V For Vicious Pro-Terrorist Agitprop
Hollywood's finally made a film about terrorism, after years of avoiding the subject.
Of course, it's pro-terrorism.
The Mad Man In The Mask
The directors of the The Matrix make a movie where the hero is a faceless terrorist trying to blow up London. Yes, you read that right
By LEV GROSSMAN
Is it possible for a major Hollywood studio to make a $50 million movie in which the hero is a terrorist? A terrorist who appears wearing the dynamite waistcoat of a suicide bomber, and who utters the line--from beneath a full-face wooden mask that he never takes off--"Blowing up a building can change the world"? A movie written and produced by the Wachowski brothers, the cyberauteurs who created The Matrix? Starring Natalie Portman, shaved as bald as Demi Moore in G.I. Jane?
These are not rhetorical questions. V for Vendetta, set for release March 17, is that movie, and it is the most bizarre Hollywood production you will see (or refuse to see) this year. It's the kind of film that makes you ask questions like, Who thought this was a good idea?
It definitely started with a good idea. The man who had it was Alan Moore, probably the greatest writer in the history of comic books. In 1982 Moore--who also wrote Watchmen and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen--began publishing an almost unbearably dark series of comic books set in a dismal, dystopic future Britain ruled by an oppressive Orwellian government. V for Vendetta starred, instead of a superhero, a bitter, brilliant, at least half-insane resistance fighter known only as V, whose face was permanently hidden behind a grinning mask that, if you're English, you recognize as the face of Guy Fawkes. (Who--again, if you're English--you know as the proto-terrorist who tried and failed to blow up Parliament in 1605.)
Moore's London was not, in fact, quite Orwellian, although that is understandable enough shorthand. Orwell, himself a socialist, wrote 1984 as an idictment of socialism and left-wing fascism. Such a cautionary tale for fellow-travellers wasn't the sort of thing Alan Moore wanted to write-- he wanted to write a simple, simplistic indictment of the fascist right-wing Thatcher government. (You remember Thatcher's death-squads rounding up and executing political dissidents, don't you?)
Of course this is the sort of anti-fascist movie Hollywood would make. Not that troublesome 1984 book, whose references to Ingsoc might be misinterpreted by audiences as suggesting there was great peril in giving so much power to the state (first economics, then personal liberty, and finally over a person's sexuality). No, the only fascism Hollywood bothers itself about is right-wing fantasy fascism, a bogeyman that scares them at night when actual Orwellianism, of the left wing kind, is being practiced on college campuses today.
By the way: the comic book itself sucked. The Watchmen itself was greatly overrated -- benefiting immensely from the sudden interest in mature graphic novels due to the amazing Dark Knight Returns -- and V for Vendetta really doesn't even rate being mentioned in the same breath, except that it came out at about the same time.
There were some noncosmetic challenges too--difficult, ideological challenges. V for Vendetta is a movie about a heroic terrorist. However unjust the regime he opposes--and we know it's unjust because it features a pedophile bishop, a jowl-shaking Big Brother figure, a spittle-spewing telepundit, concentration camps, institutionalized racism, religious intolerance and homophobia--V is a guy who goes around blowing up parts of London, and he likes his work. That was repugnant enough back when Moore wrote his comic book, two decades before Sept. 11. It's become even more so since last July, when terrorists actually did bomb three subway trains and a bus in London.
Everybody associated with the productions--Portman, McTeigue, Weaving, Silver--forcefully, insistently stresses that V is an ambiguous, ambivalent figure. They express their hope that the movie will spark debates about the definition of terrorism.
The debates they always seek to spark are about the defensibility of terrorism, rather than its repugnance.
Is there anyone in Hollywood actually brave enough to challenge his own biases and assumptions? It's pretty soft-soap to "challenge" the beliefs of other folks. How about your own once in a while? How about "challenging" the Hollywood community with a truly challenging movie-- one that posits that terrorism is simply evil and abominable?
And in a prestige project, too, not in some crappy low-budget piece-of-shit Thomas Ian Griffith straight-to-video abortion.
Here's another tough question: whether V for Vendetta is the movie that will start that conversation. The kind of delicate ambiguity that Portman talks about is hard to achieve within the narrow constraints of a popcorn movie--morally speaking, they tend to be shot in black and white--and V may come off as a bit too noble for the movie's good. As both the product of violence and its perpetrator, he should be doubly twisted. "What was done to me was monstrous!" V snarls. "And they created a monster," Evey replies. But if V plays as a Phantom of the Opera monster, a Beauty and the Beast monster, a monster with a sweet, sad center, he becomes less than he should be: a mere action hero. Maybe that's a lot of nuance to ask of an action movie, but terrorism is a subject that demands nothing less. Give poor, tortured V back his goodness, and you take away his greatness.
And you know that's precisely what they've done. I doubt there's much ambiguity in the film at all, unless you count the unambiguous message that terrorism is itself an ambiguous moral act. Sometimes, it seems, it's justified to murder civilians.
Why do conservatives get so riled up about Hollywood? Because, as much as we demean it as superficial, vapid, and borderline retarded, we recognize it is an important institution. The German Nazis and Italian Fascists and Russian Soviets recognized the power of fictive cinema to reinforce ideology and so invested heavily in the art form. I'm not comparing Hollywood with those regimes, simply noting that storytelling through moving pictures can have a great impact on how people view the world.
Hollywood can't have it both ways. They can't, every Oscars show, celebrate themselves for having such a profound effect on American culture and politics, and then claim that pro-terrorist agitprop is "just a movie" that really shouldn't be taken so seriously.
Saturday, March 11, 2006
An Unfair Fight?
By Clifford D. May
Scripps Howard News Service
March 9, 2006
In a conventional war, if one side has tanks, fighter jets, submarines and similar weapons, while the other side does not, who wins? The answer is obvious.
In an unconventional war, if one side has suicide bombers, license to kidnap, torture and violate the laws of war while the other side must refrain from deploying such weapons and abide by all the rules, who wins? The answer, I'm afraid, may be equally obvious.
The United States is now engaged in what is called an “asymmetrical war,” a conflict in which the two sides fight in different ways and using different weapons.
The 9/11/01 attacks were a textbook example of asymmetrical warfare. A terrorist organization hijacked passenger planes and used them to cause more deaths on American soil than any foreign enemy had ever before inflicted. But this was not the first such assault the U.S. suffered. In 1979, America's embassy in Tehran was seized and its diplomats held hostage. The Militant Islamist revolutionaries responsible bet, correctly, that the U.S. would not strike back in a similar fashion or even in a resolute manner.
Four years later, Iranian mullahs arranged for Hezbollah, a terrorist group they controlled, to suicide-bomb the U.S. Marines barrack in Beirut – confident again that the U.S. would not use such tactics against them or find in its arsenal any weapons with which to effectively punish them.
The suicide bombings now taking place in Iraq also are asymmetrical warfare. These frequent mass murders not only frighten and intimidate, they also demonstrate the inability of Iraqi authorities and their American supporters to protect the innocent. The more dramatic and lethal the bombings, the more they undermine confidence in the possibility of establishing an Iraqi government that would serve the people rather than be the people's master.
Asymmetrical warfare would be less effective if suicide-bombing women and children, decapitating aid workers and using civilians as shields evoked widespread public outrage and revulsion, if it brought shame and disrespect upon those who committed such acts and on the causes they claim to champion.
But, on the contrary, the trend has been to legitimize the tactics used against the West and indulge those employing them. Mass murdering civilians, torching churches and even mosques do not spark major protests anywhere. Nor has there been serious action in response from the United Nations, the international courts and prominent human rights organizations.
By contrast, what are alleged to be American violations of international laws are a constant source of media controversy and public protest. The publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed set off riots in a half a dozen world capitals, as well as death threats against the cartoonists and those who dare publish them.
Many Western news organizations -- the Reuters wire service is just one example -- decline to be judgmental about those who set out to slaughter civilians. Instead, they assert, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”
The extent to which elite Western opinion has internalized such views was prominently on display at last weekend's Academy Awards presentation. Nominated as best foreign film was “Paradise Now” -- a movie that explicitly justifies suicide-bombings.
Nominated, too, was “Syriana,” which lays the blame for the global conflict now underway not with the Militant Islamist movement but with the American government and American corporations. Also nominated was “Munich,” which argues for a moral equivalence between terrorists and those who battle them.
All this is happening at a time when there is a very real possibility of chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons coming into the possession of militants who believe, as al-Qaeda in Iraq commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi put it, that “Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."
There is no deterring such fanatics. To die while fighting Islam's enemies, they believe, will ensure them “paradise now” – to borrow the phrase used by Hany Abu-Assad, the filmmaker celebrated by Hollywood's aristocrats.
“A democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back,” wrote Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, “as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it.”
That's right of course. But if at some point democracies must fight with both hands tied behind their backs, the likelihood that they will prevail can not be high.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism
By Clifford D. May
Scripps Howard News Service
March 9, 2006
In a conventional war, if one side has tanks, fighter jets, submarines and similar weapons, while the other side does not, who wins? The answer is obvious.
In an unconventional war, if one side has suicide bombers, license to kidnap, torture and violate the laws of war while the other side must refrain from deploying such weapons and abide by all the rules, who wins? The answer, I'm afraid, may be equally obvious.
The United States is now engaged in what is called an “asymmetrical war,” a conflict in which the two sides fight in different ways and using different weapons.
The 9/11/01 attacks were a textbook example of asymmetrical warfare. A terrorist organization hijacked passenger planes and used them to cause more deaths on American soil than any foreign enemy had ever before inflicted. But this was not the first such assault the U.S. suffered. In 1979, America's embassy in Tehran was seized and its diplomats held hostage. The Militant Islamist revolutionaries responsible bet, correctly, that the U.S. would not strike back in a similar fashion or even in a resolute manner.
Four years later, Iranian mullahs arranged for Hezbollah, a terrorist group they controlled, to suicide-bomb the U.S. Marines barrack in Beirut – confident again that the U.S. would not use such tactics against them or find in its arsenal any weapons with which to effectively punish them.
The suicide bombings now taking place in Iraq also are asymmetrical warfare. These frequent mass murders not only frighten and intimidate, they also demonstrate the inability of Iraqi authorities and their American supporters to protect the innocent. The more dramatic and lethal the bombings, the more they undermine confidence in the possibility of establishing an Iraqi government that would serve the people rather than be the people's master.
Asymmetrical warfare would be less effective if suicide-bombing women and children, decapitating aid workers and using civilians as shields evoked widespread public outrage and revulsion, if it brought shame and disrespect upon those who committed such acts and on the causes they claim to champion.
But, on the contrary, the trend has been to legitimize the tactics used against the West and indulge those employing them. Mass murdering civilians, torching churches and even mosques do not spark major protests anywhere. Nor has there been serious action in response from the United Nations, the international courts and prominent human rights organizations.
By contrast, what are alleged to be American violations of international laws are a constant source of media controversy and public protest. The publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet Mohammed set off riots in a half a dozen world capitals, as well as death threats against the cartoonists and those who dare publish them.
Many Western news organizations -- the Reuters wire service is just one example -- decline to be judgmental about those who set out to slaughter civilians. Instead, they assert, “One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.”
The extent to which elite Western opinion has internalized such views was prominently on display at last weekend's Academy Awards presentation. Nominated as best foreign film was “Paradise Now” -- a movie that explicitly justifies suicide-bombings.
Nominated, too, was “Syriana,” which lays the blame for the global conflict now underway not with the Militant Islamist movement but with the American government and American corporations. Also nominated was “Munich,” which argues for a moral equivalence between terrorists and those who battle them.
All this is happening at a time when there is a very real possibility of chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons coming into the possession of militants who believe, as al-Qaeda in Iraq commander Abu Musab al-Zarqawi put it, that “Killing the infidels is our religion, slaughtering them is our religion, until they convert to Islam or pay us tribute."
There is no deterring such fanatics. To die while fighting Islam's enemies, they believe, will ensure them “paradise now” – to borrow the phrase used by Hany Abu-Assad, the filmmaker celebrated by Hollywood's aristocrats.
“A democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back,” wrote Israeli Supreme Court President Aharon Barak, “as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it.”
That's right of course. But if at some point democracies must fight with both hands tied behind their backs, the likelihood that they will prevail can not be high.
Clifford D. May, a former New York Times foreign correspondent, is the president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies a policy institute focusing on terrorism
Friday, March 10, 2006
The fruits of NAFTA
By Patrick J. Buchanan
As I write these lines, the big black headline on Drudge reads, "Arizona Governor Orders Troops to Mexican Border."
Both Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and New Mexico's Bill Richardson have now declared a "state of emergency" on their border.
Why? Because our border is descending into a state of anarchy, as 5,000 illegal aliens daily attempt to cross our Mexican frontier and drug traffickers, with renegade Mexican army troops sometimes backing them up, attempt to run narcotics into the United States.
It is now a dozen years since NAFTA passed. We can measure its success in the clamor for fences and troops on the border, and in Mexico's having displaced Colombia as the primary source of the marijuana, meth and cocaine flowing into the United States.
But it was the economic argument that our elites – Bush I and James Baker, Dole and Gingrich, Clinton and Carter – used to sell NAFTA.
In one of the big propaganda pieces of that great debate, "NAFTA: An Assessment," an October 1993 paper published by the International Institute of Economics, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott wrote: "Our job projections reflect a judgment that, with NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico will continue to outstrip Mexican exports to the United States, leading to a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of about $7 to $9 billion annually by 1995."
The authors further predicted the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico would rise to $9 billion to $12 billion a year between 2000 and 2010.
And what happened? Charles McMillion of MGB Services, using Commerce Department data through 2005, has tallied the results.
A year after NAFTA passed, the U.S. trade surplus had vanished. From 1995 through 1998, we ran $20 billion trade deficits with Mexico. From 1999 through 2005, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico grew every year, from $27 billion in 1999 to last year's $54 billion.
Where Hufbauer and Schott had predicted $100-plus billion in trade surpluses with Mexico from 1994 to today, NAFTA delivered some $400 billion in cumulative U.S. trade deficits. A $500 billion mistake by the crack Hufbauer-Schott team.
Is there a silver lining? Are we not selling Mexico high-value items, while she exports to us the products of her less-skilled labor?
Again, the opposite has occurred. When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.
As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?
What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.
Consider the range of items the most advanced nation on earth now sells to Mexico, and Mexico sells to us.
Mexico's leading exports to the United States in 2005 were autos, oil, electrical machinery, computers, furniture, textiles and apparel. The Made-in-the-USA goods that reaped us the greatest revenue in trade with Mexico were plastics, chemicals, cereals, cotton, meat, paper, oil seed, aluminum, copper and knitted or crocheted fabrics.
U.S.-Mexico trade calls to mind the trade relationship between Betsy Ross' America and the England of the Industrial Revolution, with Mexico in the role of England. Our exports to Mexico read like a ship's manifest from Bangladesh.
The American people were had. NAFTA was never a trade deal. NAFTA was always an enabling act – to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico.
For U.S. companies, it was one sweet deal. At zero cost, they were allowed to rid themselves of their American workers; get out from under contributing to Social Security and Medicare; and slough off the burden of environmental, health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil-rights laws – and were liberated to go abroad and hire Mexicans who would work for one-fifth to one-tenth of what their unwanted American workers cost.
What NAFTA, GATT, Davos and the WTO have always been about is freeing up transnationals to get rid of First World workers, while assuring them they could hold on, at no cost, to their First World customers.
When one considers who finances the Republican Party, funds its candidates, and hires its former congressmen, senators and Cabinet officers at six- and seven-figure retainers to lobby, it is understandable that the GOP went into the tank.
But why did the liberals, who paid the price of mandating all those benefits for American workers and imposing all those regulations on U.S. corporations, go along? That's the mystery. About NAFTA there is no mystery. There never really was.
By Patrick J. Buchanan
As I write these lines, the big black headline on Drudge reads, "Arizona Governor Orders Troops to Mexican Border."
Both Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and New Mexico's Bill Richardson have now declared a "state of emergency" on their border.
Why? Because our border is descending into a state of anarchy, as 5,000 illegal aliens daily attempt to cross our Mexican frontier and drug traffickers, with renegade Mexican army troops sometimes backing them up, attempt to run narcotics into the United States.
It is now a dozen years since NAFTA passed. We can measure its success in the clamor for fences and troops on the border, and in Mexico's having displaced Colombia as the primary source of the marijuana, meth and cocaine flowing into the United States.
But it was the economic argument that our elites – Bush I and James Baker, Dole and Gingrich, Clinton and Carter – used to sell NAFTA.
In one of the big propaganda pieces of that great debate, "NAFTA: An Assessment," an October 1993 paper published by the International Institute of Economics, Gary Hufbauer and Jeffrey Schott wrote: "Our job projections reflect a judgment that, with NAFTA, U.S. exports to Mexico will continue to outstrip Mexican exports to the United States, leading to a U.S. trade surplus with Mexico of about $7 to $9 billion annually by 1995."
The authors further predicted the U.S. trade surplus with Mexico would rise to $9 billion to $12 billion a year between 2000 and 2010.
And what happened? Charles McMillion of MGB Services, using Commerce Department data through 2005, has tallied the results.
A year after NAFTA passed, the U.S. trade surplus had vanished. From 1995 through 1998, we ran $20 billion trade deficits with Mexico. From 1999 through 2005, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico grew every year, from $27 billion in 1999 to last year's $54 billion.
Where Hufbauer and Schott had predicted $100-plus billion in trade surpluses with Mexico from 1994 to today, NAFTA delivered some $400 billion in cumulative U.S. trade deficits. A $500 billion mistake by the crack Hufbauer-Schott team.
Is there a silver lining? Are we not selling Mexico high-value items, while she exports to us the products of her less-skilled labor?
Again, the opposite has occurred. When NAFTA passed in 1993, we imported some 225,000 cars and trucks from Mexico, but exported about 500,000 vehicles to the world. In 2005, our exports to the world were still a shade under 500,000 vehicles, but our auto and truck imports from Mexico had tripled to 700,000 vehicles.
As McMillion writes, Mexico now exports more cars and trucks to the United States than the United States exports to the whole world. A fine end, is it not, to the United States as "Auto Capital of the World"?
What happened? Post-NAFTA, the Big Three just picked up a huge slice of our auto industry and moved it, and the jobs, to Mexico.
Consider the range of items the most advanced nation on earth now sells to Mexico, and Mexico sells to us.
Mexico's leading exports to the United States in 2005 were autos, oil, electrical machinery, computers, furniture, textiles and apparel. The Made-in-the-USA goods that reaped us the greatest revenue in trade with Mexico were plastics, chemicals, cereals, cotton, meat, paper, oil seed, aluminum, copper and knitted or crocheted fabrics.
U.S.-Mexico trade calls to mind the trade relationship between Betsy Ross' America and the England of the Industrial Revolution, with Mexico in the role of England. Our exports to Mexico read like a ship's manifest from Bangladesh.
The American people were had. NAFTA was never a trade deal. NAFTA was always an enabling act – to enable U.S. corporations to dump their American workers and move their factories to Mexico.
For U.S. companies, it was one sweet deal. At zero cost, they were allowed to rid themselves of their American workers; get out from under contributing to Social Security and Medicare; and slough off the burden of environmental, health-and-safety, wage-and-hour and civil-rights laws – and were liberated to go abroad and hire Mexicans who would work for one-fifth to one-tenth of what their unwanted American workers cost.
What NAFTA, GATT, Davos and the WTO have always been about is freeing up transnationals to get rid of First World workers, while assuring them they could hold on, at no cost, to their First World customers.
When one considers who finances the Republican Party, funds its candidates, and hires its former congressmen, senators and Cabinet officers at six- and seven-figure retainers to lobby, it is understandable that the GOP went into the tank.
But why did the liberals, who paid the price of mandating all those benefits for American workers and imposing all those regulations on U.S. corporations, go along? That's the mystery. About NAFTA there is no mystery. There never really was.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
From The Washington Post:
Needed: A Replacement for 'Pimp'
By Jabari Asim
Thursday, March 9, 2006
The best thing about Three 6 Mafia winning an Oscar for Best Song is the likelihood of "pimp" losing its luster of hipness.
While the prospect of previously oblivious whites adopting the word is a nauseating probability, the mainstreaming of "pimp" should reduce its popularity in the black communities where it first shucked its cobwebs and regained its currency. Its anticipated lapse in popularity creates an opportunity to suggest new lingo to my fellow African-American city dwellers, who often originate the nation's catchiest slang.
My first suggestion: "scholar."
Imagine yourself amid all the men who used to gather aimlessly on street corners, lounge on the steps of other people's houses and hang out with the rest of the worshipful congregations outside package liquor stores -- all of you deeply absorbed in library books.
Except you can top them all by trundling down the street with -- you guessed it -- a wheelbarrow almost overflowing with the latest volumes by our nation's best authors.
You'll help to popularize an exciting new trend. Once it catches on in "urban" neighborhoods, it will inevitably "cross over" into white ones and, before you know it, openly building one's intellectual muscles will be known as "acting black."
You can win friends and influence people -- plus earn the undying admiration of the women in your neighborhood who are pining for an intelligent, well-read mate -- by handling your load with a mixture of staunch self-discipline and weary resignation.
"Say, brother," one of your fellow intellectuals might say, "looks like you have quite a bit of studying to do this fine evening."
"You're right," you might reply. "I could be off luring vulnerable women into an exploitative economic relationship based on the trading of sex for money -- behavior that would benefit neither myself, the hapless women or all those desperate, duplicitous and disease-spreading customers who should be home with their wives and children (see below). But what can I tell you? It's hard out here for a scholar."
A second suggestion: "husband."
American society seems perfectly poised for the reintroduction of a once-revered but fading tradition -- and you, my trend-savvy friend, can be at the forefront! It's really not so hard to picture yourself in a committed relationship with one -- just one -- of those smart, attractive African-American women who have spent their single years dreaming of a faithful, loving and hard-working scholar (see above). I can see you now, hurrying home with your briefcase or lunch bucket in tow, rushing to keep pace with that growing assembly of black men striding with similar briskness home to their wives and children (see below).
"Say, brother," one of your equally dedicated peers might say, "looks like you're doing your utmost to keep those home fires burning. And might I also say that you are carrying one lovely bouquet?"
"Why, thanks," you might reply. "A dozen roses for my sweet, but that's not all." Here you lean forward with a conspiratorial wink. "I also have a paycheck in my breast pocket." After a mutually celebratory chuckle, you could add: "I guess I could have chosen a less disciplined life of slacking, stealing and engaging in exploitative relationships that involve the trading of sex for money (see above), but what I can say? It's hard out here for a husband."
Finally, a word that, like our previous suggestion, seems to have lost much of its prestige during an era in which 68 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock: "father."
It could go like this:
Minutes after rushing home with your briefcase and/or lunch bucket, library books and bountiful bouquet, you change into loose clothing and take your children to the park with your wife (see above) while there's an hour or two of daylight left.
One of the other dads pushing his sons on the swings or tossing a ball with his daughters might turn to you and say, "It's a perfect evening for family fun, is it not?"
"Right on, my brother," you might say in response. "I'll admit to feeling a tad fatigued after a long day of rigorous, engaging and lawful labor, but my night's rest will be well earned."
"I suppose I could have chosen a different lifestyle," you could add while keeping a loving eye on your beautiful family. "Perhaps I could have been a slacker, thief, deadbeat dad or participant in the trading of sex for money, but what can I say? It's hard out here for a father."
It may indeed be tough going for pimps these days. But what can I say: It's also hard out here for all of the above.
Needed: A Replacement for 'Pimp'
By Jabari Asim
Thursday, March 9, 2006
The best thing about Three 6 Mafia winning an Oscar for Best Song is the likelihood of "pimp" losing its luster of hipness.
While the prospect of previously oblivious whites adopting the word is a nauseating probability, the mainstreaming of "pimp" should reduce its popularity in the black communities where it first shucked its cobwebs and regained its currency. Its anticipated lapse in popularity creates an opportunity to suggest new lingo to my fellow African-American city dwellers, who often originate the nation's catchiest slang.
My first suggestion: "scholar."
Imagine yourself amid all the men who used to gather aimlessly on street corners, lounge on the steps of other people's houses and hang out with the rest of the worshipful congregations outside package liquor stores -- all of you deeply absorbed in library books.
Except you can top them all by trundling down the street with -- you guessed it -- a wheelbarrow almost overflowing with the latest volumes by our nation's best authors.
You'll help to popularize an exciting new trend. Once it catches on in "urban" neighborhoods, it will inevitably "cross over" into white ones and, before you know it, openly building one's intellectual muscles will be known as "acting black."
You can win friends and influence people -- plus earn the undying admiration of the women in your neighborhood who are pining for an intelligent, well-read mate -- by handling your load with a mixture of staunch self-discipline and weary resignation.
"Say, brother," one of your fellow intellectuals might say, "looks like you have quite a bit of studying to do this fine evening."
"You're right," you might reply. "I could be off luring vulnerable women into an exploitative economic relationship based on the trading of sex for money -- behavior that would benefit neither myself, the hapless women or all those desperate, duplicitous and disease-spreading customers who should be home with their wives and children (see below). But what can I tell you? It's hard out here for a scholar."
A second suggestion: "husband."
American society seems perfectly poised for the reintroduction of a once-revered but fading tradition -- and you, my trend-savvy friend, can be at the forefront! It's really not so hard to picture yourself in a committed relationship with one -- just one -- of those smart, attractive African-American women who have spent their single years dreaming of a faithful, loving and hard-working scholar (see above). I can see you now, hurrying home with your briefcase or lunch bucket in tow, rushing to keep pace with that growing assembly of black men striding with similar briskness home to their wives and children (see below).
"Say, brother," one of your equally dedicated peers might say, "looks like you're doing your utmost to keep those home fires burning. And might I also say that you are carrying one lovely bouquet?"
"Why, thanks," you might reply. "A dozen roses for my sweet, but that's not all." Here you lean forward with a conspiratorial wink. "I also have a paycheck in my breast pocket." After a mutually celebratory chuckle, you could add: "I guess I could have chosen a less disciplined life of slacking, stealing and engaging in exploitative relationships that involve the trading of sex for money (see above), but what I can say? It's hard out here for a husband."
Finally, a word that, like our previous suggestion, seems to have lost much of its prestige during an era in which 68 percent of African-American children are born out of wedlock: "father."
It could go like this:
Minutes after rushing home with your briefcase and/or lunch bucket, library books and bountiful bouquet, you change into loose clothing and take your children to the park with your wife (see above) while there's an hour or two of daylight left.
One of the other dads pushing his sons on the swings or tossing a ball with his daughters might turn to you and say, "It's a perfect evening for family fun, is it not?"
"Right on, my brother," you might say in response. "I'll admit to feeling a tad fatigued after a long day of rigorous, engaging and lawful labor, but my night's rest will be well earned."
"I suppose I could have chosen a different lifestyle," you could add while keeping a loving eye on your beautiful family. "Perhaps I could have been a slacker, thief, deadbeat dad or participant in the trading of sex for money, but what can I say? It's hard out here for a father."
It may indeed be tough going for pimps these days. But what can I say: It's also hard out here for all of the above.
Great news about The Unit, the excellent new CBS series:
NOTHING COVERT ABOUT "THE UNIT" PREMIERE
"The Unit's" 18.5 Million Viewers Makes it the Most Watched Premiere of Any New Scripted Show on Any Network This Season and the Second Highest Rated Drama Premiere in Adults 18-49
"The Unit" Delivers CBS's Best Performance in the Time Period Since May 1997
"The Unit" Builds On Its Huge "NCIS" Lead-In By Double Digit Percentages in Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54
CBS To Present an Encore Presentation of "The Unit" Premiere on Saturday, March 11, 8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT
"The Amazing Race 9" Wins Its New Time Period in Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54
CBS's premiere of THE UNIT, the new drama about a covert military team and the wives who protect their identity, delivered 18.50 million viewers making it the most watched premiere of any new scripted show on any network this season and the second highest rated drama premiere in adults 18-49 and adults 25-54, according to Live Plus Same Day National Nielsen ratings for Tuesday, March 7.
At 9:00PM, THE UNIT premiered with an 11.6/17 and 18.50m viewers, 5.1/12 in adults 18-49 and 7.0/15 in adults 25-54. This is CBS's best delivery in the time period in viewers with a regularly scheduled program since 5/13/97 (CBS TUESDAY MOVIE: "The Last Don") and the best adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 delivery since 5/10/05 ("The Amazing Race 7" finale).
THE UNIT premiered with the highest household rating for a new series on any network this season, the best viewer delivery for a scripted program on any network and is the #2 new drama on any network in both adults 18-49 and adults 25-54.
THE UNIT built on its NCIS lead by +6% in households, +8% in viewers, +34% in adults 18-49 and +27% in adults 25-54. THE UNIT grew in its second half-hour by +4% in both households (11.8/18 from 11.4/17) and viewers (18.86m from 18.15m), +10% in adults 18-49 (5.3/13 from 4.8/12) and +6% in adults 25-54 (7.2/16 from 6.8/15).
CBS will present an encore broadcast of THE UNIT premiere on Saturday, March 11 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT).
At 8:00 PM, NCIS was a strong second (to "American Idol") in households (10.9/17), viewers (17.21m), adults 25-54 (5.5/13) and adults 18-49 (3.8/10). This is NCIS's best delivery in households and viewers since 1/17/06 and best adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 delivery since 1/24/06.
THE AMAZING RACE 9 (6.1/10, 9.46m) won its time period in adults 18-49 (3.8/10) and adults 25-54 (4.7/12).
For the night, CBS was a strong second in households (9.5/15), viewers (15.06m), adults 25-54 (5.7/13) and adults 18-49 (4.2/11). This is CBS's best Tuesday delivery this season with regularly-scheduled programming in both viewers and adults 25-54, the best delivery in adult 18-49 since 12/13/05, the night of THE AMAZING RACE 8 finale.
NOTHING COVERT ABOUT "THE UNIT" PREMIERE
"The Unit's" 18.5 Million Viewers Makes it the Most Watched Premiere of Any New Scripted Show on Any Network This Season and the Second Highest Rated Drama Premiere in Adults 18-49
"The Unit" Delivers CBS's Best Performance in the Time Period Since May 1997
"The Unit" Builds On Its Huge "NCIS" Lead-In By Double Digit Percentages in Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54
CBS To Present an Encore Presentation of "The Unit" Premiere on Saturday, March 11, 8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT
"The Amazing Race 9" Wins Its New Time Period in Adults 18-49 and Adults 25-54
CBS's premiere of THE UNIT, the new drama about a covert military team and the wives who protect their identity, delivered 18.50 million viewers making it the most watched premiere of any new scripted show on any network this season and the second highest rated drama premiere in adults 18-49 and adults 25-54, according to Live Plus Same Day National Nielsen ratings for Tuesday, March 7.
At 9:00PM, THE UNIT premiered with an 11.6/17 and 18.50m viewers, 5.1/12 in adults 18-49 and 7.0/15 in adults 25-54. This is CBS's best delivery in the time period in viewers with a regularly scheduled program since 5/13/97 (CBS TUESDAY MOVIE: "The Last Don") and the best adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 delivery since 5/10/05 ("The Amazing Race 7" finale).
THE UNIT premiered with the highest household rating for a new series on any network this season, the best viewer delivery for a scripted program on any network and is the #2 new drama on any network in both adults 18-49 and adults 25-54.
THE UNIT built on its NCIS lead by +6% in households, +8% in viewers, +34% in adults 18-49 and +27% in adults 25-54. THE UNIT grew in its second half-hour by +4% in both households (11.8/18 from 11.4/17) and viewers (18.86m from 18.15m), +10% in adults 18-49 (5.3/13 from 4.8/12) and +6% in adults 25-54 (7.2/16 from 6.8/15).
CBS will present an encore broadcast of THE UNIT premiere on Saturday, March 11 (8:00-9:00 PM, ET/PT).
At 8:00 PM, NCIS was a strong second (to "American Idol") in households (10.9/17), viewers (17.21m), adults 25-54 (5.5/13) and adults 18-49 (3.8/10). This is NCIS's best delivery in households and viewers since 1/17/06 and best adults 18-49 and adults 25-54 delivery since 1/24/06.
THE AMAZING RACE 9 (6.1/10, 9.46m) won its time period in adults 18-49 (3.8/10) and adults 25-54 (4.7/12).
For the night, CBS was a strong second in households (9.5/15), viewers (15.06m), adults 25-54 (5.7/13) and adults 18-49 (4.2/11). This is CBS's best Tuesday delivery this season with regularly-scheduled programming in both viewers and adults 25-54, the best delivery in adult 18-49 since 12/13/05, the night of THE AMAZING RACE 8 finale.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
From Real Clear Politics:
Media Won't Report Radical Islamic Events
By Tony Blankley
Denial is an often useful innate human trait. Few of us would be able to function in the present if we did not put out of mind many unpleasant realities -- such as our inevitable death. The Woody Allen character in the movie "Annie Hall" stated the comic extreme version of not using the denial mechanism when, as a child he refused to do his homework because in 5 billion years the sun would explode, "so, what's the use?"
But when a person, or a society, denies emerging or imminent dangers, the peace of mind it gains will be extremely short term, while the harm may be sustained or fatal.
Most of the world today not only is in denial concerning the truly appalling likely consequences of the rise of radical Islam, it often refuses to even accept unambiguous evidence of its existence.
The latest minor example of the latter is occurring at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As has been generally reported, an Iranian Muslim student drove a jeep into a crowd of students, causing only minor injuries. He turned himself in and informed the police and the media that he was trying to kill the students to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."
Neither the university nor most of the media has been willing to characterize this event as a terrorist attempt by a radical Muslim. Mr. Colmes, on "Hannity and Colmes" seemed to express genuine puzzlement as to why it mattered whether we called it that or merely an act of violence. Similarly, the attack at the Los Angeles International Airport a few years ago was for nine months just called a violent attack, before it was finally characterized by police as a radical Muslim act of terrorism.
I have been in contact with British politicians who tell me that there is increasing radical Muslim street violence in Britain that is explicitly motivated by radical Islam but is not reported or characterized as such. Even in its cleansed versions, I am told, these incidents are being extremely underreported.
In Antwerp last month, according to the reporter Paul Belien, rioting Moroccan "youths" went on a rampage destroying cars and beating up reporters, but the police were instructed not even to stop them or arrest them. According to an anonymous policeman, "An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans." This event, too, was under reported, or not reported at all in American media.
And of course, last October in Paris and other French cities, hundreds of buildings were torched and tens of thousands of cars burned by Muslim "youths" through weeks of rioting, while both the French government and most of the "responsible" experts denied there was any radical Muslim component to the greatest urban violence to hit France since World War. It was all to do with poverty and teenage angst and alienation.
Of course poverty and alienation can't explain the Iranian student in North Carolina. He has just received one of the finest educations available to a privileged American. He reportedly has received advanced degrees in philosophy and psychology from one of our top universities.
The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)
The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world -- very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.
A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.
What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted "youth"? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women -- who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?
The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch's brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.
As the danger grows but is not publicly described, the public will first be ignorant and fail to demand sufficient remedial action.
But as incidents and rumors are encountered over time, the public mind will inevitably suspect the worst and demand the strongest action. Demagogues will emerge to gratify that vox populi. (The Dubai port deal is a small example of such a process -- although in that incident the threat is real and there are many sincere and rational voices amidst the many demagogues.)
Institutional voices are not being responsible by suppressing honest description of radical Islamic events. Denying the existence of evil (or refusing to be judgmental about it) has never proved a reliable method for defeating it. Hell is presumably filled with souls who didn't understand that point.
Media Won't Report Radical Islamic Events
By Tony Blankley
Denial is an often useful innate human trait. Few of us would be able to function in the present if we did not put out of mind many unpleasant realities -- such as our inevitable death. The Woody Allen character in the movie "Annie Hall" stated the comic extreme version of not using the denial mechanism when, as a child he refused to do his homework because in 5 billion years the sun would explode, "so, what's the use?"
But when a person, or a society, denies emerging or imminent dangers, the peace of mind it gains will be extremely short term, while the harm may be sustained or fatal.
Most of the world today not only is in denial concerning the truly appalling likely consequences of the rise of radical Islam, it often refuses to even accept unambiguous evidence of its existence.
The latest minor example of the latter is occurring at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. As has been generally reported, an Iranian Muslim student drove a jeep into a crowd of students, causing only minor injuries. He turned himself in and informed the police and the media that he was trying to kill the students to "avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world."
Neither the university nor most of the media has been willing to characterize this event as a terrorist attempt by a radical Muslim. Mr. Colmes, on "Hannity and Colmes" seemed to express genuine puzzlement as to why it mattered whether we called it that or merely an act of violence. Similarly, the attack at the Los Angeles International Airport a few years ago was for nine months just called a violent attack, before it was finally characterized by police as a radical Muslim act of terrorism.
I have been in contact with British politicians who tell me that there is increasing radical Muslim street violence in Britain that is explicitly motivated by radical Islam but is not reported or characterized as such. Even in its cleansed versions, I am told, these incidents are being extremely underreported.
In Antwerp last month, according to the reporter Paul Belien, rioting Moroccan "youths" went on a rampage destroying cars and beating up reporters, but the police were instructed not even to stop them or arrest them. According to an anonymous policeman, "An ambulance was told to switch off its siren because that might provoke the Moroccans." This event, too, was under reported, or not reported at all in American media.
And of course, last October in Paris and other French cities, hundreds of buildings were torched and tens of thousands of cars burned by Muslim "youths" through weeks of rioting, while both the French government and most of the "responsible" experts denied there was any radical Muslim component to the greatest urban violence to hit France since World War. It was all to do with poverty and teenage angst and alienation.
Of course poverty and alienation can't explain the Iranian student in North Carolina. He has just received one of the finest educations available to a privileged American. He reportedly has received advanced degrees in philosophy and psychology from one of our top universities.
The media has pointed out that there is no evidence he was connected to Al Qaeda or another terrorist cell. But that is exactly the point. As I discussed in my book last year, the threat to the West is vastly more than bin Laden and Al Qaeda (although that would be bad enough.)
The greater danger is the ferment in Islam that is generating radical ideas in an unknown, but growing percentage of grass-roots Muslims around the world -- very much including in Europe and, to a currently lesser extent, in the United States.
A nation cannot design (and maintain public support for) a rational response to the danger if the nature and extent of the danger is not identified, widely reported and comprehended.
What are we dealing with? A few maladjusted "youth"? Or a larger and growing number of perfectly well-adjusted men and women -- who just happen to be adjusted to a different set of cultural, religious (or distorted religious) and political values. And does it matter that those values are inimical to western concepts of tolerance, democracy, equality and religious freedom?
The public has the right and vital need to have the events of our time fully and fairly described and reported. But a witch's brew of psychological denial and political correctness is suppressing the institutional voices of government, police, schools, universities and the media when it comes to radical Islam.
As the danger grows but is not publicly described, the public will first be ignorant and fail to demand sufficient remedial action.
But as incidents and rumors are encountered over time, the public mind will inevitably suspect the worst and demand the strongest action. Demagogues will emerge to gratify that vox populi. (The Dubai port deal is a small example of such a process -- although in that incident the threat is real and there are many sincere and rational voices amidst the many demagogues.)
Institutional voices are not being responsible by suppressing honest description of radical Islamic events. Denying the existence of evil (or refusing to be judgmental about it) has never proved a reliable method for defeating it. Hell is presumably filled with souls who didn't understand that point.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
From NJ.com:
If I had a hammer, I'd take it to Springsteen's new record
By Paul Mulshine
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Let's do a little thought experiment here. We'll try to think up the most boring CD imaginable.
Barry Manilow does the Bee Gees' greatest hits?
John Tesh covers the Carpenters?
Wait, I've got it: Bruce Springsteen performs a collection of Pete Seeger songs.
Unfortunately, that last one is real. It was announced last week that Springsteen will be releasing an album of Seeger covers next month.
Crank up the coffee pot. Get out the No-Doz. The new Springsteen disc, "We Shall Overcome/ The Seeger Sessions," has the potential to be the single most boring event in rock'n'roll since, let me think for a minute, oh yeah, since Springsteen's last album. That was the one in which he did a bad imitation of the early Bob Dylan. The tour was so unexciting that toward the end the man whose band fills football stadiums was having a hard time filling movie theaters.
The reason for the empty seats was obvious. Springsteen may be a hell of a rocker but he is an awful folk singer. If you doubt this, I invite you to hunt down the Springsteen version of "We Shall Overcome" that is available on the Internet as a preview of the album to come. The first thing you will notice about it is that Springsteen is singing in a sort of generic middle- American drawl. The second thing you will notice is that he is singing out of tune. The effect is to create a false air of authenticity.
Seeger was just as bad in this regard. While posing as a humble hick, Seeger was in fact a Harvard dropout who adopted a folksy air as a means of inflicting his Marxist views on audiences. Dubbed "Stalin's songbird," Seeger sang these lyrics on a 1941 album by the Almanac Singers:
"Franklin D., listen to me,
"You ain't a-gonna send me'cross the sea."
The album also included a ditty in which President Roosevelt was decried as an agent of banker J.P. Morgan because of his insistence on aiding the British in their struggle against Uncle Joe Stalin's noble ally. A week after the album's release, however, Hitler invaded Russia. The albums were pulled from the racks and a new one issued calling for the U.S. to get into the war.
I'd pay good money to hear Springsteen cover those Seeger songs. A complete retrospective of Seeger's work would remind Americans of just how thoroughly misguided the so-called Old Left was in the 20th century. Just what did these folkies find so attractive about Marxism? Whatever it was, it didn't carry over into the rock era. Seeger famously resisted Bob Dylan's move to electric guitars at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, saying, "If I had an ax, I'd cut the cable."
The cable remained intact, however, and Dylan escaped the world of fake folk music and entered the electric'60s. This was a wonderful era, an era when even Seeger tunes could be made listenable. The Beach Boys' transcendent version of "Sloop John B" apparently stemmed from Brian Wilson's having heard Seeger mangle the song. And then there was the Byrds' wonderful version of the Seeger song "Turn, Turn, Turn," the lyrics for which Seeger, who lacks any visible talent for either singing or songwriting, lifted directly from the Bible.
If Springsteen were planning that sort of a remake of the Seeger songs, this CD might be worth the effort. All evidence, however, is that Springsteen plans to drone on in that fake hick accent of his. His fans aren't happy. Every Springsteen fan I know dreads the thought of this disc. One wag on a Web site in Minneapolis created a spoof story headlined "Springsteen to release album of TV Song Covers." The article by Steve Perry quotes a bogus Boss telling the listener that the theme from "Green Acres," a 1960s sitcom about a Manhattan couple who moves to the country, "captures a strain of agrarian utopianism that has very deep roots in America."
The funny thing is, it does. The music of sitcoms is every bit as authentic as the "folk" music that emanated from Seeger's crowd. In both cases, you had a bunch of city slickers trying to figure out what goes on in the real America. Seeger at least had the common sense to imitate the true practitioners of authentic folk music -- Appalachian fiddle players, Mississippi Delta blues singers and the like. Springsteen imitates the imitator.
His fans would prefer if he would just imitate himself. The concert video he released with the 30th anniversary CD of "Born to Run" shows the band dressed like a bunch of pimps on a Saturday night. The look was perfect and so was the music.
Back then, Springsteen was supposed to be the future of rock'n'roll. It turned out he was just the present. And now he's the past.
Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist. He may be reached at pmulshine@starledger.com.
If I had a hammer, I'd take it to Springsteen's new record
By Paul Mulshine
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Let's do a little thought experiment here. We'll try to think up the most boring CD imaginable.
Barry Manilow does the Bee Gees' greatest hits?
John Tesh covers the Carpenters?
Wait, I've got it: Bruce Springsteen performs a collection of Pete Seeger songs.
Unfortunately, that last one is real. It was announced last week that Springsteen will be releasing an album of Seeger covers next month.
Crank up the coffee pot. Get out the No-Doz. The new Springsteen disc, "We Shall Overcome/ The Seeger Sessions," has the potential to be the single most boring event in rock'n'roll since, let me think for a minute, oh yeah, since Springsteen's last album. That was the one in which he did a bad imitation of the early Bob Dylan. The tour was so unexciting that toward the end the man whose band fills football stadiums was having a hard time filling movie theaters.
The reason for the empty seats was obvious. Springsteen may be a hell of a rocker but he is an awful folk singer. If you doubt this, I invite you to hunt down the Springsteen version of "We Shall Overcome" that is available on the Internet as a preview of the album to come. The first thing you will notice about it is that Springsteen is singing in a sort of generic middle- American drawl. The second thing you will notice is that he is singing out of tune. The effect is to create a false air of authenticity.
Seeger was just as bad in this regard. While posing as a humble hick, Seeger was in fact a Harvard dropout who adopted a folksy air as a means of inflicting his Marxist views on audiences. Dubbed "Stalin's songbird," Seeger sang these lyrics on a 1941 album by the Almanac Singers:
"Franklin D., listen to me,
"You ain't a-gonna send me'cross the sea."
The album also included a ditty in which President Roosevelt was decried as an agent of banker J.P. Morgan because of his insistence on aiding the British in their struggle against Uncle Joe Stalin's noble ally. A week after the album's release, however, Hitler invaded Russia. The albums were pulled from the racks and a new one issued calling for the U.S. to get into the war.
I'd pay good money to hear Springsteen cover those Seeger songs. A complete retrospective of Seeger's work would remind Americans of just how thoroughly misguided the so-called Old Left was in the 20th century. Just what did these folkies find so attractive about Marxism? Whatever it was, it didn't carry over into the rock era. Seeger famously resisted Bob Dylan's move to electric guitars at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival, saying, "If I had an ax, I'd cut the cable."
The cable remained intact, however, and Dylan escaped the world of fake folk music and entered the electric'60s. This was a wonderful era, an era when even Seeger tunes could be made listenable. The Beach Boys' transcendent version of "Sloop John B" apparently stemmed from Brian Wilson's having heard Seeger mangle the song. And then there was the Byrds' wonderful version of the Seeger song "Turn, Turn, Turn," the lyrics for which Seeger, who lacks any visible talent for either singing or songwriting, lifted directly from the Bible.
If Springsteen were planning that sort of a remake of the Seeger songs, this CD might be worth the effort. All evidence, however, is that Springsteen plans to drone on in that fake hick accent of his. His fans aren't happy. Every Springsteen fan I know dreads the thought of this disc. One wag on a Web site in Minneapolis created a spoof story headlined "Springsteen to release album of TV Song Covers." The article by Steve Perry quotes a bogus Boss telling the listener that the theme from "Green Acres," a 1960s sitcom about a Manhattan couple who moves to the country, "captures a strain of agrarian utopianism that has very deep roots in America."
The funny thing is, it does. The music of sitcoms is every bit as authentic as the "folk" music that emanated from Seeger's crowd. In both cases, you had a bunch of city slickers trying to figure out what goes on in the real America. Seeger at least had the common sense to imitate the true practitioners of authentic folk music -- Appalachian fiddle players, Mississippi Delta blues singers and the like. Springsteen imitates the imitator.
His fans would prefer if he would just imitate himself. The concert video he released with the 30th anniversary CD of "Born to Run" shows the band dressed like a bunch of pimps on a Saturday night. The look was perfect and so was the music.
Back then, Springsteen was supposed to be the future of rock'n'roll. It turned out he was just the present. And now he's the past.
Paul Mulshine is a Star-Ledger columnist. He may be reached at pmulshine@starledger.com.
Monday, March 06, 2006
From StarTribune.com:
March 06, 2006 – 7:30 PM
Puckett dies after massive stroke
Joe Christensen, Star Tribune
On the day Kirby Puckett retired from baseball, he tried reassuring everyone that the sadness of losing sight in his right eye wouldn't diminish the spirit fans had seen him show for 12 seasons in a Twins uniform.
"Kirby Puckett's going to be all right," he said in 1996. "Don't worry about me. I'll show up, and I'll have a smile on my face. The only thing I won't have is this uniform on. But you guys can have the memories of what I did when I did have it on."
On Monday, the sports world held those memories close as Puckett died in a Phoenix hospital, one day after suffering a massive stroke. He was 45.
"The entire Minnesota Twins organization is saddened by the loss of Twins great Kirby Puckett," the team said in a statement.
Team owner Carl Pohlad said, "This is a sad day for the Minnesota Twins, Major League Baseball and baseball fans everywhere."
The hospital said Puckett was given last rites and died Monday afternoon.
Puckett rose from a Chicago housing project and became a Minnesota sports icon, bursting onto the scene as a rookie in 1984 with an energetic style and an effervescent smile, each all his own.
He led the Twins to the World Series in 1987 and 1991, leaping into walls as their center fielder and swinging with a might that belied his stocky, 5-8 frame.
He often said he played every game as if it were his last, and sure enough, on March 28, 1996, Puckett awoke with blurred vision in his right eye.
He never played again. He was diagnosed with glaucoma and retired on July 12, 1996.
For the next five years, Puckett remained a smiling fixture on the Minnesota scene, working as an executive vice president for the Twins in an ambassadorial role.
In 2001, he became a first-ballot inductee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame with 2,304 career hits, 10 All-Star selections and six Gold Glove Awards.
Not all was as well in Puckett's personal life. His seemingly impeccable image began to tarnish in 2002, as details emerged from divorce proceedings with his wife, Tonya Puckett, who alleged that he had abused her and threatened to kill her.
Puckett said it wasn't true, but allegations from other women soon followed. He relinquished most ties to the Twins, moved his permanent residence to Arizona and disappeared from the public view -- the epitome of a fallen star.
Meteoric rise
Puckett had been raised in the Robert Taylor Homes, a south Chicago housing project. He received no college scholarship offers, so he went to work after high school on an assembly line for Ford Motor Co.
"I never forgot where I came from," Puckett said when he was elected to the Hall of Fame.
The Twins drafted him in 1982, and he reached the big leagues on May 8, 1984. He celebrated his arrival by getting four hits against the team then called the California Angels.
Puckett lore piled up quickly in 1987, when he led the Twins in hits as they rallied from a 3-2 deficit against the St. Louis Cardinals in the best-of-seven series and won their first World Series title. He now had unqualified success to go with his uninhibited style.
"A 7- or 8-year-old kid watching the game would pick him out, and he just looked different," sportscaster Bob Costas said. "He had an affection for the game, and there was a kind of energy about it that was fun.
"I'm sure he took it seriously. You have to take it seriously in order to be a great player, but there was nothing grim about the way he went about it."
In 1991, the Twins again found themselves trailing in the World Series 3-2, this time to the Atlanta Braves.
But Puckett went around telling teammates to hop on his back for Game 6, that he would carry them to victory. Then he delivered two signature moments.
First, he made a leaping catch against the Metrodome's outfield Plexiglas in the third inning and robbed Ron Gant of an extra-base hit, potentially saving a run from scoring. Then, in the 11th inning, Puckett became the ninth player in major league history to win a World Series game with a home run, hitting a changeup from Charlie Leibrandt over the outfield wall and pumping his arms in celebration as he rounded the bases.
"You couldn't hear yourself think in the ballpark," former Twins hitting coach Terry Crowley said Monday from Baltimore Orioles camp. "Kirby was on deck. The manager went to the mound, and Kirby said to me, 'If they leave this guy in the game, the game is over.'
"Sure enough, they left [Leibrandt] in the game. Puckett hit a home run, rounded the bases, and as I went to shake hands with him, he gave me a bear hug and said, 'Crow, I told you!' That will stay in my mind forever."
Sudden end
Puckett turned 36 during spring training in 1996 and continued to torment Grapefruit League pitching.
On March 27, he went 2-for-3 in a game against the Braves, raising his average to .344. The next day, Puckett woke up and couldn't see Tonya, though she was sitting right next to him.
Three laser surgeries later, Puckett knew he'd never be able to see well enough to hit major league pitching again.
His right retina had irreversible damage, caused by a blockage of blood vessels.
Puckett arrived at his retirement news conference wearing his white No. 34 jersey. He also wore sunglasses covering the gauze patch over his right eye.
"It's the last time you're going to see Kirby Puckett in a Twins uniform," Puckett said. "I want to tell you all that I love you all so much."
The room was packed with reporters and Twins players. Puckett gave another pep talk.
"I want my young teammates to know right now that when you put this uniform on, you play with pride and integrity, like Kent Hrbek and Molly [Paul Molitor] and Knobby [Chuck Knoblauch]. ... Just don't take it for granted, because tomorrow is not promised to any of us."
Fall from grace
When Puckett was elected to the Hall of Fame, on Jan. 17, 2001, he called it one of the proudest days of his life.
But the next year, as he and Tonya were involved in divorce proceedings, Puckett's life began to spiral downward.
In March 2002, Anne Potter filed an order for protection against Tonya Puckett, alleging that Tonya had threatened to kill her over an alleged affair with Kirby.
That month, a St. Louis Park woman asked for protection against Kirby Puckett, saying in court documents that she had had an 18-year relationship with him and that he had shoved her inside his Bloomington condominium.
Then, in September 2002, Puckett was involved with a woman in a very public incident at Redstone American Grill in Eden Prairie. That time, the woman accused Puckett of dragging her into a restaurant restroom and grabbing her breast.
After a nine-day trial, a jury ruled Puckett not guilty of false imprisonment, fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and fifth-degree assault.
"I just want to go home," Puckett said that day, when the verdicts were released.
He relinquished his role as Twins executive vice president. The team, which retired Puckett's jersey in 1997, tried maintaining ties to him, but he continued to withdraw.
When friends saw him, they grew increasingly concerned about the weight he was putting on his short frame, with estimates that he was well beyond 300 pounds.
But for those who saw him in Arizona at Harmon Killebrew's charity golf tournament in November, there was renewed hope. Puckett had spoken of taking better care of himself. Recently, there was news that he planned to remarry in June.
And there was always appreciation of him as a ballplayer and teammate.
"He made me a better coach," Crowley said. "He made Tom Kelly probably a better manager. He made the mediocre hitters on that team probably a little better. He was a pleasure. He really was."
Puckett would have turned 46 on March 14. He is survived by two children, Catherine and Kirby Jr., from his marriage to Tonya.
March 06, 2006 – 7:30 PM
Puckett dies after massive stroke
Joe Christensen, Star Tribune
On the day Kirby Puckett retired from baseball, he tried reassuring everyone that the sadness of losing sight in his right eye wouldn't diminish the spirit fans had seen him show for 12 seasons in a Twins uniform.
"Kirby Puckett's going to be all right," he said in 1996. "Don't worry about me. I'll show up, and I'll have a smile on my face. The only thing I won't have is this uniform on. But you guys can have the memories of what I did when I did have it on."
On Monday, the sports world held those memories close as Puckett died in a Phoenix hospital, one day after suffering a massive stroke. He was 45.
"The entire Minnesota Twins organization is saddened by the loss of Twins great Kirby Puckett," the team said in a statement.
Team owner Carl Pohlad said, "This is a sad day for the Minnesota Twins, Major League Baseball and baseball fans everywhere."
The hospital said Puckett was given last rites and died Monday afternoon.
Puckett rose from a Chicago housing project and became a Minnesota sports icon, bursting onto the scene as a rookie in 1984 with an energetic style and an effervescent smile, each all his own.
He led the Twins to the World Series in 1987 and 1991, leaping into walls as their center fielder and swinging with a might that belied his stocky, 5-8 frame.
He often said he played every game as if it were his last, and sure enough, on March 28, 1996, Puckett awoke with blurred vision in his right eye.
He never played again. He was diagnosed with glaucoma and retired on July 12, 1996.
For the next five years, Puckett remained a smiling fixture on the Minnesota scene, working as an executive vice president for the Twins in an ambassadorial role.
In 2001, he became a first-ballot inductee into the National Baseball Hall of Fame with 2,304 career hits, 10 All-Star selections and six Gold Glove Awards.
Not all was as well in Puckett's personal life. His seemingly impeccable image began to tarnish in 2002, as details emerged from divorce proceedings with his wife, Tonya Puckett, who alleged that he had abused her and threatened to kill her.
Puckett said it wasn't true, but allegations from other women soon followed. He relinquished most ties to the Twins, moved his permanent residence to Arizona and disappeared from the public view -- the epitome of a fallen star.
Meteoric rise
Puckett had been raised in the Robert Taylor Homes, a south Chicago housing project. He received no college scholarship offers, so he went to work after high school on an assembly line for Ford Motor Co.
"I never forgot where I came from," Puckett said when he was elected to the Hall of Fame.
The Twins drafted him in 1982, and he reached the big leagues on May 8, 1984. He celebrated his arrival by getting four hits against the team then called the California Angels.
Puckett lore piled up quickly in 1987, when he led the Twins in hits as they rallied from a 3-2 deficit against the St. Louis Cardinals in the best-of-seven series and won their first World Series title. He now had unqualified success to go with his uninhibited style.
"A 7- or 8-year-old kid watching the game would pick him out, and he just looked different," sportscaster Bob Costas said. "He had an affection for the game, and there was a kind of energy about it that was fun.
"I'm sure he took it seriously. You have to take it seriously in order to be a great player, but there was nothing grim about the way he went about it."
In 1991, the Twins again found themselves trailing in the World Series 3-2, this time to the Atlanta Braves.
But Puckett went around telling teammates to hop on his back for Game 6, that he would carry them to victory. Then he delivered two signature moments.
First, he made a leaping catch against the Metrodome's outfield Plexiglas in the third inning and robbed Ron Gant of an extra-base hit, potentially saving a run from scoring. Then, in the 11th inning, Puckett became the ninth player in major league history to win a World Series game with a home run, hitting a changeup from Charlie Leibrandt over the outfield wall and pumping his arms in celebration as he rounded the bases.
"You couldn't hear yourself think in the ballpark," former Twins hitting coach Terry Crowley said Monday from Baltimore Orioles camp. "Kirby was on deck. The manager went to the mound, and Kirby said to me, 'If they leave this guy in the game, the game is over.'
"Sure enough, they left [Leibrandt] in the game. Puckett hit a home run, rounded the bases, and as I went to shake hands with him, he gave me a bear hug and said, 'Crow, I told you!' That will stay in my mind forever."
Sudden end
Puckett turned 36 during spring training in 1996 and continued to torment Grapefruit League pitching.
On March 27, he went 2-for-3 in a game against the Braves, raising his average to .344. The next day, Puckett woke up and couldn't see Tonya, though she was sitting right next to him.
Three laser surgeries later, Puckett knew he'd never be able to see well enough to hit major league pitching again.
His right retina had irreversible damage, caused by a blockage of blood vessels.
Puckett arrived at his retirement news conference wearing his white No. 34 jersey. He also wore sunglasses covering the gauze patch over his right eye.
"It's the last time you're going to see Kirby Puckett in a Twins uniform," Puckett said. "I want to tell you all that I love you all so much."
The room was packed with reporters and Twins players. Puckett gave another pep talk.
"I want my young teammates to know right now that when you put this uniform on, you play with pride and integrity, like Kent Hrbek and Molly [Paul Molitor] and Knobby [Chuck Knoblauch]. ... Just don't take it for granted, because tomorrow is not promised to any of us."
Fall from grace
When Puckett was elected to the Hall of Fame, on Jan. 17, 2001, he called it one of the proudest days of his life.
But the next year, as he and Tonya were involved in divorce proceedings, Puckett's life began to spiral downward.
In March 2002, Anne Potter filed an order for protection against Tonya Puckett, alleging that Tonya had threatened to kill her over an alleged affair with Kirby.
That month, a St. Louis Park woman asked for protection against Kirby Puckett, saying in court documents that she had had an 18-year relationship with him and that he had shoved her inside his Bloomington condominium.
Then, in September 2002, Puckett was involved with a woman in a very public incident at Redstone American Grill in Eden Prairie. That time, the woman accused Puckett of dragging her into a restaurant restroom and grabbing her breast.
After a nine-day trial, a jury ruled Puckett not guilty of false imprisonment, fifth-degree criminal sexual conduct and fifth-degree assault.
"I just want to go home," Puckett said that day, when the verdicts were released.
He relinquished his role as Twins executive vice president. The team, which retired Puckett's jersey in 1997, tried maintaining ties to him, but he continued to withdraw.
When friends saw him, they grew increasingly concerned about the weight he was putting on his short frame, with estimates that he was well beyond 300 pounds.
But for those who saw him in Arizona at Harmon Killebrew's charity golf tournament in November, there was renewed hope. Puckett had spoken of taking better care of himself. Recently, there was news that he planned to remarry in June.
And there was always appreciation of him as a ballplayer and teammate.
"He made me a better coach," Crowley said. "He made Tom Kelly probably a better manager. He made the mediocre hitters on that team probably a little better. He was a pleasure. He really was."
Puckett would have turned 46 on March 14. He is survived by two children, Catherine and Kirby Jr., from his marriage to Tonya.
From kenpom.com:
Ken Pomeroy on UNC
Giving my own personal “Full Circle” coverage here…
- I haven’t heard anybody say it yet, so I will: Right now, UNC is the best team in the ACC. Even if you believe last night’s game was an abberation and Duke is still the best bet to go the farthest in the dance - which is perfectly reasonable - I think you’d have to admit the gap between these two is now very small. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see either Duke or UNC in the Final Four. I thought it was odd that near the end of the game, Brad Nessler noted that UNC was playing for a 2-seed in the ACC Tourney and would get the spoils of avoiding Duke until the title game. I mean, UNC had just won in Duke’s house. If there’s one team trying to avoid the other, I would suggest it’s the other way around.
- From a UNC perspective, the Tar Heels stuck to the John Chaney recipe of using their defensive currency on stifling Redick from three. Despite Lee Melchionni allegedly being dangerous if left open, he was a 33% three point shooter coming in. That’s nothing special. Sure, Melchionni can beat you if he’s left open. But you have to assume Redick will beat you if left open, despite his recent slump. Every three that Melchionni and Greg Paulus take is one less for Redick. Those two went 3 for 11, and just about every one was a good look.
- You want another reason why some people have a visceral hatred for the Dukies? The latest example is the idea that J.J. Redick is mentally drained. This going-for-the-ACC-record business was a tremendous burden, and we should all feel sorry for him. Coach K has been one of the leading proponents of this theory, like it was an inevitable byproduct of Redick being such a prolific scorer. Here’s one of the best scorers ever, but wait - it’s not all fun and games for him. Being that good carries a tremendous burden. Hey, how about this idea - at least in the case of Temple and UNC, the defense has been pretty solid on Redick. Duke’s first opponent in the ACC Tourney should feel his wrath.
- If you’re going to buy into the Redick fatigue idea, don’t let K off the hook. Through last Sunday’s games, Redick has played 91.9% of his team’s minutes (roughly 37 minutes per 40-minute game). That’s the most in the ACC and 19th in the nation, and for every one of those minutes he has been target #1 of the defense. If he’s fatigued - and I don’t think that he is - I’d propose that K’s overuse of Redick is the primary reason. In his last four games, Redick has averaged 39.5 mpg.
- And while I’m piling on Coach K, if he has any confidence in Sean Dockery running the point, he should give Greg Paulus some more bench time. His latest stats are 43.8% eFG and 33.6 TO%. I’ll confess that TO% is not the best way to measure a point guard’s ball handling ability, especially one that doesn’t shoot much, but there are only eight players in the country getting 80% of their team’s minutes with a TORate greater than 30. Paulus’ lack of scoring ability allows a team to run multiple players at Redick without penalty. I have to think that the Duke offense is more productive with a lineup of Dockery, Redick, Nelson, McRoberts, Williams.
- This game had a whopping 81 possessions, which had to make Roy Williams happy. Any of UNC’s players can and does bring the ball into the frontcourt. Even Hansbrough led a fast break once. I’m just saying it’s time to update your expectations. Enough talk about Roy being Coach of the Year and how crazy this all is. This isn’t January any more. This team is good enough to stand on its own now.
Ken Pomeroy on UNC
Giving my own personal “Full Circle” coverage here…
- I haven’t heard anybody say it yet, so I will: Right now, UNC is the best team in the ACC. Even if you believe last night’s game was an abberation and Duke is still the best bet to go the farthest in the dance - which is perfectly reasonable - I think you’d have to admit the gap between these two is now very small. At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised to see either Duke or UNC in the Final Four. I thought it was odd that near the end of the game, Brad Nessler noted that UNC was playing for a 2-seed in the ACC Tourney and would get the spoils of avoiding Duke until the title game. I mean, UNC had just won in Duke’s house. If there’s one team trying to avoid the other, I would suggest it’s the other way around.
- From a UNC perspective, the Tar Heels stuck to the John Chaney recipe of using their defensive currency on stifling Redick from three. Despite Lee Melchionni allegedly being dangerous if left open, he was a 33% three point shooter coming in. That’s nothing special. Sure, Melchionni can beat you if he’s left open. But you have to assume Redick will beat you if left open, despite his recent slump. Every three that Melchionni and Greg Paulus take is one less for Redick. Those two went 3 for 11, and just about every one was a good look.
- You want another reason why some people have a visceral hatred for the Dukies? The latest example is the idea that J.J. Redick is mentally drained. This going-for-the-ACC-record business was a tremendous burden, and we should all feel sorry for him. Coach K has been one of the leading proponents of this theory, like it was an inevitable byproduct of Redick being such a prolific scorer. Here’s one of the best scorers ever, but wait - it’s not all fun and games for him. Being that good carries a tremendous burden. Hey, how about this idea - at least in the case of Temple and UNC, the defense has been pretty solid on Redick. Duke’s first opponent in the ACC Tourney should feel his wrath.
- If you’re going to buy into the Redick fatigue idea, don’t let K off the hook. Through last Sunday’s games, Redick has played 91.9% of his team’s minutes (roughly 37 minutes per 40-minute game). That’s the most in the ACC and 19th in the nation, and for every one of those minutes he has been target #1 of the defense. If he’s fatigued - and I don’t think that he is - I’d propose that K’s overuse of Redick is the primary reason. In his last four games, Redick has averaged 39.5 mpg.
- And while I’m piling on Coach K, if he has any confidence in Sean Dockery running the point, he should give Greg Paulus some more bench time. His latest stats are 43.8% eFG and 33.6 TO%. I’ll confess that TO% is not the best way to measure a point guard’s ball handling ability, especially one that doesn’t shoot much, but there are only eight players in the country getting 80% of their team’s minutes with a TORate greater than 30. Paulus’ lack of scoring ability allows a team to run multiple players at Redick without penalty. I have to think that the Duke offense is more productive with a lineup of Dockery, Redick, Nelson, McRoberts, Williams.
- This game had a whopping 81 possessions, which had to make Roy Williams happy. Any of UNC’s players can and does bring the ball into the frontcourt. Even Hansbrough led a fast break once. I’m just saying it’s time to update your expectations. Enough talk about Roy being Coach of the Year and how crazy this all is. This isn’t January any more. This team is good enough to stand on its own now.
Sunday, March 05, 2006
From The Chicago Sun-Times:
'Long war' is breaking down into tedium
BY MARK STEYN
I had to sign a tedious business contract the other day. They wanted my corporation number -- fair enough -- plus my Social Security number -- well, if you insist -- and also my driver's license number -- hang on, what's the deal with that?
Well, we e-mailed over a query and they e-mailed back that it was a requirement of the Patriot Act. So we asked where exactly in the Patriot Act could this particular requirement be found and, after a bit of a delay, we got an answer.
And on discovering that there was no mention of driver's licenses in that particular subsection, I wrote back that we have a policy of reporting all erroneous invocations of the Patriot Act to the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds that such invocations weaken the rationale for the act, and thereby undermine public support for genuine anti-terrorism measures and thus constitute a threat to America's national security.
And about 10 minutes after that the guy sent back an e-mail saying he didn't need the driver's license number after all.
I'd be interested to know how much of this bureaucratic opportunism is going on. A couple of weeks earlier, I went to the bank to deposit a U.S. dollar check drawn on a Canadian financial institution, and the clerk announced that for security reasons checks drawn on Canadian banks now had to be sent away for collection and I'd have access to the funds in a couple of weeks. This was, she explained, a requirement of -- ta-da -- the Patriot Act. And, amazingly, that turned out not to be anywhere in the act either.
Any day now, my little girl will wake up, look under the pillow and find a note from the Tooth Fairy explaining that before processing of financial remuneration for said tooth can commence, the Patriot Act requires the petitioning child to supply a federal taxpayer identification number and computer-readable photo card with retinal scan.
I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act per se, so much as the awesome powers claimed on its behalf by everybody from car salesmen to the agriculture official who demanded proof from my maple-sugaring neighbor that his sap lines were secure against terrorism. Which is a hard thing to prove. You may think you've secured them against terrorism, and one morning you wake up to a loud explosion and the TV's showing breaking news of people howling in agony as boiling syrup rains down from the skies. Apparently, there's a big problem with al-Qaida putting anthrax in the maple supply. You don't notice it on your pancake because it blends in with the confectioners' sugar.
My worry is that on the home front the war is falling prey to lack-of-mission creep -- that, in the absence of any real urgency and direction, the "long war" (to use the administration's new and unsatisfactory term) is degenerating into nothing but bureaucratic tedium, media doom-mongering and erratic ad hoc oppositionism. To be sure, all these have been present since Day One: The press have been insisting Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war for three years and yet, despite the urgings of CNN and the BBC, those layabout Iraqis stubbornly refuse to get on with it. They're happy to teeter for another three years, no matter how many "experts" stamp their foot and pout their lips and say "I want my civil war now." The New York Times ran a headline after the big bombing: "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are In Ruins." The "political talks" resumed the day after publication. The "ruins" were rebuilt after 48 hours.
The quagmire isn't in Iraq but at home. For five years, beginning with the designation of "war on terror," the president's public presentation has been consistent: Islam is a great religion, religion of peace, marvelous stuff, White House Ramadan Banquet the highlight of the calendar, but, sadly, every barrel has one or two bad apples, even Islam believe it or not, and once we've hunted those down we'll join the newly liberated peace-loving Muslim democracies in a global alliance of peace-loving peaceful persons. Most sentient beings have been aware that there is, to put it mildly, a large element of evasion about this basic narrative, but only now is it being explicitly rejected by all sides. William F. Buckley and George Will have more or less respectfully detached themselves from the insane idealism of shoving liberty and democracy down people's throats whether they want it or not. And, on the ports deal with Dubai, a number of other commentators I respect plus a stampede of largely ignorant weathervane pols have denounced the administration for endangering American security on the eastern seaboard. I can't see that: The only change is that instead of being American stevedores employed by a British company they'll now be American stevedores employed by a United Arab Emirates company.
But what I find interesting is the underlying argument: At heart, what Hillary Clinton and Co. are doing is dismissing as a Bush fiction the idea of "friendly" Arab "allies" in the war of terror. They're not necessarily wrong. Even the "friendliest" Arab regimes tend to be a bunch of duplicitous shysters: King Hussein sided with Saddam in the Gulf war, Mubarak and the House of Saud are the cause of much of our present woes. I would be perfectly prepared to consider a raft of measures insisting that, for the duration of the war, there'll be restrictions on access to the United States by certain countries. As I've argued for some years, it's absurd that the Saudis are allowed to continue with their financial and ideological subversion of everything from American think-tanks to mosques to prison chaplaincy programs (and, I'll bet, without providing driver's license numbers).
However, I think we should do that as a conscious policy decision, rather than as reflex piecemeal oppositionism. What Democrats seem to be doing with Dubai Ports World, whether they realize it or not, is tapping in to a general public skepticism (to put it politely) about the entire Muslim world. In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.
Despite being portrayed as a swaggering arrogant neocon warmongering cowboy, President Bush has, in fact, been circumspect to a fault for five years. But the equivocal constrained rhetoric is insufficient to a "long war." And from all sides, more and more people are calling its bluff.
©Mark Steyn, 2006
'Long war' is breaking down into tedium
BY MARK STEYN
I had to sign a tedious business contract the other day. They wanted my corporation number -- fair enough -- plus my Social Security number -- well, if you insist -- and also my driver's license number -- hang on, what's the deal with that?
Well, we e-mailed over a query and they e-mailed back that it was a requirement of the Patriot Act. So we asked where exactly in the Patriot Act could this particular requirement be found and, after a bit of a delay, we got an answer.
And on discovering that there was no mention of driver's licenses in that particular subsection, I wrote back that we have a policy of reporting all erroneous invocations of the Patriot Act to the Department of Homeland Security on the grounds that such invocations weaken the rationale for the act, and thereby undermine public support for genuine anti-terrorism measures and thus constitute a threat to America's national security.
And about 10 minutes after that the guy sent back an e-mail saying he didn't need the driver's license number after all.
I'd be interested to know how much of this bureaucratic opportunism is going on. A couple of weeks earlier, I went to the bank to deposit a U.S. dollar check drawn on a Canadian financial institution, and the clerk announced that for security reasons checks drawn on Canadian banks now had to be sent away for collection and I'd have access to the funds in a couple of weeks. This was, she explained, a requirement of -- ta-da -- the Patriot Act. And, amazingly, that turned out not to be anywhere in the act either.
Any day now, my little girl will wake up, look under the pillow and find a note from the Tooth Fairy explaining that before processing of financial remuneration for said tooth can commence, the Patriot Act requires the petitioning child to supply a federal taxpayer identification number and computer-readable photo card with retinal scan.
I don't have a problem with the Patriot Act per se, so much as the awesome powers claimed on its behalf by everybody from car salesmen to the agriculture official who demanded proof from my maple-sugaring neighbor that his sap lines were secure against terrorism. Which is a hard thing to prove. You may think you've secured them against terrorism, and one morning you wake up to a loud explosion and the TV's showing breaking news of people howling in agony as boiling syrup rains down from the skies. Apparently, there's a big problem with al-Qaida putting anthrax in the maple supply. You don't notice it on your pancake because it blends in with the confectioners' sugar.
My worry is that on the home front the war is falling prey to lack-of-mission creep -- that, in the absence of any real urgency and direction, the "long war" (to use the administration's new and unsatisfactory term) is degenerating into nothing but bureaucratic tedium, media doom-mongering and erratic ad hoc oppositionism. To be sure, all these have been present since Day One: The press have been insisting Iraq is teetering on the brink of civil war for three years and yet, despite the urgings of CNN and the BBC, those layabout Iraqis stubbornly refuse to get on with it. They're happy to teeter for another three years, no matter how many "experts" stamp their foot and pout their lips and say "I want my civil war now." The New York Times ran a headline after the big bombing: "More Clashes Shake Iraq; Political Talks Are In Ruins." The "political talks" resumed the day after publication. The "ruins" were rebuilt after 48 hours.
The quagmire isn't in Iraq but at home. For five years, beginning with the designation of "war on terror," the president's public presentation has been consistent: Islam is a great religion, religion of peace, marvelous stuff, White House Ramadan Banquet the highlight of the calendar, but, sadly, every barrel has one or two bad apples, even Islam believe it or not, and once we've hunted those down we'll join the newly liberated peace-loving Muslim democracies in a global alliance of peace-loving peaceful persons. Most sentient beings have been aware that there is, to put it mildly, a large element of evasion about this basic narrative, but only now is it being explicitly rejected by all sides. William F. Buckley and George Will have more or less respectfully detached themselves from the insane idealism of shoving liberty and democracy down people's throats whether they want it or not. And, on the ports deal with Dubai, a number of other commentators I respect plus a stampede of largely ignorant weathervane pols have denounced the administration for endangering American security on the eastern seaboard. I can't see that: The only change is that instead of being American stevedores employed by a British company they'll now be American stevedores employed by a United Arab Emirates company.
But what I find interesting is the underlying argument: At heart, what Hillary Clinton and Co. are doing is dismissing as a Bush fiction the idea of "friendly" Arab "allies" in the war of terror. They're not necessarily wrong. Even the "friendliest" Arab regimes tend to be a bunch of duplicitous shysters: King Hussein sided with Saddam in the Gulf war, Mubarak and the House of Saud are the cause of much of our present woes. I would be perfectly prepared to consider a raft of measures insisting that, for the duration of the war, there'll be restrictions on access to the United States by certain countries. As I've argued for some years, it's absurd that the Saudis are allowed to continue with their financial and ideological subversion of everything from American think-tanks to mosques to prison chaplaincy programs (and, I'll bet, without providing driver's license numbers).
However, I think we should do that as a conscious policy decision, rather than as reflex piecemeal oppositionism. What Democrats seem to be doing with Dubai Ports World, whether they realize it or not, is tapping in to a general public skepticism (to put it politely) about the entire Muslim world. In that sense, the ports deal is the American equivalent of the Danish cartoon jihad: increasing numbers of Europeans -- if not yet their political class -- are fed up with switching on the TV and seeing Muslim men jumping up and down and threatening death followed by commentators patiently explaining that the "vast majority" of Muslims are, of course, impeccably "moderate." So what? There were millions of "moderate" Germans in the 1930s, and a fat lot of good they did us or them.
Despite being portrayed as a swaggering arrogant neocon warmongering cowboy, President Bush has, in fact, been circumspect to a fault for five years. But the equivocal constrained rhetoric is insufficient to a "long war." And from all sides, more and more people are calling its bluff.
©Mark Steyn, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
