| EdDriscoll.com |
|
Thursday, February 19, 2004
Posted
2/19/2004 09:19:53 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Something about this war is eating Bush's detractors alive, something unquantifiable with conventional weights and measures. I think that it is because if George W. Bush really did lie (and thus surprising both the Right and Left), the anti-war crowd would still have to face a disheartening Spectacle of Freedom For An Entire People, instead of the more satisfactory Humiliation Of Bush At The United Nations And Mass Graves Nobody Knows About. That simple. Nothing is more irritating than watching your enemies fail to live up to your worst expectations. If George W. was hawking stolen museum art, or John Ashcroft was forcing Shiites to convert, or Dick Cheney was sucking the oil from Iraqi teenager's skin, the Left would have far lower blood pressure. They would be relieved, vindicated, because the war would be delightfully immoral. The anti-war crowd long ago started measuring themselves as culturally, intellectually, and morally superior to the pro-war crowd, instead of measuring whether their policies were superior. Thus, the incredible success in Afghanistan and Iraq is not a blow to their policy, it is a blow to their ego and sense of self. I think the worst example I can give is during the campaign in Afghanistan, where it became popular to repeat that ANY civilian casualties should classify the endeavor as a failure for George W. Bush and the administration. This was to raise the goalpost to a level not out of concern for Afghani civilians, but out of concern that the critics' self-image not be a casualty, to attempt to force the debate into one where it was guaranteed that the pro-war side would be inferior. Hey, to each their own, I guess. Yet as of now, they are constantly reminded that their intellectual and cultural inferiors have accomplished something quite historic. Wonderful, even. And they know it; nobody is this sputtering and unhinged when proven right.I really think Jonah pegged it, a few months before the war in Iraq, when he called the left on their "hypocrophobia"--their fear of actually being taken seriously.
Posted
2/19/2004 01:33:10 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/19/2004 12:38:08 AM
by Edward Driscoll
DEBKA’s sources in Tehran have heard unconfirmed reports that the disaster was no accident, but possibly sabotage carried out by anti-government forces in Khorassan province, which borders on Afghanistan. This report ties in with another that claims the train was not carrying innocent industrial cargoes but hundreds of tons of explosive materials Iran was smuggling into Afghanistan via the Shiite city of Herat to be used by Iranian saboteurs and agents for guerrilla attacks on US troops and the forces of President Hamid Karzai, as well for supplying the Taleban in their Kandahar stronghold. DEBKAfile’s sources report that there were a series of blasts; the first inside the Neyshabur train station was powerful enough to trigger a second explosion in the remote station of Khayyam. There, it set ablaze another train carrying fuel and other flammable material. Iran has long used Khorassan province as a conduit for smuggling thousands of its agents into Afghanistan. But the province is also home to nearly two million Afghan refugees, some of whom hire out as agents to the Kabul government or the US military. The suggestion is that a group of these agents were ordered to blow up the train when it pulled into Neyshabur. Their mission: to deter the Iranians from further meddling in Afghanistan. It would not have been hard to persuade Afghan refugees to undertake the mission. As Sunni Muslims, they harbor strong feelings of resentment against their discrimination at the hands of Iran’s Shiite majority. Three years ago, Afghans were responsible for a large explosion in Mashad, an attack launched after Iran ordered the destruction of a makeshift mosque the refugees had built. Several weeks later, a similar blast occurred in Zahedan, capital of Iran’s Baluchestan province, where Iranian authorities had pulled down another mosque constructed by the refugees.Of course, as with anything from Debka, take it with a big grain of salt. But at a minimum, it's an interesting and for the moment, very plausible hypothesis. Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Posted
2/18/2004 10:56:15 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 10:51:09 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The California state agency that records marriages said yesterday that forms that have been altered, which San Francisco has done on its homosexual "marriage" licenses, will not be registered. California has a standard application form for marriage licenses, "and if it has been altered in any way, then it will not be registered and recorded. It will be sent back to the county of origin," said Nicole Evans, spokeswoman for Kim Belshe, the California Health and Human Services secretary. The more than 2,600 homosexual couples who have been "married" since last week with the help of San Francisco city and county officials have been crossing out "groom" and "bride" as printed on the standard application and writing in phrases such as "Applicant #1" and "Applicant #2" or "spouses for life." None of these forms will be accepted, Ms. Evans said yesterday.They won't, but it's a nice thought from the California governor.
Posted
2/18/2004 10:28:00 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 07:50:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 07:45:43 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 07:18:32 PM
by Edward Driscoll
In 2001, New York was burning and we were afraid. Today, there are American flags flying in Baghdad and our enemies are afraid.And this from a critic of President Bush! (Link via InstaPundit.)
Posted
2/18/2004 06:39:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 06:06:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 05:06:31 PM
by Edward Driscoll
"Laura Bush Says Gay Marriage 'Shocking'"Geez, can you say "misleading"? I knew that you could. Here's what the body of the article quotes Mrs. Bush as actually saying: Laura Bush says gay marriages are "a very, very shocking issue" for some people, a subject that should be debated by Americans rather than settled by a Massachusetts court or the mayor of San Francisco. Asked how she feels about the issue personally, Mrs. Bush replies: "Let's just leave it at that."So at worst, she punts on the issue. But that's a far, far cry from "Laura Bush Says Gay Marriage 'Shocking'". As the Professor wrote about a different AP article, "This is unusually transparent partisanship, even by the not-very-demanding standards of Big Media in an election year. The good news is that it is transparent." UPDATE: Columbia Journalism Review has more.
Posted
2/18/2004 02:49:49 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 02:39:50 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 01:35:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 01:29:45 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 01:06:20 PM
by Edward Driscoll
It seems Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not planning to tear a roof off California's state capitol to make way for a "smoking plaza," as the Daily Telegraph had reported (and we repeated yesterday). Sacramento Bee blogger Daniel Weintraub says the story is false: "I checked with the governor's office. They officially confirmed: no plans for any demolition or altering of the Capitol. They have, of course, installed a donated tent, about 10 feet by 10 feet, in the center of the governor's (pre-existing) open air courtyard. The tent looks for all the world like a smoking tent, complete with ashtrays. But Schwarzenegger aides insist on calling the shelter a 'deal-making tent.' "Too bad. But maybe someone else will run with the idea.
Posted
2/18/2004 12:53:38 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 12:23:36 PM
by Edward Driscoll
The Unified Kerry Theory is on a collision course with the "Fact-check their asses" theory of the blogiverse, and I'll betcha the latter comes out the winner. If Kerry had been paying attention to New Media, he'd know that he can never get away with his flexibility, no matter what Teddy Kennedy tells him.Or as we said a couple of days ago about the press, "I'd like to think that eventually, the left will be damaged by how easy it now is to Google, Lexus/Nexus and search the huge database that the Media Research Center has built up, to compare and contrast how they respond to Republicans versus how they respond to Democrats. Sooner or later, their hypocrisy has got to catch up with them."
Posted
2/18/2004 11:33:02 AM
by Edward Driscoll
He raged and he screamed Then lingered long enough to End with a whimperWhat can I say? Great minds pun alike.
Posted
2/18/2004 11:21:54 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/18/2004 11:19:31 AM
by Edward Driscoll
[In 1984], with the nation facing huge deficits, Mondale told the voters that a raise in taxes was inevitable. "Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I," he said. "He won't tell you, I just did." It was a disastrous strategy. Reagan promised prosperity, a strong defense, and balanced budgets without raising taxes. On election day, he lost forty-nine states and carried only MN and DC. Assessing the results, Mondale commented, "Reagan was promising them `morning in America,' and I was promising a root canal."John Kerry, in 2003: "We have to either roll back or prevent the top end of Bush tax cuts from taking place … I’m prepared to go at it and say we’re going to take it away."Yeah, that'll sell.
Posted
2/18/2004 11:13:57 AM
by Edward Driscoll
The outraged response from the anti-smoking crowd is further evidence that the main point of smoking bans is not to protect bystanders from secondhand smoke but to discourage the habit by making it less convenient and less socially acceptable. "That's very frightening that he would even think about smoking inside the heart of our state Capitol," said one activist, clearly more concerned about the symbolism than the smoke. "He could do more good by championing our cause rather than trivializing it."Maybe Arnold's more of a pro-choice kind of guy?
Posted
2/18/2004 12:57:48 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Some day I'll write a book titled Everything I Know About Parenting I Learned from Mick Jagger. You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.Heh. Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Posted
2/17/2004 07:33:33 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 07:30:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 03:54:21 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 03:16:47 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 03:05:18 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 01:51:02 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 12:53:45 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 12:40:39 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's cigar-smoking governor, is to tear a roof off the state capitol so that smokers can enjoy their vice inside the legislature. The Austrian-born actor, elected governor last November, is facing protests for deciding to turn a courtyard in the building into a "smoking plaza". It will include a drinking area. Part of the roof will be removed to get round a California law banning smoking in offices, bars and restaurants. The governor's spokesman, Terri Carbaugh, said he planned to be among those using the area. "It's a more positive environment where they can all be on an equal footing, as opposed to everyone going into the governor's office where he's behind his desk."This is an amazingly common sense solution. As James Taranto wrote, "Now if only we can somehow install Schwarzenegger as mayor of New York."
Posted
2/17/2004 12:28:50 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 11:44:03 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/17/2004 02:23:14 AM
by Edward Driscoll
WASH POST REPORTER: 'Nobody would be too shocked if Kerry lied about an affair. Even if someone came to us with photographs we still wouldn't run it'...But that quote--damning to the Post--is removed. However, as of the time of this post, it's still in the link that Google uses to link to the story. And here's a screen capture, for when it scrolls off. The BBC has quite a checkered recent history of airbrushing its stories with no warning. Looks like it's happened once again. UPDATE: More here. Monday, February 16, 2004
Posted
2/16/2004 11:16:34 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 10:49:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 10:25:37 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 05:19:52 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 05:07:05 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 04:37:36 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 03:14:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 03:04:03 AM
by Edward Driscoll
You know, you sometimes get the feeling the day after the polio vaccine was invented, today's left would have run editorials lamenting the good ol' days, when we were a little more cautious about what swimming pools we jumped into, and expressing sadness that we'd now have no new stories about the afflicted overcoming their disability to inspire the rest of us. I'm not kidding. They're that resistant to change. Every mill that shuts down is a "sign of our sad times." No matter that the new mill will do things better, faster and cheaper than the old one. New farming techniques grow more food on less land. But dammit, if there wasn't something romantic about the old-stye "family farm" that's deserving of government protection. Innovation isn't celebrated, it's excoriated for displacing some idealized vision of the way things once were. In matters of progress and dyanmism, the left is far more conservative than the conservatives are.Radley's far from the first guy to notice that the left are far more reactionary these days than the right ever was, but "the conservative left" is a great way to phrase it. UPDATE: Let's look at the election from the point of view of the ones now standing athwart history and yelling stop (to coin a phrase). A narrowly-elected president who's spent the last four years toppling the Taliban, putting Al-Qeada on the run, arresting Saddam Hussein and getting Libya to allow inspections of its nuclear program, not to mention making the Tranzis of "Old Europe" look like fools, even has he enlarges several of your social programs has got to drive you absolutely, totally insane.
Posted
2/16/2004 02:32:25 AM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/16/2004 01:13:00 AM
by Edward Driscoll
'Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition [of 1984's Newspeak Dictionary], we're not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won't be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is Ingsoc and Ingsoc is Newspeak,' he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. 'Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?'I'd say the Party's efforts are right on schedule. Sunday, February 15, 2004
Posted
2/15/2004 11:18:29 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 10:33:54 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 10:19:59 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 08:47:28 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 08:42:30 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 08:38:43 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 04:50:44 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Posted
2/15/2004 12:10:25 PM
by Edward Driscoll
Home |