Duck Season

Mickey Kaus says "it's a potential scenario".

There are many people in this country who are against the invasion of Iraq. Sure, they might not approve of the invasion, they don't think things are going too well, and most of them don't like Bush. But they all want us to do well in rebuilding Iraq, right?

Not exactly.

(Via Instapundit).

I didn't do any blogging on 9/11, because it was hard to put my feelings and emotions into words, and also because I was so absorbed into the words of others. By the end of the night, I was emotionally drained, so it was a welcomed sight when I came upon a link to the Onion's 9/11 issue at Winds of Change. The highlights were "On TV Tonight" and "A Shattered Nation Longs To Care About Stupid Bullshit Again". An excerpt from the second story:

Even as America's television networks slowly return to regular programming, the vital issues of our pre-Sept. 11 lives are relegated to the background.

"If Access Hollywood would just go back to blathering about Julia Roberts' surprise platinum-blonde makeover and Brad Pitt's new dog and a bunch of other crap that doesn't matter in the least, I'd know everything is right with my world," said Shelley Orr, a Stockton, CA, data-entry clerk. "Oh, my God, what's going on with the whole car-phone controversy? Are they going to ban them? I haven't even thought about it in weeks."

***

"The United States is a free country, a strong country, a prosperous country," Schuitt said. "Many veterans gave their lives so we would have the right to focus our attention and energies on the DVD release of Joe Dirt, the latest web-browsing cell phones, and how-low-can-you-go hip-hugging jeans. It is a sign of our collective strength as a nation that we genuinely give a shit about the latest developments in the Cruise-Cruz romance. When Mariah Carey's latest breakdown is once again treated as front-page news, that is the day the healing will have truly begun."

While Schuitt says he is optimistic that Americans will one day obsess over stupid bullshit like they used to, others are not so confident.

"This is a life-changing, society-altering catastrophe of the first magnitude, on par with a Pearl Harbor or Great Depression," said noted historian and author David Halberstam. "The sad truth is, this country may never go back to caring about pointless, inane trifles as we once did."

Where have you gone, J. Lo? A nation turns its lonely eyes to you.

Two years after that day, I'm happy to say that, indeed, we are back to caring about pointless, inane trifles again. While the war on terror is still the number one news story, it now has to compete for attention with the recall circus in California. We analyze how much tongue Madonna slipped to Britney as much as whether we should go to the UN. The biggest sports story this week was on what Ohio State would do with its star running back, who lied to the police about what's stolen from his car. And in the middle of posting about 9/11, the Corner gives us the breaking news that the J.Lo/Affleck wedding was off.

While some people, like Rachel, are unhappy about our focus on irrelevance, I think that it's a good sign. For one, it means that we're winning the war on terror. We rooted out the Taliban in Afghanistan, removed Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq, and have Osama bin Laden on the run. While we have been unable to capture either of them, neither will be a threat to us in the foreseeable future, if ever. More importantly, in the last two years, we have not had a coordinated terrorist attack on our soil. Americans are more concerned about the economy than with the possibility of an anthrax attack or terrorists flying planes at the Empire State Building.

Our obsession with the Britney/Madonna kiss and other frivolities also means that our lives have not change for the worse since 9/11. After 9/11, a popular saying was, "If ___, then the terrorists win." Usually, the blank would be filled with worries of how we would lose our liberties, or how we have to change our way of life. For most of us, our lives are just as ordinary as before. We go to the local mall without worrying about a suicide bomber. We invest in the stock market without worrying that the market will collapse after a terrorist attack. We watch football games without worrying that a plane will come crashing into the stadium. The terrorists are not winning, and for all complaints from the ACLU and others, we have not lost our liberties. No matter what they tell us, the G-Men won't be coming for any of us at night with handcuffs. And few of us are even worrying about that possibility; we're too busy guessing who'll be the next to get voted off the island.

Opposites make silly combinations:

"Fratboys for Abstinence"
"Vegetarians for Steak Diane"
"Hackers for Microsoft"
"Atheists for Jesus"
"Republicans for Dean"

No, wait, that one actually exists. Andrew Sullivan isn't buying it though:

...a close look reveals this site to be mighty suspicious. It's full of far-left rhetoric, extremist Bush-hating, and generally lacks any real conservative or Republican philosophy. It calls the Bush administration a "failed regime." If these guys are real Republicans, I'm a hetero. Someone should check who's really behind this site.

I'd blame it on a secret scheme by the Democrats, but as we all know only Karl Rove does these kind of things. I've seen this "Republicans for Dean" meme before, specifically in the comments of this Dan Drezner post by "Dean Man":

Reports from this month's Dean Meetup in our modest sized town indicate that 10-15% of our meeting consisted of Republicans turned off by Bush

a. budget profligacy
b. cluelessness in Iraq
c. protectionism
d. cronyism
e. heavy handed federalism

It may not be Dean who gets the final nomination, but judging by one quiet night in early September 2003, Karl Rove is going to have a really lousy fourteen months before the next election.

Um, sure, whatever you say. This was my response:

c) Isn't Dean just as big a protectionist as Bush? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he say that the problem with farm subsidies is that there isn't enough of it? Also, isn't he worried about jobs being outsourced overseas?

d)Call me skeptical, but I can't imagine any person from any party going to a meeting of a candidate from another party because of "cronyism" from a politician in their own party. If that were a regular occurrence we'd have a lot more Republicans in Massachusetts right now.

e) What exactly is "heavy handed federalism"? How is it different from the non-heavy handed variety? Isn't federalism by definition not heavy handed? And don't Republicans like federalism, anyway?

I think it's probably an anomaly that 10-15% of those in that Dean Meetup were Republicans.

I can see a few disgruntled Republicans going for Wesley Clark, or even hoping that John McCain would run as an independent, but Howard Dean? Who are these people kidding? The only Republicans who would vote for Dean are the "paleo-cons" who are vehemently against the war in Iraq. Of course, these people are mostly Pat Buchanan types who favor affirmative action for whites, want to throw all the immigrants out, and advocate extreme isolationism and protectionism. These are not the types that the Republicans for Dean people pretend to be, though. What they don't get is that the Republicans most likely to support Dean are not moderate Republicans, but the extremists on the fringe. So before trying to pretend to be the opponent, you should at least know a little something abut them. [Ed--Have you consider that Republicans for Dean is set up by Karl Rove so Bush can have the easiest opponent in the general election? Not really. These are probably the same people who started the "Dean is the most electable Democrat" meme too. Good point. And did you know that Karl Rove is also responsible for the Kennedy assassination, the fake moon landing, and the last season of Seinfeld? Okay, that's enough.]

Iran doesn't deserve democracy either, according to A.N.S.W.E.R. :

I've been working VERY hard on getting the word about the plight of the people of Iran, out, as you know.

Recently I contacted a group called A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION which organizes marches. After having introduced myself and explained to them the situation in Iran (after 4 phone calls and messages) I was told that they won't help the Iranian activists and their friends in organizing marches against the Islamic Republic as they're afraid the Iranian student movement might be run by IMPERIALIST!!!!!

The whole article must be read in order to be believed.

(Click here, it's the large article dated Wednesday September 10, 2003.)

Apparently he was going after Frodo and Sam for the One Ring:



Maybe Smeagol can redeem himself by taking bin Laden with him when he falls into the volcano.

Polipundit says John Kerry didn't mention his Vietnam service once in the debate! I've ripped Kerry for mentioning Vietnam every 12 1/2 minutes more than once on this blog, so I thought I'd be fair and mention this. On the same note, I haven't seen any Vietnam references from Kerry since last Tuesday when he "re-announced" his candidacy at Patriot's Point in South Carolina, next to USS Yorktown and other Vietnam veterans. Eight days without one Vietnam reference. Must be a record!

(Via Instapundit).

Nick Gillespie writes:

...in a two-party system (and that's what we're stuck with, however much we don't like it), it's always a good thing to have a strong opposition party. The big political successes of the '90s--welfare reform and balancing the budget--came only because Bill Clinton ushered in the unthinkable: a Republican Congress. There's more to this than simply divided government (though that's generally a good thing). A strong opposition party helps energize political discourse while reining in the worst tendencies of its adversary. Not long ago, the Republican Party played that role to the Democrats. Now it's the Dems' turn and so far it doesn't look like they're up to the task.

Vote Democrat: the Republicans do a much better job as the minority party than we do!

Your DVD will self-destruct in 48 hours:

If Walt Disney Co. gets its wish, an experimental type of DVD will begin flying off store shelves Tuesday, and self-destructing 48 hours later.

Disney (DIS: Research, Estimates) movies on disposable DVDs are set to arrive in convenience stores, pharmacies and other outlets in a four-city test of whether Americans will pick up a limited-life DVD rather than dropping by a video rental store.

The red DVDs turn an unreadable black 48 hours after their packages are opened -- exposing them to oxygen, which reacts with the disc in a process similar to how Polaroid film develops.

The DVDs, which are being distributed by Buena Vista Home Entertainment, Disney's home video unit, will carry a suggested price of $6.99.

Doesn't it seem to be a bit wasteful? For once I agree with the environmentalists:

The plan has stirred some criticism from environmentalists such as the Alliance for Safe Alternatives, which is asking callers to phone Disney and tell them to scrap the plan which they say will add needless waste to America's landfills.

The plan offers some recycling -- though not in-store -- and consumers will eventually be able to get a new disc in return for six used ones, the companies said.

Members of the Quincy High graduating class of 1978 will be featured in a Dateline NBC "Losing It! The Ultimate Diet Challenge." The participants are losing weight just in time for their 25th high school reunion.

Link

So I got this campaign flyer crammed in my porch door this afternoon:

VOTERS OF QUINCY

Experience in Government DOE$ COUNT!

Re-Elect Former Mayor

FRANCIS X. MCCAULEY
Councillor at Large

Over 30 years of Public Service on behalf of the Citizens of Quincy

"The Taxpayer'$ Voice on the City Council"

What exactly is Francis trying to tell me? We're trained to be repulsed when we see a dollar sign used as an S in a political ad, it's a sign that the person depicted is guilty of corruption and greed, yet Francis does this twice on his own campaign flyer? The flip side of the flyer has Mr. McCauley's resume, which includes a lengthy stay in the bank/financial industry, so perhaps i'm supposed to learn that Francis is good with money?

This all leads to the more troubling subject, local politics. Quincy's Preliminary Election is next week, and I have absolutely no idea who to vote for. At such a local level does it even matter? I feel an obligation to vote, but I know next to nothing about any of the candidates. There's only one candidate who's name I know, Jimmy Liang, and that's because he graduated North Quincy High School just a few years ahead of me, and when I was much younger I used to play (read: get my butt kicked) Street Fighter with some of his cousins at his house, which is only a few blocks from mine.

So i'm open to suggestions for a responsible way to vote while uninformed. I think last year I voted for anyone who's address I recognized, the logic being that I could knock on the door of anyone who pissed me off.

Q: What do you call a sport where a bunch of toothless men take a thousand left turns for three hours while the audience waits for a collision?

A: Hockey

He severely pissed off the American Teleservices Association when he published their 800 number in a recent column. They were inconvenienced by an extraordinary flood of unwanted calls. Those poor people.

Link.

The New Republic calls Howard Dean an "angry white man" and a "Park Avenue Populist".

Josh Chafetz links to this New York Times story on Afghans mourning the anniversary of the assassination of Ahmed Shah Massood, the Northern Alliance leader who was killed two days before 9-11, and referred to two banners at the tribute that read "Osama, you martyred our hero!" and "Death to Osama!" This is good news, not only because it is a sign the we are winning the "hearts and minds" battle, but also because it shows that they are not sufficiently worried about the Taliban and al-Qaida making a comeback in Afghanistan to hide their true feelings.

The Boston Globe doesn't want you to label those who fund terror as "terrorists" :

But post-9/11 the word's potency has multiplied. In the current climate, the terrorist tag effectively banishes its holder from the political arena. More than ever, it condemns rather than describes.

Indeed, newspapers must be doubly careful about how they apply the word. Sparing use is the norm. For example, the Palestinian organization Hamas, whose suicide bombers maim and kill Israeli citizens, is routinely described in the Globe and other papers as a "militant," not terrorist, group.

Such restraint infuriates some Middle East partisans (most often, but not exclusively, supporters of Israel) who say it sugarcoats reality and that any group targeting civilians is terrorist. I receive regular demands to, as a Chelmsford reader put it, "stop misleading readers with terminology that affords terrorists a false degree of legitimacy."

What possible reason is there for not unflinchingly applying the word terrorist to any organization or person who targets civilians? It may seem like hair-splitting, but there's a reason to reserve the terrorist label for specific acts of violence, and not apply it broadly to groups.

To tag Hamas, for example, as a terrorist organization is to ignore its far more complex role in the Middle East drama. The word reflects not only a simplification, but a bias that runs counter to good journalism. To label any group in the Middle East as terrorist is to take sides, or at least appear to, and that is not acceptable. The same holds true in covering other far-flung conflicts. One person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter; it's not for journalists to judge.

Headline on the News window at AOL:

Music Biz Sues Kids, Grandpas
Industry Tries Scare Tactics

Not exactly fair and balanced, are they?

What's a good way to convince people to vote for an actor with little experience in politics running for governor as a Republican? Have the Dixie Chicks say bad things about him!

The Dixie Chicks have been voicing their political opinions again by criticising Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Last time they were in Europe, lead singer Natalie Maines, said the band were ashamed President Bush was from Texas.

Emily Robison, currently touring Europe with the rest of the band, has now said: "He is a great film star. But I find his idea to run for governor absolutely insane."

She told German paper Abendzeitung: "America should be governed by people who have a clue. I hope he doesn't win."

I'm not going to criticize them for not liking Arnold, but one does have to wonder whether they consider what impact their statements have. Anyone who takes what they say in politics seriously wouldn't have voted for Arnold anyway. On the flip side, it might actually push a few conservatives to vote for Arnold after seeing what they said. Many conservatives, such as those at The Corner, are debating whether to support Arnold or Tom McClintock. Seeing what the Dixie Chicks said might convince them that, while Arnold isn't a true conservative, he is still disliked by the left, much more to the right than Bustamente, and worthy of their vote.

(Via Mickey Kaus).

Gregg Easterbrook now has his own blog at the New Republic.

For the love of the all that is pure and good in the world, John Ashcroft needs to track down the person who conducted this google search.

Michael Moore, caught lying.

(Via Andrew Sullivan).

They're causing gobal warming!

(Via The Corner).

Gray Davis doesn't like foreigners.

Susanna Cornett links to this news story reporting that the Europeans are trying to stop American companies from using "European" product names like feta and parmesan, and asks, "Ahhh... so they want to make it easier for US citizens to boycott their products, and more likely at the same time?"

Andrew Sullivan links to some "fascinating new details on how closely linked the war in Iraq is to the war against Al Qaeda" from the Washington Post:

The al Qaeda network is determined to open a new front in Iraq to sustain itself as the vanguard of radical Islamic groups fighting holy war, according to European, American and Arab intelligence sources. The turn toward Iraq was made in February, as U.S. forces were preparing to attack, the sources said. Two seasoned operatives met at a safe house in eastern Iran. One of them was Mohammed Ibrahim Makawi, the military chief of al Qaeda, who is better known as Saif Adel. He welcomed a guest, Abu Musab Zarqawi, who had recently fled Iraq's Kurdish northern region in anticipation of the U.S. targeting of a radical group with which he was affiliated, Arab intelligence sources said. The encounter resulted in the dispatch of Zarqawi to become al Qaeda's man in Iraq, opening a new chapter in the history of the group and a serious threat to American forces there. "The monster is already near you," said one Arab official who is familiar with the intelligence and who spoke on condition that he not be identified by name or nationality. "I don't know if you can kill it." The official added: "Iraq is the new battleground. It is the perfect place. It will be the perfect place."

Sullivan adds "if this pans out, then the Bush administration really will have pulled off something important: taken the war to the enemy, taken it out of the West, and given us a chance for military victory."

That's an important perspective that is largely absent from the public discourse on Iraq. Most of the pundits who cite Iraq as a battle ground against Al Qaeda misunderstand that Iraq is a battleground only because Al Qaeda has arrived after the fact, not before hand. These pundits, like far too many Americans, have taken for granted the idea that there were major ties between Saddam and Al Qaeda before our invasion. We have yet to be presented any evidence to suggest this, and while this may or may not be proven true, it is very clear that Al Qaeda has increased their presence because of the power vaccum created after the demise of Saddam.

Sullivan seems to believe that Iraq was turned into a war zone to lure Al Qaeda in, because this is a war zone where the odds are in our favor. It's an interesting theory, but one which isn't likely to be affirmed by the President in his speech tonight.

Beware the "unidentified co-ejaculator" theory.

(Lifted from Instapundit)

On the one hand, I know that Gray Davis is a horrible governor and that it'd be a good thing if he gets thrown out of office, regardless of who ends up replacing him. On the other hand, I stand to make $42 if the recall gets canceled, or delayed in any way such that it would not be held on October 7.

The story: yesterday, I saw from Mickey Kaus that the ACLU lawsuit to stop the recall has been assigned three judges who, according to Kaus, are "both a) liberal and b) willing to make trouble." Kaus also quotes Rick Hasen predicting an ACLU victory: "I think it's fairly likely, especially given the judges who are going to hear the case." I went to the Iowa Electronic Markets and bought 21 shares of stock that pays out $2 each if the recal is canceled, for only 92.5 cents.

So should I root for the recall to be delayed or canceled, and make $42, or should I root for the recall to succeed, improving the governorship in a state far, far away? Hmmm...

When boners are outlawed, only outlaws will have boners:

A 40-year-old lecturer at a college in Northern Norway, lost his job after he got an erection in the presence of two students. The court claims the incident can not be held against him.

(Via Dave Barry, me hearties)

This situation reminds me of something (surprise!) Gregg Easterbrook said in TMQ a few weeks ago:

As for the concept of "fair and balanced," in practice this means, "whatever supports my views." Conservatives don't like CNN or the New York Times because they are mainly liberal; Fox News is mainly conservative, which seems to conservatives fair and balanced. National Public Radio, which is mainly liberal, seems fair and balanced to liberals. If there were a revanchist krypto-Trotskyite anti-cosmopolitan news channel, and it ran a report saying that secret councils of European bankers ruled the world, all revanchist krypto-Trotskyite anti-cosmopolitan viewers would consider that fair and balanced.

That being said, I join you in your disgust for people whose moral objection to the death penalty runs only as deep as their opinion on abortion.