Adios a Pinochet

Christoper Hitchens is also glad to say goodbye:

There were those who used to argue that, say what you like, Pinochet unfettered the Chilean economy and let the Friedmanite breezes blow. (This is why Mrs. Thatcher was forever encouraging him to take his holidays and shopping trips in London; a piece of advice that he may well have regretted taking.) Yet free-marketeers presumably do not believe that you need torture and murder and dictatorship to implement their policies.

Historically, the moderate left has not been given much of a chance to try new things out in South America. In the long run, there is nothing wrong with letting leftist populists either (a) prove that their policies work, or (b) discredit leftist populism when they don't.

(Venezuela might be an exception, since the government has lots of oil money to spare.)

The same principle should apply to the right-wing policies too. Just as long as it's not "one man, one vote, one time."

Life imitates Onion

Two days ago, Nancy pointed out to me one of the best headlines in The Onion in a long while:
Rebels Immediately Regret Seizing Power In Zambia. (Apologies to the real Zambia, by the way.)

Today, I see this real headline: Fiji coup chief runs ads to fill Cabinet.

Movie-related Quote of the Day

From the Washington Post:

"What if you showed the ancient Maya 'The Passion of the Christ'? They'd freak out."

- Stephen Houston, professor of anthropology at Brown University.

The Borat Memo

Continuing with the New Yorker crutch (it's easier to link than to write original posts!), this short bit of satire summarizes what for me were some of the more disquieting things about the Borat movie.

Lessons of Vietnam

I was going to write a post about President Bush's remarks in Vietnam a couple of weeks ago, but The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg has done a pretty good job already:

In Hanoi, which under its nominally Communist rulers is more vibrantly capitalist than Ho Chi Minh City ever was when it was called Saigon, he [President Bush] was asked if the American experience in Vietnam offered any guidance about Iraq. “One lesson is that we tend to want there to be instant success in the world, and the task in Iraq is going to take a while,” he replied, and added, “We’ll succeed unless we quit.” What did he mean? That the peaceable, bustling, unthreatening (if unfree) Vietnam of today represents an American success, made possible by the fact that we didn’t quit until fifty-eight thousand Americans and three million Vietnamese were dead? Or that it represents an American failure, which would have been averted by another decade of war, another fifty-eight thousand, another three million? Who knows? And who knows, really, what this President has been taught by this month’s election? The present President Bush, after all, is a decider of decisions, not a learner of lessons. And he likes to decide that he was right all along.

The Baker-Hamilton Report

I skimmed the report this morning on the train, and I must say that it is much better than I expected.

It is a breath of fresh air, a welcome dose of reality. Even if that reality is not pretty and, as the report states, there are no flawless options to pursue. I think it can also serve as a good primer for the American public to understand the complex forces at work in Iraq - infinitely more nuanced than just repeating "Iraq is a central front in the War on Terror".

A good sample paragraph:

Iraq is a centerpiece of American foreign policy, influencing how the United States is viewed in the region and around the world. Because of the gravity of Iraq’s condition and the country’s vital importance, the United States is facing one of its most difficult and significant international challenges in decades. Because events in Iraq have been set in motion by American decisions and actions, the United States has both a national and a moral interest in doing what it can to give Iraqis an opportunity to avert anarchy.

Read: it was a war of choice, and the US must get it right. But is it too late now?

Rumsfeld's memo

Juan Cole has a good analysis of Rumsfeld's memo. This stood out:

Rumsfeld spends more time plotting out how to manipulate the American public than how to win the war. Everything is about spin, about giving the image of progress even in the face of a rapid downward spiral into the abyss.

It's the FOX-news, Michael "how do I look on TV during Katrina" Brown, Big Lie style of Government.

The Big Lie

In previous posts, I've compared the Bush Administration's policies in the "War on Terror", and the mentality of its defenders, to those of Third World dictators. This provocative, and thought-provoking, article on Slate goes one further than that.

The article has helped me cristalize why Fox News, and the likes of O'Reilly, bothers me so much: it's the culture of the Big Lie, very dangerous indeed. Sure, there are left-wing fundamentalists as well, spouting much nonsense. But they don't get away with stating blatantly false and illogical "memes" repeatedly, as Fox News does. And call themselves "Fair and Balanced," after that.

(Case in point, the "War on Christmas." Silly, yes, but symptomatic.)

Only bad options in Iraq?

This post by James Fallows explains how there's mostly only bad choices left in Iraq.

But one thing is clear: no matter how it happens, if things end badly, they will be blamed on the "liberal" media, the Democrats, the fickle American public, and the Iraqis themselves.

On a related note, NPR just ran an interview with two Iraqi exiles in Jordan this morning. Both well-educated, with excellent English, had to leave the country due to very serious threats on their lives and those of their families. One worked for the US occupation authorities; the other had the ability to borrow and pay $25,000 after being kidnapped, thus becoming a marked man.

Again, one would think that the self-proclaimed "law-and-order" Republicans would be the ones to understand how you cannot have a successful country, much less a "Democracy", without some law and order.

The Blame Game, continued

A good blog post from Marshall on the deflection of blame...

Blame the Victim

Last night's Talking Points by Bill O'Reilly had some classic quotes. As with Ann Coulter, this is commentary that might perhaps be best ignored, in the hope that it would just go away - but it is representative of what a large segment of the US population is being fed.

The appetizer:

The Iraq War has morphed into a number of conflicts, much like the chaotic Baltic situation under President Clinton.

He then argues that it should not be called a "Civil War". Perhaps: it might be worse than that. Baltics? Did he mean Balkans? But why bring it up, other than to mention Clinton? But that was clearly a civil war, by anyone's definition. (Of course, he ignores the obvious fact that Clinton did not exactly trigger the civil war by invading the Balkans - or Baltics, at that, but was one of the few Western leaders to do something to stop the Balkan conflict.)

And then:

The problem in Iraq is not American. The problem is the Iraqis themselves. They're not fighting for their freedom in a way that puts the bad keys [sic] on the defensive.

There is only so much the USA can do. If the Iraqi people are unwilling to challenge the bad guys, the bad guys will win — period.

Hmm, I thought that the Iraqi people had corageously challenged the bad guys when they voted in the elections, with a turnout much larger than in the US. Also, when they rose up against Saddam in '91? And what about the Kurds?

The conclusion:

If the Bush administration will not consider dividing the country into three autonomous regions, then it must consider allowing the Iraqi military to run the place, much like Musharraf runs Pakistan. Yes, that would be brutal, but clearly, the Iraqi people are not embracing freedom. So imposing order through a military strong man might be the only way.

Of course, the American media is not helping anyone by oversimplifying the situation and rooting for the USA to lose in Iraq. And that is what some media people are doing.

Hmm... Wasn't the original intention to spread Democracy in the Middle East? If we end up with a dictator, wouldn't that be akin to losing? Bill, it looks like you want the US to lose!

As for not embracing freedom, some 2003 quotes by Donald Rumsfeld come to mind:

"Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things... Stuff happens."

Banana Republic Watch: Ed Meese

GQ's interview with Ed Meese, a member of the Baker Iraq Study Group, summarizes many of the problems with the Bush administration's thinking about military tribunals and "illegal combatants". What these folks don't seem to understand is that this path leads directly to dictatorship, or, at least, a Banana Republic. Here it is:

-----

Q: Let's move to the Geneva Conventions. A lot of people are concerned that terrorism suspects don't have any kind of habeas corpus.
A: In order to be covered by the Geneva Convention, you have to fulfill certain requirements. Number one, you have to be in uniform. Number two, you have to be part of a military unit subject to military discipline. Number three, you have to be engaged in combat with other military units and not primarily striking at civilians. So there are a number of criteria in the Geneva Convention that are not met by everyone on the battlefield. Then there's another category of people going back to the Revolutionary War—people who were in those days called spies. If they were not in uniform, they were subject to being summarily executed.

Q: You mean they were executed without even a military tribunal?
A: I think there were some. Also, a "tribunal" could be a military commander ordering the hanging. I think that's what happened to some of them.

Q: You're advocating summary execution.
A: Well, yeah, that happens in the military. Illegal combatants are not entitled to the protections of the Geneva Conventions.

Q: So we call them "illegal combatants," without using any legal basis to determine whether they're illegal or not.
A: Well, we do. We have military tribunals.

Q: But not always, apparently.
A: My understanding is that illegal combatants are subject to military tribunals. But in any event, they have been captured on the field of battle, and anyone captured on the field of battle is either one of these two categories. And both categories can be detained until the end of hostilities.

Q: When we talk about being detained until the war is over, we're talking about a war that could go on for half a century.
A: Absolutely.

Q: Doesn't detaining someone that long compete with some of the values in the Constitution?
A: No, it doesn't.

Q: We value a speedy trial, as a culture. That's why we put it in the Constitution.
A: We value a speedy trial for criminals. But a person who's been apprehended and captured on the field of battle, that status itself identifies them as either a prisoner of war or an illegal combatant.

Q: Unless they live there.
A: Well, how many people do you have standing around the field of battle?

Q: It depends the battle. Certainly it's possible.
A: And of course, that's why the president has applied the military tribunals. So that people have the ability, if they claim their innocence, to demonstrate it. But the reason why you detain the people is that you don't want them going back and taking up arms against our soldiers.

Q: Shouldn't we extend them the right to a public trial for that purpose?
A: Why would we? Why would you do that to somebody who's not entitled to it under any law? Why would [we] extend the laws to people who are trying to kill Americans?

------

As the interviewer points out later, many criminals in the US are trying to kill Americans as well, yet they have the right to a fair trial. And without a fair trial, how is one to know if that's really who they are?

These are the same arguments that tin-pot dictators all over the third world have made over the last 50 years: "our enemies don't respect human rights, why should we?" "You have no human rights when you're dead." And so on. Resistance to these arguments, even in the face of terror, is what distinguishes truly civilized, democratic societies. You can respect human rights and still be strong and ruthless your pursuit of the bad guys; in fact, violating them is a sign of weakness.

Andrew Sullivan also points out Meesese's disingenuousness with respect to torture, in the same interview. Sullivan also links to this great speech, worth quoting again:

This week, again, the Government of the United States, a land founded on a commitment of justice for all - my country - tells us that detainees in its campaign against terror have "no rights." ... The act abolishes the writ of habeas corpus, which Thomas Jefferson called one of the essential pillars of the American Republic. It gives the president the potentially despotic power to remove anyone from the protection of the law simply by carving upon his body a label � the words "unlawful enemy combatant."

.... Once more, the model that is adhered to is not the rich criminal or military justice system of the United States, but the model of Franz Kafka's Penal Colony. What attitude towards justice does this reveal?

I am not here to argue for release or freedom for those detained in the campaign against terror. I am arguing for justice. That is something quite different. It may well be that Majid Khan is a serious criminal responsible for crimes against humanity. It may well be that he used or promoted the use of terror as a device. If that is so, he should be charged and given a fair chance to defend himself. This trial, fairly run, will vindicate my nation's counterterrorism efforts. It will show those who are held for heinous criminals, if they are heinous criminals. It would promote the view in the world that my nation has and pursues a just cause, and treats those in its power with justice, though the justice be severe.

Finally, as pointed out in TPM:

Meese is not a has-been from the Reagan years. He has been a key advisor to the current White House on the nominations and confirmations of Supreme Court Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This is a man who is widely considered to be at the pinnacle of the powerful conservative legal movement. This is what we have come to.

The Baker Comission/Study Group

As pointed out here, the "Iraq Study Group" has a lot of studying to do, since it does not have any Iraq experts, or even Middle East ones. Here's a good article by Michael Kinsley at Slate, about why such groups are really formed.

There are many reasons to be cautious about this team (the presence of Ed Meese being only one of them). The New Yorker's George Packer writes:

The Republicans had their neoconservative spree and emerged this month from its smoking wreckage, in Iraq and at the polls, with nothing to steady them except the hope that two aging condottieri from the first Bush Presidency, James A. Baker III and Robert Gates, can lead the way out. These are the same men who, fifteen years ago, abandoned Afghanistan to civil war and Al Qaeda, allowed Saddam to massacre his own people, and concluded that genocide in the Balkans was none of America’s business

Christopher Hitchens also makes a good argument for why Baker might not be the best man for the job. And also recalls:

For millions of Iraqis, the betrayal of their uprising against Saddam in 1991 is something that they can never forget. They tend to bring it up, too, and to fear a repetition of it.

In all of this, one must feel truly sorry for the Iraqi people, who suffered through Saddam Hussein, the absurd Iran-Iraq war (back when Saddam was on the US side), the Gulf War, the supressed insurrection at its end, the UN sanctions, the 2003 invasion, and then this bungled occupation, which might lead to even worse to come. And sorry for the Iranian, Kuwaiti, and American victims of the entire thing too.

Finally, here's one of those "what-if" questions: Would Saddam have been dissuaded from invading Kuwait, back in 1990, if the Bush I administration had been really clear about the consequences? Instead, we had these quotes from the US embassador, meeting with Saddam shortly before the invasion:

"We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960s, that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America."

How many lives might have been saved?

Fun with Electronic Voting Machines

Salon has an update on the Florida 18,000 missing-votes-mess.

How appropriate that it was Kathleen Harris' old district. And no paper trail. They had 6 years to get it right, but didn't.

Simpson and The Simpsons

So it turns out that Rupert Murdoch got the killer's interview killed. (Somehow, Fox News still does not have anything to do with Fox TV, and claims credit for the cancellation too.)

But only when it was clear that this was not going to be good for the bottom line, let alone whatever reputation they might still have.

Simpson and "The Simpsons" teach some interesting lessons about the Free Market (Milton Friedman, RIP):

Sometimes it leads to good results: Bart, Lisa, Homer and Marge, in a witty and subversive extended run on FOX TV.

Sometimes it gives us OJ interviews. Or at least, it tries.

"What God wants, God gets, God help us all". - R. Waters.

Robert Altman, RIP

Never got to be a big fan, but enjoyed his unique approach to moviemaking, especially in "The Player" and "Short Cuts".

Just yesterday, saw his last movie, "A Prairie Home Companion" again on a plane (a "minor work"), and it is made rather explicit that death is hovering over all the participants, which Altman conveys with a sense of nostalgia, acceptance and peace.

Banana Republic Watch

From the Washington Post:

Former attorney general Janet Reno has taken the unusual step of openly criticizing the Bush administration's anti-terrorism strategy -- joining seven other former Justice Department officials in warning that the indefinite detention of U.S. terrorism suspects could become commonplace unless the courts intervene.

....

In their brief, Reno and the other former Justice Department officials said: "The government is essentially asserting the right to hold putative enemy combatants arrested in the United States indefinitely whenever it decides not to prosecute those people criminally -- perhaps because it would be too difficult to obtain a conviction, perhaps because a motion to suppress evidence would raise embarrassing facts about the government's conduct, or perhaps for other reasons."

David Lynch campaigns

Much of the news, even the so-called "entertainment news," is depressing these days. One must ask: where is the joy? Must be out there somewhere.

So some much needed levity here: David Lynch's campaign for a best-actress Oscar for Laura Dern. I look forwards to seeing his latest, "Inland Empire".

Quick scoring of Lynch's ouvre I've seen:

- Mullholland Drive: A. Great performance by N. Watts.

- The Straight Story: A+. Produced by Disney, G-rated, excellent.

- Lost Highway: The first half of the movie gets an A+; the second, a B- or worse.

- Wild at Heart: C+. Don't know why this got top prizes at Cannes. Almost a self-parody.

- Blue Velvet: A. A revelation, when I saw it in the theaters in 1986.

- Dune: B+. Not so bad, watched on a decent home theater. Much better than the rather boring mini-series that was made a few years ago.

- Elephant Man: A+

- Eraser: B-. Points for atmospherics, being a "cult movie". But didn't get it, I guess.

"Twin Peaks" deserves special mention: the first season gets an A+; the second season gets a B- except for the A+ first episode and the Lynch-directed one that reveals the killer; the movie, "Fire Walk with Me", gets an F.

Politics and the English Language

This New Yorker's comment on Bush's use of "Democrat" vs. "Democratic" reminded me of the famous "Language Memo", allegedly written by Newt Gingrich, which circulated among Congressional Republicans in the 90's. (Aside: from the Web, it is hard to tell what year this memo was written, when it was circulated, and who actually wrote it. I'd also like to know if the title came with the original: Language: A Key Mechanism of Control.)

Both, of course, remind one of Orwell. Click here for his famous essay of the same name.
(Update: a better-formatted version is available from Russia.)

This is one of the things that the GOP has done better than the competition: It's not the "estate tax," it's the "death tax". (I myself prefer to call it the "Paris Hilton tax".) Not logging, but "healthy forests". And so on; not just with names or words, but, in general, "talking points" and "framing the debate". If you get to frame the debate in your own terms, your chances of winning are greatly improved.

In the spirit of bipartisanship, another classic case: "pro-choice" and "pro-life". Of course, it is less attractive to be "anti-choice" or "anti-life"...

FOX and OJ: O'Reilly should boycott FOX

I started this posting with this: hope that the self-proclaimed "culture warriors" at FOX News call the upcoming FOX-OJ Simpson production for what it is.

It turns out that Bill O'Reilly is suitably outraged: but he's not calling for a boycott on FOX, and actually said:

For the record, Fox Broadcasting has nothing to do with the Fox News Channel.

What a coincidence, then, that they share a name! One of them should sue the other.

I just hope that whatever money is made from this, it all goes to the victims' families. Not just OJ's, but also the money that FOX makes. Fat chance...

A recent New Yorker profile of Rupert Murdoch appears to confirm that he cares more about power and money than ideology, and is now starting to hedge his bets with the Democratic candidates for 2008. As with most of the media in most of the world (and, especially, in the US), he certainly cares more about money than good taste, common decency, or justice. The OJ thing is just the latest proof of this.

El Cucuy

From an interesting New Yorker article on El Cucuy de la Mañana,
the radio host of a very popular Spanish-language morning show:

The Hispanic locutores of today—like immigrant radio hosts from the past—both strengthen the culture of origin and help to hasten assimilation. “This kind of thing—I hate to use the words ‘multi-cultural diversity’—in broadcasting is unique to the United States,” Henry Sapoznik, an American cultural historian, said. “There is no corollary, even in Canada or England or other countries with big immigrant populations. In every other country, to get access to radio, you needed political power. Here all you needed was money.”

I'm not sure that they translated "Cucuy" properly, though...

Botero and Abu Ghraib

Slate has a slide show on Fernando Botero's Abu Ghraib paintings. (Warning: disturbing images.)

These are the (unintended?) consequences of authorizing torture. We will see if the secret White House and Justice Department memos that authorized it are ever made public.

Fair and Balanced

A very interesting Fox News Memo, from the Vice President of News:

The elections and Rumsfeld's resignation were a major event, but not the end of the world. The war on terror goes on without interruption. Jennifer Griffin sent in info on Hamas' call for attacks on American interests. And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress.

Actually, if I were an insurgent, I would be thrilled at how divided, blind, and ill-informed the American public might be, with this kind of media in charge. Could it be any easier to manipulate? (Just issue some threat, and you'll get coverage 24 hours a day.)

The Fox story about that Hamas threat is here. One would think the bigger story, at that point in time, would be Israel's tragic mistake, which killed 18 civilians, including children. (In the US media, it was drowned by the elections.) Just the steady toll of a conflict for which that US has all but abandoned peacemaking efforts in the last 6 years.

Bad AP writing, and uninformed readers

When the 2006 conflict between Israel and Lebanon ended, the AP put out this story, which was posted at Yahoo, among many other places. Here's how it starts:

"Truce will be Israel's last, Lebanon envoy declares"

WASHINGTON (AFP) — Lebanon's UN ambassador bitterly slammed Israel's month-long bombardment of his country ahead of a hard-won truce, and vowed that the treaty would be Israel's last with any Middle East country.

"Lebanon will be, I think, the last state to sign a peace treaty with Israel," UN ambassador Nouhad Mahmoud told CNN television's "Late Edition" program, without explaining the remark.

He called the agreement a "crucial" test for all the parties involved.

Without yet venturing any opinions on the Middle East conflict, let me just say that this is a classic case of very, very bad writing on the part of the AP, bordering on the irresponsible.

The AP writer cannot tell the difference between a truce and a peace treaty, which is crucial in the Middle East. There have been lots of truces, but fewer peace treaties. Israel has signed two peace treaties with its neighbors so far, each of which was a considerable achievement: with Egypt in 1979 (with Carter's help), and with Jordan, in 1994 (with Clinton's help). Still pending: Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon.

The ambassador was simply saying that Lebanon would be the last to sign. He might have been echoing a column by Tom Friedman, which, if I remember correctly, argued that while many people expect Israel to sign a peace treaty with Lebanon before it does the same with Syria, the reverse would be more likely.

As it turns out, the first time I visited a well-known right-wing blog, I happened upon a discussion of this piece. The blogger, and most of the readers, took the AP report to mean that the Lebanese ambassador had threatened to destroy Israel!

How terrorism works, and what Al-Qaeda wants

Stating the obvious:

How does Al-Qaeda, or any other terrorist organization, measure success? Their "metric" is not necessarily the number of people that they kill. They do want to achieve the maximum "effect," and spectacular attacks that kill lots of people are a part of this. But what, really, are their ultimate goals?

This, of course, depends on the particular group; but it seems that, in general, one of these goals is to get their enemies to do stupid things in reaction to the terrorist threat. The cliche, "when we give up our civil rights, the terrorists have won", can be quite true.

And it seems clearer every day, that in invading Iraq, the US walked into a trap, especially, given the mismanagent of the post-war invasion.

We can argue endlessly about the rationale for the invasion - the WMD stories, the cherry-picking of intelligence, the shifting justifications, etc. Among the confusion, we can find good reasons for wanting to get rid of Saddam Hussein, and good intentions for the future of Iraq.

What is really inexplicable, and unforgivable, is the bungling of the occupation once the decision to invade was made. (Reports of Donald Rumsfeld threatening to fire the next person who brought-up the need for a post-invasion plan are quite disturbing.)

It was as if, having decided to jump into the deep end of a swimming pool, one neglected learning how to swim.

As a good blogger analysis of what Al-Qaeda points out:

The sad irony of the last five years is that al Qaeda gambled and lost. Their attack offended more Muslims than expected and their military position in Afghanistan folded like a house of cards. Then, unbelievably, with bin Laden’s outfit on the ropes Bush gave them exactly what they wanted.

Namely, the chaos in Iraq. There's also a provocative prediction, which could also explain why there have been no attacks in the US since 9/11:

What happens next? In my understanding, nothing as far as America is concerned. Notwithstanding mutations like Zarqawi’s former organization, which view killing (Americans, Shiites, whatever) as an end in itself, the terrorists got what they needed from us. Assuming that the old Al Qaeda has any influence relative to strategy-blind mutations, the folks who probably should worry are US-backed regimes like the al-Sauds and Murbarak who will turn to us in the face of a growing insurgency and find no help forthcoming. And, ultimately, Israel.

Those Electronic Voting Machines

Nice: a Florida Congressional House seat is contested by a margin of 386 votes, and there are 18,000 voters whose House candidate was not recorded. Apparently, the machines had a touch-screen interface that did not always offer the proper choice of candidates.

Paper trail? There doesn't seem to be any. Hey, just ask the computers to count the votes again.

Update: see here for more details, and comments from CS profs. Dill and Jones.

Coffee rant no. 1: Starbucks sizes

My friend Kristen has asked me to write a rant about Starbucks coffee sizes, which apparently annoy her as much as they annoy me. Not surprisingly, a little web research shows that the complaint is widespread.

First, the facts: The coffee sizes at Starbucks are called: "Short," "Tall," "Grande," and "Venti". Now, how the hell are you supposed to remember which is bigger, the "Tall", or the "Grande"? Especially if you speak enough Spanish to know that "Grande" means "big". Which is larger, "tall", or "big"?

My research has just informed me that "Venti" is "20" in Italian ("veinte", En Español). At least this conveys some useful information: size is 20 ounces. But still, who's to say that "Venti" has to be bigger than "Grande"? In mathematical terms, this is an attempt to specify a total order using three different types of units. That is, it makes no sense, except for the "Short" vs. "Tall" comparison.

One of the underlying reasons for this silliness is that Starbucks (along with every other food and beverage company in the US, it seems) does not want to use the word "small". The solution, as pointed out in many web pages, is for us customers to rebel and use the words "small", "medium," and "large". Dave Barry puts it best:

Just say you want a large coffee, people. Because if we let the coffee people get away with this, they're not going to stop, and some day, just to get a lousy cup of coffee, you'll hear yourself saying, "I'll have a Mega Grandissimaximo Giganto de Humongo-Rama-Lama-Ding-Dong decaf." And then you will ask for the key to the AquaSwooshie.

And when that happens, people, the terrorists will have won.

(A correction to Barry's column: Seattle's Best is actually owned by Starbucks, since 2003.)

Finally: This article at Slate explains why the smallest sizes at Starbucks are not advertised - and how the smaller capuccino is better:

The difficulty is that if some of your products are cheap, you may lose money from customers who would willingly have paid more. So, businesses try to discourage their more lavish customers from trading down by making their cheap products look or sound unattractive, or, in the case of Starbucks, making the cheap product invisible.

Note like the "small" capuccino is that cheap - "$2.35 instead of $2.65." I'll expand on how the smaller coffee drink is usually the better one in a future post!

More about Spain

See here for more more debunking the right-wing meme that the Spanish voters did the terrorist's bidding in 2004; you can also find more heated discussion here.

It is easy to see how the Spanish case can be certain people's worst nightmare: a well-informed voting public, punishing an incompetent government that cynically exploits the terrorist problem. For a sample of the distortions, see this column by Charles Krauthammer, before the 2004 elections. As I have pointed out before, most of this is nonsense:

1. The most important fact behind the Spanish case is ignored (the Government's lies about who perpetrated the attack).
2. Just because terrorists are perceived to favor one result does not mean that the elections should be canceled and victory handed to the other side.
3. How easy for an embattled government to say, "Vote for me, or the terrorists win."
4. Whether Bin Laden wanted Bush to win or lose in 2004 is, actually, in doubt. There are good arguments as to why he might have wanted Bush to win, and the timing of a video he released a few days before the elections has been offered as evidence. The mismanagement of the Iraq invasion was a gift to al-Qaeda. See, for example, Richard Clarke's book.
5. Withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq might actually hurt the interests of Islamic terrorists in Spain.
   

Consider this quote from Krauthammer:

A second direct attack on the United States would backfire. As Sept. 11 showed, attacking the U.S. homeland would prompt a rallying around the president, whoever he is. America is not Spain. Such an attack would probably result in a Bush landslide.

Gimme a break. "America is not Spain"??? I hope that in America, the result would not be a landslide if the President lied about the attack for political advantage and people found out.

In short, these arguments are insulting to the Spanish people. If the Conservative Prime Minister, instead of blaming ETA, had come out with a strong statement against terrorists in general, faced honestly the possibility that it could have been Islamic terror, and promised never to yield to it, he would have had a very good chance of winning the elections. And, who knows? That might have been the result that the terrorists intended.

Borat saved by House

Indeed, truth can be stranger than fiction:

BORAT star Sacha Baron Cohen was beaten up by a passer-by after he tried to play a prank as his alter ego....
He was rescued by actor pal Hugh Laurie who had been on his way to a New York bar with Cohen.

Of course, it could just be tabloid fodder. But a good story nonetheless.

Concert: Aterciopelados, Slim's

Saw Los Aterciopleados, the best-known (and probably the best) rock band from Colombia, at Slim's. I first saw them at the same venue some 5 years ago; both concerts were excellent.

I also caught their free appearance at Amoeba Music on Saturday. The setlist for that was:

1. Complemento
2. Que te Besen
3. Don Dinero
4. Cancion Protesta
5. Oye Mujer
6. Bolero Falaz
7. Baracunatana
   

They also played these songs at Slim's, and a bunch more. The lead singer, Andrea Echeverri, can out-hippie any San Francisco hippie, any time. She had, as always, great energy and charisma, and went onstage with the most gorgeous dress I've seen any rock player wear (sorry, didn't bring a camera). Colombian fashion doing well, as usual!

Any band that can write a song like "Bolero Falaz" (from their second album) deserves serious consideration.

For the Slim's encore, they did a slow-burning version of "Florecita Rockera", plus "Baracunatana," which is a cover a classic Colombian oldie. "Cancion Protesta" was directed against Plan Colombia, which uses US funds to fumigates coca plantations in Colombian National Parks, against other things. (Noam Chomsky has asked whether this might mean that Colombian airplanes can fumigate tobacco plantations in Kentucky; but that is a matter for another post.) I would just add that we need to condemn the drug traffickers as well, who slash down unreplaceable native forests and jungles to grow the coca, which will then be fumigated.

The song from Buitrago's solo album, about flying over Bogota, was quite good.

The opening band, Rupa & the April Fishes, did well, with french-folk-type songs in French, English and Spanish.

I like how this paper puts it:

One cultural theory holds that energy and change move from the center of a system to the periphery.

Outlying areas change, then surpass the center. This is the case with rock en español, which lately outshines American rock. Colombia's Aterciopelados ("Velvety Ones") makes the case.

Movie: The Departed

Just got back from watching The Departed. Indeed, as the critics say: Martin Scorsese is back! It's no Mean Streets, but I liked it even more than Goodfellas. (I didn't care much for Casino or Gangs of New York, and missed The Aviator.)

Violent? Yes, but not unnecessarily or sadistically so (unlike many other movies in theaters these days). What I liked the most was the acting, with some of the best that Hollywood has to offer: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Mark Wahlberg, Jack Nicholson, Martin Sheen, Alec Baldwin, all do great work. Among all that testosterone, the one female lead, Vera Farmiga, does quite well too.

I thought the movie was near-perfect for its genre. A couple of Scorcese's more annoying traits from previous movies are absent: the overuse of rock music, and the Joe -Pesci-psycho-comic-type character. (The music was fine: a very appropriate "Gimme Shelter," plus, I was actually pleasantly surprised to catch the Van Morrison rendition of "Comfortably Numb," from Roger Water's The Wall in Berlin, also tastefully used.) And hey, Nicholson did not overact as much as some reviews accuse him of doing!

Academy, listen up: this is your chance to finally give the man the Oscar for Best Director, with no embarrasment for anyone involved. DiCaprio should get some Oscar or other as well, while we're at it...

Time of War

From President Bush's radio address this weekend:

Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war.

Wow, I hadn't quite thought about it up until I read this, but it is indeed quite an achievement. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate, from among the following list, those countries that have had elections since 2003:

Albania, Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Palau, Panama, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Rwanda, Singapore, Slovakia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Spain, Tonga, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and Uzbekistan.

Yes, it's the Coalition of the Willing. Oh, and Afghanistan too - a real achievement, truly.

All snarkiness aside, two things come to mind: First, perhaps this is not best called "a time of war," for many of the reasons that "War on Terror" is not the best name. I think that the United States is currently not at war with any nation state, with the possible exception of North Korea after the armistice of 1953. Second, that Bush's words would have more resonance if he had asked for some sacrifice from the US population, except, of course, for those in the Military. (Gas tax? Conservation? Any tax? Nope...)

Who's writing the President's speeches these days? Michael Gerson, his best speechwriter, left in the summer of 2006...

Concert: The Bad Plus

This is a good weekend for music. On Friday, I got a chance to see The Bad Plus at The Independent, in SF. This band can best be categorized as an instrumental jazz trio: piano, upright bass, and drums. But it is not your usual jazz trio. A simplistic but useful way to describe the difference is that the music is played with a rock attitude.

Jazz drummers are better than rock drummers, which is why the best rock drummers, such as Bill Bruford, would like to do Jazz. This drummer, David King, is like Bill Bruford on speed, if you will. Dangerously close to a circus act, but not there, fortunately.

Again, this is jazz played with a rock attitude, whereas Bruford/Wetton-era King Crimson is rock played with a jazz attitude. I like Bruford best when he is playing rock - he brings something unique to it; similarly, I'd say that David King is bringing some unique things to jazz drumming.

Important note: None of these two bands or styles should be confused with that often wretched thing called "jazz fusion," mostly seen in the 1970's.

The show included feats of synchronization and, as expected, fun and interesting covers of pop and rock tunes: Tears For Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World", Interpol's "Narc", which I liked better than the original, and, most enjoyably, Rush's "Tom Sawyer". Such covers are more and more common these days, to the displeasure of some critics. I am not bothered by them. What are "Autumn Leaves" and "My Funny Valentine", if not pop tunes? If those can be standards, why shouldn't a Radiohead song be one?

You can see them doing a decent version of Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit here:
TBP still lacks some of the maturity of a well-developed jazz ensemble, and has some to learn from Brad Mehldau, whose Radiohead covers are excellent ("Paranoid Android", "Exit Music", and "Everything in it's Right Place").

At home, revisiting the albums by The Bad Plus, I conclude that these is one of those bands that sounds best live and in person. Catch them if you can!

Civil Unions in Mexico City

An interesting development in Mexico City:

Mexico City's assembly has backed a law recognising same-sex civil unions, the first such move in the country's history.

The ruling stops short of enabling gay couples to get married and will only apply to the estimated nine million inhabitants of Mexico City.

This, while several states in the US are doing the opposite. The good news: one state, Arizona, was the first to reject an anti-gay referendum. Update: a Slate article argues that it was the ban on all civil unions that brought down that referendum, rather than the marriage part.

Ed Bradley, RIP

From the New York Times:

But Mr. Bradley’s life off camera was often as rich and compelling as his life in the studio. Having begun his broadcast career as a disc jockey in Philadelphia, Mr. Bradley was an enormous fan of many forms of music — particularly jazz and gospel. He counted the musicians Wynton Marsalis, Aaron Neville and George Wein among his friends and made regular pilgrimages to the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. At his death, he was also the host of “Jazz at Lincoln Center Radio With Ed Bradley,” broadcast weekly on 240 public radio stations.

I remember seeing him at the 2005 Jazzfest in New Orleans, introducing Aaron Neville.

That was a memorable jazzfest, my first: great food, music, and company. Nancy and I caught an interview and solo performance by Randy Newman, who as his last song played a moving version of "Louisiana 1927." That was May, 2005. In August, hurricane Katrina hit.

Rumsfeld post-mortem

A good article over at Slate about Rumsfeld's job performance. Excerpts:

Iraq dominates the list of Rumsfeld errors because of the sheer enormity of his strategic mistakes. Indeed, his Iraq blunders should have cost him his job long before the 2006 midterm elections. From tinkering with troop deployments in 2002 and 2003, which ensured there were too few troops from the start, to micromanaging operations with his famed "8,000 mile screwdriver," to pushing for the disastrous twin policies of de-Baathification and disbandment for the Iraqi army, Rumsfeld's failures transformed the Iraq war from a difficult enterprise into an unwinnable one.

And:

Notwithstanding the spectacular violence of the Sept. 11 attacks, America might have done better had it not chosen a war paradigm to fight terrorism and instead chosen to employ a comprehensive array of diplomatic, intelligence, military, and law enforcement approaches. Doing so might have encouraged more of our allies to stand by our side. It might also have put America on a better footing to sustain its efforts for what promises to be a generational struggle against terrorism.

Better than Times Select?

I was eager to read the transcript of Rush Limbaugh's interview with Tony Snow, also referenced in this Slate page; you know, the one where White House Press Secretary Snow says of the Democrats,

"You gotta wonder if they're a serious political party," and

"Democrats tend to have a view of the military that is not always fully respectful and even when they say they're supporting them, they're undercutting them … constantly trying to undermine public confidence in that military by describing defeat what people on the ground see as hard-won victory."

It turns out that I have to join Rush 24/7 to read it. It reads:

What if you're not a member?
Click here to join Rush 24/7 and change your life.

Wow. And only $6.95 a month!

Now he tells us

From President Bush's press conference today:

While we made some progress on changing the tone, I'm disappointed we haven't made more. I'm confident that we can work together. I'm confident that we can overcome the temptation to divide this country between red and blue.

I guess he's back to being a "uniter, not a divider", after 6 years of dividing.

Bush also pretty much admits lying when he said last week, before the elections, that Rumsfeld would stay on for the next two years. My take is that it was a conditional lie: if the elections had gone well for the Republicans, Rumsfeld might have stayed on. His answer was probably part of a Rove-ian strategy to project total confidence before the elections. Another thing: I'm not sure that "the only way to answer that question and to get you onto another question was to give you that answer."

And then there's this:

And I truly believe that Congresswoman Pelosi and Harry Reid care just about as much -- you know, they care about the security of this country like I do.

That was not the message he was sending during the campaign!

Recounts and electronic machines

Among many complaints: Reports last night said that the Montana senate count was taking longer because they were having problems with the electronic machines.

As for the Virginia recount, it seems that there is no paper trail for the individual ballots? If this is the case, all that can be done is to add the sub-totals again.

I believe I heard a Diebold representative say this on the radio, once: if you want a recount (when there's no paper trail), just ask the computer to count again.

One might say that a decent, reliable voting system does not exist for the same reasons that New Orleans did not have decent levees: because the US government does not want them. Not a big conspiracy, necessarily, just an appalling lack of political will. Both can be achieved with less money than what a month's occupation of Iraq currently costs.

Recommended: VerifiedVoting.org's site, for example.

Conservative Magazine: GOP must go

Interesting, what a magazine called The American Conservative has to say about President Bush:

There may be little Americans can do to atone for this presidency, which will stain our country’s reputation for a long time.

They are speaking of Iraq, mostly. But Bush's position on immigration has riled them up considerably too. (Immigration is the one issue where most rabid conservatives actually disagree with Bush.) They didn't even get to discuss spending and the deficit...

Quote of the (Election) Day

From a letter from President Bush to GOP voters:

There are fundamental differences in this election. Our country cannot afford to elect a Democrat Congress that would abandon our strategy for victory in the War on Terror and raise taxes to pay for their reckless spending.

Laura and I urge you to vote Republican and to ask all your family and friends to go to the polls. The stakes are too high for you to stay at home.

Indeed, there are fundamental differences. But "reckless spending?" I would also like more details on the "strategy for victory," too.

Note also the word usage we've remarked on previously: "Democrat Congress", when "Democratic Congress" would have done just as well.

Free Friedman

This week, you can read it for free: Tom Friedman's column at the New York Times (and other Times Select material). To quote:

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld think you’re stupid. Yes, they do.

They think they can take a mangled quip about President Bush and Iraq by John Kerry — a man who is not even running for office but who, unlike Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, never ran away from combat service — and get you to vote against all Democrats in this election.

Here's Krugman's, also free.

By the way, ever since that Times Select thing started, I've found it strange that the NYT is charging for opinion columns. Are they really making more money than they could from ads?
(A friend argued that the op-ed columns are the most unique product they have to offer—most of the news content is syndicated for other news sources. But, still, I don't like it! :-)

Dirty tricks, the media, and the obvious

The latest GOP dirty trick is a thing of beauty: lots of annoying automated phone calls, which seem to come from the opponent at first, but really slime the opponent if listened till the end.

It's being very well-documented by Josh Marshall, who has also realized the obvious, thanks to the media's apparent lack of interest in this story. (CNN is picking it up, but it might be too late.) As Paul Krugman writes:

The feeding frenzy over John Kerry’s botched joke showed that many people in the news media are still willing to be played like a fiddle.

They will also choose to devote humongous amounts of time to any missing white woman or child, Michael Jackson, serial killers, and troubled celebrities. Darfur? Congo? Honest discussion of the deficit? I guess that does not sell...

It all depends on what the meaning of "torture" is

Only one reporter has had the opportunity and the presence of mind to ask President Bush, directly, if he thinks water-boarding is torture: Bill O'Reilly. Sullivan analyzed the transcript, also available from FOX news here. Let's just focus on this part:

O'REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don't want to talk about techniques. And — but I do share the American people that we were within the law. And we don't torture. We — I've said all along to the American people we won't torture, but we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.

O'REILLY: But if the public doesn't know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we're not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don't want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

So much for the "no-spin zone." Not only did Bush not answer the first question, he did not answer the second one either. The implicit answer is: "Trust me." (And I thought that in the US, it was conservatives who did not trust the Government, and did not want to give it unfettered powers.)

Bush's excuse for not answering question No. 1 does not make sense either: it's not like the question was, "tell me what techniques you are using to interrogate suspects". It was about a very specific method. Any terrorist watching will have to conclude that yes, waterboarding is indeed used, and might consider "training" for it. (It appears that such training is, actuallly, impossible to do, since the method relies on triggering basic reflexes and a sensation of drowning.)

So what is the reason for not answering the question, other than the political embarrasment that a straight answer might cause?

The only one I can think of is that perhaps it's all a very clever plan to get terrorists to train for waterboarding, and then use some different technique on them when they are captured, thus wasting the terrorists time! Still, other governments do use waterboarding, and some are the receiving end of "extraordinary rendition" by the US. So it seems that a terrorist would be well-advised to "train" for waterboarding anyway, just in case (again, if such a thing were possible). Thus, I see no strategic advantage in either case.

Back to the question: is waterboarding considered torture, or not? Memos from the Bush White House and Justice Department would seem to indicate that it does not fall under their rather narrow definition of torture, since it does not cause permanent organ damage or failure. This lets Bush say that "we are within the law" and "we do not torture:" the law he signed got to re-define what torture is.

Leaving aside the morality of such practices, there are many doubts about their practicality: it is not clear that good intelligence is obtained in this way. The victim will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear. (One example of this: the main source for Saddam's supposed al-Qaeda links was tortured in Saudi Araba, and apparently made it all up.)

Movie review: Borat

What can I say? Its current Rotten Tomatoe-meter indicates a 96% level of freshness, unusually high for any movie. I guess I agree with the critical consensus, with some caveats: I would have liked to see more of the fearless sociological explorations (the rodeo, the religious meeting), and less of the borderline-mean cases (the opening caricature of Borat's town, the antiques shop and the fancy Southern dinner at Secession Drive, up until when the uninvited guest shows up).

As for the wrestling scene: priceless. It is not often that the "No. 1 movie in America" features such moments of poetry.

Given how much money the movie is making, I am afraid we can expect a few knock-offs in the future - a Jackass-style franchise, until it gets old?

Update: click here for a well-informed dissenting view.

Lifestyle choice, blame the wife?

A classic: Seattle Pastor blames Haggard's wife for her husband's lifelong homosexuality, denial, and deception. Dan Savage's reaction is, as usual, hilarious and on-the-point.

This piece of (attempted) rationalization from David Frum at the National Review is also a classic. One man puts his wife at risk for HIV/AIDS and lies to his children, friends and congregation. He also uses religion to mobilize politically against letting openly gay, commited couples marry. "The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution." Frum asks: Which man is leading the more moral life? Well, sir, we disagree.

From Haggard's letter of apology:

I am a deceiver and a liar. There is a part of my life that is so repulsive and dark that I've been warring against it all of my adult life. For extended periods of time, I would enjoy victory and rejoice in freedom. Then, from time to time, the dirt that I thought was gone would resurface, and I would find myself thinking thoughts and experiencing desires that were contrary to everything I believe and teach.

Through the years, I've sought assistance in a variety of ways, with none of them proving to be effective in me.

And then these folks argue that it's "a lifestle choice"? Why would you choose to be gay, rather than straight, and make your life so much more difficult?

Update: Andrew Sullivan discusses this quote, with more, um, personal insight than I can ever hope to have.

Democracy and honesty

A good essay by Michael Kinsley in the NYT Books in Review:

The biggest flaw in our democracy is, as I say, the enormous tolerance for intellectual dishonesty.

Not sure if it's the biggest, but it's a flaw amply demonstrated by the Kerry silliness, the Foley and Haggard scandals, and so many other recent news items...

Impossible competence

This October 8 Washington Post note did not make much of a mark on the media, in spite of being a secret Rumsfeld memo leaked by Bob Woodward. The item I found most interesting, and worrysome, was this proposal (emphasis added):

3. A Goldwater-Nichols process for the national security portions of the U.S. government. The 1986 Goldwater-Nichols legislation led to greater jointness and interdependence in the Department of Defense among the 4 services, but it has taken 20 years to begin to fully realize its potential. The broader [U.S. government] structure is still in the industrial age and it is not serving us well. It is time to consider a new Hoover Commission to recommend ways to reorganize both the executive and legislative branches, to put us on a more appropriate path for the 21st century. Only a broad, fundamental reorganization is likely to enable federal departments and agencies to function with the speed and agility the times demand. The charge of incompetence against the U.S. government should be easy to rebut if the American people understand the extent to which the current system of government makes competence next to impossible.

Does Rumsfeld really think that competence in National Security is "next to impossible" under the current system? Rather scary, from someone in charge of running the Defense Department. But then, wouldn't this also absolve him, in his mind, of any responsibility for how things go?

A classic: the White House releases FEMA federal funds for Missouri, for storms back in July, the day before Bush visits to support the GOP "embattled Senator". As summarized in Salon:

As we noted the other day, the White House authorized federal funds for storm relief in New York last month just in time to give Rep. Tom Reynolds something to discuss that wasn't the Mark Foley scandal.

Now, as George W. Bush heads for campaign stops in Missouri, the White House is announcing federal aid for storm relief there, too. As the Note notes, the timing is just a little peculiar: The storms in question hit Missouri in July.

Limbaugh and the President: "Democrat" vs. "Democratic"

It is instructive to take a look at Rush Limbaugh's interview with President Bush. As a quick check, I searched for the word "Democratic" in the text: zero matches. For "Democrat", there are 8. Masterful!

This is a Bush trend recently noted by The New Yorker: never say "Democratic;" say "Democrat" instead. Sample quote:

RUSH: When you go out on the campaign trail or when you're in your private moments, do you think of the consequences of governing with a Democrat majority in either the House or the Senate when it comes to things like tax cuts and the war on terror?

THE PRESIDENT: No, I really don't think about the idea of having a Democrat-led House and Senate because I don't think it's going to happen.

By the way, I'm not sure this is the answer that Rush was expecting (note his helpful mentions of tax cuts and the "war on terror"). It is interesting that the President claims not to think at all about something that is actually very likely to happen (but by no means certain).

I also like how the button for listening to the conversation reads: "Listen to Rush Conduct Broadcast Excellence."

What it really says

Andrew Sullivan has a good reaction to the Kerry silliness:

I know it's politics. I'm not naive. But it's also revealing about someone's character that he could authorize and exploit such a thing. Most fair-minded people will have to concede that, in retrospect, this was a very, very, very low blow. It hadn't sunk in for me till last night how low. In retrospect, this incident says much more about Bush than about Kerry.

I would also add, that the incident is very revealing of the US media, how it operates, and its relation to the current powers that be.

An Update: Kerry Apologizes

Finally, it seems, an apology that will work. But look at the caption of the CNN article, under Kerry's picture:

Sen. John Kerry is the subject of fierce criticism after telling college students they'd get "stuck in Iraq" if they didn't study hard.

The obvious bears repeating: this is conceding the very point that Kerry disputed.

How the World Works

Could this be why Air America (the "Liberal" talk-show radio network) is going broke?

An internal memo from ABC Radio Networks to its affiliates reveals scores of powerful sponsors have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programming that airs on ABC affiliates.

Just one of the many practical problems with the promise of "free speech". Compare and contrast with Fox News' financing, bearing in mind their interviews of Clinton and Bush, as pointed out in this Washington Post Media Notes article.

The Silly Kerry Mess

A classic case of bungling on the Democratic side, and projection/sophism on the Republican. What a difference a word ("us", in this case) can make! What Kerry said:

"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

What Kerry says that he meant to say (and the prepared text confirms):

"... you get us stuck in Iraq."

Memo to John Kerry: It is, in fact, possible to apologize for something you did not say, or you did not mean to say. Just say: "what I meant to say was X. If it came out as Y, or if someone interpreted it as Y, then I am reallly sorry."

The Republicans seem to be adopting the strategy of not accepting the apology unless Kerry actually says that he meant to say Y. Could they be so shameless?

[An update: I thought they had managed not to go over that line, but I was wrong. Look at this election-eve interview with Karl Rove, also discussed here:

HUGH HEWITT: Do you believe [John Kerry's apology for his botched Iraq joke] was an apology, Karl Rove?

KARL ROVE: Well, I’m going to take it as such. But you know, I thought it was interesting that he couldn’t bring himself to come out and face onto the camera and say you know, I made a mistake, I’m sorry, I apologize to our men and women in Iraq.

HH: A lot of military have not accepted it as such, but I’ll leave it up to them.
]

Kerry is actually helping the Republicans with his later remarks ("I apologize to no-one"). Looks like he'll get Swift-Boated again! And it looks like Swift-Boat II will be enabled by Kerry's anger at Swift-Boat I. Fascinating, if it wasn't so depressing.

By the way: look at how an AP wire describes this:

What triggered it was Kerry's comment, to a group of California students on Monday, that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely "get stuck in Iraq."

Isn't this pre-judging the point?

Cheney fallacy: insurgents' wishes

From the Washington Post, one week before the 2006 elections:

Cheney, meanwhile, said in an interview with Fox News that he thinks insurgents in Iraq are timing their attacks to influence the U.S. elections.

"It's my belief that they're very sensitive of the fact that we've got an election scheduled," he said. Cheney said the insurgents believe "they can break the will of the American people," and "that's what they're trying to do."

Hmmm... Let's assume that these are, in fact, the intentions of the insurgents. Does this mean that the party in power should automatically be given a pass, and always win, just because some terror group, somewhere, is acting up?

This reminds me of how commentators in the US read the election of the socialist governmment in Spain, shortly after the Madrid train bombing attack, as a capitulation to Islamic terror. The actual cause-and-effect was not so simple: the Conservative Government in power panicked when the attacks happened and immediately blamed the wrong group, ETA, and even claimed to have proof of it. The Spanish voters punished this and drove them out of office.

Going back to the implication that the terrorists want the Republicans to lose: Actually, the contrary might be true: there seems to be evidence that Al-Qaeda, in 2004, was not rooting for the Bush ticket to lose, and hence the appearance of a bin Laden video late in the campaign. Of course, this does not mean that Kerry deserved to win just because of this (if true): the point is that the terrorist's wishes should not be factored so simplistically into an election!

Cheney: "We were not in Iraq"

This one comes courtesy of Dick Cheney, from his Remarks at the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention:

I know some have suggested that by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein, we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq on September 11th, 2001, and the terrorists hit us anyway. As President Bush has said, the hatred of the radicals existed before Iraq was an issue, and it will exist after Iraq is no longer an excuse.

This argument has often been used when the President or vice-President are asked whether Iraq might not be making terrorism worse. But it is not, in fact, a valid argument: just because there was terrorism before the invasion - even very bad terrorism, as in 9-11 - this does not mean that the invasion might not have been ill-conceived, ill-executed, and possibly made terrorism worse.

Fascinatingly enough, the argument does manage to change the subject back to 9-11, while simultaneously highlighting the fact that there was no connection between 9-11 and Iraq.

And then, finally, to the "we were not in Iraq" line: Others have pointed out that this premise is, in fact, not quite true either. On 9-11, the US was enforcing a no-fly zone on two thirds of the country of Iraq, bombing assorted targets in the other third, and had been enforcing sanctions for a decade after the Gulf War ended. Not exactly the same as "not being there."

Switched to blogger beta

Looks like I joined blogger at a time of turmoil for the system. Now I am switching to blogger beta---hopefully, this will fix some publication problems. With the new label feature, now I will be able to separate out the main topics, which is good.

The WSJ: More Flawed Logic

Andrew Sullivan's blog brought to my attention this editorial about the Mark Foley scandal:

But in today's politically correct culture, it's easy to understand how senior Republicans might well have decided they had no grounds to doubt Mr. Foley merely because he was gay and a little too friendly in emails. Some of those liberals now shouting the loudest for Mr. Hastert's head are the same voices who tell us that the larger society must be tolerant of private lifestyle choices, and certainly must never leap to conclusions about gay men and young boys. Are these Democratic critics of Mr. Hastert saying that they now have more sympathy for the Boy Scouts' decision to ban gay scoutmasters? Where's Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi on that one?

This argument rests on several incorrect premises, including two deeply offensive ones: First, that liberals who espouse tolerance for "private lifestyle choices" would not generally distinguish these from the predation and abuse of underage boys.

Second, the remark about the Boy Scouts shows that the editorial board believes that gay men are somehow the only ones likely to abuse their charges. Alas, it is patently clear that heterosexual men are equally likely to commit hideous abuses. A small percentage of each, at that - though any percentage that is not zero is too large, no matter what the orientation of the abuser might be.

Flawed Logic: Presidential Press Conference, Sept. 2006

In a September 2006 press conference, President Bush pushed for approval of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, which authorized "robust interrogation procedures", among other things. While the bill was being negotiated, Colin Powell, former Secretary of State (and former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), wrote a public letter warning against re-interpreting the provisions of the Geneva Convention. So the first question was this:

Press Conference of the President: "Q Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?

THE PRESIDENT: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective, Terry.

I'd respectfully submit that there are at least 3 flawed arguments in this response:

One could start by commenting on the obvious: the answer had nothing to do with the question! Powell's letter did not make a comparison between those two. Nor did the question imply one. Bush simply changed the subject, adding a red herring that attributed an inflammatory position to the opponent.

We can probably tag this answer as a combination of two techniques: the straw-man argument ("there are some who say that we should not fight the terrorists but send them to therapy instead..."---example courtesy of Karl Rove) and projection ("when did you stop beating your wife?").

Even so, let's examine the straw man argument more closely: One could point out that the American people, compassionate and decent as they might be, are not the same thing as the American government. I am sure that many Americans would not approve of the "interrogation techniques" the bill espouses --- that is, if they could find out what those techniques actually are.

One might also ask, what peoples would not like to think of themselves as "good and decent"?

Finally, it might be true that there is, in fact, no comparison; but even if we grant that the terrorists are orders of magnitude more despicable, this does not automatically mean that what the bill proposes is automatically moral and good.

The headline in many newspapers the next day was something like: "Bush accuses critics of using flawed logic"---without any actual analysis of the argument, or lack thereof. One step closer to Paul Krugman's observation, that if W said that the earth was flat, the headline would be, "Shape of the Earth: Views Differ".

Keith Olberman focused on the line: "It is unaccceptable to think ...". This being an impromptu answer, I would play down the significance of this unfortunate prefix. However, the larger point is this: perhaps we should think, if only a little, about what the moral basis is, and whether currrent methods and approaches are appropriate?

In the context of Powell's statement, given Powell's experience, and his role in this very same administration, perhaps some thinking and nuance would be called for. I wonder if Powell has publicly reacted to this exchange?

Positives and negatives: The President's Oct. 25 Press Conference

This morning, got to listen to the President's speech/press conference on Iraq while getting my new suit altered by a tailor who, let's just say, did not have good things to say about it. Let this be the ocassion then for the first posting on the subject of Politics, and the first in a series of discussions of George W. Bush's rethoric.

From the prepared remarks:

Press Conference by the President: "Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of the brutal terrorist Zarqawi. Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters."

What strikes me here is the inclusion of "the fact that we did not find stockpiles of [WMD]" on this list of negatives. Putting aside the fact that WMD's were used as one of the main excuses for the invasion, wouldn't the absence of WMDs actually be a *good* thing, specially when compared to the other two items on the "negatives" list? Most of the harm caused by the absence of WMDs would be to the credibility and reputations of those who chose to launch this war based on that particular pretext. Can this compare to the harm caused by the other two?

On Negative Movie Reviews

Speaking of New York Times reviews: when you write a negative one, you should be extra-careful and check all the accusations you impugn the movie with. A classic example is the review for "Donnie Darko":

Donnie Darko - Review - Movies - New York Times: "Correction: November 1, 2001, Thursday A film review of ''Donnie Darko'' on Friday referred incorrectly to the age of Duran Duran's song ''Notorious.'' It was released in 1986, not in the 1990's, and was therefore correctly used in the film, which is set in 1988."

Looks like the reviewer was in a particularly unreceptive mood when he wrote up that one, eh? This, for a movie I consider to be quite good---highly recommended.

That said, usually the best movie reviews, and the most fun, are the negative ones, especially when they are fair. Some favorites:

• Pauline Kael on "Dances with Wolves": "Costner has feathers in his hair and feathers in his head."
  
• Anthony Lane's New Yorker review of "Star Wars: Episode III":

  The general opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones.” True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion.

• Speaking of which: The FlickPhilosopher's review of "The Passion of the Christ":
  

  If you were an extraterrestrial who'd just landed from outer space and knew nothing about the story of Jesus, this film wouldn't teach you a thing, but it might sicken you to see audiences cheering and applauding a relentless, two-hour-long depiction of the brutal torture and murder of a human being.

And, finally, most reviews of "The Matrix III". I could barely stand part II, so I skipped the thrid one. But this did not prevent me from enjoying the reviews. Here's a sampler, gathered from the Rotten Tomatoes collection of Matrix III reviews:

1. The only feeling generated by The Matrix Revolutions is the cold, annoying notion that a large amount of your time has been wasted. Thank God (or Neo) it's over. (Philadelphia Weekly)
2. Among its casualties is the benefit of the doubt that a few deluded types (myself included) gave The Matrix Reloaded (USA Today).
3. The scariest moment in the movie was when it intimated that there might yet be another episode (Yahoo movie mom).
4. As the buffed, multi-coloured and almost uniformly self-important denizens of the besieged underworld city of Zion madly prepare themselves for the assault by the machines whose power they have threatened, you half expect bazooka packing Jar Jar Binks to run by (Toronto Star).
5. At the risk of understatement, The Matrix Revolutions sucks. (Rolling Stone)
6. Third 'Matrix' installment is revolting, dumb. (SF examiner headline)
7. The resolution of the machine/human war is preposterous, there's not a semblance of a story, and the dialogue sounds like it was written by George Lucas.
8. Great line: "Everything that has a beginning has an end." Thank goodness.
9. I'm so stunned and bewildered that I can't even manage to be angry. The first stage of grief is denial, after all: I'll just pretend that The Matrix Revolutions never happened.
10. About the only good thing about it is that it (hopefully) means this will be the last we'll see of Neo and company for a long time.
11. What happened to the Wachowskis? Can they have regressed this far?
    
    
    Their debut film, "Bound," was a deliciously twisted, intelligently adult thriller. "The Matrix" made clever use of one extraordinary science fiction idea and lots of great fight scenes. "The Matrix Reloaded" barely passed muster on the fight scenes alone, and now the childish "The Matrix Revolutions" offers ... nothing. (Combustible celluloid)
    
    
    
12. Everything that has a beginning has an end. But unfortunately, Hollywood's new money-making scheme of making two movies out of one shows no sign of slackening. What is the Matrix?, the first film asked. This film answers that. The Matrix is the marketing software that encourages movies like this to be made. And it must be disabled.
    (Newark Star Ledger)
    

My own take: the best parts of "The Matrix" were in the first movie, when "real-life" and "matrix" blended, and one was not sure what was real. It was spooky and mysterious, and the possibilities were endless for a sequel grounded in "the real world". All that mystery disappeared in the second half of movie #1.

I had a lot of fun watching The Matrix pt. 1 in the theater, though. It was a good example of a "good performance" for a movie: each showing can be different, depending on how the audience reacts. (This also made some of Stanford's flicks great fun, even when the movie was not that good.) I still remember a woman sitting in the row ahead of us, who laughed her head off every time some mumbo-jumbo about Artificial Intelligence was mentioned in the movie. She probably worked in AI.

Movie: The Science of Sleep

On the evening when this Blog was created, we went to see "The Science of Sleep". It had potential, but the plot did not gel for me. Perhaps this looseness with the plot was intentional, but it did not make for as pleasant a movie watching experience as it should have been, based on the talent of the creative team involved. Lots of low-budget, funky/creative "special effects" a-la previous Michel Gondry videos, though.

From Gondry, I liked "The Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind" better---and thought that "David Chappelle's Block Party" was great, though that was in great part thanks to Chappelle and the music.

The New York Times reviewer liked "The Science of Sleep" more than I did.

One image that stays with me is Gael, with his hands swollen, running around his office. It reminded me of the lyrics to Pink Floyd's "Comfortably Numb" :
"When I was a child, I had a fever // My hands felt just like two balloons."

Is this one of those feelings that are a common universal experience, but somehow has an actual a physiological basis?

Other candidates: When you fall at the end of a dream, and wake up; the feeling of being awake but unable to move when waking up from sleep, as if a heavy weight is holding you down... There's probably something physical going on in the body and the central nervous system that causes these sensations, yielding similar results in most people.

And why is it that one is more likely to have nightmares or intense dreams after eating a big steak?

First post

Nancy and Adam have convinced me to finally start this blog!

When thinking of a name (Nancy suggested "Our Values, Ourselves", jokingly, of course), Adam commented on the number of the table we were sitting at, in the excellent Maharaja restaurant in the East side of Madison, Wisconsin: table 17. A perfect number since its digits add up to 8, Nancy said. A prime number, said I. Sounds promising.

Unfortunately, the name "Table17" is taken (by an empty blog, it seems), so this is table-17 for the time being. Let's see how it goes. You, dear reader, will find out what it's about as we go along (so will I). Enjoy!