5 hours ago
Friday, March 21, 2003
Thursday, March 20, 2003
NASCENT REPUBLIC OF KURDISTAN: I love reading the Tim Noah "Kurd Sellout Watch" posts, for me if the Kurds end up with their own state at the end of all this it would be a Good Non-Cynical Reason for going to war. So I was chagrined when I read this Melik Kaylan piece in the Wall Street Journal a few days ago which claimed that not just that the Kurds weren't all marshmallows and sunshine but that they were a pack of thugs and not really a blooming democracy at all. But Tim saw it too and he's got the goods on Kaylan, which make me feel better about my Kurd-support:
Kaylan is on the scene, whereas Chatterbox is not. Consequently, Chatterbox would ordinarily grant Kaylan considerable deference. But Kaylan completely ignores the demonstrable facts that Iraqi Kurdistan enjoys a free press and has held an election that passed muster with independent observers—not something you can say about almost any other part of the Middle East. You'd think Kaylan would want at least to refute these points. That he doesn't arouses suspicion. Chatterbox's confidence in Kaylan's judgment was further undermined when he remembered an earlier Journal op-ed in which Kaylan argued for a tax cut on the grounds that America needed to nurture and expand an aristocracy that lived entirely on inherited wealth. (Chatterbox answered Kaylan here, here, and here.) Is Kaylan the Journal editorial page's designated crash dummy, sent out again and again to test the viability of outrageous new doctrines? Chatterbox is beginning to think so.
Tim also linked to this choice rundown on the situation in Kurdistan. And you should read any and all Elizabeth Rubin in TNR you can--she's reporting from Kurdistan as we speak. No links though, you gotta pay for TNR these days--but it's usually worth it, as Charles Murtaugh suggests. Their arts coverage is kind of snotty, but there's usually one or two really great articles per issue.
Kaylan is on the scene, whereas Chatterbox is not. Consequently, Chatterbox would ordinarily grant Kaylan considerable deference. But Kaylan completely ignores the demonstrable facts that Iraqi Kurdistan enjoys a free press and has held an election that passed muster with independent observers—not something you can say about almost any other part of the Middle East. You'd think Kaylan would want at least to refute these points. That he doesn't arouses suspicion. Chatterbox's confidence in Kaylan's judgment was further undermined when he remembered an earlier Journal op-ed in which Kaylan argued for a tax cut on the grounds that America needed to nurture and expand an aristocracy that lived entirely on inherited wealth. (Chatterbox answered Kaylan here, here, and here.) Is Kaylan the Journal editorial page's designated crash dummy, sent out again and again to test the viability of outrageous new doctrines? Chatterbox is beginning to think so.
Tim also linked to this choice rundown on the situation in Kurdistan. And you should read any and all Elizabeth Rubin in TNR you can--she's reporting from Kurdistan as we speak. No links though, you gotta pay for TNR these days--but it's usually worth it, as Charles Murtaugh suggests. Their arts coverage is kind of snotty, but there's usually one or two really great articles per issue.
AM I SADDAM OR NOT?: My guess is no, that dude looked a little too unconcerned and he didn't have that Saddam-like glint in his eyes, which is I guess what the giant glasses were meant to cover up. And I'm a guy with a weblog, so you better recognize.
SHANE BATTIER, QUIET PATRIOT: Lang Whitaker pointed out this Battier quote:
"We all have a role to play in this world," Battier said. "A lot of times, people scoff at our profession and those in the entertainment industry. But we know there are so many people in this country who work hard and who are under pressure who need to take a break from the world events. That's when they can watch sports on TV, or maybe come to a Grizzlies game, and maybe relax for a few hours."
It also struck Battier that the role of sports intensifies in time of war.
"I was watching SportsCenter and it was pretty moving to me when they were talking to a young infantry man in Kuwait," Battier said. "He was saying how important sports was to our guys and girls in the Middle East. A lot of them follow us and want us to keep on keeping on.
"So my approach is I'm going to do my job as an American. I'm going to do my job to the best of my ability, and try to bring a piece of America to the Middle East, and raise morale over there."
It's weird how Duke players become dramatically less annoying once they reach the pros--well, maybe not that weird, their annoying on-court behavior is all part of the Mike Krzyzewski game plan.
"We all have a role to play in this world," Battier said. "A lot of times, people scoff at our profession and those in the entertainment industry. But we know there are so many people in this country who work hard and who are under pressure who need to take a break from the world events. That's when they can watch sports on TV, or maybe come to a Grizzlies game, and maybe relax for a few hours."
It also struck Battier that the role of sports intensifies in time of war.
"I was watching SportsCenter and it was pretty moving to me when they were talking to a young infantry man in Kuwait," Battier said. "He was saying how important sports was to our guys and girls in the Middle East. A lot of them follow us and want us to keep on keeping on.
"So my approach is I'm going to do my job as an American. I'm going to do my job to the best of my ability, and try to bring a piece of America to the Middle East, and raise morale over there."
It's weird how Duke players become dramatically less annoying once they reach the pros--well, maybe not that weird, their annoying on-court behavior is all part of the Mike Krzyzewski game plan.
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF WARLIKE TOYS: The GI Joe Hovercraft actually exists. And, also on the Hasbro war front, Optimus Prime just shipped out. Via Hit&Run. You know, it's weird how the pop culture of my childhood (the early 80s) is almost completely un-nostalgiaized--and I'm not sure what I even mean by that. Mainly that the pop culture images of that time are not in general circulation; they only make guest spots in cultish areas like The Cartoon Network and comic books. Like everyone recognizes Yogi Bear or Marvin The Martian or KISS or Darth Vader, but you have to have actually been there at the time to remember Optimus Prime or Skeletor or Cobra Commander. Is it just demographics--late Gen X/early Gen Y being a small generation? Was the 70s the last gasp of a shared national popular culture? Maybe Franklin has some thoughts.
AND HEY, THERE'S MARCH MADNESS TOO: Early games are on ESPN--there's some kind of geopolitical conflict on CBS....
SAC KINGS/LAKERS TONIGHT AT TEN: And good ol' Shaq has been adding fuel to the fire:
"How did Mike Bibby get on the team?'' Shaq wondered aloud. "Any Cub Scout with Boy Scouts can do Boy Scoutish things. When (Bibby) was in the Cub Scouts, he was a Cub Scout. When he was with Vancouver, nobody heard about (him). Now that he's with Sacramento ... he's on the team. I ain't going.
"And Allen Iverson isn't on the team? Why not? (U.S. coach) Larry Brown should have said, 'If he's not on the team, I'm not going.'''
The best part was Bobby Jackson's comeback:
"That's just talk from a guy who likes to talk,'' Sacramento's Bobby Jackson said. "Nobody cares. You can't listen to everything he says. Even he don't listen to everything he says."
"How did Mike Bibby get on the team?'' Shaq wondered aloud. "Any Cub Scout with Boy Scouts can do Boy Scoutish things. When (Bibby) was in the Cub Scouts, he was a Cub Scout. When he was with Vancouver, nobody heard about (him). Now that he's with Sacramento ... he's on the team. I ain't going.
"And Allen Iverson isn't on the team? Why not? (U.S. coach) Larry Brown should have said, 'If he's not on the team, I'm not going.'''
The best part was Bobby Jackson's comeback:
"That's just talk from a guy who likes to talk,'' Sacramento's Bobby Jackson said. "Nobody cares. You can't listen to everything he says. Even he don't listen to everything he says."
Wednesday, March 19, 2003
OTHER AFL BLOGS HEARD FROM: The Unofficial Blog of the AFL. The Australian Football League, of course, and not our decent God-fearing Arena Football Leauge.
DERB DERB DERB WELL THE DERB IS THE VERB: I guess you would call this John Derbyshire piece a more Bush-apologetic version of that Fareed Zakaria article:
We don't understand — How badly George W. Bush travels. Never having been schooled in the fast repartee of a parliamentary debating chamber, Bush seems slow and inarticulate in response. Coming from the openly confessional tradition of Southern Christianity, he seems to foreigners to be religiose rather than religious. Having spent most of his life in a region with a strong sense of identity, he speaks his local dialect unselfconsciously, which makes him sound like a bumpkin to other English-speakers (and even to some Americans). Pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-koo-luh" tells you nothing more about the man than that he comes from Texas and doesn't care who knows it. It is no more reprehensible than my pronouncing "schedule" with a "sh" instead of a "sk," and it is very unfair of non-Texans to snigger at it. They do, though, and I am not sure they are wrong to do so, bearing in mind what terrible responsibilities lie behind that word "nuclear."
Via the DVDVR. Of course, it only explains why Bush travels badly in the U.K., not everywhere else.
We don't understand — How badly George W. Bush travels. Never having been schooled in the fast repartee of a parliamentary debating chamber, Bush seems slow and inarticulate in response. Coming from the openly confessional tradition of Southern Christianity, he seems to foreigners to be religiose rather than religious. Having spent most of his life in a region with a strong sense of identity, he speaks his local dialect unselfconsciously, which makes him sound like a bumpkin to other English-speakers (and even to some Americans). Pronouncing "nuclear" as "noo-koo-luh" tells you nothing more about the man than that he comes from Texas and doesn't care who knows it. It is no more reprehensible than my pronouncing "schedule" with a "sh" instead of a "sk," and it is very unfair of non-Texans to snigger at it. They do, though, and I am not sure they are wrong to do so, bearing in mind what terrible responsibilities lie behind that word "nuclear."
Via the DVDVR. Of course, it only explains why Bush travels badly in the U.K., not everywhere else.
YOUR GREATEST GOOGLE SEARCH THAT FINDS MY WEBLOG POST OF THE DAY: "Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki fan fiction." Which is two steps away from "Steve Nash and Dirk Nowitzki slash fiction." Holy crap, there actually is some. Crikey. I am appalled and amused. Nash/Nowitzki slash fiction is going to give Kirk and Spock a run for their money. You heard it here first.
I DO SO LOVE THE BLOGS: So I love the Jason Malloy response to a Marc Miyake article, and when I go to Amritas to get a follow-up I don't get one but I do get further criticism of the Scientist-Gnome. I'm not informed enough by a long ways to judge how right either guy is; Marc is clearly deep in the Chomsky hate, but he can back up what he says with actual linguistic knowledge--which impresses me, anyway. But I do think Chomsky is going to wind up being closer to the Freud of his field than the Darwin; you know, paradigm-altering, dead wrong about a lot of things, and ceaselessly entertaining. (Chomsky not so entertaining to me as Freud, but others find him entertaining, I understand.) Not someone they keep going back to years after the fact like biologists still do with Chuck Darwin.
Tuesday, March 18, 2003
READ FAREED: My favorite part of the Fareed Zakaria article everyone's linking to:
President Bush’s favorite verb is “expect.” He announces peremptorily that he “expects” the Palestinians to dump Yasir Arafat, “expects” countries to be with him or against him, “expects” Turkey to cooperate. It is all part of the administration’s basic approach toward foreign policy, which is best described by the phrase used for its war plan—”shock and awe.” The notion is that the United States needs to intimidate countries with its power and assertiveness, always threatening, always denouncing, never showing weakness. Donald Rumsfeld often quotes a line from Al Capone: “You will get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.”
But should the guiding philosophy of the world’s leading democracy really be the tough talk of a Chicago mobster? In terms of effectiveness, this strategy has been a disaster. It has alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it. “Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,” says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.” Last fall, a senior ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech supporting America’s position on Iraq, added an innocuous phrase that could have been seen as deviating from that support. The Bush administration called up his foreign minister and demanded that he be formally reprimanded within an hour. The ambassador now seethes when he talks about U.S. arrogance. Does this really help America’s cause in the world? There are dozens of stories like this from every part of the world.
In diplomacy, style is often substance. Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions—Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so. Indeed, Kofi Annan later made statements that seemed to justify the action in Kosovo, explaining that state sovereignty should not be used as a cover for humanitarian abuses. Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.” While the Clinton administration—or the first Bush administration—was assertive in many ways, people did not seek assurances about its intentions. The Bush administration does not bear all the blame for this dramatic change in attitudes. Because of 9-11, it has had to act forcefully on the world stage and assert American power. But that should have been all the more reason to adopt a posture of consultation and cooperation while doing what needed to be done. The point is to scare our enemies, not terrify the rest of the world.
The phrase "Mayberry Machiavellis" keeps running through my head. Something about having unsophisticated weirdos running the country. And how I can't wait to vote for anybody else in 2004. But I can't, like, prove any of that. Except that last part.
President Bush’s favorite verb is “expect.” He announces peremptorily that he “expects” the Palestinians to dump Yasir Arafat, “expects” countries to be with him or against him, “expects” Turkey to cooperate. It is all part of the administration’s basic approach toward foreign policy, which is best described by the phrase used for its war plan—”shock and awe.” The notion is that the United States needs to intimidate countries with its power and assertiveness, always threatening, always denouncing, never showing weakness. Donald Rumsfeld often quotes a line from Al Capone: “You will get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone.”
But should the guiding philosophy of the world’s leading democracy really be the tough talk of a Chicago mobster? In terms of effectiveness, this strategy has been a disaster. It has alienated friends and delighted enemies. Having traveled around the world and met with senior government officials in dozens of countries over the past year, I can report that with the exception of Britain and Israel, every country the administration has dealt with feels humiliated by it. “Most officials in Latin American countries today are not anti-American types,” says Jorge Castaneda, the reformist foreign minister of Mexico, who resigned two months ago. “We have studied in the United States or worked there. We like and understand America. But we find it extremely irritating to be treated with utter contempt.” Last fall, a senior ambassador to the United Nations, in a speech supporting America’s position on Iraq, added an innocuous phrase that could have been seen as deviating from that support. The Bush administration called up his foreign minister and demanded that he be formally reprimanded within an hour. The ambassador now seethes when he talks about U.S. arrogance. Does this really help America’s cause in the world? There are dozens of stories like this from every part of the world.
In diplomacy, style is often substance. Consider this fact: the Clinton administration used force on three important occasions—Bosnia, Haiti and Kosovo. In none of them did it take the matter to the United Nations Security Council, and there was little discussion that it needed to do so. Indeed, Kofi Annan later made statements that seemed to justify the action in Kosovo, explaining that state sovereignty should not be used as a cover for humanitarian abuses. Today Annan has (wrongly) announced that American action in Iraq outside the United Nations will be “illegal.” While the Clinton administration—or the first Bush administration—was assertive in many ways, people did not seek assurances about its intentions. The Bush administration does not bear all the blame for this dramatic change in attitudes. Because of 9-11, it has had to act forcefully on the world stage and assert American power. But that should have been all the more reason to adopt a posture of consultation and cooperation while doing what needed to be done. The point is to scare our enemies, not terrify the rest of the world.
The phrase "Mayberry Machiavellis" keeps running through my head. Something about having unsophisticated weirdos running the country. And how I can't wait to vote for anybody else in 2004. But I can't, like, prove any of that. Except that last part.
Monday, March 17, 2003
MEMO TO CHUCK TAYLOR: Don't be an ass. Your guy Clinton cost you assholes the White House by being a morally reprehensible creep who ended up costing Gore half the country and any chance of a coherent message. And you're blaming the war on Nader-voters? Kee-ripes....
HAPPY ST. PATRICK'S DAY: From me, and then--in idiosyncratic linguistico-Chomsky hatin' fashion--from Amritas.
Friday, March 14, 2003
HEY WOW, MY FIRST BIG MEDIA MENTION: And in the beloved paper-of-college-years Baltimore Sun, no less:
Bloggers have a knack for devising creative titles -- such as "Insolvent Republic of Blogistan" -- and ingenious new words. When one blogger assails another's claims in a long, point-by-point screed, it's called getting "fisked" -- after left-wing British journalist Robert Fisk, whose articles inspired such attacks.
There you go. Via Radley Balko. Meanwhile, the new SI is reporting that Manu Ginobili gets 50 hits a day on his site--more when he plays well--making me nearly as popular as everyone's favorite Spurs rookie. How about that?
Bloggers have a knack for devising creative titles -- such as "Insolvent Republic of Blogistan" -- and ingenious new words. When one blogger assails another's claims in a long, point-by-point screed, it's called getting "fisked" -- after left-wing British journalist Robert Fisk, whose articles inspired such attacks.
There you go. Via Radley Balko. Meanwhile, the new SI is reporting that Manu Ginobili gets 50 hits a day on his site--more when he plays well--making me nearly as popular as everyone's favorite Spurs rookie. How about that?
Wednesday, March 12, 2003
INITIAL "GODS AND GENERALS" REACTION: You know, I can't help but think that a movie like "Gods And Generals" that attempts to interpret the Civil War as a national tragedy whose combatants--on both sides--are worthy of being remembered and understood, and tries to make the Southern perspective part of a larger American history--tries to give both sides equal standing and in effect makes the War accessible to all Americans, as something that happened to all Americans, where the South's perspective is an American perspective, as much as the North's was--is about a million times more constructive than the playing-to-Northeastern-vanity morally superior "Just say slavery"* mindset that I think was behind many of the negative reviews G&G got. Maybe I'm engaging in political fantasy here as much as the "It was all slavery. Yep." types, but I like my tragic War Between The States fantasy way better than the Virtuous North Beats Racist South fantasy, because it is (ironically, I guess) that much less divisive. I don't see the point in continuing the demonization of an entire region of the country. Besides, how can you not love a movie with the stones to have a twelve-minute intermission in the year 2003? See it somewhere with free refills.
*--From that Simpsons episode where Apu take his citizenship test and one of the questions asks for the reason for the Civil War and Apu gives a bunch including slavery. But slavery is the right answer. Thus, "Just say slavery."
*--From that Simpsons episode where Apu take his citizenship test and one of the questions asks for the reason for the Civil War and Apu gives a bunch including slavery. But slavery is the right answer. Thus, "Just say slavery."
Monday, February 10, 2003
WARBLOGGER AWARDS POSTED: Nobody I voted for won, except for Instapundit in the "Best Linker" category. Dang it.
Thursday, February 06, 2003
ABORTION LINKAGE: First, a post from FuturePundit on sex selection and abortion in Asia, which is full of detail and reports that the gender imbalance is all out of whack in East Asia and India because of sex-selective abortions that prevented millions of women from existing. Grrreat. Meanwhile MedPundit reports on the emotional aftereffects of abortion.
COLUMBIA: It is sad all around--what makes it truly depressing for me is seeing all the video of the crew in orbit and noticing how wildly happy they all were. Granted, they all seemed like the kind of people who were permanently high on life to begin with, so maybe they weren't solely buzzed on the thrills of antigravity and being actually in outer space. In any case, the contrast between their bubbly happiness and the fact that their lives were about to be torn away in the upper atmosphere saddens me more than anything else I've seen about STS-107.
There's this weird, neat Kalpana Chawla quote that I saw her say on C-SPAN--they were rebroadcasting the 1/29/03 briefing--and that has "In the retina of my eye, the whole Earth and the sky could be seen reflected" in it--that's definitely not the whole quote, which I can't find anywhere. But if I had to do a On The Transmigration Of Souls for Columbia it would be one of those lengthy, mysterious "trance" (in quotes because I have no idea what I'm talking about) electronica records and that full sample of her words would be in there as the musical centerpiece.
And I have no idea what to make of this:
Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are analyzing a startling photograph -- snapped by an amateur astronomer from a San Francisco hillside -- that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky.
The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at roughly 5:53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing the first indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in flames over Texas.
The photographer requested that his name not be used and said he would not release the image to the public until NASA experts had time to examine it.
Although there are several possible benign explanations for the image -- such as a barely perceptable jiggle of the camera as it took the time exposure -- NASA's zeal to examine the photo demonstrates the lengths at which the agency is going to tap the resources of ordinary Americans in solving the puzzle.
Late Tuesday, NASA dispatched former shuttle astronaut Tammy Jernigan, now a manager at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, to the San Francisco home of the astronomer to examine his digital images and to take the camera itself to Mountain View, where it was to be transported by a NASA T-38 jet to Houston this morning.
A Chronicle reporter was present when the astronaut arrived. First seeing the image on a large computer screen, she had one word: "Wow."
Jernigan, who is no longer working for NASA, quizzed the photographer on the aperture of the camera, the direction he faced and the estimated exposure time -- about four to six seconds on the automatic Nikon 880 camera. It was mounted on a tripod, and the shutter was triggered manually.
In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades.
"It certainly appears very anomalous," said Jernigan. "We sure will be very interested in taking a very hard look at this."
Via Ken Layne.
There's this weird, neat Kalpana Chawla quote that I saw her say on C-SPAN--they were rebroadcasting the 1/29/03 briefing--and that has "In the retina of my eye, the whole Earth and the sky could be seen reflected" in it--that's definitely not the whole quote, which I can't find anywhere. But if I had to do a On The Transmigration Of Souls for Columbia it would be one of those lengthy, mysterious "trance" (in quotes because I have no idea what I'm talking about) electronica records and that full sample of her words would be in there as the musical centerpiece.
And I have no idea what to make of this:
Top investigators of the Columbia space shuttle disaster are analyzing a startling photograph -- snapped by an amateur astronomer from a San Francisco hillside -- that appears to show a purplish electrical bolt striking the craft as it streaked across the California sky.
The digital image is one of five snapped by the shuttle buff at roughly 5:53 a.m. Saturday as sensors on the doomed orbiter began showing the first indications of trouble. Seven minutes later, the craft broke up in flames over Texas.
The photographer requested that his name not be used and said he would not release the image to the public until NASA experts had time to examine it.
Although there are several possible benign explanations for the image -- such as a barely perceptable jiggle of the camera as it took the time exposure -- NASA's zeal to examine the photo demonstrates the lengths at which the agency is going to tap the resources of ordinary Americans in solving the puzzle.
Late Tuesday, NASA dispatched former shuttle astronaut Tammy Jernigan, now a manager at Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, to the San Francisco home of the astronomer to examine his digital images and to take the camera itself to Mountain View, where it was to be transported by a NASA T-38 jet to Houston this morning.
A Chronicle reporter was present when the astronaut arrived. First seeing the image on a large computer screen, she had one word: "Wow."
Jernigan, who is no longer working for NASA, quizzed the photographer on the aperture of the camera, the direction he faced and the estimated exposure time -- about four to six seconds on the automatic Nikon 880 camera. It was mounted on a tripod, and the shutter was triggered manually.
In the critical shot, a glowing purple rope of light corkscrews down toward the plasma trail, appears to pass behind it, then cuts sharply toward it from below. As it merges with the plasma trail, the streak itself brightens for a distance, then fades.
"It certainly appears very anomalous," said Jernigan. "We sure will be very interested in taking a very hard look at this."
Via Ken Layne.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
