The Wissy

Video Killed The Radio Star

2006-01-31T07:23:00.000-05:00

"Butcher of Washington, you are not only defeated and a liar, but also a failure. You are a curse on your own nation and you have brought and will bring them only catastrophes and tragedies...the whole world has discovered the extent of America's lies and failures and the extent of its savagery in fighting Islam and Muslims...I tell you that Bush and his gang are shedding your blood and wasting your money in frustrated adventures..."

Soros? Chomsky? Pinter? Sheehan? Dean? Daily Kos? MoveOn.org? Code Pink? Nope, these excerpts are from a videotape released by a man named Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda's second in command; I will leave you to divine any similarities between the excerpt above and the statements routinely uttered by the people and organizations I listed.

Some quick observations on this latest videotape. First, notice his self-righteous indignation over the fact that what he describes as "innocents" were killed in the Pakistan strike; this coming from the man who helps lead a death cult that glories in the killing of civilians.

Notice his direct address of the American and British people and his encouragement of them to blame Bush and Blair for the deaths of soldiers in Iraq. Zawahiri understands thoroughly how important the American and British people's resolve is in this fight, and he is trying to undermine it.

Finally, he takes comfort in the fact that the U.S. appears to be moving out of Iraq and Afghanistan and points to that as a clear sign that al-Qaeda is winning the war (I wonder if Congressman Murtha has watched the newest videotape?)

There are some other interesting things about this videotape, and I encourage you to read the entire article and draw your own conclusions of its importance.

--Josh

Google Supports Gulags

2006-01-27T07:10:00.000-05:00

Google is now officially helping a communist regime maintain control and actively persecute its dissidents. The regime is, of course, China's, and apparently Google has no problem in prostituting itself to totalitarianism in order to gain access to billions of Chinese consumers. One facet of Google's complicity is their agreement to censor search results (note the Google hack's characterization of the decision as "excruciating"...right). Compare the fruits of their labor:

Google image search-Tiananmen
Google image search in China-Tiananmen
(From Little Green Footballs)

Let's hope there's a severe backlash against Google for this disgusting behavior, although I doubt it.

--Josh

Just Like Solzhenitsyn

2006-01-19T18:38:00.000-05:00

Yahoo! News AP photo (via Little Green Footballs) that describes Osama bin Laden as an "exiled Saudi dissent." I guess the good people at Yahoo! don't know how to spell "pathological mass murderer." Pathetic.

--Josh

Totalitarianism On The March

2006-01-06T18:42:00.000-05:00

A brief recap of how radical muslims have been engaging the world recently: Palestinian children handing out candy in celebration at the news of Israeli PM Ariel Sharon's crippling stroke, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly hoping for Sharon's death, a mother of three suicide bombers explaining how proud she is of them (she is also running for a political position under the Hamas party), the beheading of a high school teacher in Afghanistan, and at least 136 (mostly civilian) deaths in Iraq due to suicide bombings and roadside bombs.

This, of course, doesn't even begin to capture the daily horrors muslim hard-liners perpetrate against women, "infidels" and other minorities as a matter of routine in fundamentalist communities and countries. All of this is the work of our enemies with whom we are at war; this is the type of hate-filled ideology that these people want to impose upon the entire world, not just their corner of it. It would behoove those in power to remember that, and resolve themselves to persecute the war on terror fervently and without half-measures.

--Josh

WE ARE WINNING

2005-12-15T07:15:00.000-05:00

Iraqi police headed to the polls, courtesy of Power Line blog.

Courtesy of the Drudge Report

--Josh

Aren't They Watching The News?

2005-12-12T19:49:00.000-05:00

Iraqis, apparently unaware that they are supposed to be frightened and hopeless, have responded to a poll that attempted to gauge their sentiments on the direction of their country in an overwhelmingly optimistic manner. A sample:

There are positive political signs as well. Three-quarters of Iraqis express confidence in the national elections being held this week, 70 percent approve of the new constitution, and 70 percent — including most people in Sunni and Shiite areas alike — want Iraq to remain a unified country.

Interest in politics has soared.

Preference for a democratic political structure has advanced, to 57 percent of Iraqis, while support for an Islamic state has lost ground, to 14 percent (the rest, 26 percent, chiefly in Sunni Arab areas, favor a "single strong leader.")

Whatever the current problems, 69 percent of Iraqis expect things for the country overall to improve in the next year — a remarkable level of optimism in light of the continuing violence there.

Everyone in the United States should read this article and understand the reason why those who are familiar with the situation on the ground in Iraq are largely hopeful about the progress being made. Were America to surrender now in the face of a murderous ideology every bit as heinous as communism and nazism, she could well go down in history as the first country to quit the field as victory drew inevitably closer.

--Josh

I'll Second That

2005-12-09T18:09:00.000-05:00

Finally, some sensible people in the Democratic party are trying to reign in the mouth that is Howard Dean. As much as it delights me when Dean makes outrageous remarks like the one recently when he claimed the U.S. could not win the Iraq War, seeing as it makes most people realize how silly the fringe anti-war crowd is, it is still outrageous that Dean would see fit to damage the war effort in such a blatant way. I know Dean apologists will instantly muster the defense that dissent can often be a form of patriotism (a sentiment I agree with), but to declare a war hopeless while we're in the very midst of it is not an act of loyal opposition. It is rather an act of bald-faced panic and betrays the anti-war crowd's ignorance of the stakes involved, and their unsuitability for leadership on this issue.

Since everyone is looking for ways to compare Iraq and Vietnam, I will oblige. It is difficult to read a single book by a Vietnam veteran about that war that doesn't at least in passing mention the sense of alienation and loneliness the soldiers felt when they realized America was not united behind them. I can't imagine how utterly demoralizing such a revelation must be; now the soldiers currently fighting have to listen to the chairman of a major political party declare defeat. I can only hope they have the good sense to ignore Howard Dean and his stupid remarks, as most sensible people do.

--Josh

Pinter Pontificates Pointlessly

2005-12-08T18:22:00.000-05:00

The Nobel committee doubtlessly got exactly what it was looking for yesterday from its decision to confer the Nobel prize for literature to Harold Pinter. In his acceptance speech that doubled as a salivating rant against Bush, the U.S., Blair, and England, Pinter managed to attain to the heights of absurd incoherence as well as plumb the depths of despicable character assassination against Bush and Blair. Some lowlights:

How many people do you have to kill before you qualify to be described as a mass murderer and a war criminal? One hundred thousand?...We have brought torture, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, innumerable acts of random murder, misery, degradation and death to the Iraqi people and call it 'bringing freedom and democracy to the Middle East.'

Actually, that would be a much better description of how things were under Saddam before the U.S. arrived (although I guess you could substitute depleted uranium for nerve gas). One really must have a tenuous grasp on reality to actually believe Iraqis were better off under Saddam than the U.S.: the evidence is so overwhelmingly to the contrary that there is little reason to get into it here.

Some more gems: Pinter accused the United States of supporting 'every right wing military dictatorship in the world after World War II, from Chile to the Philippines. Um, but I thought we were bastards for deposing Saddam Hussein...unless he suddenly doesn't rank in the pantheon of military dictatorships.

'The crimes of the United States have been systematic, constant, vicious, remorseless, but very few people have actually talked about them,' he said. 'It has exercised a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while masquerading as a force for universal good. It's a brilliant, even witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.' While in my more bitter moments I might be inclined to believe saving France in both world wars may have been a bit of a blunder, I can't quite bring myself to consider the stopping of the Holocaust a "vicious, remorseless" act.

And finally, I think it's an embarassment to compare Pinter with Alexander Solzhenitsyn as this article did: The Nobel committee has not shied from rewarding writers who make a stand against authority, notably in rewarding the literature prize to Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn in 1970. Solzhenitsyn was an actual literary genius and a man who took a stand against totalitarianism that cost him greatly. Pinter may fancy himself such, but he is neither. He is rather pathetic, a moral preener who apparently cares about the suffering of the Iraqi people only if the U.S. can somehow be blamed for it.

--Josh

China: Medal Contender In The Oppression Event

2005-11-18T18:00:00.000-05:00

China is up to its old tricks again and arresting dissidents. This time they've nabbed members of an underground Catholic church; several have been released but a few are still being held.

China is so often included in the ordinary rhythms of global politics, whether it be its participation in summits, trade organizations, or its hosting of the 2008 Olympics, that it is sometimes easy to forget that China is still a totalitarian regime that routinely violates its peoples' basic human rights. One need only to consider the plight of the Falun Gong, or the Tibetan community in exile, or any dissident bloggers to understand how important it is to China's leaders to crush dissent.

Until China ceases its oppressive and often times vicious policies towards dissidents, it must not be afforded the respect and recognition reserved for countries that do not see fit to brutalize their own people.

--Josh

More: Startling article detailing the belief held widely amongst our Asian allies that China could defeat the U.S. in an open war. Several astute comments from Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, explaining his reasoning: 'I believe America cannot win as it has a civic society that must adhere to the value of respecting lives'...he asserted that China would not hesitate to use nuclear weapons against Asian and American cities--even at the risk of a massive U.S. retaliation. The governor said the U.S. could not counter a wave of millions of Chinese soldiers prepared to die in any onslaught against U.S. forces. After 2,000 casualties, he said, the U.S. military would be forced to withdraw.

Granted, the Japanese and Chinese have hated each other for hundreds of years so Ishihara may well be exaggerating the threat, yet he is not alone in his opinion. It also seems that most here in the West are fashioning their plans for engagement with China around the belief that it will be forced to grant the political freedom that has historically accompanied economic freedoms of the type now allowed in China. Mr. Ishihara succinctly weighed in on that proposition as well: "I believe such predictions are totally wrong."

Kerry, Gore, Clinton, and Other Hawks

2005-11-15T18:04:00.000-05:00

In the last few days it has been difficult to miss the new offensive the Bush administration has launched against the Iraq war critics' revisionism concerning the alleged manipulation of pre-war intelligence (read: "Bush lied, people died."). In a speech this week Bush chastised Democrats for their duplicity, quoting several high-ranking Democrats who before the war unequivocally voiced their opinion that Saddam had weapons that were a threat to the U.S. Donald Rumsfeld also produced today on CNN an embarassing assortment of similar quotes from Democrats (for more, click here).

This leaves the Dems with a couple of options: they can pretend they were stupid and/or gullible by re-playing the "Bush is a sinister mastermind (yet also a bumbling cowboy)" card. They could try and convince everyone that Bush actually had some sort of a secret, omniscient source (God?) that had informed him there actually was no WMD but that he should go ahead and make the case the rest of the world was making at the time anyways. This asinine piece actually flirts with that particular strategy, suggesting the administration knew more than the legislature because "It could have been (and no doubt was) predicted that very few lawmakers would take the time to read...the National Intelligence Estimate." Even if this assertion that lawmakers wouldn't be able to scrape together the time to read the "nearly 100 pages long" behemoth full of critical intelligence that could help them decide whether they would vote for a war resolution is true, now the legislators' irresponsibility is Bush's fault?

This all would merely be incredibly pathetic were the stakes not so high. It seems self-evident that these false claims can (and more than likely have) hurt the U.S. war effort, contingent as it is upon the resolve of the American people. Playing politics is fine, but not when it is characterized by such overwhelming disingenuousness as we've seen from the anti-war crowd trying to push these claims, and not when it hurts our ability to effectively prosecute the war on terror.

--Josh

Update: The Republican National Committee has created a video montage of bellicose statements directed at Saddam Hussein by Democrats before the Iraq War erupted. Here also is an article revealing then-President Bill Clinton's synopsis of the Iraq situation.

No more retards...

2005-11-10T16:32:00.000-05:00

According to a new study, doctors can now detect Down's Syndrome in babies/fetuses in the crucial first trimester. This is good news, they say, because no woman should be forced to give birth to a retard. Earlier detection is crucial because, as Fergal D. Malone of the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin admits:

By the time you're 20 weeks pregnant, most women will be feeling fetal movement. We wouldn't want to underestimate the psychological or emotional difficulty of undergoing pregnancy termination that late...

This article kinda speaks for itself, but here's another choice quote:

Screening women before the second trimester allows those who might opt to terminate a pregnancy to make that decision when doctors say an abortion is safer and less traumatic.

The casual way in which these doctors are applauding abortion as birth control is appalling to say the least. Perhaps "psychological or emotional difficulty" is a sign that something is wrong. One wonders what would happen if doctors started suggesting early abortions for other classes of babies: minorities, homosexuals, southpaws, um, Jews, etc...

- dane

Never Again...Again

2005-11-10T07:22:00.000-05:00

Tragic article here from Hitchens concerning Darfur. It seems the killings have stopped, but only because there really aren't many people left to kill. I guess the anti-war crowd must be happy that the U.S.'s unilateral, imperialistic impulses were averted and diplomacy given a chance to work; I doubt whether the families of the butchered Darfurians are quite as elated.

--Josh

We'll Always Have Paris...Maybe

2005-11-04T08:45:00.000-05:00

The rioting in Paris is showing no signs of abating as mobs continue to move throughout the slums torching cars, throwing rocks and generally causing upheaval. I can't imagine that the French government can be all that surprised by this, the non-integration of its immigrant community, specifically the Muslim population, has been causing concerns for a while now. It is a measure of the unrest that has been brewing that the rioting erupted over such a flimsy pretense: two boys were eloctrocuted to death while hiding in an electrical transformer station after fleeing from the police who may not have even been chasing them in the first place. Somehow the police were blamed for this, and the rioting (which has interestingly been described as "well-organized") commenced. I'll be interested to see if the Parisian peace-lovers might be willing to crack some heads to restore order.

--Josh

Oreos and Uncle Toms

2005-11-02T17:52:00.000-05:00

This is perhaps the most infuriating article I have read for months. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who is black, is currently involved in a governor's bid in Maryland; for his pains, his political adversaries have publicly branded him an "Uncle Tom," pelted him with Oreos at speaking events, and caricatured him on a blog as a black-faced minstrel. For those of you familiar with how black Republicans are treated, for such Steele is, you probably aren't surprised that it is Democrats perpetrating these overtly racist acts.

I can't think of a better example of how Democrats cynically manipulate the race card for political leverage. They publicly crucify people at will for straying from the speech codes they have established concerning proper discourse on racial issues; they then engage in flagrantly racist activity and think it's no big deal--in fact, they think it's justified. Why? Because Steele is a conservative, so he deserves what's coming to him.

So where are Democratic defenders of racial tolerance and empathy? Why isn't there an uproar emanating from the Democratic National Committee over blatantly racist attacks on a black public figure? Why is the NAACP MIA? Where are the mass resignations from disgraced Democratic activists? Where are Jesse and Al working themselves into fits of poetic indignation? We are not going to see any of the above, for, as Democratic state Senator Lisa Gladden states, "Party trumps race." I think what she meant to say was that party trumps principle.

--Josh

Update: Two of the top three Maryland Democrats have opted to not condemn the racist attacks on Mr. Steele. I can only imagine the horror they could muster were this an example of Republican bigotry, but since it is black Democratic bigotry, apparently the rules have changed.
Note also how brilliantly the Democratic party has been able to equate being conservative with not quite being black (see the assertion that Clarence Thomas, as a black man, "deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America." This is similar to the argument that woman do not count for diversity's sake unless they have a feminist outlook). What makes this such an achievement is that, one, Republicans are more closely aligned to the majority of mainstream black opinion on social issues; two, it seems their Democratic loyalty is not getting results, the black community's plight is worsening in key areas. As President Bush asked in a speech to the Urban League in 2004, "Have the traditional solutions of the Democrat party truly served the African American community?"

Plus, People Call Him 'Scooter.'

2005-11-01T17:32:00.000-05:00

In an editorial that will probably get the entire staff of the New York Sun black-listed from the cocktail circuit on the Upper East Side, the editors call for a Presidential pardon of Scooter Libby. It seems that such a move would only open Bush to further charges of cronyism, yet, as the Sun contends, if the higher principle of protecting the Presidency from partisan attacks designed strictly to cripple a war-time President is at stake, perhaps it should be considered.

At this point, I would be content with a gag order placed on Joseph Wilson. It has gone beyond tiring to see him don the mantle again and again of the persecuted yet tireless defender of truth against the sinister manipulations of the Bush administration. Both a British and a bipartisan Senate report have concluded that Wilson is essentially a liar and that the intelligence Wilson attempted to discredit after his trip to Niger was, in fact, quite sound. I doubt whether Wilson will remember to mention that fact in his new book detailing his travails.

--Josh

Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story...

2005-10-29T19:03:00.000-04:00

Reuters is reporting that Saddam Hussein accepted a deal to go into exile in order to prevent the war. His offer was rejected, however, by a war-mongering cabal intent on death and destruction. But its not who you think. In fact, Saddam Hussein and the U.S. both tried to avoid war, it was the 22 member Arab League who scuttled the arrangement. This is a new story, and there are more details to come, but it should at least put a new perspective on the idea that the U.S. was intent on war "no matter what"...

- Dane

Hitchens Burning

2005-10-27T17:48:00.000-04:00

Hitch indulges in some justified crowing at the possible impending conviction of his old nemesis, George Galloway. Galloway, of course, is the former British MP who lectured the U.S. Senate during the hearings on the Iraq War (it appears he indulged in some fabrications during his self-righteous scolding); he is also a hero to the anti-war campaign and friend of Syria's Assad regime.

What is most interesting is the list of people who are slowly being exposed for their participation in the Oil-For-Food scandal (I once heard it described as the largest money laundering scheme in history); so far high-ranking officials from the U.N., Britain, France, and Russia have all been implicated or indicted, and this is sure to be only a fraction of the people who were actually involved.

Could all of that opposition to the Iraq War emanating from various countries and the U.N. have possibly been predicated on something other than principle? One would have to be naive indeed to think the millions of dollars dignitaries around the world were receiving as kickbacks from the Oil-For-Food program didn't at least in part inspire their righteous indignation over the Iraq invasion.

--Josh

Yes, it Really is Like That

2005-10-06T18:39:00.000-04:00

Those of you who have had the good fortune of viewing Fernando Meirelles's magnificent The Constant Gardener may have found yourselves wondering, as the final credits rolled, whether the horrific events depicted in the film have any basis in reality. In short, the answer is yes.

Beware--if you haven't seen the movie yet, don't read the review. It doesn't even know the meaning of the word "spoiler," and sums up the movie's plot in its second paragraph. If you're especially sensative to the give away, stop reading right now.

Central to the movie's plot is the nefarious practices of a fictional British pharmaceutical company (KDH), that tests its drugs on unsuspecting Africans. When some of the subjects of the study die, their deaths are covered up. The main action of the film concerns the efforts of Justin Quayle (Ralph Fiennes) to uncover the nasty plot behind his wife Tessa's (Rachel Weisz) death. In short, the problem is this: Tessa has information about the drug companies' nasty practices, and she wants to go public with her report. So she is killed, and Justin (of course) goes after the truth.

Writing about the film in the New York Review of Books, Marcia Angell concludes that it is largely unrealistic--but not in the way you would intially think:

On the basis of the research I did for my book I believe that most of the background facts about drug company behavior in The Constant Gardener, however hard to believe, are correct.

Yet the story is based on the premise that a pharmaceutical company would be so threatened by disclosures of its activities that it would have someone killed. That is what is fantasy. In fact, many of the practices that so horrified [the] heroine are fairly standard and generally well known and accepted. They seldom provoke outrage, let alone murder. A company like KDH would not kill someone like Tessa even if it were willing to do so; it wouldn't have to. Her concerns would have seemed isolated and futile, and the companies would hardly have taken notice of them.

The rest of the article goes on to document a few of the more tame crimes commited by drug companies, and explain why Western pharmaceuticals so often test their drugs in Africa.

This is great reading: well-researched, well-timed, and devastatingly revealing.

--Ted

The New Monasticism

2005-09-26T19:03:00.000-04:00

Wissahickon friend and contributor Shane Claiborne appears on the cover of the latest issue of Christianity Today. In the lead article, Shane, as well as other Eastern-alumni (Chris & Cassie Haw, Jonathan & Leah Wilson-Hartgrove), discusses what is being called "the New Monasticism."

The article reports on a "new crop of Christian intentional communities," and features the Simple Way, the Camden House, and the Rutba House.

It's difficult for me to fully summarize or comment upon the article, since all of its principles are intimately connected with my own recent life. But it demands to be read and commented upon. Give it a read, and let us know what you think, both about the article and its contents.

--Ted

Hyperbolic Revelry

2005-09-26T17:32:00.000-04:00

I'm sure plenty of people have seen this coming if they've been following the Hurricane Katrina news closely. The Times-Picayune has released a story revealing that many journalists' reports on the chaos and devastation in New Orleans in general and the Superdome specifically were greatly exaggerated. Apparently reporters were not doing follow up investigation on the wild rumours they were being fed, and instead rushed to print the most sensational stories emerging from the mess.

In many ways this is wonderful news, being that not nearly as many people actually suffered violent atrocities and death as was so widely reported at first. On the other hand, it is disconcerting that professional journalists were so easily swept up in the hysteria; for all the sanctimonious blathering they have done about the race factor, perhaps their blind willingness to believe the worst of the predominantly black crowds in the Superdome is revealing? Just a thought.

--Josh

Update: Another story about the media's inflated claims. Also, it seemed that although his government crumbled in a heartbeat and many of his policeman abandoned their posts, Mayor Nagin could at least claim that he was on the ground and sticking it out with his people. But the reality is that he actually had no idea what was going on, as he perpetuated many of the wildest rumors on national television...what was he actually doing during this disaster besides giving hysterical interviews?

The Lesser George

2005-09-20T18:59:00.000-04:00

For those of you who missed it, Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway, a British MP, staged a debate last week over the Iraq War. Galloway is passingly famous as the man who went into full school marm mode and scolded the U.S. Senate during hearings over the Iraq War. He is also the man who has openly praised Saddam Hussein, defended terrorists' tactics, and considers himself to be a friend of Syria's dictator, Bashar al-Assad. Naturally, he is a hero of the anti-war left.

The low point of the debate? When Hitchens asked for a moment of silence to commemorate the Iraqi victims of the latest terrorist attack that had occurred earlier that day; he was promptly jeered and shouted down by the Galloway partisans in the crowd. As the article says, "America, meet your 'antiwar' activists."

--Josh

The August Wissahickon

2005-09-15T01:13:00.000-04:00

The August Wissahickon - POETRY SPECIAL

Features the work of:

Foster Dickson
Ortisegbemi Jakpa
Aryan Kaganof
Ashok Niyogi
Lynn Strongin
Elizabeth Switaj
and AE Woods

Visit today!

There's No Other Reaction: I Simply Must Pity the Fool

2005-09-13T17:45:00.000-04:00

A must see: Mr. T's Rap Video

Yes, Mr. T actually put out a video in 1984, and it's just as bad as you would expect it to be. I know it's hard, but try to stay with it until the end, and watch for the unsuspecting mother who receives a box of Whitman candies from her son.

--Ted

Heat Check

2005-09-12T17:23:00.000-04:00

In an egregious act of overstatement not seen since the Al Gore days, Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri of Iran has warned that 'If the U.S. attacks Iran, each of America's states will face a crisis the size of Katrina. The smallest mistake by America in this regard will result in every single state in that country turning into a disaster zone.'

Jazayeri then goes on to explain that the U.S. could never endure a military confrontation with Iran, especially since the Iranian army has gained so much experience from their 1980-1988 war with Iraq. Um, the war that cost an estimated 1.5 million Iranian lives, $350 billion in damages, while the borders of both countries remained unchanged? One wonders if Jazayeri is even cognizant of the fact that the U.S. army dismantled in the space of a few months (twice) the same Iraqi army that fought Iran to a stalemate over the course of eight brutal years. It is no wonder Iran is so desperately trying to build the bomb when they have officers with such a tenuous grasp on military realities like Jazayeri in charge of their conventional forces.

--Josh

Texas nearing refugee capacity, governor says

2005-09-05T10:49:00.000-04:00

Some quick facts...

About Texas:

- Texas is the 2nd largest state in the United States.
- Texas is larger than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee COMBINED.
- Texas's Gross State Product is around $880 billion USD, the third largest in the United States.
- Texas's Gross State Product is greater than Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Tennessee's COMBINED GSP.

About Hurricane Katrina:

- Over 220,000 storm refugees have fled to Texas, totaling less than 1% of Texas's population.
- Katrina's damage estimates vary greatly, some are as low as $9 billion USD, others as high as $100 billion USD. The average, $30 billion USD, is about 3% of Texas's annual state income.

Pull Out The Sofa Bed

2005-08-29T07:01:00.000-04:00

In perhaps the bravest display by a Brit since the RAF held off the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain, two British professors are about to publish the results of their study that concludes that men have higher IQs in general than women, a trend that becomes more pronounced as the respective IQ levels rise.

One must, if nothing else, admire their chutzpah, while at the same time feel a (very) fleeting moment of sadness at the imminent passing of Nancy Hopkins, the MIT prof who was so deeply disturbed by Larry Summer's comparatively innocuous comments that she nearly committed an empowered indiscretion on the rug. I am guessing either a coronary or at least a stroke when Nancy hears about this one.

--Josh

How not to protest a war...

2005-08-26T16:41:00.000-04:00

The Sheehan circus is getting crazier and crazier. In a near heroic effort to make the whole episode even more bizarre, Rev. Al Sharpton has announced that he will be joining Cindy Sheehan in Texas.

But anyway, I think now is the time to make sure everyone knows how to think about the war in Iraq. Agree or disagree with how it started, there is a moral obligation (not to mention a very important strategic imperative) to stay in Iraq until it is stable and there is a functioning government.

Recently, the anti-war movement has turned up its pathos. The argument goes something like this: families of people who lose their children have the moral authority to say when we should leave Iraq. Or put another way, when you lose a child in war, you get to direct U.S. foreign policy. This is emotionally attractive, b/c nobody wants to say "no" to a grieving parent. The anti-war crowd counts on this, and uses it as a way to prevent debate.

I think when anyone talks about leaving Iraq, there should be just one criteria: would our leaving make life better or worse for the average Iraqi citizen? That is the only responsible criteria. If you honestly believe that "bringing the troops home" now will make the best future for Iraq, then that is a reasonable thing that we can debate. But the anti-war crowd seems to think that there are only anti-war military families. I have no doubt that Republicans could find a distraught mother who lost a soldier and Iraq and demands that we stay in Iraq until we finish the job - as the only honorable tribute to fallen soldiers.

But an anti-war argument that rests solely on the fact that people die - and mothers cry - is an argument against all wars and not the Iraq war. My guess is that they don't make an explicitly pacifist argument b/c they know it doesn't have mass appeal. Anyway, those are my thoughts before the weekend...

- dane

Pat Robertson is an idiot...but who cares?

2005-08-25T21:13:00.000-04:00

For those who haven't heard...A few days ago, Pat Robertson said that he thinks the U.S. should assassinate Venezuela's President cum dictator, b/c it would be "cheaper than war." Obviously there were many people who were upset by this comment, and many more who wanted to be upset by it. But why?

Here's the New York Times's attempt at moral equivalence:

"Mr. Robertson said that on his Christian television network on Monday - explaining that such action would be cheaper than a war - but finally admitted yesterday that he had been wrong. Imagine, for comparison purposes, what the White House would say if a Syrian mullah had gone on Al Jazeera and called for the assassination of the president of the United States."

Yes, imagine if a Muslim leader from the Middle East called for the assassination of the President of the United States (or all Americans everywhere, in bin Laden's words). Wait a minute. That does happen. On a near daily basis. That's the problem with the classic hypothetical moral equivalent - you have to compare 2 things that are actually equivalent.

A few other reasons this is no big deal:

1. There isn't a rash of Evangelical suicide bombers in the world. When Pat Robertson says something like this, nothing happens. When a Muslim cleric says something like this, the result is real and is deadly.

2. What he said was fundamentally true. Assassinations ARE cheaper than war. Imagine if we could have taken out Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, or even Kim Jong Il, without a land war. No civilian casualties. It's kinda hard to believe a liberal didn't come up with this idea.

3. Nobody really takes Pat Robertson seriously. Yes, I'm sure his listeners think he's really cool, but nobody who makes real policy decisions cares what he says.

So yes, Pat Robertson said a stupid thing, and he sounded stupid saying it. I doubt it was the result of a deep philosophical inner debate. The biggest question for me is, why worry about Chavez when there's bigger fish to fry? There are a few people that should be assassinated, but Chavez isn't on my top 5...

- dane

Giving War a Chance...

2005-08-22T16:41:00.000-04:00

According to Oxfam, the UN is set to vote on a resolution that commits the UN to a "responsibility to protect" victims from genocide and ethnic cleansing. This is a laudable goal, but one wonders if the resolutions's advocates realize what they are asking for. First, the resolution calls for "action" in cases of genocide. Let's be clear: the only way to stop genocide is with military force. In other words, war. Certainly, this kind of war is as just as war can be. But still it is war, and sons and daughters die just as surely in "humanitarian interventions" as in war. (And humanitarian interventions are often even less popular than regular wars). If this resolution becomes international law, there will suddenly be a legal obligation to fight wars in places like Sudan, Rwanda, and Chechnya. I'm all for it, but does the Oxfam/anti-war crowd really understand what they are asking for?

- dane

Stop The Presses

2005-08-19T17:48:00.000-04:00

The New York Times, of all publications, has reported that the AP may be considering trying to gain a broader perspective on Iraq (i.e., reporting on positive developments in Iraq, not just exclusively negative ones as they have a penchant for doing currently). It seems that many in the general public have become puzzled over why they have never heard about many of the wonderful things that are happening in Iraq, as reported by returning soldiers, certain bloggers, and a few intrepid journalists.

Only because I am a faithful reader of Michael Yon’s blog and the op-ed page of the Wall Street Journal which has been running a series on all the progress being made in Iraq, am I aware that there is anything positive happening over there at all. Many of those who depend only on the main stream media would probably have very little idea that steps in the right direction are being taken every day in this endeavor (reason one billion to embrace the internet).

--Josh

The World is Flat

2005-08-18T21:04:00.000-04:00

I'm currently reading Tom Friedman's latest book, The World is Flat. Here's an interesting quote:

"When I was young, my parents told me to eat my dinner because children in India and China are starving. Now, I tell my daughters to do their homework because children in India and China are starving for your jobs."

Basically, globalization is forcing Americans to do something for which they are very underprepared - compete on the global market. While the U.S. has the best Universities in the world, we have mediocre high schools. This culture of mediocrity is creeping into our colleges too. Its no big secret that you can get through college without studying these days. We need better schools, we need better teachers, and yes, we need better students.

- Dane

Sound and Fury...

2005-08-17T07:52:00.000-04:00

Sure, I wish whenever something bad happened in my life the President would stop his schedule to talk to me. Several times. Oh, but it's just me. One person. He doesn't have to talk to anyone else. That's reasonable, isn't it?

Even sadder, is that its so obviously absurd, everyone knows its absurd, but nobody wants to say its absurd because they get personal satisfaction in seeing President Bush in an awkward position. This isn't high-minded debate, its juvenile silliness. Besides, her claim that she just wants to talk to President Bush as a mother of a soldier has long since been drowned out by the opportunistic anti-war activists who are making it a circus.

Getting Better All the Time

2005-08-16T21:10:00.000-04:00

A great help to those looking for apartments in major cities, Housingmaps.com melds Google Maps with Craigslist posts, allowing you to see available houses as bubbles on the map. When you click on an individual bubble, up comes info about the house, and a link to the full Craigslist posting.

Sweet.

--Ted

The New Brooklyn

2005-08-14T19:50:00.000-04:00

For a while now, we Philadelphia-loving Wissahickon staffers have been adamantly calling Philadelphia the "New New York." The Times, while not willing to go this for, has admitted that Philadelphia may be the "New Brooklyn."

Attracted by a thriving arts and music scene here and a cost of living that is 37 percent lower than New York's, according to city figures, a significant number of youngish artists, musicians, restaurateurs and designers are leaving New York City and heading down the turnpike for the same reasons they once moved to Brooklyn from Manhattan.

The article speaks mainly of real-estate and gentrification, and correctly recognizes that Philadelphia is a great place to live, especially for those of us who don't think a fine city should be sprawling, condescending, and shoe-gazing.

--Ted

The reports of Niger's starving children have been greatly exaggerated...

2005-08-09T08:43:00.000-04:00

Don't worry, says Niger's president, we've got everything under control. But immediately after saying there is no famine, he asks that foreign aid be channeled through his government and not directly through charities:

He questioned why of the $45m (£25m) promised to Niger to help it deal with the food crisis, only $2.5m had been received by his government. Mr Barrow said that the WFP was accountable for all its funds to donor governments but pointed out that not all aid money is channelled through the governments of recipient countries.

Um, Mr. Barrow, the reason aid money isn't channeled through the government is b/c we don't want to pay for your summer home in the Swiss Alps.

On Fiction

2005-08-08T22:03:00.000-04:00

First things first: you should, all of you, stop at a newsstand and buy The Atlantic's Fiction Issue 2005. It's important, intelligent, and is on newsstands until October. If you're a subscriber, you can read it online. If you're not, you can read a few paragraphs.

The fiction itself is fair to good: no truly bad stories, and a few actual good ones. You'll want to read, in descending order:

Poor Devil, by Charles Baxter (A simple, contemporary, broken-hearted love story.)

Weightlifting for Catholics by Mark Jacobs (Stylistically and thematically the best story in the magazine, although it suffers from a tepid ending.)

The House on Kronenstrasse by Shira Nayman (Interesting stuff--and we should never tire of reading about the Holocaust.)

The true gems, however, are two nonfiction pieces:

Writers and Mentors by Rick Moody is worth the price of the magazine. In the past, I've vilified the creative-writing workshop on this blog; today, I am speechless in the glow of Moody's lucidity. So that you nonsubscribers can get the gist, I am going to post this whole section:

Now, once an audience begins to experience itself as a community with power, it begins to ask certain questions about stories. I'm sure that analogous questions are asked about poems and essays in workshops every day, but I have less experience with those forms. Pardon me, then, if I confine myself to the kinds of questions that are a commonplace of the contemporary fiction workshop.

[NOTE: for some reason, Moody's magical lists are not present in the online version--a terrible mistake by the Atlantic web-squad, I imagine. All the more reason to buy the magazine. Here's a few from my fingertips]

Does the story begin effectively?

Does the story end effectively?

Does the story have a conflict?

Are the characters believable?

Are the charactes likeable?

Is the story dramatic? Does drama help the story move?

Is the language in the way?

Does the story have a theme?

Does the character experience an epiphany?

Are you moved?

This is just off the top of my head. Many other such questions can be imagined. To the extent that a student comes to expect these questions, or to the extent that he or she writes in expectation of them, the likely product will be stories (or poems or essays) that reduce the chances of innovation, that ratify the workshop as a system, and that ratify the idea of the university but do little for the development of the form or for our language as a whole.

If I had it to do myself, I might instead ask questions like these:

[Again, edited and inserted by me.]

Has the writer attempted to eliminate all adverbs?

What's wrong with using a few more semicolons?

Does this story contain any sentences that you want to remember to your grave?

Would Samuel Beckett like this story? Would Virginia Woolf?

Does this story answer the question, "Why bother to write?"

Can this story save any lives?

I am not suggesting, of course, that traditional workshop questions are entirely without merit (though I personally will have no truck with the idea of likeability, which is the hobgoblin of small minds), nor am I suggesting that even quite innovative stories are without conflict or character (although one does recall John Hawkes's famous remark that "the true enemies of the novel were plot, character, setting and theme"). What I am suggesting is that a workshop structure that becomes oriented toward what is easy to say about a story will, by its very nature, default on its responsibility when faced with two kinds of work: the very good and the very bad. What gets lost, therefore, is what is at the margins of convention, and that is potentially catastrophic, because a literary form is defined in part by the marginal, by what is impossible, by what is grandiose and revolutionary, whether in the good sense or in the bad.

This is insightful stuff, especially since the criticisms in Moody's article are eminently applicable to the stories which follow it in the Atlantic's Fiction Issue. Too often, short stories in contemporary magazies read bland and banal, as if the edges have been rounded off--as if they were written by committee. The problem, I think, is deeper than the shortcomings of the workshop model--but it's certainly not helping.

Also phenomenal is Mary Gordon's Moral Fiction. To sum up: Gordon reminds us that the relationship between morality and fiction is not as tight as we would like to think it is, and that fiction is best when it aims to portray a complicated, irreducible moral vision (think The Brothers Karamazov) not a simple, neatly-packaged moral (think Left Behind: Tribulation Force). Be sure to read this embedded snippet from Saul Bellow.

That's all for now. Happy reading.

--Ted

A Better World?

2005-08-07T22:27:00.000-04:00

David Brooks wrote an article in the NY Times pointing to the improvements that have been made in America over the past decades (less drunk driving, less substance abuse, etc..). It is a fascinating article, and is certainly a breath of fresh air for those who only read about injustice. Brooks has wrote articles like this before, and should be commended for reminding us that though world is a hard place to live, and injustice is plentiful, it is certainly a place worth living in.

D.R. Leonard

A Revised Revisionism Concerning the Atomic Bomb

2005-08-05T17:19:00.000-04:00

Terrific article here concerning the use of the atomic bomb against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As the article points out, the historical record of the event has been subjected to revisionism in the last twenty years or so, to the point that many modern historians have concluded that the use of the bomb had gratuitous aspects.

This is a subject about which I have deeply ambivalent feelings. It is easy to understand the thinking that led Truman to his fateful decision: an invasion of the Japanese islands would have been a bloodbath of such proportions that all other battles fought during that war would have paled in comparison. War is a brutish, vicious business that often presents dilemmas where the “best” choice turns out to be the least morally cataclysmic one. Many times people in power, unable to engage in the smug moralizing of those without any real responsibility, are forced to make decisions on matters that simply do not have a morally acceptable solution. I think this was the case with Harry Truman.

Yet one of my most cherished beliefs is that civilians should never be targeted as part of a military strategy, and that to do so is to sacrifice all claims to moral superiority and be placed in the company of tyrants and murderers whom history has rightly judged evil. I have always believed that one of the things that sets the U.S. apart is its unwillingness to deliberately target civilians as a matter of military policy; yet Hiroshima and Nagasaki would seem to belie that contention. True, there is no disputing that dropping the bombs saved more lives than they cost, reasoning with which I usually sympathize. But in this case it appears that it was civilians sacrificed to save soldiers; in matters of war it is more acceptable for a soldier to be killed.

So I am not misunderstood, let me say that I am not suggesting soldiers’ lives are not as valuable as civilians’. Not at all. But soldiers understand they may be killed, it is part of the job description; civilians have no such expectations. It is a tenuous distinction, but an important one.

So how many soldiers should be sacrificed for one civilian? That is a gristly calculus I will not pretend to be smart enough to solve. In the end though, what was most important to me about this article, and what allows me to support the dropping of the atomic bombs, was the brief mention of how many noncombatants were dying under Japanese rule. When viewed from that perspective, it is clear Truman’s choice saved more civilian lives than it claimed. It wasn’t a good decision, but a necessary one.

--Josh

New at Filmegeist

2005-08-04T16:25:00.000-04:00

Wonka and Wonka

Click here for Adam Woods's take on Wonka, new and old.

The Da Vinci Code

2005-08-03T16:41:00.000-04:00

Seems like the filming of the Da Vinci Code is having some problems. The Catholic Church and various Christian groups are upset about the way the book treats Christianity. But this is silly, isn't it? People know the difference between real life and movies, right?

But then you have this quote from Mr. Calley, the Sony executive who bought the movie rights to the book:

"In our society, most societies, we grow up with our religion given to us by our parents," he said. "We're never truly oriented into the history of it, the subtlety of it. The amazing thing about this book is it's provocative: Is it all true? Isn't it true? As a history book it's extraordinary. As an exploration of the evolution of a particular religion, it's extraordinary."

Then this stunner from Ms. Decker, an authoritative real estate agent, "The book kind of explains to the world how the Catholic Church demonized women such as Mary Magdalene, and also have killed millions of women during the Crusades."

Right.

Thank goodness it wasn't a real baby...

2005-08-03T16:34:00.000-04:00

This is courtesy of The Wall Street Journal:

"A 13-year-old giant panda gave birth to a cub at San Diego Zoo, but a second baby died in the womb, officials said Wednesday."--Associated Press, Aug. 3

"A cancer-ravaged woman robbed of consciousness by a stroke has given birth after being kept on life support for three months to give her fetus extra time to develop."--Associated Press, Aug. 3

What Are You Doing at Work Today?

2005-08-03T12:33:00.000-04:00

Click above, or here, to take a "Life Expectancy Test."

I felt morose while I was taking it, but my expectancy turned out to be 81. I guess because I told them I eat a lot of fruits and vegetables.

Here's to produce.

-- Adam

See Jane make an ass of herself

2005-08-02T09:38:00.000-04:00

This is priceless. Jane Fonda will be touring Iraq in a "bus powered by vegetable oil." (Presumably, the airplane she takes to Iraq will be powered by regular oil) Jane Fonda is famous for "posing on a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft gun that fired at American aircraft." Good call, Jane. It should go without saying that you can be against a war without being friends with the Viet Cong - or the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.

Mr. Scott goes to Washington

2005-08-01T21:39:00.000-04:00

Lindy Scott, father of Wissahickon editor Steph Scott, is running for Congress in the Ilinois 6th District - a district which is now wide open due to Henry Hyde's impending retirement. Good work Lindy...

Actually, It's Because the Movie Sucked

2005-07-29T17:39:00.000-04:00

Oliver Stone has figured out why his last epic, 'Alexander,' was an unmitigated stinkbomb at the box office. For those of you who think it was because of the inane dialogue, tedious plot and over-blown acting, you are wrong. It was actually a result of American young people's shallow grasp of history. While I may be inclined to agree that Americans in general, not just the younger generation, have an inadequate understanding of history, I fear Mr. Stone may be seeking a scapegoat for his own crummy movie-making. After all, the film served to bridge the generation gap by uniting both young and old in their mutual dislike of this monstrosity. Further, we have seen historically accurate movies that stood on their own merits as fine films (think of 'Saving Private Ryan,' 'We Were Soldiers Once,' etc.). I think the real problem for Mr. Stone was that young people's cinematic tastes weren't as shallow as their historical acumen in this instance.

--Josh

No Herbs for Me, Thanks

2005-07-28T07:41:00.000-04:00

As the Times reports, a full-scale research study conducted by the The New England Journal of Medicine has concluded that the popular herb Echinacea does not prevent or treat the common cold.

Dr. Stephen E. Straus, director of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, is quoted as saying:

"This paper says it will not pre-empt a common cold, and it stands on top of prior studies saying it doesn't treat an established cold," he said, adding, "We've got to stop attributing any efficacy to echinacea."

This is news to me. I've been taking it for years, and I always thought it worked. Apparently, it's all in my mind.

--Ted

Crashing Weddings, Pulverizing Worlds

2005-07-27T19:51:00.000-04:00

When it's this hot, you'd do well to spend a late afternoon in the cool air-conditioned world of the movies. At present, two of the hottest shows in town are Wedding Crashes (which rules) and Spielberg's War of the Worlds (which does not). Here's some reading concerning those involved:

On Slate, Field Maloney wonders "Was Owen Wilson the key to the Wes Anderson phenomenon?" This is a misleading query, for assumes--as so many critics have recently--that Wes Anderson has fallen from grace, after the utter failure of Zissou (I disagree: it was delightful) and the mess that was The Royal Tenenbaums (again I disagree, but this time with more fervor: I think RT is one of the best movies of the past ten years). At any rate, the article is engaging, if a little misguided. Snaps to Maloney for correctly identifying the best joke in Wedding Crashers

Better reading can be found in the New York Review, where Geoffrey O'Brien provides a stellar analysis of War of the Worlds. O'Brien's critique is right on:

This family drama seems too calculated an interpolation, fulfilling too neatly the Hollywood requirement that all movies must involve the "redemption" of at least one central character. The H.G. Wells novel followed a more austere and solitary course, as its anonymous hero mostly hid out and watched from the sidelines while the disaster unfolded. He was there as an observer; it was the fate of the race that was in question. Here we are often distracted from the magnitude of the catastrophe by worrying about what will happen to Ray, his teenage son, and his ten-year-old daughter, as ifÂwith inescapable movie logicÂthe fate of the rest of humanity took second place to Ray's need to establish a good relationship with his kids and get them safely back to their mother in Boston.

O'Brien goes on to consider the import of Wells' text, and the movies, cultural landmarks, and general fear of aliens that it induced.

--Ted

Bob Mugabe: Statesman

2005-07-27T07:30:00.000-04:00

The U.N., in keeping with its proud tradition of being completely worthless (in fact, worse than worthless) in the face of tyranny, has issued a report assessing the current situation in Zimbabwe. Apparently the recent displacement campaign Mugabe has waged against his people is a result of "improper advice" acted upon by "over-zealous officials." Mugabe himself is described "part of that exclusive club of African statesmen" who "fought colonialism and racial discrimination."

Actually, he's part of a not-so-exclusive club of African tyrants who slaughters political opponents, steals aid money, starves his people, and generally lays waste to his land. Robert Mugabe is on the short list of worst rulers in the world, and could make a strong push for the top spot were it not for Kim Jong-il's stranglehold hold on that particular distinction.

All of this goes to illustrate the point that the U.N. is a farce badly in need of reforming. To look to it as the final arbiter of international disputes is absurd and dangerous, yet many here in the West insist on doing so. The U.N. should remain only as a forum for countries to sit down together and air their grievances; it is badly flawed as an aid organization, but with stricter controls and a lot more courage it might be adequate in that regard eventually. However, there is never any excuse for adding to a tyrant's legitimacy: the U.N.'s report on Zimbabwe is an exercise in weak-kneed cajoling of a dictator who has proven his ruthlessness over and over again, not exactly the type of response one expects from an organization ostensibly committed to the universal rights of mankind.

--Josh

Michael Jackson and Genocide in Darfur

2005-07-26T14:14:00.000-04:00

Yet another important article from Kristof in the New York Times today. He returns to Darfur and points to the lack of media coverage in comparison with the Michael Jackson and Martha Stewart trials. Hats off to Kristof for being one of the only reporters who thinks that the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of women and children in Darfur is important to make known to the world. Shame on people like me who got bored with the conversation of genocide in Darfur.

-Shamefully D.R. Leonard

John Mallinen

2005-07-22T22:35:00.000-04:00

Here at the Wissy, we try to keep things all in the family.

Recently, quite a chunk of our family gathered at 88.5 WXPN's World Cafe Live to watch John Mallinen and his cohorts (Steve Hoffman, Julia Shield, Devon Greenwood) make a little music.

There's going to be a DVD of the whole affair, but right now here's a little teaser.

-- Adam

Caligula+Nero = Kim Jong Il?

2005-07-21T19:00:00.000-04:00

North Korea presents today's single most difficult foreign policy question: How, exactly, do you engage a dictator who is insane, yet has nuclear weapons? How do you help the poor people of North Korea, when the government steals 90% of the food aid in order to pay for its nuclear weapons program?

Let's be clear, the ultimate foreign policy goal for North Korea should be regime change. It's a slave state that makes Orwell's 1984 seem tame by comparison. But at the same time, nobody is in a hurry to go to war with North Korea (except the silly "anti-war" people who say that we HAVE to go to war w/ North Korea, since we went to war with Iraq). The problem is that China doesn't want regime change, b/c they fear a massive influx of refugees. Ultimately, North Korea's fate will be decided by the U.S. and China - that's where this war will be fought, not on the battlefield. My opinion? Regime change should be sooner rather than later, and if we could get China on our side, it would be easier than anyone thinks.

- dane

Look: Christian Symbolism!

2005-07-20T12:53:00.000-04:00

In my recent response to Josh's query about the comparative quality of Harry Potter, I lamented the tendency of Christian writers (in this case, the venerable C.S. Lewis) towards allegory and one-to-one symbolism.

Even more distasteful is the predisposition of Christian readers to impose Christian symbolism (often in the form of the "Christ figure") onto the books they read. In recent years, the Harry Potter books have become a prime target of this sort of foolishness.

Take, for instance, this article from Christianity Today. It's taken from last year's Looking for God in Harry Potter, by John Granger. In this selection, Mr. Granger forces Christian symbolism upon the "beasts" of the Harry Potter universe: griffins, unicorns, hippogriffs, etc. Here's Mr. Granger on the griffin:

How does a beast that is half lion and half eagle symbolize Jesus Christ? Two ways. First, Christ is the God-man, so double-natured symbols are a natural match for him. More important, though, is that the two natures here are the lion and eagle. A beast that is half "king of the heavens" (eagle) and half "king of the earth" (lion) points to the God-man in his role as King of heaven and earth.

Come again? This is unsupportable nonsense--Granger has simply made something up, and put it in print. If you wish, read the rest of the article, where you will stumble across similar egregious claims.

I'm not sure what's more disappointing: the fact that Mr. Granger saw fit to write these sentences, the fact that a publisher encouraged him to do so for a whole book (which, I'm certain, turned in quite a profit), or the fact that Christianity Today thought it would be a good idea to reprint an excerpt.

In response, I say to those who wish to read so poorly: keep your grubby hands off my Harry Potter.

--Ted

Kristof in Korea

2005-07-19T15:21:00.000-04:00

Nicholas Kristof, writer for the New York Times op-ed page, is travelling through North Korea depsite being banned a few years ago for unknown reasons. He has been writing some interesting articles on life in North Korea, which I would suggest we all read.
Today he wrote about the need for a new strategy for the Bush Administration to be more diplomatic. He writes that although this may be a long, hard, tedious process it may be the best of our bad options.
Is diplomacy with the ruthless "Dear Leader" Kim Jong-il, hopeless, or is this our only option?

d.r. leonard

Much Learning Hath Made Them Mad

2005-07-18T17:30:00.000-04:00

Ebonics is back. Apparently not content with black students' current down-ward spiraling levels of achievement, educators in California (of course it had to be California) have decided to accelerate their free-fall. Now black students are going to have a second-rate education inflicted upon them (well, actually third-rate, they're already getting the second-rate) by a group of self-congratulating dunces completely obsessed with multiculturalism and the sensitivity cult. The fact that a "coalition of black activists" would actually support this nonsense is revolting.

It is almost too painful to point out all that is wrong with teaching ebonics, so I won't even bother. Suffice to say that there is a sociologist involved, which should immediately be a warning sign. Ms. Texeira nearly hits for the cycle, managing to work in a mention of prejudice, self-confidence, and starving children. It is up to Ratibus Jacocks, a member of the aforementioned coalition of black activists, to finish off the display and quell any future dissent by mentioning the civil rights movement.

This is a complete and utter farce. Somehow education has largely become the province of silly people with sillier ideas, intent on performing feel-good cultural experiments at the cost of actually educating students. To do so with a group that so desperately needs a superior education right now to help improve their lot is unconscionable, and a cause for shame.

Werd up, y'all.

--Josh

Harry Potter Is Better--Again

2005-07-18T09:46:00.000-04:00

For those of you who didn't spend the first seven hours of Saturday's AM reading Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, I can only express my deepest regret. Once again, J.K. Rowling has topped her previous efforts.

Try as I may, I cannot think of another series of books in which each successive title is clearly a marked improvement upon the last. But this is the case with the Harry Potter series--and it's certain that the seventh and final book will by necessity be the pinnacle.

For an excellent review, check out Michiko Kakutani's from Saturday's Times. It's right on target, and full of insight:

Indeed, the achievement of the Potter books is the same as that of the great classics of children's literature, from the Oz novels to "The Lord of the Rings": the creation of a richly imagined and utterly singular world, as detailed, as improbable and as mortal as our own.

Enjoy.

--Ted

The Limits of Humanitarianism

2005-07-18T09:28:00.000-04:00

Great op-ed from Friday's New York Times. The author points out the limits of humanitarianism and (paradoxically) how doing things like "ending poverty" often increase suffering:

"But the truth is that it was not for us, for Africa, that the musicians at Live 8 were singing; it was to amuse the crowds and to clear their own consciences, and whether they realized it or not, to reinforce dictatorships."

The problem, as journalist David Rieff has pointed out, is that people often confuse humanitarianism with politics. The goal of humanitarianism is to relieve suffering. This means maintaining neutrality and helping anyone who is sick or hungry. The Red Cross is the prototype humanitarian organization - it has one mission: to make war a little less awful by taking care of the wounded from both sides of the conflict. The problem is that humanitarianism inherently recognizes the legitimacy of dictators. You must be polite to dictators if you expect them to let you into their country with medicine or food aid. Thus, humanitarianism often helps dictators solidify their rule.

But in most of Africa, poverty is a political problem, not a humanitarian one. Therefore, efforts like Live 8, which cast the problem in Humanitarian instead of Political terms, are often counterproductive. As Indian economist Amartya Sen has pointed out, the single best prevention against famines is a free press. In the last few decades, almost all the big famines in Africa have been caused not by Nature, but by corrupt politicians. If one is to tackle poverty in Africa, one must attack it politically. Live 8-style events are attractive, particularly among activist types b/c they pretend that it is unequivocably pure and apolitical. But, then, that is the problem.

- dane

Bastille Day

2005-07-14T17:02:00.000-04:00

This is rich.

Here in Philadelphia, to celebrate Bastille Day, they put up an actress as Marie Antoinette on top of the Eastern State Penitentiary, she demands we eat cake, and then they launch hundreds of Tastykakes at the Francophile onlookers.

Then everyone gets drunk. (Unless they're already drunk.)

What a delightful holiday.

The observances are this Saturday, the 16th, at 5:30 pm. Here's the link.

Inside the mind of a Jihadist

2005-07-13T13:26:00.000-04:00

(Courtesy of the boys at Coming Anarchy)

There is an unwillingness among many people to see the terrorist threat for what it is: a religiously-inspired totalitarianism (IslamoFascism, etc.) But we don't have to guess about what makes them kill people, because they never hesitate to tell us.

Mr Bouyeri said he did not hate Van Gogh but had been motivated by religious beliefs that “demand that I behead anyone who insults Allah”. He said he would have done the same to his own father or brother.

And yet, some are convinced that all people are motivated entirely by economics. They wouldn't be terrorists, you see, if we only doubled our foreign aid budget. This "motivational reductionism" isn't too surprising in secular Europe, but in America, we should be much more understanding of the power of religious beliefs to influence behavior.

For some background on the murder of Theo Van Gogh and its implications for Europe, check out an article I wrote for IGE here

- dane

Blogosphere

2005-07-13T12:23:00.000-04:00

Interesting article on web blogs. Looks at the consequences of "telling all" online. Are blogs a symbol of American pop culture and teenagers identity crises? Why do so many people expose themselves online?

d.r. leonard

In praise of stoicism

2005-07-13T08:37:00.000-04:00

Andrew Sullivan sees victory in the way the English responded to terror. Want to infuriate a terrorist? Shrug off a bombing like its an annoying fly. Sullivan gets it just right when he says that we need to brace ourselves for casualties, failures, and mistakes along the way. Everytime something bad happens, we don't need to consider quitting, withdrawing, or doing exactly what al-Qaeda wants. We need to live like its worth something.

We need to fight back militarily when appropriate. We need boldness and aggression. But we also need to steel ourselves for casualties, for failures, for mistakes along the way. Victory in this war will be elusive and never complete. As long as some maniac wants to kill himself and others in a subway or supermarket, we will not be able to stop him. And so stoicism matters. Getting on with our lives matters. Spelling bees, college football, celebrity gossip, high school proms: the simple continuance of these things is integral to the meaning of freedom.

- dane

The Space Shuttle

2005-07-12T17:20:00.000-04:00

Tomorrow afternoon, NASA's Space Shuttle Discovery is set to enter outer space. This is the first time a Space Shuttle will have been launched since the Columbia disaster in 2003. There's heaps of news about it, and this link will get you there as good as another.

Does anyone remember in what month the Columbia disaster took place? Spring sometime?

It was February, and I'm sure plenty remember, but most people don't care too much about the space program. It's just a big money pit with mixed results, etc. And the critics are right, that's exactly what it is.

But I'm a total sucker for the space program, and I don't think I'm in the wrong here.

One time, on the West Wing, Sam Seaborn (Rob Lowe) was being asked by an old friend to help push legislation through to fund a "superconducting supercollider." Sam had reasoned: unless he could find the justification for the expenditure by the superconducting supercollider's contribution to humanity, there was no reason to fund it.

But eventually, his reasoning simplified itself. The billions set aside for the superconducting supercollider were, in Sam's words, "for discovery."

Tomorrow I hope there are plenty well-wishers keeping their fingers crossed for discovery.

--Adam

With enemies like these...

2005-07-11T12:57:00.000-04:00

For the fighters of tyranny, there is no greater champion than Christopher Hitchens (I am perpetually grateful that my political views do not dictate that Michael Moore and Noam Chomsky are my defenders). Hitchens, once again, demonstrates why those who believe in fighting tyranny to the death need not cower before those who argue that "peace is always the answer". Among the appeasement Left, there were immediate calls last week for withdrawing English troops from the Middle East. Those rascally terrorists, they claim, have perfectly reasonable demands (even if they are over-exuberant in making their point) and if we only do what they tell us, they won't bomb us anymore. But that silliness doesn't fly with Hitchens:

There has been a great deal of nonsense published in the last week to the effect that an alliance with the United States can put other countries like Britain in the position of being "targeted." Why deny this? I reflect on what was not done at Srebrenica, and on what ought to have been done in Rwanda, and on what was put off too long with the Taliban and the Baathists, and I think what an honor it is to have such enemies. Co-existence with them is not possible, which is good, because it is not desirable or tolerable, either.

In a related note, A week after 9/11, Slate's William Saletan effectively rebutted those who argued that the best defense against terrorism was simply to acquiesce to their demands.

- dane

Seasonal Recipes

2005-07-09T01:18:00.000-04:00

This recipe comes from one of my new favourite bloggers.

Recipes--as you ought to know by now--need to be filled with witty commentary, that's what makes them better than instruction manuals. Well done, Bjorn Again.

He's in Tennessee, so if you're in Philadelphia, you'll need to wait a while before the blackberries come in.

Click.

-- Adam

Western Self-Loathing and Italian Idiocy

2005-07-08T18:58:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting article concerning an author who is being tried in Italian courts, and very possibly may be convicted, for "villifying" Islam. Obviously, such a ludicrous situation raises a lot of issues to discuss, freedom of speech not being the least of them, but what I found most interesting was a quote the author mentions from the new Pope, Benedict XVI: "The West reveals . . . a hatred of itself, which is strange and can only be considered pathological; the West . . . no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure."

I think the Pope is absolutely correct. Here in the U.S., besides the dismal history education (and actually their entire education in general) students are receiving, they are also subjected to texts that consistently harp on the moral failures of the U.S.; her triumphs are given only the briefest examination. One need only think of the wild popularity of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States to realize the truth of what the Pope is saying, or read anything by Noam Chomsky.

While the U.S.'s shortcomings must never be forgotten, neither must the good that she has accomplished be swept under the rug. It is not surprising that the cultural and moral relativists that dominate academia would consistently disparage the U.S.'s contributions to the world, but to accept their bleak interpretation of history will lead inevitably to the same type of paralyzing moral relativism that animates the attacks in the first place. If we as a nation do not believe that we have a positive contribution to make, why should we undertake to fight terrorism, poverty, or AIDS, since we're just going to make a bloody mess of it anyways? That type of thinking can and will result from any campaign trying to strip the U.S. of its claim to moral authority in some areas.

--Josh

Don't Go There

2005-07-08T15:03:00.000-04:00

Christopher Hitchens' response to the London bombings is terse and powerful. He preempts those who may fall into foolish ennumeration of the "grievances" of the killers behind these deeds:

We know very well what the "grievances" of the jihadists are.

The grievance of seeing unveiled women. The grievance of the existence, not of the State of Israel, but of the Jewish people. The grievance of the heresy of democracy, which impedes the imposition of sharia law. The grievance of a work of fiction written by an Indian living in London. The grievance of the existence of black African Muslim farmers, who won't abandon lands in Darfur. The grievance of the existence of homosexuals. The grievance of music, and of most representational art. The grievance of the existence of Hinduism. The grievance of East Timor's liberation from Indonesian rule. All of these have been proclaimed as a licence to kill infidels or apostates, or anyone who just gets in the way.

Finally, Hitch proclaims:

It is a big mistake to believe this is an assault on "our" values or "our" way of life. It is, rather, an assault on all civilisation

Right on.

--Ted

A sad day

2005-07-07T12:58:00.000-04:00

This is the nightmare scenario. Everyone who lives in a city and uses subways knows how vulnerable they are to a terrorist attack. Today's attacks in London only reinforce what we already know: we are in a war with these terrorists and it is a war to the death - either theirs or ours.

- dane

Somalia in Anarchy

2005-07-06T12:11:00.000-04:00

Somalia remains in anarchy. Well at least in Mogadishu, the "sort-of" capital of Somalia, where the exiled governement, stationed in Kenya, has been attempting to return for over 10 years. The most peaceful place of Somalia is in the northern place of Somaliland, where warlords have created their own autonomous country, unrecognized by the international community. Today, talks continue to ensue between the exiled government and the warlords, over whether they will allow the government to return to a place called Jowhar, north of Mogadishu. Hope for Somalia to be normal is diminishing rapidly, as are the lives of Somalis.

At risk of being the downer of the years biggest party. And being aware that I must sound like a broken record. It is worth noting that in the beginning of this mess in Somalia, our heart felt actors and actresses mistakingly helped the warlords by irresponsibly sending aid right into their pockets. This is important to remember on the heels of Live 8, as we are set to boost aid to Africa. Is Live 8 therefore a waste? No. Does Africa need aid from the international community? Yes. But it is beyond important that aid be given responsibly, less we aid corrupt regimes and rebel groups, making problems even worse.
For more on Somalia, check out the bbcnews at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/4655959.stm.

d.r.leonard.

Al-Qaeda in India?

2005-07-05T13:09:00.000-04:00

Nah. The Muslim extremists who stormed a Hindu Temple in Ayodha weren't part of al-Qaeda's latest foray into South Asia. Actually, there is a very specific - and local - history of animosity between the Hindu nationalists and Muslims in Northern India. It all started when Hindu nationalists burned down a Mosque that had been built in the 16th Century. The mosque, you see, was built on the birthplace of the Hindu god Ram, and therefore had to be removed. It was, and to make a long story short, religious riots ensued. This latest attack is just a continuation of a long feud between the 2 groups. India's government must ensure that there is no overreaction or vigilante justice by the Hindu nationalists, and refrain from framing this as a part of the global "war on terror." The violence between the Muslims and Hindus in Ayodha is sad and potentially explosive, but it has nothing to do with bin Laden's Jihad.

For a historical background on the 2002 pogrom of Muslims by Hindu nationalists, click here.

Live 8 - Party of the Year

2005-07-03T16:21:00.000-04:00

1,000,000?

Yesterday marked the not-so-long awaited Live 8 concert, drawing several fans to Philadelphia, though the Philadelphia Police Department has refused to give a crowd estimate (presumably because they are unable to count).

It was a mighty day for our beloved city.

In case you weren't there, I've prepared a recap.

Bon Jovi and Def Leppard rocked out.

so did Kanye West, the Kaiser Chiefs, Jars of Clay, Destiny's Child, the Black-Eyed Peas, Jay-Z, and Toby Keith. They were all very forgettable, partly because they were using tracks, which didn't sound very good. If you're going to rock out outside, you should probably be a rocker.

But then Bon Jovi and Dave Matthews were quite good. And so was Keith Urban, the country music superstar, who did a bang up version of Phil Collins's "Another Day in Paradise." Good work, Keith, way to be appropriate.

Then, the highlight, Stevie Wonder. Stevie Wonder is the guru of a new religion for the slightly old. His music, and his aura, was saving souls left and right yesterday.

Things we could've done with:

TWO STAGES - Which would have facilitated longer sets and less riff-raff.
MORE INNOVATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW TO SAVE THE UNIVERSE

Things we coul've done without:

THE VULGARITY - The crowd was often trashy and crude. The trouble is you can never exorcise the vulgarity around you, you just have to shake the dust off your shoes and find a new location.
THE "PHILLY!" SIGNAGE ON THE ART MUSEUM - For God's Sakes we're not Philly. If you're going to abbreviate our city's name, use PHILA or PHL. Plus, you don't need to ornament the Art Museum, it's pretty cute as it is. Plus, it's unlikely people won't know where they are. Plus, exclamation marks are by far the most nauseating form of punctuation.
DIALOGUE DIRECT - A company who outsources verbal marketing for charities. Mostly young people who lie and yell at you to become more charitable. Belligerance is such an underrated marketing tool. I've always said that.

Live 8 Fashion Dos:

SHIRTS FOR BANDS PERFORMING IN OTHER CITIES - e.g. REM, Pink Floyd
THE WISSY TEE - cf. the Wissahickon t-shirt sales page.

Note the Wissy Tee in photo.

Live 8 Fashion Don'ts:

LIVE 8 SHIRTS - don't be that guy
VOTE FOR PEDRO SHIRTS - real cool guys

As for what Live 8 did for the country of Africa?

Well, I'm not sure, but it's better than nothing, I guess. Plus I got a bracelet.

- Adam

How to Be Cool This Weekend

2005-07-02T01:55:00.000-04:00

If you're going to Live 8, meet at Rodin's Thinker. That's where all the cool kids will be. If you don't find enough cool kids there, text 215.205.5225 to see where they are.

Happy party of the year.

Adam

The Lineup

2005-07-01T13:05:00.000-04:00

Today's Inquirer, in a rare moment of adequacy, has posted tomorrow's Live 8 schedule to the minute:

12:14: Black Eyed Peas
12:33: Bon Jovi
1:00: Destiny's Child
1:16: Kanye West
1:30: Will Smith
1:56: Toby Keith
2:13: Dave Matthews Band
2:40: Alicia Keys
2:52: Def Leppard
3:10: Linkin Park and Jay-Z
3:56: Sarah McLachlan
4:11: Maroon 5
4:34: Keith Urban
4:48: Jars of Clay
5:00: Rob Thomas
5:21: Stevie Wonder

Also, I've found times for notable live feeds:

12:04 -- Paul McCartney & U2 Live from London
12:54 -- Madonna Live from London
1:50 -- Coldplay Live from London
3:50 -- Tim McGraw Live from Rome
4:56 -- Pink Floyd Live from London

--Ted

The Judicial Branch

2005-07-01T12:09:00.000-04:00

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has just retired. With the expected resignation of Rehnquist, this leaves two posts to be filled (hopefully) by October.

Last week, Slate posted an excellent feature summarizing the prime candidates' positions on critical issues.

We can only hope and pray that it won't be Alberto Gonzales.

--Ted

This makes sense to me...

2005-07-01T09:33:00.000-04:00

For once it's nice to hear from a Middle East expert instead of a politician or a pundit. The Brookings Institute's Kenneth Pollack suggests a shift in strategy to beat the Iraqi insurgency. As many military officials have pointed out, the way to beat an insurgency is to strip them of their domestic support. The Iraqi insurgency is doing their part by targeting innocent Iraqis, but the U.S.'s primary concern is to make the streets of the cities safe so people can go to school, the market, and their jobs. The U.S. military should be creating "Safe areas" protected by joint patrols of U.S. and Iraqi forces, which would have 2 major benefits: 1. giving Iraqis the sense of security which is a precondition for a functioning civil society, and 2. giving Iraqi policeman and soldiers the experience and confidence necessary to learn how to do their jobs.

- dane

Why won't Bush sign the Kyoto Protocol?

2005-06-30T16:10:00.000-04:00

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...

2005-06-30T14:54:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-29T23:19:00.001-04:00

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...

2005-06-29T22:16:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-29T13:22:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-29T11:41:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-29T09:48:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-29T09:31:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-28T14:18:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-28T13:10:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-28T12:57:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-28T11:53:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-27T23:30:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-27T15:13:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-27T13:51:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-23T10:17:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-23T09:22:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-22T12:56:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-22T09:18:00.000-04:00

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!

2005-06-22T09:15:00.000-04:00

An exclusive from the boys at Coming Anarchy...

Families in the Military

2005-06-21T10:21:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-21T09:06:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-20T16:23:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-20T15:28:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-20T08:55:00.000-04:00

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

2005-06-19T23:09:00.000-04:00

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...

2005-06-17T09:41:00.000-04:00

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