Category: Uncategorized

This is a book of non-fiction written by a liberal Jewish New Yorker who decides to go expat for a few years with his wife and newborn son. Possessed of a romantic childhood vision of Paris, reinforced by an actual visit as a teenager, the little family takes an apartment in Paris and experiences the pedestrian joys and petty tribulations of living amidst Old Europe’s last natural aristocracy, the Parisians.

It’s a delightful book. Adam Gopnik has a wry sense of humor and a keen eye for not only the small details that paint a vivid picture of his experience there, but also the broader generalizations that, taken in the collective, define the French character. It is well-written too, for who could fail to be amused by the following passage:

“Like all ambitious French politicians, Juppe chooses to present himself as a literary man. He has actually written a book of reflections titled La Tentation de Venise – The Venetian Temptation. Juppe’s Venetian temptation was to retire to a house there, where he could escape from political life, admire Giorgione’s Tempesta, drink Bellinis in the twilight, and think long deep thoughts. La Tentation was regarded as a fighting campaign manifesto, since it is as necessary for an ambitious French politician to write a book explaining why he never likes to think of politics as it is for an ambitious American politician to write a book explaining why he never thinks of anything else. Juppe, ahead of the pack, had written a book asserting not only that he would rather be doing something else but that he would like to be doing it in a completely different country.”

I enjoyed the book and found myself laughing out loud on more than one occasion. This is a warm book, a gentle and humane book, full of a man’s affection for a city and his great love for his son, through whose eyes we see the vast chasm between the expat and one who has never known another home. If the book will do little to change one’s view of the French as arrogant curs with a penchant for socialism and boot-licking, it nevertheless will provide one with the ability to smile when next encountering the inevitable Gallic intransigence. A book well worth reading.

Joseph Farah writes: I knew this was coming in 2000 and told you then. I have met George Bush exactly once. In my presence, he was asked point blank what he would do if confronted with unconstitutional legislation on his desk. His response? “How would I know if it were unconstitutional?” Anyone asking such a stupid question is unworthy and unfit for the highest office in the land.

I’ve never subscribed to the Democrats notion that George Bush is stupid. He isn’t, as his SATs translate to an above average IQ of around 115 or so. Not impressive, but significantly smarter than many of his most vocal critics. But the fact that he would evade such a simple question in such a obvious and puerile manner only underlines my total unwillingness to support him in any way, even though Kerry is similarly indifferent to the Constitution.

His failure to veto a single bill out of Congress supports Farah’s first-hand testimony that we now have a president who has no interest in opposing unconstitutional legislation. He had his chance and he blew it. He does not deserve another one.

If you have any interest in a new browser, you may want to check out the new Opera 7.5. it’s still in beta, but it’s got a very clean new look, has finally gotten rid of the big icon bar across the top – now there are small icons that fit nicely on the current address bar where you can type in the URL – and has added IRC chat and newsfeed reading capabilities. It’s still got the great pop-up blocking ability, which was the reason I originally switched to it and it’s available for Windows, Linux and Macintosh.

The beta feels a little less crisp, speedwise, than the previous 7.23 release, but that’s normal. Otherwise, it seems quite solid. I’d recommend having a look at it, especially if you’re still using the clunky vehicle that is IE.

From Debka: Nasrallah described how, several weeks before Israel was scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, he organized the town and village populations of the south and several thousand Shiites from Beirut into massed groups of civilians, each ordered to stage marches in different sectors. Elderly people hoisting Lebanese and Hizballah flags, women and children marched in a body on the bases of the Israeli-backed South Lebanese Army who, aware of the Israeli pullout, did not dare open fire on the advancing processions. In no time, all their bases were overrun by the motley mobs and the Hizballah flag fluttering overhead. According to Nasrallah, the departing Israeli troops had to negotiate safe passage back to the Israeli border in exchange for leaving their weapons, even tanks, behind.

Our sources reveal that the Hizballah leader showed Hamas the Gaza version of his plan. For stage one, he proposed collecting the 200,000 Palestinian mourners who followed the Yassin and Rantisi funeral processions, and dividing them into groups of 10-15,000. Each would march on a marked IDF position or camp defending Netzarim and Gush Katif. In stage two, a million Hamas marchers would hurl themselves at Gush Katif, the largest settlement bloc of the Gaza Strip. Even Israeli tanks would not be able to arrest this human deluge, he said. The Israelis may start shooting, but the Palestinian mass will keep coming, and, like in Lebanon, it will mow down the army positions. The settlements will then crumble. Israeli troops and settlers will be stampeded into flight and the Palestinians will take over their bases and homes – not in 2005 as the Israelis offered, but next summer.

This would likely work. The Israelis, being foolishly of the opinion that it is possible for them to be regarded any worse by the world, will hold their fire until it is too late. As with Lebanon, they’ll find themselves retreating in disarray, giving enough encouragement to their enemies to inspire another three years of useless and pointless carnage that will achieve nothing.

I do not believe in war by half-measure. We should not have gone into Iraq unless we were prepared to wipe out every Iraqi in the country in defense of our national interest. We aren’t ready to do so, of course, because there was no sufficient provocation nor did/does our national interest demand it. There is no such thing as civilized war, it is inherently uncivil. It is evil. It is, rarely, necessary, in a fallen world populated by evil men. And when it is necessary – when it is absolutely inescapable – it must be pursued mercilessly until victory is beyond any doubt.

BLS writes: I stand by my final analysis: this election is between Bad and Worse. If you don’t pick Bad, then by default, you’ve allowed Worse to win. It might make for great chest-thumping about messages sent, but it’s poor electoral strategy.

I think I finally figured out a way to explain this to everyone. BLS is right, that refusing to select Bad is poor electoral strategy – in the short term. But what this “pragmatic” approach misses is that this is not, in the long term, strategy at all, it is tactics. Tactics are neither good nor bad from a strategic point of view, they are entirely irrelevant. This explains why, to a certain extent, the two sides have been talking past each other. In my view, the “principled” approach is the correct one, as it actually encompasses a longer-term, strategic view.

For example, if the president wins re-election with the support of the libertarian and conservative rights, he has no incentive but instead is encouraged to move further left. If he loses to Kerry, the Republican party will be forced to turn to its base and allow more influence to the grass roots in order to inspire them. This is why both Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, the two most right-wing Republican presidential candidates, were produced when the party was out of power. Once in power, the liberal wing had the resources to flex its muscle again and squeeze out the grass-roots. George Bush was presented to the party as someone who was in Reagan’s tradition, not his father’s, although once he won the nomination he immediately began to campaign to the left and govern even further leftward.

There is no way that the “pragmatic” approach will ever move the Republican party to the right. In fact, calling the approach pragmatic is a misnomer as Kerry will likely be hamstrung by a Republican Congress that will not allow him to move as far to the left as it will allow George Bush to go. This is a basic paradox of politics. Only Nixon can go to China, only a Republican governor can raise taxes in California and only a Republican administration will be able to successfully attack American gun rights.

I am, of course, skeptical that it makes any significant difference in the long term. The die is already cast. The economic winds are blowing and the American people are far more likely to call for more of the poison than sickened them than they are to call for the antidote. And yet, we persist, as eventually those who survive the sickness of strong government will need those to show them the way out. We are the intellectual Spartans and we do not expect to hold the pass forever. The smart money, actually, pretty much all the money, is on the side of big government. But we can be encouraged with the certain knowledge that paper money always erodes into nothing in time.

In any case, if any of our pragmatic Republicans here can present a scenario which shows how supporting the left-wing of the Republican party will help move the country and the party to the right, comment on it or email me and I’ll post it here.

The nice thing about John Kerry is that you can easily justify supporting him. Chances are extremely high that he supports your position on pretty much anything on which you might have an opinion The problem is that he also supports the opposite position as well.

Why will Bush win? At first, I assumed this would be the case because of the homogamy issue. But now, I believe this because the Democrats nominated a candidate who combines Bob Dole’s likeability with Bill Clinton’s trustworthiness.

Zephyron despairs: “Third Party” candidates have no chance to win. Every campaign finance reform bill drives the nail a little deeper into the coffin. Even if a good third party candidate was getting major support, the lap dog press would run a merciless smear campaign against him. Winning under those circumstances would be impossible. There are too many trust and parrot dummies in America. The Republic is on it’s death bed. I wish it were not so…

Yes, the Republic is on its death bed, assuming it isn’t dead already. The fact that our third-generation leaders don’t wear the purple and take turns playing Caesar only means that the modern Triumverate has not yet revealed itself fully. So what? Let us show them how a Republic dies. Vote Libertarian. Vote Constitution. Vote your conscience and your principles. Don’t let it happen without protest. They cannot claim assent when you will not support them.

There was an inspiring t-shirt I saw in a shop when I was a child. It showed a huge eagle swooping down on a mouse, claws extended. The mouse was not cringing in fear, but standing up boldly and extending a single digit towards the sky. It was captioned “The last great act of defiance.”

Hank writes: VD you continue to assume that I’m for big government. You know better than that by now. Bringing up the effectiveness of Soviet censorship doesn’t reduce the threat posed by these extremists here. Was the massacre of Christians in Turkey during World War I have any less barbaric because it wasn’t nearly as efficient or far reaching as the massacre of Jews in World War II by Germany? No social, religious or political affiliation is above falling into the traps of abuse of power like this. It just so happens that it is the neo-cons and religious right who are doing it in this country right now…. I’m all for libertarianism. Let’s give it a whirl. If big transnational corporations don’t swoop in and take over everything it just might work.

Hank, you can rant about the dangers of Christian extremism all you like, with my full and cheerful blessing, as long as you stay true to the idea that expanding government power is not the answer to solving any of society’s ills, whatever we perceive them to be. It’s a major conceptual breakthrough for anyone, of any political stripe, to realize that advocating central state power for their own purposes is tantamount to advocating that same power in the hands of the enemy. There is always a Commodus waiting to wear the purple.

If Hank and his fellow leftists are willing, I’ll be delighted to help them ensure that there isn’t any central state power for Christian extremists to abuse. All the more enthusiastically if these “Christian extremists” are the likes of the current Republican leadership.

From the Daily Reckoning: As far as what’s happening over here… first, in Fallujah, the Marines were doing well until they ran out of gas, literally. The real reason the Marines had to start their truce/cease-fire strategy is because the coalition forces are running extremely low on fuel right now. We first heard about it maybe 10 days ago or so from some Army 5th Group Special Forces guys who were complaining to us, saying how even THEY had been ordered to ration fuel.

Considering that Special Forces guys get the best of everything and get first dibs on everything, including fuel, we knew the shortage must be pretty bad. Sure enough, just a couple days later, the Army 1 star, who runs the base where our compound is located, implemented strict refueling policies, severely limiting how much gas we can take per day. They’ve gone so far as posting guards at the fuel points to measure how much gas is pumped per vehicle, per day, with everything getting logged on their clipboards. It’s definitely a change. The 1 star didn’t tell us where the fuel shortage came from, but it is probably a mix of poor planning and recent fuel truck convoys from Kuwait being either delayed or cancelled due to the increasing number of attacks. Anyway, that’s the reason the marines had to slow down in Fallujah. Once the fuel problem gets taken care of, the Marines will probably pick up the pace again. Fallujah is going to take a couple months, not a couple weeks….

We knew things would get worse before June 30th, and they have. Things will probably continue to get worse. It’s already been established that both the new Iraqi military and Iraqi police are pretty much worthless and cannot be trusted. So much so, that the Army requested Kurdish soldiers to come to Baghdad to replace the Iraqi soldiers currently providing security for the army bases here. The Army knows the Kurdish soldiers can be trusted and are loyal to the U.S., unlike the Iraqi soldiers. It’ll be interesting to see what happens when a few thousand Kurds show up in Baghdad armed with AK47s. But that’ll only be one of many future problems.

The Army recently extended the tour lengths another 4 months for a lot of their guys who have already been in the Middle East a year now. Their morale and motivation was already non-existent before the extension; now these guys, tens of thousands of them, are just taking up space over here.

I know it’s still early in the game, but you can pretty much write off the entire U.S. Army (with the exception of their special forces and maybe their aviation units) as being “operationally ineffective” in the future (i.e. completely worthless to the coalition from here on out, except to suck up food and fuel). Generally speaking, the Army is incompetent in these types of environments: only Marines and Special Forces guys do well in a place like this. Special Forces because they’re so precise, and Marines because they’re so disciplined… and ferocious.

The Army is just making things worse for the coalition. The Army is intent on having its presence seen and felt in Iraq because they think that will make everyone think they are in charge. What they don’t seem to realize is that a large military presence is the one thing, pretty much the only thing, the Iraqis can’t tolerate. Despite reports by the news media to the contrary, Iraqis don’t resent the humanitarian projects, or the rebuilding effort, or even the U.S. being in control of the government until the transition. Sure the Iraqis want to be in charge, but the majority can tolerate the situation until a transition happens, even if it’s months down the road. But what they can NOT tolerate is waking up every day and seeing army tanks and Bradleys rolling through their towns and villages. And they can’t tolerate being stopped by endless Army checkpoints on the highways, which were set up by commanding officers who think terrorists and insurgents haven’t figured out a way yet to avoid those checkpoints. That’s what the Iraqis resent and can’t tolerate, along with a thousand other ways the Army makes its presence felt (and I didn’t even mention having your door kicked in at 2 am because of some “hot Army intel”). Until the Army realizes all of this – which it seems like it never will – things will only get worse. And in response, the Army will just increase its presence.”

Do try to keep this in mind when the armchair heroes who’ve never been within three thousand miles of Iraq blather that all we need is to keep our fighting spirits up. An army still fights on its belly, and even the best soldiers are only as capable as their supply line. More important, perhaps, is to remember that armies are designed for killing people, breaking things and winning wars, not nation-building. Failure does not only stem from lack of ability or will, but also from conceit. To me, the very concept of nation-building sounds almost as wildly hubristic as the fatal conceit, socialism itself.

From Slate on Eric Harris of Columbine infamy: These are not the rantings of an angry young man, picked on by jocks until he’s not going to take it anymore. These are the rantings of someone with a messianic-grade superiority complex, out to punish the entire human race for its appalling inferiority. It may look like hate, but “It’s more about demeaning other people,” says Hare.

A second confirmation of the diagnosis [of psychopathy] was Harris’ perpetual deceitfulness…. Harris claimed to lie to protect himself, but that appears to be something of a lie as well. He lied for pleasure, Fuselier says. “Duping delight”—psychologist Paul Ekman’s term—represents a key characteristic of the psychopathic profile.

Messianism. Superiority complex. Pleasure in deceit. I don’t know why, but a vision of the Clintons just popped into my head.