Wednesday, November 15, 2006

COWARDICE

Dave Noon has a post on the wingnut response to the new book by History's Greatest Monster, Jimmy Carter.

I'm certainly not surprised by this, as the wingers can always be counted on to cough up blood at the slightest suggestion that there's anything untoward about Israelis treating Palestinians like cattle. What's more disturbing to me is the cowardly response by liberals and Democrats, many of whom have taken pains to distance themselves from Carter's words, words which wouldn't be seen as particularly controversial in any country other than the United States, including Israel.
Carter reportedly states, “Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement.” As a result of such excerpts – and the title itself – Democrats in the U.S. Congress made significant efforts in October to distance themselves from their former leader who nevertheless maintains his standing as the conscience of the party. Several have publicly lambasted him and in doing so shown a profound disregard for basic facts pertaining to Israel’s subjugation of millions of Palestinians.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (the next Speaker of the House of Representatives) took the lead in responding to questions about Carter’s book during an online Israel Working Group Town Hall. “With all due respect to former President Carter, he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel. Democrats have been steadfast in their support of Israel from its birth, in part because we recognize that to do so is in the national security interests of the United States. We stand with Israel now and we stand with Israel forever. The Jewish people know what it means to be oppressed, discriminated against, and even condemned to death because of their religion. They have been leaders in the fight for human rights in the United States and throughout the world. It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."

Right, and Raymond Shaw is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Regarding the term "apartheid," I've come to believe that it probably is counterproductive to use the term, first because it allows people to nitpick over historical specificity, and second because the term "apartheid" is simply insufficient toi describe the system of oppression which Israel has designed and maintains through the occupation.

As for support of Israel being in the national security interests of the United States, the next person to demonstrate exactly how that is will be the first. We should maintain a supportive relationship with Israel to the extent that it shares our democratic principles. When Israel, or any country, blatantly and egregiously violates those principles, as Israel has done since the occupation began, the U.S. should withhold support.

Here's a report from human rights worker Joel Gullidge on IDF-supported settler violence against Palestinians near Hebron:
"Your heads will be on the stones if you don't leave this place", threatened an Israeli settler from illegal outpost Havot Ma'on (Hill 833), to members of Christian Peacemaker Teams in the Palestinian village of At-Tuwani. Captured on video, but ignored by district Israeli police, the threat is part and parcel of daily life for Palestinians - and the reason for the continuous presence of international human rights workers here since 2004. A few days later, during a "routine check", I witness my neighbor being physically abused by Israeli soldiers. Such abuse often ceases when soldiers become aware that internationals are present, filming their actions.

Ancient At-Tuwani is located in the South Hebron Hills of the West Bank, home to some one thousand Palestinians who reside in natural caves, living off the land and grazing their flocks of goats and sheep. The topography is harsh; there is no running water or electricity. Under complete Israeli control in "Area C," many South Hebron residents have been expelled and had their homes and property destroyed. Israeli settlers have attacked villagers and human rights workers, and destroyed olive trees. Villagers' livestock and one water cistern have been poisoned, an act UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Director Robert Kennedy calls a form of chemical warfare.

The Israeli separation barrier along route 317 near At-Tuwani restricts villagers' access to their farmland and to vital services such as health clinics, education and markets in nearby cities. Multiple UN reports describe the South Hebron communities as "once self-sustainable, now having one of the highest poverty levels in the West Bank" due to the Israeli occupation. Prominent Israeli human rights group B'Tselem reports that the regions' "proximity to the Green Line and the sparse Palestinian population living there make the southern Hebron hills a 'natural' candidate for annexation [by Israel], as well as an attractive site for settlement that will create a contiguous Jewish presence on both sides of the Green Line."

In the village of Sussia, the Israeli military has crushed the residents' cave homes. Now the villagers live in tents. I travel there to take the testimony of a village elder assaulted that day by masked settlers. Days before, settlers had strewn metal spikes across the road attempting to prevent the truck carrying desperately needed water from reaching the community. Three tires were pierced and the water was delayed.

Back in At-Tuwani, my neighbor served me tea as we watched his children play near their home. "It's hard watching my children grow up under the same occupation I did," he says. "I don't want them to live in fear."

Until the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands is ended, the basic human and civil rights of such families will never be assured. And the fear which my neighbor knows so well will remain a constant.

Constant, until Americans are made aware of the daily atrocities underwritten by their tax dollars.

WEDNESDAY KUNG FU BLOGGING


Hero.

Jet Li vs. Donnie Yen: The Pacino and DeNiro of modern kung fu cinema.

Sunday, November 12, 2006

WE ARE ALL IN THE GUTTER, SOME OF US ARE JUST WAY, WAY, WAY DOWN DEEP IN THE DAMN GUTTER

Via Dave Niewert, Michelle Malkin is now trying to spin the murder of actress Adrienne Shelly as an argument against illegal immigration.

Congratulations, Michelle. I never seriously thought it possible that I'd given you too much credit. You sure showed me.

CHRONICLERS

Great article in today's Washington Post on Arab blogging, known as tadween, to chronicle.
"You can't write whatever you want in the newspaper here; you can't even lift up a poster in protest," said Farhan, 31, a computer programmer who attended Eastern Washington University in Spokane. "On the blog, it's a different world. It was the only way to express myself the way I wanted."

Farhan is part of a growing wave of young Arabs who have turned to blogging to bypass the restrictions on free expression in a predominantly authoritarian, conservative and Muslim region. Blogging is so novel here that the equivalent term in Arabic, tadween, to chronicle, was coined only this year. But it has spread rapidly among the increasingly urban youth and in the process has loosened the limits of what's open for discussion.

Activists have used their blogs to organize demonstrations and boycotts, and to criticize corruption and government policies. The less politically inclined have turned them into forums for heated debates on religion and a place to share personal stories and sexual fantasies.

"Several years ago, Arabic blogs in the Middle East could be counted on one hand," said Haitham Sabbah, Middle East editor of Global Voices Online, a media project sponsored by the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School. "Today, they are in the thousands and are becoming a new source for news and information."

Though only about 10 percent of people in the Arab world have Internet access, the rate continues to rise dramatically, having multiplied fivefold since 2000, according to Internet World Stats, a Web site that tracks Internet usage and related information.

The number of bloggers in Saudi Arabia has tripled since the beginning of the year, reaching an estimated 2,000.

Here's an article on the same subject from last month, though you won't find any mention of criticism of the Saudi regime in the Saudi-controlled Asharq Alawsat.

EVEN-HANDED

The Observer:
Israeli military commanders drastically reduced the 'safety' margins that separate artillery targets from the built-up civilian areas of Gaza earlier this year, despite being warned that the new policy risked increasing Palestinian civilian deaths and injuries, The Observer can reveal.

The warning, delivered in Israel's high court by six human rights groups, came after the Israeli Defence Force reduced the so-called 'safety range' in Gaza from a 300-metre separation from built-up areas to just 100 metres - within the kill radius of its 155mm high-explosive shells, generally regarded as being between 50 and 150 metres.

Disclosure of the new shelling policy, which went largely unnoted at the time, has emerged in international outcry over the latest artillery incident by Israeli gunners shelling Gaza - the killing of 19 members of an extended family in the Gaza town of Beit Hanoun. It was the highest Palestinian civilian toll in a single incident since the current conflict erupted in September 2000. The deaths were caused when what witnesses described as a volley of tank shells hit a built-up civilian area.

The revelation follows reports that the shelling of Gaza has continued despite the recent recognition by senior Israeli military officers, including the head of the IDF's Southern Command, that indirect artillery fire (ie, firing without seeing the target) was largely pointless in countering Palestinian rocket fire.

No one, not even the IDF, contends that the shelling of Gaza will be the least bit effective in stopping the rocket attacks. It's simply another form of collective punishment by Israel against the Palestinians.

Meanwhile, the U.S. vetoed a Security Council resolution condemning the Beit Hanoun attack, with the typically ridiculous comment from John Bolton that the resolution "does not display an even-handed characterization of the recent events in Gaza, nor does it advance the cause of Israeli-Palestinian peace." Unlike, I suppose, murdering 19 family members with blind artillery fire.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

FAREWELL, VLADIMIR

Vladimir Palaniuk, better known as Jack Palance, has left us. Farewell to a great Ukrainian-American. The man had a lot of memorable roles to his credit, gunfighter Jack Wilson in Shane, Prokosch in Contempt, Murphy in Young Guns (shut up), but to me he'll always be Kaleel, the Jimmy Swaggart-like high priest of the Planet of the Slave Girls.

MILLER

What's even less funny than Dennis Miller? Dennis Miller joking about waterboarding. In addition to managing to collect every specious argument in favor of the technique in one place, Miller also adds "Not one person has died from it." Yes, friends, Miller actually defended the practice of mock-execution by insisting that no one has ever died from it. But that's about the level of moral and intellectual rigor we've come to expect from Fox News.

Friday, November 10, 2006

MANN

James Mann (author of Rise of the Vulcans) on the nomination of Robert Gates as Seceratry of Defense, and why it may not represent quite the change of course that many think.

FRIDAY GUITAR LEGEND BLOGGING


Buddy Guy.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

RACIST CLOWN WATCH

Consider this quote:
The Jews behave like lemmings which is one reason why their cause, such as is, without ethical meaning and without solidarity among themselves, is a losing one.

You would be right to expect a chorus of condemnation if this were written in any mainstream U.S. publication. You would be right to expect Marty Peretz, among many others, to scale the summit of Mt. Indignation upon reading such a thing, but the quote actually comes from Marty Peretz, and, of course, he wasn't writing about the Jews, but about the Palestinians. Which makes the blatant bigotry okay...how?

Eric Alterman points out a generally acknowledged, but too little mentioned, fact:
Marty Peretz is a racist.

I know that's not news, but it's rarely demonstrated in an unarguable fashion. But look. Peretz begins a post in The Spine, here, which has become my favorite blog (just as the phony book at the top of it is my favorite of Peretz's "books"), thusly: "The French may be soft on the Arabs in their diplomacy."

Get it? Not "soft" on Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan or Hamas, but soft on a particular ethnic group that encompasses hundreds of millions of people, all across the globe. That's racism, pure and simple. Peretz is saying, for instance that the French are "soft" on Rashid Khalidi, professor at Columbia University, and soft on the Arab auto mechanic in Detroit, and the Arab doctor in Ann Arbor, and the Arab taxi driver in New York City, and on the Arab children and grandchildren of these people, all over the world. How in the world is this any different than say, an Austrian or Iranian anti-Semite complaining that an American president is "soft on the Jews?" or James Dobson complaining that Democrats are "soft on homosexuals?" Discuss.

One could respond to Peretz's "lemmings" argument by pointing out that Israelis themselves have have been frightened into supporting and electing various war-criminals and ex-terrorists throughout their short history, and that it would be wrong to present this as evidence of anything particular to the Jewish "nature," something Peretz regularly does in regard to Arabs, but that would be giving the man and his arguments, such as they are, entirely too much credit.

There is no other person that I'm aware of in contemporary American political life who exhibits the sort of obsessive loathing of another ethnic or national group that Peretz regularly expresses toward Arabs and Palestinians. The man is an offensive joke, a drunken, bellowing, bigoted party guest who you wish would just drink up and pass out already.

SPECIAL WEDNESDAY KUNG FU BLOGGING


Way of the Dragon: Bruce Lee vs Walker, Texas Ranger

In light of last night's events, you may view this as an allegory...

THE 2006 BLUE WAVE

I like it. A lot.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006

CHALABI: "I'D RATHER BE AMERICA'S ENEMY"

This NY Times Magazine article on Ahmad Chalabi is a must-read.

There's some great historical background on Chalabi's family, such as that prime minister Nuri al-Said sought refuge with Chalabi's older sister during the coup of 1958, and it was she who dressed Said in an abeya and tried to help him flee. Said was discovered hours later and shot in the street (interestingly, Chalabi insists Said "shot himself.") Later on, Said's body was disinterred by an angry mob, dragged through the streets, hung, and mutilated. This is what's known as "having a low approval rating."

The section on Chalabi's visit to Iran is worthy of an article all by itself. Chalabi's stroll through Tehran's Museum of Contemporary Art is a bit surreal.

Then there's this:
Richard Perle, Chalabi’s friend, discounted the idea that Chalabi might be a double agent. "Of course Chalabi has a relationship with the Iranians — you have to have a relationship with the Iranians in order to operate there," Perle said. "The question is what kind of relationship. Is he fooling the Iranians or are the Iranians using him? I think Chalabi has been very shrewd in getting the things he has needed over the years out of the Iranians without giving anything in return."

Right. Aside from helping to facilitate the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the removal of Iran's greatest rival, it's hard to see what, if anything, the Iranians got out of their relationship to Chalabi. He played 'em like an oud!

I do think, though, that it's important not to make too much of Chalabi's role in the Iraq war. I believe he was used as much as he used, by various groups. The "wily foreigner" is a familiar and usually racist character in Orientalist literature, but there should be no mistake: This was a Bush administration operation, and Chalabi seems only to have been willing to provide convincing-sounding bullshit to people who wanted desperately to be convinced by bullshit.

From everything I've read, Chalabi genuinely cares about the future of Iraq, but his committment to a modern, democratic country was overtaken by his strong belief that he should lead it. Before too long, his constant maneuvering simply became tiresome to people, and his cuddling up to Moqtada al-Sadr was the last straw for many.

The moral of this story is: Once you start bullshitting, it's really hard to stop.

ELECTION PREDICTION

I predict that tonight I will be sitting in front of the TV with a bottle of Herradura Blanco, watching election returns. Go Dems.

Friday, November 03, 2006

FRIDAY GUITAR LEGEND BLOGGING


Prince.

Just in case the brilliant songwriting, singing, producing, and arranging had distracted you from the fact that the man is an absolutely smoking guitarist...

Thursday, November 02, 2006

WE ARE OUR BROTHERS KEEPERS

We last saw Ralph Peters calling for mass "therapeutic violence" as a solution to problems in Iraq. Before that, he was busy laying the groundwork for blaming the Iraq debacle on the fact that Arabs are a bunch of savages, something which I named the culture dodge, but which you may know by the more familiar name of "racism." In today's column, Peters stitches the culture dodge together with the incompetence dodge to create a truly pathetic spectacle of blame avoidance:
I supported the removal of Saddam Hussein. I believed that Arabs deserved a chance to build a rule-of-law democracy in the Middle East. Based upon firsthand experience, I was convinced that the Middle East was so politically, socially, morally and intellectually stagnant that we had to risk intervention — or face generations of terrorism and tumult. I still believe that our removal of Hussein was a noble act.

I also believed that removing Saddam was noble, but I've long since come to recognize that one cannot separate the act of removing Saddam from its tragic aftermath, and that it was wrong, wrong, wrong, to think that Bush and his gang of ideologues, cronies, and crooks were ever remotely interested in committing the resources and political capital necessary to give the new Iraq a fighting chance.

It's been said that Bush doesn't understand that Iraq is a political battle, not a military one. I think Bush does understand this, it's just that he's been waging the political battle in the wrong place: here at home. If Bush had devoted even a fraction of the energy and resources to preparing, planning, and rebuilding Iraq that he has in trying to manage domestic perceptions of the deepening chaos, I think we'd be in a much different, a much better, situation. But that's like saying if a grapefruit was a pineapple, it would be a pineapple. To even imagine such a scenario is to imagine an administration that is not George W. Bush's.
Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. Even six months ago, there was hope. Now the chances for a democratic, unified Iraq are dwindling fast. The country's prime minister has thrown in his lot with al-Sadr, our mortal enemy. He has his eye on the future, and he's betting that we won't last. The police are less accountable than they were under Saddam. Our extensive investment in Iraqi law enforcement only produced death squads. Government ministers loot the country to strengthen their own factions. Even Iraq's elections — a worthy experiment — further divided Iraq along confessional and ethnic lines. Iraq still exists on the maps, but in reality it's gone. Only a military coup — which might come in the next few years — could hold the artificial country together.

We have no one but ourselves to blame for the rise of Muqtada al Sadr, whose power is a direct result of Bush's incompetence and Rumsfeld's lack of planning. Back when the Secretary of Defense was shrugging off the chaos in Baghdad ("Stuff happens") Muqtada's people were policing Shi'a neighborhoods, protecting shops, and setting up medical clinics and food distribution, things for which, by law, the occupying power is responsible, but which for Rumsfeld merely served as a punchline.

Iraq breaking down along sectarian lines was by no means inevitable, but the ad hoc fashion in which the Coalition Authority cobbled together an Iraqi government based on confessional and ethnic divisions (and with an over-emphasis on returning exiles with no base of support in the country), another result of poor planning and ignorance of Iraqi society, all but guaranteed that this would happen.

As for Maliki "throwing in his lot with Sadr", Maliki has always been part of Sadr's coalition. He's a member The Da'wa Party, which was founded by Muqtada's great uncle, Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Baqr al Sadr. What would Peters suggest Maliki do, join with Chalabi or Allawi, two U.S.-approved leaders with no base of support? Join with Hakim and SCIRI, whose committment to Iran is well known and not merely suspected (wrongly, in my opinion), as it is with Sadr? With the withdrawal of Grand Ayatollah Sistani from political life, Muqtada is probably the most powerful person in Iraq. More importantly, unlike the U.S. mission, Muqtada has shown an ability to get shit done, and so aligning with him seems a pretty understandable move by Maliki. But, of course, when Arabs make rational political decisions that we don't like, it's because they're "savages". Please see: Hamas, Palestine, elections.
Yet, for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can't support democracy as we know it. And people get the government they deserve.

Well, I suppose expecting the Iraqis to get their political house in order while under military occupation, in the face of daily terror bombings, curfews, kidnappings, mass arrests, and without security adequate for any sort of recognizable social life is "unique" in a way...
For us, Iraq's impending failure is an embarrassment. For the Iraqis — and other Arabs — it's a disaster the dimensions of which they do not yet comprehend. They're gleeful at the prospect of America's humiliation. But it's their tragedy, not ours.

Gleeful? They're gleeful about finding the bound, tortured, bullet-riddled bodies of their sons and fathers in the streets every morning? I don't think that's glee, Ralph.

Iraq's impending failure is quite a bit more than just an embarrassment, it is a tragedy for which the United States, whether we choose to accept it or not, is responsible. Even in purely realist terms, it's simply daft to suggest that a collapsed Iraq doesn't have dire implications for U.S. interests in the region.
Iraq was the Arab world's last chance to board the train to modernity, to give the region a future, not just a bitter past. The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization. All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follows.

Iraq still deserves one last chance — as long as we don't confuse deadly stubbornness and perseverance. If, at this late hour, Iraqis in decisive numbers prove willing to fight for their own freedom and a constitutional government, we should be willing to remain for a generation. If they continue to revel in fratricidal slaughter, we must leave.

Bush supporters have been confusing stubbornness with perseverance since even before the Iraq invasion occured. Maybe Ralph Peters deserves some credit for finally recognizing what should have been clear to him more than a year ago, that Iraq is falling apart. His attempt to absolve the United States of any responsiblity for this, however, is ridiculous and reprehensible.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

WEDNESDAY KUNG FU BLOGGING


Master of the Flying Guillotine.

TEN YEARS OF REVOLUTION

BBC observes ten years of Al Jazeera, which premiered November 1, 1996.
Al-Jazeera's impact and popularity pressured several state-run television stations to update output to compete. Several Arab governments were forced to lift, if only partially, media controls.

Analysts believe al-Jazeera is responsible for politically educating ordinary Arabs and for raising awareness and political knowledge of both Arab and world affairs. It is also credited with raising the expectations of the masses from their governments.

However, its reporting has made it unpopular with Arab and Western governments.

Al-Jazeera was banned from reporting in Iraq in August 2004, and its bureau has not been allowed to reopen since.

The station's programmes have led to several Arab countries recalling their diplomats and its bureaus being shut down or attacked in Arab countries.

I recommend Marc Lynch's Voices of the New Arab Public for anyone interested in better understanding the revolution in Arab politics which Al Jazeera represents.

THAT'S MORE LIKE IT...

Jonah Goldberg, clearly grateful to be back on the safe, familiar ground of personality-driven trivia, on the Kerry nonsense:
The Internet lit up like a pinball machine. Sen. John McCain called on Kerry to apologize. Shortly thereafter the grand whirligig of the GOP message machine started churning, with denunciatory press releases from the usual suspects.

What's funny/tragic is that Goldberg writes of "the GOP message machine" as if completely unaware that he's a cog in it.

Update
Wow. Striking out for new frontiers in bullshittery, Jonah now claims that Kerry's "intent now doesn't matter".
Kerry is the sort of person who one would expect to believe the sort of thing he actually said (just see some of the liberal blogs who insist Kerry's gaffe was accurate). In other words, it made sense coming from Kerry. I seem to recall Derb once noting that he wouldn't use the word "niggardly" in racially mixed company because it might be misconstrued even when his usage and intent were benign. Well, when John Kerry offers a statement like the one he did yesterday, a reasonable person might well say, "there he goes again." And a fair-minded person might expect him to apologize for any unintended offense. Kerry refused because Kerry has the self-awareness of carpet mold. So, rather than apologize for what he claims was a miscommunication, he insists instead that no fair-minded person in the world could have thought Kerry was the kind of guy who would haughtily denigrate the troops, even though Kerry has done exactly that on more than one occassion.

The overlapping layers of idiocy at work here are rather impressive: Because Jonah and other cogs in the right wing noise machine have mischaracterized Kerry's past criticisms of the President as "denigrating the troops", it's now completely reasonable to construe Kerry's criticisms of the President as "denigrating the troops." I notice with no surprise that Jonah doesn't provide any evidence for Kerry having "denigrated the troops" in the past, he just makes the unsubstantiated assertion and moves on. This pundit stuff sure is easy!

THE HACK WITH THE KNIFE

Ezra Klein on Kerry and McCain:
It's hard to look at this situation and not pity John Kerry. JK is, by all accounts, a good man, a thoughtful man, a decent man, but one who is singularly incapable of thriving in the soundbite era. His mistake is easy enough to understand, if only because no candidate with an eye towards 2008 would dare suggest our troops are anything but ubermenschen with Mensa memberships. And it's easy enough to understand why the right jumped on it -- they are desperate, bloodthirsty, and base. But McCain, who knows both the intent of his ambitious friend's comment and the agony its misinterpretation is surely causing him, would have once intervened to ensure a good man is not brought low by this sort of meaningless bullshit. Today, he will be the the hack with the knife. I hope it's worth it for him. I can't imagine it will be.

Even though yesterday's tsunami of canned Republican sanctimony over this obvious non-scandal caused me to gag more than once, for me the most disturbing thing about this is that, after more than sixty years on this planet, John Kerry still has not realized that he is not one of the people who can tell jokes well.

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

THIS SHOULD PUT AN END TO ALL THAT 'MACACA' STUFF...

Blogger Mike Stark assaulted by George Allen brownshirts. Video here.

Allen's response: "Things like that happen."

THEY'RE BACK, AND THEY'RE NOT HAPPY

Via the Slog, the Bonecrusher makes a long-awaited return to the ring:
HARINGSEE, Austria, Europe's immense bearded vulture, sometimes called the "bone crusher," boasts a wingspan of nearly 10 feet, plucks meals from avalanche debris, and breeds its chicks in the subzero temperatures of the wintertime Alps. Its gastric juices register a "1" on the pH scale, nearly pure acid. Seething belly bile is a necessity for a creature that subsists mainly on weather-bleached bones.

One tough bird, to be sure, but Gypaetus barbatus has been suffering hard times for the past 100 years or so, all but eradicated from its Alpine roosts. Today, however, the bone crusher is soaring toward a comeback as the continent's most ambitious -- and priciest -- wildlife reintroduction project achieves small but biologically significant success.

The species was hunted nearly to extinction in the Alps by the start of the 20th century, mainly by farmers and sportsmen seeking government-paid bounties on eagles, vultures, and other raptors. But it was ornithologists, ironically, who administered the coup de grace. Dismayed by the bearded vulture's sharp decline, natural history museums dispatched collectors to kill specimens for mounted display.

We'll see how excited everyone is after the first few children get carried off...

THAT SPECIAL SOMETHING

Shorter Martin Peretz:
Mark Steyn is a horrible political writer, but I really get the sense that he hates Muslims, so therefore I must recommend him.

I, on the other hand, must recommend the comments section of The Spine, which is always entertaining, as the majority of commenters seem to appreciate the opportunity to point out that Peretz is a clown.

Monday, October 30, 2006

WITH RESPECT TO THE FORCED PREGNANCY LOBBY

Michael Ledeen:
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is trying his hand at a new social endeavor: family planning on a national scale. The Iranian president has announced his willingness to decrease the number of hours worked by married professionals in an average week as a way of encouraging greater fertility. Ahmadinejad’s plan, which is said to be currently under review by the Ministry of Health, would reverse population control measures put in place by the regime over the past decade to boost prosperity. It envisions a near-doubling of Iran's population, to some 120 million souls, in the foreseeable future.

Ahmadinejad's initiative appears to have a clear objective: international dominance. "Westerners have got problems," the Iranian president has told reporters. "Because their population growth is negative, they are worried and fear that if our population increases, we will triumph over them." (London BBC, October 23, 2006; Melbourne The Age, October 24, 2006)


No doubt Jonah, who has been working on his book about fascism, will have had the same reaction as I. For this is right out of the fascist manual. Indeed, Mussolini once wrote an impassioned introduction to a very boring book (authored by one Richard Korherr, who I do not believe was from Bologna, and called something like "shrinking population, the death of nations") urging Italians to reproduce like Topsy. And of course Hitler had all those breeding programs, about which I will say no more for fear of being lumped in with Webb and Libby as a foul-mouthed (or is it foul-penned, or foul-keyboarded) sex fiend.

Wow, imagine that: Creating positive incentives to encourage families to have children. This Ahmadinejad is indeed a monster. Here in America, our own pseudo-populist reactionaries have developed a much simpler way of encouraging population growth, by simply prohibiting women from obtaining safe abortions.

IT'S WORSE

Fareed Zakaria has an assessment of the tragedy that Iraq has become, and suggests some ways that we could make a smaller disaster out of a potentially huge one.

This is where he loses me, though:
There is one shift that the United States itself needs to make: we must talk to Iraq's neighbors about their common interest in security and stability in Iraq. None of these countries—not even Syria and Iran—would benefit from the breakup of Iraq, which could produce a flood of refugees and stir up their own restive minority populations. Our regional gambit might well lead to nothing. But not trying it, in the face of so few options, reflects a bizarrely insular and ideological obstinacy.

Unfortunately, there's a strong possibility that these changes will not be made in the next few months.

Not only is it a strong possibility that Bush will not change policy towards Iran and Syria in the next few months, even if he made a complete 180 degree shift in policy toward those countries tomorrow, I doubt that his two remaining years in office would be enough time to repair the diplomatic damage that his incompetent execution of ill-conceived policies and his endless trash talk has done.

But as news coming out of Bush's meeting with the fluffer brigade indicates, a policy shift is simply not in the cards. Reading the transcript, I see that I was perhaps over-hasty in my earlier characterization of Bush's understanding of his own policies as being "about as complex as a crayon drawing." With crayons you can still make out eyes, ears, and mouth. Bush seems to be working more with splotches of paint, noting that that one there looks like a spider, and we should kill it. And this one? This one looks kind of like a monkey, and monkeys are funny. But we should also kill the monkey.

Here's Rami Khouri, a journalist of whom I strongly suspect George W. Bush has never heard, on the growth of extremism in the wider Middle East:
[I]n the United States one hears of Hizbullah and Hamas described in the public realm almost always only as terrorist groups. The problem with this one-dimensional focus on the anti-Israeli resistance and military aspects of these groups is that it ignores everything else they represent. The recent war between Hizbullah and Israel, in part a proxy battle between the United States and Iran, revealed that Hizbullah taps into sentiments and political forces across the Middle East that are very much wider and deeper than only its successful quest to drive Israel out of Lebanon.

Whether one likes or dislikes Hizbullah, or admires or fears it, it seems abundantly clear now that its wide support throughout the Arab-Islamic Middle East and other parts of the world reflects its ability to tap into a very wide range of forces, sentiments and political movements. This is noteworthy for two reasons: Such forces and movements have never before come together as they did in the support that Hizbullah enjoyed in recent months, and collectively they represent a significant new posture of resistance and defiance of the United States and Israel that continues to reshape politics in the region.

...

It remains unclear if this represents a fleeting flash of emotions, or a historic new shift of political direction in the Middle East - a new regional Cold War in which Arabs, Iranians, Islamists, nationalists and state patriots join forces to confront the Israeli-American side with its handful of Arab supporters.

What is very clear, though, is that Hizbullah's political standing in the Middle East represents political forces and sentiments, and national issues, that far transcend the acts of terrorism of which it is accused, and that seem to totally define its perception here in the United States. It is a shame that a global power like the United States should allow itself to have such a provincial view of things in the Middle East. The toll of imperium is deep and blinding indeed, for dead Arabs and blinkered Americans alike.

When the only choice offered is between crusade and jihad, it doesn't take a 90 year-old orientalist to figure out what a majority of the people of the Middle East will choose.

Given this administration's inability to face reality and its complete lack of self-criticism, I think we've got to come to grips with the idea that we're not going to see any significant improvement in Iraq, or in the region, until we have a Democrat, or at least a not skull-clutchingly stupid Republican, in the White House, and the policies and ideology of the Bush administration repudiated.

READ THIS

Marc Lynch on al Qaeda and the upcoming U.S. election.

Sunday, October 29, 2006

THIS IS BAGHDAD

Back in Baghdad after a year away, Anthony Shadid wonders whether things could be any worse.
As I stood in Firdaus Square this day, after invasion, liberation and occupation, I wondered what word described Baghdad.

"This is a civil war now," Harith Abdel-Hamid, a psychiatrist, had told me, trying to diagnose the madness. "When you see hundreds of people killed every day, corpses of people tortured in the streets every day, what else does it mean?"

"Call it what you will," he said, "but it is a civil war."

Perhaps. But I felt as though I was witnessing something more: the final, frenzied maturity of once-inchoate forces unleashed more than three years ago by the invasion. There was civil war-style sectarian killing, its echoes in Lebanon a generation ago. Alongside it were gangland turf battles over money, power and survival; a raft of political parties and their militias fighting a zero-sum game; a raging insurgency; the collapse of authority; social services a chimera; and no way forward for an Iraqi government ordered to act by Americans who themselves are still seen as the final arbiter and, as a result, still depriving that government of legitimacy.

Civil war was perhaps too easy a term, a little too tidy.

Friday, October 27, 2006

FULL OF LIES

Apropos of the George Allen campaign's War on Jim Webb's fiction, Wolf Blitzer asked Lynne Cheney about a lesbian affair in the pioneer-era potboiler she wrote in the 80s (back when pioneer lesbianism was all the rage among the spouses of the Republican apparat), and about another of her novels in which "a Republican vice president dies of a heart attack while having sex with his mistress." (hrm) Cheney responded:
"Actually, that is full of lies. It's not -- it's just -- it's absolutely not true."

Well, the Democratic press release to which Cheney was referring may have been full of lies, however, the statements regarding her novels were not lies, were in fact completely true. Interesting. It's almost as if Lynne Cheney were, herself, lying...

Given her husband's own rather, shall we say, baroque approach to matters of fact and truth, it's interesting to imagine the home life these two reflexive prevaricators must have.


INT. CHENEY'S DINING ROOM- EVENING
The Cheneys are at dinner. The sounds of people being tortured are heard in the background.

DICK
You were out late last night

LYNNE
No, I was in by 7.

DICK
I was here at 7, I went to bed at 8 and heard you come in at 11.

LYNNE
Now, that is just completely untrue.

DICK
You left the tank empty, I had to fill it up this morning.

LYNNE
Those are lies, lies and distortions. I filled the car up last night.

DICK
There was no gas in the car this morning.

LYNNE
You are full of baloney. That is just not true. Did you pick up the dry cleaning?

DICK
Yes, absolutely.

LYNNE
Where is it?

DICK
I absolutely did pick it up.

LYNNE
Okay, where is it?

DICK
I know precisely where it is.

LYNNE
Well, how come it's not here?

DICK
Sigh. You know, these types of smears and attacks are so typical.

fin


p.s.
I should say that it's strangely appropriate that Allen is choosing to do battle with Webb over fiction, given that George Allen, the tobacco chewing, cowboy boot wearing, confederate flag waving, noose collecting, pickup truck driving redneck from Southern California, is himself something of a fictional character, if a very poorly written one.

p.p.s.
In Scooter Libby's books, pre-adolescent prostitutes are made to sleep in bear cages.

"THE WORLD IS THEIR RISK BOARD"

Brad Reed on conservatives' disappointment with Battlestar Galactica now that it's no longer a mirror for their best side. Among other wonderfulness, Reed introduces the terms "dorkofascist" and "jingonaut."

THE CONTINUING SIEGE OF GAZA

Patrick Seale:
Israel has killed 2,300 Gazans over the past six years, including 300 in the four months since Corporal Gilad Shalit was captured in a cross-border raid by Palestinian fighters on June 25. The wounded can be counted in the tens of thousands. Most of the casualties are civilians, many of them children.

The killing continues on a daily basis - by tank and sniper fire, by air and sea bombardment, and by undercover teams in civilian clothes sent into Arab territory to ambush and murder, an Israeli specialty perfected over the past several decades.

How long will the "international community" allow the slaughter to continue? The cruel repression of the Occupied Territories, and of Gaza in particular, is one of the most scandalous in the world today. It is the blackest stain on Israel's patchy record as a would-be democratic state.

...

Even more disturbing than the silence from London at these developments, and the collusion of Washington, is the entry into the Israeli government of Avigdor Lieberman as deputy prime minister. Born in Moldovia, Lieberman, a burly 48-year old, came to Israel at the age of 20. He is the leader of the far-right Yisrael Beitenu (Israel our home), a party composed mainly of Russian immigrants.

Best known for having recommended flooding Egypt by bombing the Aswan Dam, he is an ardent champion of the settlers and opposes any withdrawal from Palestinian territory. His solution is the "transfer" of Arabs out of Israel so as to create an ethnically pure country. He has advocated death for any Arab members of the Knesset who dare to meet members of Hizbullah or Hamas. In any truly democratic country he would be denounced and shunned as a dangerous fascist.

Instead, Lieberman is to be given the job of formulating Israeli policy regarding the "strategic threat" facing the country - a code word for Iran's nuclear activities. As Haaretz, the left-of-center Israeli daily, commented: "The choice of the most unrestrained and irresponsible man around for this job constitutes a strategic threat in its own right."

FRIDAY GUITAR LEGEND BLOGGING


Mick Ronson.

Thursday, October 26, 2006

SANTORUM IS ZEPPO?

I don't really have a comment about this Michael Ledeen post, other than to say that any idea to which Ledeen, Norman Podhoretz, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum all subscribe is probably best avoided, and also that I would very much like to see these four in a remake of Duck Soup, although I would probably wait for it on video.

LOSING: IT'S THE NEW WINNING

Dave Noon has some good comments on Byron York's account of President Bush's recent meet and greet with the conservative journalistic apparat, which, despite York's best efforts, reveals a president whose understanding of his own policies still seems to be about as detailed as a crayon drawing. Yes, Byron, the lines are big and bold and manfully drawn, but it's still crayon.

Cliff May, responding to York's piece, takes this lesson away:
We have indeed allowed the dominant metric to become that "people are dying and so the enemy is winning." The MSM have driven that message hard. The enemy can continue to make people die so the public will go on thinking the enemy is winning. And if the enemy is winning, we’re losing. In such a circumstance, the public will conclude: Better to cut our loses now than endure slow-motion defeat.

It’s this simple: Change the metrics or lose the war.

Now that's some triple distilled, 100 proof winger. Of course we're using the wrong metric, because the metric we're using shows we're not winning. Don't rethink or repair the strategy, just redefine "winning" in a way that shows the strategy is working.

May indicates that he thinks we should return to the Vietnam method of defining success by the number of enemy dead. That way, I suppose, every time a shopkeeper, lawyer, teacher, cabdriver, or teenager is killed, no matter by whom, we can chalk one up for our side, because they were probably with the insurgency anyway. What could go wrong?

It all makes sense, of course, when you remember that these guys still believe the liberal media lost that war for us, just like they're losing this one.

THAT ROBOT CHICK IS A DUDE!

Via the Slog, Wired Magazine asked some sci-fi, fantasy, and horror writers for six-word stories. Favorites:
Machine. Unexpectedly, I’d invented a time
- Alan Moore

Longed for him. Got him. Shit.
- Margaret Atwood

1940: Young Hitler! Such a cantor!
- Michael Moorcock

Lie detector eyeglasses perfected: Civilization collapses.
- Richard Powers

Steve ignores editor's word limit and
- Steven Meretzky

DON'T YOU HAVE A BUST OF GEORGE W. BUSH TO GO AND CHISEL?

Victor Davis Hanson:
The most frightening aspect of the present war is how easily our pre-modern enemies from the Middle East have brought a stunned postmodern world back into the Dark Ages.

Students of history are sickened when they read of the long-ago, gruesome practice of beheading. How brutal were those societies that chopped off the heads of Cicero, Sir Thomas More and Marie Antoinette. And how lucky we thought we were to have evolved from such elemental barbarity.

How brutal, indeed.
The water board technique dates back to the 1500s during the Italian Inquisition. A prisoner, who is bound and gagged, has water poured over him to make him think he is about to drown.

And yes, we are sickened.

KILLING OUR WAY OUT OF IRAQ

Ralph Peters:
Iraq deserves one last chance. But to make that chance even remotely viable, we'll have to take desperate measures. We need to fight. And accept the consequences.

The first thing we need to do is to kill Muqtada al-Sadr, who's now a greater threat to our strategic goals than Osama bin Laden.

We should've killed him in 2003, when he first embarked upon his murder campaign. But our leaders were afraid of provoking riots.

Back then, the tumult might've lasted a week. Now we'll face a serious uprising. So be it. When you put off paying war's price, you pay compound interest in blood.

We must kill - not capture - Muqtada, then kill every gunman who comes out in the streets to avenge him.

Our policy of all-carrots-no-sticks has failed miserably. We delivered Iraq to zealots, gangsters and terrorists. Now our only hope is to prove that we mean business - that the era of peace, love and wasting American lives is over.

And after we've killed Muqtada and destroyed his Mahdi Army, we need to go after the Sunni insurgents. If we can't leave a democracy behind, we should at least leave the corpses of our enemies.

The holier-than-thou response to this proposal is predictable: "We can't kill our way out of this situation!" Well, boo-hoo. Friendly persuasion and billions of dollars haven't done the job. Give therapeutic violence a chance.
(emphasis added)

So the problem is that the streets haven't been running with enough blood? Jesus.

There is no curse in English or Arabic vile enough for the sort of person who calls for mass "therapeutic violence" from his comfy chair.

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

EDUCATING MCCAIN

Regarding John Judis's piece about John McCain frantically doing damage control in the wake of this Haaretz item, while Rob Farley and Matt Yglesias are right to point out that it reveals McCain in a confused, pandering fog, what's more striking to me is that we've apparently reached a point where a politician indicating, however gently, his support for Israel pulling back (almost, but not quite) behind the Green Line, that is, to its internationally recognized borders, qualifies as a potentially disastrous gaffe. That is chilling.

Let's remember that it was Bush who, in 2004, reversed almost four decades of U.S. policy when he recognized the legitimacy of large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank, and, even more astonishingly, took it upon himself to deal away the Palestinian right of return, effectively unilaterally deciding two of the major issues in the conflict in favor of Israel.

Under Bush, hardline Israel supporters have developed such a sense of entitlement that the mere hint that a McCain administration might move back toward a more "honest broker" approach is enough to get the klaxons ringing. Unfortunately, the American-Palestinian lobby doesn't have anywhere near the power to threaten consequences that the American-Israeli lobby does, which is one of the reasons we didn't see Bush tap-dancing then the way McCain has to now.

Tuesday, October 24, 2006

BROOKS: GUILTY OF SHENANIGANS

Shorter David Brooks:
"Listen, Sullivan, basing entire books upon lazy, questionable, overbroad cultural-political stereotypes is my beat. Back off."

OKAY, IT'S MORE OF A RHETORICAL QUESTION

Cruising the tacky, decrepit boardwalk that is Campus Watch, the better to understand exactly how my innocent, impressionable little mind is being sullied and perverted by the leftwing, Volvo-driving, plastic-recycling, Israemerica-hating professoriat this week, I came across Rachel Neuwirth's response to this article by Rashid Khalidi.

Khalidi's article is essentially a summary of his new book, which deals with the question:
Why did the Palestinians fail to establish an independent state before 1948, and what was the impact of that failure in the years that followed, down to the present? These questions are important, first, because Palestinian history must be properly understood if we are to comprehend the present, and because this history has significance in its own right.

In the West this is a hidden history, one that is obscured by the riveting and tragic narrative of modern Jewish history. In a sense, the history of the Palestinians has disappeared under the powerful impact of the painful and amply recounted story of the catastrophic fate of the Jews of Europe in the 20th century. However, achieving any serious understanding of the Middle East conflict requires comprehension of Palestinian history in its own terms, which includes but cannot be subsumed by Jewish and Israeli history.

This effort is important for another reason: namely, to ascribe agency to the Palestinians, to avoid seeing them either as no more than helpless victims of forces greater then themselves, or alternatively as driven solely by self-destructive tendencies and uncontrollable dissension.

Neuwirth's response begins this way:
Professor Rashid Khalidi raises a very pertinent question in his article Unwritten History, recently published in the Boston Globe. In essence, he laments that the Palestinians have not written down their own history and he observes that their failure to do so has made their claim for Palestinian statehood more problematic.

...

Peoples – real ones – know their history. History precedes the collective consciousness of a people. Jews, Kurds, Tibetans, Mongols, and a myriad others are very much aware of who they are. They need no latecomer to remind them of their origins, or to forge a newly minted history to redefine their identity. They know their past achievements and they have a common will for the future. So, if forty years after the word "Palestinian" entered the international lexicon – in its new, twisted and widely circulated meaning – we are still in search of their history, we may conclude it is because there has never been such a people. The "Palestinian people" was a late creation for political purposes aimed only at destroying the national aspirations of a real people – the Jews – rather than building a peaceful society.

...And proceeds to get worse from there. Suffice to say that these sorts of assertions of Palestinian non-peoplehood aren't taken seriously anymore outside of the Jabotinskyite fringe and Martin Peretz's dining room, so we don't really need to bother with them. (For those interested, Kimmerling and Migdal's The Palestinian People and Khalidi's earlier Palestinian Identity are two of the best works on the subject.)

In the way that one might follow a bad smell to discover its source, I decided to check out Neuwirth's website, which is called "Middle East Solutions." The site is built around Neuwirth's cunning plan for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. And that plan is...population transfer. No, really, go read it. Rachel Neuwirth supports the complete ethnic cleansing of the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza. For their own good, of course. If you think this sounds suspiciously like other "solutions" you've heard before, you're forgiven. Neuwirth does not specify whether the Palestinians would be placed on train boxcars, but I suppose that will all get sorted out later, after they've been made to see how it's in their best interests to leave the homes and communities in which they've lived for generations, so that some newly arrived Russian immigrants can have a pool.

So the woman's obviously a nutcase, as if that weren't already abundantly clear. But leaving aside both Neuwirth's morally abhorrent advocacy of ethnic cleansing, to say nothing of her rather pathetic and disingenuous attempt to critique Rashid Khalidi, what interests me is this: How does challenging the fact of Palestinian peoplehood fall anywhere within the scope of Campus Watch's stated mission?
Campus Watch, a project of the Middle East Forum, reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America, with an aim to improving them. The project mainly addresses five problems: analytical failures, the mixing of politics with scholarship, (Good one! -ed) intolerance of alternative views, apologetics, and the abuse of power over students. Campus Watch fully respects the freedom of speech of those it debates while insisting on its own freedom to comment on their words and deeds.

As I wrote, the historical fact of Palestinian peoplehood has been pretty well established. The political argument against the Palestinians' right to a state in their own homeland, based upon crank theories about the undifferentiated Arab-ness of the Palestinians, however, persists.

It's one thing to police the debate about Israel, to defend Israel's reputation, and attack and attempt to intimidate its critics, or to vigorously criticize the Palestinian leadership as dishonest and corrupt. It's another thing entirely to suggest that the Palestinians don't exist as a people with a unique cultural identity, or that they exist only to the extent that they embody the desire of the Arabs to destroy Israel. That is, I think, unnacceptable. Such arguments, and the people who make them, deserve to be relegated to the same intellectual ghetto as Holocaust denial, and the Middle East Forum, which runs Campus Watch, puts itself squarely in such company when it publishes this sort of garbage.

FRUM

You've got to be impressed with the total committment of a man who can survey the disaster that his words and ideas have wrought, for whom almost every newspaper headline is yet another puff of smoke from the wreckage of his ideology, and then conclude that it's "modern academics" who are out of touch.

FERNANDEZ

Marc Lynch on the Fernandez Problem.
The State Department, and especially Karen Hughes, must back Alberto Fernandez to the hilt in this StupidStorm. If he's fired, or transfered to Mongolia, the United States unilaterally disarms in the 'war of ideas' as currently waged in the Arab media. While we do have 'rapid reaction' units coming online in Dubai and London, and CENTCOM has its own media outreach team, the fact is that Fernandez has been single-handedly carrying the American flag on the Arab broadcast media for years. America simply can not afford to lose him over a silly partisan media frenzy. And if Fernandez is punished, it's safe to guess that nobody will be foolish enough to step up and take his place and do what he did. And that will be a major loss for America in a place where it can ill-afford any more losses at all.

RTWT.

Monday, October 23, 2006

GOREN

Mannion and Wolcott have a couple of good posts on Law & Order, and I'll just say that I really cannot stand Vincent D'Onofrio as Detective Goren. This is strange. I really like D'Onofrio as an actor, ever since I saw him in as Pyle in Full Metal Jacket. Loved him in Ed Wood, even with his voice dubbed. The Player? Hell yes. His performance in the "Subway" episode of Homicide is an acknowledged television treasure.

As Goren, D'Onofrio seems to offer a series of ticks, twitches and stutters for an actual portrayal, and it just seems entirely too put-on for me to enjoy. As a big Sherlock Holmes fan, I can appreciate the annoying know-it-all aspect of Goren's character, but something about it has never clicked for me.

PUT UP OR SHUT UP

Yglesias on criticism of the Lancet study:
Obviously, if the American and British governments -- or conservative think tanks and media outlets -- genuinely feel that the Hopkins team's methods were unsound, there's an obvious solution available to them: Design a method for a different comprehensive study of Iraqi mortality and fund its implementation. This is a sufficiently important question, and sufficiently difficult to pin down precisely, that it would make perfect sense for several different studies to be conducted.

Exactly right. But, of course, conservative think tanks would never conduct such a study, because they know that, whatever number they come up with, it will be more than we can bear.

Sunday, October 22, 2006

CORRIE

My own feelings about the International Solidarity Movement aside, I feel obliged to defend Rachel Corrie from the likes of Martin Peretz:
Here's the case of another forthcoming book, The Diaries of Rachel Corrie. The book is being published by the highly respected house, W.W. Norton. Shocked word from inside the house is that Norton plans to sell this as a latter Diary of Anne Frank. Anne Frank Rachel Corrie was not. The thought that she might be made over to be boggles the imagination.

Rachel Corrie was the young American woman who was killed in confronting an Israeli Caterpillar bulldozer in Gaza in March of 2003. The rest of the story is very much in dispute, its circumstances having been hyped up by the International Solidarity Movement. The root of the story is really the roots of ISM, a virulently anti-Israel "peace" group that has fronted for Palestinian terrorism ever since it was started. In fact, ISM was complicit in the visit of two Pakistani-descended British Muslims who blew up a jazz club, Mike's Place, on the Tel Aviv beach.

"Complicit in the visits"? What the heck does that even mean? The extent of the terrorists' connection to ISM is this: They attended a memorial ceremony for Corrie, which was open to the public, and they told some people that they were "with" ISM. That's it. I suspect that Peretz is aware of this, covering his ass as he does with such imprecision.
Anne Frank had a tormented familial psychological life. But, in her place of hiding and in her arrest and deportation and in her innocent dream to go to Palestine (a part of the play that Lillian Hellman insisted be cut, but that's another matter), she was an innocent teenager. On the other hand, Rachel Corrie was a "peace tourist," inserting herself bodily on the murderous side of a deep historic dispute and feeling that she is nonetheless protected from fate. That is arrogance.

Not so much arrogance, I think, as naivete. It was naive for Corrie to believe that a country whose partisans trumpet its righteousness as vigorously as do Israel's wouldn't simply murder her in cold blood, that it might hit the brakes on the bulldozer before it buried her body under a mound of rubble.

Then again, part of me thinks she knew exactly what she was getting into. She'd spent several months living in Israeli-occupied Palestine, so it's likely that she was well aware of the brutality of which the IDF was capable.

Rachel Corrie was a young woman who put her body where her beliefs were. She gave up the comfortable life of an American college student in order to go and share the life of Palestinians under occupation. She felt responsible for the violence that was underwritten, continues to be underwritten, by the taxpaying citizens of the United States. Her activism, her willingness to put herself in harm's way because of her beliefs, both inspires and shames me, as it should inspire and shame us all.

I agree with Peretz, however, that the comparison to Anne Frank is inapt (though let's remember that Marty is basing his entire rant on "shocked word" from "inside" W.W. Norton, no doubt left for him at a secret dead drop where he gets all his hot tips.) Anne Frank was a child, a victim of circumstance. Rachel Corrie was an adult who made a moral decision to risk her life in the cause of justice. It would be more appropriate to compare Corrie to Michael Schwerner and Andrew Goodman, two northeastern American college students who travelled to the Jim Crow South to help register African Americans to vote, and were murdered, along with civil rights worker James Chaney, by racist thugs in Mississippi, 1964. Like them, Corrie left a comfortable life because she couldn't sit still for the violence being done in her name. Like them, Corrie was killed for it.

Rachel Corrie was "arrogant" like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were "arrogant." She was a "tourist" like Goodman and Schwerner were "tourists."

THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS: OPTIONAL

Israel has admitted using phosphorous bombs in its war against Hezbollah this summer:
Israel has for the first time admitted it used controversial phosphorous bombs during fighting against Hezbollah in Lebanon in July and August.
Cabinet minister Jacob Edery confirmed the bombs were dropped "against military targets in open ground".

Israel had previously said the weapons were used only to mark targets.

Phosphorus weapons cause chemical burns and the Red Cross and human rights groups say they should be treated as chemical weapons.

The Geneva Conventions ban the use of white phosphorous as an incendiary weapon against civilian populations and in air attacks against military forces in civilian areas.

The U.S. has also admitted using phosphorous in Iraq.

Let the excuse-making begin.

Friday, October 20, 2006

FRIDAY GUITAR LEGEND BLOGGING


Danny Gatton.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

YOU'RE EITHER WITH US, OR YOU'RE WITH THE CHONDRICHTHYES

Here's a story the axis of appeasement media have been completely ignoring:
An 81-year-old boater was in critical condition Thursday after a stingray flopped onto his boat and stabbed him, leaving a foot-long barb in his chest, authorities said.

"It was a freak accident," said Lighthouse Point acting fire Chief David Donzella. "It's very odd that the thing jumped out of the water and stung him. We still can't believe it."

Fatal stingray attacks like the one that killed "Crocodile Hunter" Steve Irwin last month are rare, marine experts say. Rays reflexively deploy a sharp spine in their tails when frightened, but the venom coating the barb usually causes just a painful sting for humans.

James Bertakis of Lighthouse Point was on the water with his granddaughter and a friend Wednesday when the stingray flopped onto the boat and stung Bertakis. The women steered the boat to shore and called 911.

Surgeons were able to remove some of the barb, and Bertakis, who also suffered a collapsed lung, underwent surgery late Wednesday and early Thursday, the Miami Herald reported on its web site.

Ellen Pikitch, a professor of marine biology and fisheries at the University of Miami, who has been studying stingrays for decades, said they are generally docile.

"Something like this is really, really extraordinarily rare," she said. "Even when they are under duress, they don't usually attack."

An 81-year-old man. Real brave, you cartilaginous bastards. When will these Neville Chamberlain marine biologists understand that we are at war with the stingrays?

THROWING IRAQ AGAINST A WALL

Shorter Jonah Goldberg:
The Iraq war was a mistake, but many of the people who were against it were against it for reasons I don't consider appropriate. Therefore, I will continue as if I know what the hell I'm talking about.

Verbatim Jonah Goldberg, April 2002:
I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine." I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business."...

The United States needs to go to war with Iraq because it needs to go to war with someone in the region and Iraq makes the most sense.

The fact that Jonah was taking his cues on Middle East policy from Michael Ledeen, the stark-raving neoconservative nutjob's stark-raving neoconservative nutjob, is pretty much all you need to know. Does anyone else get the distinct feeling that these guys' entire national security posture can be ascribed to their being picked on as kids?

DOUBLE LIFE

Now here's an Iranian revolution that even President Bush can get behind:
"It is very easy to buy drugs in Tehran," 27-year-old A. told Ynet. He is well aware that drugs are banned under Muslim law but says that "it is permitted to smoke drugs and drink alcohol in parties that I organize."

He said police raided one of his parties once and arrested him and his friends. They were jailed for two days and asked to pay a fine.

His parties are held in a secret location in the affluent north of the capital. He says the south is poor and overcrowded.

"When I organize a party I tell my friends to tell their friends on the internet and by SMS," says A.

The head of Iranian Studies at the Tel Aviv University Prof. David Menashri sketched the changing trends in Iran: "There is life behind the veil. The Iranian youth is more secular than any Muslim country in the Middle East. The regime of the religious led to a rebellion in the direction of secularity and distance from religion. Young people dance at parties, leave for trips outside the capital and climb mountains at the weekend – they ski."

The Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guards are in charge of enforcing strict Muslim laws and ensure the survival of the revolution.

"The Revolutionary Guards learned to live with this and today they are more forgiving to these things. Outside they behave like the regime wants them to, but at home they drink, go wild, and listen to western music. To a certain extent there is double life," Prof. Menashri says.


If the members of the Tehran posse could join forces with Michael Ledeen's Army of the Great Iranian Zoroastrian Revival, we might really have something...

THE SPLINTERING OF THE SADR MOVEMENT

One of the main questions I've been exploring in my study of the Sadr movement is how much control Moqtada himself actually exercises over the Mahdi Army, and the extent to which fighters who identified as "Sadrist" were committed to Moqtada himself, and his stated goal of an Iraqi Islamic state, or more committed to running neighborhoods and killing Sunnis. I thought that this article from last August, while giving a very good overview of the movement itself, somewhat overestimated Sadr's personal power, and this article from today's Washington Post confirms that his control over some of the more extreme elements which identify as "Sadrist" is virtually non-existent.

From what I've read, the Mahdi Army was always more of a loose coalition of militias than a single army, but in the violent months since the bombing of al-Askariya last February, there was a real question of whether Moqtada was in fact turning the violence on and off, as it seems he was able to do throughout 2003 and 2004, or whether he was really trying, and failing, to keep the lid on as he consolidated his substantial political gains from the December elections.

Ironically, the same things which originally drew so many young, angry Shias, many of them religious school washouts, to Moqtada after the U.S. invasion, his youth, his relative lack of scholarly credentials, his legitimacy derived from his martyred father, his militant stance against the U.S. occupation and the government created by it, and his slang-riddled, radical sectarian-nativist rhetoric, are the very things which have left him open to challenges from higher-ranking clerics for the movement's leadership, to charges of "selling out," and which have fanned an anti-Sunni inferno which is blazing out of control.

YOUR WORDS ARE LIES, SIR

God bless Keith Olbermann, one of the few American TV journalists actually doing his job. Seriously, read the whole thing.

FEAR THE EYE

Santorum gets his War of the Ring on:
Embattled U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum said America has avoided a second terrorist attack for five years because the "Eye of Mordor" has been drawn to Iraq instead.

Santorum used the analogy from one of his favorite books, J.R.R. Tolkien's 1950s fantasy classic "Lord of the Rings," to put an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq into terms any school kid could easily understand.

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said, describing the tool the evil Lord Sauron used in search of the magical ring that would consolidate his power over Middle-earth.

"It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S.," Santorum continued. "You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."

While I'm sure Jonah Goldberg appreciates Santorum putting the war in terms that he can understand, it's likely that such an inappropriate analogy will do more to alienate the all-powerful geek bloc than to rally them, Rohirrim-like, to Santorum.

Wednesday, October 18, 2006

WEDNESDAY KUNG FU BLOGGING


In the Line of Duty 4.

INCOMPREHENSIBLE

This op-ed by Jeff Stein is troubling, to say the very least.
For the past several months, I’ve been wrapping up lengthy interviews with Washington counterterrorism officials with a fundamental question: “Do you know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite?”

A “gotcha” question? Perhaps. But if knowing your enemy is the most basic rule of war, I don’t think it’s out of bounds. And as I quickly explain to my subjects, I’m not looking for theological explanations, just the basics: Who’s on what side today, and what does each want?

After all, wouldn’t British counterterrorism officials responsible for Northern Ireland know the difference between Catholics and Protestants? In a remotely similar but far more lethal vein, the 1,400-year Sunni-Shiite rivalry is playing out in the streets of Baghdad, raising the specter of a breakup of Iraq into antagonistic states, one backed by Shiite Iran and the other by Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.

...

But so far, most American officials I’ve interviewed don’t have a clue. That includes not just intelligence and law enforcement officials, but also members of Congress who have important roles overseeing our spy agencies. How can they do their jobs without knowing the basics?

The basics indeed. Imagine someone trying to understand modern American politics without being aware of the differences between evangelicalism and Protestant liberalism, or of the divisions within those groups. Or think of someone studying the American civil rights movement without knowing who Moses was, or ever having read the story of the Hebrews' flight from bondage in Egypt. They'd be able to understand the broad outlines of the movement, its goals and accomplishments, but wouldn't be able to appreciate the richness of Rev. King's and other leaders' rhetoric, or the way that so many Americans' consciences were convicted and moved to activism through their skillful appeals to common faith.

Similarly, if you have no idea who Ali or Husayn were, or how the story of their martyrdom and years of oppression by Sunni rulers animates Shia politics, it's all just a bunch of dudes in robes.

This isn't to say that in-depth study of Islamic history is a prerequisite for understanding Middle East politics, but a basic familiarity with it makes a huge difference. I think that one of the things preventing Americans from an accurate conception of politics in Arab societies is the idea, fostered by people like Peretz, Pryce-Jones, and Patai, that Arabs practice an arcane, inherently violent sort of tribalistic politics that our superior rational Western mindset cannot grasp. This is just nonsense. The politics within different societies may be driven by culturally specific stories and traditions, but that doesn't mean that the politics of those societies should be incomprehensible to us. The notion that "they don't think like we do" is itself a form of racism, coming as it so often does in the guise of "hardheaded, clear-eyed analysis." Politics, in my opinion, to a great extent, is politics. But I digress...

In any case, it certainly shouldn't be too much to expect that the head of a House intelligence subcommittee charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s performance in recruiting Islamic spies and analyzing information should know the difference between Sunni and Shia.

Tuesday, October 17, 2006

THE SATAN SHILLER

Lance Mannion has a good post on the Conservative War on Halloween, which reminded me of a story of my younger days in church.

The year is 1988, late October. I was thirteen years old. A speaker came to our youth group to teach us about the evils of Halloween, its roots in paganism and Satanism and witchcraft, and also that heavy metal music was a gateway to devil worship. Throughout his presentation, the speaker used materials and recordings from Mike Warnke.

Who is Mike Warnke? Mike Warnke is one of the great bullshit artists of American Christianity, and you know that's saying something. In 1973 Warnke published a book called the Satan Seller, in which he told of his experiences as a Satanic high priest and his eventual conversion to Christianity. For almost two decades after, Warnke made a great living as a speaker in churches and conventions as an "expert" on Satanism and the occult.

In 1990, the Christian magazine Cornerstone published an expose which showed Warnke's story to be a complete, utter fabrication. True to what Twain said, Warnke's lies had gotten halfway around the world before the truth had gotten its shoes on, and today a large portion of what conservative evangelicals believe about Halloween and Satanic practices is derived from Warnke's fabrications.

The book is worth checking out, it's absolutely hilarious. It reads precisely how you'd think a too-late-to-the-party square would imagine Satanism to be, the topper being the swinging bachelor pad, complete with two blonde love-slaves, that his congregation provides for him.

P.S. After the presentation, I totally got into heavy metal (shows devil sign, makes metal face).

FAITH AND REASON

Great post from F. Gregory Gause on Pope Benedict's comments on faith and reason in Islam. The money:
For me, the more dangerous assertion in the Pope’s speech was underplayed in the media. He raised the issue of forced conversion to make the point that reason precludes forced conversion, and “not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.” Since His Holiness accepts the idea that forced conversion was part of Islam, this leads him to question whether Muslims believe that God is bound by reason. Here he turns to theology. He makes the argument, absolutely correctly, that the dominant strain in Muslim theology is that God is absolutely transcendent, omnipotent and inscrutable, not bound by any human category, including reason. The debate in the 10th century between the Mu’tazali rationalists, who were steeped in Greek philosophy and argued that, in effect, God is bound by His reason, and their opponents, who argued for the absolute transcendence of God, was decided against the Mu’tazilis. The Pope concedes that a similar debate occurred in Catholic theology about a century later, between rationalists like Thomas Aquinas and voluntarists like Duns Scotus and William of Occam (he of the famous razor). That debate was decided the other way, in favor of those who argued that God is bound by His reason.

...

It is on this point about faith and reason that the Pope makes his most serious error, that Islam is not a faith that respects reason. In the footnotes to his talk, added after the controversy arose, he writes, “In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason. On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic” (my italics). The Pope, while professing his respect for Islam, doubts that it is a faith which respects reason, and thus implicitly questions the value of dialogue with it.

This is just profoundly wrong. His Holiness is an academic theologian, and thus would naturally look to theology for the essence of the role of reason in any religion. As I said above, his reading, at least on a superficial level, of the relation of reason to God’s essence in mainstream Sunni thinking is correct (though he ignores other important strains in Islamic theology, including all of Shi’ism, in his argument). However, it ignores the profound grounding in Greek rationalism that Muslim philosophers like al-‘Ashari, who argued against the Mu’tazilis, couched their points. It also ignores the absolutely central role of reason in areas of Islamic intellectual and philosophical development outside of theology. Law is central here. Muslim philosophers might not use the instruments of human reason to question the Quran itself (as the Mu’tazilis did), but in their development of shari’a, Islamic law, from its sources in the Quran and the hadiths they relied enormously on human reason. Reasoning by analogy (qiyas) has been a central element in the development of shari’a. The application of shari’a to specific cases is completely dependent upon the reason of the judge. To say that Islam, as a religion, is inimical to reason is just not true. Its entire legal edifice, developed over the centuries, refutes this charge.

Read the whole thing.

EASIER THAN ACTUAL REPORTING

Joel Mowbray has essentially rewritten his Muslim-bashing column from a month ago, so I guess I can just link to my Mowbray-bashing post and move on.

Monday, October 16, 2006

LEGACY

If I wanted an honest assessment of Edward Said's legacy, you know who I wouldn't turn to? Martin Peretz.
Said's life as published by himself is made up of facts, half-truths, and irrefutable but meticulously constructed lies. Said rushed into print with a memoir called Out of Place, the name of the other reviewed film. And he rushed into print when Justin Reid Weiner had published a painstakingly precise, even obsessive, examination of Said's life in Commentary (September 1999). I confess it had been sent to me first, and I didn't run it. It was one of my greatest journalistic mistakes in then already a quarter-century of editing The New Republic. The sheer facts amounting to a great truth are so dispiriting, and one is led to the conclusion that Said--whatever his manic genius--was a fraud. No doubt about it. Please read this article. It is an eye-opener and a mind-sharpener.

Yes, please do read the article, which is indeed obsessive, is indeed an eye-opener, at least in regard to the straws at which hardcore revisionists will grasp in order to dismiss anyone who challenges their preferred Israel narrative.

The Commentary piece purported to discredit Said by showing that, wait for it, Said spent more of his youth in Cairo than he had let on, and that his aunt, not his father, actually owned the Said family home in Jerusalem. Not so much thin gruel as eating water with a spoon and calling it soup. For the committed revisionist like Peretz, however, this is more than enough to conclude that Said was a fraud, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian, and that the Zionist Irgun were freedom fighters, not terrorists like that stoopid Yasir Arafat.

As to Peretz's claim that he was offered the Weiner piece first, and turned it down, I have a hard time believing that Martin Peretz would turn down anything that would discredit Edward Said (contrary to Peretz's claim that Said was "obsessed" with him, the truth is quite the opposite). I suspect Peretz knew then, and probably knows now, that the article was incredibly weak, and didn't want to be the first one to publish it, though he's more than happy to reference it on his blog now that it has accrued some small measure of credibility simply by virtue of having been published elsewhere.

Interestingly, the Weiner article referred to Said as a "professional refugee," implying that there was something improper about basing his activism in his own family's exeriences in the Palestinian catastrophe of 1948. Think about that for a minute. I'm sure you can imagine the spittle-flecked accusations of anti-Semitism that would issue from Peretz if anyone were to refer to Eli Weisel as a "professional Holocaust survivor". Oh, wait, you don't have to imagine, because here's Peretz labeling Norman Finkelstein not only an anti-Semite (Finkelstein is Jewish) but a Holocaust-denier (Finkelstein's parents are Holocaust survivors) because of Finkelstein's work claiming that some Jews have exploited the memory of the Holocaust, both for personal gain and to immunize Israel from criticism.

Regarding Peretz's claim that Said's "star in the academy is dimming," I imagine Peretz clicking his heels three times when he says this. Wish harder, Marty. In my experience, Said's influence in area studies is still very strong, if not dominant. This is both good and bad, and just briefly I'll say that I think the Saidian post-Orientalist discourse has, in many ways, become almost as constraining as the Orientalist one that Said described in his famous essay of that name. It's true that a lot of area studies scholars are completely enthralled by Said, and while I don't count myself among them, I think the post-Orientalist lens is an indispensable tool for studying the Middle East.

The bottom line, however, is that, whatever one thinks of his work, Edward Said was genuinely committed to facilitating a more informed debate about the Palestine-Israel conflict, and to achieving a just solution for both Arabs and Jews in the Middle East. Martin Peretz, on the other hand, remains a thug.

I MADE IT BACK

I've checked on the forest, and it's fine. Also, poker is a stupid, stupid game and you should never play it. This is a fantastic album, and you should listen to it often.

In closing, this may be the greatest drink ever made.

Friday, October 13, 2006

OFF TO THE WILDS OF WASHINGTON STATE

In just a few short hours I depart for the 2006 Gentlemen's Wilderness Fellowship Retreat. As I will have no access to television, this qualifies as "camping." In a move that I have no doubt will prove unwise, I will be making chili for a house full of men tonight.

WAR OF THE WORDS

The story of The 101st Fighting Keyboarders, a heartwarming tale of the triumph of the human spirit over inconvenient facts, and of a group of people who gave up absolutely nothing for a cause that they believed in.

FRIDAY GUITAR LEGEND BLOGGING


Eddie Hazel.

Thursday, October 12, 2006

TAQIYYA AND BECK

Great post by Leila Hudson on the wingnut misrepresentations of the concept of taqiyya (which I also wrote about here), as well as a long overdue shredding of the odious Glenn Beck.

For those unfamiliar with the man or his schtick, Beck is essentially Bill O'Reilly for people who find Bill O'Reilly too intellectually taxing, and who prefer their pseudo-populism with a large helping of entitled fratboy smugness. If you think that mocking the name "Ahmedinejad" is the height of political humor, then by all means check his show out.

QAHWA SADA

A new blog journal by Middle East experts, organized by Abu Aardvark's Marc Lynch.

THE PHONE CALL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT

Gazan Abdel Rahman Salem Thabet describes a common occurrence under Israeli occupation:
"On 24 August, at 23.30, someone from the Israeli army called me on the phone and ordered me to leave my home quickly.

There are 12 people in our family. The officer also told me to tell all my neighbours to leave their homes at once.

Then, at midnight, the Israeli army bombed my home. Half an hour after the phone call.

An F16 destroyed my home with two rockets. They demolished the four-storey house completely.

The reason they gave was that one of my sons is planning attacks against Israel.

But this son hasn't lived with me since 2004. He lives in the middle of Gaza, between Gaza City and Khan Younis, in Nasiriya Camp.

My home is near Jabaliya camp, much further north.

The Israeli army punished my entire family because of one person - my son - who is not even living in our area.


Until now, no-one has agreed to rent me a home for the 12 people in my family.

They say I am working against Israel and they think the Israeli army will destroy the buildings they rent to me.

We have all been living in one tent since our house was destroyed. The Red Cross gave us the tent."

Wednesday, October 11, 2006

THE HITS JUST KEEP ON COMING

While ordinarily I think it's wise to dismiss out of hand anything that begins with the phrase "Last evening on my radio show...", this bit of geo-strategery from Mark Levin is just too wonderful to let go:
Last evening on my radio show, I suggested that in dealing with North Korea's nuclear test it was time to go back to the Cold War model of Mutually Assured Destruction; that we assist Japan and South Korea in developing nuclear weapons; and that we also arm Taiwan.

I've got a better idea: Why don't we just nuke the whole region ourselves straightaway and be done with it? End the suspense!

Levin's suggestion reminds me of my favorite bit from Blackadder Goes Forth, in which Blackadder explains the reasons for the war to his trusted manservant Baldrick, as they sit in their muddy trench on the Western Front, awaiting the final push.
Blackadder: You see, Baldrick, in order to prevent a war in Europe, two super blocs developed: us, the French and the Russians on one side, and the Germans and Austro-Hungary on the other. The idea was to have two vast, opposing armies, each acting as the other's deterrent. That way, there could never be a war.

Baldrick: Except, well, this is sort of a war, isn't it?

Blackadder: That's right, there was one tiny flaw in the plan.

George: Oh, what was that?

Blackadder: It was bollocks.

Indeed.

IRAN IN IRAQ

A British investigation has found no evidence that Iran is supplying weapons and training to militias in Iraq.

This March 2005 report from the International Crisis Group said the same thing.