Why won't Bush sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Insightful column from the Washington Post's Robert Samuelson (courtesy of http://pstupidonymous.blogspot.com/) The article stands on its own, but a few things to keep in mind:

The Kyoto Protocol was rejected 98-0 by the Senate. Don't personalize it by saying "Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol". No U.S. Congress will ever vote for it.

The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed b/c it didn't apply to "developing" countries like China.

Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist.

Samuelson is right, the only real solution is cleaner technologies. Spending should be on research and development; governments should be convincing companies that environmentalism is good business and helping them discover ways to make that true.

- dane

Deconstructing The Nation's thoughts on President Bush's speech...

On The Nation's blog, John Nichols tells us about "The Big Lie" in President Bush's recent speech (unfortunately, he doesn't tell us what it is - it's a secret). Most of his column is not about facts, but is just assertions and conjecture. Below, I show why he's wrong. He starts like this:

Before 750 members of the 82nd Airborne Division and the Army's Special Operations unit, who had been assembled at Fort Bragg, N.C., to give Bush a respectful and unquestioning audience, the president declared, "The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on September 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us -- and the terrorists we face -- murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression, by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror."

I'm not sure what point the author is making with this quote - He doesn't say, and the quote doesn't seem very controversial. And how does the author know why Bush gave the speech at Fort Bragg? Only the most cynical reason could possible be true. It couldn't possibly be that since the subject of the speech was the Iraq War, the most appropriate setting was a Commander-in-Chief speaking to his troops. (If the reason was merely to get a "respectful and unquestioning audience", why doesn't Bush give his Social Security talks at Fort Bragg?)

Bush went on to claim that, "After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: The nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will defend our freedom. We will take the fight to the enemy. Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war."

By suggesting that the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be seen as part of a legitimate and necessary response to September 11, as he clearly did on Tuesday, Bush made a deliberate break with reality -- not so complete a break, perhaps, as that of Cheney and the wingnut faction of the administration, but a break all the same.

Once again, I don't get it. President Bush certainly didn't invent the idea that "the invasion and occupation of Iraq should be seen as part of a legitimate and necessary response to September 11" - indeed, that "deliberate break with reality" was endorsed by conservative reactionaries like Christopher Hitchens, Tom Friedman, and the editors of The New Republic and The Economist.

The president speech was written and delivered with the intent of deceiving the American people into believing things that were never true.

Intent is a pretty hard thing to figure out (despite the "Bush lied!!!" crowd's insistence). Consider this simple proposition: Pres. Lincoln fought the Civil War so slaves could be free. True or False. Some people, however, just know why Pres. Bush really wanted to invade Iraq. They know the real reason, and it can only be one reason (the reason that they have divined from the depths of wherever). Therefore, he lied.

- dane

The June 2005 Wissahickon

The June 2005 Wissahickon is here, just click.

Inside you'll find:

Poems from Mariel Boyarsky and Aidan Andrew Dun
Notes on foreign policy from Dane Shelly
Recipes from brooke e. sexton and æ woods
a Travelogue from Stephanie Scott
and a Book Review from Josh Meservey

Check it out, and then, when you're done, come back here to discuss it.

LIVE 8 - so hot right now...

In response to those who question the importance of Live 8, I respond thusly: Natalie Portman will be there.

- dane

Accuweather forecast: "Clouds giving way to sun; breezy and less humid in the afternoon. High - 84 degrees"

American Exceptionalism

Howard Zinn enlightens the rest of us on the dangers of American Exceptionalism, and at the same time falls into the trap of anti-American Exceptionalism - the belief that America is the worst, most dangerous country in the world. This is a wide-ranging essay on just about everything the U.S. has done wrong and why the U.S. has no moral superiority.

Here's a typical non-sequiter quote from Zinn:

Fortunately, there are people all over the world who believe that human beings everywhere deserve the same rights to life and liberty. On February 15, 2003, on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, more than ten million people in more than 60 countries around the world demonstrated against that war.

But how do those people who care about "life and liberty" for "human being everywhere" reconcile the fact that their demonstrations, if successful, would doom Iraqis to life under Saddam? Of course, those "human beings everywhere" don't actually include Iraqis living under Hussein. Has there ever been anti-Saddam demonstrations? Stopping the war in Iraq wouldn't give Iraqis "life and liberty", it would just leave the status quo (tyranny). The claim that the anti-war protesters cared about "life and liberty" for "human beings everywhere" would be a little more plausible if they offered an alternative plan to free Iraqis from the oppression of Saddam. Instead, most ended up saying things like, "its not that bad living in a totalitarian society" and "they look like they have fun flying kites."

- dane

Poor Matt Walsh

Despite the author's excessively sneering tone, he exposes a few things wrong with the current NBA draft system. Many college underclassmen - listening to the advice of agents - declare their eligibility for the NBA draft and then go undrafted. (Seriously, what were you thinking Matt Walsh?). The problem is that those kids (which is what they are) are screwed if they don't make an NBA team as a free agent. They are barred from returning to college and they probably end up playing in some European league. It seems to me the NCAA should permit underclassmen to declare for the draft and retain their eligibility to play in college. If education and development are truly important, why punish these kids for making a mistake (often at the behest of people who are trying to take advantage of them)?

- dane

A War Brewing in Uganda

Recently in Uganda there has been much tension over whether President Museveni would be allowed to run in the next elections or not. Constitutionally his term is finished (after 20 years), but he and his supporters in the Movement party are seeking an amendment that would allow him to re-run in the elections.

The problem is complicated. Museveni has revitalized the country, after the unbearably oppressive and demonic regimes of Idi Amin and Milton Obote, thus making Museveni look relatively much like a saint. The economy has improved, debt has been cancelled, and AIDS has declined drastically. However, a bitter war in the North has made the country divided in their love, and many find it difficult to imagine that in a country of 26 million people there is no one good enough to take his place.

The country has become so polarized on the issue, that there is very little hope for a peaceful end to the drama. If Museveni ammends the constitution, he will discredit all of the work that has been fought for in the last 20 years by showing the weakness of the constitution, and enforcing the idea of dictatorship rather than democracy. Donors may also lose their love for Uganda if they see Museveni as another Mugabe. If he is not allowed to run his supporters may react violently. The best case scenerio might be for him to run and lose. Nonetheless, the world will need to stand on guard when elections come in 2006.

-D.R. Leonard

Affairs American and European

Two excellent articles from the latest New York Review:

First, as a fine contrast to the Michael Ignatieff article that Dane posted the other day, read "The New World Order" by Tony Judt. Judt too confronts the unpleasant realities of the present situation in Iraq, its larger implications, and how it manifests the Bush administrations ideals. Judt is especially interested in our relationship with the UN, and the failure of the American press to confront the human rights violations committed under this administrations watch. Like Igntieff, he falters slightly at the end, but his points remain forceful throughout:

Hard as it may be for Americans to grasp, much of the world no longer sees the US as a force for good.

Also, be sure to read William Pfaff's "What's Left of the Union?" Pfaff delivers a lucid, sharp, and optimistic round-up of the recent EU referendum votes. Pfaff not only describes the EU's problems, but prescribes modest, keen solutions. Despite recent setbacks, Pfaff argues,

the commitment to making Europe a diplomatic and strategic force in the world was embodied in the constitution and undoubtedly will survive its demise, since it, too, is an affirmation of national or communitarian independence and strength. For this reason it may be doubted that it can be denied in the long run.

Lastly, if you're interested, Mark Danner solidifies his stance on the importance of the Downing Street memos.

--Ted

Setting a Good Example

Usually, when I post concerning literary topics on the blog, I'm not met with much response. However, I do implore you to read this review of Umbero Eco's latest novel, The Mysterious Flame of Queen Loana.


Even if you're not interested in the book or the author, check it out. This is what a book review should be: erudite, informative, and edifiying, not only concerning the book in question, but also on a topic of great interest to the reading public at large--in this case, the postmodern novel and the question of the self. Great stuff.

--Ted

Hybrid Taxis

Finally, New York City might start buying hybrid taxis. This would be a huge win for Democrats, if they were crafty enough to get on this train. Democratic strongholds like San Francisco, NYC, Philadelphia, and Boston, should make a strong push before the next election to show they have ideas, not just complaints.

Hybrids taxis are brilliant because when the car is not moving - at a stoplight, for example - the gas engine shuts off and the car runs solely on electric. One thing that confused me, they said that hybrids are too expensive, but is a Crown Vic really more than a Toyota Prius? And, as the article notes, the average taxi ride is only about 8 minutes, so the lack of comfort isn't that big of a sacrifice here...

- dane

Africa: That big country with all the black people

As I returned last week from a trek through the country Africa that went started in the state of South Africa, went through Zimbabwe and Mozambique, and ended in Malawi, I was shocked at the sudden spark of interest in that "big country with all the black people." I was slightly out of the loop of the news, seeing as Mugabe isn't big on people knowing whats going on in the world, and the villages of Malawi are much more interested in cattle than world politics. However, the question that came to me almost immediately as I arrived at JFK airport was, "did you hear about that Live 8 thing?" I truthfully didn't have a clue what it was, despite that it was taking place roughly in my backyard.

I feel that since I've been to Africa twice now, and have devoted most of my waking moments to trying to understand it, I have earned the license to say something about it, and about all this Live 8 stuff. I'll try to keep it brief.

First- It is true that Africa is a troubled place. AIDS kills 1 out of every 3 people in South Africa. War, disease, famine, and poverty destroy most every country in Africa, though some greater than others. Uganda boasts 1.6 million IDP's, while over 3 million people have died from war related causes in the past 10 years in the the Eastern DRC. And this is only some of what is happening.

Second- Although Africa is in chaos, it is also beautiful. The people are beautiful, and not only in the way that orphan children will beautifully smile at cameras while white people take pictures to send back to their churches. They are beautiful because people are beautiful. Humanity is filled with beauty, and Africa is no exception.

Third- The worlds richest countries are very aware of Africa's problems. Tony Blair launched a campaign to deal with problems in Africa long before Live 8. Money has streamed into African countries for decades now.

Fourth- As money streams into African countries, corruption has taken hold. Blind giving to countries has hurt more than helped in many cases. Somolia is still in anarchy, 10 years after movie stars and rock stars pumped money into their economy only to be taken by warlords who have fended off every attempt for Somolia's government to re-enter the country.

The point is this. While western pop culture has just now picked up on the fact that Africa is facing many difficulties, the rest of the educated world- including world leaders- has known this for sometime. The true problem is complicated, and far exceeding the idea that rich people need to give more money to poor people. And while the King of Swaziland searches for his new wives and $500,000 BMW's, with the new money he will recieve from Bon Jovi, the rest of us will try to come up with a realistic solution to dealing with the problems in Africa. I do believe that awareness is good, but I fail to think that telling drunk sweaty men that black people are dying in the country of Africa, will do anything to end poverty. Is it really so difficult to understand that the worlds problems go deeper than hating rich people? And if this the case, why don't rock stars realize that they have the capibility to give just as much money as governments, because that evil thing called capitalism has given them the freedom not only to make money but to give it away.

-D.R. Leonard

Sacrificing Children

Hitchens attacks the anti-war impulse to talk about "sacrificing children" as if all soldiers were somehow hoodwinked into joining the military, or forced by their parents (like Michael Moore's demand that Congressmen "send" their adult children).

This expert delivers himself of the opinion that, "If this is such a great cause, let us see one of the Bush daughters in uniform." Let me do a brief thought experiment here. Do I know a single anti-war person who would be more persuaded if one of the Bush girls joined up? Do you? Can you imagine what would be said about such a cheap emotional stunt?

Hitch is exactly right, B/C if Bush actually forced one of his daughters to enlist, and she died, people would immediately talk about how horrible Bush is to kill one of his daughters to further his own agenda.

A few other points. A related idea that is gaining some currency is that Bush, because he never served in the military, is unfit to be Commander-in-Chief. But, as Hitch says, civilian control of the military is what prevents a country from becoming a military dictatorship. Also, if military experience is necessary to be President, you can pretty much eliminate most women as eligible candidates (sorry Hillary and Condi).

- dane

Lately at Filmegeist

One good way to escape the heat if you don't have air conditioning: go to the movies.

Dane Shelly and I have done it for years. It works like a friggin' charm. Go to the 4:00 show. It's cheaper, and by the time you get home, the temperature's tolerable.

And when you're trying to decide what to see, go to filmegeist.com for reviews.

Here's what's new:

Batman Begins (reviewed by Tony Hoffer)
Lords of Dogtown (reviewed by Ted Howell)

Enjoy.

-- Adam

Spreading Freedom

Michael Ignatieff writes a sober, yet ultimately optimistic, assessment about America's idealistic mission to make the world safe for - and with - democracy. (He also steals some of my thunder b/c my next Wissahickon piece is on this topic). Somewhat long article but definitely worth reading from a man who has reported from Bosnia and Rwanda (His book on ethnic civil wars is excellent) and has seen the dangers of inaction.

Ignatieff disagrees with those who think the U.S. should be merely a well-wisher to freedom:

Very few countries can achieve and maintain freedom without outside help. Big imperial allies are often necessary to the establishment of liberty. As the Harvard ethicist Arthur Applbaum likes to put it, ''All foundings are forced.'' Just remember how much America itself needed the assistance of France to free itself of the British. Who else is available to sponsor liberty in the Middle East but America?

Who indeed? It's not like the UN or the EU offered any peaceful strategies to promote freedom in the Middle East.

- dane

MFA: Continued

After a slew of letters--some of them excellent (Sabra Wineteer's), some funny but pointless (Sam Holton's), others embarrassingly simple (Tim Hall's)--MobyLives has published a "response" to last week's MFA bashing column.

The response, by Steve Almond, is vindictive and, what's worse, quite vulgar. Sure, people's livelihood's are at stake here, and writers have been well known to pull the sucker punch--but this column is ridiculous.

--Ted

Patrick Henry College

An incredible report in the current New Yorker features Patrick Henry College, a conservative Christian college in Virginia which seeks "to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness, justice and mercy, through careers of public service and cultural influence." (from the PHC website). A large majority (85%) of PHC students are former homeschoolers, and all of them are conservaive Evangelicals who hope to (my phrasing) "take back America"

Patrick Henry is trying a complicated experiment: taking young evangelicals who have been raised in rarefied, controlled atmospheres and training them to become political leaders without somehow being corrupted by the secular world’s demands—or, for that matter, moving to the middle.

Having spent most of my young life in these circles (read about my experiences here), I was concerned that the New Yorker article would adopt a high-handed, belittling tone. To her credit, reporter Hanna Rosin provides a nuanced, factually-correct depiction of the Evangelical conservative homeschooling counter-culture. More importantly, she does not exaggerate or springboard into scolding. What she says is true:

At the time [1993], evangelicals had yet to emerge as a national political force; many preferred to keep their distance from secular culture, which is one reason that Patrick Henry parents educated their children at home. Since then, Rove has built an entire campaign around mobilizing Christian conservatives.

This is groundbreaking stuff. While many reporters, speciffically after the election, vaguely cited "values" as the determinig factor, and other, more insightful, journalists pointed out that Rove's success in getting out the Evangelical vote was huge, none that I know of has mentioned homeschoolers as a growing cultural force.

What I most appreciate about the article is Rosin's insight into the gender-gap that exists in the homeschooling counter-culture. This is, in my mind, one of its determining attributes, and its most infuriating:

A faction of homeschooling parents lobbied Farris not to admit girls to the college, but he told me that he considered that an “extreme” position. “All women, moms included, benefit from a great education,” he said. Men and women compete openly. When all the best papers in a constitutional-law class that Farris taught were turned in by girls—and not for the first time—Farris yelled at the boys to grow up. The new careerist code of the Joshua Generation can become a problem for the girls, however. Even the most ambitious ones, those who wake up at 3 a.m. to study, told me without reservation that as soon as they had children they would quit their jobs to raise them.

Portraying super-student Elisa Muench, Rosin writes:

Elisa believes the Bible dictates that “there are different roles for men and women”; as a White House intern, she saw women with young children working “long, long hours,” and she doesn’t want that. Her mother, who had her first child at twenty-seven, tells her that she regrets having waited so long. But the expectation of most of the guys she knows at Patrick Henry—that wives should just “fade out,” that she should instantly take on the identity of a wife and mother “and consider it a blessing”—is not something that she’s comfortable with. “I just think there’s more that God called me to do, and that’s a hard thing to say around here,” she told me.

Please, everyone: read this article, and tell your friends to read it too.

--Ted

Winning is better than losing

I think David Brooks is right on here. War is a long, awful thing and sometimes in the middle of it, "Everybody just wants the miserable present to go away. " But this is exactly why, even in a democracy, we don't make military decisions based on opinion polls.

I think it's shameful that politicians and pundits and celebrities prey on the natural fears of those who serve in the military in order to convince people we have to surrender to the terrorists in Iraq. Of course people would rather be home watching tv than fighting in Iraq. That will always be true. But we should be supporting our soldiers in every way we can - most of all by telling them they are doing something noble. The argument that we need to "support" our soldiers by bringing them home in shameful defeat is even worse. Its kinda like Mrs. McNabb telling Donovan she "supports" him by urging him to quit football because its too dangerous.

In Iraq there is only one acceptable endgame: a functioning government that protects basic human rights and is strong enough to defeat the foreign jihadists who have swarmed into Iraq. If the U.S. left now, it is a near certainty that the Iraqi forces could not defeat the foreign jihadists and Zarqawi and his gang would have a home base from which to operate. Even worse, the U.S. would be making a scary precedent: every terrorist organization in the world will now know that Western countries don't have the stomach to fight protracted wars in dangerous places. Whenever al-Qaeda wants to take over another failed state, they know that nobody will stop them.

Of course it seems bad now, but there have been victories also. As Brooks argues, this is a war we can still win: "It's too soon to accept the defeatism that seems to have gripped so many. If governments surrendered to insurgencies after just a couple of years, then insurgents would win every time. But they don't because insurgencies have weaknesses, exposed over time, especially when they oppose the will of the majority." The Iraqi people want to defeat the foreign terrorists so they can have their own country. The only question now is, do we want to win or lose?

Mistakes They Knew They Were Making

An even-better-than-usual article from Thomas Friedman today on the Times Editorial page, addressing the tactical errors of the Bush administration. Friedman makes an point many insightful parties made before the election: that Bush's insistence upon retaining Cheney is harmful to the Republican Party. Friedman expands his analysis to the present woes of the administration, and enumerates its many failings. Chief among them:

With gasoline prices soaring, and the biggest beneficiaries being the very Arab dictatorships who are tacitly sponsoring the terrorists killing Americans in Iraq, it is blindingly obvious that our country needs a comprehensive strategy for reducing our energy consumption and developing alternative fuel systems. The president has utterly failed in this regard.

--Ted

Labour of Love

Do you know about wikipedia.org? If not, visit it right away, it's one of the most exciting things happening on the web.

If you already know, read on...

The beauty of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit the content. It's a democratic encyclopedia that uses everyone's expertise to make one kick-ass volume of knowledge. Occasionally, I'm tempted to edit something on Wikipedia (though I haven't done it yet), especially when there's something I love more than the average bear, and have done the research on, e.g. Constantine P. Cavafy, Christopher Marlowe, the Tennessee Volunteers, etc.

Someone else must've felt like that, too. Because here's a link to an unbelievable effort that I will be forever grateful for.

If you spend as much time on Wikipedia as I do, post a couple of your favourites in the comments section here.

--Adam

Shocking evidence that a foreign power has infiltrated our government!

An exclusive from the boys at Coming Anarchy...

Families in the Military

Here's a link to the article I referenced in my response to Daniel. Its kinda long, but definitely worth reading. Interesting highlights: enlistment in the military is down, but re-enlistment by soldiers who have already seen combat is up. Also, of the 300 Generals serving in the Army, about 100 of them have children serving in the military. Experiencing war or having children in uniform, it seems, doesn't make you a pacifist.

- dane

In praise of Middlebrow culture

David Brooks doing what he does best: pop-Sociology of Middle America. I think his longing for a return of Middlebrow culture is right on. It also, I think, happens to be one of the goals of the Wissahickon. We can't expect everyone to be scholars and experts, but we should expect - and help spread - a certain literary fluency and a willingness to wrestle with ideas that are contradictory and novels that must be read more than once.

- dane

No Way, MFA

A fine column, "Down with MFAs," appeared today on MobyLives. Reflecting on her experience in an MFA program, Elizabeth Clementson concludes:

Despite what they try and tell you in MFA programs, there isn't an established career path for writers. It isn't something you can learn in a classroom.

Clementson is right on target here. Workshop-based writing programs, of which the University of Iowa is the most nefarious, have made a fortune from the mistaken assumption that great writing can be taught in class. Despite what Anne Lamott may tell you, this is not true.

Of course, writing programs can be very good for writers looking to improve or hone their skills. And we could all stand to learn a thing or two about how to write better--but a workshop has not yet, as far as I know, produced a great novel. Clementson describes the problem very well:

In the workshop, the students critique each other's writing and as the comments are bandied about, a "consensus" develops about what does and doesn't "work" in a story. The writer then meshes the "popular" opinions of the group into his or her work, slowly removing the unpopular parts, until the work is readable and accessible to all. More often than not, this process destroys the writer's initial vision, leaving behind a work that is void of passion and anything that is different, new, or creative.

How to combat this problem? Off the top of my head, I will recommend Joyce's trilogy of writer's weapons: silence, exile, and cunning.

--Ted

More on Chinese Blogs

By the time the BBC article went to print last week, news had been bounding around the bloggosphere for quite a while.

Perhaps a larger problem than the censorship of specific words (especially since it only applies to titles) is the fact that all blogs must register with the Chinese government or close down. Reporters Without Borders spit out a press release concerning this two weeks ago, and today published "six recommendations to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet," which clearly opposes the Chinese government's activities.

When bloggers join major blog-hosting services (e.g. a Chinese type of Blogger) they do not have to individually register with the government. The Committee to Protect Bloggers noted this on June 10, and explained that this would make blogs easier to control (especially with the word-censors provided by Microsoft and others.) The CPB has already posted instructions on how to avoid the Microsoft censors (provided by Peacefire.)

You can read some of the responses from Chinese bloggers on RConversation.

Much of this conversation centers around Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

--Ted

The Left Comes Full Circle

Bob Herbert, columnist for the New York Times, has jumped on the liberal 'bring back the draft' bandwagon. My, what a long strange journey it has been for the Left, who used to argue that the government has no right to force people to join the army, and now argues that the government HAS to force people to join the army.

Herbert argues that "Americans do not want to fight George W. Bush's tragically misguided war in Iraq" and as evidence quotes a 10th grader who "had once planned to join the military after graduating from high school, but had changed his mind. "It's the war," he said. "Going over and never coming back. Before the war you'd just go to different places and help people. Now you go over there and you fight." But that quote is not an indictment of Pres. Bush's foreign policy, it just reflects the universal desire to not die.

This whole line of reasoning is dishonest, because liberals don't really want a draft, they just want some Republican kids to die, in hopes that this would save the world from the scourge of Neo-Conservative imperialism. If his argument was in earnest, he would say something like, I'll send my kids to Iraq if some Senators send theirs. But Bob Herbert (or Michael Moore, who just missed the physical requirements) has no intention of doing that either. This is a publicity stunt, and a cheap one at that. Of course no parent wants their kid to die, regardless of which war it is. The parents of the WWII soldiers were no less devastated by the deaths of their children than the parents of soldiers in Vietnam. No parent wants their child to die, and the choice to join the army is a tortured one, a private one, and its crass to make a political ploy out of it.

Liberals constantly argue that the children of elites don't join the military. But let's give credit where credit is due. Ever since Vietnam, it has been Liberals who have consistently denigrated the military, patriotism, and the idea of service to country. On Ivy League campuses - the stomping grounds of the children of the elite - it is socially unnaceptable to join the ROTC or enlist in the military. More than anyone, it is the Vietnam generation of liberals who made the idea of military service anathema to the Ivy League set.

Whenever you hear a silly argument, you should just imagine if the opposite happened. Let's say, before the war in Iraq, Bush announced "I'm starting a draft because we're going to fight some wars and we need more soldiers." Somehow I doubt that liberals would have embraced the concept if Bush proposed it. In the end, a military draft should be avoided simply because it is the most coercive act a government can impose on its citizens. Note to Liberals: be careful what you wish for...

- dane

Open Letter to the Powers That Be

To the Managers and Directors of Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google:

With over $40 billion in annual profits, unparalleled control over the software industry, and an impossibly broad presence on the internet, Microsoft, Yahoo!, and Google are in a unique position—for better or for worse—to filter and direct the world’s activity.

We the undersigned, each of us a “subject” of your empire, are writing to address a recent decision of yours, namely to cooperate with the People’s Republic of China in an effort to censor the internet activity of the world’s most populous country.

To succeed as a business, a company is often required to do business with unsavory customers. This letter is not an indictment for doing business internationally, or with China, an admittedly giant customer. But doing business with a despotic regime is one thing, and collusion another. Abetting censorship in China is collusion, no matter how one looks at it.

Listing China’s abuses of its people is unnecessary. The nature of your dealings with China—the suppression of search terms such as “democracy,” “human rights,” and “Taiwan independence”—are in themselves evidence of the shameful nature of this undertaking.

We the undersigned urge you to discontinue colluding with China in the repression of their people. We cannot threaten a boycott; your business is too strong. Nor can we bargain to enhance your business if you honor our request. We can only appeal to your moral sensibilities.

In the recent push among big business to operate ethically, we humbly appeal to your compliance with a new kind of business ethics, an ethics based not on the satisfaction of shareholders and boards-of-directors, but a satisfaction of the moral imperatives and regard for the unfortunate that ought to become the stamp of our age.

We thank you for your time and hope in your reply.

Sincerely,

Adam Woods, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States

To sign this letter, simply leave your name, city, state/province, and country in the "comments" section of this post by clicking just below. You can also sign the letter by emailing endtyranny@thewissahickon.com. Please forward this to anyone that you believe would add his/her signature.

Further evidence that Microsoft is the devil...

Microsoft, Yahoo, and Google are collaborating with the Chinese government to censor blogs that include words like "human rights" and "Taiwan independence". Microsoft's explaination?

"Microsoft is a multi-national business and as such needs to manage the reality of operating in countries around the world," a Microsoft spokesperson told the BBC News website.

They need to? They have no other options? What about not abetting censorship?

- dane

When justice interferes with peace...

Fairly perceptive article about the complexity of the situation in Darfur. The UN has decided that the International Criminal Court (ICC) will start to investigate the genocide in Darfur. But many of the aid groups oppose this. The reason? The killers have no incentive to make peace if they know they're headed to the Hague. Also, it places many of the aid workers - who depend on the perception of neutrality - at increased danger from people who will now be attempting to kill witnesses.

Of course, this whole situation is a result of the pseudo-pacifism that permeates the UN, which thinks it is a triumph to investigate genocide after it happens rather than stop it while it happens. No real justice - or lasting peace - will materialize until the killers, and their sponsors in Sudan's government, are either in prison or dead. The ICC has no police powers, so this will only happen until a real peacekeeping force is sent in.

- dane

Happy Bloomsday

"Literally astounded on this piece of intelligence Bloom reflected. Though they didn't see eye to eye in everything a certain analogy there somehow was as if both their minds were traveling, so to speak, in the one train of thought."

-- from Eumaeus

Joyce, ashplant in hand, with Sylvia Beach.

Onward Christian Soldiers...

Interesting article about the Evangelical movement's increasing interest in international issues, especially human rights. It makes the point that conservative Christians have become more willing to make alliances with liberal groups on certain issues where they find common cause. And since Evangelicals comprise the single most powerful voting constituency in the U.S., this is good news for the human rights world. Also, I think that this is related to the "growing consensus" for increased intervention to protect human rights...

- dane

New Hampshire is in the News? Really??

Here comes another flap concerning the illegal immigrant problem. A chief of police in a small New Hampshire town has decided to charge illegals with trespassing, a unique approach to the problem. The Mexican government, according to the local ACLU chapter, is "understandably worried that this could become the charge du jour across the country." Indeed. Where does a chief of police get the gall anyways to arrest ILLEGAL immigrants (whoops, I meant undocumented workers). This marks yet another episode of the Mexican government trying to tell the U.S. how it should deal with the flood of illegals that come across with the borders with near-impunity.

Also note how the chief is implicated as a racist for his actions by the ACLU spokeswoman. This seems to be the knee-jerk reaction nowadays whenever anybody tries to speak openly about an issue that involves a group whose overwhelming characteristic is a shared race. In this case, it is a dishonest, ungracious tactic that is used only to stifle and divert the debate; the ACLU spokeswoman should be ashamed of herself (although I sincerely doubt she is).

--Josh

Slate Movie Week

Halleu-glory. As if I needed another reason to love Slate, this week is Summer Movie Week. The blockbuster is getting a bad rap these days--so much that we forget how good they can be. Fortunately, the good folks at Slate are here to remind us how fascinating and lovable the world of blockbusters truly is, especially for those willing to direct their mind towards the optimistic view of things. Here's two great articles:

Lucas vs. Spielberg

Traces the history of this "friendship" from Lucas' UCLA days to the present. Along the way, several box office records are broken, and at least a dozen magnificent movies are made.

The Pimp Who Saved Hollywood

What's wrong with indy movies? Lots. Christopher Kelly offers an excellent criticism here, dealing speciffically with the upcoming Hustle and Flow.

And, to top matters, there's another excellent "debate." (I believe these are among the best things going on the Internet these days. To view how great they can be, view this one from last year, starring novelists Jim Lewis & Jeffrey Eugenides.) This time around we have David Edelstein, one of the best movie reviewers writing, and Joe Morgenstern, on loan from the WSJ, fresh off a Pulitzer Prize victory:

Did George Lucas and Steven Spielberg Ruin the Movies?

Keep an eye on this all week. It could be something special.

I'm done worshipping Slate now.

--Ted

Don't Tell Me How to Feel

It's hot here in Philadelphia. Turn on the weather, and the meterologists will tell you that the high today will be a mere 93, but it will feel like its 105. That's quite a difference.

This got me thinking: how do they know what it's going to feel like? Of course, I knew that this number is a reference to the Heat Index, which is a combination of air temperature and relative humidity. Normally I try not to fall into conspiracy theory, but something about this seemed a little suspect: how hot it feels depends upon a variety of subjective factors including but not limited to: disposition, amount of clothes worn, skin type, color and amount of hair (head, face, and body), point in space time, velocity, size and weight, etc.

So I consulted Wikipedia and found this site, which takes issue with the use of wind chill and humidex (what they call heat index in Canada). Interspersed with data and formulas, there's a few ripping criticisms:

My point of contention is in the invention of a quantified formula to describe this reality. Science does not have an answer for everything and creating a formula that quantifies a "feeling" illustrates the dressing-up of science for a goal which is unsuitable for it and which it will never belong to. A feeling is specific to each individual. Science studies REPRODUCTIBLE phenomena, this can not be applied, by definition, to a feeling.

Indeed. My thoughts exactly. And even more to the point:

As in other highly mediatized fields it is easier to attract and retain the public's attention through sensationnalism as opposed to the systematic and thorough explanation of a situation or a phenomenon.

In conclusion: don't let the weatherman or woman tell you how to feel. You can decided how hot it feels on your own.

--Ted

EDIT/ADDITION: Keep in mind that the "Feels Like" measurement also does not factor in the wind. Presently, there is a pleasant breeze blowing, and it feels great to be out of doors.

It was Chaucer who said: "Full wise is he who can himself know." Little did he know I'd be using it to encourage you to disregard the advice of weathermen.

edgeukashun

More dismal insights on the current state of higher education in the U.S. This should be no surprise to anybody who has been even casually following recent educational trends (or to anybody who has been in college recently). This article focuses mostly on the shortcomings of the students, but there are plenty of institutional problems as well, as should be obvious to anybody who remembers the recent debacle at Harvard when their president was reduced to a groveling sycophant by a cadre of intellectual thugs. When the supposed flagship university of the entire country is so blatantly enslaved to the p.c. culture at the expense of academic freedom, we are indeed in trouble.

--Josh

Moving on...

Recently, The Wissy blog has been host to a debate between myself and Roy (see the post on Pakistan). To be honest, I enjoy this kind of argument, but I'm sure the rest of The Wissy readers couldn't care less and are hoping for something new. Here is an interesting post from the boys at Coming Anarchy.

What caught my attention was the point they made about the Koran desecration scandal that has sparked riots in parts of the Muslim world. Consider this:

As for the Koran abuse, one should remember that people in the US are legally allowed to burn the American flag. It may enrage some people, but it’s protected legally. There is no right to “not be offended.” Tell me again why it would be wrong to deface paper and ink? Books are not legally protected under US or UN law. Get over it.

This isn't a perfect analogy, of course. Burning Bibles would work better. But the truth is that some people feel very passionately about flag burning, but we usually don't consider it a natural right. Even when it comes to Bibles, I can't imagine that defacing one would force even a Jerry Falwell-type to encourage riots. Admittedly, most Muslims are probably more concerned with the symbolism of the act than a comparable Christian. And, of course, we shouldn't intentionally antagonize anyone. It was immature. But I definitely don't think it broke any laws, nor was it a sufficient cause to spark violence.

- dane

New at Filmegeist

Dueling Reviews?


Cinderella Man

Wanna see Cinderella Man? Read T. Isaac Gillespie's review of it on Filmegeist.

Still unsure? Read Adam Woods's review of it on Filmegeist.

Not Even Trying to Care

Mark Danner is really upset about the Downing Street Memo. Unfortunately, no one else is. This sobering fact, Danner believes, is every bit as upsetting as the contents of the memo.

The key revelation is the "secret" Downing Street Memo, which is a transcript of a meeting that went down in July of 2002, and starred many major decision-making honchos of the British government. During the meeting, those present spoke of the War in Iraq--which, of course, had not yet happened--as a certainty, as a problem of political strategy, not a decision concerning whether or not to go to war.

In a recent article in the New York Review of Books, Danner sums up the contents of the memo, and concludes that:

1. By mid-July 2002, eight months before the war began, President Bush had decided to invade and occupy Iraq.

2. Bush had decided to "justify" the war "by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD."

3. Already "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

4. Many at the top of the administration did not want to seek approval from the United Nations (going "the UN route").

5. Few in Washington seemed much interested in the aftermath of the war.

The most troubling aspect of this to Danner--and I agree--is point number 3, that the facts were being "fixed around the policy." This is atrocious.

At the end of his article, Danner refers to a quote by "an unnamed "senior advisor'" to Bush, who had the following conversation with a journalist:

The aide said that guys like me [i.e., reporters and commentators] were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."

This man matter-of-factly placates the journalist by saying, straight out, that he is in the business of creating reality. This is both a monumental act of hubris and a rage-inducing statement on how the world of politics often operates. We see one instance of this in the Downing Street Memo.

A few brief "Googlefights" demonstrate how the monumental memo has been swamped by other, more mundane, political issues:

John Bolton: 3,810,000 results
Downing Street Memo: 535,000 results

Filibuster: 3,490,000 results
Downing Street Memo: 535,000 results

The memo itself may be "old news," and a report on the creation of reality by high-ranking officials is not likely to make it onto CNN--but this is something we need to be thinking and talking about.

Mark Danner mentions the official's quote again in a commencement speech he gave to English graduates at the U. of Berkely recently.

What to do? I don't know. First, I imagine is this: be aware of this ability to "create reality," and look for ways to resist.

--Ted

Living with contradictions

This article is important because it illustrates the logical inconsistencies that plague the Muslim world (and the far Left in the U.S.). In Pakistan, there is constant sectarian violence between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Recently, a Sunni suicide bomber killed dozens of people when he detonated himself inside a Shiite mosque. Unfortunately, when violence flares up between these two groups, they often end up directing their anger at a local Kentucky Fried Chicken (the most readily available symbol of the U.S.), even though it is owned and operated by local Pakistanis. But look at their explaination for this phenomenon:

"It's not important who owns it," Munawer Abbas, 29, an Urdu literature teacher active with a Shiite political organization, said flatly, as he escorted a journalist to the Madina-tul-Ilam Mosque. "This is just because of American policies. People hate America."

Mr. Abbas, imperturbable in a plaid shirt, said the attack on his mosque must have been the handiwork of criminals hired by "the great Satan," the United States, to undermine this Muslim nuclear state.

The spokesman for a Sunni political party, Jamaat-e-Islami, echoed those sentiments. "All these terrorist activities are being carried out at the behest of the United States," Qazi Hussain Ahmad said.

So....it is now U.S. policy to foment sectarian violence Pakistan? What possible reason do Mr. Abbas and Mr. Ahmad have for thinking this? The irony, of course, is that this is the opposite of what the U.S. wants in Pakistan. This blame-shifting is a common theme among Muslim extremists: hatred towards America is used to deflect attention from their own problems. Anytime people talk about how much the Muslim world hates America, they should remember that much of this hatred is a result of fantasy and delusion, or worse, intentional deception. Any genuine attempt to engage the Muslim world must grapple with the incredible depths of delusion rampant on the "Muslim street". For example, it is common knowledge in most of the Arab world that the 9/11 attacks were both 1. planned by the U.S. government - or the Jews - in order to create a pre-text for war, AND 2. the Muslim world's just revenge for American policies in the Middle East. Almost every poll taken in the Middle East shows that a majority of the population believe both to be simultaneously true. This isn't the type of mass delusion that can be combated by simply increasing foreign aid or removing troops from Saudi Arabia.

- dane

My name is Richie Cunningham, and this is my lovely wife, Oprah.

When, at Oprah's suggestion, 8 million people read William Faulkner, this is a good thing, right?

Right?

Apparently, not everyone thinks so. May's Bookninja features an argument on the very question. Boiled down, the sides are saying this:

Pro: By encouraging millions of people to read great works of literature, Oprah is doing a noble and commendable deed.

Con: Oprah wields too much influence, and should stick to what she's good at--whatever that is.

Admittedly, this story is troubling: Oprah's producers apparently called WW Norton, "wondering if 'Mr. Lenid Tolstoy' might be available to appear on the show," as "Oprah was apparently quite interested in his book about adultery."

Sadly, Tolstoy was not able to appear on "Oprah." He was busy rolling in his grave.

However, the Pro side seems to have the high ground (which, as we know from the finale of Revenge of the Sith, is the place to be in a fight)--the Con seems, like Anakin, a little whiny.

My take is simply this: If 8 million people read As I Lay Dying this summer, the world will have improved considerably.

--Ted

What will they think of next?

This website stores passwords for various websites so you don't have to register to read the content. Nice work.

- dane

Not Saving Darfur

The UN announced today that the International Criminal Court (ICC) may put some of the people responsible for the genocide in Sudan on trial. This is a welcome announcement - war criminals should be brought to justice - but it is also an admission of defeat. The genocide is still happening, and the UN is worried about whether or not to put people on trial when the genocide is over? This is what the UN and the "international community" do when they want to appear serious without actually doing anything. Instead of waiting until everyone is dead and then holding war crimes trials, why not stop the genocide?

- Dane

Three Cheers for the Beloved City

Cheer 1


The Wachovia USPRO Championship

The longest-running, richest single-day cycling race in the entire United States is Sunday, June 5, in Philadelphia. 500,000 people will gather to watch the riders make 10 laps through Philadelphia, measuring 156 miles. Many of them will be on the front porch of the Wissahickon's headquarters, where bikers scream down the street at ridiculous speeds. Come watch it with us, email adamwoods@thewissahickon.com.

Cheer 2


The Cira Centre

Cyclers and spectators alike will note the near-completion of the 434 foot Cira Centre in University City when they attend Sunday's festivities in Philadelphia. This building is tallest outside Center City and is arguably the finest of our "modern" skyscrapers. The Wissahickon staff agrees that the structure is at its finest on overcast days.

Cheer 3


Live 8

On July 2nd, Live 8 will be coming to the Benjamin Franklin Parkway in Philadelphia. The concert will feature Will Smith, Bon Jovi, Maroon 5, P Diddy, Stevie Wonder, Jay-Z, The Dave Matthews Band, Sarah McLachlan, Rob Thomas, Keith Urban, 50 Cent, and Kaiser Chiefs, all for the low low price of NOTHING, and all for a good cause, viz. ending poverty in Africa.

Saving Darfur

Here's an interesting poll commissioned by the International Crisis Group. According to the poll, 84% of Americans support a more robust American involvement in Sudan, including military aid, but excluding military intervention. This should be a no-brainer, the U.S. should quickly increase its military cooperation - including help with logistics and transportation - with the 5,000 African peacekeepers already in Sudan.

Interestingly, about 40% of respondents said that they would support a full military intervention, i.e. sending U.S. troops to Darfur. ICG notes that this is impressive since almost no prominent politicians have made the case for intervention yet. With enough education and advocacy, it is likely that a majority of Americans would support a humanitarian intervention in Darfur. This is encouraging, I think, because it seems that we are on the brink of a paradigm-shift in the way the American public views humanitarian interventions. This is due to movies like Hotel Rwanda, journalists like Philip Gourevitch and Nicholas Kristoff, and the thousands of human rights workers who toil in anonymity in the dark corners of the world. Many people eschew politics because they feel that nothing ever changes, but this is an example of how a sustained campaign can change the conventional wisdom in our country and even shift U.S. foreign policy. The real change, however, will not occur until politicians know that they will pay a political price for not intervening. Presently, politicians who vote to keep the troops at home are always rewarded, no matter how noble the cause. When this changes, the people of Darfur will be saved.

- dane

trouble in zimbabwe

Zimbabwe's dictator, Robert Mugabe, has been overshadowed in recent years by Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong Il. Apparently, he takes this personally and is making a strong push to capture the title as the world's worst leader. Elections in Zimbabwe are a joke, and it doesn't help that none of his African neighbors will speak out against him (South Africa, with a straight face, announced that the recent elections were "free and fair"). Not content with winning a rigged election, Mugabe is now terrorizing those who had the temerity to ask for a fair fight...

- dane

Los Angeles Glances towards Philadelphia

No one of this side of the Great Plains is writing this sort of penetrating, informative article about the movement of the Barnes museum from Merion to the Parkway--so the LA Times decided to take care of us.

The article, "Art coup in Philly," outlines the history of the Barnes, its move, and what it might mean for Philadelphia. It includes these fine paragraphs:

Philadelphians are notoriously defensive about their city's status versus that of New York, a 90-minute drive to the north, and Washington, less than three hours to the south. Be it sports, commerce, art or history, residents are never loath to tout what they have to offer that might be superior to that of neighboring cities.

"Now this gives the region a more well-rounded, less defensive stand," said William W. Moore, president and chief executive of Independence Visitors Center. "To the outside world, now we can say we're not just the history place but a place where you can do everything--art, music, dining, everything."

Indeed. Yet another step towards our goal of making Philadelphia the new New York.