Bloggledygook

Godwin's Law Takes Another Hit.

The jihadis want to provoke a confrontation with the West so as to bring about some unspecified world-wide Islamist domination. There have been many parallels drawn between the Islamists and fascists. Now, we have a perfect illustration of that kinship, and a reassurance that white people are still capable of racist fantasies:

ROME (AFP) - The World Cup in Germany is set to become a battleground between facists and Muslims, an Italian member of a new European neo-Nazi movement warned.

In a statement published by Italian daily Repubblica, the memeber of AS Roma's notorious ultras hooligan group claims neo-Nazis across Europe met in Braunau in Austria to plan attacks against supporters from Islamic countries during the World Cup in Germany from June 9 to July 9.

"We are united. For the first time we are talking and planning together, with the English, the Germans, the Dutch, the Spanish, everyone with the same objective. At the World Cup there will be a massacre," said the Italian ultra.

"We will all be in Germany and there will be Turks, Algerians and Tunisians. The Turks, we can't stand them. In our country (Italy) there are not many, but in Germany, there are many of those guys there. They are Islamic terrorists.

"We will attack them. They are all enemies that need to be eliminated, just like the police. If we make the Roman greeting (the fascist salute) they put us in prison. We will be tens of thousands. Nothing but the English are feared."

So there you have it. Those who lump all Muslims together are now firmly in the camp of this Nazi shit-for-brains.

Notice that this chap believes that the police are his enemies, also.

So who's going to defend this jerk's freedom of speech? Seems to me that he is either telegraphing his group's intention to massacre innocent people, or he is a deranged fantasist with delusions of grandeur. Either way, is Europol paying any attention?

George Lucas Wants The Poor To Mind Their Own Business.

George Lucas, whom Nancy Pelosi has dubbed "no ordinary genius" on a par with Mozart, sees Hollywood, and especially Television, as sowing the seeds of revolution. Or at least that's what it looks like:

"I hate to say it, but television is one of the most popular exports," Lucas said.

People see shows such as "Dallas," about a wealthy Texas oil family, and decide they want the grand lifestyles portrayed, according to Lucas.

"They say that is what I want to be," Lucas said. "That destabilizes a lot of the world."

"There has been a conflict going on for thousands of years between the haves and the have-nots, and now we are in a position for the first time to show the have-nots what they do not have."

So in essence, Lucas longs for the days when the rich and their wealth were protected behind walls from the prying eyes of the rabble, who are better off not knowing that there is a better life possible. Is that it?

While it has been en vogue for decades now to decry American "cultural imperialism," this is the first time in my memory (feebled, granted) that I have seen somebody partly responsible for that imperialism saying that the world is better off without America showcasing the fruits of a vibrant cultural market.

Ah, but the rub is that Lucas isn't saying that his imperialism is bad. In fact, this speech was made on the occasion of his receipt of a "Global Vision Award," presumably for hawking mediocre stories wrapped inside state-of-the-art technology (of which very few people can indeed afford) and for pushing countless overpriced pieces of tie-in merchandise.

Where does Mr Lucas think that the "have nots" will get the cash to afford his toys? Only through growing wealth is this possible, and the best way to grow wealth is to encourage and support trade--fair trade--between "have" nations and "have not" nations.

But Mr Lucas, with his multi-millions safely tucked away, is content with selling his wares to the "haves," leaving the "have nots" to fend in blissful ignorance for themselves.

If only the rest of the world would cooperate.

(h/t: Maggie)

What, You People Have Never Tasted Squab?

Okay, okay. Ha-ha-ha. Yes, this is what passes for excitement in Pittsburgh. Go ahead and get all the jokes out of your systems.

You may find this to be just another example of bumpkin bumbling (and, well, I got nothin') but just stop for a moment and think: in today's new world we can't wait until a flying armada of these winged rats attack a major American city. Once that happens, it will be too late.

Besides, anybody ever hear of bird flu? Hmmmmmmm?

Not Antiwar, Just On The Other Side.

Glenn Reynolds has long made the distinction between the truly pacific among us and those who just want to see the other side win. In an interview with Hugh Hewitt, Christopher Hitchens, who, let's face it, has always been his own man, says much the same thing about the so-called anti-war faction:

Well, I object to people like Michael Moore for example, or Ramsey Clark being referred to as...in the New York Times as anti-war activists, or anti-war campaigners. They're not anti-war at all. For one thing, they're not pacifists, particularly not Ramsey Clark. For another, they've declared that they believe the beheaders and jihadists and the blowers up of Mosques and mutilators of women and so forth are a liberation force or an insurgency. Michael Moore even said they were the modern equivalent to the American founding fathers. So in that case, fine. George Galloway's the same. Many of them are. They're not really against the war. They're not anti-war, but on the other side in the war for civilization, and they should be called out on it and given their right name.

Does he include much of the Democratic Party?

No, I can't say that I do think that. I mean, maybe Cynthia McKinney, who is not exactly a leader. She seems sometimes to talk in a sort of MoveOn.org manner, but no, I think that we're far from that in this case. I think what you have there is again, a sort of fatalism, the feeling that if you can say a war is unwinnable, you've also said it's wrong. In other words, that you would desert the side you were on if you thought things were going badly. That's a moral degeneracy of a different kind.

This is probably the nearest-to-perfect formulation I have seen on this subject. It gets the hackles up of those still not wanting anything to go well, as long as Bush is running things. But Hitchens relates an anecdote that is very telling. He tells Hewitt about a conversation he had with a network "senior person":

He called me the other day. This is not a guy who's in any way a conservative, and said you know, we've known each other for a bit. He said you know, I'm beginning to think you must be right, because it really worries me what we're doing, when we are giving the other side the impression that all they need to do is hang on until the end of this administration. Do people know what they're doing when they're doing this? One doesn't have to make any allegation of disloyalty, but just...if it worries him, as it really does, I think it should worry other people, too, and it certainly worries me.

Worries me, too. Hitchens touches on a point here that bears expanding upon. Many people, on the left and right, assume that if you support the war and demand that the terror forces be engaged and defeated, that you are ipso facto a conservative. But Hitchens is a conservative, and neither am I, in the classical sense. And I will point out that, as with Hitchens, I was vocally speaking on the side for intervention in Kosovo when the GOP was calling it Clinton's War. It was, and remains, Clinton's shame that he dithered too long before taking action (as well with Rwanda), but it is with deep disgust that I watch former compatriots (by their volition, not mine) claim that this campaign is some sinister conspiracy to achieve world domination. That formulation cannot be sustained other than by the suspension of logic and the denial of reality.

 

Bloggledygook Blotter.

-I suppose that it's all fine that admitted boy-banger Debra LeFave (LaFave? there are two spellings in the article) is benefiting from the wonders of modern pharmaceuticals. I have no comment. Okay, one:

Now LeFave says she's taking an online journalism class and wants to become a writer.

Listen, honey. I'm studying French online. Doesn't make me Edith Piaf.

-This from a Yahoo! email:

FORT MEADE, Md. (AP) A military jury has sentenced an Army dog handler to six months in prison for tormenting prisoners at Abu Ghraib with his animal.

I have an animal, too. It's a ssssssnake.

-Conservatives are whining about a study that found that whiny kids grow up to be conservatives.

-A crack Washington DC bomb squad did a number on what was probably a McDonald's bag.

Mazur said the package was thrown along the north fence line of the White House but was found to be harmless. "That package has been rendered safe," he said.

Um, if the package was found to be harmless, then it couldn't be "rendered safe," could it?

-An hyper-sensitive gaggle of Oxfordshire teachers have replaced Baa Baa Black Sheep with: Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep. They rammed the new rule through. Ewe gotta be kidding.

-French PM Farrah de Villepin is getting smacked from all sides for his handling of his CPE scheme. More riots to come. We'll be in Paris in May. I'll take pictures.

-Abdul Rahman, sentenced to death in Afghanistan for converting to Christianity may be saved by the insanity defense. Authorities suggested that if he had just had sex with a 14-year-old boy, he would have gotten off with house arrest.

-Basque separatist group Eta has been voted out of the competition for Armageddon Idol leaving just a handful of contenders left for the big prize of a recording contract with Bakunin Records. I bet the Tamil Tigers go next.

-Germans are said to be obsessed with something that is "difficult...colorless and bland." Yes it's...

Stepping Away From The Train Wreck.

Harvard is distancing itself from the paper written by two academics (on from ol' Crimson and one from the University of Chi-town) on the "Israel Lobby."

From the text*:

While Harvard and The University of Chicago welcome and encourage inquiry by their respective faculties, neither institution endorses nor do they necessarily reject, views expressed in Working Papers. The work present is of the authors alone and do not reflect any official opinions of Harvard or University of Chicago. After all, Messrs Walt and Mearsheimer, when writing about "The Israeli Lobby," might well have been making reference to the beautiful architecture of the vestibule at Temple Beth Shalom.

On the other hand, we all know that Jews are disproportionally wealthy, influential and devious, and the US government has been in Tel Aviv's pocket for decades now, so we really don't see what the big deal is. However, since it is apparent that the Jewish cabal and their lackeys were ready for this one, we decided that it would be best to throw up this disclaimer and make it look like we give a flying farfel.

And besides, Jews give us a lot of money. And even though he's a meshugena who gives us the shpilkes, we get a lot of mileage out of that Alan Dershowitz. But we wish he would get back to writing good books, like he used to. Lately, he's been seen slumming it with the Huffington bitch. You know, Reversal of Fortune was a good book. Why can't he write another one like that? Now it's all blah, blah, blah look at me, see how smart I am, see how disagreeable I can be while I smile to your face and put my hand in your pocket. Typical Jew.

*Okay, so I made this up.

Pay No Attention To The (insert gender-neutral noun here) In Front Of The Camera.

After David Gregory got spanked by Laura Ingraham yesterday, and the president, in his presser, acknowledged the propaganda acumen of the terror forces in Iraq, The Today Show spent probably ten minutes refuting the premise that the media is aiding the enemy by showing only the negative. But really, the president wasn't accusing the media of complicity. From the presser yesterday:

You brought it up; you said, how do I react to a bombing that took place yesterday -- is precisely what the enemy understands is possible to do. I'm not suggesting you shouldn't talk about it.  I'm certainly not being -- please don't take that as criticism.  But it also is a realistic assessment of the enemies capability to affect the debate, and they know that. They're capable of blowing up innocent life so it ends up on your TV show. And, therefore, it affects the woman in Cleveland you were talking to. And I can understand how Americans are worried about whether or not we can win.

Note that this is a statement of fact. Bush says here that the enemy knows that an attack will likely end up on the news and perhaps affect public opinion. Why the folks at NBC suddenly takes this personally, only they can answer. Katie Couric put on her glasses (for gravitas) and took over for Gregory and interviewed Tim Russert who insisted that the reality is being reported and that the criticism of the media is unfair.

But no one, aside from a small group of crazed partisans who consider any criticism to be tantamount to treason, expects the media to clam up about what is going on in Iraq. And in fairness, if the administration had been more active in getting their good news out, even if that meant going around the usual outlets, we might have a better, more balanced account.

Still, it seems that here that NBC is protesting too much. I generally think that most stories that come out of the media are straight-forward news. There is definitely some editorializing that goes on (right and left), but if you can tell that already, you're really not in danger of getting brainwashed. Most of my criticism of the media comes down to what I see as laziness and self-aggrandizement.

On Blitzer's show last night, Helen Thomas expressed regret about her remark that Bush is the worst president ever. She didn't regret the remark, actually, but that what had been quoted had been a "private comment." In other words, "I'm sorry I got caught." Thomas announced that with respects to her media comrades, "All is forgiven" and it was time to "come back." The inference is that the media had abdicated its responsibility in kowtowing to the White House.

Here's what's wrong with that formulation: I will not get into whether the media is liberal or conservative. The partisan sites have that debate covered. What I want to point out is the myth of Helen. Wolf had to get out the standard homage (or eulogy if you wish) to Thomas before getting around to the soft-ball questions. It was getting a bit embarrassing watching Blitzer attach himself to Thomas' sagging teets like that.

But even the president felt obligated to profess admiration and respect for Thomas, even though her question was largely ludicrous in the "Have you stopped raping baby chipmunks, yet?" kind of way. Here it is:

I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime.  Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true.  My question is, why did you really want to go to war?  From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason?  You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else.  What was it?

"Oh, I don't know, Helen. When I first got to the White House, I looked around, walked through the halls, stared at the portraits of presidents past, had a sandwich, and I just got the urge to kill something. Fortunately, I only had to wait nine months--ironic, itin it?--for me to get find something really, really worth killing. So I went after the Taliban--you know, September the 11th happened--but that was too easy. I need some sport, you what I mean? A challenge. And Don, uh Secretary Rumsfeld, pointed out that we already had a whole mess of planes flying over Iraq every day. So he says, uh, 'Hey Geo--i mean Mr President, he calls me Mr President, honest--why not invade Iraq? It'll be fun! And in the mean time, you can take all this pent up American, uh... uh... bloodlust, I think he called it (I don't like the word "lust," especially after Carter and Clinton, but you understand) and kick Saddam's mustache right of his puffy face.'

"Seemed like a good idea at the time. You know, presidentin' can be kinda boring, so you gotta mix it up every once in a while. So, uh, Helen, I-I-I-I can't say that I wanted to start a war right away, you know, like the minute I held up my hand, but, yeah, I guess you got a point. I'm the killin' president. I'd entertain any suggestions you might have for upcoming victims. Oops, heh, did I say victims? I meant, uh--whata they call 'em? regimes? Whatever. Tell me, Helen, right here before God and Dick Gregory--uh, I mean David, heh, just kiddin' Davey--what should I do about Iran? Bomb or no bomb?

"Think before you answer. Lord knows I have an itchy trigger finger."

Dr. Stangelovestein Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The International Zionist Government.

All, or much, of the Internets is abuzz with huzzahs and harangues about an article that appeared in the London Review of Books by two profs, one from Harvard, the other from U of Chicago. The article is a pared down version of a longer "research paper" put out by the Kennedy School of Government in which the authors, John Mearsheimer and  Stephen Walt (actually the whole thing sounds more like Walt, but no matter) argue in a polemic, with the fig-leaf of two prestigious universities, that the Israeli lobby is too heavily influencing US policy. Actually, this long, angry rant gets very close to saying that Israel runs the US government, period.

I will not attempt to refute the "points" the authors raise, because others far more articulate and quick on the draw have done so already. I do want to point out just a few details, though.

Walt and Mearsheimer make an issue of US aid to Israel without mentioning that Egypt gets the same amount--$3 billion a year--as Israel. They do not include that this aid was set out as a result of the Camp David Accords.

They also do not bring up that US support for Israel started only after 1967.

But these are details and they are boring. What strikes me is that the authors draw and conclusion without much evidence. They fall into the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc: correlation does not prove causation, an example of which would be for me to point out that Prince Alwaleed bin Talal Abdulaziz al Saud just gave Harvard $20 million. Since Harvard just got a nice, juicy gift from a Saudi Prince, Professor Walt's treatise is suspect, no?

Well, no, but it does serve to make a point. After all, I wouldn't dream of thinking that one's opinion might be swayed by money. I'll leave that to Prof. Walt. The paper is flawed because it relies on innuendo and half-truths to get its point across (which it doesn't actually do). It also somehow puffs up AIPAC while forgetting to mention the role that, for instance, Saudi money and influence actually work on the US government. Instead, they go after "neoconservatives" and US officials with Jewish names, while making the preposterous claim that the Iraq war was aged on Israel's behalf.

There is much to criticize in Israeli policy and in US policy vis-a-vis Israel and the greater Middle East. Much of this criticism comes from within Israel itself and has since the founding of the country. This must be a little too much nuance for Messrs Walt and Mearsheimer. They simply attempt to put forth a "realist" dogma that if Israel is out of the picture, then all problems in he Middle East would go away. Which is the same position as that taken by the great statesman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

This article may make the rounds through the usual suspects, but it will ultimately register about, oh, nothing with regards to US policy. It's just another example of the worrying trend for universities to employ conspiracy theorists and give them tenure.

UPDATE: Wow, I seem to have completely misread this whole thing. Turns out that Walt and Mearsheimer have their share of admirers:

A paper recently co-authored by the academic dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government about the allegedly far-reaching influence of an "Israel lobby" is winning praise from white supremacist David Duke.

The Palestine Liberation Organization mission to Washington is distributing the paper, which also is being hailed by a senior member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, an Islamist organization.

Walt is a little, well, touched by all the praise:

Mr. Walt said last night, "I have always found Mr. Duke's views reprehensible, and I am sorry he sees this article as consistent with his view of the world."

The head of The Muslim Brotherhood calls the whole thing:

"I think that the people who wrote that report were working for the interest of the American people," a senior member of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood's guidance council, Abdulmo'em Abulfotah, said yesterday. "I ask a question here: Is it in the interest of the American people to clash with 1.3 billion people in favor of 5 million people who represent the Zionist project? Not even the Jews, but the Zionists."

See? It's a numbers game. Which refutes Walt's and Mearsheimers thesis that Israel has all the power in the region.

In a fine example of good jewish humor, an ex-director of AIPAC puts this all into perspective:

A former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Morris Amitay, who is quoted in the Kennedy School paper, minimized the document's significance. "I would be worried if Henry Kissinger was saying this. But who are these guys?" Mr. Amitay said. "As far as I'm concerned this is a tribute to the Jewish community. We couldn't do anything about Auschwitz, but look, we now control foreign policy for a region of the world so vital to American interests."

Classic.

Protest Breakup And Presidential Shakeup.

MSNBC runs an quasi-editorialized article from the Financial Times online site (FT.com) by Christopher Swann wondering why, if the president's approval ratings are at such low levels and the Iraqi war is grinding into its fourth year, more people didn't turn out for protests this weekend. On reading this, one can sense the dismay the author registers while insisting that there is quiet disapproval in the nation:

Americans may have turned decisively against the war in Iraq in recent months, but their change of heart has been largely expressed quietly to pollsters rather than in loud public protests. The micro-protests that have taken place around the third anniversary – including a few hundred who gathered to hear anti-war speeches in the affluent DC neighbourhood of Dupont Circle – pale by comparison with the monster demonstrations against the Vietnam war.

Why, indeed, are Americans decidedly not rallying against the war? Swann has the answer:

A clue to this curiously low-key response may be found in the bustling shopping centres. Despite the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, the economic consequences have remained relatively contained. There have been no signs of a decline in consumer confidence and no uptick in inflation.          

Americans have not even been asked to stump up the cash for the war effort – at least not yet – with the administration and Congress opting for higher borrowing rather than higher taxes.

Kind of like what I wrote about yesterday: "While you're shopping, bombs are dropping..."

Still, Swann can't figure out why more people aren't marching on the Capital. After all, the poll numbers are horrible for Bush:

But the simmering concerns over the conflict have been taking a heavy toll on support for George W. Bush, dragging the president's approval ratings close to the levels of support for President Richard Nixon in the wake of Watergate.          

A poll for Newsweek magazine at the end of last week showed that just 29 per cent of Americans approve of the president's handling of the war, down from 69 per cent in the months after the conflict began in March 2003. Almost 60 per cent of Americans now feel less confident that the war will come to a successful conclusion, with fears mounting that the country will slide into civil war.

I think that Mr Swann makes a common mistake with regards to citing polls. He comes to the conclusion that everyone who is dissatisfied with Bush's conduct of the war disapprove for the same reasons. Obviously, I have no numbers to back me up, but I suspect that a substantial portion of those disaffected are upset that the administration has not done enough, or has made a hash of a situation that could have and should have gone better. Those who have always been against the war are still against the war. Those who now fear a descent into civil war probably include a substantial umber of people who originally supported the effort.

This is why negative numbers for Bush are translating to rallies against the war. Having second thoughts about the president doesn't necessarily mean that one is having second thoughts about the wisdom, or not, of waging this war. Many might simply want the war to be prosecuted better.

Or, many in the poll could just be at the point where they do not know what to think, and do not trust either side to deliver a truthful account of what is going on in Iraq. What we are seeing is a propaganda war being waged, leading to a certain paralysis among the electorate.

This isn't surprising. Most Americans who would express dismay at the president's handling of the war--whether or not they ever supported him --still would rather not be marching alongside those who make parallels to Hitler, or express enthusiasm for a Palestinian Authority now run by a terrorist group.

We can generally distinguish between a poorly run campaign, even a disaster that has resulted in more casualties and deaths than "necessary", and a crazed conquistador running amok. George Bush can be a failure without being the devil incarnate, and most people who regard him as a failure do not make the leap.

Meanwhile, Fred Barnes, writing in the WSJ, ostensibly calls for Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld to resign. But that's not what he's actually calling for. In his unflagging fidelity to all things Bush, Barnes again rides out of right field and pens another fantasy:

The president's most spectacular move would be to anoint a presidential successor. This would require Vice President Cheney to resign. His replacement? Condoleezza Rice, whom Mr. Bush regards highly. Her replacement? Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, whose Bush-like views on Iraq and the war on terror have made him a pariah in the Democratic caucus.

Mr. Cheney would probably be happy to step down and return to Wyoming. But it would make more sense for him to move to the Pentagon to replace Donald Rumsfeld as defense secretary, a job Mr. Cheney held during the elder Bush's administration. The Senate confirmation hearing for Mr. Cheney alone would produce political fireworks and attract incredible attention. At Treasury, Mr. Bush has a perfect replacement for John Snow, someone he already knows. That's Glenn Hubbard, former chairman of Mr. Bush's council of economic advisers and currently dean of Columbia's business school. He is in sync with Mr. Bush ideologically and has the added value of being respected on Wall Street.

With these changes, Mr. Bush would have brought in new Cabinet chiefs at three of the big four agencies. Only Justice would be untouched, but it might be too much for the president to force his friend Alberto Gonzales out as attorney general.

What Barnes knows, but forgets that few others do, is that there is a paucity of highly qualified people who also would pledge undying allegiance to the president. When most people think of shaking things up at the White House, they envision new faces in new places, not the same, tired heads in different offices. It doesn't happen that way in DC, of course. And therein lies the peril for this president. He has a whole flock of lame duck staff members.

Barnes does go after Rove and Rumsfeld, mostly Rumsfeld, who is the only apparatchik to be left without a job after the shift.

What Barnes cares about more than anything is for Bush to be rehabilitated. And he has convinced himself that this shuffle would be a "stunning facelift."

As we are seeing with protests that fizzle and leaders who fiddle, the country mat be in for a long, lame slog through the next few years, lulling ourselves into a stupor. Maybe we'll get a needed shake up. I hope that the shake up does not come from the wrong quarters.

Iranian Happy Talk.

Just like Bloody Mary. As Iran claims to want to enter into talks with the US, The Telegraph says that the Iranians are doing some talking out of the other side of their mouths:

Iran held secret talks with Shia militant leaders from Iraq and Lebanon only days before the country's nuclear negotiators threatened America with "harm and pain", independent sources in Teheran have revealed.

The Iraqi firebrand cleric, Moqtadr al-Sadr and the chief of the armed Shia group Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hassan Nasrallah, held separate consultations with leading officials in Teheran.

Al-Sadr commands thousands of fighters in Iraq, with the power to destabilise further the country and target British and American troops, while Hizbollah's missile-wielding fighters are stationed on Lebanon's southern border with Israel. The revelation of their visits to Teheran has stoked fears that Iran's Shia clerical rulers are drawing up plans to wage a co-ordinated proxy war, using foreign Shia militias, in the worsening dispute with the West over its nuclear ambitions.

Hopefully, somebody in the administration is paying attention. I'm not that sure.