Bill & Kim's Blog

2002-11-14T17:43:00.000-05:00

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but given their support for us in Afghanistan and Iraq, I'd say lets back Tony to the hilt.

2002-11-14T17:08:00.000-05:00

Okay, even if you're a pacifist, you can't help but realize that this technology is really, really, cool

2002-11-14T11:22:00.000-05:00

The Acidman has a great posting on a point that I made previously. He just does it better.

2002-11-13T20:21:00.000-05:00

This article (via Instapundit) just nails a conclusion I've been coming to for a while, now. Here's an excerpt:

Europeans do not yet get this, the great sea change that has taken place in the American foreign policy establishment. It would be easy to date this from the terrorist attack on 9/11, but it goes back further. I can recall hearing the first faint notes of this leitmotif of American contempt, like the distant hunting call in some Wagnerian opera that foreshadows the musical thunder to come, during the Bosnian crisis in 1993-95.
Perhaps we should have recognized hints of it back in the 1980s, over the sanctions against the Siberian gas pipeline and over 'Star Wars.' Most European diplomats dismissed these arguments at the time as clumsy Reaganism, the embarrassing kinds of excess to be expected from provincial American politicians. Doubtless, they smugly assured one another, Reagan's crudities would soon be tamed by their good friends in the foreign policy establishment: the State Department; the Council on Foreign Relations; and the Op-Ed pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.
Well, the Europeans may still be able to count on the sympathies and cultural deference of many East Coast journalists, but something has shifted among the diplomats, the think tanks and even many of the academics. At a think-tank meeting last week, when a European diplomat asked rather patronizingly what all these American weapons were actually for, a renowned liberal academic simply quoted Kipling's line about "Making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep." And then he turned on his heel and walked away.

Now generally, I consider myself an internationalist. A conservative, yes, but an internationalist. Increasingly, however, I can't help but see many of our Western European allies as imposing incredibly unreasonable demands and offering us nothing but contempt in return. This might be okay if they proved militarily or politically useful, but, so far they've been neither. Simply put, I'm starting to feel that "cooperation with our European allies" has become little more than a euphamism for "getting raked over the coals by people who play us for fools".

The thing is, I know I'm not alone in thinking this. More and more over recent months, I've been hearing educated people on the center-right who pay attention to international affairs (you know, the sort of people who've traditionally formed the core of NATO supporters) questioning what the U.S. actually gets out of the NATO alliance or asking whether we might not be better served by a Churchillian Anglosphere alliance, or even an approachment with Eastern Europe.

Now the thing is, every time I've quetioned the necessity of adhering to these allies' views or questioned whether their goals are compatible with our interests when talking to more left-of-center internationalists, I've gotten stares like I'm an escapee from the 1950s-60s John Birch Society. I think this is a parallel here to what's happening in the diplomatic front. Many of our NATO allies have gotten used to dictating the price of their continued support. Meanwhile our support has been costless. But this situation is nothing more than a holdover of the Cold War. Inasmuch as they have absolutely nothing of value (and no, I place not value whatsover on their incessant carping) to offer us, our continued support for the alliance has become strictly voluntary; it bears no relationship whatsoever to geostrategic reality. Now I'm sure the left will accuse me of trying to sabotoge the Western alliance. That's just patently not the case. I'd go so far as to say, that the alliance is still salvageable. But a Europe that refuses to acknowledge the altered geopolitical situation, that continues to act as if it can dictate terms while having no military or strategic leverage, that insists that it has the right to become a geostrategic counterbalance to the U.S. on our dime, is doing worse than acting politically and diplomatically immature and irresponsible. It is fiddling while NATO burns.

2002-11-13T14:17:00.000-05:00

From the Best of the Web

The California Patriot http://www.calpatriot.org/ reports that some 200 little kids got dragged to Berkeley City Hall for an "antiwar" protest yesterday:

*** QUOTE ***
Armed with protest signs, microphones, and Harry Potter lunch-boxes, elementary and pre-school children demanded city leaders contact President Bush and halt his hawkish "war for oil." . . .
Though most students at the rally could not even name Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, many seemed certain the pending U.S. led war in Iraq is about oil.
Celia, age 6, who could not spell her hyphenated last name, told the crowd President Bush "wants to make war because he wants oil."
"What is so important about cars anyway," she asked.
Later, when asked if she could name the president of Iraq, Celia, stumped, turned to a friend and asked, "Is it a boy or a girl?" Her friend, equally puzzled, responded, "I think it's a boy."
Noah, who declined to give his last name, also age six, asserted the looming war is not only about oil, but also "other things, like Bush wanting land."
"It is like us squashing ants," he said. . . .
Skyler Johnson, 5, hadn't learned much about the conflict in Iraq. When he was asked who is the President of Iraq, he shrugged his shoulders and said, "My mom might know." After she came over and gave him little coaching, he was able to muster, "We don't want war. Oil kills lots of people."
*** END QUOTE ***

Putting matters simply, I find this sort of tactic disgusting. By having thier children make arguments that they're unwilling to stand on the merits alone, he parents urging this are using their children as a human shields against argument. Whatsmore, I think its very unlikely that they're allowing the children to think through views of their own, robbing the kids of the ability to develop their own free will. Now, before you go off accusing me of ranting and raving simply because I don't agree with the position the children are taking, imagine that the situation were reversed and it was the right pulling these stunts.

Say on abortion: Under Woe vewsus Wade, a mean ol' abortionist could have wipped my widdew head off.

or on gun control: If we didn't have such westwictive gun waws Mommy and Daddy could have stopped the bad ol' wobbu' befaw he hurt dem.

the accounting scandals: Don't make Daddy go to jail for messing up on those silly math problems....!!!

or tax cuts: I would've gotten my own bedwoom but the mean ol' IRS took aw Daddy's money

or even Iraq: We gotta stop Saddam Hussein befoa he bwows up a buncha peopow wike dose mean ol' tewowists did to my Daddy in Wowd Twade Centaw.

Sleazy isn't it.

2002-11-12T19:43:00.000-05:00

I've noticed that a few of the lefty bloggers (by the way, this one is classic tin-foil hat stuff) have been bringing up the Apollo missions and the space program and waxing nostolgically for the Space program. Now you're not going to find too many bigger supporters of the space program than me. I'll go even further and criticize them for demanding it remain an undeveloped no-mans-land. What I don't get, though is their fondness for the program. Are they aware that the Apollo program represented probably the ultimate in dual-use technologies? Are they aware that, technically, rockets and missles are the same exact thing? When we sent the rocket to the moon, we were telling the world that OUR missles are capable of hitting the moon. Guess where else they're capable of hitting. ANYWHERE WE WANT!! Wierd.

2002-11-11T17:33:00.000-05:00

On the site for his show, Bill Moyers has a bit of whining about the results of the mid-term elections (surprise, surprise). However, I find the mendacity in this comment just a little too much:

Way back in the 1950's when I first tasted politics and journalism, Republicans briefly controlled the White House and Congress. With the exception of Joseph McCarthy and his vicious ilk, they were a reasonable lot, presided over by that giant war hero, Dwight Eisenhower, who was conservative by temperament and moderate in the use of power.
That brand of Republican is gone. And for the first time in the memory of anyone alive, the entire federal government — the Congress, the Executive, the Judiciary — is united behind a right-wing agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate.

So, tell me Bill, would you include, say Barry Goldwater in that "reasonable lot"? If so, how do you justify the fact that you led Lyndon Johnson's smear campaign against him? I'm sure you recall: "In your heart you know he might" or the "Daisy Petals" commercial. If you'll have the basic decency to admit that you were guilty of a smear job then (somehow, I'm sure you'll find a rationalization), maybe you'll be able to enlighten us as to why we shouldn't think you're doing the same thing this time.

Saint Bill got his start as Lyndon Johnson's hatchet man. His ground-breaking accomplishment was to paint the Republican candidate as a psychotic who intended to blow up the world. In short, to smear the opposing candidate. Since that time, he's moved on to become a "journalist of the intellect". Essentially, what this amounts to is pimping out a few popular intellectuals on the PBS dime. Of course, as salaried president of the Florence and John Schumann Foundation, which provided grants to a number of the intellectuals, Mr. Moyers never quite made clear that he had a direct interest in some of these intellectuals' public credibility. Somehow or another, all of this is supposed to make Mr. Moyers a moral authority. I'm sorry, but in my book, it just makes him a smug hypocrite.

2002-11-08T20:53:00.000-05:00

Be careful about calling people stupid....

For the last two or three years or so, I've heard my liberal friends talk contemptuously, dare I say venemously, about how stupid and unintelligent President Bush is. Its something they seem to have taken on from various opinion leaders. Maureen Dowd, using references to the president like "The Boy Emperor", seems to be one of the most vociforous. In light of the recent electoral gains, I thought it might be a little bit useful to make a few observations.

President Bush is a graduate of Yale undergrad and Harvard Business School. He proceeded to make a fortune in the oil business, and then proceded to make a second fortune running a baseball team. He served as a two-term Republican Governor in Texas, something that hadn't happened since Reconstruction, and decided to run for President.

It was then that he came to the attention of various left-leaning opinion leaders. And it was then that the comments about his intelligence started. Now, lets examine the record since then. He was able to win a presidential election against a two-term liberal Vice-President serving under a popular President during a period of peace and prosperity. Congressional authorization for use of force against Iraq? No problem! The UN? Piece of cake! And now he's been able to push the left out of control of Congress. So, I guess I need to ask, if the President is so stupid and such a moron, and he's been so able to consistently outwit the liberals opposing him, what does that say about their intelligence?

2002-11-06T15:46:00.000-05:00

As a card-carrying member of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (tm) (I'm still waiting on the nifty new decoder ring), of course I'm happy with the results of last night's election. Make no mistake about it. This election was a referrendum on the POTUS (i.e. President of the United States). The Democrats specifically saw to this. Unfortunately for them, it was a strategy that blew up in their face, as one might expect in a referrendum on a popular sitting president. Had they made it about specific candidates, its entirely possible that they'd have done much, much, better. While I think that the rule of law took a hit in New Jersey's election of Frank Lautenberg, I'm particularly happy that Walter Mondale got beaten in Minnesota. The skeevie Wellstone "memorial" (sorry for the scare quotes, but one tacky turn deserves another) service, probably hurt him and the entire Democratic party. Not only do people just not like to see politics taking on that kind of centrality to personal life, the entire thing probably served to energize the Republican base by giving them the impression that "those Democrats will stop at nothing". Also, as James Lileks points out, Mondale is so out of touch with the digital age, he thinks that getting the western part of his state high-speed internet access is about lower interest rates and plowing more money into the state college system.

I've heard some commentators on the left starting with the "Okay, who do we can?" spiel. I suppose that it makes sense to clean house following a major defeat. Some of the more liberal Democratic commentors are saying it should be Daschle and/or Gephardt. The reasoning goes that their authorizing force in Iraq didn't save control of the Senate as expected, so.... I think that would be a mistake. If Republicans had been left the Iraq issue, Democratic losses would have been much, much more significant. Terry McAulife, on the other hand, seems a pretty good candidate for the axe. While a terrific fundraiser, Mr. McAulife, as chairman of the Democratic Party, is also supposed to set the course for the party's strategy. In this, he clearly failed.

That said, I'd also advise the Republicans to keep in mind that the election was a referrendum on the POTUS's performance in office so far. They feel he is doing an okay job on the economy and they favor the Republican position on national security and foreign policy. I think that most people who voted for the Republicans weren't doing so because they want to ban abortion, outlaw internet pornography, or restore traditional values. Undoubtedly, the temptation to do things on these sorts of issues will be strong for most Republicans. It will satisfy a large portion of the party base and will be fairly easy with control of both the White House and Congress. Therein lies the danger. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. If they want to actually keep control of both branches of government through the 2004 election, they'll have to resist the temptation to go in this direction and stay focused on the issues that won last night's election.

2002-10-28T18:35:00.000-05:00

Jane Galt has a posting where she expresses a degree of condolence for Michael Bellesiles, the author of Arming America, who recently got axed from Emory University for some very distict problems with the veracity of his work (euphamism for the guy was lying through his teeth...). And there's more than a little shadenfreude displayed in the comments section. As Jane sees it, one of the issues Mr. Bellesiles now faces is that:

His life is effectively over. He will never work again in his chosen field. He will never publish again. He stands revealed to everyone whose opinion ever mattered to him as a liar and a fraud. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine what he will do, since professors rarely have a lot of money, and their skills are somewhat rarified. Most of the professors I've worked for couldn't even type or file well enough to work in an office.

I'm not so sure. Even leaving aside the conspiratorial possibilities of some sort of left-wing consolation prize, I think the professor still has a lot of career options ahead of him. Teaching high school history (or even teaching at a community college) or library work might not carry the prestige of serious academia, but it certainly can make for an okay life. Whatsmore, I think it helpful to consider the risk / return tradeoff in Bellesiles' decision to publish fraudulent work.

It could very easily have turned out that the discrepancies in his work didn't get caught. Its been pointed out that 10 years ago, its very likely that he would have. So, where that leave us. Had this not happened, Bellesiles was well on his way to academic superstardom. He was still young and had just won the most prestigious prize for American history out there. His next book would probably top the bestseller list. He would have been doing very lucrative lecture tours, giving amicus briefs to various federal courts, etc. etc. In short, he would have led a charmed life...based on fraud. In short, when he decided to start fudging numbers, this outcome was also part of his agreed upon set of outcomes. After all, do you feel bad for someone who bought a lottery ticket and didn't win?

2002-10-25T20:32:00.000-04:00

Weather from Hades: Widely Scattered Frost Throughout the Day.....New York Air Traffic Delayed by Flying Pigs

I hate to say it, but the Democrats are finally right on an issue. From today's Wall Street Journal:

The SEC is Likely to approve William Webster as head of a new accounting-industry-oversight board. But Harvey Goldschmid, one of two Democrats on the commission, is frist expected to nominate TIAA-CREF pension fund head John Biggs, sparking a partisan battle

Now I'll premise everything I'm about to say with acknowledging that Biggs is my boss (well...actually my boss', boss', boss' boss, but who's counting). But, I've thought about it and think I'm right regardless of institutional loyalty.

Pitt had initially proposed Biggs for the job. Unfortunately, the accounting industry wasn't too pleased with the selection and got on the phone with their friendly neighborhood Congresscritters (unfortunately, in this case, Republican 'critters), and asked them to kindly see if Mr. Pitt might consider someone else...anyone else...for the job. You see, Mr. Biggs is none too popular with the accounting industry as he has been party to a number of groups that have asked some embarrasing questions of the industry. Whatsmore, he made clear that he was none to happy with the industry's reluctance to expense options and TIAA-CREF has a history of separating consulting work from auditing work. So, Mr. Pitt decided that perhaps Mr. Biggs wasn't necessarily the best man for the job, and started looking at Mr. Webster.

Now don't get me wrong. Judge Webster is a decent, intelligent man. He did a commendable job serving his country as both FBI and CIA chief. I don't for a moment think that he has any intention of playing the role of political crony. But that doesn't really complete the entire picture here. There's some problems both with Webster and his appointment.

First of all, at 78, Webster isn't a spring chicken by any stretch of the imagination. One wonders if, well beyond the age most people retire, he has the stamina to put into exercising the position to the fullest. Now, I'm not knocking the ability of our senior citizens to do a terrific job in lots of things, but I can easily imagine the commission taking on a part-time status, rather than a full-time oversight role, as the remainder of the commission is employed in full-time employment. Its almost as if the chairman is going to have to take on the role of internal leader for the latter structure to prevail. I have doubts that Mr. Webster retains that level of committment. More importantly, Mr. Webster has no background or expertise in accounting issues. Now this might not seem like such a big deal. After all, a smart guy can learn this stuff. But accounting can deal with some really complex issues: like "How many iterations of a Monte Carlo simulation are acceptable to establish sufficient convergence on an interest rate option's long-term valuation?" or "Should interpolated or historical volatilities be used in the calcualtion of option valuations for officers' compensation?" or "Should capital set aside to cover expected losses at special purpose entities be directly expensed by the guarantor and how should the special purpose entity view the capital set aside as an ownership position in the entity itself?". Not exactly things most of us spend a lot of time thinking about, eh? Now the accounting industry will be more than happy to educate Mr. Webster on these issues. But then, I'm not so sure I'm comfortable with overseer having his understanding of the issues framed by the people he's supposed to be overseeing.

We have to consider the circumstances of Mr. Webster's appointment. Its apparent that Mr. Biggs (I still find that fun to say) was pushed out of the job precisely because he was too independent. But that precisely what the board was supposed to be. Whatsmore, they specifically replaced him with someone about whom their are distinct questions. The idea here was to have an entity that could keep an eye on accounting practices and, thereby, restore some level of investor confidence in the numbers that companies are putting out. That lack of confidence is probably a major part of the reason markets have been in freefall over the last year. But the SEC's decision basically creates the perception of captive oversight board, at best cancelling out any possible improvement in investor confidence and, at worst, creating the impression that the industry (as opposed to the Federal Government through the SEC) has control of reporting standards.

Of course if Mr. Webster relies on his FBI experience and leads a few accounting executives out in handcuffs, all bets are off.

2002-10-23T18:42:00.000-04:00

Blaech...

Over at Warblogger Watch they're going off on Scott Ganz. His crime? Going over to Emily Jones' house on a Friday night to comfort her and make a pizza after her grandmother died. According to these guys that makes Mr. Ganz just oh-so-square. I find this absolutely galling. Isn't the Left's moral posturing that they're the one's who have some sort of monopoly on compassion, caring, etc.? Oh, but when someone they don't like engages in a little bit of basic human decency, its grounds for mockery, eh?

So guys, whats your version of "cool" (I hate to resort to scare quotes, but I just can't resist it at this point.)? Let me guess, sitting around in your dorm rooms hunting for new ways to insult people? Having a good ol' laugh about someone's relatives dying? Or are you the sort of jokers who think that putting a ballbat through a Starbucks window or trashing a convenience store is just the epitome of ever-so-hip?

Frigging pathetic...

2002-09-25T15:02:00.000-04:00

The Times' Reines of Terror Continues...

This time they're taking the Administration to task for not providing the workpapers for DC Circiut Court nominee Miguel Estrada. To quote the Times:

Mr. Estrada, who has a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, has made few public statements about controversial legal issues. But some former colleagues report that his views are far outside the legal mainstream.

The best evidence of Mr. Estrada's views is almost certainly the memorandums he wrote while working for the solicitor general's office, where he argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court on behalf of the federal government. In these documents, he no doubt gave his views on what position the government should take on cases before the Supreme Court and lower federal courts. Reading them would give the Senate insight into how Mr. Estrada interprets the Constitution, and in what direction he believes the law should head.

What the Times isn't making clear, however, are that these memos are work documents, not final positions. And the Senate wants all of them, not just on selected matters. Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but when I'm hashing out an issue, I try to think through an issue from every possible perspective. As a result, looking through what my thoughts were, I'm sure someone could find silly or embarrasing fodder. Thats probably why a number of Solicitor Generals on both sides of the aisle have come down dead set against this. Raising possibilities shouldn't be the basis of judgement - your pronouncements should.

The fact that the Senate is requesting Mr. Estrada's full history of work documents only lends additional credibility to the notion that they're seeking fodder for political attack. Contrary to the Times' assertions of a precedent, Congress hasn't ever requested the full history of a nominee's workpapers. If I recall correctly, in the case of Mr. Bork, only selected, non-specific memos were demanded (legal theory versus case specific strategy). Moreover, Mr. Bork's treatment at the hands of the Senate hardly inspire confidence that this information is being requested only to allow an informed decision on Mr. Estrada's views.

Whatsmore, Howell and Company seem a little reluctant to address the fact that, while Mr. Estrada has made "few public statements about controversial legal issues", he has not yet had the appropriate venue, since the Senate Judicial Committee has requested this information without having a hearing on the nominee's appointment.

Rather than a case of having "an administration that loves secrecy" (by the way, Howell, nice evasion of the issues with an ad hominem), what we have here is a case of a group of Democrats on the Judicial committee trying to put the kabosh to the Administration's judicial nominees before they can make it to the full Senate, where they know the nominees will win confirmation. All of this is happening, mind you, while the federal bench is undergoing a vacancy crisis. And Republicans get called obstructionist?!

2002-09-19T21:38:00.000-04:00

My First Fisking

I've never been a party to a fisking, but this little piece of idiocy from Brian Sewell of the Evening Standard has gotten my ire up enough to inspire me. So, here goes:

Grief and Dust, The Day of Tears, A Nation in Mourning, The Dead and the Guilty, Time has not dulled the Shock, The Pain lingers on, How the World has changed, 11 September..., these were the headlines of last Wednesday's broadsheets, a day on which we were predictably treated to an orgy of cheap retrospection by our newspapers, our radio and television. By cheap I mean cheap to make - an easy rehash of old photographs, a minute-by-minute chronology of events, a set of celebrity interviews of the "Where were you when ..." variety - but much of it was cheap in the pejorative sense too, a cynical tapping into the pent-up reservoirs of maudlin sentiment that we discovered within our national selves with the death of Princess Diana, now spent, one year on, on the international business of 11 September.

Shall we spend it again in September 2003 and four and five? Shall we make 11 September an annual orgasm of remembered grief ? Or should we, having held, in the absence of so many solitary funerals, one obsequy for all, lay the memory to rest?

Boo hoo hoo, dickhead. I'm sorry that memorials for the 2,800 people who were deliberately murdered last year interrupted your diet of anti-America bile. Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but don't you guys throw an annual memorial of somebody who tried to blow up Parliament 300 years ago and didn't even manage to pull it off? Lets move on to see what other tripe you're going to try throwing at us...

This was an unprovoked assault on a nation not at war, an assault on freedom, free speech and the free world, on the abstract liberties and ideals of the American constitution, and America is, as we all know, a synecdochism for all the virtues of Western civilisation. But - and dare one express a but in such a hysterical context? - some might see the events of that day in New York as an assault on the twin monuments of Mammon by an ascetic religious force emanating, yet again, from the deserts of the East to scourge the daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake.

First of all, asshole, putzes like you have been exposing your buts to the rest of us for the last twelve months. And guess what? There haven't been any nighttime knocks on the door, no angry mobs, and no thumbscrews. You still have your cushy job going to exhibits and gallery openings and making your dimwitted pronouncements for the rest of the world. But lets get to the point here. Yeah, the religious whack-jobs probably did view themselves as striking a blow against "daily manipulators of greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake". Why? Because they're religious whack-jobs. They view any sort of life other than blind subservience to an oppressive god-head, any sort of life where individuals strive for their own happiness, as "greed, rapaciousness and avarice, the disciples of profit and cupidity, the instruments of personal and private wealth for its own sake". Guess what? These same-said psychos would also look at you with your effete blatherings and line you up under a wall to knock down on your pansy-assed skull. The difference is that we in the West have developed a world where people are entitled to have an opinion other than the latest rantings of the local imam and where we are free to pursue our own interests and happiness. Where did we learn that? Oh yeah, the English Enlightenment. And a fair thing its been too. Gave us railroads, electricity, indoor plumbing. Guess those are the sort of things you find objectionable. Still, Brian goes on...

Have we forgotten the moral exemplar set by Christ when he scourged the traders in the temple of Jerusalem? When he overturned the tables of the moneychangers, did he pause to ask why any of them should be excluded from his wrath?

Okay, shit-for-brains, you must have a different version of the bible than I do. In my version, at least, he chased them out of the temple and overturned their tables. He didn't fly a fucking airliner into the temple and kill them all! Whatsmore, I'd been to the World Trade Center and don't seem to recall it being a church. The entire point of the building was commerce. Maybe in the Brian-Sewell-Workers-Paradise, thats a mean, nasty terrible thing to do, but here on planet Earth its how we collect resources for real big enterprises. If we didn't do that you'd probably be plowing the turnip patch rather than spouting your hatred of the rest of us.

But 2,801 men and women died in the twin towers, not one of them an enemy of Islam. Two thousand eight hundred and one? What sort of number is that over which to make a fuss? How many more, in recent years, have died in Nicaragua and Rwanda, the Congo and Biafra, Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia, all now virtually forgotten? And looking farther back, to the Second World War, what kind of fuss did Londoners make on the night of 10 May 1941, when, in a single air raid, 1,436 Londoners were killed and more than as many seriously injured? That night the Tower, the Temple, the Law Courts, Westminster Abbey and every main line station were hit, the House of Commons was gutted, Westminster Hall was ablaze, between Lambeth and the Tower no bridge was passable, 700 gas mains were gushing flames, 250,000 books in the British Museum were charred and smouldering and mains water was cut off. But who now remembers this and where is the memorial? Indeed, what memory has any of us of the London Blitz and its 20,000 civilians killed, its 300,000 homes destroyed?

On 3 September this year we forgot the outbreak of the Second World War, forgot the six million Jews of the Holocaust, forgot the 19 million Russian civilians who starved or froze to death, forgot the Polish nation torn asunder, forgot, forgot, forgot what that war meant for civilians from Trondheim to the mid-Pacific, forgot what we, the British, did to the civilians of Dresden and D¸sseldorf in the spirit of revenge.

Oh, of course. The English neeehhver make a fuss about the Blitz. Yeah, right. Uhh...shithead, maybe you've already forgotten (quite conveniently), but as you pointed out in the last paragraph, "This was an unprovoked assault on a nation not at war". That kinda makes it a little different. All of those other places were at war. The deaths are tragic and terrible, but expectable. And, uh.., unless you don't recall, we actually got involved and corrected the situation, rather than sit around and snipe at the victims like a bunch of smug little shits. But now Bri-Bri cuts to the chase...

To old hands the fuss over 11 September may have seemed unconscionable in the light of 20th century European history, but it was, of course, an assault beyond the imagining of a nation that thought its land inviolable. The United States of America has a short history of extreme violence against the indigenous peoples of the central belt of North America, of ethnic cleansing and now of ethnic ghettos, of territorial expansion by forced annexation and war against an infinitely weaker Mexico in 1846-8 and against Spain in 1898.

These wars had no moral foundation and cannot be described, even by the most partial historian, as just; they were wars of expansion that brought Texas, California, New Mexico and Arizona within the borders of the USA, and Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines within its spheres of influence and even ownership. This is not a pretty history, not a history that accords with the aspirations of those who wrote the Declaration of Independence, but a history of greed for land and raw materials, greed for downright power. What would now be the economy of Mexico had she not been stripped of California and Texas?

Yeah right, dipshit. I'm sure the Islamofascists were real concerned about the plight of the American Indian. It doubtlessly kept them up at night.

In case you're unaware one of the major reasons England didn't have ghettos in the classic sense is that the Jewish population had been expelled by the English government. But I'm sure the huge Jamaican and Pakistani populations of Knightsbridge are well aware of that.

Finally, Texas wasn't taken by the U.S. in the Mexican War. There was a little thing called the Texas Revolution that led to it being a republic on its own. That republic, in turn, joined the Union. The entire thing was over before the Mexican War even started. But don't worry, I won't let the facts actually get in the way of your anti-Americanism. But, uhh, while you're at it, would you mind explaining to me how if the territories disputed in the Mexican War would have given Mexico such strength and vibrancy, it didn't actually help them win the war?
In a throw-away Anti-America rant, Sewell goes on....

With the propaganda of the cinema, Mexicans and Red Indians have been demonised, made ludicrous and contemptible. With political propaganda, the Americans have made themselves heroes without whom the two World Wars could not have been won; without their fortitude and generosity Russia would have been the victor in the Cold War, without their moral strength, the Atlantic would never have been crossed by Coca-Cola and fried chicken.

Okay, asshole, why don't you try showing me one, just one, movie in the last twenty years where Mexicans or Native Americans have been "demonised, made ludicrous and contemptible". I think I'll be waiting a long time, since there haven't been any. If your point is anything other than to go on an America-bashing harrangue, you can't really can't go back 50 years and cite the old John Wayne movies. You're commenting on America's views today. And while we're reviewing America's role in World History lets actually review a couple of those instances you bring up. If you hadn't been paying attention in history class, World War I was actually at a stalemate when America entered the war. Now I know you're too fine and sensitive a soul to spend your time thinking about such things but a stalemate, by definition, means that neither side was going to win. So, uh yeah, we did win that one for you. As for the Cold War, you're an idiot if you think the burnt out hulk of Europe would have withstood the Red Army without America. And maybe its gouche of me to remind you, but um... your ever-so-sophisticated, ever-so-European sort was preaching accomodation with Soviets up to the bitter end. It was the U.S., ignoring dipshits like yourself, that actually stood up to it. But, to be honest, there's a little part of me thats kinda inclined (especially after your "Mammon" beginning) to think that the fact that Russia wasn't the victor is a little bit of a disappointment for you. Oh, and before I forget, the reason Coca-Cola and fried chicken crossed the Atlantic is that people actually like it. Last I heard there's no such thing as a Kentucky Fried Gestapo, rounding up non-chicken eaters to be shot at dawn. The fact of the matter is that they crossed the Atlantic because obviously a lot of Brits prefer them to warm beer and boiled beef.

Is this the point at which to murmur of Vietnam, to conjure Agent Orange - that dread defoliant - to remind Dubya Bush of 11 years of inconclusive warfare with an army of as many as 400,000 men, to remind him of the body bags and the many young men of whom, like the New York victims of 11 September, there is no trace - many more than 2,801? Will war with Iraq be any remedy for 11 September?

Sure, fella, murmur all you want. Just like you guys murmurred about Afghanistan as the "Killer of Empires" and "a new Vietnam" last October. Although I have to admit that I have doubts about people who constantly murmur to themselves. Will it be a remedy for September 11? Probably not. What it will be is a way to keep the Whacky Iraqi from getting his grubby paws on a nuke. It will be a way to help make sure that on some other fine September day we don't find that rather than loosing 2,801 of our countrymen, we lose 2,801,000. But then for all your harping on the insufficiency of the bodycount, maybe thats why you don't like the idea of American action.

America had its opportunity to rid the world of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1991. In four days from 24 to 28 February, Operation Desert Storm slaughtered between 85,000 and 100,000 Iraqi soldiers, but, with victory in their grasp, American forces that could within a day have entered Baghdad and driven Saddam Hussein into exile, turned tail and left him to continue being the monster that he is. This was the consequence of America's fear and hatred of Iran - at that stage, of the two evil regimes, the preference of American strategists was for the Iraqi and they were naive enough to suppose that Saddam would in some way express his gratitude. Now Bush threatens Saddam with invasion - Saddam who has no known connection with 11 September - because the President has, in the passing of a whole year and in spite of all his rhetoric, made no convincing progress in his war against terrorism, a war that he can never win.

No, dickhead, we stopped the march on Baghdad because we actually bothered with the opinions of assholes like yourself and a bunch of tin-horn Arab dictatorships. They were handing us the same line of bullshit you're handing out now about destabilizing the Middle East (like the stability of assholes is a GOOD thing?!?!) and the need for international consensus. Guess what, we won't make that mistake anymore. And as for Mr. Hussein's relation to 9/11, somehow or another, I'm a little more inclined to take the word of Czech intelligence officials over that of some dipshit London art critic. Sorry, just me. And finally we have little Bri-Bri's summing up:

We remember too little, but are tempted to erect memorials to far too much. What should be done with Ground Zero? As New York long since sold its soul to Mammon, it should rebuild the twin towers, resume its confident and worldly life with no pretence of piety and principle and let fade the memory of 11 September, just like the rest of its distasteful history.

You piece of shit. You little, fucking, obnoxious, scumbag, no-account, piece of shit. You sit there and give a giant "Who cares" about the mass-murder of innocents, and you have the unmitigated gall to sit there and pass judgement on my city?! Screw you! Screw the horse you rode in on! Screw anybody who looks like you! And screw the horses they rode in on! I've seen people treat one another with more common decency than you'll ever know or deserve. You snobbish, superficial, little bastard!

Its good to know, though, that even though we don't have any friends amongs the would-be Eurotrash like Mr. Sewell, real Englishmen and women remain America's genuine friends.

2002-09-17T20:31:00.000-04:00

This article by Nicholas Kristof has me a little disturbed. Not so much by the the threat of terrorists getting ahold of the Anarchists Cookbook as by Kristof's general naivite and disregard for the First Ammendment. The information that Kristof suggests could pose a threat isn't the gunshow books per se, but those "helpful articles in professional journals" that Kristof doesn't bother mentioning until the last paragraph. Maybe its me, but the sort of massive censorship of scientific journals this would imply seems anathema to open scientific inquiry.

2002-09-17T18:47:00.000-04:00

Found a pretty funny posting from Aria Goes Down. I'm a little late getting to it, but the following gives a taste of what it says:

...You don’t like me? Good for you, lots of people don’t, some of them are members of my own family. I don’t give a fuck. Here in America, we call that your problem – not mine. Deal with it. You don’t like that I wear makeup? Don’t look at me. You don’t like that I have my own mouth, my own opinions? Don’t listen to me. Do I dress like a whore to you? Avert your eyes. You can really impress me - gouge them out. Does the Star of David around my neck offend you? Good, fuck off. Go home at night and curse my name. Curse my beliefs, my lifestyle, my behavior, my family, my friends – do it up, Fucker. Live large, make a dartboard out of pictures of me, a voodoo doll, create a poorly constructed mock me and burn it in effigy. Knock yourself the fuck out. I don’t care. Blast BuckCherry’s Anything, Anything and mosh your stupid head into the wall. Fine by me. Believe me, I’m not Snow White-Friend-to-All myself. There are plenty of folks out there that I take umbrage with (just ask Doris). You can hate me all you want. Let it eat away at you like a cancer until it consumes you whole. That’s ok with me.

The rest of it is pretty much as funny.

2002-09-14T12:42:00.000-04:00

This is precisely why we have a second ammendment. (Courtesy of Hot Right-wing Chick)

2002-09-13T20:50:00.000-04:00

It looks to me like The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler and James Lileks get it, while the New York Times editorial board remains serially clueless. President Bush's U.N. speech wasn't in any way a concession to the multilateralists. If you think about it the crux of his speech amounted to this: "Saddam Hussein has been mocking you multilateralist pansies for the last ten years. Because you haven't been been able to strap on a set of testies for the last ten years and do something about it, he's gotten to the point where he might eventually pose an actual threat. You can whine and bitch all you want about us actually making any move to resolve the situation but we're really going to give you two choices: strap on said testies and resolve the matter, or shut the f**k up while we do." This, of course, is viewed as a breakthrough for their position in Europe and the New York Times newsroom.

2002-09-13T19:47:00.000-04:00

Well, today's Times has a really silly piece by Nicholas Kristof harping about how President Bush didn't offer any new evidence to indict Saddam to the U.N., yesterday. Specifically, he says

President Bush yesterday offered an eloquent, forceful and overdue call for the U.N. to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.

Just one problem: He cited no evidence of any immediate threat, no reason that invading Iraq is any more urgent today than it was in, say, 2000, when Mr. Bush as a candidate huffed and puffed about Saddam but never shared with voters any plans for an invasion.

For months there have been hints about intelligence that the administration supposedly has gathered about an imminent Iraqi threat and about links to terrorism. So it was deflating to hear again that Saddam is a monster whose regime tortures children in front of parents. All true — as it was a decade ago.

So, eh..., Nick, we know that, in addition to being a bad man, Saddam Hussein is trying to get nukes, and just doesn't have 'em yet. Let me guess, you're saying that we should hold off on doing anything against Iraq until after we find that he can drop a couple of megatons on New York, Riyahd, or Tel Aviv. I'm not an expert on military science, but it kinda seems to me we might be risking a little more blood and treasure in that case. I mean saying lets not war against Iraq is one thing, but saying wait until he has a chance to catch up is another.

2002-09-10T15:00:00.000-04:00

As many of you may know, I'm a Churchill fan. I found a great site that provides a few WSC quotes that seem especially apt in light of the War on Terror:

"... the United States, united as never before, have drawn the sword for freedom and cast away the scabbard."
-Speech, 26th December, 1941

"Not so easily shall the lights of freedom die".
-Broadcast to the US, 16th June, 1941

"Silly people -- and there were many, not only in enemy countries -- might discount the force of the United States. Some said they were soft, others that they would never be united. They would fool around at a distance. They would never come to grips. They would never stand blood-letting. Their democracy and system of recurrent elections would paralyze their war effort. They would be just a vague blur on the horizon to friend or foe. Now we should see the weakness of this numerous but remote, wealthy, and talkative people. But I had studied the American Civil War, fought to the last desperate inch. American blood flowed in my veins. I thought of a remark which Edward Grey had made to me more than thirty years before -- that the United States is like "a gigantic boiler. Once the fire is lighted under it there is no limit to the power it can generate". Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful."
-"The Second World War", Volume 3, "The Grand Alliance"

"We shall have no truce or parley with you, or the grisly gang who work your wicked will. You do your worst--and we will do our best. Perhaps it will be our turn soon. Perhaps it will be our turn now." Possibly my personal favorite
- Speech, 14th July 1941. See "The Unrelenting Struggle"

2002-09-10T14:51:00.000-04:00

Stephen DenBeste has an interesting article up on his website. Its a reply to a question in asking why Israel isn't included on a list of the U.S.'s allies. His response boils down to arguing that they are a client state (no less a friend, but not enough of an equal) to be truly considered an ally. As DenBeste sees is the U.S.'s true allies are Canada, Australia, and the U.K. In general, I think he's right. After years of whinging leftism, I'd consider New Zealand as coming around, though. As has been noted thoughout the Blogosphere, these have been about the only "allies" that have really given us any consistent level of assistance in the wake of 9/11.

2002-09-08T18:19:00.000-04:00

Sorry to disagree with you Kim (Okay not really...), but this post from Cold Fury comes a little closer to capturing my particular emotional reaction to the 9/11 anniversary.

2002-09-08T17:19:00.000-04:00

Bill and I have been talking about what we will do to commemorate 9/11.

Regardless of the rest of what we do, this is how I’m starting:

When the attack occurred I lived close enough to see the smoke from my apartment window, feel the dust for days if not weeks. To see the first of the emergency vehicles race down our avenue. Literally smell the wreckage. Watch the rescue workers trudge up the street covered in god knows what. Close enough to feel frustrated and guilty about how little help I could render –so close yet so nearly useless. I watched missing posters wallpaper the city. I saw people’s faces crumble as they recognized those they knew on those signs. I started keeping a diary so I would never forget the details.

Here’s a small fraction:

I remember helping a young man light candles when he was so grief stricken he couldn’t initially bring himself to do so. Then watching his face change as he went ahead and began lighting as many as he could find. Other people supporting his release – pulling candles and matches out of their pockets for him. A woman starting to sing a hymn, others joining in and afterwards a group of Krishna’s dancing and singing for us. Celebrating that we were all lovers of New York, human, grieving, confused and loving - together. Diverse in ideology – magical together.

I remember a handsome man, Bill, coming up and giving me a candle at a vigil. And, at that moment, as we mourned together in the dark, finally, after months of dating, letting myself open my heart completely to him.

I’ll always love Gregory, my beautiful cousin’s baby conceived because his parents were able to come home and comfort each other. These are some of the things I thought of when I held him in my arms the first time.

A friend of mine choreographed a dance piece for a fallen friend. Which moved and comforted the grieving parents so very much.

And so much more…

So much to mourn. And to celebrate. Just a few more examples of both.

I’ll honor the tragedy by remembering the miracles.

2002-09-06T20:28:00.000-04:00

Robert Mugabe is an Evil, Evil, Man

In the name of "Land Reform", Robert Mugabe, the president of Zimbabwe, allied himself with armed mobs led by the colorfully named "Hitler" Hunzvi. Over time, this led to people actually getting killed in the process. Because the farmers who actually know how to grow food can't do so while getting attacked by a gang of thugs (while, granted, there is a drout, Zimbabwe has had significantly worse ones), the country is enterning into a famine. Mugabe, however, views all of this as an opportunity. As news of the way Mugabe is running his country into the ground reached the wider world, he was undoubtedly abashed. His response? Ban reporting of anything critical of his government. Just to be certain that Zimbabweans know which side their bread is buttered on, Mr. Mugabe has instituted a policy of deliberately starving anyone who disagrees with him, with many observers indicating that the country is entering its final stages for preparing a genocide, including rape and political murder.

So, you'd think that the international press would be up in arms about this. Well, not exactly. Seems when he tried to shift the problems of his country off onto Tony Blair, of all people, his comments were greeted by the eminent members of the fourth estate with laughter and applause. All that puts this bit of New York Times gushing over Mr. Mugabe as a hero, into a little bit of context. I'm sure they'll have a lovely laugh as Zimbabwe morphs into Rwanda.

2002-09-05T23:55:00.000-04:00

Benign smile.

2002-09-05T19:37:00.000-04:00

Well, our Blog is up. For those of you not in the know, this is Bill & Kim's Amazing remarkable Blog. Bill is a moderate conservative libertarian. Kim is a leftie, albeit moderate. We'll be putting up our opinions on matters of politics, culture, letters and various and sundry other topics. We'll try our best to keep you entertained and hopefully enlightened.