If you're interested in what's going on inside a country, start with native speakers. It's like CSPAN, go to the source without filters. Omar at IRAQ THE MODEL seems to know this because he has decided to start a weekly column translating the comments on the BBC Arabic Service. Of course, the people posting on there are a subset of the population of some kind (don't know what exactly), but their comments are at least uninterpreted. Omar has a bias like the rest of us (strongly pro-democracy in his case), but unlike most in the media he doesn't pretend he doesn't. So we can factor that in.
Here's his overview of the last week. I find it quite interesting and heartening:
I noticed that there were more positive comments from Arabs this time than in the past weeks but I also noticed that most of the negative ones came from Syria (largest share) while there's a remarkable change in attitude in the comments coming from KSA, Egypt or Jordan. Another observation was that negative comments from Iraqis decreased significantly also and actually I could find only one comment of those.
One negative comment from Iraq... amazing. I could do a lot better than that in Studio City.
After Dog Blogging and Booze Blogging, this blog is going upscale with Art Blogging in honor of my son Jesse Simon whose work is now appearing in a group show (that's him at the opening Friday night) at the Cartelle Gallery in Venice, along with such older fixtures of the California Art Scene as Billy Al Bengston.
This an example of Jesse's work from the show. A dedicated surfer he uses the sport and his love of the ocean in his art, deconstructing old surf boards, refining them in a complex manner and turning them into wall sculptures. Some, like this one, reflect his roots in graffiti art.
Jesse's work has appeared before at a show at the San Jose Museum of Art: "Surf Culture: The Art of Surfing". His first one-man show will be in San Francisco later this year (details to come) and, in part, I would imagine, because both his works on display at Cartelle sold within minutes of the show's opening, that gallery is also giving him a two-man show this year as well. What can I say but... Go Jesse!
I never voted for him for Governor or President but...
... he undoubtedly had more positive effect on history than all those for whom I did. "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" he said -- and it happened. What more need be said? RIP, The Gipper!
... but it is interesting. Someone just emailed me anonymously an article from the Jerusalem Post from March 3, 2004. As most will recall, the nefarious Ahmad Chalabi stands accused of having "leaked" the information to the Iranians that their code had been broken by US intelligence. Now read this from early last March (I quote in entirety since the link to the JP archive is pay only at this point):
BYLINE: Yaakov Katz
A secret intelligence unit, known as Unit 8200, broke a sophisticated Iranian code enabling Israel to monitor communications, including contacts with Pakistan regarding the development of Iranian nuclear weapons, The New Yorker reported on Tuesday.
"On a trip to the Middle East last month, I was told that a number of years ago the Israeli signals-intelligence agency, known as Unit 8200, broke a sophisticated Iranian code and began monitoring communications that included talk between Iran and Pakistan about Iran's burgeoning nuclear weapons program," investigative reporter Seymour M. Hersh wrote.
According to the report, Israeli intelligence has created strong ties in Iran over the year, some of which still exist. Hersh writes that the investigation by the International Atomic Energy Agency into Iranian nuclear capability was spurred by Israeli intelligence findings which were relayed to the agency via the National Council of Resistance of Iran.
According to the report, the findings, which showed that senior officials in Teheran and Islamabad had frequent conversations regarding the IAEA investigations, were also shared with US intelligence services. [bolds mine]
Well, fancy that... Seymour Hersh of all people. Could this be true? So I Googled it and there it was. Obviously, it wouldn't have taken Chalabi to tell the Iranians their codes were endangered. They could have read about in The New Yorker. Maybe they dropped their subscription. Well, it did get a tad duller under David Remnick and, yes, maybe it was a different code, but still... 'curiouser' and 'curiouser'.
As one who respects CSPAN over all news outlets, finds CCN particularly reprehensible after the revelations they played footsie with Saddam to gain access, it should be no surprise that I consider Al-Jazeera an "obectively pro-fascist" (in Orwell's term) disinformation service. To have this on television is especially dangerous in societies where the illiteracy rate is frighteningly high. By playing to the shame and rage of its constituency, Al-Jazeera enhances the oppression of its audience, allowing them to continue to project the failures of their lives on others, rather than correct them. Talk about reactionaries!
In conjunction with the forthcoming release of a documentary on Al-Jazeera called "Control Room," (I haven't seen it) LAWeekly has a cover story on the network this week by Brendan Bernhard. The most interesting part of this article is at the end, a dialogue between Mr. Bernhard and Samir Khader, a senior producer for Al-Jazeera who was in the US to help promote the film. This exchange is worth reading as a revelation of the level of cognitive dissonance necessary to broadcast at a network like that, possibly at CNN as well.
This morning's column by David Brooks in the NYT might lead us to that conclusion:
Party affiliation even shapes people's perceptions of reality. In 1960, Angus Campbell and others published a classic text, "The American Voter," in which they argued that partisanship serves as a filter. A partisan filters out facts that are inconsistent with the party's approved worldview and exaggerates facts that confirm it.
That observation has been criticized by some political scientists, who see voters as reasonably rational. But many political scientists are coming back to Campbell's conclusion: people's perceptions are blatantly biased by partisanship.
For example, the Princeton political scientist Larry Bartels has pointed to survey data collected after the Reagan and Clinton presidencies. In 1988, voters were asked if they thought the nation's inflation rate had fallen during the Reagan presidency.
In fact, it did. The inflation rate fell from 13.5 percent to 4.1 percent. But only 8 percent of strong Democrats said the rate had fallen. Fifty percent of partisan Democrats believed that inflation had risen under Reagan. Strong Republicans had a much sunnier and more accurate impression of economic trends. Forty-seven percent said inflation had declined.
Then, at the end of the Clinton presidency, voters were asked similar questions about how the country had fared in the previous eight years. This time, it was Republicans who were inaccurate and negative. Democrats were much more positive. Bartels concludes that partisan loyalties have a pervasive influence on how people see the world. They reinforce and exaggerate differences of opinion between Republicans and Democrats.
It also might lead us to the conclusion that that party affiliation is anti-(small d)democratic. Brooks also points out, citing a book by political scientists called "Partisan Hearts and Minds," that:
Drawing on a vast range of data, these political scientists argue that party attachment is more like attachment to a religious denomination or a social club. People have stereotypes in their heads about what Democrats are like and what Republicans are like, and they gravitate toward the party made up of people like themselves.
Once they have formed an affiliation, people bend their philosophies and their perceptions of reality so they become more and more aligned with members of their political tribe.
Anti-democratic indeed... a kind of combination of willed blindness and sheep behavior. I think this column of Brooks' (hat tip: Catherine Johnson) is extraordinarily important and will be much talked about -- particularly since it appears on the oped page of the NYT. It is about time we started asking serious questions about our political system, which may have become outmoded without our realizing it. I know that although the two parties are supposedly BIG TENTS, I don't feel comfortable in either one -- and not just because I can't stand Tom DeLay and Nancy Pelosi. The nature of these parties disrespects critical thought.
Now, I know some of this evolved of necessity and that our two party system has achieved many pragmatic successes, but that view has become such a universal assumption, that for that reason alone we ought to examine it. Brooks promises future columns on the nature partisanship. I'll be watching and reading. (And no doubt commenting here.)
UPDATE: I knew I was stepping into a hornet's nest on this one (hey, what's a blog for, but a little disagreement among friends), but already one of the blogosphere's (not to mention radio's) heavy-hitters is taking me to task -- Hugh Hewitt. Hugh's points are well made, naturally, and I don't think this is a simple issue by any means. The major parties have made governing in America remarkably successful over generations. And yet I think Brooks is correct in raising the issue of partisanship. A lot of people, some of whom comment on here, are feeling disenfranchised by the major parties. The big tents aren't holding as well as they should--or did. Examination isn't going to hurt. We're at war and likely to be in it for some time. Finding common ground wouldn't be a bad idea... although I have to admit, when I read some of the ungracious reactions on the "leftist" websites to the death of Reagan, I wonder if there's hope.
Apropos of the "left is no longer the left," I was reminded today in a post by the definitely-not-left-Hugh Hewitt of the great mystery of the "disappeared" in modern history. To me that used to mean the "Desaparecido" or "Disappeared" of Argentina during the 1970s when fascists ruled that country (to be overthrown, at least fitfully, in 1983). This was the subject of the fine 1985 film The Official Story written by Luis Puenzo and my friend Aida Bortnik.
Of course in those days, we (I) on the left were very concerned about those Argentinian "disappeared," and justifiably so. But it seems the left has lost its interest in disppearance. It was only today that I learned via rightwing Hugh Hewitt that "five to seven million" had disappeared over two decades from Saddam's Iraq. (Of course I had known of the mass graves, but not this.) I'm not sure anymore of the statistics from Argentina, but bad as they were, they are no doubt dwarfed by these numbers from Iraq. These are Holocaust-sized numbers. If they are remotely accurate, they should about close the case for American intervention in Iraq. Not to have done it would have been immoral. Nunca mas, as they say in Argentina.
UPDATE: Thanks to commenter Bran who found this link to the World Socialist Web Site, estimating the number of Argentine "disappeared" at 30,000, the size of a small town. Saddam seems to have "disappeared" the equivalent of Chicago or Los Angeles.
I had barely finished reading Nick Cohen's article in the New Statesman this morning (via Instapundit.com and Harry's Place) when it went subscription only. The piece is about how the BBC spiked stories that put the antiwar movement in a bad light by revealing the movement's leadership as fascist neo-Stalinists and fundamentalist Islamic misogynists and homophobes:
Radio silence was imposed on the sinister and in many ways right-wing behaviour of the far left and has continued into the campaign for this month's elections.
That the BBC quashed this is, alas, not surprising; you can find lengthy quotes at the above links, if you haven't seen them already.
What interested me though was Cohen (a man of the left) accusing the far left-wing of being right-wing. I had been thinking about that a lot lately, because I keep asking myself whether I left the left or the left left me? (How's that for a Peter Piper sentence?) After all, I'm not young anymore (except in my own mind) and traditionally people move right as they grow older. ("Traded their used MG/For a new XKE/Switched to the GOP/That's the way things go," as Allan Sherman used to sing in his "Hava Nagila" knockoff "Harvey and Sheila").
But these days I gotta wonder. Who really is "progressive" anyway, those who have been backing democracy in Iraq or those opposing 'unilateral' intervention in totalitarian states? Even though the disasters are many (I wouldn't be surprised if there were more as you read this), we interventionists are looking better and better, more "progressive," if that word still means anything outside the sphere of DVD players (as in "progressive scan"). So maybe I do think that the left left me.
For my old leftist pals interested, I would recommend a reading or rereading of Mao's essay "On Contradiction." Unfortunately, it's rather heavy going (I would suspect Mao, like most politicians, had a ghost writer), but it does contain that interesting phrase "left in form but right in essence." Worth pondering. Also, I would recommend, if I haven't before, the following quotation from William Morris (not the agent, the Victorian socialist):
"Men fight and lose the battle and the thing they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes out not to be what they meant, other men have to fight for what they meant under another name."
Could it be you are on the wrong side this time?
UPDATE: If you're looking for an example of "left in form but right in essence," go no further than this article in Salon, linked by Andrew Sullivan.
Yesterday was dog blogging, but it's getting to the weekend and, hey, summer's coming, so as a public service following in the footsteps of a certain humorist and a man who brought cocktails to blogging, or was it the other way around, I thought I'd do a little booze blogging and introduce you to the wonders of Daiquiris a la mode de Simon -- a particularly potent blend useful if you're planning open heart surgery in the near future. And before I go any further, I have in the past entertained variousbloggers, journalists and other drunks with my potions (this man abstained, his loss) and I am sure they will attest to my skill, assuming they remember. [Or they won't get one again.--ed. Right!]
Okay, so first to the ingredients. This is the important part because how you mix them doesn't really matter, as long as you don't forget the rum (a lot). Speaking of rum, many are great, obviously, but for this recipe I choose Bacardi Coco, which has a certain tropical je ne sais quoi. I also use Monin's vanilla syrup (yes, it's French--get over it), frozen mixed berries (blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, etc....or, if you're feeling feisty, pineapple) and Nellie & Joe's Famous Key West Lime Juice. This latter stuff is great and worth looking for if it's not in your local store. It's almost a "secret ingredient." (Okay, rum is the real "secret ingredient"). Oh, and you'll need ice and a blender.
To start I make sure my glasses are cold (martinis are best) and if they're not, I swizzle some ice cubes in them, discarding the ice. Then I pour the rum in the blender (you guessed it--liberally--about five or six ounces), then add about six smallish ice cubes, a cup of the frozen berries, a dash or two of vanilla syrup and lime juice (depending on if it looks like a sweet or sour crowd). Then let it rip with the blender until smooth, pour and... Death to Your Enemies!
Don't forget to read Zeyad (Healing Iraq) and Omar (Iraq the Model) today for information on the situation over there not appearing in the mainstream media. Zeyad has the clearest analysis I have read of the new government. He understands the role of the tribes in a way no Western reporter could (or any that I know of), so his views on the Iraqi President are more interesting and probably more valid than what you will read here. Omar has an interesting link to more info on the oil situation and possible positive benefits. I know I'm a Dr. Pangloss, but these guys hearten me. They don't seem to have an ax to grind other than positive hopes for the future of their country. Maybe this intervention wasn't such a bad idea after all. Fortune, they say, favors the daring.
The first American writer... to his knowledge... to be profiled favorably by both the National Review andMother Jones in his lifetime. Is this the auto-da-fe of a screenwriter?
CIA Director George Tenet has resigned for 'personal reasons.' (Well, they always are in one way or another.) This is something that many people thought (myself included, though I could be persuaded otherwise with sufficient inside information) should have happened on September 12, 2001.
Even though, in this case, it is about as relevant as nominations for President of Alpha Centauri, the suggestion box is open.
UPDATE: And of course this was inevitable: Iraqi politician Ahmad Chalabi accused CIA director George Tenet on Thursday of being responsible for allegations that the former exile leader passed intelligence information to Iran.
Just for the Hell of it... and because I'm enjoying my new Nikon D70 tremendously... here's a photo of my dog Zane Greyhound on my balcony. This version is considerably dumbed-down for the Internet compared to a print I made of the original RAW file with Nikon Capture 4.1 software (this is JPG). I am a real neophyte with RAW (called NEF in Nikonese), but I was able to boost the color sufficiently to make the scene look more like Mexico than it normally does (at least on the print). Anyone tempted to buy the D70, do it. You won't regret it. End commercial.
The astoundingly late-to-the-party New York Times on one of the most important issues of our time -- the UN Oil-for-Food Scandal known hereabouts as UNSCAM -- has one of its rare articles today on the subject... And they didn't have to work that hard for it. It comes from internal UN email forwarded to them. As Instapundit puts it, Benon Sevan, the former executive director of the program, is engaging in some "finger-pointing."
Mr. Sevan did not explain in his e-mail message how the Security Council had hampered him from effectively administering the sprawling program. But diplomats and United Nations officials said it was what one called "common knowledge" that member states were ignoring the widespread complaints about kickbacks and payoffs by Saddam Hussein's government so that their companies could continue being part of the lucrative program.
Well, Mr. Sevan may be right, although one wonders how much this exonerates him. [Not much.--ed.] What it does do is underline what we already know -- that this scandal must be fully aired or it will never go away... even if the New York Times continues to treat it as some secondary issue, only meriting discussion when the information falls into their lap.
Further down in the article, it seems that others are attempting to blame (surprise, surprise) Public Whipping Boy Number One Ahmad Chalabi:
Mr. Eckhard also said Mr. Sevan told him yesterday that he had decided to write an e-mail message of gratitude after having received "hundreds" of messages of support from United Nations officials and outsiders. He wrote that there was a campaign to "denigrate the United Nations" because some groups "do not want the U.N. to return to Iraq."
United Nations officials and Iraqi experts agreed that Mr. Sevan was referring to the group headed by Ahmad Chalabi, a member of the ruling Iraqi Governing Council who led the Iraqi National Congress, a coalition of opposition groups that lobbied for the American invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Now let me get this straight. Because Chalabi is probably guilty of various shenanigans, Mr. Sevan and his cronies at the UN did nothing wrong. Grade in logic: F. Blame Canada?.... No, blame Chalabi!
UPDATE: Apropos of the myriad, conflicting Chalabi leaks, I've been thinking about Howard Veit's interesting post about Quantum Technology. If it is true, as Howard indicates, that unbreakable codes are a thing of the past, then this entire story is a monumental headscratcher from all directions. Here's just one possibility: The Iranians knew all about this technology, just as Howard did (even if they couldn't replicate it, which they probably can't). This would mean they never thought their code was sancrosanct in the first place and only used it to pass disinformation. So they already knew when Chalabi told them, if he told them. And if he did, he may have known they already knew and was merely blabbing there was someone informing about it (the "drunk"). Not even LeCarré at his most prolix is this contorted. Meanwhile, oh forget it... My head is spinning and I write mysteries.
But if you really want to do something about Iran, sign this. I did. (hat tip: M. Simon, for reminding me)
I admit that it may be in part because I am always trying to get movies made myself that I find Michael Moore a particularly despicable human being. But even if I had never come within a hundred yards of a camera, I would find repellent a multi-millionaire who pretends to be left-wing discouraging his employees from joining the union, as he did with writers working for him on his televsion show. So I wasn't unduly pleased when I heard Mr. Moore had won the Palme d'Or at Cannes this year for his new film Fahrenheit 911 (not that I was surprised).
So you will have to excuse me a tad of schadenfreude in the following report. I have not yet seen the film, but apparently one of Moore's primary accusations at Bush is that the President personally helped many of the Saudi Bin Laden family to leave this country in the days immediately after 9/11. This is a well known and disturbing story I first read about in this 2002 article by Byron York. But I had never heard that the President himself was involved, which would be a heavy charge indeed. That is what Moore's "documentary" makes and it evidently invokes as its source Presidential critic Richard Clarke. But I guess Moore didn't do his homework, or didn't want to, because it is now clear Clarke takes the blame for this action entirely himself:
Clarke's sworn testimony before the 9/11 Commission in March, describing how the FBI approved the flights for the bin Ladens and other Saudis to leave the U.S., may have strengthened that premise. But Clarke's interview with The Hill newspaper, published on May 26, contradicted that previous testimony.
The decision to approve the flights, Clarke admitted last week, had been his own. The request "didn't get any higher than me," he told The Hill .
"On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI," Clarke said of the plane flight carrying bin Laden's relatives.
"I take responsibility for it. I don't think it was a mistake, and I'd do it again," he added. The Saudis and bin Laden's relatives were flown from the U.S. out of fear for their safety following the terror attacks.
Ray Bradbury's original Fahrenheit 451, as we all know, was about book-burning. Maybe Moore's Fahrenheit 911 is actually about pants-burning, as in "Liar, Liar, pants on fire!"
(hat tip: Mark Moore, no relation, I'm assuming)
UPDATE: None of than Ray Bradbury himself has things to say about Moore. Unfortunately, Francois Truffaut could not be reached.
A Rubicon was crossed today with Iraq getting its new government, amidst explosions, bombs and whatever else (big surprise!). Mohammed at Iraq the Model is enthused. He, like me, is a "half full" guy. Zeyad doesn't talk about governmental change but links to an LATimes article about doctors being kidnapped in Iraq. He's a worrier. Good thing too. We need worriers to keep us incorrigible optimists in check.
Nevertheless, in the midst of all this, I thought back to a debate I attended what seems like decades ago, but actually was less than a year and a half, right before the war, between Christopher Hitchens and Robert Scheer at LA's Wiltern Theatre. After Hitchens had given one of his characteristically-brilliant recitations of Iraqi history that seemed completely lost on the audience (he does speak fast), Scheer walked down to the apron and said "But we know the truth--it's all about oil!"... bringing the crowd to its feet, yelling and stomping their agreement and ending civilized discussion for the evening.
I wouldn't doubt he thinks the same thing now. But those of us of more complex mind are holding our breaths today, hoping that the gamble on democracy will pay off. Sure, Robert, there's oil involved. Who could deny that with Saudi Arabia caught in a time warp that makes the Spanish Inquisition seem like a high school debating society (speaking of debates)? But, of course, it's about so much more than oil that anyone who could say it's all about that sounds more like a demagogue than a columnist for a major metropolitan daily. I think people like Hitchens (and me, on a smaller level) particularly appall the Scheers of the world and threaten them, because we have wandered off the reservation. Let me assure Scheer et al that it is no fun. I don't enjoy cold stares from old friends and I don't enjoy reading on people's websites that I am "right wing," although there is no issue other than the War on Terror that I can be seen to be that way--at least in the conventional sense. And there is nothing more conventional than the terms "left" and "right" wing anyway. In any case, I'm interested in the issues. If you're going to talk about "wings," as Samuel Goldwyn once said in another connection, "Include me out!"
"Rosie the Riveter" was one of the great images of World War II because it told those back on the homefront they had something important to contribute. I wish our government was thinking that way now, because a lot of us would like to step up. No matter how we stood on the War in Iraq, we should want to see that country achieve democracy now.
That's why Jim Hake is one of my heroes. He didn't wait for anyone to tell him what to do when he created....
MEANWHILE: As the good word about SoA spreads all over bloggerdom, one of the first bloggers, Dave Winer, dissents: "I don't think bloggerdom should be used like TV talk shows. I said I don't stand up for causes I don't understand."
Hey, Dave, in the words of Robert DeNiro, "You talkin' to me?" Well, being a blogger and in favor of alternative media (and democracy!), I'm all for organizations that put free video cameras in the hands of Iraqis. I would think you would be too. And just in case you still think I don't know what's what with this organization, here's a photo I took of its head honcho at a recent game. (Scroll down--he's shorter than the other guys)... And another meanwhile.... Go Lakers - In the Finals... Yes!
I just want to call attention to a new blogad on here, which makes me smile particularly. It is for an author I truly admire -- Mark Steyn. In fact, he's right up there on my list of best political writers anywhere. If he had written me for a free ad, I would have given it to him. (Too late, Mark!)
Okay, I'm an incurable optimist--hey, you need optimists, let me tell you...otherwise what would happen in this world? Big zero!--but I'm feeling good this Memorial Day... and it's not just the Los Angeles weather. I just read Jeff Jarvis' round up of Iraqi blogs and you know what they sound like to me--the usual mix of dumb bickering and asinine comments sprinkled with the occasional bright remark you get in any democracy. Two cheers for it, as E. M. Forster would say. Or, in the words of W. C., it's "the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried."
Okay again... that Churchill quote is overdone, but I admitted I was an optimist. And speaking of optimism and its dark brother pessimism, that seemingly-simplistic dichotomy seems more interesting... and maybe even more politically sophisticated... these days than the old conservative/liberal split we have been bowing to for-what--centuries. [Do you realize what you just said? You sound like a moron.--ed. Hey, you always said, the trick to good writing is being willing to fall on your face.] Now I will admit that we optimists have been wrong about 98 percent of the time and that, on the surface, we are nitwits.(Hey, I like Kafka too.) But I submit that we are happier in our idiocy. So now I will review for you my evaluation of the hot button issues facing our society Memorial Day 2004, domestic first.
1. Gay rights. I'm for gay marriage, but many (apparently a majority) are against it. On the other hand, a majority (or close) back civil union laws giving gays virtually all the rights of marriage except the name. Where was this all thirty years ago? Off the charts--nobody even had heard of it. Is progress being made? At the speed of light. Next question.
2. Abortion. Only the fringes seem to be yelling about it these days. Hardly anyone wants to have a child aborted but most deal with the situation without the government sticking its nose in it. The big controversy revolves around partial birth (third term) abortions. But I have never seen any statistics on how many of these awful events actually occur. Surely not many. The status quo on abortion has been going on for many years and seems to be holding.
3. Taxes and the Economy. Now here's a subject on which I admit to having the knowledge of an armadillo and the consistency of a gnat (and the stock portfolio to prove it). One day Marx seems to have it right, the next Milton Friedman. Nevertheless, it is fairly obvious that things are not so bad. Also, it is becoming increasingly clear that the man (or the woman) in the White House doesn't have that much to do with it. The engine of the US economy is too big and goes its own way. Also it's a very creative engine. The inventions of the last fifty years are staggering. (The art is another matter--that's where I'm a pessimist.)
4. The environment. Oh, doom and gloom--we're all going extinct. Well, I guess so, but wait... I just looked outside. It's a clear day in Los Angeles. Now I'm sick unto death of the "All politics is local" cliché but on the environment issue we all know my home city is the world's weathervane. When I first came here (1969), I could see downtown about two days a year and would pass out on the tennis court of premature emphysema. Now... things are looking pretty good, Dr. Pangloss (except for my tennis game, but I blame Canada for that). And from what I hear, the latest enviro disaster flick is "Utter horseshit, but damned entertaining." I certainly believe the first part.
Okay, now the dicey area, foreign affairs:
There are a lot of people out there who think Iraq should already be a combination of Copenhagen and Scarsdale. Frankly, in the long run, I imagine Baghdad is going to be more interesting place than either (although perhaps a tad less pacific). And, yes, our President contributed to this discontent by sometimes having the public relations skills of, well, John Ashcroft. (Bush should have taken a page from Phil Jackson. When the Lakers blow someone out, the first thing he does is lower expectations, not brag about it. At this point, however, Bush appears to have gotten that message. )
Nevertheless, we are in the midst of a great historical conflagration--modernity versus religious primitivism--, which is likely to go on for many years and produce much pain and suffering (though with luck nothing remotely like World War II). But if the past is any indication, civilization will prevail. We have come a long way from the caves to the Salk vaccine. The human society that made that journey should be able to continue its fascinating march into the future. On Memorial Day, I'm betting on it.
"Roger L. Simon is a
gifted writer. I think the most brilliant new writer of private
detective fiction who has emerged in some years. His vision of
Los Angeles--fresh, new, kaleidoscopic--gives up perhaps the best
recent portrait we have had of the great multi-cultured city where
the future is continually being born--halfway between a love-lyric
and an earthquake. The Big Fix, like The Big Sleep, should become
something of a landmark in its field." --Ross Macdonald
"Moses Wine is back with all his wit and
wisdom exposing crime and
the movie industry to the respect it deserves and proving that Roger
Simon is better than ever.”
-- Tony Hillerman
"A terrific read! What a pleasure
to have Moses Wine walking
down these
mean streets again."
-- Sue Grafton, author of Q is for Quarry
"As irresistible as movie popcorn. Moses Wine is the slyest, most entertaining
gumshoe anywhere."
-- Martin Cruz Smith
"Where was Moses when the lights went
out? Up to his schnoz in an anthrax bath--but as might be expected from
Roger Simon, the tawdry Tinseltown toxins
pour like
vintage Wine."
-- Tom Robbins
"Mordantly funny... Simon's satiric humor thrives on absurdity; and once Moses is
in the director's chair, trying to salvage a project that will eventually (by hook and by crook) make it to Sundance,
this sendup of Hollywood greed and bad taste wins the jury prize."
-- Marilyn Stasio, NEW YORK TIMES BOOK REVIEW
"…realistic and amusing. I read the whole thing in two sittings and enjoyed it very much. He
offers insight into the world of filmmaking that readers will find hilarious."
-- Glenn Reynolds, MSNBC.com
"The initial boos from the left—for whom Wine has been a hero since his first appearance
as the one radical detective in the 1973 The Big Fix—and tentative cheers from the right will have faded by the end of the
book, when both are laughing too hard to care. Moses hasn't changed his political stripes all that much, and the main target
of his creator's satire is one everybody enjoys ridiculing: the motion picture industry."
-- Jon L. Breen, THE WEEKLY STANDARD
"On his first day as head of security for a movie being shot in Prague, Moses
Wine (making believe he's a Variety reporter for reasons too complicated to summarize here) meets the city's Grand Rabbi, who
asks him, 'Perhaps you would like an exclusive interview with the only screenwriter in Eastern Europe who gives kabala
classes to foreigners on a riverboat cruise ship with catered kosher dinners in the style of the Vilna ghetto?' That lovely
snatch of tossed cultural salad sums up the wacky pleasures of Roger L. Simon's eighth book about Wine -- the Berkeley
radical who literally changed the face of mystery fiction in 1978's 'The Big Fix.'"
--Dick Adler, CHICAGO TRIBUNE
"'Director's Cut,' with its footloose plot and its wisecracking lead, is about
as serious as a Marx Brothers movie--which means that Moses Wine gets to do his patriotic bit after all. In the darkest
days, they also serve who make us laugh."
-- Tom Nolan, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
"A particularly relevant plot, then, filled with action and suspense and
set against arresting Czech backgrounds. Recommended."
-- Library Journal
"Simon's savvy Hollywood satire raises troubling questions about our B-grade
domestic preparedness efforts."
-- Booklist
"Director's Cut is a timely thriller, loaded with absorbing insider snippets about
the film industry, humorous jabs at governmental bureaucracy and a general disregard for icons of any sort."
-- Bruce Tierney, BookPage
"Roger L. Simon is a talented writer who can always be counted on to deliver
a chilling thriller."
-- Harriet Klausner, Allreaders.com
"Like a fine wine, Moses just keeps getting better and better. It's one heck of a surreal roller coaster
ride full of the sophisticated satire and wry wit Roger L. Simon is famous for."
-- Anne Barringer, Old Book Barn Gazette
"A quarter of a century after he first appeared in the
now-classic The Big Fix, Moses Wine remains a private investigator par excellence."
-- In Other Words, Mystery
Sunday, June 6, 2004
After Dog Blogging and Booze Blogging, this blog is going upscale with Art Blogging in honor of my son Jesse Simon whose work is now appearing in a group show (that's him at the opening Friday night) at the 
This an example of Jesse's work from the show. A dedicated surfer he uses the sport and his love of the ocean in his art, deconstructing old surf boards, refining them in a complex manner and turning them into wall sculptures. Some, like this one, reflect his roots in graffiti art.
Okay, so first to the ingredients. This is the important part because how you mix them doesn't really matter, as long as you don't forget the rum (a lot). Speaking of rum, many are great, obviously, but for this recipe I choose Bacardi Coco, which has a certain tropical je ne sais quoi. I also use Monin's vanilla syrup (yes, it's French--get over it), frozen mixed berries (blackberries, strawberries, raspberries, etc....or, if you're feeling feisty, pineapple) and Nellie & Joe's Famous Key West Lime Juice. This latter stuff is great and worth looking for if it's not in your local store. It's almost a "secret ingredient." (Okay, rum is the real "secret ingredient"). Oh, and you'll need ice and a blender.
Just for the Hell of it... and because I'm enjoying my new Nikon D70 tremendously... here's a photo of my dog Zane Greyhound on my balcony. This version is considerably dumbed-down for the Internet compared to a print I made of the original RAW file with Nikon Capture 4.1 software (this is JPG). I am a real neophyte with RAW (called NEF in Nikonese), but I was able to boost the color sufficiently to make the scene look more like Mexico than it normally does (at least on the print). Anyone tempted to buy the D70, do it. You won't regret it. End commercial.
"Rosie the Riveter" was one of the great images of World War II because it told those back on the homefront they had something important to contribute. I wish our government was thinking that way now, because a lot of us would like to step up. No matter 
