The Transplanted Texan

Here Goes Again

2005-06-21T22:32:00.000-04:00

I'm a slave to the memes:

free enneagram test

[Seen first at Brian's blog, then Jason jumped on board.]

If Your Friends All Jumped Over A Cliff...

2005-06-20T10:11:00.000-04:00

Well, then I guess I would, too. Here are my results from the "theological worldview" meme/quiz going around my friends' blogs:

You scored as Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan. You are an evangelical in the Wesleyan tradition. You believe that God's grace enables you to choose to believe in him, even though you yourself are totally depraved. The gift of the Holy Spirit gives you assurance of your salvation, and he also enables you to live the life of obedience to which God has called us. You are influenced heavly by John Wesley and the Methodists.

Evangelical Holiness/Wesleyan

75%

Reformed Evangelical

68%

Neo orthodox

54%

Emergent/Postmodern

50%

Fundamentalist

46%

Classical Liberal

46%

Roman Catholic

29%

Charismatic/Pentecostal

25%

Modern Liberal

21%

What's your theological worldview?
created with QuizFarm.com

[Seen at Brian's other place, and Jason's, and Al's.]

Want Me To Post?

2005-06-01T09:19:00.000-04:00

Then get me angry. Callimachus has just such a post on the International Red Cross.

Just a reminder that the same International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that is so aghast over America's "war crimes" knew about the Nazi atrocities during World War II and essentially did nothing, allowing itself to be fooled by transparent ruses and official denials.

It knew about the concentration camps as early as 1942. In February 1945, the President of the Red Cross wrote to a U.S. official: "Concerning the Jewish problem in Germany we are in close and continual contact with the German authorities." How chilling that the ICRC pretended to care about the Holocaust while in the same sentences adopting Nazi phraseology ("the Jewish problem") to euphemize it.

The Red Cross also knew about crimes against POWs...

A ICRC report on Stalag IX-B noted the same segregation, but the report said "no other discrimination was made against them." No, indeed, unless you count the Jewish-Americans -- along with about 330 non-Jews -- being sent to a slave labor camp associated with Buchenwald, where American POWs died at a higher rate than they would anywhere else during the war.

But Gitmo, now that's a war crime!

Not a single penny from me (and I will seek to convince those close to me) will go to the International Red Cross or any of its chapters. They obviously haven't changed an iota: once water-carriers for genocidists, always their water-carriers. Scum.

UPDATE

More of the same, this time from Amnesty International.

UPDATE THE SECOND

Just for "joey," here's more on Amnesty International. And still more.

And looky here! Even the vaunted Left is drawing similar conclusions.

David at Cronaca puts it well:

It doesn't take any particular political slant to be concerned about what is going on in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But at the same time, it should be obvious that these are cases of military detention, the byproduct of actual shooting warfare -- despite the Amnesty report's constant attempts to scare quote this fact away. There may be some ugly stuff going on, but excesses in war are fundamentally different from abuses of power in times of peace.

The labeling of Guantanamo as "the gulag of our time" shows just how far Amnesty has lost its compass. Compare Guantanamo to Colditz or Andersonville or Hoa Lo, if you will; the Soviet comparison is as obscene as if the referent had been the Holocaust. And if Amnesty's obsession with indicting the USA has led it to trivialize the worst crimes of the 20th century, we shouldn't be surprised to see it similarly diverted from giving due weight to the worst of the 21st.

The Trouble With Blogging

2005-05-31T23:40:00.000-04:00

Hmmm...

Like Jason has said (more than once!): with me it's either a drought or a downpour. And it's true. I have to get worked up about an issue to post, otherwise I merely peruse my daily reads (I believe they now number 98) and file away the various tidbits in my brain for later use without posting on them.

I suppose it's that I don't find much that I would consider post-worthy. Plus you add in the fact that I'm mired in the middle of a large writing slog at the moment...and you get what this place has become: sporadic.

I'm really itching to just start over from scratch - register a domain, grab some server space, design a site that is tailored to what I want it to do...but it's one of those tasks that is appealing, but never quite within reach, never accessible enough to begin.

Sigh.

Eventually, I'll work up enough steam to pull myself out of the muck. I hope it's sooner, rather than later.

The Liberty Test

2005-05-27T19:34:00.000-04:00

Interesting.

I agreed with 1-9 (not without some hesitation and consideration, mind), and in the follow-ups, I was measured a "libertarian realist."

[HatTip to Ben.]

The Blog Side

2005-05-25T10:03:00.000-04:00

Vader's thoughts made available via the miracle that is the InterWeb.

(Yeah, I'm late to the party...)

How Sweet It Is...

2005-05-23T23:05:00.000-04:00

Oh, now this is something I must have.

I might even have to pick it up at Wal-Mart.

Sporadic Quote Of The Day

2005-05-21T12:04:00.000-04:00

It isn't up at his website just yet (and thus is still behind a subscriber wall at the National Post), but come tomorrow (or shortly thereafter) it should be. In the meantime, you're just going to have to take my word for the sourcing (and when have I ever been wrong?):

"[Affirmative action] highlights the least important aspect of a person's identity. We don't go to the theatre to see a Danish Male. We go to see Hamlet."
-- George Jonas, "A Fancy Name For Tribalism," National Post, 5/20/05

While you're waiting for his latest column to go up, take a look at his previous one (which touches on a similar subject).

It's Spreading...

2005-05-20T18:39:00.000-04:00

Presented without comment.

[HatTip to The Corner.]

UPDATE

More on these developments here and here (just keep scrolling).

[Another HatTip to Instapundit.]

A Short Silence

2005-05-20T10:22:00.000-04:00

I'm gonna be out of the house for most of the day, so don't look for much posting out of me for the next 24 hours. In the meantime, take a look at (or solace in) Ben's silver lining(s).

Tie Goes...

2005-05-19T22:18:00.000-04:00

...to the Government. I thought as much, though I must confess I figured that the two independents (Cadman and Kilgour) would vote the opposite of the way they each did (Cadman wound up pro-Liberal, Kilgour anti-).

I wonder how many more scandals we'll see unveiled in the coming months? And I wonder if Mr. Harper will ever toughen up? Heck, I want to see how convoluted Mr. Martin's spine becomes! Should be a lively few months.

A Reason For Hope?

2005-05-19T16:40:00.000-04:00

Huh. Well, it seems that the more corrupt the Canadian government gets, the more it attracts the attention of bloggers and news outlets south of the border. This latest post is from Belmont Club, who has quite an interesting take:

What characterizes much of the Left today as exemplified by behavior from George Galloway to Paul Martin is the increasing necessity to maintain their position By Any Means Necessary. While that is dangerous and infuriating, it is a reliable indicator that they have lost control of the system. Things just aren't working the way they used to. And that, despite everything, is cause for hope.

Canadian Conservatives despair, and American Conservatives whisper words of encouragement, as they point to a light at the end of the tunnel.

This One's Hot

2005-05-19T15:43:00.000-04:00

The typically incendiary Ann Coulter strikes again.

How about the media adding to the list of reasons not to run a news item: "Protecting the national interest"? If journalists don't like the ring of that, how about this one: "Protecting ourselves before the American people rise up and lynch us for our relentless anti-American stories."

Oh, can I ever hear the fallout from this one...

Public Service Announcement

2005-05-19T13:49:00.000-04:00

There are a number of blogs (most of them, in fact) that I am content to skim via my RSS Feed Aggregator. But there are a few that, though they show up en totál as inline text in the reader, I am compelled to click through, and read every word. Done With Mirrors is one such blog. If you aren't reading Callimachus every day, you're missing out on some of the most insightful analysis I've seen anywhere. It's like candy for the mind.

Down For The Count?

2005-05-19T13:43:00.000-04:00

Ooof...

Had a bit of a minor medical procedure this morning. I didn't think it would take this much out of me, but sure enough, here I am - completely useless. Ugh. And feeling miserable.

Hopefully this will pass soon.

Don't Look Now...

2005-05-18T22:52:00.000-04:00

...and saying so might jinx it - but it looks like...maybe...I'm back.

[SHHHH!!!! - ed.]

Bravo!

2005-05-18T22:42:00.000-04:00

This may very well be one of the few (or the only) things for which I can say I side with Trump:

Standing in the lobby of his Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue, Trump presented a model of his own envisioned [World Trade Center] towers, reflecting the original shape and height of the skyscrapers felled on Sept. 11, 2001.

Trump's design...centers around two 111-story towers - one floor taller than the buildings destroyed when two jetliners were flown into them.

Build it again, but bigger. And better.

Right on.

On The Other Hand...

2005-05-18T12:45:00.000-04:00

Captain Ed (who may have single-handedly brought down the Gomery publication ban) has a slightly more optimistic take on the state of CPC affairs:

Ironically, Stronach's defection may have forced Harper into a smarter strategy. Martin's budget had gained popular support even among some Tories, although they indicated support for Harper and his no-confidence effort. However, Harper now has to recognize that the budget may wind up working against him for the upcoming vote, and that the attraction may yet pull away the independents he needs to win a no-confidence vote and bring down the Liberals.

The amendment, which all sides agree amounts to a separate confidence vote, really presents the crux of the Tory argument against continued Liberal rule...

...the amendments do almost nothing for the independents on whom Harper must rely for assistance to toss out Martin and force new elections. The primary budget had a lot to offer Cadman and Kilgour, but the amendment does nothing for them, and they can vote against it without worrying what they'll get with a Tory budget in its place. If they have an inclination to jettison Liberal rule -- and Kilgour already indicated he did -- then the amendment gives them the best opportunity to pull the trigger.

[HatTip to Greg.]

Be It So Moved...

2005-05-18T12:24:00.000-04:00

Bob Tarantino for Leader Of The CPC. [Emphasis in original.]

Remember a couple of weeks back when Paul Martin was unveiling a new promise every day? Why were the Tories not unveiling planks from their election platform? Why is there no equivalent of the Red Book or the Common Sense Revolution? Why are we wasting time with byzantine parliamentary tactics? Perhaps it's because the choice which is being presented to the electorate is so mundane: 'switch the managers of the ship of state; we won't rock the boat too much; we'll just be less corrupt; we promise'. The Conservatives should not be afraid of being conservative. And should not be afraid of telling Canadians what that means. To pick a random example, are we in favour of greater privatization of the health care system? Great. Explain that. Explain why. Explain what the proposed changes will mean. Don't shy away and mewl that discussions about greater privatization are the work of independent think tanks and in no way reflect what the party's policies actually are. Then maybe we'll start seeing dramatic changes in public support. We can be sure of one thing at least: the current strategy isn't working.

The Final Straw

2005-05-17T11:53:00.000-04:00

That's it. I'm done with Canadian politics. [Not that you'd written anything about it for, like, ever. - ed. Hush, you!]

Two headlines from NealeNews:

"Nfld Tory MPs Fear Backlash: May vote with Liberals..."
"Belinda Stronach Defects To Liberals: Sells Out For A Cabinet Post"

Two thoughts:
1) Canadians are so easy to bribe. No wonder the Mafia is doing so well here. You don't even have to offer them ANYTHING - just take their money away, and promise to (maybe) give it back, if the budget passes...maybe. In fifteen years. That's what you call "pathetic." I'm tempted to pull out a variety of historical references, but it would just debase them. Canada is too pathetic to merit historical comparison.

2) Stronach is beneath contempt. "Oh, sure, I'll enable the continuation of the most corrupt Canadian regime in history - one that steals [Literally steals - ed. What did I say?] money from its own citizens. Just gimme a piece of that action."

Enough. You truly want to live in a Banana Dominion? Go right ahead and move to Canada. Me, I'm swearing off caring about Canadian politics. It's way too easy to predict. [Plus, you get to spare yourself disappointment at the inevitable re-election of The Criminal Party. - ed. Last warning!]

Celebrate my descent into cynicism! Now, no matter what happens, I get to laugh at everybody. How freeing is that?

More reactions: from Ben and Brock (especially Mike's final paragraph in this follow-up comment.)

A Sporadic Quote Of The Day

2005-03-23T13:16:00.000-05:00

Today's entry arrives via The New Criterion's blog Armavirumque:

The point here, of course, is that passion--like patriotism, benevolence, free speech, etc. etc.--is nothing by itself; indeed, it is often very bad by itself. It must serve some end other than noisy self-aggrandizement...

- Stefan Beck, "Passion as Fashion," 3-22-05

Another Controversy!

2005-03-18T23:55:00.000-05:00

Sort of.

So Law Professor @ UCLA Eugene Volokh examined the Iranian system of capital punishment and came up with some startling statements vis a vis cruelty and its use in punishment. (That's a collected post page - just start at the top and read your way down). Now that the back-and-forth over Same Sex Marriage has subsided a little, I propose we move on to the topic raised by the professor - should make for some lively discussion!

[HatTip to Jeff Goldstein, who makes an interesting point in his response, as well.]

Political vs. Spiritual Continued...

2005-03-15T12:20:00.000-05:00

Whew! Sorry this is so late in coming, but as you can see, I've got quite a bit to say, and it took a while to get it all together...and readable.

To begin, a recap: Jason clarifies his side of the argument in response to Brian's post on the subject. Go ahead and read 'em both. I'll wait.

Back? Let's begin.

First, a point I haven't seen either Jason or Brian touch on: the Christian faith is a relational faith. This means that my relationship with Christ, my relationships with fellow believers, and my relationships with unbelievers are the core of my faith. Whatever influence the Christian faith has is meant to be exerted through those relationships, as exemplified by Christ's interactions with those same groups. Working from this premise, it seems that enacting legislation relating to sinful behavior is the diametric opposite of that toward which Christians should be working. (There is a lot to hammer out and clarify on this too-wide generalization, but it does not directly apply to the topic at hand.) I'll let C.S. Lewis make the point better than I could hope to:

"Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realised that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power - it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk."

- C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

This is not to say that unbelievers are not sinful (of course they are), nor that we should ignore their sins (of course we shouldn't). Just that we can't expect them not to be sinful, nor to appreciate the true difference between sin and righteousness without the revelation that comes upon every believer at the time of belief. As put by St. Augustine:

"I believe, in order to understand; and I understand, the better to believe."

- Sermo 43, 7, 9: PL 38, 257-258.

Here, then, is point 1: Christianity is primarily, and perhaps wholly, relational. Any influence it will have is on those who come into contact with it directly. Those who do not believe, by internal definition, do not understand - for to understand, they must believe. And as we can derive from Lewis (and as he later spells out), as human beings, we can no more expect an unbeliever to understand the "Moral Law" than we can expect an infant to understand quantum physics. Do we hold infants responsible for this lack of comprehension? Of course not. Neither can we (God is another matter) hold unbelievers responsible for that which they cannot know ("How will they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how will they hear without a preacher?").

Corollary: I want to spell this out, just so I'm not misunderstood. I'm not saying that there is no point to conversing with nonbelievers about moral issues. Quite the opposite. I'm saying we must converse with them about moral issues (and primarily about the single most important issue that faces us: who is Christ?). What I'm trying to get across, however roundabout the manner, is that we cannot expect them to agree to the imposition of the Moral Law as codified secular legislation without some argument from outside the spiritual realm. Unless, of course, we engage them in discussions about the spiritual first.

On to the second point: virtue enforced is no virtue at all. If you have no choice but to tell the truth, how is that commendable? If you only love those who love you, how is that virtuous? Doing good is only virtue if there is some other thing that one could do instead. This is, at its centre, the nature of a free will.

By preventing sin through government power and penalty - by attempting to remove free will from the picture - we are no more "saving" unbelievers than if they were able to go about sinning freely. Indeed, it is not the government's place to ensure that its citizens do not sin (more on this later), even in a Christian nation (if such a thing exists). How much less so in an unChristian or antiChristian nation?

Working to change people (and not just their behavior) through government is not only impossible and undesirable, it is antithetical to the Christian experience.

Point three: In democracies, the government is a reflection of the culture. Therefore, to change the government, one must change the culture. And what defines the culture? Its people.

Do you want to protect marriage? Great - make sure your own is doing well, and do all you can to help your friends. You want to protect the legal definition of marriage? Okay. Then you've got to start convincing people that you have the right notion of what marriage should and should not be, and that doesn't begin with the marriage issue. You must convince them that there is a "Moral Law" out there, set down by a Higher Power, and that that Moral Law has very clear guidelines for the joining of a man and a woman. It starts with evangelism, the foundation of which is set by living out your relationship with Christ through your relationships with others. Then, once the terms are defined (so to speak), we can begin discussing the legal definition of marriage.

This is a massive undertaking and a slow one. It's also the way to ensure genuine cultural change.

Point four:

He has shown you, O man, what is good;
       And what does the LORD require of you
       But to do justly,
       To love mercy,
       And to walk humbly with your God?

- Micah 6:8.

As Christians, we are commanded to do justice, and to see justice done. So the question posed is: is marriage, in this instance, an issue of justice for which all of Christendom must be roused? Certainly the Civil Rights Movement in the US was such an issue. People were being horribly treated, and change was too slow in coming. But as I'm so quick to point out to any who will listen, the differences between Martin Luther King, Jr.'s peaceful marches and the push for Same-Sex Marriage are vast. There is no issue of justice here on the side of homosexuals seeking recognition under the law - but neither is there injustice against heterosexuals. This is not an issue of justice at all. (See: all individuals are treated equally under the law).

So what is the argument against Same-Sex Marriage? As Jason mentions, it is an issue of social stability (in this case, it is also a matter of preserving religious rights and rites, but that's another issue entirely). The definition of marriage as between a man and a woman has been the bedrock upon which the structures of society have grown. To disrupt them is to tinker dangerously with things about which we have little knowledge. Now, social stability (that is, "the public interest") is what government is all about; and, as just stated, we Christians will find arguments from the basis of revealed truth ultimately futile. We can include it to inform our opposition, but in a pluralistic society (or one that makes handwaves toward such status) it cannot and must not be the whole of our position. Therefore, those against the redefinition of marriage must argue from historical experience and prediction, rather than spiritual condemnation.

This is why I do not feel that the movement against Same-Sex Marriage is one that should rally Christians everywhere to its cause (though I am sympathetic, and would, if given the opportunity, vote like Brian suggests). It's not that we are to let the sinful world shuffle slowly into Hell. It's that we are to pull it back from the brink through relationship and dialogue, rather than with legislation. Argue before the Larger World about social constructs and legal structures, but our primary function is to witness to individuals. It is the individuals who matter; and it is the individuals, en masse, who hold the power to change the larger world.

One final point: marriage is a social foundation, but it is also much more than that. In the Christian experience, marriage is a spiritual construct that has social implications, rather than the other way 'round. It follows, then, that for Christians, it is more important to have God's recognition of your union than it is to have the State's. (One could argue that having the State's recognition is irrelevant, but I'm not going there). While those tax credits and legal exceptions are nice, they aren't what validate a marriage. Assuming I ever find "wedded bliss," I don't need the State to rubber stamp it.

Now, there's a lot more to say about Christian involvement in and duty to the legal and social aspects of a democracy (and Brian has promised to look into it - personally, I feel that most of it is centered around the commands in Micah 6:8), but as far as SSM is concerned, I think I've exhausted my argument.

The Political And The Spiritual

2005-03-10T12:58:00.000-05:00

Brian has a thoughtful post up with his take on the Same-Sex Marriage situation here in Canada. He and I had a great discussion on this (and other issues) last Sunday, and I have to say that his post fairly closely mirrors my own position. I feel, however, that there are some areas in which we diverge slightly (or rather, where he emphasizes things that I would not and vice versa), and I want to address those. Unfortunately, I don't have the time at the moment. I hope to come back to the issue this evening or tomorrow morning.

The Third Annual Int. Eat an Animal for PETA Day

2005-03-09T09:40:00.000-05:00

...is coming on March 15th. Meryl Yourish has all the details.

Unintended consequences, and all that...

Stealing A Bit...

2005-03-08T21:50:00.000-05:00

...from Nick over at Quotulatiousness: this quote of the day (QotD) is from Jason Van Steenwyk of CounterColumn.

Sometimes reading reporting in the paper has got to be like reading some reporter's commentary on the Kasparov v. Deep Blue matches or Fischer v. Spassky chess matches.

The reporter can know the moves. And he can even know the openings. But chess played at the professional level is deeper, more layered, and more profound than the reporter comprehends.

It's Coming:

2005-02-21T17:47:00.000-05:00

The Return...to regular blog-posting.

Consider this fair warning.

Is He?

2005-02-12T02:43:00.000-05:00

Is Andrew Coyne truly back? Has he emerged from the depths of the blogosphere to resume regular updates? We can only hope.

If he does complete his comeback, perhaps there's hope for my own return to punctuality...

Beautiful Day

2005-01-30T16:25:00.000-05:00

A wonderful morning dawns for the Iraqi people. And for the world.

But of course, not everyone is happy. So I guess they're no longer the "party of the people"?

The Summarization

2005-01-27T23:47:00.000-05:00

Pure Texan. This transports me home from the first word; and oh, how sweet it is. The essay is very long, but it needs readin'. I don't know that I agree with everything there, but I certainly lean that way, and my nits are minor at best. Want a glimpse of how a southern American thinks? Go read it.

Note To Self: I've got to meet this Moses Sand.

[HatTip to Brian T.]

Yawn...

2005-01-16T00:03:00.000-05:00

So yeah...wow - nearly one month since my last post. And the funny thing is, the only reason I'm typing this up now is because a friend of mine mentioned that she wanted to read something new!

Most of my writing (1500 words a day, and I've been meeting that more or less regularly) is going into stories of various kinds. I now have 76,000 words on my novel - but don't let that fool you into thinking it's anywhere near finished - and I've been working on a number of short stories, and quite a bit of poetry. But all that pretty much leaves me dry when it comes to the blog post.

Of late, my political venting all comes out in conversation, rather than in written format. It's easing off, and I'm noticing that I may be moving past it all, and into another phase of my personality. Of course, it could just be that my guy won, and therefore all political arguing is now moot; so I won't call it a done deal just yet.

In other news, I had my first personal poetry reading tonight (that is, I've read other people's stuff in public before, but never my own) and got a lot of glowing reviews - so that's encouraging. It was tucked into a night of performance art and creativity, just an all-around great evening.

And now...I'm tired. Whew! Bed beckons. I hope to have more to say soon, but who knows?

Chain Jerking?

2004-12-17T15:34:00.000-05:00

Hmmm...looks like the Wall Street Journal has a bit of a rebuttal to Matt's speculation.

This is a compelling story, but probably a misguided one. To see why, ask yourself the question: Where do those billions in reserves come from every month? Over the past year, roughly half of China's [foreign exchange] reserve inflows came from portfolio capital, including so-called hot money flows. In effect, Chinese banks and firms have been drawing down their asset positions abroad, or borrowing money in foreign markets, and bringing these funds back to the mainland, in part to speculate on a possible renminbi move.

But this means that as private agents move out of dollars and into yuan, the PBoC is buying up the dollars and pumping them right back into the U.S. The net effect on U.S. markets from these transactions is...virtually zero! [ellipsis in original] This is an overly simplified explanation, but very close to the mark nonetheless. Despite the apparent size of the headline reserve accumulation, China's true support for the dollar is much smaller.

.....

The bottom line? It's surprisingly difficult to argue that the Chinese renminbi exchange rate--or the exchange regime--has had any substantial impact on the way the rest of the world works. Whether we look at jobs, trading patterns or global currency markets, China still shows up as a relatively small economy, and certainly not one that is "driving the show," now or in the near future. And whether the peg stays or goes is a sublimely unimportant issue in the large scheme of things.

It seems, of late, that the common wisdom, more and more often, turns out to be wrong. The common wisdom before the Canadian election said that the Canadian people would remove the Liberal government from power, possibly giving the Conservative Party a minority government - it was all over the newspapers, at any rate. Reality: the Liberals retain a minority government, one seat away from a majority. The common wisdom before the American election said that John Kerry and the Democrats would win walking away - even the exit polls early on November 2nd demonstrated this trend. Reality: GWB wins with the largest number of votes in American history, the first true majority in 16 years, and the Republicans expanded their lead in both houses of Congress. The common wisdom before the Iraq invasion was that Saddam has storehouses of hidden WMDs, and that once the US had deposed him, the oil-rich nation would unleash its flow of gasoline into the tanks of American vehicles, driving the gas prices down to record lows. Reality: Saddam's weapons storehouses were empty, at least of nuclear and biochemical missiles ready-to-launch (where the weapons went is a question for the UN inspectors), and the price of gasoline has remained at record highs.

It makes sense that the Chinese economy, with its very real gains in the North American system, and its very real economic surge, would be a major player in the world markets, perhaps even establishing itself as a threat to American trade dominance. But, according to WSJ, this bit of common wisdom, too, is not quite right.

Funny how that works.

Indicative?

2004-12-14T21:40:00.000-05:00

Ah, my guilty pleasure. But hey, at least I match up with my favorite character on the show I'm ashamed to admit I enjoy, right?

Internet Solves World Pollution!

2004-12-13T15:00:00.000-05:00

Sort of:

Bob says "Make cars twice as efficient". For Bob[']s cure to go into effect, Billions of dollars and man-hours will need to be expended before the first benefit will be found in the marketplace and the economy. Varifrank has a much simple[r] method that costs close to nothing and can be implemented immediately.

Buy whatever car you want. Get whatever kind of mileage you want. Manufacturers can take their sweet time making hybrids (which I like, and will like more when I can get a Dodge Ram ½ ton that uses a diesel/electric motor, but I digress...)

All you have to do to reach Bob[']s goal, is drive half as much as you do today.

How do you do that? Chances are, you already are. If you are reading this, you are using the infrastructure that has the best chance of lowering America's dependency on "Foreign oil".

...

**...I drive a Dodge Dakota V-8 manual 5 speed transmission, it gets 12 miles to the gallon. When was the last time I bought gas?

October 12th!

I love my truck, but what saves me from buying gas for it is my T1 line, not my fuel injection technology. [Emphasis in original]

It's an interesting idea, and it seems of a piece with Michael Crichton's comments in "Aliens Cause Global Warming":

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

But of course, within a few years, nobody rode horses except for sport. And in 2000, France was getting 80% its power from an energy source that was unknown in 1900. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and Japan were getting more than 30% from this source, unknown in 1900. Remember, people in 1900 didn't know what an atom was. They didn't know its structure. They also didn't know what a radio was, or an airport, or a movie, or a television, or a computer, or a cell phone, or a jet, an antibiotic, a rocket, a satellite, an MRI, ICU, IUD, IBM, IRA, ERA, EEG, EPA, IRS, DOD, PCP, HTML, internet. interferon, instant replay, remote sensing, remote control, speed dialing, gene therapy, gene splicing, genes, spot welding, heat-seeking, bipolar, prozac, leotards, lap dancing, email, tape recorder, CDs, airbags, plastic explosive, plastic, robots, cars, liposuction, transduction, superconduction, dish antennas, step aerobics, smoothies, twelve-step, ultrasound, nylon, rayon, teflon, fiber optics, carpal tunnel, laser surgery, laparoscopy, corneal transplant, kidney transplant, AIDS? None of this would have meant anything to a person in the year 1900. They wouldn't know what you are talking about.

Now. You tell me you can predict the world of 2100. Tell me it's even worth thinking about. Our models just carry the present into the future. They're bound to be wrong. Everybody who gives a moment's thought knows it.

Crichton expands his focus to 'environmentalism as religion' in a second speech that is also well worth reading.

[HatTip for the Crichton pieces goes to Greg. And be sure to pick up Crichton's new book!]

Long Time, No Post

2004-12-12T15:56:00.000-05:00

Wow - it's been 10 days since my last free blogging moment. Lots of stuff happening, but unfortunately for me, nothing that seems to lead to regular cash flow just yet.

More coming later, but I've got to get ready for a Christmas concert this evening. I just wanted to quickly let my (ever-decreasing) readership know that I haven't forgotten them.

First It Was Television...

2004-12-02T23:26:00.000-05:00

...now it's music! Apple's iTunes Music Store is now available in Canada. A bit late, true, but certainly welcome. You'll pardon me as I go scoff at HMV's latest overpricings.

In related news, Apple is bringing a retail outlet to Toronto next year - it just keeps getting better!

The "cultural invasion" continues...

Epic Vision (Part II)

2004-12-02T16:35:00.000-05:00

[Continued from Part I. An apology that this took so long, real life is a bit busy.]

Science and Fantasy Fiction ("Speculative Fiction" or "SF") are frequently and usually grouped together, not only in the aisles of a bookstore or library, but also in literary dichotomies. The more general category of "escapist" literature - that is, fiction that enables the reader to enter the realm of imagination as a temporary alternative to reality - is frequently used to include SF along with other varieties of fiction that are dismissed as less worthy than other forms. This is, of course, unjust and generalizing; but it is a reality, nonetheless.

There are important aspects of SF, however, that blur the lines of 'worthy literature' and 'escapism.' Under certain definitions, any work of fiction, at all, can be considered 'escapist.' And under defintions of the opposite extreme, most any written word can be considered 'worthy literature.' But these extremes aside, it seems to me there are two dividing lines between these categories of 'accepted' and 'dismissed' work, though even these are blurry.

The first line is what I refer to as 'artistic merit.' Beowulf, the Illiad, the Odyssey, the Canterbury Tales, the Inferno, Paradise Lost, The Faerie Queen, Shakespeare's Tempest - these are all considered great works of Literature; but they all deal with similar elements of the fantastic that we read in contemporary authors. The historical value and obvious talent that went into crafting all of these works 'rescue' them from the label of escapism. As more modern takes on speculation are slowly accepted, artisans like Tolkien receive better treatment by both critics and academia.

The second doorway to acceptablity, as I understand it, is 'intellectual merit.' It is under this heading that my primary point lies. Asimov, for instance, is not regarded a great writer, per se; but the ideas he forwarded in his novels were incredible. The same goes for Sir Arthur C. Clarke (though he could reach great literary heights as well), and Philip K. Dick, among others.

But here's the rub: all the authors I listed in the above paragraph write the Science portions of SF. Neil Gaiman is the only fantasy author since Tolkien I can think of who has delved into topics that twist the mind, and he is only marginally considered a writer of fantasy (most bookstores I've seen place him in either Sci-Fi or General Fiction). If literature is a laboratory for the mind, where writers play with the various implications of ideas, the Fantasy genre has long ceased experimenting.

Fantasy authors face a dilemma as regards literary merit. If there are only two available qualities that will allow them to achieve 'respectability' in the minds of those who matter, they must fulfill one or the other. But as history has demonstrated, artistic merit takes decades - even centuries - to determine. If an author of fantasy literature wants acceptance in his or her lifetime, it is better to go the second route. But fantasy doesn't lend itself to this kind of mental experimentation as easily as does science fiction.

More often than straight intellect, fantasy literature relies on an author's epic vision to drive a story. The most appealing stories are the most fully imagined; those that bring their alternate worlds to life completely. This act of imagination, and the demand of the reading public, drives authors of fantasy to attempt to chronicle the entirety of their fictional landscape. After all, the deeper they go, the more readers will enjoy their work. The majority of their labor, then, is directed toward fully realizing their world, rather than trying to connect it to this one.

Of course, with so much acreage of imagination to explore, and so great a push to reveal as much of it as possible, an author can't be expected to cram the whole world into a single novel. And thus we have the proliferation of multi-volume stories in the Fantasy realm. We've already seen where this ends up: aisles and aisles of mediocre sequels, each less tantalizing than the last.

The trend toward publishing a series of books, rather than a single stand-alone tome, (monetary considerations aside) seems in this view to signify a lack of ideation where concepts are concerned. If this continues, it seems clear that Fantasy literature will remain relegated to the condemned genre of 'escapism.' I know Fantasy novels can handle ideas - I've read a few (too few) that have done so. It's up to the more daring authors to rescue their art form, assuming they desire to do so. Fantasy need not leave behind dragons and magic, wizards and knights, kings and thieves. It must simply refocus their use.

Epic Vision (Part I)

2004-12-01T18:44:00.000-05:00

I was strolling through the local Chapters last week with Aaron, and we eventually found ourselves perusing the fantasy/science fiction subgenres of the Fiction section. Lots of good (and not-so-good) "escapist" literature in there. We started pointing out authors and series that we each enjoyed, and voiced our opinions on others. It struck me (and I've been thinking about it ever since) that we don't really see too many one-shot fantasy novels.

I wonder why that is? Was it ever any different? I mean, if we go back far enough...say, to Beowulf...then we get epic fantasy in one-volume sections. But there's Homer's Illiad and Odyssey, which might be considered sequels (certainly they share characters). The more recent Lord Of The Rings was actually a one-story one-volume book - though the publishers were nervous about the page-length it would require, and so broke it up. And, of course, you get the Brooks, the Goodkinds, the Jordans, the McCaffreys and the <shudder> Salvatores.

It's not limited to fantasy, of course. Orson Scott Card's Ender series, Isaac Asimov's Foundation-Robot-Empire series(es?), Star Trek and Star Wars (though these are largely in their own categories, as they are written by multiple authors), and so forth. But it seems to me that the tendency to go multi-volume is much greater in the fantasy subgenre than it is anywhere else.

It's come far enough that I'm actually disappointed when I see that an author is writing a sequel. Case in point: Neil Gaiman's American Gods. Truly a remarkable, fantastic book, and a tale that has a solid, if open, conclusion. You finish this novel, and you feel sated. It's great stuff. So when I found out he was writing (and had written) a follow-up - and not just one, but two or more? Disappointment. Not because I don't think he's a good writer - he's one of the best, and a personal favorite. I just don't want to revisit this world, see everything that's been settled (or left purposefully unsettled) disturbed again. It's like a painter who has finished his masterpiece returning to the full canvas, stapling another half-board onto the side and painting on another section.

And it's not always the addition of unneccessary material. Perhaps the story isn't actually finished, or the author always intended to write more...the trouble is, with most novels like this, the quality of the storytelling and writing tends to degrade over time.

Robert Jordan is a perfect example from the contemporary era, and Asimov is just as good from the Golden Age of Sci-Fi. Jordan started off well - in my view - and sucks the reader fully into his world. The next few books, through number six or so, sustain that enthusiasm and excitement, or let it drop only a little. But once we reach the last half (please?) of the series, the story makes it obvious that Jordan doesn't know exactly where he's going, and things begin to break down. When the entirety of a 700 page book chronicles only the events in a single day, you know there's going to be trouble moving the plot.

Asimov's Foundation series is similar. The first three are fantastic (they were given the Hugo Award for "Best Sci-Fi Series Ever" in 1999), mind-bending stuff of grand scale and amazing storycraft. But then he wanted to explore some more. So he wrote a second trilogy. Then he started filling in gaps, with short stories and further novels (one-shots in the continuum of an overarching series). As one reads further and further in, the stories begin to wear thin, and it feels like Mr. Asimov is just a book-writing machine (and with more than 300 books to his name - more if you count his non-fiction - he basically was).

As much as this may read like a whine, or a complaint (and as much as it really is, in some sense), I don't begrudge the authors their artistic decisions. It's completely up to them, obviously, to do whatever they like with their stories and their worlds. I just wonder if we're missing something really important.

This has gotten rather long, and though I'm coming to a conclusion, I've got more to go...so I'll title this "Part I" and come back to it in a new post.

Defining Terms

2004-11-30T12:37:00.000-05:00

From the murky vantage point of 2004's 30 November, January 30th, 2005 - though only two months away - remains impossible to predict. We know this: the Iraqi Interim Government, the Coalition Forces, the Government of the United States, and the various countries that have contributed monetary resources toward rebuilding Iraq, are pushing for (and have scheduled) an election - the first of its kind in Iraqi history. Given the circumstances in-country, it is only reasonable to think that this might be a very bloody day. After all, what better time to begin large-scale attacks than the day that all your enemies' plans hinge upon?

Assuming the anti-Coalition forces are a cohesive (if only mildly so) group, and assuming they all equally desire the removal of the current occupying entity, then it only makes sense that they would attempt to make the ballot-day one of the most gruesome we've seen so far.

Of course, it could turn out much differently. It could be that the recent attacks (beginning with Fallujah) against the members of the "insurgency" (or "terrorists," depending on your ideological bent) have so depeleted and demoralized them that they merely fold, vanishing into the population in the next two months, and the January 30th elections are held peacefully.

But though no one can predict, one way or the other, what will happen next year, I am certain that one thing will be decided, whether or not the election day is filled with tragedy: the proper name for the antagonistic forces in Iraq.

This debate between those who prefer to think of the attackers as "insurgents" and those who prefer to call them "terrorists" has been going on in the blogosphere for some time now (since the whole thing began, really). And both groups have their legitimate points. The "terrorist" camp looks at what's going on, sees individuals coming in from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc., notes the tactics they use, and applies the terrorist label.

The "insurgent" side views them as Iraqis (with the aid of outsiders) who are fighting back against an unwanted authority, attempting to reclaim their country from those who would enforce a different worldview upon them - Michael Moore's "Minutemen" statement really captures this sentiment well.

If you've read me before now, I think it's rather obvious which side I take. But that disclaimer aside, whatever we choose call them, the January 30th elections will put the lie to one title or the other. And this is why I'm leaning toward predicting an attack-filled election.

The implication in the title "insurgent" is one of a revolutionary, and the connotations of revolution (especially in the United States) are always thought of as being the voice of "the people." The divisions are drawn between, in this case, the Iraqi Government, with their supposed US Puppet Masters, and the rest of the Iraqi people. The worldview that this assumes is that the people at large are not willing to submit to the power that the US and its allies bring to bear.

The implications of the word "terrorist" are quite the opposite. Where "insurgents" would be assumed to fight (or think they are fighting) for the people, terrorists fight against the people. The tactics of terror are, of course, meant to inspire the population to fear, rather than to revolt; and to acquiesce not to the US's power, but to that of the terrorist movement. In this case, it is not a battle between the US and "the people," it is a battle between the US and "terrorists," with "the people" in the unfortunate and tragic middle.

If the elections are held, and the Iraqi people speak, then these groups can no longer be called "insurgents." It doesn't matter who the Iraqis vote for, in the end. It can be safely assumed that the opposition forces are not going to be on the ballots. If the Iraqi people turn out, then, they are making their choice. It doesn't matter if it is socialism, libertarianism, communism or capitalism - it isn't terrorism.

Once Iraq votes, the "insurgents" will no longer be fighting against some outside force trying to impose its will. They will be fighting against the will of the population. And that, by definition, names them "terrorists."

On the other hand, if the January 30th deadline comes to pass, and the votes are taken, but none or only a small minority of the people cast their vote (whether or not they were intimidated is irrelevant - the fact that they could be intimidated is an implicit acceptance of the status quo), then the term "terrorist" no longer applies (except perhaps to their methods). In this set of circumstances, the opposition truly is the "insurgency," because they would have the tacit approval of the people.

So one way or the other, when January 30th rolls around, the name game will be decided. It is in the interests of the opposition forces, whether they are called "insurgents" or "terrorists," to do all in their power to stop the vote; because if the Iraqi people vote, the opposition has lost, and the rest is just clean up.

And the only way to stop an election? Keep in mind that delaying the election only delays the final conclusion by a few months. In order for these opposition forces to win, they must absolutely destroy any hope at all of an election. Or better (and perhaps easier), allow January 30th voting to occur, but convice, by word or deed, the people to stay home. An empty election is better than a disrupted election - but the primary way to achieve either of these results is gruesome violence.

One way or the other, the future of Iraq will be decided in two months. And while the label of the forces in opposition may seem insignificant, it is directly tied to the course of the nation.

That Makes Three

2004-11-29T13:40:00.000-05:00

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

Interesting. Apparently I'm similar to a lot of worthy presidents: first it was politically, now it's personality. Can't say I'm unhappy with the result (though I'll take a pass on that whole 'assasination' thing!).

[HatTip to Ghost Of A Flea.]

Week In Review

2004-11-28T20:20:00.000-05:00

Okay, so I was mistaken about this week allowing for a few more posts to the blog. Turns out it was just as busy, but for thoroughly different reasons.

On Wednesday, my best friend Aaron came up from Texas (by way of Cornell University) to spend American Thanksgiving with us, and he stayed through the weekend. A great time was had by all, and Aaron was introduced to a number of new things, including (but not limited to) Firefly and Wolf's Rain.

At the same time, I was engaged in multitude of other concerns, including trips to Toronto and the juggling of family and work schedules. All of this added up to a post-free week, and for that I apologize to my regular readers. I've got a couple long-post ideas turning over in my brain, including that promised examination of the strains of Libertarianism, and a new post on the curiosities of novel writers.

Speaking of writing, NaNoWriMo is nearly over; but alas, I don't think I shall be able to complete the 50,000 words required to 'win.' With two days to go, I'm around 12,000 words short - the novel went on hiatus this past week, and hasn't recovered yet. But it's been a good experience, and I know now that I have the ability to sit down for lengths of time every day and hammer out a requisite quota; an encouraging thing to say the least.

More news on the writing front: the Spectator article is now officially "in limbo." I've received conflicting messages from the Executive Editor and the Journals Editor (though why the article was delivered to the Journals section seems a bit murky), but I will likely wind up talking to the editor of the paper's weekly Focus section, which seems more appropriate to the tone and length of my piece. You'll know more as I do.

That's it for this week. Hopefully (and probably) this coming week will be more conducive to posting.

Busy Week

2004-11-20T12:13:00.000-05:00

Whew! Sorry for the sparse week, folks. I've been a bit busy. Writing for NaNoWriMo had to compete with efforts to get my Spectator article published (I'm going to have to resubmit it to a fourth editor, and possibly retool it for another paper...but one thing at a time), and that all had to be crammed into the week of my parents' anniversary (their 28th). I was responsible for seeing to all the familial duties my mother so wonderfully executes, including transportation of my sibilings all over town, as my parents were spending the week away.

Next week promises to be a bit more relaxed, and may afford a few more posts. If you're hard-up for news, take a look at my BlogRoll, especially new addition Jujitsui Generis and the ever-insightfulBelmont Club. Of course, you can always look for more information from the usual source.

We're In!

2004-11-18T13:35:00.000-05:00

And there it is, ladies and gents: FoxNews Channel comes to Canada. Make sure to subscribe to your local cable packages* containing the station, and update your "Signs Of The Apocalypse" checklists.

[HatTip to Daimnation.]

*Whoops! Looks like FoxNews is going to be a Digital channel.

The Libertarian Stunner

2004-11-16T19:49:00.000-05:00

Twice, in as many days, Max Borders has left me gasping for my intellectual breath. The first eye-opener appeared a few days ago (though I only just read it) in his Tech Central Station column in which he lays out very probable plans for making the Libertarian Party a viable political entity in the United States; and the second appeared on his personal blog Jujitsui Generis, where he dissected and diagnosed the Dutch response to the murder of documentarian Theo Van Gogh by a Muslim extremist.

Stunning stuff, like I said, and both pieces should be thoroughly perused. I found Mr. Borders during research for my upcoming exploration of the political differences between Reasonoids and Samizdatans; and as it turns out, he's already done some similar thinking on the subject. Jujitsui Generals is on my BlogRoll, and I'm in the process of parsing his output. It's amazing stuff, so far. My exploration may now be superfluous. We'll see.

Another One

2004-11-16T14:29:00.000-05:00

Yet another good friend of mine has hit the blogosphere: strangerAttractor is the new web-home of my former housemate and fantastic conversationalist [Is that even a word? -- Ed. Yep. Gotta love word-intuition!] Matt Shultz. He's a rarity in Southern Canada these days - I've only ever met one other person quite like him - in that he's a hardcore libertarian/anarcho-capitalist (read: the source of all evil). While we don't always see eye-to-eye, I get a great thrill from his perspectives, and frequently have my worldview shaken up. It's always stimulating, and our conversations turn me onto new areas of study that soon dominate my free time. [Curse you, Shultz! -- Ed.]

So why are you still here? Go read him!

[A cautionary note to sensitive readers: Matt makes no pretense toward self-censorship.]

New System

2004-11-14T08:02:00.000-05:00

Trying out a new comment system that gives me a little more control. Click on the permalink (the timestamp) to access the comment page.

Saturday Roundup

2004-11-13T13:45:00.000-05:00

Smatterings of interesting tidbits:

Via Brian T., Mike at Cold Fury gets, um...heated.
...if you [Leftists] truly believe that all this ["fascism"] is now in the process of happening right before your very eyes, doesn't it become incumbent upon you, as the most basic imaginable of moral obligations, to do something to prevent it, or overturn it? I mean, obviously, you tried peaceful means of stopping us, but that didn't work - because us right-wingnuts rigged the election and disenfranchised everybody. And you can't go to the courts because they're in the Bushitler's pocket too, all the way up to the Supreme Court, which you've been saying for four years now illegally handed him the White House after the tainted 2000 "election." So your last legal, nonviolent means of resistance has been taken away from you, and you can't even count on the media to publicize the reality of what's going on because of their right-wing slant, their fondness for the status quo, and of course the fact that they're really nothing but money-grubbing corporations themselves whose only concern is the bottom line.

So what's left, Lefties? Where do you go from here? What are you gonna do about it? [Emphasis in original.]
Debbye and Ace Of Spades have a suggestion.

Kevin Libin at The Shotgun sees some intellectual life at the Toronto Star, while Damian Penny notes discouraging news on a related topic.

In 'back home' news, Louisiana is making trouble for France.

Project Gutenberg has updated The Koran (as translated by J.M. Rodwell) in their online library of digitized public-domain texts - which makes this as good a time as any for me to urge you to download and read through it.

Bruce's "Most Annoying Canadian" competition has reached the final round. I must admit that I'm not surprised at Ms. Copps victory (though she must have had a Karl Rove-like campaign manager to keep it so close).

And coming soon: an exploration of the question that's been nagging at me for a while: why are the political leanings of these American libertarians so different from those of their British compatriots? (With exceptions on both sides, of course).

Nifty

2004-11-13T01:52:00.000-05:00

So there are a few bloggers in the Greater Toronto Area - of this I was already aware. But enough to fill an entire blog directory? Very cool.

It EXISTS!

2004-11-12T18:36:00.000-05:00

It's always pleasant to get a reminder that righteous indignation can and does exist in some of the people in the Great White North. There are times up here when things are just too "nice" for my tastes (there's a reason that the term 'Offensive Canadian' is considered an oxymoron). Reading Mike's rants is really quite cathartic.

It also helps that he's right.

An Unfortunate Name

2004-11-12T14:57:00.000-05:00

As I was on my way home from a doctor's appointment, I found myself staring at a truck waiting ahead of me at a red light. It had a very unfortunate name plastered on its side.

Canadian branch of the company located here.

The Moore Hypothesis

2004-11-11T13:52:00.000-05:00

Great news, conservatives: Michael Moore is making a sequel to Fahrenheit 9/11! Why do I say this is good news? Well, let's take a look at what I like to call the "Moore Hypothesis."

2000: Bush vs. Gore is the closest election in modern (and perhaps all of) American history, with Bush winning the final tally in the state of Florida by less than 200 votes. Gore wins the popular vote, and had he carried Florida (or a number of other tightly contested states) he would have won the Electoral College as well. Michael Moore stumps for Ralph Nader. Result: the Nader campaign is thought to have taken votes away from Gore, and is largely blamed for the closeness of the race.

2002: Michael Moore releases "Bowling For Columbine" and comes out with support for a multitude of Congressional Democratic candidates, claiming that the "52% who didn't vote for Bush" would "Take Back America" in the midterm elections. Result: the Republicans not only hold on to their majority in Congress, but expand it.

2004: Michael Moore releases "Fahrenheit 9/11." During the Democratic primaries, Moore throws his support behind General Wesley Clark, until Clark withdraws from the race after performing poorly. Moore promotes Democratic candidate John Kerry, who is running against the incumbent George W. Bush. Result: Bush widens his margin of victory from 2000, winning 'beyond the reach of litigation,' and is the first president since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. The Republicans further expand their hold on Congress, in both the House and Senate.

So, for the last three election cycles, every time that Moore has released a film or endorsed a candidate, the opposing party has benefited.

If Moore is revving up his political machine again, that's great news for the Republicans...unless the filmmaker decides to swap parties.

Spectator Update

2004-11-11T11:38:00.000-05:00

Just got a phone call from the editor assigned to the piece. She's waiting on a consult with another editor on the article who is out of town until this weekend. So, long conversation short, I'll be receiving another phone call "early next week" to discuss what's to be done. Progress!

"Most Serious Obstacle To Peace" [UPDATED]

2004-11-11T10:14:00.000-05:00

Yasser Arafat is dead. Somebody send flowers to the BBC, I'm not sure they'll take it well.

The President's statement on the matter doesn't express any kind of condolence for Arafat, but rather for the Palestinian people. This is both telling and encouraging. With Arafat gone, perhaps "progress toward...the ultimate goal of peace" can finally be made.

James Lileks had, I think, the best summarization of Arafat's role in the 'Peace Process' a few days ago, when the whole death-watch thing began:

All you need to know about Arafat was that he insisted on wearing a pistol when he addressed the UN General Assembly. And all you need to know about the UN, I suppose, is that they let him.

Arafat's Intifada, initiated in 2000 (six years after he was awarded the Nobel "Peace" Prize), is his lasting legacy. Over four years, he sent 3,775 people (2,859 Palestinians and 916 Israelis) to their deaths, including 671 children. We are well quit of him, and whether they realize it or not, so are the Palestinian people.

UPDATE

John Howard, newly re-elected Prime Minister of Australia, has fixed blame for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace processs upon Arafat.

I think history will judge him very harshly for not having seized the opportunity in the year 2000 to embrace the offer that was very courageously made by the then Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Barack, which involved the Israelis agreeing to 90 per cent of what the Palestinians had wanted.

Of course, for Arafat, 90 percent of what Palestinians wanted was unacceptable, as it excluded the total annihilation of the Jews.

Patriotism And Star Trek

2004-11-09T21:24:00.000-05:00

It's quite the thrill when you stumble onto a great blog and notice that they have you linked in their blogroll. This time it's the estimable VariFrank, who has quite the entry up today on the Democrats' after-election behavior.

I see the left today in a serious problem thats very similar to my Star Trek friends. It's fine to want to see the world in a different way, but there comes a point where you are not just wistful for another reality but actually wearing your Star Trek uniform out in public and to work, you've started down the road where even if you might have a good point or an idea, people are going to ignore you. We've seen political movements in America go the way of the Dodo before, The Free Land and Free Silver movements, the Mugwumps, and the Whig party. Go back not so long ago and you can even see when the Republicans became an utter irrelevancy. I am now beginning to think the Democrats have also jumped into the ashcan of history, with both feet.

Frank finishes with a wakeup call:

Take off your "Federation Uniforms" Democrats and drop the Vulcan salutes. I don't want you to leave the country, I need you to stay and help keep my party honest. But before you can do that you need to be honest with yourselves about why you lost this election and why you have been steadily losing for 30 years.

It's not Karl Rove, its not "Selected, not Elected" Its not Halliburton, its not Big Tobacco or Big Oil.

It's you.

Léalo todo.

Lots of Tidbits

2004-11-09T15:34:00.000-05:00

There's a lot going on in the blogosphere today, and so much is being said (and said well) that I find myself at a loss to write about it. So I'll merely serve as a signpost.

First, in the War on Terror, a trio of items:

Yasser Arafat is dead. Or is he? Okay, so at best he's not long for this world. And the search for his hidden billions (yes, that's right - billions) in humanitarian aid money (which he was "holding" for his people...right) proceeds apace.

The assault on Fallujah continues. And Belmont Club is apparently better at covering it than the New York Times. Who knew?

A new study written by Alberto Abadie from the John F. Kennedy School Of Government concludes that the ties between terrorism and poverty are nonexistent. So what breeds terrorism, then? Limited freedom. How do we best combat terrorism? Give people more.

Funny how that works, huh?

Also making the rounds today is a great election retrospective by Dave Kopel titled: "How Hillary Clinton Won the Presidential Elections of 2008 and 2012."

Samizdata (recently added to my BlogRoll) is its usual (read: great) British-libertarian self.

Brian T. has finally come out of the gay-conservative closet to his long-time liberal correspondent. Dean Esmay does the same...only without the 'gay' part.

Debbye is very unhappy with CNN.

I just can't take any more of CNN. Is it just me, or is it as plain as daylight that for the Iraqi army to work with us to take Fallujah is in many significant ways more important for them than for us? CNN's main talking point continues to be that having the Iraqi army fight is part of our exit strategy, which overlooks the rather obvious fact that the Iraqi army is taking responsibility for the future stability of Iraq on behalf of and for the Iraqi people and, if you will, this is a major part of their entrance strategy as a sovereign nation. [Emphasis in original]

And Ace Of Spades tracks down the Republican National Committee's response to the suggestion of liberal bloggers that Howard Dean be named chairman of the DNC.

A very lively day, so far.

The Cause

2004-11-07T15:38:00.000-05:00

Jeff Jarvis thinks he knows why the Democrats lost the election:

...I say instead that Michael Moore lost it for Kerry. He lost it by starting the mudslinging over military service when he accused Bush of being a deserter; this opened the door for the Swiftie mudmen and cut short the ability to condemn them for it.

He lost it by making unfair attacks on Bush (when he could have made fair attacks), helping Bush to rally his fans around him.

But mainly, Moore lost the race for Kerry and the Democrats by turning them, by association, into a bunch of rabid seething fringie liberal loonies, all angry and extreme and too quick to forget what the real war is and who the real enemy is.

Roger L. Simon takes a different approach:

The execrable Moore offered Kerry an obvious opportunity to win the election - the perfect "Sister Souljah" moment. The candidate could have gotten before the media and said: "No, Michael, the Iraqi Insurgents are not the same as our 'Minutemen.' Our 'Minutemen' were fighting for democracy. Those Insurgents are fighting for fascism, theocracy, the oppression of women - everything America deplores!"

I'm sure Kerry agrees with those sentiments, yet he did not express them, instead allowing Moore to be seated prominently at the Democratic Convention.

Both entries are worth reading en totál.

Americans, Stay Away!

2004-11-06T23:47:00.000-05:00

The Boston Globe (not exactly a right-wing paper) warns Democrats away from moving to Canada with a list of seven things to consider. Among them:

...4. How do you like your free speech -- well chilled? Canada has no First Amendment and adheres to primitive British-style libel laws.

Here is a hilarious definition of defamation la Canadienne, from the Media Libel website: ''A defamatory statement exists if the publication tends to lower the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of those who are commonly referred to as 'right thinking' members of society."

(Some similar, if angrier thoughts on the subject from Mike.)

This, of course, reminds me specifically of the ridiculous debacle a few weeks (months?) ago, when one Warren Kinsella threatened legal action against a number of blogs if they didn't take down posts that he considered libellous (whether or not they were, it seems, was beside the point). Free speech in Canada is certainly under attack, and not only by bloggers who've become a little too sensitive (and not a little hypocritical). I must echo the sentiments (if not the snarkiness) of the Boston Globe piece: Democrats, you'll find that Canada ain't all it's cracked up to be.

Rovian "Brilliance" [UPDATED]

2004-11-06T15:42:00.000-05:00

Way back toward the beginning of this campaign, the general consensus on the political left and their commentariat was that one Karl Rove, that cloak-and-dagger/smoke-and-mirrors right-wing manipulator of American politics, was an unconquerable political giant. A mountain among political men, if you will. According to some left-wing reactions to the election (though cheerily not as many as I thought there might be), the reason Bush won (when he was so incredibly incompetent) was that he had "The Rove" in his corner, pulling strings to get out the votes of the ignorant and bloodthirsty.

Well, I'll be (perhaps) the first right-winger to say it: Bush won by only 3.5 million votes. If John Kerry can run the kind of campaign he did (massive issue-waffling, no solid positions on anything except his mysterious 'plans,' a basic disconnect with the average voter) and still stay within 3% of the popular vote, then I'm gonna have to go the opposite way: Rove is inept.

True, he had to overcome Bush's troubling difficulties with language. But John Kerry laid out like a doormat more times than I care to remember, and the Bush team didn't do so much as tap their shoes on him. They didn't make the case for Iraq (which does exist, and is quite strong: see the rest of the war-blogosphere) - had they done so, the population wouldn't see it as a 'mistake' or a 'wrong war', they'd see it as a necessary precaution - they didn't hammer home the facts about Saddam, they didn't point out over and over that Kerry was soft on defense (until the final week or so of the campaign, by which point it was already too late), they didn't respond adequately throughout the debates, they didn't prepare adequately for the debates, and as a matter of fact, it's only by sheer fortune - the fact that Michael Moore is so reviled, the fact that OBL quoted him, and the fact that Carter/Moore were paired together at the DNC - that the Bush team survived this election.

I'll give Rove credit for getting out a lot of Republican voters - the ground game was as good as its ever been - but the point remains: they shouldn't have needed an incredible ground game. Make no mistake. This win should have been huge. Bush should have broken the 300 ECV barrier with several states left to go. Bush should have won the popular vote not by 3.5 million, but by 7, or 10. No, Democratic friends - you have nothing to fear from Karl Rove. If he couldn't pull a landslide election result from the incredible opportunities the Kerry campaign kept handing him, he certainly doesn't deserve the title of 'evil mastermind.' He's just your average politico. The James Carville of the right...maybe.

UPDATE

Well, I wasn't the first to make this point. I must've been channeling Ann Coulter (now that's a scary thought!):

Of course, we could have done it a lot earlier on election night but for "Boy Genius" Karl Rove. It's absurd that the election was as close as it was. The nation is at war, Bush is a magnificent wartime leader, and the night before the election we didn't know if a liberal tax-and-spend, Vietnam War-protesting senator from Massachusetts would beat him.

If Rove is "the architect" - as Bush called him in his acceptance speech - then he is the architect of high TV ratings, not a Republican victory. By keeping the race so tight, Rove ensured that a race that should have been a runaway Bush victory would not be over until the wee hours of the morning.

[HatTip to Greg over at Political Staples for spotting this one.]

Toronto BlogFest

2004-11-06T13:02:00.000-05:00

Well, that was awesome!

Met up with a whole bunch of fellow bloggers in TO last night, including (but not limited to): Anthony, Ben, Bob, Brian, Chris, Damian (the OTHER one), Debbye (fellow transplanted American!), Greg, Kathy, Mike Brock, Michael K, Nick Packwood, Nicholas (who has pictures of the event), Rick McG, and a few others whom I either didn't meet beyond a brief handshake or (gulp!) didn't hear which blog they wrote. (If I missed you, I apologize: send me a note and I'll add you to the list!)

But it was a great time - food, beer (soda, in my case), and great conversation. It's really an awesome experience to have so much in common with people you've never met before, and to know that going into the situation. We all were able to immediately engage each other in comfortable conversation, and had several lively back-and-forths throughout the night. I'm definitely looking forward to doing this again when the (first?) (big?) Newfoundland Damian comes to town in February.

(Side Notes: I'll try not to disappoint you in your daily rounds again, Damian. Debbye, just remember, there are more of us out here than you think. Greg and Brian, I look forward to continuing conversation in February! I'll try and have more information up on my soon-to-be-published article soon...assuming I can wrangle it out of the editors at the Spec. And thanks to everyone for their warm comments about my blog/writing - it means a lot. See you all in February!)

Refreshed

2004-11-04T01:45:00.000-05:00

Ahhh...

Election season is over. No more obsessing, no more swamping, no more much of anything that has immense political significance. For a while, at least.

I'm up to ~6000 words of rough draft in my novel (another update pending), I'm about to get really frustrated with the lack of contact from the Spectator, and I'm also prepared to do some field work for my next newspaper article idea.

Man, it's good to be out from under the shadow of that election beast. Now I've just got to secure a job.

Bush Wins

2004-11-03T02:09:00.000-05:00

...now can we please get back to work?

Wrong For Them...Wrong For Us

2004-11-01T10:27:00.000-05:00

Okay, so people in the Bush-supporting (mostly center-right, some center-left) blogosphere are linking to this morning's NY Sun speculation that John Kerry's discharge may have been less-than-honorable. Jeff Jarvis has denounced them for it, throwing around accusations of mudslinging.

Now, I'm not going to over-exaggerate the NY Sun's reach: I really don't think that anything this paper runs will have much effect. Right-wing media still isn't taken very seriously in the States (or anywhere, really), and the NYSun is basically a tabloid already. And I disagree with Jarvis that this information is "mud:" Kerry has decided to run on his record, and has lied about that record on more than one occasion - he deserves to be exposed as the deceiver he has been, and the people should know as much as possible about the man they may select to run their country.

But you know what, folks? If this kind of crap is wrong for the Democrats, Liberals, and left-leaning media, it's wrong for the Republicans, Conservatives, and right-leaning media. Releasing "scandalous" information mere days or hours before the polls open with no chance for rebuttal or debate of any kind is mudslinging, regardless of content. If you have this information and you decide to sit on it until it could unleash the greatest amount of damage - no matter who you hope to help - you are undermining an informed society, and as such you are undermining democracy. This is despicable, and the NY Sun should be ashamed.

Whether or not the information is true (and I have absolutely no opinion - just this once - one way or the other), if you are going to release it, you must do so as soon as you have it and have verified your sources. To do otherwise is to engage in demagoguery. If it was wrong for the NYTimes and CBS to collude in the bogus "missing weapons" story (and I say it was), then it is wrong for the NYSun to release this story with full knowledge that it could not be sufficiently debated before the election.

Here We Go

2004-10-26T15:44:00.000-04:00

Ladies & Gentlemen, I give you: The Hunt (A Novel), my entry in this year's National Novel Writing Month competition. The idea is to get 50,000 words on paper during the month of November. Coherent or not, usable or not, the whole point is to engage in the act of writing. Now you can follow along as I try to hammer out the first draft of my novel's manuscript. The countdown to November 1st begins...now.

Update To The Previous Post

2004-10-26T13:34:00.000-04:00

I've added some comments to my previous forum diatribe over at Campaign Desk, taking into account new revelations about this "Missing Weapons" story that NYT tried to make into something it wasn't.

For more information, take a look at Captain Ed's rundown, Debbye's examination, and the ever-insightful Wretchard's comments.

Problems At Campaign Desk

2004-10-25T17:16:00.000-04:00

I was reading Campaign Desk today, as I usually do, when I came across a "Blog Report" by one Liz Cox Barrett. I noted with irritation her condescending conclusion, and made a forum post addressing the issue. What follows is the text and links I left, including one pointer to an earlier post of mine on the work of the same Ms. Barrett. So sad to see the media "watchdog" succumbing to the same laziness that the larger media outlets are falling into...though perhaps not surprising. After all, Columbia's School of Journalism is one of the assembly lines that produces today's journalists. It's only logical that the problems of the mothership would be reflected in its spawn.

Here is Liz Cox Barrett in today's "Blog Report":

Apart from Jonah Goldberg on The National Review's The Corner...we were hard pressed to find right-leaning bloggers mentioning it at all -- proving once more that the blogosphere contains Venus (lefty bloggers) and Mars (right-wing bloggers).
Gee, Ms. Barrett, you sure must be 'hard pressed' fairly often. Immediately after this note in your post, you cite Captain Ed's perspective on the Washington Times' John Kerry story. Did you not see this post at the top of the page? Or is reading the full text of a web site being 'hard pressed?'

What about Roger L. Simon? He's not exactly right-wing, but he is in favor of Bush and supports the War (which I suppose is enough to make him 'right-wing' by the media's simplistic standards). He's not exactly low-profile in the blogosphere, and he's got this post on the subject.

And how about JustOneMinute's Tom Maguire? He's been regularly linked by large blogs like Instapundit for a few months now, and provides incisive commentary from the right. Again, not exactly a low-profile blogger. He's written at length on the subject on which you are "hard pressed" to find any right-wing opinion.

Perhaps the blog mentioned in the Washington Post's Best Blog poll (runner-up to The Corner for Best Inside The Beltway) is high-profile enough? Bill at INDC Journal is rather right-wing, and he posted on the subject this morning at 7:37am.

You know, the more I read Campaign Desk, the more often I see how inept this group's 'fact-checking' truly is. Should I add this to the pile of mounting evidence that Liz Cox Barrett and CD as a whole are exemplary of the problem plaguing modern media? Should we be surprised that the media is performing as poorly as it is when its 'watchdog' is this lazy?

Or perhaps we can forgive Ms. Barrett. After all, it's not like she knows any right-wing thinkers. And wading through their blogs gets you all 'icky' - can't stand to be down there with the masses, them being lower beings and all. It's only reasonable that she'd spend as little time as possible in their midst. Right?

Further Classification

2004-10-25T10:49:00.000-04:00

Interesting find. But I suspect that I cover too many categories to be completely pigeonholed:

You Are a Pundit Blogger!

Your blog is smart, insightful, and always a quality read.
Truly appreciated by many, surpassed by only a few.

What kind of blogger are you?

[HatTip to Frank J.'s Girl.]

Waiting On An Update...

2004-10-24T17:49:00.000-04:00

Sorry for the lack of posting - I haven't been holding to my schedule so well, but I have been busy. Filing resumés, helping friends move building materials, doing yardwork for senior citizens, performing in weekly dramas (this is the third week in a row that I've acted, and the fifth or sixth straight in which I was involved in the drama in one way or another), writing new poetry, writing new prose, rewriting old prose...etc.

Plus, on top of all of that, I'm toying with new ideas for my next submission to the Spectator, waiting for the section editor assigned to me to call (probably on Monday/Tuesday, I'd imagine) about the current article, thinking about Jason's latest idea for a Hamilton blogger community - a sort of Carnival, but instead of the Captialists, Red Ensigns, Vanities, or others, it'd be for Hamiltonians. This could start in our own little mini-blogosphere, and spread throughout the Hamilton area. Who knows? If we can get this thing going, perhaps it'll turn into a large-scale get-together...or a smaller one, whatever.

Still got lots of ideas, and I'm still committed to writing here. I've just been running around these last few days. And with that, I've got to get prepared to do some more running around this evening. Talk to you when it's all over!

Got A Phone Call Today...

2004-10-21T18:43:00.000-04:00

...from the executive editor of the Hamilton Spectator. He said he liked my 'blog primer' article. And he wants to run it some time this coming week! More information as it becomes available, but I'm getting published! w00t!

My Long, Tiring, Painful, No-Blog Day

2004-10-21T11:17:00.000-04:00

So I left Hamilton on Tuesday afternoon with a friend of mine, hauling lumber and bricks up to Muskoka (about two hours north of Toronto). He was finishing his cottage's newly added basement, and needed help moving his materials around. Once we arrived, we were joined by another friend, and hit the sack. In the morning, we moved the bricks (which were apparently 150 years old and fired by his ancestors) and lumber into his basement, along with the wood that he had had delivered by Home Depot. This took us the entire morning, and into the afternoon.

Once we were done, we dropped off the U-Haul he had rented, jumped into our friend's car, and sped back to Hamilton just in time to shower and head out again for a small group gathering. After drowsily making my way through the meeting, I got home around midnight, and crashed until this morning.

So that's why I didn't have a blog post (or the requisite three) yesterday. I hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me. Either that, or be distracted enough that I can placate you with three more posts today.

It's good to be back, but man, am I sore.

Canada Slips

2004-10-19T13:02:00.000-04:00

With all the recent hubbub about the gradual trampling of free speech rights in Canada, one might be forgiven for making a comparison between the Great White North and a "Third World Crackpot Dictatorship." Well, Bob Tarantino has done precisely that. And the story that prompts him to do so (run in the Toronto Star, of all places) certainly sends chills down my spine.

For The Record

2004-10-19T11:11:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting brouhaha going on at Jeff Jarvis' place. Apparently Instapundit, Tony Pierce, and Stupid Kryptonite (whoops! I mean Oliver Willis), have gotten into a bit of a brawl over who is biased and who is pretending not to be. Needless to say, if you've been reading my blog for any length of time, I'm siding with Glenn on this one. But I also recognize the importance of Jeff's point:

I think that blogs should admit their bias; they should set the example for transparency. Even though it was quite evident that Glenn was voting for Bush, it's good he said so today...
So a call to bloggers: If you haven't yet said where your vote is going, please do. Don't assume we know; maybe we just discovered you. Out with it.

So, though it's rather obvious from context, I'll say it clearly and for the record:

I am voting for Bush. Indeed, I already have. Two weeks ago, I filed my absentee ballot, and on that ballot, I marked down a vote for Bush/Cheney.

So there it is: my bias, open for all to see. Try not to stare. Thanks.

A Pointer

2004-10-18T22:53:00.000-04:00

It was recently brought to my attention that some individuals have been pointed to my site in their search for information and posts on a certain propagandist. If they would follow me this way, please...

DisUnion

2004-10-18T22:13:00.000-04:00

So it would appear that Stelco is in serious trouble. Their largest client is just about to cancel their largest contract, and why? Because the company can't guarantee that they'll be able to deliver on it. Because they can't guarantee that their workers won't strike. This is the perfect example of the awful mess into which modern Canadian businesses have fallen. Unions are too strong, corporate entities are too weak, and as a result, Canadian business loses.

In the beginning, there was a real need for workers unions. Unscrupulous corporate leaders would enforce long hours, unbearable work conditions, and low pay - and what could the working class do but comply? Enter the unions to balance the board. Wages increased, workplace safety standards were raised, and workers weren't forced to accept whatever the management tried to shove down their throats.

But we've come a long way since 1900.

Now, workplace safety is government regulated. Minimum wage is government mandated. A market system that values workers as a commodity has been set up so that businesses must compete to hire them. All that unions were formed to achieve has come to pass. So why do they persist?

Because unions did what most organizations do: they expanded. At first, it was a necessary security feature. If only one section of a company went on strike, management could just fire them all and hire new people; but if a company's whole workforce went on strike...or if all the workers in an entire industry decided they'd had enough...well that was a different story.

Objects in motion tend to stay in motion. So these unions continued to grow, and eventually they began spreading into different trades - steelworkers were now seen striking alongside teachers, who were striking alongside bus drivers, and so on. Occupations that had very little to do with one another were now joined at the proverbial hip, and the massive organism that is the Trade Union began to wield incredible power, both economic and political.

As growth increased, outside leaders were brought in to run the unions - people who had no actual stake in the company or the workforce themselves. These third parties worked for the union itself, and pocketed their paychecks out of the duties paid by the members. Suddenly, there were more reasons to go on strike than ever before. Reasons that didn't necessarily involve the best interests of the workers. Nowadays, it seems like certain unions will strike at the drop of a hat (yes, Teachers, I'm looking at you). And of course, these organizations are so interconnected that if a strike goes on long enough, it will drag other unions into the fray, in an attempt to bring more pressure to bear.

It has reached the point that companies like Stelco, the largest steel manufacturer in Canada, are threatened with bankruptcy. Their clients, GM in this case, need assurances that they will receive their orders in full and on time. And since Stelco can't control the union, they can't guarantee their products' delivery.

And what happens then? Stelco loses its contracts, and is forced to - wait for it - fire all of its workers.

So unions go on strike to demand better wages (nevermind that union-wages are already inflated) and better work conditions (which are now regulated by government standards) under the assumption that the businesses must cave to them in order to stay alive economically (for who can run a steel mill without steel workers?). But now it has gotten so bad that corporate leaders are faced with economic death either way. If they refuse the demands of their unions, they can guarantee the contracts; but they'll lose their workers, and lose the contracts after their workers leave. If they crumple under the unions' pressure, they keep their workers - but there's no job for them to do, because they've lost the contract.

Either way, Stelco is dead in the water.

Unions are too big, too powerful, and too self-centered (instead of worker-centered). They were once necessary organizations that worked for the betterment of the market. They were once run by people who understood that if the union can negotiate with the company, and help the company perform above and beyond expectations, then everyone - including the workers - would greatly benefit. But now? Now the unions are staffed by people whose jobs are primarily to make sure they still have jobs. To make sure that the workers continue to need the union.

Can you say 'conflict of interest'? The ultimate goal for the union (like that of the police department) is the eradication of the need for a union. Now that it has been achieved, the union is naught but an oversized self-serving deadweight, and it is dragging all those involved into the economic grave.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any easy way out. Corporate leaders are just as human as union leaders, and both groups will always look to make a profit whatever way possible - even at the expense of human decency. The union is needed to balance the power of the company. But the key word is balance. If the union grows overlarge, the scale tips; and no matter what union propagandists would have you believe, a tipped scale is bad news either way.

I see a future of destruction for Stelco. Maybe they'll survive it, maybe they won't. The government will eventually step in with corporate welfare, I'm sure, but the damage is already done. I can only hope that those with power recognize and learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

But I'm not gonna hold my breath.

It Begins...

2004-10-18T16:30:00.000-04:00

Alright, so here it is, Monday, October 18th. First day of my rigorous writing schedule - three blog posts a day, minimum, and a 1000 more words written on whatever strikes me as noteworthy (fiction or non, prose or poetry). Add to this the fact that I'm now considering it my job to find a job, and you get a revamped approach to life in general.

The newspaper article is written and submitted, and now it's time to devote the majority of my energies to finding 'a real job.' I've got a plan, a resumé, and a system. Here goes nothing!

Revelation

2004-10-17T18:14:00.000-04:00

(Of a sort).

So I have been hearing a lot recently about "evil" neoconservatives (a group of which I am apparently a member) and their support for Israel. Most of this comes from those whose perspective on the Middle East tends to sympathize with the Palestinians, and while that's a viewpoint that I can understand, I don't hold it myself. What puzzles me is the extent to which these Arafat-advocates are willing to stretch to find an explanation for their opponent's position. Take, for example, this selection from Gwynne Dyer's latest column (not yet available online), titled "Israel Wags The Dog Again" and run in Saturday's Hamilton Spectator. It really took me by surprise. Being a newly-outed "neo"con and an Evangelical Christian all rolled into one, it seems that I am the embodiment of evil in the world. Whoda thunk?

Bush apparently [supported Sharon's plan] in order to retain the votes of the extreme evangelical Protestants, who believe that God's plan requires the expansion of Israel and a great war in the Middle East.

Now - and I don't mean to interject rationality into any of this - if the reason I and the vast majority of Evangelical Christian/NeoCons are supporting Israel's right to existence is because we think that it will bring about the end of the world more quickly, then it's certainly news to me. Heck, Gwynne, other than a few Canadians with whom I've spoken, you are the first person to bring this "fact" to my attention. And here I thought I (and Bush, and a lot of Americans) was supporting Israel because they are a Western Democracy with liberal values in a land surrounded by corrupt authoritarian regimes. Imagine my surprise to discover that the role Israel was playing in the Middle East was not that of a foothold for freedom, but a foothold for eventual world-wide destruction. Huh! Well, I'm glad we cleared that up. I wouldn't want to support Israel for the wrong reasons, now would I? Bring on Armageddon!

I honestly don't know whence this fantastic idea comes. Either Dyer (and a number of his Canadian readers) have completely misunderstood the Evangelical Christian movement (not to mention greatly overestimated their influence), or they have gone off the deep end. Let's see if I can be clear: I know of no person - not a single one - who supports the nation of Israel because it is supposed to be the site of Armageddon, which can (apparently) only occur if certain events take place in a specific order. Not even the people who read the Left Behind Series. Not even the people who WRITE the Left Behind Series.

I have never heard this argument forwarded outside of my Canadian experience. I have never held this position myself, and I never will. My reasons for supporting Israel are completely secular (unless you count my feelings on morality and justice as spiritual), and - here's the kicker - so are those of every American-Evangelical-Christian-NeoCon Israel-booster I have ever met. Believe me, having grown up in the Heart of Texas™, I know a lot of 'em.

Yeats: Foresight

2004-10-17T17:36:00.000-04:00

Ah, William Butler Yeats. Ireland's greatest son, indeed. How we miss you, and your incredible foresight:

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all convictions, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...

Of course, Yeats saw these events as signs of the world's impending end. And who knows? But I prefer to cling to hope.

[For those of you who are still utterly perplexed by this post - and I realize it's rather obtuse - you might want to read Belmont Club on Steven Den Beste's temporary return, and futher, this comment on the subject. If you're still confused, leave a comment and I'll try to clarify.]

This Is Becoming Repetitive

2004-10-16T17:16:00.000-04:00

...but I wanted to assure you that my posting schedule will be re-established in short form. I'm sprouting a lot of ideas, and am ready to explore them. First up, the modern relationship between corporations and unions, and how it must change in order to survive (with a special focus on current events in Hamilton).

Further, as I continue to look for employment, I'll need a regular schedule to make sure I'm writing constantly. In keeping with this, look for at least three posts a day, beginning on Monday, in addition to whatever I write about in my 1000 words per day.

I may be burned-out on politics, but I'm starting to get excited about writing again. So stay tuned, gentle reader...it's about to get a lot wordier.

(And special note to Jason: I'm not looking to retake my established place as primary 'researcher,' but at least you'll be able to get inside my head again...)

Finito!

2004-10-14T13:37:00.000-04:00

And the article is done.

Now I just have to write a cover letter, make three copies and craft them each to a specific recipient, submit each copy, converse with the editorial staff, discuss the intricacies of...yeah, lotsa work left. But the hard part is over - writing and self-editing. Now the waiting begins.

Coming Soon: a more frequent posting schedule, and a new website.

Critics Take Note

2004-10-06T09:31:00.000-04:00

If you're going to criticize President Bush, and want those of us who support the President to continue to listen to you, do it like this.

The Real America

2004-09-30T16:05:00.000-04:00

Mark Steyn writes a brilliantly incisive piece (as per usual) on 9/11 and conservativism, specifically focusing on why pundits outside the US seem to constantly get the country wrong: because they don't understand that America is largely conservative:

But in America large swaths of the nation are still robustly conservative. Not all of them, of course, and, because Fleet Street correspondents are disproportionately concentrated in New York, Washington and Los Angeles, it?s easy for them to get the impression that there?s not all that many conservatives ? just a few isolated communities in the Bible Belt and a couple of survivalist militias up in the Rockies. This leads to the careless assumptions of so many in the European media about John Kerry?s election prospects and the inevitable tears on the morning of 3 November. But the way Kerry?s campaigning on cultural issues gives you the real clue to the dominant forces in American life: he talks up his Catholicism; on abortion, he says he ?personally believes? life begins at conception, it?s just that as a Democrat he can?t find it in him to legislate according to his principles; everywhere he goes he gets photographed brandishing guns, even guns that he, as an effete Massachusetts panty-waist, has voted to ban; he boasts to hunting magazines about his favourite assault rifle ? at least until the legality of his ownership of such a weapon is called into question. This is how a big-government, anti-globalisation, socialised-healthcare, Francophiliac Democrat has to campaign in America: pro-guns, pro-God, deeply evasive on abortion. In almost any other Western nation, none of these things would matter.

Steyn goes on to argue that America's conservatism is what makes it one of very few places on the planet where a person can live as a "citizen" rather than a "subject," and he has a convincing point. But this reminds me of a recent discussion I had with a few (other) Canadian friends, in which they couldn't fathom the notion that America is still largely Christian - the primary evidence of this dissonance, for them, was the anti-Christian bias (anti-religious bias) that is soaked through such media outlets as the NYTimes, CNN, ABC/CBS/NBC, etc. Like Steyn points out, if you only get information from a source that resides primarily in a heavily liberal urban center, then your view of the country at large is going to be heavily skewed.

Why do Europeans, Canadians, and most other groups of outside spectators consistently get America wrong? Because they aren't getting a taste of 'America.' They are getting a taste of how a few people, with the resources to get their messages out, view America.

Pssst...

2004-09-29T12:02:00.000-04:00

Hey, Senator Kerry. I know you're getting a lot of advice (solicited and un-) these days on how to prep for the debate tomorrow. Some of it is good, some of it is less so. But take it from me: given the writer's background and experiences, I'm fairly certain you want to ignore this.

They Pegged Me...

2004-09-29T01:15:00.000-04:00

An interesting quiz to see what kind of political entity you are.

It would seem that I'm one of those ever-elusive "neocons" (though I've held these views for as long as I can remember, so the 'neo' seems out of place):

Neoconservatives?
Want the US to be the world's unchallenged superpower

Hmmm...I would say that I see the US is the world's unchallenged superpower, but don't think it is a bad thing.

Share unwavering support for Israel

Check - a Western Liberal Democracy in the Middle East? Heck yeah.

Support American unilateral action

Check.

Support preemptive strikes to remove perceived threats to US security

Half-check - there's pages I could write on this, but it's late...

Promote the development of an American empire

Whoa, now. This is one of those things where I'm gonna have to disagree. Want to make me happy? Replace the word empire, or place a boat-load of modifiers in front of it. Niall Ferguson and I have a lot to discuss.

Equate American power with the potential for world peace

Mmmm...perhaps. I don't think the world will ever be fully at peace, but I do see America as the world's best hope.

Seek to democratize the Arab world

Check!

Push regime change in states deemed threats to the US or its allies

And check.

Historical neoconservative: President Teddy Roosevelt

Modern neoconservative: President Ronald Reagan

The Christian Science Monitor (producer of the quiz) summarizes my answers to its prompts with a bit more scorn than I like, but their anti-neoconservative bias aside, if I'm grouped with Teddy and Ronnie, I'm content.

[HatTip to Chrenkoff, who also links to an eye-opening interview with Christopher Hitchens that deserves more comment. But I'm heading to bed, so I'll save it for later.]

Echo

2004-09-29T00:36:00.000-04:00

David Mader says something I've been harping on for years:

It's often said, but not taken nearly seriously enough, that the popular display of the hammer and sickle, or the red (or yellow) star, or the visage of Che, should be treated no differently than the public display of the swastika or the visage of Himmler. We are quite properly repulsed by such open displays of sympathy for the icons of Nazi fascism, even when they are made in jest.

His entire post is rife with insight, but it put me in mind of the reaction several of my Canadian friends had to a comment I made recently on the same subject. It went something like this: "Fascism is as inherently evil as Communism."

There were audible gasps, and a few odd looks - I suspect they were trying to figure out if I was saying Fascism wasn't inherently evil, or if Communism was, but whatever decision they reached, soon enough they were taken aback, too. Unfortunately, the conversation ended there, and that last bit turned into a throwaway comment. I have to admit that I was looking to shock them; but if saying "Communism is evil" shocks a person, that's very telling - not only about the individual, but also about the society and community surrounding them. Southern Ontario, how far you have fallen!

Parallel

2004-09-27T19:10:00.000-04:00

Nick Packwood points out a number of historical parallels to the current War. I'd have my own comments, but as I'm about to take off for the evening, I'll leave them to simmer. Packwood's post is required reading, however. A fascinating study.

A Setback

2004-09-26T23:50:00.000-04:00

A bit of bad news today from the "newspaper freelance" front. Got word from the inside that the editors aren't exactly looking to widen their field of published freelancers at the moment. In fact, they're trying to cut some costs. And this adds up to? Not a good time to be a new freelancer pitching a new idea. At least, not to the local paper.

So I've got these six columns that I'm still polishing. What to do with them? Rework it a bit and submit to another paper? Say, like the National Post? Perhaps - it's certainly an option. But my contact at the local paper has not completely removed my hope of publication. So we'll see. In the meantime, it's time to begin my 'real job' search in earnest.

And it's way past time to do some recreational writing, for crying out loud!

What To Address First?

2004-09-24T15:43:00.000-04:00

Ahh, the Internet. It moves at the speed of thought (which, by the way, is far faster than the speed of light). A news cycle on the Web turns over in a few hours (if that), and a commentor (yours truly) is lucky if he or she can get ahold of just one meme that hasn't yet run its course.

There's so much going on, and I have so little to add to most of it. I have opinions on it all, of course (I can fashion an opinion on most anything in a few seconds), but that doesn't mean it's worth your while to read it.

But to the point. There's so much running 'round the blog-circuit that I think it's futile to even attempt to write on it. So I'll see if I can't address a topic that I haven't seen anyone touch on.

I think we need a title for bloggers like Jeff Jarvis and Jay Rosen - bloggers that philosophize on the role, attraction, and form of blogs. I propose "Blog-Theorists." These writers are on the cusp of what I see as a new sub-domain of philosophy, and they are applying what they've seen and think about the various attributes of media, advertising, commerce, journalism, politics, and society to the blogosphere.

Currently, I'm writing a freelance primer on blogs for my local paper, and I frequently finding myself dipping into the archives of Jarvis, Rosen, and Bill Quick (among others) for quotes on and explanations of the machinations and attractions that the blog-form has for people. There's some fantastic thinking going on in this philosophical area of the 'sphere, and I think it's time we recognized it.

I'm Back!

2004-09-24T14:11:00.000-04:00

Voila!

I am now fully equipped - a PowerBook G4 15" 1.33GHz laptop with all assorted "cable-ature," stand, keyboard, bag, etc. - and ready to get back to serious writing/blogging!

Ready? Here we go...

Progress Report...

2004-09-21T23:52:00.000-04:00

Okay. My new laptop is currently in Ohio, and will likely make its way to Niagara Falls tomorrow morning/afternoon. Which means I'll make a run to Niagara Falls either tomorrow or Thursday (depending on when it arrives). Which further indicates that regular posting and blog-renovations will begin in earnest before the weekend. Hooray!

Update

2004-09-15T22:15:00.000-04:00

Ah...

Been a while. Things are progressing for me, and life is pretty busy. I finalized the terms for the sale of my computer today, and will make the exchange in Toronto tomorrow evening. That means I'll be without my own computer for a week or so (depending on how fast Apple can ship my new laptop to Buffalo).

Hence, you can expect a further lack of posts for a while longer. But after that, I'll be able to devote more time to the makeover of this site, and I'll start regular posting again.

Further, my first six columns are in at least rough draft stage, and as soon as I hear back from my contact at the local paper, I'll be able to submit them (polished, of course) for consideration. Exciting!

After negotiating with newsprint, I'll start searching in earnest for a 'real' job. That way I can start the money flowing again, and work toward getting out of my parents' basement (which I am grateful to have, etc. etc.). Freedom, life, and possibility call. Here's hoping I can give the right answer.

The Power Of The Blog [UPDATED]

2004-09-10T01:42:00.000-04:00

Incredible. On September 8th and 9th, CBS's 60 Minutes II with Dan Rather and The Boston Globe both ran with a story featuring 'new' documents that raised questions about George W. Bush's service in the National Guard. Less than a day later, the guys at PowerLine, with help from Drudge Report and dozens (if not hundreds) of readers, blew CBS out of the water with the revelation that those documents which were so damning were actually forged. And now? ABC is investigating, the Washington Post is running the forgery story on tomorrow's front page, and CBS is holding an inquiry.

All of this while I'm in the middle of writing an op-ed/informative column on why blogs are reliable as sources of information. I'm absolutely stunned.

UPDATE

A timeline and additional comments available at Mader Blog. Money shot:

That's impressive. But what's much more impressive is this: it all happened in a day. Only a few years ago, the CBS story would have run for days, and any questions wouldn't have made it beyond obscure internet bulletin boards. Today - I mean literally, today - the CBS story was fact-checked up-and-down by 'amateurs,' their findings shared, and the conclusions made known to newsrooms in a few hours.

Incredible, Sobering, and Encouraging

2004-09-07T20:47:00.000-04:00

From Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, general manager of Al-Arabiya news channel, and first published in the pan-Arabic paper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, comes something amazing. I applaud him for his efforts, his insights, and his courage.

[HatTip to The Corner.]

The Current Situation

2004-08-28T12:21:00.000-04:00

Hey, folks. I'm shutting down the computer now, to break things down and move back to Hamilton. There may be a few days (heck, there already have been) with no word from me. Moving conditions shouldn't be all that troublesome, but you never know. Add to that my attempt to sell my current computer and purchase a laptop, and you have a series of events lined up that may conspire to keep me offline for a few weeks. But never fear! Your faithful blog correspondent will return (and better than that, he will revamp his site!).

Stay tuned! Or as Drudge would say:

Developing...

Absolutely Beautiful

2004-08-26T23:17:00.000-04:00

No further comment required.

[HatTip to Babbling Brooks.]

Have I Mentioned Lately...

2004-08-25T20:33:00.000-04:00

...how much I love living in Canada? No? Then perhaps this will explain why I haven't been driven to gush:

Canadian Member of Parliament Carolyn Parrish had said she hated "damned Americans" and called them bastards in the run-up to the Iraq war. She found a new moniker, idiots, on Wednesday in discussing the planned U.S. missile defense system.

"We are not joining the coalition of the idiots. We are joining the coalition of the wise," the Liberal legislator told a small group of demonstrators.

Now watch this. Denial:

Parrish, who had to apologize for her "bastards" remarks last year, at first denied using the word idiots...

Backtracking:

...and when reporters pointed out they had her remarks on tape, she said: "I don't mean Americans are idiots."

Pleading:

Parrish then begged reporters not to use the remarks: "Please guys don't put that on tape,' she said. 'I already got into trouble once.... Really, please, I've had enough trouble."

This is called (aside from stupidity, and among other things) immaturity. It's like a small child who has been caught doing something that she wasn't allowed, and it bears a remarkable resemblance to John Kerry's response to the Swift Vets' accusations. After attempting to shut them up with legal action (bonehead political move, anyone?), the Kerry campaign tries to change multiple parts of the story, before finally asking President Bush to tell the mean Swift Vets to stop hurting them.

Did these people ever grow up?

[HatTips to Trudeaupia and Daimnation.]

A Template

2004-08-22T19:52:00.000-04:00

Ed Cone provides a masterful template for modern political discourse.

I am right, and you are wrong.

You are not just wrong, you and those like you are intellectually insufficient and morally suspect. Why do you hate our country? Think of the children. God said to tell you that he is not pleased.

Stop interrupting me while I'm shouting. Feel the crushing weight of my arguments, which are built on logic and constructed from facts that are sturdy and sound. You just whine about how you feel.

Your information is flawed because it came from a source I know to be aligned with the forces of darkness. I am able to parse the media and edit what I see for bias and spin, while you are a gullible sap who believes everything you see on the TV or read in that wholly discredited rag you just quoted.

You speak in cliches, slogans and sound bites. I speak in pithy phrases and time-tested words of wisdom. You call names, I tell it like it is. You are vulgar, I am colorful.

My candidate is a hero. Yours is a zero. One cannot compare the youthful hijinks of my guy with the youthful wantonness of yours. My guy makes mistakes, yours commits sins of the worst kind. And likes it. My guy was misquoted, or simply misspoke, while your guy was caught on tape saying exactly what I expected him to say.

There's more, and it's a brilliant dissection.

[HatTip to Jeff Jarvis.]

el Fin

2004-08-19T16:11:00.000-04:00

Well, that's it!

All papers turned in, all tests taken, all school done. Four years (plus a summer or two...or three), and I'm wrapped at University of Toronto (graduation pending). I feel free. I'm reading books for pleasure now, instead of duty. I'm writing because I want to, not because I have to. I'm like a young bird, high in the air, with the massive expanse of earth beneath, and I've got two conflicting and simultaneous reactions: I rejoice in the beauty of the landscape, and I tremble in fear at the fall.

It's funny. I was talking to a friend last week, in the class before my first final, and I said that I was ready now for an education. As much as I thought otherwise before University began, I wasn't actually ready to learn. I was ready to learn how to learn, and that's what I (hope I) did. Now that I know how to learn, I'm out into the world with...not a whole lot. That's the paradox of higher education. The best teacher is experience, and the primary lessons you learn at university are not found in the classes themselves, but in the spaces between. So here I am, exiting a place of higher education ready to be educated.

Trouble is, experience isn't nearly as forgiving as University professors.

My Part

2004-08-19T00:28:00.000-04:00

Brian B. revisited a conversation that he and I had on Friday afternoon. It was quite an enjoyable thing, as I rarely get to go toe-to-toe live and in person on issues like this - it just doesn't usually come up. Plus it was really nice, because Brian and I are good friends, and I knew there would be no chance of a rift opening up (as there wasn't back when we had our other disagreements). Anyway, I'm kinda in the middle of studying for my final final (heh, wordplay), so I don't have time to rebutt in depth, but as fortune (or Providence, whichever) would have it, Bob Tarantino has done it for me.

[T]he government should not be involved in content-based prior restrictions on speech, whether that speech comes from an individual standing on the corner, an American corporation jamming the airwaves with, let's see, Amish people visiting South Central, a Qatar-based company providing a news servive or any-freakin'-body else. Which means that the CRTC was wrong to impose stringent requirements on the broadcast of Al-Jazeera, and it is wrong for it to yank the CHOI-FM license. Let 'em all in. We (er, the people) are not simpletons. We can figure out what we want to listen to, and what's not worthwhile. If speech content violates the Criminal Code, then perhaps criminal sanction should be sought (although that, in itself, is a vastly complicated issue, which I'll set aside for now). Government is simply not justified in banning content, and is not equipped to make decisions about what I (or others) should or should not see, read or hear.

Keep in mind, this doesn't address Brian's specific objection - that we should stand up for those who cannot stand up for themselves - but it's a good summary of my basic position on issues like this. If I can remember to do so, I will respond more precisely to Brian's argument at a later time. For now, though, it's back to study!

In The Home Stretch

2004-08-18T21:05:00.000-04:00

It's coming to a close, my university career,
And as the finish creeps into view,
I gasp and I groan
I stretch and I moan
And just barely see the end through.

Two finals down today, and my last test tomorrow at 2pm. I should be finished by 5 or so (or sooner, if the test goes particularly well). Then it's crash time.

Another Test

2004-08-17T22:51:00.000-04:00

Here's another test post...to see how Blogger handles Post Titles.

{Note: Still not sure why putting tags in the post title affects the display of my name. But other than that (which won't occur in the new schema), this experiment was successful, in that it allowed me to see what can be accomplished.]

A Test

2004-08-17T01:18:00.000-04:00

This is a test of your browser's text-rendering system.

To view this entry as it was meant to be seen, download and install this font. It's a nice typeface, and I might wind up using it on the 'new site,' so you should pick it up now and save yourself the trouble of downloading it later.

[Note: One of the nice things about Mac OS X Panther is the new Font Book, which allows you to easily install any font-type imaginable. There is no longer any such thing as a "PC-Only" font. Very, very cool.]