Southern Culture, Part 1...
In my continuing quest to become a certified redneck, I have been studying my new surroundings here in Charlotte, sorta-kinda to get the lay of the land, so to speak. It occurred to me very early on that in order to fit in and be accepted as a member of the community, that I would have to, in some cases, go native. When in Rome, yadda, yadda, yadda, right?
It became very clear, very quickly, that I had a lot to learn. There are major differences between northerners and southerners that have to be hashed out if one is to make a go of leaving one for the other --- you'd only expect that. What I didn't expect was the almost bewildering array of differences that I would have to adapt to. There were many starting points to be considered: language, dress, sports, etc. And it was very difficult to try to assimilate it all at once. So, I did what any rational person would do and narrowed it down to one subject at a time. And like any good Italian boy from New York, I narrowed my initial attempt to assimilate to what Italians know best: food.
According to Florence King, there are three keys to good Southern cooking: BBQ it, fry it or deep fry it in bacon grease. Some of that does hold true. The number of BBQ establishments, stores devoted soley to enhancing the BBQ experience, and even BBQ tournaments, is staggering. BBQ is almost like a religion here, and there are inevitible arguments over which style of southern BBQ is best. North Carolina BBQ seems to dispense with a lot of the spicy stuff (although you can find it) and tend more towards the saucy and sweet stuff. South Carolina BBQ consists of whatever one managed to run over on a back road and drag home that day, the sauce being not so important as hiding what the dish once was from the Fish and Wildlife people.
Fried food abounds. Fried chicken, fried catfish, fried okra, fried pork chops, bacon, etc, are staples. yet no one here has ever heard of the fried Twinkie (go figure!). One cannot walk twelve feet anywhere without the smell, sound or feeling that something, somewhere, is being fried. Bacon grease is hoarded here like a precious commodity, and can even be purchased in stores.
The lowly grit is the paragon of cullinary delight. Grits are served with everything, if you want them, and I can imagine that it won't be long before I find a place that serves them with chateau briand. I have never, ever, in my life had grits. The very look of them always made my stomach turn, and when I once encountered a short-order cook in New York City making them with lard, I decided that grits would never pass my lips. And I never knew just what grits were until I got here. Apparently, grits are a certain grade of corn (called hominy) that is not even suitable for use as feed for livestock. Yet, people will eat the hell out of them. Grits have a very tough husk, which is usually blanched off with lye or some other caustic material, rinsed, ground into smaller pieces and then packaged for human consumption. Not exactly a gastronimical delight, I agree. Yet there is not one person here that I have met, and discussed grits with, that has failed to say the same thing when I tell them I hate grits --- "You haven't had MY grits yet".
Apparently, every family in the south has a super-secret recipe for grits that has been passed down from generation to generation, and which is guarded even more closely that Saddam Hussein. One other word about grits: if you've seen what they do them at Waffle House (a sort of slum-like, cut-rate, truck-stop IHOP), you wouldn't consider eating them either. The only use for grits that I can think of is either as a substitute for spackle or maybe you can use it to repair tears in your hip waders.
Don't get me started on breads and pastries. They have a severe problem here when it comes to making such things, and it generally revolves around the fact that it is very difficult to get dough to rise. Everyone has a different theory, but the one that seems to make the most sense is the water. Charlotte municipal water is not fit for man or beast, and on a good day, you might think twice about mixing it with your antifreeze. It's pretty dusgusting, loaded with lime and other hard minerals and very often, requires a knife to safetly ingest. I fixed the problem with water filters, and it seems to have helped. However, I defy you to find a decent loaf of bread here. As for baking, southerners do know how to make pies and biscuits that are killer, but again, they hold these things as state secrets.
Now, once one gets beyond the local quisine, what's left? Well, fast food is the same the world over. One McDonalds tastes just like another. Although I have recently discovered Chik-fil-a, which is quite good in my opinion (every southerner I know says it's crap, but then again, these folks eat grits). Fast food is easy to understand and assimilate, and there was no special effort required here.
Where we run into a problem is with what one might call foreign food. It's foreign because it didn't originate here, in the south, never mind the United States. There are very few chinese restaurants in Charlotte (about a dozen, by my count) and probably even fewer orientals. They have a few places, usually run by Koreans, that pass themselves off as Japanese. There is one good Chinese place that I have found (although it's menu is heavily influenced by the Food Network), but it is certainly not what I am used to.
There is no such thing as a decent Italian restaurant in Charlotte. You can search high and low, pay informants to indicate the best possible location, you might even sacrifice a virgin (if you could find one here) in the quest for decent Italian food. Around here, ask someone to recommend an Italian restaurant and they will invariably direct you to a pizzaria that is run by some guy who had a cousin who once lived in Jersey. Some of this is changing, however, and I have to assume it's due to the influx of northerners, since most Southerners wouldn't know good Italian food if it was fed to them intravenously. I have found one (count 'em!) Italian specialty store where one could find all manner of delicacies from the old country: fresh mozzarella (no one here knows what it looks like, even if you point it out to them), pignoli nuts, real olive oil (not the refined, light-sweet curde stuff), prosciutto, mortadella, and, on a good day, real semolina bread. I had a conversation with a southern lady recently in which she told me that she loved to put cheddar cheese on her spaghetti. She probably also thinks that Ragu is ambrosia. The few people I have cooked for here, rave about tomato sauce made by hand, just like my mother taught me to. It's not their fault that they are deprived, after all, there was no call for this stuff until recently, but I still cringe.
The same can be said for Spanish food. While there are a good many Central Americans here, if one wants such food, you have to search it out. You have to trek to a certain part of town, and be prepared to order in Spanish, since it's very unlikely you'll find an English speaker. I know of one actual Spanish restaurant (that's Spain Spanish) and it's menu is lackluster, yet folks swear it's the best. When I do crave Spanish cooking, and make the trip, the people in the restaurants (or the pushcart) are amazed that I know something of the Spanish language, even if I mangle it. There are very few Carolinians that speak Spanish and know something about the food, and it's appreciated by the Salvadorans, Mexicans and Costa Ricans living here. It hasn't wrangled me a free tamale or burrito yet, but I'm working on it (wink, wink).
You can forget Thai. Indian restaurants are found only in the trendy, heavily-homosexual University and Uptown areas, and are avoided by most Southerners like a baptist minister in a whorehouse. These places tend to open, flower for a short time, and then close rapidly since there is not enough of a market for them. The trendy nuveau-quisine and California-style places seem to enjoy growth here for the simple reason that most southerners can identify just what is on the menu without resorting to a dictionary or a native guide. No Portugese, no German worth the name, and VERY few Kosher delicatessens. Greek restaurants abound, and the few I have been to are very good, but for the most part, while Charlotte has a huge Greek population (per capita), most of the restauranteurs amongst them run mom-and-pop-style cheeburger joints (shades of the Saturday Night Live skit). They know that their native quisine will not be a big seller unless they can get the upscale clientele.
So, what does one do when one comes from a cullinary Nirvana like New York and finds himself in the food-equivalent of the Mojave? Well, since I already cook for myself, I don't fret much about enjoying my favorties, although finding the proper ingredients is often like a trek up Everest. But then again, I knew when I came here that I was going to have to make some trade-offs, and this was one of them. I have to get used to not being able to have authentic Thai food delivered at midnight.
That's another thing. You cannot have many things delivered here, especially food. Dominos, Papa Johns and the B-list fast food joints will deliver, and that's about it. Everything else is take out (when it exists at all), and as I've said before, distances here are vastly increased. Who wants to travel six miles just for wonton soup made with Charlotte municipal water? I'll stick close to home and make my own, thank you, and probably save a bundle.
Next week, I think I will begin to try and decipher the southern fascination, nay, addiction, to gravy.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Friday, October 01, 2004
Debate # 1...
(Note: this commentary also appears on the StopDemocrats.com website)
I watched what passed for a debate this evening between John F. Kerry and George W. Bush. I was seriously disappointed.For the benefit of GW, I have a piece of advice: wake the hell up! You gave the man a small window of opportunity to sneak back up on you, and that wasn't good. As for what went right, the repeated attempts (mostly successful!) of making Kerry dine on his own elocutions worked, until it began to sound repetitious. What I would have asked you to do better was to hammer home a very simple point -- ask for specifics.
On several occasions, Jim Lehrer asked Kerry to explain, specifically, just what his super-secret plans were in all areas of foreign endeavor. What we got were generalities, a few remarks about international treaties, lip service to the U.N. and some gobbledegook about North Korea, that was technically excellent, grade-A, political horse dung, but not one single, solitary iota of utterance that could reasonably pass for explanation. Next week, when kerry is asked for specifics, do NOT let him dance. A simple "Senator, I did not hear you answer the question", should suffice.
As for Kerry, one can easily see why he's sliding in the polls. What we got was another fine exhibition of soft shoe, stuffed to the rafters with lots of technical mumbo-jumbo and short of actual ideas and plans. I will say he looked much more lively than he's ever looked before, even with the fake tan removed, the phony chuckle and the manicure. He kept his Vietnam references to a minimum (referring to it three times by my count, but never by name).
Here are a few specific things I noticed during the debate that I think have some kind of meaning or are moments when Bush should have pounced on Kerry.
Specific thing #1: I noticed that Kerry is now doing the Clinton "thumb-pointing" thing, possibly a subliminal message. An attempt to remind his voters of the "good old days"?Specific thing #2: Kerry stated that he planned to add two more active duty Army divisions and double the number of special forces troops available. However, he did not state just where these soldiers were going to come from, and whether or not the military can actually train that many special forces.Specific thing#3: Kerry tied the unpopularity of the United States in some international circles to failure to adopt the Kyoto treaty and to join the International Criminal Court. Kerry called these things "Global Tests", which Bush deflected quite well (even ridiculing the phrase "Global test), but there was room to wield a sledgehammer here. Bush was correct in his statement that he would not allow Americans to be tried in international courts that were answerable to no one (the ICC), but passed up a golden opportunity on the mention of Kyoto. The Kyoto treaty was voted down in the United States Senate by a vote of 95-0. Bush should have asked Kerry what his vote was on this. Either Kerry voted against it or abstained from voting. Either way, Bush could have made hay by asking Kerry a direct question on where he stood on something that he claims is vital to gathering friends and influencing allies.
All-in-all, a bad night (but not fatal) for the President. He missed opportunities to give his opponent the kiss of death, and his flip-flop mantra, although truthful, began to sound tired. However, Kerry did not emerge from this confrontation appearing as an elder statesman of Churchillian statue either. It's clear that he still lives in the pre-9/11 fantasy world that liberals created for themselves, a world where everything in the world would be just like a Coke commercial if maybe we just weren't sooo American. Somehow, next week, Bush must expose ths fantasy world for what it is: a fantasy. And to do that he has to put Kerry on the spot everytime he opens his mouth by challenging the Senator to list specifics.
(Note: this commentary also appears on the StopDemocrats.com website)
I watched what passed for a debate this evening between John F. Kerry and George W. Bush. I was seriously disappointed.For the benefit of GW, I have a piece of advice: wake the hell up! You gave the man a small window of opportunity to sneak back up on you, and that wasn't good. As for what went right, the repeated attempts (mostly successful!) of making Kerry dine on his own elocutions worked, until it began to sound repetitious. What I would have asked you to do better was to hammer home a very simple point -- ask for specifics.
On several occasions, Jim Lehrer asked Kerry to explain, specifically, just what his super-secret plans were in all areas of foreign endeavor. What we got were generalities, a few remarks about international treaties, lip service to the U.N. and some gobbledegook about North Korea, that was technically excellent, grade-A, political horse dung, but not one single, solitary iota of utterance that could reasonably pass for explanation. Next week, when kerry is asked for specifics, do NOT let him dance. A simple "Senator, I did not hear you answer the question", should suffice.
As for Kerry, one can easily see why he's sliding in the polls. What we got was another fine exhibition of soft shoe, stuffed to the rafters with lots of technical mumbo-jumbo and short of actual ideas and plans. I will say he looked much more lively than he's ever looked before, even with the fake tan removed, the phony chuckle and the manicure. He kept his Vietnam references to a minimum (referring to it three times by my count, but never by name).
Here are a few specific things I noticed during the debate that I think have some kind of meaning or are moments when Bush should have pounced on Kerry.
Specific thing #1: I noticed that Kerry is now doing the Clinton "thumb-pointing" thing, possibly a subliminal message. An attempt to remind his voters of the "good old days"?Specific thing #2: Kerry stated that he planned to add two more active duty Army divisions and double the number of special forces troops available. However, he did not state just where these soldiers were going to come from, and whether or not the military can actually train that many special forces.Specific thing#3: Kerry tied the unpopularity of the United States in some international circles to failure to adopt the Kyoto treaty and to join the International Criminal Court. Kerry called these things "Global Tests", which Bush deflected quite well (even ridiculing the phrase "Global test), but there was room to wield a sledgehammer here. Bush was correct in his statement that he would not allow Americans to be tried in international courts that were answerable to no one (the ICC), but passed up a golden opportunity on the mention of Kyoto. The Kyoto treaty was voted down in the United States Senate by a vote of 95-0. Bush should have asked Kerry what his vote was on this. Either Kerry voted against it or abstained from voting. Either way, Bush could have made hay by asking Kerry a direct question on where he stood on something that he claims is vital to gathering friends and influencing allies.
All-in-all, a bad night (but not fatal) for the President. He missed opportunities to give his opponent the kiss of death, and his flip-flop mantra, although truthful, began to sound tired. However, Kerry did not emerge from this confrontation appearing as an elder statesman of Churchillian statue either. It's clear that he still lives in the pre-9/11 fantasy world that liberals created for themselves, a world where everything in the world would be just like a Coke commercial if maybe we just weren't sooo American. Somehow, next week, Bush must expose ths fantasy world for what it is: a fantasy. And to do that he has to put Kerry on the spot everytime he opens his mouth by challenging the Senator to list specifics.
Tuesday, September 28, 2004
Debates? What the heck for?
In two days George W. Bush and his hapless opponent, John (wish I was a Kennedy) Kerry will square off in the first of three (count 'em!) televised debates in Miami. The negotiations for the set up of these debates has been laughable; everything from lectern height, to the kinds of pens allowed, to the temperature in the room has been argued over to the nth degree by both campaigns and finally decided upon in the last week.
Actually, the most interesting parts of the debates, to this point, might actually have been the discussion and wrangling over the pens. Bush's camp, I assume, wanted a classic, ball point pen to convey the message of strenght and reliability, while Kerry's camp probably argued for the felt-tip kind that wouldn't be a safety hazard. Nerf candidate, nerf pen. It fits.
The format is even more intriguing: the candidates will be discussing only one issue at a time. The first debate is on foreign policy, and only foreign poicy. Why this should be is both easy to guess at and confusing. The easy part is that Kerry can probably only concentrate on one subject at a time, and needs the week inbetween debates to gauge the wind to help decide what his opinion will be when the next debate comes up (which I assume will be domestic policy). So, he doesn't want any other questions to come along and destroy his carefully crafted, fence-sitter-approved foreign policy of surrendering without actually coming out and saying so. It's confusing because we already know both candidates foreign policy, so why not discuss other things?
Bush (on foreign policy) : we have nasty people out there that want us dead. We have to go get them, and any help we get is to be appreciated and welcomed. If you're not with us, you're against us.
Kerry (on foreign policy): I served in Vietnam. We need allies, not the 29 or so countries in this "fraudulent coalition", who are allies-of-a-sort, but not the right kinds. Allies are defined as the artsy-fartsy, soft, continental Europeans (except the Poles and Italians) who no longer fight their own wars, let alone someone elses. We should surrender if the French and Germans advise us to. I served in Vietnam. I more popular amongst people who wouldn't give us the time of day overseas and who can't vote here, and because I'm popular there, I say they're right and we're wrong. After all, most Americans wouldn't know a good chenin-blanc if it was fed to them via enema. That makes us a laughing stock on the other side of the Atlantic. My wife says so. I served in Vietnam.
Neither candidate can address the other directly. That must also be a Kerry wrinkle. God forbid someone should have to rebut something during a debate! What a tragedy it would be if someone had to deviate from a script to perhaps be clever, present his opponent with a moral or logical conundrum or perhaps make points on personality. So, what we'll get is a shot of Bush giving the same stump speech he has been giving for three years and Kerry giving the same one he stumbled upon last week. No interaction. No exchange of ideas. No debate. Can't have a debate with actual debate in it, can you?
What does this tell you? It tells me that Kerry is frightened out of his wits. It tells me that Kerry cannot think on his feet. It simply screams fear and hesitation. It also tells me that Kerry is STILL formulating his opinions (or rather, his staff's opinions) at this late stage. The man has had 18 months to make his points and set his tone and all we've heard is Vietnam (both the real Vietnam war and the attempt to frame the current war as another Vietnam. Which worked well in 1991 and in Afghanistan in 2001, if I recall). Now when his back is to the wall and he has to produce, we're limited to one issue at a time.
It's also a purely defensive strategy; Bush cannot make comments about Kerry's voting record from 19 years in the Senate (only on Iraq). Bush will not be able to bring up Swift Boat ads, travel to Paris to talk to the North Vietnamese, Kerry's repeated votes to gut national defense and intelligence, the fact that Kerry can only point to three (3) pieces of legislation with his name on them. However, there is a danger: Kerry will now have to explain his foreign policy ideas. He will have to speak in concrete terms instead of vague generalities. Now all the "secret" strategies must be aired. He has no choice now.
The debate itself will be incredibly boring, if you ask me, since Kerry himself is in it, but moreso because there will be no genuine exchange of ideas. No delineation of the differences (except the scripted talking points) between both sides. Bush will show himself to be the steady, stick-to-the-plan type of guy he is, and Kerry will be attempting to lob brickbacks with no fear of reprisal. The only intersting part will be to see whether or not Kerry sweats, ala Nixon.
By the way, was it just good fortune that Bush gets to debate in Miami, in a state that has just suffered four hurricanes in six weeks, and that he arrives at the head of a vast federal relief effort, or are we going to hear democrats blaming Karl Rove for the weather too when Kerry gets his behind handed to him?
In two days George W. Bush and his hapless opponent, John (wish I was a Kennedy) Kerry will square off in the first of three (count 'em!) televised debates in Miami. The negotiations for the set up of these debates has been laughable; everything from lectern height, to the kinds of pens allowed, to the temperature in the room has been argued over to the nth degree by both campaigns and finally decided upon in the last week.
Actually, the most interesting parts of the debates, to this point, might actually have been the discussion and wrangling over the pens. Bush's camp, I assume, wanted a classic, ball point pen to convey the message of strenght and reliability, while Kerry's camp probably argued for the felt-tip kind that wouldn't be a safety hazard. Nerf candidate, nerf pen. It fits.
The format is even more intriguing: the candidates will be discussing only one issue at a time. The first debate is on foreign policy, and only foreign poicy. Why this should be is both easy to guess at and confusing. The easy part is that Kerry can probably only concentrate on one subject at a time, and needs the week inbetween debates to gauge the wind to help decide what his opinion will be when the next debate comes up (which I assume will be domestic policy). So, he doesn't want any other questions to come along and destroy his carefully crafted, fence-sitter-approved foreign policy of surrendering without actually coming out and saying so. It's confusing because we already know both candidates foreign policy, so why not discuss other things?
Bush (on foreign policy) : we have nasty people out there that want us dead. We have to go get them, and any help we get is to be appreciated and welcomed. If you're not with us, you're against us.
Kerry (on foreign policy): I served in Vietnam. We need allies, not the 29 or so countries in this "fraudulent coalition", who are allies-of-a-sort, but not the right kinds. Allies are defined as the artsy-fartsy, soft, continental Europeans (except the Poles and Italians) who no longer fight their own wars, let alone someone elses. We should surrender if the French and Germans advise us to. I served in Vietnam. I more popular amongst people who wouldn't give us the time of day overseas and who can't vote here, and because I'm popular there, I say they're right and we're wrong. After all, most Americans wouldn't know a good chenin-blanc if it was fed to them via enema. That makes us a laughing stock on the other side of the Atlantic. My wife says so. I served in Vietnam.
Neither candidate can address the other directly. That must also be a Kerry wrinkle. God forbid someone should have to rebut something during a debate! What a tragedy it would be if someone had to deviate from a script to perhaps be clever, present his opponent with a moral or logical conundrum or perhaps make points on personality. So, what we'll get is a shot of Bush giving the same stump speech he has been giving for three years and Kerry giving the same one he stumbled upon last week. No interaction. No exchange of ideas. No debate. Can't have a debate with actual debate in it, can you?
What does this tell you? It tells me that Kerry is frightened out of his wits. It tells me that Kerry cannot think on his feet. It simply screams fear and hesitation. It also tells me that Kerry is STILL formulating his opinions (or rather, his staff's opinions) at this late stage. The man has had 18 months to make his points and set his tone and all we've heard is Vietnam (both the real Vietnam war and the attempt to frame the current war as another Vietnam. Which worked well in 1991 and in Afghanistan in 2001, if I recall). Now when his back is to the wall and he has to produce, we're limited to one issue at a time.
It's also a purely defensive strategy; Bush cannot make comments about Kerry's voting record from 19 years in the Senate (only on Iraq). Bush will not be able to bring up Swift Boat ads, travel to Paris to talk to the North Vietnamese, Kerry's repeated votes to gut national defense and intelligence, the fact that Kerry can only point to three (3) pieces of legislation with his name on them. However, there is a danger: Kerry will now have to explain his foreign policy ideas. He will have to speak in concrete terms instead of vague generalities. Now all the "secret" strategies must be aired. He has no choice now.
The debate itself will be incredibly boring, if you ask me, since Kerry himself is in it, but moreso because there will be no genuine exchange of ideas. No delineation of the differences (except the scripted talking points) between both sides. Bush will show himself to be the steady, stick-to-the-plan type of guy he is, and Kerry will be attempting to lob brickbacks with no fear of reprisal. The only intersting part will be to see whether or not Kerry sweats, ala Nixon.
By the way, was it just good fortune that Bush gets to debate in Miami, in a state that has just suffered four hurricanes in six weeks, and that he arrives at the head of a vast federal relief effort, or are we going to hear democrats blaming Karl Rove for the weather too when Kerry gets his behind handed to him?
Saturday, September 25, 2004
War And Peace
There is a persistent buzzing sound eminating from the mouth of one John F. (for Flip-flop) Kerry regarding the current difficulties in Iraq. Depending on what day of the week it is, Kerry will tell you:
1. We're losing.
2. He could do it all better than Bush.
3. Iraq is on the brink of civil war.
4. Iraq is a "distraction" taking us from our real target, Usama Bin Laden.
How, pray, will Mr. Kerry change all of this if by some unfortunate accident of fate (or perhaps massive vote fraud) he should find himself occupying the White House on January 20th? According to John, the way to do this is to get our "allies" (as if Britain, Poland, Australia, South Korea, Italy and a host of others were merely "acquaintances") to help us out. Specifically, France and Germany. The method by which Mr. Kerry is supposed to persuade such friends that it is in their interests to help the United States and Iraqis, when Mr.Bush could not, is left mysteriously undefined. If one had to take an educated guess, one would assume that Mr. Kerry feels that he is "more likable" (I rather like the concept of international relations devolving into a populatarity contest, don't you?). On the other hand, there is always outright bribery: forget that business about the FrankenReich forgiving debts and take contracts for reconstruction from Haliburton to give to Seimens or ELF. Of course, the sacred United Nations is supposed also to suddenly become competent and shoulder some of the load. If we planned on opening brothels in Iraq, I'd say get the U.N. on board RIGHT NOW.
Considering that the U.N., France and Germany were offered the opportunity to do the right thing prior to our invasion of Iraq, and declined, I don't think we should be rewarding them for being recalcitrant. I mean, it's not as if they don't owe us anything, right? I guess shouldering the burden of European defense for 60 years and lending legitimacy (and vast sums of money) to the U.N. were simpy our responsibilities, and it would be crass to ask for something in return.
And of course, the case for even doing the things I have just speculated on runs up against one major problem: Mr. Kerry has defined Iraq as "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time" or something similar. If a prospective President screams that the war is wrong, why would any self-respecting country (let alone the French) decide to get involved anyway? Are Germans and Frenchmen supposed to throw away their own few soldiers in a hopeless cause? Of course, this also runs up against the illogical position taken by Mr. Kerry that he once supported war full-throttle and now wants to take his vote back (for votes, no less). Would you follow a hypocrite into a war?
As for America losing this battle in Iraq, I beg to differ. Yes, Americans are being killed and there are certain places in Iraq that resemble Tombstone more than they do Singapore, but what did anyone expect? Was it realistic to believe that once Americans had overrun the country that a) everyone would be happy about it and b) once Saddam was in the pokey that his former enemies and cronies would just sit still? A major rule of thumb that has been with us from time immemorial with regards to war: when you eliminate the current regime, it usually gets messy when the former enemies of that regime jockey for power.
No one ever said that pacifying Iraq and turning it into a functioning first-class democracy was going to be a quick, easy and antisceptic job. Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at history would know that.
In 1945, the United States emerged triumphant in the Second World War. We occupied Germany and Japan, removing the Nazi regime of Germany and the militarist regime in Japan. The occupations were made even more difficult by the fact that not much of an economy remained in either country because we happened to bomb them flat. It took DECADES for either country to recover and to begin functioning again. In the case of Germany, re-establishing democratic traditions was quite easy since Germans had been a unified country with a democratic tradition going back at least a century. Japan was a little more difficult for cultural reasons, however, Japan had been adapting Western industrial and political forms since 1856.
In 1953, the United States, at the head of a United Nations force, stopped North Korean and Chinese aggression against South Korea. Again, South Korea took decades to rebuild itself and to straighten out it's policital systems. And this was a country that had very few democratic traditions to lean on at all: Korea was a monarchy that had at various times, been absorbed by Chinese, Japanese and Russian armies, and hadn't known anything like self-government for nearly 200 years. Still, Koreans learned and they emerged from the wreckage of war as a stable democracy.
In the Middle East, Iraq in particular, we cannot even pretend that there was ever anything resembling a democratic tradition or a modern economy. Iraq had one industry and that was oil, and it was built by westerners until nationalized by successive repressive, felonious regimes. Iraqis have never (to my knowledge) had anything like an election, unless of course, it was a sham. We are dealing with a population that has suffered deprivation for a decade and half, repression for three decades and which has never had a clear stake in the direction of their own country. There are various ethnic and religious differences between it's citizens that cannot help be come to boil at some point. We have outside regional powers (Iran) attempting to manipulate events within Iraq for it's own purposes.
Establishing a functioning democratic entity under these conditions was almost certain to result in the distressing situation we see now.
Are we losing? No, because it's way too early to tell. Could Mr. Kerry do a better job? Since he claims he would do everyting Mr. Bush has already done, I don't see how his sparkling wit and bubbly personality helps the situation all that much. Is Iraq on the brink of civil war? Show me a country that has been occupied that hasn't been on the brink of civil war.
As for whether or not Iraq is a "distraction", Mr. Kerry and his fellow-travelers are afflicted with a nasty case of short-sightedness. Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. It was widely believed that Saddam Hussein was working on the capability to turn Mr. Kerry's Nantucket lodgings into a radioactive pile of dust. And finally, the problem of terrorism is not a law-enforcement issue, nor is it a political issue: it is a CULTURAL issue. We could arrest and detain all the terrorists we want to in Gitmo, but it doesn't change the mindset. Democracy, a job and a stable society DOES change the mindset. That's what the war Iraq is all about now. To admit so, though, doesn't win Mr. Kerry any votes since societies rarely change quickly. The more misrable things are, the better it is for Kerry.
As for Usama bin Laden, he lays moldering in the bottom of some collpased cave near Tora Bora (I believe) and he was just a mascot anyway. The real issue is not the war, the casualties or the expense. The real issue is whether or not America can change Iraq and Iraqis for the better and make them an example for other nations of the Middle East. I'm betting we can, but Rome wasn't built in a day, was it?
There is a persistent buzzing sound eminating from the mouth of one John F. (for Flip-flop) Kerry regarding the current difficulties in Iraq. Depending on what day of the week it is, Kerry will tell you:
1. We're losing.
2. He could do it all better than Bush.
3. Iraq is on the brink of civil war.
4. Iraq is a "distraction" taking us from our real target, Usama Bin Laden.
How, pray, will Mr. Kerry change all of this if by some unfortunate accident of fate (or perhaps massive vote fraud) he should find himself occupying the White House on January 20th? According to John, the way to do this is to get our "allies" (as if Britain, Poland, Australia, South Korea, Italy and a host of others were merely "acquaintances") to help us out. Specifically, France and Germany. The method by which Mr. Kerry is supposed to persuade such friends that it is in their interests to help the United States and Iraqis, when Mr.Bush could not, is left mysteriously undefined. If one had to take an educated guess, one would assume that Mr. Kerry feels that he is "more likable" (I rather like the concept of international relations devolving into a populatarity contest, don't you?). On the other hand, there is always outright bribery: forget that business about the FrankenReich forgiving debts and take contracts for reconstruction from Haliburton to give to Seimens or ELF. Of course, the sacred United Nations is supposed also to suddenly become competent and shoulder some of the load. If we planned on opening brothels in Iraq, I'd say get the U.N. on board RIGHT NOW.
Considering that the U.N., France and Germany were offered the opportunity to do the right thing prior to our invasion of Iraq, and declined, I don't think we should be rewarding them for being recalcitrant. I mean, it's not as if they don't owe us anything, right? I guess shouldering the burden of European defense for 60 years and lending legitimacy (and vast sums of money) to the U.N. were simpy our responsibilities, and it would be crass to ask for something in return.
And of course, the case for even doing the things I have just speculated on runs up against one major problem: Mr. Kerry has defined Iraq as "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time" or something similar. If a prospective President screams that the war is wrong, why would any self-respecting country (let alone the French) decide to get involved anyway? Are Germans and Frenchmen supposed to throw away their own few soldiers in a hopeless cause? Of course, this also runs up against the illogical position taken by Mr. Kerry that he once supported war full-throttle and now wants to take his vote back (for votes, no less). Would you follow a hypocrite into a war?
As for America losing this battle in Iraq, I beg to differ. Yes, Americans are being killed and there are certain places in Iraq that resemble Tombstone more than they do Singapore, but what did anyone expect? Was it realistic to believe that once Americans had overrun the country that a) everyone would be happy about it and b) once Saddam was in the pokey that his former enemies and cronies would just sit still? A major rule of thumb that has been with us from time immemorial with regards to war: when you eliminate the current regime, it usually gets messy when the former enemies of that regime jockey for power.
No one ever said that pacifying Iraq and turning it into a functioning first-class democracy was going to be a quick, easy and antisceptic job. Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at history would know that.
In 1945, the United States emerged triumphant in the Second World War. We occupied Germany and Japan, removing the Nazi regime of Germany and the militarist regime in Japan. The occupations were made even more difficult by the fact that not much of an economy remained in either country because we happened to bomb them flat. It took DECADES for either country to recover and to begin functioning again. In the case of Germany, re-establishing democratic traditions was quite easy since Germans had been a unified country with a democratic tradition going back at least a century. Japan was a little more difficult for cultural reasons, however, Japan had been adapting Western industrial and political forms since 1856.
In 1953, the United States, at the head of a United Nations force, stopped North Korean and Chinese aggression against South Korea. Again, South Korea took decades to rebuild itself and to straighten out it's policital systems. And this was a country that had very few democratic traditions to lean on at all: Korea was a monarchy that had at various times, been absorbed by Chinese, Japanese and Russian armies, and hadn't known anything like self-government for nearly 200 years. Still, Koreans learned and they emerged from the wreckage of war as a stable democracy.
In the Middle East, Iraq in particular, we cannot even pretend that there was ever anything resembling a democratic tradition or a modern economy. Iraq had one industry and that was oil, and it was built by westerners until nationalized by successive repressive, felonious regimes. Iraqis have never (to my knowledge) had anything like an election, unless of course, it was a sham. We are dealing with a population that has suffered deprivation for a decade and half, repression for three decades and which has never had a clear stake in the direction of their own country. There are various ethnic and religious differences between it's citizens that cannot help be come to boil at some point. We have outside regional powers (Iran) attempting to manipulate events within Iraq for it's own purposes.
Establishing a functioning democratic entity under these conditions was almost certain to result in the distressing situation we see now.
Are we losing? No, because it's way too early to tell. Could Mr. Kerry do a better job? Since he claims he would do everyting Mr. Bush has already done, I don't see how his sparkling wit and bubbly personality helps the situation all that much. Is Iraq on the brink of civil war? Show me a country that has been occupied that hasn't been on the brink of civil war.
As for whether or not Iraq is a "distraction", Mr. Kerry and his fellow-travelers are afflicted with a nasty case of short-sightedness. Iraq was a sponsor of terrorism. It was widely believed that Saddam Hussein was working on the capability to turn Mr. Kerry's Nantucket lodgings into a radioactive pile of dust. And finally, the problem of terrorism is not a law-enforcement issue, nor is it a political issue: it is a CULTURAL issue. We could arrest and detain all the terrorists we want to in Gitmo, but it doesn't change the mindset. Democracy, a job and a stable society DOES change the mindset. That's what the war Iraq is all about now. To admit so, though, doesn't win Mr. Kerry any votes since societies rarely change quickly. The more misrable things are, the better it is for Kerry.
As for Usama bin Laden, he lays moldering in the bottom of some collpased cave near Tora Bora (I believe) and he was just a mascot anyway. The real issue is not the war, the casualties or the expense. The real issue is whether or not America can change Iraq and Iraqis for the better and make them an example for other nations of the Middle East. I'm betting we can, but Rome wasn't built in a day, was it?
Tuesday, September 21, 2004
A Few Questions,If I may?
For John Kerry, John McCain and Chuck Hagel: Assuming that you did not EVER agree for the reasons for going to war with Iraq, and bearing in mind your communal assertions that we're handling all of this incorrectly, what would you, in your infinite, perfect wisdom do now to change any of it? If you said exactly what you all think, do you still honestly believe anyone would vote for you as dog-catcher in East Stumblebutt, Idaho afterwards?
Do you believe that America, given the benefit of the doubt for best intentions, having destroyed what passed for a government and infrastructure, law-enforcement, sanitation, public health systems, and an economy, now has absolutely NO moral obligation to help clean up a mess we, at the very least, exacerbated, in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you believe that it's quite fine to invade a country, for whatever reason, and then cut and run before we set things right?
If I recall, Senator Kerry's war experience amounts to making home movies and shooting himself for purple hearts. Sentaor McCain's revolves around getting shot down and captured. I'm not sure about Hagel. But, do you distinguished gentlemen believe that your collective experience of...ahem...successful military operations gives you a greater insight into how future military operations should be conducted?
I wonder why it is that Mr. Kerry believes that he's entitled to a little bit more civility and consideration while his wife runs around castigating poltical opponents as "scumbags", and asking reporters (respectfully, I'm sure) to "shove it"? Additionally, I surmise that it must be difficult to bash "compassionate conservatism" while one's wife rants about how hurricane victims in third-world nations should have their children "run around naked" because all the donated clothing takes up valuable cargo space that could be better used to send condiments?
Does Mr. Kerry actually believe that skiing at the best resorts, windsurfing in Martha's Vineyard and riding around on $3,000 bicycles gives him insight on what it is the average American thinks, feels and wants?
Will Mr. Kerry eventually talk to a reporter?
When will the media point out that John Kerry is the scion of a old, liberal, Massachusetts politcal family with connections, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with the same intensity and attention to detail that they display when making similar points about Mr. Bush?
Is John Edwards the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle?
Will it be Al Gore or Howard Dean that is eventually chosen as poster child for Prozac?
When will Mr. Kerry reveal his "secret" plans for his foreign policy? His economic plan? His education plan? His blueprint for the future of the country? His vision of a better and more robust America? Or do we have to listen to "I was in Vietnam for four months out of my 60 years of life" some more?
Will Mr. Kerry ever sign the SF180 form that will release all of his personal military records?
Will Dan Rather be able to get a job selling hotdogs at Yankee Stadium in December after this document fiasco? Or, like the woman in Alabama, will Mr.Kerry offer him a job that will no longer exist in November also?
For John Kerry, John McCain and Chuck Hagel: Assuming that you did not EVER agree for the reasons for going to war with Iraq, and bearing in mind your communal assertions that we're handling all of this incorrectly, what would you, in your infinite, perfect wisdom do now to change any of it? If you said exactly what you all think, do you still honestly believe anyone would vote for you as dog-catcher in East Stumblebutt, Idaho afterwards?
Do you believe that America, given the benefit of the doubt for best intentions, having destroyed what passed for a government and infrastructure, law-enforcement, sanitation, public health systems, and an economy, now has absolutely NO moral obligation to help clean up a mess we, at the very least, exacerbated, in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you believe that it's quite fine to invade a country, for whatever reason, and then cut and run before we set things right?
If I recall, Senator Kerry's war experience amounts to making home movies and shooting himself for purple hearts. Sentaor McCain's revolves around getting shot down and captured. I'm not sure about Hagel. But, do you distinguished gentlemen believe that your collective experience of...ahem...successful military operations gives you a greater insight into how future military operations should be conducted?
I wonder why it is that Mr. Kerry believes that he's entitled to a little bit more civility and consideration while his wife runs around castigating poltical opponents as "scumbags", and asking reporters (respectfully, I'm sure) to "shove it"? Additionally, I surmise that it must be difficult to bash "compassionate conservatism" while one's wife rants about how hurricane victims in third-world nations should have their children "run around naked" because all the donated clothing takes up valuable cargo space that could be better used to send condiments?
Does Mr. Kerry actually believe that skiing at the best resorts, windsurfing in Martha's Vineyard and riding around on $3,000 bicycles gives him insight on what it is the average American thinks, feels and wants?
Will Mr. Kerry eventually talk to a reporter?
When will the media point out that John Kerry is the scion of a old, liberal, Massachusetts politcal family with connections, who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with the same intensity and attention to detail that they display when making similar points about Mr. Bush?
Is John Edwards the democrat's answer to Dan Quayle?
Will it be Al Gore or Howard Dean that is eventually chosen as poster child for Prozac?
When will Mr. Kerry reveal his "secret" plans for his foreign policy? His economic plan? His education plan? His blueprint for the future of the country? His vision of a better and more robust America? Or do we have to listen to "I was in Vietnam for four months out of my 60 years of life" some more?
Will Mr. Kerry ever sign the SF180 form that will release all of his personal military records?
Will Dan Rather be able to get a job selling hotdogs at Yankee Stadium in December after this document fiasco? Or, like the woman in Alabama, will Mr.Kerry offer him a job that will no longer exist in November also?
Thursday, September 16, 2004
Off with her head!
If things couldn't already get worse for John Kerry, he can always depend on someone to make them that way. Especially his wife.
Now, Ter-AHH-Zuh Heinz-Kerry is just the kind of woman you would expect a lilly-livered-Francophile-metrosexual-New England-liberal (who incidentally served in Vietnam) to marry: she's a shrew. A rich shrew. And not to insult all shrews, but she has better PR than most.
Exhibiting that haughty, European attitude that gets most females of democratic bent all lathered up with wet dreams of having the opportunity to vicariously direct Presidential power via sexual organs and the power of the purse, Ter-AHH-Zuh is this season's Hilary. Think of her as one would the latest line of the same-old-been-there-done-that-retro clothing from Chanel or De La Renta. She's the new plunging neckline for this political season.
In fact, most people would, I think, agree, that if Ter-AHH-Zuh had slightly bigger balls, most of us would consider her a man and take her into an alley to settle things in the time-honored tradition. But I digress.
You can see that this is a woman used to getting her way, and she doesn't care how she does it. And following in the hallowed footsteps of the Hildebeest, Ter-AHH-Zuh just HAD to have a forum during her husband/cabana-boy's Presidential Campaign. Probably had something to do with that mysterious mortgage on the family compound in Georgetown or something. But anyway, what John-boy should have realized is that if you gave that sort of woman an open microphone, she would eventually speak her mind --- in place of what you wanted her to say. And force you to fervently pray every time she did so.
The woman leaves the reservation everytime she opens her mouth. Remember when Ter-AHH-Zuh railed about the coarseness of American politics and then told a reporter who asked a pointed question to "stuff it"? Well, in the great tradition of casting pearls before swine, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry (and notice how she kept her first husband's name?) emitted yet another gem today. In regards to the victims of the repeated hurricanes in the Carribean and the need to deliver aid to those in need, Ter-AHH-Zuh managed this pointed, observation:
(Full text lifted from YahooNews.com):
Teresa Heinz Kerry, encouraging volunteers as they busily packed supplies Wednesday for hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean, said she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
Ah yes, that haughty old Marie-Antionette thing.
And since John is so enamored of the French, I'll bet he's looking for a guillotine right now.
Open mouth, insert foot, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry. Or, at least have a servant lift your royal leg before inserting the regal tootsie in the imperial gob. Hmmm, children running around naked in places that are a) flooded and b) tropical. Sounds good to me. After we dry the little bastards out (the ones that don't die from exposure, mosquitos, leeches, etc., that is), we can make sure their tender skin burns in the Carribean sun for lack of a shirt or a hat. God forbid we send sunscreen or perhaps medicine to them before power is restored. Yes, let's make sure all the little tykes have PC's, a government-sponsored health insurance plan and a college education before we do something as mundane, and ultimately useless, as clothe them.
Would Ter-AHH-Zuh go naked? I doubt it, and I might kill myself if she did. Would any of her children go naked? Get serious. A Kerry care-package would probably consist of two bottles of Chateaux du Rothchilds, a wheel of Brie, table-water crackers and perhaps a small tub of beluga. Need a blanket? Forget it. Need clothing? Forget it. Priority dictates that we make sure you have cell phones, television and tanning beds before you have clothing.
John Kerry should sit down with his wife and takes his testicles back. Then he should lock the old battleaxe away to keep her away from the microphones. The man is already dying, he doesn't need anymore help.
If things couldn't already get worse for John Kerry, he can always depend on someone to make them that way. Especially his wife.
Now, Ter-AHH-Zuh Heinz-Kerry is just the kind of woman you would expect a lilly-livered-Francophile-metrosexual-New England-liberal (who incidentally served in Vietnam) to marry: she's a shrew. A rich shrew. And not to insult all shrews, but she has better PR than most.
Exhibiting that haughty, European attitude that gets most females of democratic bent all lathered up with wet dreams of having the opportunity to vicariously direct Presidential power via sexual organs and the power of the purse, Ter-AHH-Zuh is this season's Hilary. Think of her as one would the latest line of the same-old-been-there-done-that-retro clothing from Chanel or De La Renta. She's the new plunging neckline for this political season.
In fact, most people would, I think, agree, that if Ter-AHH-Zuh had slightly bigger balls, most of us would consider her a man and take her into an alley to settle things in the time-honored tradition. But I digress.
You can see that this is a woman used to getting her way, and she doesn't care how she does it. And following in the hallowed footsteps of the Hildebeest, Ter-AHH-Zuh just HAD to have a forum during her husband/cabana-boy's Presidential Campaign. Probably had something to do with that mysterious mortgage on the family compound in Georgetown or something. But anyway, what John-boy should have realized is that if you gave that sort of woman an open microphone, she would eventually speak her mind --- in place of what you wanted her to say. And force you to fervently pray every time she did so.
The woman leaves the reservation everytime she opens her mouth. Remember when Ter-AHH-Zuh railed about the coarseness of American politics and then told a reporter who asked a pointed question to "stuff it"? Well, in the great tradition of casting pearls before swine, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry (and notice how she kept her first husband's name?) emitted yet another gem today. In regards to the victims of the repeated hurricanes in the Carribean and the need to deliver aid to those in need, Ter-AHH-Zuh managed this pointed, observation:
(Full text lifted from YahooNews.com):
Teresa Heinz Kerry, encouraging volunteers as they busily packed supplies Wednesday for hurricane relief efforts in the Caribbean, said she was concerned the effort was too focused on sending clothes instead of essentials like water and electric generators.
"Clothing is wonderful, but let them go naked for a while, at least the kids," said Heinz Kerry, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.
Ah yes, that haughty old Marie-Antionette thing.
And since John is so enamored of the French, I'll bet he's looking for a guillotine right now.
Open mouth, insert foot, Mrs. Heinz-Kerry. Or, at least have a servant lift your royal leg before inserting the regal tootsie in the imperial gob. Hmmm, children running around naked in places that are a) flooded and b) tropical. Sounds good to me. After we dry the little bastards out (the ones that don't die from exposure, mosquitos, leeches, etc., that is), we can make sure their tender skin burns in the Carribean sun for lack of a shirt or a hat. God forbid we send sunscreen or perhaps medicine to them before power is restored. Yes, let's make sure all the little tykes have PC's, a government-sponsored health insurance plan and a college education before we do something as mundane, and ultimately useless, as clothe them.
Would Ter-AHH-Zuh go naked? I doubt it, and I might kill myself if she did. Would any of her children go naked? Get serious. A Kerry care-package would probably consist of two bottles of Chateaux du Rothchilds, a wheel of Brie, table-water crackers and perhaps a small tub of beluga. Need a blanket? Forget it. Need clothing? Forget it. Priority dictates that we make sure you have cell phones, television and tanning beds before you have clothing.
John Kerry should sit down with his wife and takes his testicles back. Then he should lock the old battleaxe away to keep her away from the microphones. The man is already dying, he doesn't need anymore help.
Short Reading List...
Got a few more www's for y'all to check out.
Townhall.com - An incredible range of columnists from the whole galaxy of opinion. You will definitely find something you like at Townhall!
NYPost.com - The GOOD paper in New York. I still stop in to see what's happening on my home turf.
ElectricVenom.com - Ben a fan of Kate's for a very long time. She's sassy, she's smart, and she's an awesome read!
Got a few more www's for y'all to check out.
Townhall.com - An incredible range of columnists from the whole galaxy of opinion. You will definitely find something you like at Townhall!
NYPost.com - The GOOD paper in New York. I still stop in to see what's happening on my home turf.
ElectricVenom.com - Ben a fan of Kate's for a very long time. She's sassy, she's smart, and she's an awesome read!
Monday, September 13, 2004
Dan Rather's Oops...
By now only a hermit hasn't heard of the sturm und drang caused by a recent episode of 60 Minutes II in which documents were presented which implied that:
1) G.W. Bush did not fufill his obligations as a member fo the Texas Air National Guard, and
2) G.W. Bush managed to finagle Guard duty (and subsequent preferential treatment) because of his political connections.
It took all of about 45 minutes for the documents to be debunked by what one pundit has called "a guy sitting at home in his pajamas", i.e., the blogosphere. The documents, it appears, are a forgery, and very bad one at that.
Why would CBS do such a thing? Was this a deliberate attempt to smear GWB (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)? Was this sloppy reporting at it's worst? What the hell went on here?
I'm not going to analyze the chain of events vis-a-vis on how the story got aired. It's obvious that CBS (and particularly Dan Rather) has an axe to grind with the Bushes and, let's face it, a major corporation that DIDN'T have a political agenda would be as rare as a rooster that laid crocodile eggs. CBS has been carrying water for John Kerry (or most democrats, for that matter) for decades, so let's not even go there. It's a given that CBS, or at least the people that run it or have power within it, lean democratic in their politics. Their actions and their slant proves it everytime you turn the evening news on.
What gets me about this entire thing is the arrogance. Not the arrogance that comes from brazenly defending a story you know isn't any good -- you'd only expect CBS to do that unless it was threatened by a lawsuit it couldn't win. No, the arrogance I'm talking about is the belief that no one would check up on them.
If I had to guess, CBS knew what it had, and knew that it was bad juju before they aired it. They were prepared to defend a rotten story to the bitter end because of where they expected the attack to come from --- Bush and Republicans. That defense would have been easy, with CBS simply saying that the other side was, of course, partisan, and they would be expected to have their panties in a bunch. The next logical step would have been to have Bush release all of his military records (something John Kerry won't do at all), and even if the original story was proven wrong by that, there might be something else in those records to make hay out of.
However, the attack did not come from Team Bush. It came from the Blogosphere. This is a segment of the population that most major news organizations routinely dismiss as a lunatic fringe. As far as the media is concerned, if you never went to J- school you're not a journalist, and so, not worth listening to. However, people DO listen to the blogosphere. The same people who no longer watch CBS. Or ABC. Or CNN, for that matter. They no longer watch because they know, instinctively, that the major media outlets never report "news", just their version of what constitutes news, complete with the reporter's biases and prejudices.
That the forgeries were revealed so quickly and so thoroughly threw CBS into a tizzy. They never expected to be checked up on, nor did they expect that within minutes, and before the next "news cycle" started, that they would be a laughing stock.
So now CBS is doing what Bill Clinton used to do when he got caught red-handed: brazen it out.
However, there are thousands of people, right now, pecking away at the story, one little piece at a time, and at the rate things are going CBS will be lucky if people still tune in to watch The Price is Right.
The new press (the blogosphere) has many advantages over the established media. Unlike a newspaper, items can be updated on the fly, minute by minute. Retractions in the event of mistakes do not have to wait for the next day's editions to hit the stands --- they are instantaneous. Unlike TV news, people are not presented with merely one side of a story: the side the news team decides to show. Every side of an issue can be immediately aired out, in real time. Information travels in the blogosphere, literally, at the speed of light.
CBS, if they had any decency or shame, would apologize to the public, and GWB, for making such a critical error. If CBS had any courage, they would come out and stop the pretense that they are an objective news outlet. If CBS weren't such a powerful organization, with a gazillion lawyers in it, they would have been dragged into court the day after the report aired.
But CBS doesn't have any shame or decency or courage. They definitely don't have journalists, either. Real journalists would have been damn sure of their facts and sources before they presented such a lousy story. Don't they teach that in Journalism 101 at Columbia J-school?
By now only a hermit hasn't heard of the sturm und drang caused by a recent episode of 60 Minutes II in which documents were presented which implied that:
1) G.W. Bush did not fufill his obligations as a member fo the Texas Air National Guard, and
2) G.W. Bush managed to finagle Guard duty (and subsequent preferential treatment) because of his political connections.
It took all of about 45 minutes for the documents to be debunked by what one pundit has called "a guy sitting at home in his pajamas", i.e., the blogosphere. The documents, it appears, are a forgery, and very bad one at that.
Why would CBS do such a thing? Was this a deliberate attempt to smear GWB (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)? Was this sloppy reporting at it's worst? What the hell went on here?
I'm not going to analyze the chain of events vis-a-vis on how the story got aired. It's obvious that CBS (and particularly Dan Rather) has an axe to grind with the Bushes and, let's face it, a major corporation that DIDN'T have a political agenda would be as rare as a rooster that laid crocodile eggs. CBS has been carrying water for John Kerry (or most democrats, for that matter) for decades, so let's not even go there. It's a given that CBS, or at least the people that run it or have power within it, lean democratic in their politics. Their actions and their slant proves it everytime you turn the evening news on.
What gets me about this entire thing is the arrogance. Not the arrogance that comes from brazenly defending a story you know isn't any good -- you'd only expect CBS to do that unless it was threatened by a lawsuit it couldn't win. No, the arrogance I'm talking about is the belief that no one would check up on them.
If I had to guess, CBS knew what it had, and knew that it was bad juju before they aired it. They were prepared to defend a rotten story to the bitter end because of where they expected the attack to come from --- Bush and Republicans. That defense would have been easy, with CBS simply saying that the other side was, of course, partisan, and they would be expected to have their panties in a bunch. The next logical step would have been to have Bush release all of his military records (something John Kerry won't do at all), and even if the original story was proven wrong by that, there might be something else in those records to make hay out of.
However, the attack did not come from Team Bush. It came from the Blogosphere. This is a segment of the population that most major news organizations routinely dismiss as a lunatic fringe. As far as the media is concerned, if you never went to J- school you're not a journalist, and so, not worth listening to. However, people DO listen to the blogosphere. The same people who no longer watch CBS. Or ABC. Or CNN, for that matter. They no longer watch because they know, instinctively, that the major media outlets never report "news", just their version of what constitutes news, complete with the reporter's biases and prejudices.
That the forgeries were revealed so quickly and so thoroughly threw CBS into a tizzy. They never expected to be checked up on, nor did they expect that within minutes, and before the next "news cycle" started, that they would be a laughing stock.
So now CBS is doing what Bill Clinton used to do when he got caught red-handed: brazen it out.
However, there are thousands of people, right now, pecking away at the story, one little piece at a time, and at the rate things are going CBS will be lucky if people still tune in to watch The Price is Right.
The new press (the blogosphere) has many advantages over the established media. Unlike a newspaper, items can be updated on the fly, minute by minute. Retractions in the event of mistakes do not have to wait for the next day's editions to hit the stands --- they are instantaneous. Unlike TV news, people are not presented with merely one side of a story: the side the news team decides to show. Every side of an issue can be immediately aired out, in real time. Information travels in the blogosphere, literally, at the speed of light.
CBS, if they had any decency or shame, would apologize to the public, and GWB, for making such a critical error. If CBS had any courage, they would come out and stop the pretense that they are an objective news outlet. If CBS weren't such a powerful organization, with a gazillion lawyers in it, they would have been dragged into court the day after the report aired.
But CBS doesn't have any shame or decency or courage. They definitely don't have journalists, either. Real journalists would have been damn sure of their facts and sources before they presented such a lousy story. Don't they teach that in Journalism 101 at Columbia J-school?
Sunday, September 12, 2004
To The Fallen...
For nearly 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers who died on this day, I raise my glass and drink a toast to your memories.
To the FDNY -- you showed us what courage is all about.
To the NYPD -- you showed us what strength is all about.
To The EMT'S -- you showed us what bravery really is.
To the Port Authority Police -- you showed us what sacrifice is all about.
To the National Guard -- you showed us all what America stands for.
To the Rescue Workers -- you showed us how to care again.
To the Volunteers from All Over America -- you made us proud of our country.
To the men and women who never put on a uniform, but who did their part to make NYC such a great place -- your passing reminds us all of what we have lost.
To the Passengers of Flight 93 --- you showed us the meaning of resolve.
To your memories. Requiesat in pacem....
For nearly 3,000 of my fellow New Yorkers who died on this day, I raise my glass and drink a toast to your memories.
To the FDNY -- you showed us what courage is all about.
To the NYPD -- you showed us what strength is all about.
To The EMT'S -- you showed us what bravery really is.
To the Port Authority Police -- you showed us what sacrifice is all about.
To the National Guard -- you showed us all what America stands for.
To the Rescue Workers -- you showed us how to care again.
To the Volunteers from All Over America -- you made us proud of our country.
To the men and women who never put on a uniform, but who did their part to make NYC such a great place -- your passing reminds us all of what we have lost.
To the Passengers of Flight 93 --- you showed us the meaning of resolve.
To your memories. Requiesat in pacem....
Three Years Later --- Part III
The rest of the planet hates us with a passion! There’s a worldwide movement afoot to kill very American on the planet because we haven’t catered to other people’s feelings. Americans don’t understand the rest of the world, and therefore, they hate us for it. Repent! The end is neigh!
Gibberish, and depending on where you hear stuff like that, its often hysterical gibberish, too.
People who fling stuff like this around ought to be a) locked up for the good of society and b) forcibly sterilized with a farm implement before they breed. Anyone that tells you that a monumental problem such as the disparity in civilization here and what passes for it in Afghanistan can be brushed away, magically eliminated, if we all just made an effort to educate ourselves and be sensitive, is usually the same person that wants you to pay taxes so that Medicare will cover breast enlargements for senior citizens. These people are so caught up in their mantra that education=understanding=peace that they’ve lost their grip on reality. Education and understanding have rarely led to peace in the history of the world. If you don’t think so, just remember that Robert Oppenheimer was an educated,peaceful man who understood the principles of physics and created the most destructive weapon ever fielded. These folks also have a martyr complex, believing that it is America that should make the concessions: Americans have to educate themselves, Americans have to be culturally sensitive, and Americans should pay for it all.
I have a novel idea, one that would literally turn such a person as mentioned above into an even bigger mass of over-emotional, quivering jelly than they are now. Get ready for it, because once the cork is out of the bottle, the head of the person sitting next to you might just explode.
I believe that it isn’t Americans that should make the sacrifice of understanding another culture, but other cultures that should put their effort into understanding us.
America literally confuses and confounds the rest of the world. They do not understand our politics, markets, educational system, business style, sports, culture (what passes for it, anyway), lifestyles, attitudes or idealism. Most of this difficulty in understanding what is, for all intents and purposes, a really simple societal model, is usually a cultural shortsightedness – not ours, but theirs.
Questions about America abound – we’ve been in Afghanistan for three years and Iraq for over a year – why haven’t we begun pillaging the country and raping the women? Well, because that’s not what we’re there for. Other cultures would do those things (like Europeans and anything that crawled out of the U.N.), but we don’t. We said we were going to these countries to eliminate dangerous, murderous regimes and plant the seeds of democracy, and we are. And when we’re done, we’ll leave. The rest of the planet sees conquest as a means of helping themselves to the riches and property of others, while Americans don’t. Conquest to us is a reaction to pissing us off, like when you bomb Pearl Harbor or attack the Pentagon with an airliner. Some societies and cultures see conquest as a way of spreading your religion (since anyone with half a brain wouldn’t normally CHOOSE your religion unless he had a sword at his neck), culture or political system. Americans don’t travel the planet pointing guns at folks who won’t vote Republican, for example. Russians, Iraqis and Chinese do. The fact that we don’t confuses them.
The fact that we live in a dynamic society, where authority is regularly questioned and held to account, baffles the imagination of your average denizen of Someotherplace. You mean you actually question your political leaders without being imprisoned? You can actually dispute the Church’s interpretation of a Biblical passage? You can write nasty things about people in a newspaper, especially when they’re true, without being shot? Science has a purpose other than propping up the illegitimate state? Well, yes, yes, yes and yes. In fact, it is because we do these things, everyday and in the open, that we are such a dynamic society. Challenging authority in a culture based upon family and clan loyalties, the rule of the strong over the weak, or disputing the established order, is often like signing your own death warrant in Someotherplace. The desire for self-preservation, even in a miserable existence, is too strong for many people to buck the system. As a consequence, they can’t see how we not only get away with it, but manage to prosper.
You don’t treat your women like a slab of meat, a baby machine or cattle? You must be crazy! No, we don’t do those things, although if you listen to the women, you wouldn’t know it. I can’t remember the last time I went to the slave market to buy my next wife, and I can’t recall ever getting a dowry for the last seven of them. Here in America, women are expected to be productive, especially since most of them have proved that they can be, and we don’t see a daughter as a useless appendage that needs to be fed to the detriment of our sons, or have her feet bound because shoes for a female is considered a wasteful proposition. I can’t recall the last time I heard of a neighbor leaving his newborn daughter on a hillside to die in order to avoid feeding and clothing her. We believe that every individual has intrinsic worth, and thus, can eventually be a useful member of society.
Anyone can be a success in America? You don’t need weapons and vast amounts of money to bribe the right people in order to get connected? Nope, not at all. Yes, in some ways, it’s best to be connected, but that’s not usually based on bribery, and we don’t take what we want by force. In my lifetime, I’ve never had an AK-47 jammed under my nose by the government. I’ve never been stopped on the street and hauled in for questioning without reason. Here, if you decide to put your nose to the grindstone, you can be anything you want to be, provided you have the talent, rather than the connections, for it. Imagine that --that your life is not being played out as some pre-ordained ordeal of caste, or that your success depends not on who you know, but what you do. Doesn’t that blow your mind? To an American, no. We don’t even think about things like that, we just do them. On the rest of this diseased rock, that concept is utterly alien. It ranks right up there with the female visitors from Venus that come here asking "Kiss? What is Kiss?" in every 1950‘s sci-fi flick ever made. Just consider this: Bill Clinton got elected twice and Arnold Swartzenegger was elected governor of California, Blacks become doctors, lawyers and corporate executives every day, despite being members of a formerly-enslaved race. Women routinely succeed in business and politics, and even become astronauts. The deaf become scientists, the crippled become academics, and the lazy even get paid for being lazy. Anyone can find success in America, it all depends on where you set your sights.
People of various races, religions and politics can live in the same city, maybe even ride the same bus, without killing each other? Most certainly can, and usually do. Technically, Americans don’t see race, religion, sex or place of origin. The government and the advocates of the Nanny state do, but real Americans don’t. We live by a simple creed – All men are created Equal. It is the foundation of our institutions, the cornerstone of our attitudes and the bedrock of our daily lives. We don’t continue to feud over the watering rights to an oasis in the desert, or automatically think of outsiders as barbarians. Religion is not the basis of our politics or our society -- it’s a personal matter. And while we may not always agree with each other on various subjects, we don’t resort to car bombs, torture and forced migrations to get our point across or impose our view. We debate, we engage in give-and-take, and then we go on with life.
These concepts literally scare the hell out of other people because they don’t understand them. Fear of the unknown, of the other, is a basis of their societies. Chinese folks fear a reversion to internal chaos and thus, for thousands of years, have practiced a Confucian system wherein all people have a place in society and automatically owe their allegiance to the top dog, in order to maintain the peace. Arabs cannot abide the questioning of authority because in their eyes, the authority came from God, and how can one dare to question or challenge God or his trusted servants? In sub-Saharan Africa, the ties of family, clan and tribe very often represent the slim difference between life and death, and so the society revolves around keeping those ties strong and not rocking the boat. Japanese folks often subvert their own well being for the good of the company they work for or as a show of national support.
Consequently, that’s why they are stagnant, backwards, bumbling and ultimately, violent societies. Any change in the status quo brings about the potential for disaster and is to be resisted violently. The fate of the tribe/clan/nation/people of God, is too great to allow exploration, to encourage the individual, to set free the mind and the being. Western ways, technology, thinking, and methods ultimately come with these societal poisons inherent in them. The poisons of television, radio, movies, newspapers, automobiles, wire hangers, steam engines, steel girders, trains, tongue depressors, inoculations, cancer research, factories, chemicals, explosives, medicine, printing presses, nylon, genetically-engineered crops, hormone-enhanced beef, airliners, computers, the internet, free markets, democracy. All, at some level, buck tradition, they mess with the natural order of things. They challenge the mighty and maybe even cause Man to believe that he can discern the will of God, and those are the things that scare people the most. If these things cannot be controlled, then they must be eliminated, because no society could survive them, in the view of a citizen of Someotherplace. The fact that ours does astounds people, some of them to the point of believing that we must have made a pact with the Devil in order to survive.
This is why we confuse the world so much – we routinely destroy established orders and remake them to suit our purposes. We manipulate Nature to ensure we’re fed, clothed and housed. We give people the time to do something other than hunt gazelles and gather grubs, and thus, they’re free to do things like think. Thinking is not a luxury the rest of the world can afford, but in this day and age, with people acting compulsively and out of ignorance, and killing while they do it, maybe the rest of the world should make time to think. And possibly, learn.
The rest of the planet hates us with a passion! There’s a worldwide movement afoot to kill very American on the planet because we haven’t catered to other people’s feelings. Americans don’t understand the rest of the world, and therefore, they hate us for it. Repent! The end is neigh!
Gibberish, and depending on where you hear stuff like that, its often hysterical gibberish, too.
People who fling stuff like this around ought to be a) locked up for the good of society and b) forcibly sterilized with a farm implement before they breed. Anyone that tells you that a monumental problem such as the disparity in civilization here and what passes for it in Afghanistan can be brushed away, magically eliminated, if we all just made an effort to educate ourselves and be sensitive, is usually the same person that wants you to pay taxes so that Medicare will cover breast enlargements for senior citizens. These people are so caught up in their mantra that education=understanding=peace that they’ve lost their grip on reality. Education and understanding have rarely led to peace in the history of the world. If you don’t think so, just remember that Robert Oppenheimer was an educated,peaceful man who understood the principles of physics and created the most destructive weapon ever fielded. These folks also have a martyr complex, believing that it is America that should make the concessions: Americans have to educate themselves, Americans have to be culturally sensitive, and Americans should pay for it all.
I have a novel idea, one that would literally turn such a person as mentioned above into an even bigger mass of over-emotional, quivering jelly than they are now. Get ready for it, because once the cork is out of the bottle, the head of the person sitting next to you might just explode.
I believe that it isn’t Americans that should make the sacrifice of understanding another culture, but other cultures that should put their effort into understanding us.
America literally confuses and confounds the rest of the world. They do not understand our politics, markets, educational system, business style, sports, culture (what passes for it, anyway), lifestyles, attitudes or idealism. Most of this difficulty in understanding what is, for all intents and purposes, a really simple societal model, is usually a cultural shortsightedness – not ours, but theirs.
Questions about America abound – we’ve been in Afghanistan for three years and Iraq for over a year – why haven’t we begun pillaging the country and raping the women? Well, because that’s not what we’re there for. Other cultures would do those things (like Europeans and anything that crawled out of the U.N.), but we don’t. We said we were going to these countries to eliminate dangerous, murderous regimes and plant the seeds of democracy, and we are. And when we’re done, we’ll leave. The rest of the planet sees conquest as a means of helping themselves to the riches and property of others, while Americans don’t. Conquest to us is a reaction to pissing us off, like when you bomb Pearl Harbor or attack the Pentagon with an airliner. Some societies and cultures see conquest as a way of spreading your religion (since anyone with half a brain wouldn’t normally CHOOSE your religion unless he had a sword at his neck), culture or political system. Americans don’t travel the planet pointing guns at folks who won’t vote Republican, for example. Russians, Iraqis and Chinese do. The fact that we don’t confuses them.
The fact that we live in a dynamic society, where authority is regularly questioned and held to account, baffles the imagination of your average denizen of Someotherplace. You mean you actually question your political leaders without being imprisoned? You can actually dispute the Church’s interpretation of a Biblical passage? You can write nasty things about people in a newspaper, especially when they’re true, without being shot? Science has a purpose other than propping up the illegitimate state? Well, yes, yes, yes and yes. In fact, it is because we do these things, everyday and in the open, that we are such a dynamic society. Challenging authority in a culture based upon family and clan loyalties, the rule of the strong over the weak, or disputing the established order, is often like signing your own death warrant in Someotherplace. The desire for self-preservation, even in a miserable existence, is too strong for many people to buck the system. As a consequence, they can’t see how we not only get away with it, but manage to prosper.
You don’t treat your women like a slab of meat, a baby machine or cattle? You must be crazy! No, we don’t do those things, although if you listen to the women, you wouldn’t know it. I can’t remember the last time I went to the slave market to buy my next wife, and I can’t recall ever getting a dowry for the last seven of them. Here in America, women are expected to be productive, especially since most of them have proved that they can be, and we don’t see a daughter as a useless appendage that needs to be fed to the detriment of our sons, or have her feet bound because shoes for a female is considered a wasteful proposition. I can’t recall the last time I heard of a neighbor leaving his newborn daughter on a hillside to die in order to avoid feeding and clothing her. We believe that every individual has intrinsic worth, and thus, can eventually be a useful member of society.
Anyone can be a success in America? You don’t need weapons and vast amounts of money to bribe the right people in order to get connected? Nope, not at all. Yes, in some ways, it’s best to be connected, but that’s not usually based on bribery, and we don’t take what we want by force. In my lifetime, I’ve never had an AK-47 jammed under my nose by the government. I’ve never been stopped on the street and hauled in for questioning without reason. Here, if you decide to put your nose to the grindstone, you can be anything you want to be, provided you have the talent, rather than the connections, for it. Imagine that --that your life is not being played out as some pre-ordained ordeal of caste, or that your success depends not on who you know, but what you do. Doesn’t that blow your mind? To an American, no. We don’t even think about things like that, we just do them. On the rest of this diseased rock, that concept is utterly alien. It ranks right up there with the female visitors from Venus that come here asking "Kiss? What is Kiss?" in every 1950‘s sci-fi flick ever made. Just consider this: Bill Clinton got elected twice and Arnold Swartzenegger was elected governor of California, Blacks become doctors, lawyers and corporate executives every day, despite being members of a formerly-enslaved race. Women routinely succeed in business and politics, and even become astronauts. The deaf become scientists, the crippled become academics, and the lazy even get paid for being lazy. Anyone can find success in America, it all depends on where you set your sights.
People of various races, religions and politics can live in the same city, maybe even ride the same bus, without killing each other? Most certainly can, and usually do. Technically, Americans don’t see race, religion, sex or place of origin. The government and the advocates of the Nanny state do, but real Americans don’t. We live by a simple creed – All men are created Equal. It is the foundation of our institutions, the cornerstone of our attitudes and the bedrock of our daily lives. We don’t continue to feud over the watering rights to an oasis in the desert, or automatically think of outsiders as barbarians. Religion is not the basis of our politics or our society -- it’s a personal matter. And while we may not always agree with each other on various subjects, we don’t resort to car bombs, torture and forced migrations to get our point across or impose our view. We debate, we engage in give-and-take, and then we go on with life.
These concepts literally scare the hell out of other people because they don’t understand them. Fear of the unknown, of the other, is a basis of their societies. Chinese folks fear a reversion to internal chaos and thus, for thousands of years, have practiced a Confucian system wherein all people have a place in society and automatically owe their allegiance to the top dog, in order to maintain the peace. Arabs cannot abide the questioning of authority because in their eyes, the authority came from God, and how can one dare to question or challenge God or his trusted servants? In sub-Saharan Africa, the ties of family, clan and tribe very often represent the slim difference between life and death, and so the society revolves around keeping those ties strong and not rocking the boat. Japanese folks often subvert their own well being for the good of the company they work for or as a show of national support.
Consequently, that’s why they are stagnant, backwards, bumbling and ultimately, violent societies. Any change in the status quo brings about the potential for disaster and is to be resisted violently. The fate of the tribe/clan/nation/people of God, is too great to allow exploration, to encourage the individual, to set free the mind and the being. Western ways, technology, thinking, and methods ultimately come with these societal poisons inherent in them. The poisons of television, radio, movies, newspapers, automobiles, wire hangers, steam engines, steel girders, trains, tongue depressors, inoculations, cancer research, factories, chemicals, explosives, medicine, printing presses, nylon, genetically-engineered crops, hormone-enhanced beef, airliners, computers, the internet, free markets, democracy. All, at some level, buck tradition, they mess with the natural order of things. They challenge the mighty and maybe even cause Man to believe that he can discern the will of God, and those are the things that scare people the most. If these things cannot be controlled, then they must be eliminated, because no society could survive them, in the view of a citizen of Someotherplace. The fact that ours does astounds people, some of them to the point of believing that we must have made a pact with the Devil in order to survive.
This is why we confuse the world so much – we routinely destroy established orders and remake them to suit our purposes. We manipulate Nature to ensure we’re fed, clothed and housed. We give people the time to do something other than hunt gazelles and gather grubs, and thus, they’re free to do things like think. Thinking is not a luxury the rest of the world can afford, but in this day and age, with people acting compulsively and out of ignorance, and killing while they do it, maybe the rest of the world should make time to think. And possibly, learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)