berets is going to be on AMC tonight. I'm going to tape it.
When I was growing up, The Green Berets was the real outsider among Hollywood movies about Vietnam. It was the one the establishment smirked at. The movies the establishment approved of, the ones that won Oscars, were anti-war. The media seemed to regard The Green Berets as a joke, a piece of hackwork, an example of neanderthal right-wing propaganda no intelligent person could take seriously.
Sound familiar?
In those days, for the most part, I took the media at its word. I wasn't big on Vietnam movies in any case, but I particularly wasn't interested in seeing The Green Berets because I didn't think of it as a "quality" film like, say, Coming Home.
How things change.
I noted a few months back that the death of Ronald Reagan brought me up short because it made me realize how much my worldview had changed since the 1980s. I wondered if the outpouring of emotion at the time was an indication that a lot of other people were coming to the same realization I was.
Spotting the TV Guide listing for the movie is having the same effect on me now. It's been quite awhile since I last saw The Green Berets mentioned in the TV listings, and I'm having a reaction to it now that I don't recall having had back then.
As I understand it, the movie traces the journey of a liberal reporter, played by David Janssen, who comes to Vietnam with an anti-war attitude, hooks up with an American military commander, observes the American forces and the Viet Cong enemy in action, and gradually has a change of heart concerning the war. One of the points of the movie, if my impression is correct, is that the press was presenting the American war effort to the people at home in an extremely biased, untruthful way.
You can probably see why I'm regarding the movie in a much more sympathetic light now than I would have if I'd have seen it back in the 1960s or 70s.
It'll be interesting to see how the reality of the movie stacks up against my expectations.
One other note about tonight's TV schedule. The History Channel is showing a one-hour documentary called Nazi Guerrillas. The promotional ads indicate that it deals with the resistance of the Nazi holdouts in the aftermath of World War II as they targeted occupying Allied troops and any Germans who worked for or cooperated with the Allies. In fact, the promos made an explicit comparison between the Nazis in the documentary and the Ba'athist/Islamofascist terrorists operating in Iraq right now. I hope the show gets a good audience -- people need to see that there are enemy holdouts after any war and that they are not a sign of the failure of the war itself.
The Green Berets is on AMC at 8 p.m. and Nazi Guerrillas is on the History Channel at 8 p.m. and again at 12 midnight (all times West Coast).
Thursday, October 21, 2004
On Fox News yesterday morning:
It was the bit about The Guardian's readership consisting mainly of those who mourn the loss of the Soviet Union that got me. I never before heard it put so well. Heh.Jon Scott: A war of words is underway between British people who want Senator Kerry to win the election and some American voters. It all started when a left-leaning London-based newspaper called The Guardian asked its readers to express their opinions to undecided voters. Well, let's just say some Americans didn't take it too well. Fox News' Jonathan Hunt is live in our New York newsroom. Jonathan?
Jonathan Hunt: Hey, Jon. It helps to know a little about the Guardian newspaper to start with, and I grew up with it and I can tell you, it's a slightly quirky left-wing paper read mainly by those who mourn the loss of the former Soviet Union. Anyway, its campaign to try to swing the U.S. election in the favor of John Kerry has sparked a bitter war of words. Here's part of that transatlantic conversation. . . .
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
HEAR, HEAR, MR. BERCOW! This morning C-SPAN rebroadcast a questioning in the House of Commons of British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon that took place on Monday. Most of the questioning was no surprise -- constant bitching from all sides and all parties, which Hoon dutifully took without complaint, answering even the rudest questions matter-of-factly. But then they came to the very last question:
And there the question time ended, with the deputy speaker releasing them all.Deputy Speaker: Mr. John Bercow.
John Bercow, Conservative MP for Buckingham: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is clearly no time for narrow partisanship or opportunistic repositioning. Speaking, Madam Deputy Speaker, as one of those who voted for the war, who would back exactly the same text again, believes that the Prime Minister has been honest on this subject throughout, and thinks that the Coalition forces should finish the job that they have quite properly started, can I put it to the Secretary of State that, subject to the caveats that he has very properly highlighted this afternoon, in seeking to reinforce United States efforts to establish security in Iraq and to fight terrorism there, he is entitled to receive the strong, principled, and consistent support of people in all parties for doing what is right, however inconvenient that may be?
Geoff Hoon: I'm grateful to the honorable member. I assume that he wasn't accusing the government of opportunistic repositioning -- [Bercow, grinning from ear to ear, vigorously shakes his head "no" in agreement with what Hoon is saying] -- so, uh -- he seemed to be directing his gaze towards his own front bench.
This was a remarkable exchange. If you've been reading this blog for some time, you will be aware of my steadily growing disillusionment with Michael Howard's leadership of the Tory Party, particularly the way I felt stabbed in the back when Howard began turning against the war effort and criticizing Tony Blair's "shoulder-to-shoulder" attitude toward the British-American alliance.
Well, apparently I'm not the only one who reacted that way. Sounds like Mr. Bercow didn't take too kindly to his party's betrayal on this subject either.
I don't think I've ever heard a Conservative Party member so blatantly bash his own party or his own party leader in public, on camera. Is it a sign that there are a number of Tories who are pro-war and pro-American and who have so far kept quiet, but are no longer willing to put the good of their party before the good of their country? Or is it more a sign that Michael Howard's authority as leader is rapidly eroding?
Monday, October 18, 2004
There's been fresh examination lately of the continued loyalty of American Jews to the political and cultural left, considering the growing anti-Semitism to be found among left-wing groups all over the world. Why do so many Jews continue to support a movement that is clearly turning against them?
The two explanations I've heard are (1) tradition founded in a reaction against old right-wing anti-Semitism, both in America and in "the old country," and (2) affinity with left-of-center political parties on social issues, especially abortion.
I'm sure there's a great deal of truth in both these explanations, but somehow they don't seem to account for all that's going on here.
I'd like to offer another motivation that could be driving some of what we see going on.
Could it be that some of the continued loyalty of American Jews to the left, and specifically to the Democratic Party, is a form of out-and-out denial? Is it simply too painful for many Jews to acknowledge, even to themselves, that they have been betrayed yet again by a group that they gave themselves to, considered themselves a part of, and trusted? Is it psychologically unbearable to face the possibility that history's recurring nightmare is unfolding one more time, in real life, in the twenty-first century?
And if it does turn out that denial is a part of what is motivating the Jews . . . can anyone really blame them?
And speaking of viciously anti-Israel media, did anybody else notice that the on-line version of The Guardian began advertising on InstaPundit earlier today?
Apropos of the way most of the world has been casting Israel as the villain and the Arab world as the good guy:
Isaiah 5:20.Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
You don't even have to be religious to recognize it as an accurate description of what's going on right now.
Some things, unfortunately, do not change.
Ah, the wisdom imparted within the ivy-covered walls of the university.
You know how colleges will often sponsor fairs at the beginning of the school year to give extra-curricular organizations the chance to sign up new student-members?
Well, Duke University put on one humdinger of an activity fair over the weekend. This one featured support groups for Palestinian terrorists trying to whip up enthusiasm for martyr operations among the Duke student body.
One especially cool feature was the Presbyterian minister who proudly explained that his church's recent divestment from companies doing business with Israel would prod Israel to live up to its highest ideals.
Hmmm. Since, as far as I know, the Presbyterians have not considered divesting from any other nation on earth besides Israel, I guess this must mean that every other nation on earth besides Israel is already living up to its highest ideals.
Well. Glad we've got that settled.
Last week, I wrote that the Episcopalians were considering following the example of the Presbyterians in divesting from companies doing business with Israel.
It didn't occur to me at the time to ask: Might the Episcopalians' eagerness have anything to do with their relationship to the Anglican church, which has been turning viciously anti-Israel in recent years?
Sunday, October 17, 2004
I report, you decide. Is Fox News new media or old media?
Obviously the technology it uses, TV, is old media. But that's not the important part. The important part is how it uses that technology. That's the litmus test. Does Fox have more in common with CBS News, or with the blogosphere?
I would argue that Fox is new media.
There are several secondary reasons that contribute to Fox's new-media status. Yes, several of the program hosts are identifiably conservative, or at least populist. And they treat conservative and libertarian guests fairly, without framing the presentation in the old media's usual biased fashion. The Fox people have a scrappy underdog attitude that shows through, even now, after they've become monumentally successful. And they positively revel in taking on the establishment.
Maybe the most telling sign of Fox's outsidership is the way the news establishment itself never passes up an opportunity to diss them. The dinosaurs heap lavish praise on each other while looking down their noses at Fox with a mixture of disdain, dread, and envy. They'd never treat a fellow dinosaur this way.
It's exactly the way they treat the blogosphere, though. The establishment loathes Fox as much as it loathes bloggers. Fox, on the other hand, seems perfectly comfortable with the blogosphere, and appears to get a lot of story cues from the blogs; then it amplifies those stories with the resources that a major news organization can bring to bear but a blogger can't. In fact, the relationship between Fox and the bloggers seems to be developing into an extraordinarily productive one.
But there's a more important reason I lump Fox in with the new media. That reason is Fox's format -- specifically, their habit of inviting guests on from opposing camps and letting them debate the issue at hand. Rather than telling you what various groups have to say about an issue and giving it the old news anchor's spin, the Fox anchors let representatives of the various groups give you their point of view directly. You get it pretty much from the horse's mouth.
Fox News giving air time to representatives of many points of view is the functional equivalent of bloggers linking to their source material. In both cases, you can examine the raw material yourself, and evaluate it yourself, rather than accept the presenter's version of what the source said.
It is this unfiltered quality of so much of the content of Fox News that qualifies it as new media. Fox News is not one of the dinosaurs; Fox News is one of us.
Notable: Tonight's Breaking Point on Fox is a follow-up on "U.N. Blood Money," their program from a few weeks ago that looked at the Oil-for-Food scandal. This one is called "U.N. Blood Money -- New Revelations," and it incorporates the findings of the Duelfer Report on the extent of the bribery, specific individuals alleged to have profited by it, and whether some of the money made its way to terrorists.
The show airs tonight at 9 p.m. and 12 midnight, Eastern time.
Friday, October 15, 2004
Would you buy a used car from this man?
Re: John Kerry talking about Mary Cheney in the last debate.
By concentrating exclusively on the content of what Kerry said, commentators are missing a big part of why Kerry's remarks have drawn such a negative reaction.
That big part is style: The whole manner in which Kerry presented his answer about homosexuality dripped of fakery. And in this case, style equaled substance.
If you taped the debate, go back and watch Kerry give his reply. This is the part that doesn't come across in the transcripts. His tone of voice, his facial expression, his body language and gestures -- he has the look and sound of a neophyte actor in a beginner's class giving an unconvincing performance. The notion that he is expressing admiration for the Cheney family is so transparently false it makes your skin crawl. It is obvious that this statement was cooked up in advance and rehearsed repeatedly, to be inserted into the debate at the earliest opportunity, no matter how big a stretch that might have to entail. No wonder Kerry's answer startled so many people who were watching. It was such a hamfisted, forced, patently artificial way of dragging Mary Cheney into the debate that even Kerry supporters winced.
And that is why this whole episode is scraping a raw nerve with viewers from all parts of the political spectrum. If Kerry were not such a blatant phony in all aspects of his life, and especially in his presidential campaign, this business with the Mary Cheney remarks would not have nearly so much resonance.
The Willie Horton commercial and the video of Michael Dukakis in the tank would not have triggered nearly as powerful a reaction as they did had Dukakis not already been perceived as a liberal wimp on the issues of crime and national defense. They became symbols in the public mind for most of what the public feared about Dukakis as a potential president.
John Kerry, in his debate reply, supposedly done as a compliment to the Cheneys but clearly done in reality as a smear and an appeal to bigots, comes across as disingenuous, smarmy, oleaginous, hypocritical, two-faced, willing to say anything to get elected, and possessing a tenuous relationship to the truth.
These few seconds of video of Kerry echo in people's minds because a large chunk of the voting public already suspects that Kerry is disingenuous, smarmy, oleaginous, hypocritical, two-faced, willing to say anything to get elected, and possessing a tenuous relationship to the truth.
If Kerry's blatant dishonesty during the debate didn't present such an honest account of his character, we wouldn't still be talking about it now.
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Okay, I realize my credibility is low when it comes to calling winners of debates, considering I said Bush won the first one, but nevertheless: BUSH WON THIS ONE.
By the way, I still maintain that Bush has won all of the debates, if you were paying attention to what both guys were actually saying. Unfortunately, a lot of people weren't.
I'll be amazed (and ticked off) if a majority of viewers say that Kerry won this one, or even that it was a draw. BUSH WON.
Wonder how the MSM will spin it.
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Criminey. Now the freaking Episcopalians are getting in on the act.
Do read the whole thing; if it can be called a rant, it's a very refined one. John Leo isn't just excoriating the divestment movement within a couple of denominations; he's angry at the anti-Western double standards and general moral disintegration of non-evangelical Protestantism as a whole, as it slowly replaces Christian theology with political and cultural leftism.The Presbyterian divestment plan seems to be an obvious effort to get an anti-Israel bandwagon rolling among the churches. The Episcopalians quickly obliged, letting it be known that divestment in companies doing business with Israel is now up for discussion. A high-level group from the church recently toured the Middle East, meeting with Yasser Arafat but not with any Israeli officials. Par for the course. . . .
Many Jews see the divestment movement as an instrument of anti-Semitism. Maybe it is, but the efforts of the woeful mainline churches are better seen as classic knee-jerk leftism, an expression of hard-core loathing for the United States and the West, with Israel as a stand-in for America.
One quibble, though. In that last graf, Leo says that the divestment movement has less to do with anti-Semitism than with leftism.
Unfortunately, these days, it's a false distinction. The Left has become so saturated with anti-Semitism that it's misleading to try to separate the two. The divestment movement is an expression of anti-Western leftism and an instrument of anti-Semitism. Any more, it would be hard to be one without being the other.
A new picture has suddenly appeared on the masthead over at Expat Yank's place.
You don't suppose that affable-looking gent in the photo could be proprietor Robert Tumminello, do you?
Seeing as how he's just done a little remodeling, now is the perfect time to check out his blog, if you've never before had the pleasure. I predict you will soon acquire a habit for the commentary of the intelligent, engaging, and prolific Mr. Tumminello.
The hypothesis that AIDS was a human-engineered virus designed to kill black people has gotten a lot of publicity in the last 24 hours, due to the public pronouncements of Wangari Maathai, who just won the Nobel Peace Prize.
But there's a facet of this story that is very interesting, yet, as far as I can tell, is receiving no publicity.
That is that the earliest promulgation of the AIDS-as-engineered-virus hypothesize that I'm aware of came from a BBC journalist.
In 1982, Hill & Wang published the book A Higher Form of Killing: The Secret Story of Chemical & Biological Warfare, by Robert Harris and Jeremy Paxman.
Paxman has for many years been one of the BBC's most prominent reporters, interviewers, and presenters.
A Higher Form of Killing explores the idea that the virus was created as a biological warfare agent. I haven't read the book, but the references to it that I have read all indicate that the book appeared to endorse the manufactured-virus hypothesis. (I believe the first time I ever saw A Higher Form of Killing mentioned was in the book The Isis Papers, by Frances Cress Welsing, whose ideas became the basis for Public Enemy's Fear of a Black Planet and It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. But it's been several years since I read the book, so I would have to go back and double-check.)
Does Jeremy Paxman still hold this point of view? Does he basically agree with Maathai that AIDS was created by Western scientists to kill blacks? How many people at the BBC do you suppose hold this opinion?
Update, 6:00 p.m.
1. Links added above for the titles of books and CDs.
2. I was curious to see how the BBC would handle the whole story of Maathai's belief about HIV/AIDS, so I went to the BBC News website and did a keyword search on "Maathai AIDS" and "Maathai HIV" and got only one single hit: "Kenyan media jubilant at Nobel win." When printed out, the article covers two full pages, and the only mention of Maathai's views on the HIV virus takes up -- are you ready? -- three sentences. The last three sentences. That's it -- that's all the web space the BBC saw fit to give this story. Here's the relevant section in its entirety:
I wonder: If the BBC hadn't been doing a round-up of what the Kenyan media was saying, or if the Kenyan newspaper hadn't mentioned the AIDS story, would the BBC have reported on Maathai's comments at all? Perhaps they didn't want to expose one of their Third World heroes to ridicule?Aids remarks
The Standard reports that, after receiving news of her award, Mrs Maathai "courted controversy on the issue of HIV/Aids and human rights".
"Although I am a biologist, I have not done any research. I may not be able to say who developed the (HIV) virus but it was meant to wipe out the black race," the report quotes her as saying.
The paper notes that this is not the first time that Mrs Maathai has made similar remarks.
3. Earlier today, I went to the Isis Papers page at Amazon.com to do a "Search Inside the Book" keyword search on Jeremy Paxman's name. Unfortunately, the publisher of The Isis Papers has not given permission to let people do searches, so that was out. However, you can examine the front and back covers, read an excerpt, and look at the table of contents. And in the table of contents, I did find what I'm sure is the part of the book that referenced Paxman: Chapter 25, the final chapter, "The White Supremacy System, the White Supremacy Mind-Set and the AIDS Holocaust."
I also went to the Higher Form of Killing Amazon page and did a "Search Inside the Book" on the keywords AIDS and HIV -- and to my surprise, I didn't find any relevant occurrences of either word. I'm not sure how to interpret this, since it seems that I remember the quotations from A Higher Form of Killing that were used in The Isis Papers made specific reference to AIDS and HIV.
I've made up my mind that I'm going to dig up my copy of The Isis Papers and reread the section on AIDS and Paxman. I'm also going to get hold of a copy of A Higher Form of Killing and see exactly what, if anything, Paxman has to say about AIDS. It's going to take me several days to access the books, of course, so it's going to take a bit of time before I can report back on this subject.
I think the importance of this subject, though, merits an investment of time and effort. If a star reporter at the BBC is promoting the idea that Western governments are setting diseases loose on non-Western populations, that fact needs more exposure; if Paxman has never done such a thing, that needs to be said clearly; and if the truth is somewhere in between -- say, that Paxman has implied such a conspiracy exists, but stopped short of stating it explicitly -- then that needs to be looked at thoroughly as well.
Whatever Paxman wrote on this subject, and whatever use his writing is being put to by AIDS conspiracy theorists, I'm going to try to sort it all out as soon as possible.
Update. Important update here.
Monday, October 11, 2004
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Bob at In Notts Forest:
The very best of luck to Bob on his deployment. He has my gratitude, and I'm sure the gratitude of a lot of you, as he heads off to do this enormously important work. He'll be making history, one step at a time.Some time around the first of November I will be shutting this blog down, due to being mobilized and deployed to Afghanistan. I had good time living in England. It has been interesting and I have learned a lot the culture, history and people of England and the Midlands. Maybe in a few years, I will be back doing the same job, God willing.
Thanks to him also for the blog he's been keeping, which I've gotten a lot out of reading for these many months. Perhaps, rather than shut it down completely, he'd consider keeping it alive, even if it meant he could post to it only occasionally. I'd certainly like to hear his take on life in the mountains of Afghanistan, as much as I've liked hearing his take on life in Notts Forest.
I expected the good news about John Howard's enormous electoral triumph to be downplayed by the American media, but the tiny bit of coverage it's gotten has surprised even me. It's ridiculous -- even usually reliable Fox News gave the story the once-over-lightly treatment.
Of course, it would have gotten a completely different media reaction had Howard lost . . . but you already know that, so I won't go into it again.
Even though I should be used to it by now, this sort of thing is still very aggravating.
Wednesday night, Pennsylvania State Senator Vincent Fumo, a Democrat, called Republican State Senator Robert Jubelirer a "faggot." Well, actually, according to Jubelirer, he screamed it. At least four times, according to a reporter who was there.
I haven't seen much coverage of this story at all, just a few newspaper articles on Google and a few minutes on Fox News Saturday morning.
It's possible, of course, that there's been a lot of coverage and I've just managed to miss it.
I have a suspicion, however, that if it had been a Republican legislator screaming the word "faggot" multiple times at his Democratic colleague, there'd be so much outraged blanket coverage of the story that it would be impossible to miss it.
At least Fumo has apologized. As far as I know, that's more than can be said for Pete Stark.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Serious problems in the Afghan election?
Update, 10/10/04: I kept checking in occasionally throughout the weekend trying to determine whether the accidental (or intentional?) use of washable ink was a major or a minor problem. Different news reports kept giving such wildly divergent accounts of the seriousness of the matter that it was hard to come to any judgment. Now, though, almost a day and a half after polls closed in Afghanistan, it appears that a consensus has formed, even among some very unlikely suspects (Reuters, ABC, the BBC), that the election was substantially free and fair. And, given the historical circumstances, that is truly something to celebrate. Congratulations to the people of Afghanistan, who've suffered long enough -- let this be another step in a steady march toward a freer and more secure life.
Looks like John Howard is headed for a huge victory in the Australian elections. So my wish has come true!
Congratulations, Australia. Your economy kicks ass, your military kicks ass, and John Howard kicks ass!
And as I've mentioned a few times before, this American is grateful to have you as an ally.
Of course, if Howard had done even slightly badly tonight, the world's media (not least the American media) would've spun it as a humiliating defeat for Bush, America, the War on Terror, the other Coalition allies, etc.
Now that Howard has pulled off a resounding victory, think the media will spin it as a massive endorsement of all of the above?
Come on, come on, who'll give me odds?
Friday, October 08, 2004
Reports are coming in that hostage Ken Bigley has been murdered.
Could this be why Tony Blair cut short his trip to Africa?
Thursday, October 07, 2004
It appears that in most polls John Howard has a slight lead over Mark Latham going into tomorrow's (well, in Australia, Saturday's) election. However, as Tim Blair told us, Australian pollsters don't publish their margins of error. And I don't know the mechanics of how the polling companies did their work.
In other words, the election in Australia is neck-and-neck . . . and Howard, in his more low-profile way, is as good an ally as Tony Blair, and that's saying one hell of a lot.
Keep your fingers crossed. Not only does the outcome of this election matter greatly on a practical level to the vitally important Australian-U.S. alliance, but it matters because John Howard deserves to win. I know, I know, it's ridiculous to expect justice in these matters, but still . . . God, I want John Howard to win.
Tony Blair has cut short his Africa trip by one day. No explanation forthcoming so far. Hmmm. Wonder what's going on here. Or if we'll ever find out about it.
(Quick! Somebody capture a screen image before this disappears! It's . . . a Reuters story without any scare quotes! I thought it said in the Reuters employee handbook that leaving scare quotes out of an article was a fireable offense!)
You've probably been reading, over the past day or two, about the recent spate of violent and/or intimidating acts directed at Republicans. While the mainstream media has -- surprise! -- been almost completely silent on these incidents, the blogosphere has been doing its usual yeoman's work keeping us informed.
However, there's been one form of intimidation and threatened violence that even the blogosphere has not been covering. As far as I know, GayPatriot is the only one who's been reporting on the threats aimed by gay left-wingers at gay conservatives. These include threats of violence up to and including murder, as well as a discussion of forcing people to commit suicide. In particular, GP looks into a website discussion in which the participants talk about wanting to kill a staff member of the Republican National Committee.
Let's hope the FBI, or some department with a similar remit, is keeping an eye on these bastards.
Good for GayPatriot for getting the information out. Hope he stays on the case and lets us know of any new developments.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Sorry about the lack of posts the past few days, but I've been under the weather. (Not debate-related.) In a bit of a microbe-, antibiotic-, and antihistamine-induced fog at the moment. Hope to start posting regularly again tomorrow.
Friday, October 01, 2004
What did this make me think of?
This is what it made me think of: the episode of The Mary Tyler Moore Show in which Mary and Rhoda, punchy-tired and in a more hilarious mood than they realize, write a fake obituary of a real person, only to have the joke obituary broadcast on the next day's WJM news after Ted innocently picks it up off of Mary's desk and believes it's authentic.Editor's Note
Earlier Friday, FOXNews.com posted an item purporting to contain quotations from Kerry. The item was based on a reporter's partial script that had been written in jest and should not have been posted or broadcast. We regret the error, which occurred because of fatigue and bad judgment, not malice.
I've never heard of this happening in real life before!
I'd be curious to know which reporter it was and what facetious remarks were ascribed to Kerry. Bet it would be funny. Wonder if anyone captured an image of the original screen and will put it out on the web?
Update. Yeah, someone did. And it is funny. And according to the commenters, this sort of thing has happened at least once before. (Via InstaPundit.)
