Reverend Brill says that I am wrong about the spelling of "Koran". To add insult to injury, in the comments to my earlier article on this subject, Reverend Burgess also disagreed with me. With my luck, Donald Sensing will be along soon to tell me I'm wrong, too.

Having considered the matter deeply, I can only conclude that Satan has bamboozled their synapses. Because, as has already been established for all right-thinking people, DIRAE (Dean Is Right About Everything). It's in the Bible, guys, just look it up. If you haven't found it yet, you probably haven't looked hard enough.

In defense of "Koran," I merely submit John Derbyshire's piece on the onomastic cringe. Yes, yes, he's one of those scary right-wingers, but I think he makes a good point. Don't you?

So far as authentic American conservatism is concerned: strictly speaking, there is no such thing.

Discuss.

Well, I mean, seriously, that is a male cat. Can you dispute it? I don't think you can.

I first noticed Cox & Forkum when I spotted a cartoon called "The Blogger's Cycle." I thought, "Wow. These guys nailed me! I could have written this myself, if only I were that clever and talented."



I immediately read the rest of the Cox & Forkum weblog, where I was astounded by the sharp, professional level of their work. Given the popularity of my interview with Chris Muir earlier this year, I thought it would be fun to interview these guys too.

As their web site explains, Allen Forkum generally writes the cartoons, while John Cox illustrates them. They've been collaborating together on various projects for many years, but have only recently branched out into political cartooning. Their work is currently unsyndicated, but they are self-publishing a book called Black & White World, which I'd put on my Amazon wish list if it were available through Amazon!

I must say, they were a fun interview, and probably the easiest one I've ever done. --Dean

---

Q: Where do you guys hail from? Where do you live now?

FORKUM: I'm from the Nashville area, and that's where I live now.

There's More...

Grrr. My new laptop died this morning. I was in the middle of transitioning everything to that laptop so the desktop could be Rosemary's computer. Then this morning, suddenly, the unit would no longer start. At all. I'm going to have to try to figure out how to get it going again.

The reason I'm sharing my tale of woe with you? I have several days' worth of email on that beast. There are quite a few of you who have sent me requests for help, information on setting up new Movable Type blogs (I think there are at least two of you in that camp, John Weidner and one other I think), there was at least one blogger who had an interesting proposal I hadn't fully read or digested yet (Defective Yeti) and quite a few others whose mail I had barely glanced at.

So: if you sent me an email recently and did not receive a response, please give me another day or two and, if you still get no response, please re-send, because it means Mr. Laptop isn't coming back to life and neither is your mail.

(Grrrr. Computers are evil. No one should use them.)

Here's a short summary of where we stand today. Barely four months after decapitating one of the most bloody and oppressive regimes on the planet:

We are scoring huge victories against light resistance from the dwindling remnants of the fascist Baath regime. We are taking light casualties among our all-volunteer forces--indeed, are inflicting almost ten times as many casualties as we're taking. Reports from soldiers in the area are also generally pretty positive, with no more than the usual amount of grumbling that's common to all members of the armed forces. Indeed, to read some of them, you'd have a hard time knowing they're in a war zone if they didn't tell you.

Furthermore, people from all over Iraq are deeply grateful and are, according to some reporters, mostly afraid we'll leave too soon. Beyond just the impressions of some reporters to that effect, in fact, polling shows that a majority of Iraqis firmly want us to stay for a minimum of a year longer.

Despite the pocket resistance we are encountering, the overwhelming majority of Iraq is peaceful. Only in a few small portions of the country are we experiencing any resistance at all. Peace and order are the rule of the day.

The infrastructure and day-to-day lives of ordinary Iraqis continues to improve rapidly, already meeting or exceeding pre-war levels in most of the country. Moreover, democratic reforms are moving ahead very quickly, and are doing much better than many people expected. About a hundred different newspapers are being published. Schools, hospitals, clinics, and shops are open for business.

On the whole, things are going splendidly. Pocket resistance is being mopped up, casualties are light, and Iraq is recovering rapidly. Indeed, it's doing much better than either Germany or Japan were in the first few years after World War II, in just about every area--including, by the way, in the area of establishing democratic rule and civil reform within a pluralist framework.

Funny how you don't get that impression from a lot of the news coverage, isn't it?

* Update * Oh yes, I forgot to mention, terrorism continues to decline in frequency, continuing a months-long downward trend both in the mideast and worldwide.

*Update 2* You should also read this. And, this too. All written by soldiers on active duty.

Reverend Sensing has some news and comments about the Koran that you probably should read. It's in reference to this Newsweek piece. Also worth reading, unearthed by Lexington Green in Sensing's comments, is this Atlantic Monthly piece on the Koran.

By the way: blessings upon the Atlantic Monthly people for spelling it "Koran." This goofball "Qu'ran" stuff really needs to stop. With guns and knives if need be. It's K-O-R-A-N, as John Derbyshire would say.

Dean said, "So tell me my friend: did any music worthy of Barney the Dinosaur ever come out of De-troit? Go on I dare ya: tell me all about it!"

I wondered why Dean would want to judge music by Barney standards, didn't you?

Barney was a Texan!!!

"A six-foot purple dinosaur, Barney is the star of the children's TV show Barney and Friends. Barney began in 1987 as the star of direct-sale videos created by Dallas teacher Sheryl Leach. The tapes caught the eye of the Public Broadcasting System, who put Barney and Friends on the air in 1992. "

I grew up partly in Texas, partly in the South, and partly in Chicago. Yes, that includes where Jake and Elwood grew up, and I'll tell you no lie: I've hung out in both Rock Island and Calumet City.

All told, this means I can claim Lightnin' Hopkins, Z.Z. Hill, Pinetop Perkins, Jake and Elwood Blues, Albert and B.B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Billy Gibbons, Gregg & Duane Allman, Carla & Rufus Thomas, Sam & Dave, Otis Redding, and Steve Cropper & Duck Dunn as my own. So all I'm asking is this:

Where was music that good ever made?

There's More...

Since it seems to be my day to link to Glenn Reynolds, let's play a little game:

Can you spot the sarcasm in a recent soldier's comments about the situation in Iraq?

Bonus if you can answer, correctly, whether or not the New York Times editors were able to spot said sarcasm. (Hint: there's not much evidence in favor, is there?)

(Thanks to Moe for the heads-up.)

It's nice to know that this has been verified as legitimate, eh?

In other news, Reason Magazine has a fascinating article by a Muslim group which insists that Islam is indeed quite compatible with free speech, free religious exercise and free markets. I'm not sure what I think, but I'm dying to know what some of Islam's harshest critics have to say in response. (After they have read the article, of course.)

(Via He Who Must Not Be Named.)

In case you haven't heard it already, Chris Muir returned yesterday. Seems his medical issues worked themselves out better than expected. I'm glad to hear it.

Kelley Blight is up to no good, as usual. But she's about to have her 10,000th visitor. Might that be you? Click to find out.

I also notice that she's getting involved in new Africa blog, which I think is very interesting.

You know, one of the more annoying habits in the blogosphere is so-called "fisking." It's the practice of taking a press release, opinion piece, or other article, quoting all or parts of it, and retorting with snappy rejoinders and cutting remarks.

When done well, it's devastating. Unfortunately, it's rarely done well, and is more often simply an angry rant.

But back in May, Mike Hendrix wrote a fisking of a sandwich that John Cole recently reminded me about. And you know, as fiskings go, it's a pretty good one. He deserves special points (and special sauce?) just for the concept.

(Yes, it was posted back in May. Like there's a statute of limitations on these things?)

The fear of most Iraqis is not that we won't leave soon enough. It's that we'll leave too soon. A few pundits and gloomsayers should try to keep that in mind.

Ditto the fact that what we're doing isn't much more expensive than maintaining those "no fly zones" to protect the Kurds was, and that once Iraq is self-sustaining, it'll actually have been cheaper to do this than the status quo would have been. In all three areas: dollars, lives, and suffering.

Last week, Bill Clinton came to the defense, in strong and ringing fashion, of President Bush on the whole "Bush lied" stuff that's been in the press. Xrlq has the full story in case you haven't noticed, and also tells us what Clinton was really saying. Looks about right to me.

Meanwhile, after realizing that the campaign finance "reform" package that they fought so hard to pass last year hurt them far more than Republicans, Democrats have had a change of heart. It seems that they discovered the perils of believing your own press about being "the party of the little guy" when they realized most of their campaign donations came from multimillionaires, while most Republican fundraising came in much smaller donations. As John Rosenberg reports, Democrats are now fighting hard against donations limits they themselves played the biggest part in establishing. Most amusingly, the ever-Quixotic but lovable John McCain is puzzled by their behavior. (Or is he?)

Maybe we'll one day do the smart thing, ban all corporate and union donations, lift all caps on individual donations (which are an assault on the 1st amendment anyway), and require instant disclosure on the internet of all donations and who they came from.

Now that Democrats have had Lady Reality swat them hard on the nose with a rolled-up copy of the New York Times, maybe they'll actually do the smart thing for once? Let's hope.

Who better to write a fitting remembrance of Bob Hope than an officer currently serving in the sandbox?

His tribute is short and sweet, which is perfectly appropriate for a life so long and admirable.

You'll find a compendium of Sheila "Astray" O'Malley's best work here. I especially liked her Battlefield Earth compendium and her tribute to Jean Kerr. Indeed, I wsh every mother with children still at home would read the latter.

I sincerely hope you had fun this weekend, Sheila. I had fun watching.

So this looks like this will be my last post as a guest-blogger for Dean.

After all, Sunday night is the only night I watch television during the whole week - except that at the moment, I have no television, so I have basically invited myself over to a friend's house in order to watch my absolutely ridiculous and ultimately satisfying Sunday night line-up: Sex and the City, Project Greenlight, and the new reality TV show which completely HOOKED ME IN during its premiere last week: The Restaurant.

Anyway, having revealed myself as a complete and utter MORON, I wanted to thank you all for welcoming me here so heartily, and post two other things before I leave you:

There's More...

I think it is perfectly fitting that the photograph of the innovative Cubans trying to escape (pointed to by Jerry in the previous post) would come the week of the 50th anniversary of the revolution in Cuba, the revolution which brought Castro to power. July 26th is the date, to be exact.

Brian Latell of The Washington Post has a good piece up at the moment, entitled "Revolution in Ruins". (I have room in my heart to be grateful that the word 'ruins' is not in scare quotes!)

It may be a cliche that nature abhors a vacuum, but it is a cliche because cliches are often quite true. What will happen when Castro, clearly ill, clearly on a physical decline, passes on? What or who will fill the power vacuum? Who exactly is LEFT? Castro has imprisoned everyone, the intelligentsia are either under lock and key, or they have long since fled to greener freer pastures. Who remains who has any brains at all, who is not just a nodding yes-man to Castro?

Latell writes:

There's More...

But we did give some money to Michele. Why don't you give some to Meryl?

Only 8 hours left until the Blogathon's over! (It's 1 am Eastern as I write this.)

(Going back into lurk mode.)

Some Cubans were so desperate to leave their socialist paradise that they turned their '51 Chevy flatbed into a boat. They were doing 8 MPH across the Florida Straits when they were halted by the U. S. Coast Guard, whereupon they were returned to Cuba and their vessel sunk.

Go ahead, smile at the pictures and shake your head in amazement as you read the Coast Guard quote. Those plucky Cubans! Gotta love 'em! Just remember that, even if they aren't punished for trying to leave the island, the only thing these guys have to look forward to upon their return is... more life in Cuba.

The Herald takes a light tone, focusing on the creativity of the migrants. Given the depressing reality, can you blame 'em?

Just look at this picture that I found on Powerline.

On that note, that positive beautiful note: I am going to go out and enjoy this muggy summer day.

I shall return.

Okay, so Mark Steyn is making me laugh out loud. His latest column imagines the BBC reporting on the death of Mussolini, featuring interviews with Harold Pinter, Robert Fisk, Michel Foucault (HA) and others.

The first paragraph gives you an idea of the irreverent tone of the piece:

There's More...

So a little bird (You know who you are!) told me to go check out the following post at Jeff Jarvis' blog.

In the post, a member of the Iranian diaspora takes on the anti-American stance of some of his fellow Iranians.

I read the post with mounting excitement.

Here's an excerpt:

There's More...

I swore I would post no articles all weekend, but I recently left a comment over at Tim Blair's blog noting my seething jealousy at the fact that someone has set up an Anti-Tim Blair weblog. That's right, a whole blog devoted to attacking Tim Blair.

Who does this Tim Blair think he is, being so important that people hate him enough to set up web sites just to destroy him? The nerve!

Then the amazing Emily let me know she loved me. How so? Why, by creating this execrable yet compelling Dean Esmay Sucks weblog. A most impressive piece of work, wouldn't you say?

My ego restored, I now return you to your lovely host Sheila for the rest of the weekend.

That's the headline on Yahoo News:

"Arabs Shocked by TV Images of Saddam's Sons"

The lead paragraph:

Arabs said "it was un-Islamic to exhibit corpses, however much the brothers were loathed."

(Sigh. It's always something, ain't it?)

Pardon me, but I am now going to rant.

There's More...

The New Republic is hosting an in-depth online debate about Howard Dean between Jonathan Chait and Jonathan Cohn, two senior editors at TNR. (I guess your initials have to be JC to work at The New Republic, and you also must have "Jonathan" as a first name).

They take opposing viewpoints, and post back and forth; it's been going on for two days now.

It's juicy stuff. A couple excerpts to wet the whistle:

There's More...

Sgt. Hook (one of my faves), has responded to Venomous Kate's survey: 50 Most Defining Moments in American History with his own list.

I am, frankly, baffled at the blunt inclusion of "Louisa May Alcott" on the list, at #46. Now do not get me wrong: Little Women was one of the most formative books I've ever read ... but to see her squashed in between "Martin Luther King" and "The Television" is confusing indeed.

But other than that anomaly, Hook has come up with a damn fine list. And the comments people have left so far, of things they believe he left off, or ignored, are almost as good as the post itself. I read such comments and think, in a purely selfish way, "Ah, I am in good company here. People with a sense of history, with opinions on things ... who have some understanding of where we have come from..."

Anyway, it's a fun list - part serious, part comedic, and should spark up some interesting debates. I'd bump Amelia Earhart off, in favor of Lindbergh. But hey, that's just me.

So everybody is linking to the speech Cheney made yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute. And rightly so.

And Victor Davis Hanson's latest in National Review is a perfect accompaniment.

Nothing in Cheney's speech is news, but I do not think that our leaders can reiterate enough what exactly it is we are doing, and the philosophy behind it. People obviously need reminders. How I see it is: Well, actually, I am going to quote somebody else, but unfortunately I cannot remember who exactly said it. I think it might have been Lileks. The quote was: "To Bush, every day is September 12." To Bush, there is no more September 10 world. The world that existed on September 10 is gone, dead, forever. Buh-bye. There are new rules now. It's a new landscape.

There's More...

I've been falling behind on some school work and feeling a psychic drain. I need a break for a few days.

"NO!" you are surely all shrieking. "What will I do without a steady stream of Deanish goodness to sate my addiction?" Fear not, for I have arranged for some cool water to slake your thirst.

Sheila O'Malley has agreed to be my guest blogger for the next few days. She should be along some time today to beguile and entertain you. Give her a big welcome, would ya?

I have long supported the Palestinian cause. I've also long insisted that they will not have any hope of freedom until the thug Arafat is removed, and the terrorist organizations like Hizbullah and Hamas are crushed. Because they are the people ultimately responsible for the plight of the Palestinians.

If the Palestinian militants put their arms down today, they'd have their state tomorrow.

When I read this and this, I got depressed. Because it suggested to me that there's no light at the end of this tunnel.

I don't link to Justene Adamec very often, mostly because I don't live in California and California politics are her raison d'être. But she's really been on a roll lately, with tidbits on the California recall, info on Russians and Saddam and WMDs, and more. You really should visit her some time. Especially if you're a bear-flagger.

Charlie B. recently unearthed a thread full of people who regularly excoriate others for racism, intolerance, and stereotyping. What's funny is, he caught them guilty of exactly that behavior, and at length. It was pretty funny, at least to my warped sense of humor.

Bryan at Media Review makes the obvious point that little real shoe-leather reporting happens on weblogs. Well I certainly don't dispute that. Much of the blogosphere is simply punditry, and probably always will be.

HOWEVER, since no one seems to have acknowledged my examples (which I only linked to obliquely earlier), let me highlight again items which have appeared just on this one weblog, which I submit meet all the criteria for "real journalism," in every sense, including substantial original reporting:

Please examine the following and try to tell me I'm mistaken:

I Had To Be A Part Of It: The Fall of Baghdad.

Interview with an Iraqi.

An Old Warrior Remembers.

North Korean Travelogue.

Interview with Chris Muir.

Every one of those involves original reporting with real shoe leather and real research. I didn't write most of it, but it all appeared here (except the North Korea piece), and I'm damned proud of all of it.

I also submit that the following, while being mostly pieces of historical analysis, involve substantial research and should count as original reporting. Even if they required much shoe leather by others, they required significant work and research of their own:

Genocide.

Famine, Lies and Justice.

I agree that bloggers will always be dependent on mainstram full-time journalists (and historians), and that original reporting will be a minority of what blogs contain. But blogs do contain real reporting, and more of it appears all the time.

(Hey, do you think Jeff Jarvis would like any of this stuff?)

* Update * By the way, how could anyone call what L.T. Smash does anything but journalism?

Summer blockbusters are being hit hard by word of mouth, reports the Christian Science Monitor. Not just ordinary word-of-mouth, but Internet-amplified word-of-mouth. Ang Lee's Hulk nabbed the #1 box-office spot its opening weekend. The next weekend, its take was down a whopping seventy percent, setting a new record for second-week falloff of a film that opened at the top.

Apparently, the studios are scrambling to try to figure out how to market their films in the face of this phenomenon. (They've apparently tried schmoozing Harry Knowles of Ain't It Cool News, but his site's community collectively has an extremely acute shill detector.) Here's a radical idea: how about making better movies?

via Dangerousmeta

Chris Noble notes that the US and UK are seriously considering hiring mercenaries to help relieve our overcommitted forces overseas. He has the same concerns about it that I do.

Kevin says that Sunday news magazine editors should pay Sid for the rights to reprint this: Denouement.

Kevin's right.

Earlier this week, I was talking to a friend who works for a respected newspaper. He commented that one of the stories recently appearing on this web site was too good to be published in most modern newspapers. He said he knew it the moment he saw it. You'll have to take my word that he wasn't flattering me, nor was I looking for flattery. I didn't write the thing anyway.

This is what came to mind when I read this story on weblogs and journalistic reaction to them. The whole thing reminded me, in fact, of this story about J-school written by Page Minder last year.

Which brings me to my point: without self-flattery I invite you to click here. Read all of it. It's not all all that much material, but tell me: can you pick up the Sunday edition of your local newspaper and find material that greatly exceeds all of it for quality, orginiality, or accuracy? I don't think you can.

Now contemplate that all of it was written by independent citizens working for no reason at all except that they wanted to do so.

In fact, I'll ask this even riskier question: what would you rather read? Honestly?

Which is not to say that Dean's World provides better fare than most newspapers. It doesn't. We have neither the time nor the resources to produce a newspaper's worth of material on a daily or even weekly basis. Indeed, we are highly dependent on the traditional media for material. But real journalism happens here in the blogosphere. Not just on this site, but on many others. Sooner or later, that's going to start mattering to the world abroad. Indeed, only a fool would think otherwise.

Syndicated news services are within a decade of going belly-up. At least, as we know them. Broadcast news services (ABC, CBS, NBC in North America) are already dead and don't even know it.

The news services that will matter most in the future will be supposed "dinosaurs" like the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times--not to mention upstarts like Fox News and CNN. Why? Because whatever their flaws, they're all smart enough to be offering (advertiser-sponsored) news for free on the internet right now, and creating content that matters.

They and weblogs are the future. Although weblogs will change, the basics of what they are and what they do won't change all that dramatically.

*Update* I see I should flesh out my comments here. I'll tell you why I think the wire services are dead:

Prestige organizations like the New York Times and the Washington Post do hire a lot of journalists. But more to the point: so do papers and broadcast sources all around the planet. They can now share content in real-time electronically with each other.

Why would you need newswire feeds anymore, when you've got the internet? Weblogs, with features like Technorati, will increasingly tend to drive the news buzz, while local organizations will be more and more able to rely directly on sources in other cities rather than the wire services to tell them what's going on elsewhere. I suspect the wire service concept is simply no longer adequate.

Sheila O'Malley is easily one of my favorite short essay writers. This is, in part, because we think much alike. But she also knows that restraint is part of effective phrasing. Most of all, she knows this: sincerity equals bombasity only occasionally. I'll bet she's devastating on stage.

Anyway, she says we should all read this piece by James Woolsey in The Guardian. Well I read it, and what do you know? She's right.

(Someday I'll write a piece on why I like The Guardian, even though it irritates me at times. Suffice it for now to say that, unlike certain other sources, I never question its honesty.)

The crew over at Winds of Change are featuring some very interesting information on Hong Kong today. There have been recent massive protests and government upheaval in that fabled city. Exciting, frightening, and hopeful all at once is how I feel watching it from afar.

Senator Diane Feinstein has come out in favor of vouchers. In D.C., anyway. It takes a small amount of courage on her part, obviously, but she's in a safe seat and it's becoming more apparent all the time that the ice is cracking on this issue.

Now, will Joe Lieberman find the stones to go back to supporting the idea? I'll never forget how he told the Waters wing of the party that the best way to get him to shut up on school choice was to get him elected as Vice President. I keep wondering if he'll do the same next year. So far he seems mum on the issue.

* Update * By the way, Blaster's got some good insights on this issue, too, including something I'd forgotten: special ed has always worked on vouchers in many parts of the country.

"The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the U.S. It is affiliated with the Socialist International. Fifty-four U.S. Congressmen are members of the DSA. Coincidentally (?), 34 of these "socialists" are among the most militant members of the pro-Castro lobby."

"To name just a few, on Capitol Hill we find in the pro-Castro gang Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Jesse Jackson (D-IL), Julian C. Dixon (D-CA), James A. McDermott (D-WA), Charles Rangel (D-NY), Maxine Waters (D-CA)."

"New York’s Charles Rangel’s love affair with Castro dates back to 1959, when Castro stayed at Harlem’s Hotel Theresa and Rangel sat beside him at the dinner table. Ever since he has been the useful servant and he travels to Cuba often bringing members of the U.S. Congress’ Black Caucus and TransAfrica to marvel at the socialist "paradise," that his friend, Castro - probably the biggest slave master in the history of slavery - has created in Cuba."

"Rep. Waters travels to Cuba often, apparently for guidance or orders from her socialist comrades. She recently was in Havana cutting the ribbon at the opening ceremony of a Medical Convention with Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA)."

HR179 BILL TITLE: Stating the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the systematic human rights violations in Cuba committed by the Castro regime; calling for the immediate release of all political prisoners and supporting free elections for Cuba.

Vote passed 414-0 with 10 abstaining Democrats and 1 abstaining Republican. They are:
Ballance
Conyers
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jackson (IL)
Johnson
Kilpatrick
Lee
E. B. Rush
Waters
Wynn

Paul (R)

· Cuba interferes with US-based television programs broadcast by satellite to Iran, announced the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG), a federal agency that is responsible for non-military US broadcasts. The jamming was first detected on July 6th. "The act is illegal; a serious threat to satellite communications and it needs to be stopped," said BBG President Kenneth J. Tomilson. (BBG, Washington, July 15)

· Three men were killed and a 10-year-old boy critically injured in the port of La Coloma, when they tried to seize a boat to flee the island. Authorities said the shootings occurred without the intervention of surrounding forces. (EFE, Havana, July 18)

· The US Coast Guard detained 15 Cubans that fled in a ferryboat from Cuba. Havana accused them of "hijacking the boat." Cuban-American members of Congress warned about the "possibility of execution" if they are returned. (Reuters, July 18)

· Six members of Congress (including Lincoln and Mario Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen) asked US Attorney General John Ashcroft what actions the Justice Department is conducting regarding the murder of US citizens in international airspace by Castro’s MIG-29 fighter jets in 1996. ( Press Release and Letter to Attorney General Ashcroft, July 11, 2003)

There's More...

[Sniff] They were such fun boys. So full of promise. Where's my hanky?

* Update * Kills confirmed. Iraqis celebrate in the streets, cheering and shooting off guns into the air. (The last one via Tim Blair, who notes that yet another dire prediction turns out to have been false.)

In the following essay, Don Pesci writes that Walter Duranty, The New York Times' notorious and late Moscow correspondent, should have his Pulitzer Prize rescinded.

-- Tim Machesney

FAMINE, LIES AND JUSTICE

by Don Pesci

SEVERAL YEARS AGO, I was contacted by a Ukrainian in New Britain, Connecticut who wanted to send me a film on the 1932-33 famine in that country. He asked me to view the film and let him know if I could think of any reason why it should not be shown in the United States. The film, Harvest of Despair, had been widely shown in Canada. That was my first exposure to the greatest man made disaster ever recorded, and the first time in history that famine on such a scale was used as an instrument of war and oppression.

I was stunned by Harvest of Despair. It contained footage of both the famine in 1932-33 and an earlier famine that was stopped in its tracks by Lenin, who imported food into the stricken areas. The 32-33 famine -- the Ukrainians call it the Holodomor, roughly translated as "famine-genocide," the "H" intentionally capitalized to emphasize a parallel with the Holocaust -- was caused by Joseph Stalin, who used the famine to break the resistance of Ukrainians to Soviet rule. The terror-famine, as historian Robert Conquest called it, was caused by Stalin's first Five Year Plan. This was a program designed, its Communist proponents claimed, to modernize an antiquated agricultural community, particularly in Ukraine. Between 6 and 10 million people died.

There's More...

So. It appears that Yasser Arafat's al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades kidnapped and beat the crap out of the mayor of Jennin, accusing him of being "an Israeli collaborator."

The people who are really oppressing the Palestinians are the thugs running the joint. Sure is good to know that Arafat has that Nobel Peace Prize, isn't it?

(Via James Taranto.)

Mac Swift has a rather disturbing (and fairly well documented) article on the link between brutal thug Charles Taylor of Liberia, Jesse Jackson, and Pat Robertson. Rather astonishing. He also asserts an Al Qaeda link.

What's worse, when a movie's just plain bad, or when it's almost-good and clearly could have been great? Ben Kepple has some thoughts on the matter.

My friend Ed Wagner recently helped me remember my favorite urban legend: Resurrection Mary, from my old stomping grounds on the south side of Chicago.

Here's a good writeup of the story of Resurrection Mary. There are several versions of her story, just like all urban legends. I heard more than one growing up as a good. Wonderful stuff, though, and as a bonus, that page has plenty of links to related legends.

By the way, yes, I've been by that graveyard and seen those bars.

Slate has a great piece on why we should all stop worrying so much about the Federal deficit. When you read it, you may smack your forehead and go "D'oh!" like I did. (Warning: Obligatory Bush-bash at end of article. Still worth reading, though.)

A secret provision in the U.S. Constitution says that black people lose their civil rights in the year 2005. Bush is planning to enforce it once he declares himself dictator.

Except, it may not be 2005. The year tends to change, depending on who's telling the story.

Oh, uh, just so you know my friends? That ain't so.

While I'm on this subject, though, I'll mention that Tommy Hilfiger was never on Oprah Winfrey's show, and was never asked to leave for racial comments. He was never on Larry King Live, either. He is utterly delighted that anyone of any race likes to wear his clothes.

Also, Osama bin Laden never threatened to kill Oliver North, and Al Gore never questioned him about it. There was never such a thing as Fornication Under Consent of the King, either.

Furthermore, neither Lionel Richie, nor Michael Jackson, nor Eddie Murphy, ever told a white lady to "hit the floor."

If you believed any of the above stories, do not feel stupid. I think that everyone (I am no exception) has heard and passed on stories that they thought were true but were not. The phenomenon is known as an "urban legend." Sometimes they abbreviate it as UL. While some urban legends are spooky, some are fun, or just funny. Once you get into the subject, it's endlessly fascinating.

Go on, I dare ya: click here and read a while. Then come back and tell me you have never heard or passed on one of those stories. I'll bet you can't do it.

We will have a downright fantastic essay for you all on Tuesday, in which writer Don Pesci takes a very hard look at Walter Duranty, the infamous and late Moscow correspondent for The New York Times.

We think Mr. Pesci has made quite a compelling case as to why Duranty's Pulitzer Prize should be stripped. There are plenty of reasons why that should come about, but we can list three quite quickly: famine, lies and justice.

How is it that this guy isn't as revered as Bob Dylan?

I am definitely now part of the cult.

There is something very weird about meeting and introducing webloggers. "Hey everybody, this is Erica of Swirlspice. Erica, meet Ara of E Pluribus Unum, Chris of Signifying Nothing, and Moe of Occam's Toothbrush. Oh, and this is Rose, who you may remember from Dean's World." Let's just face it: that sounds extraordinarily geeky and silly. You want to hide your face in your hands.

Once you get past all that, however, webloggers are fun people. At the party, while drinking the beer Arnold Harris sent us, I learned a few other neat things:

Kevin Brehmer loves to chat. I love chatting with him. I wish he'd come by more often.

Paul Fallon has recently taken up drinking non-alcoholic beer. I think I may have to join him in that, as I've been drinking too much lately. But he still hasn't finished the Desi Arnaz article he tells me he's writing. Damn him!

Speaking of that, while Val Prieto did not actually come to the party, he was there in spirit. He sent some CDs of some wonderful Cuban music, which we listened to all night. Nosotros bailar, mi amigo!

At the party, I also learned that, aside from my beautiful wife, Erica is just about the prettiest damned thing I ever did see. She's also smart as hell, and funny as hell. Oh and by the way, the new hair suits you Boo. Seriously.

It also turns out that Charles Hill drives cross-country every year, just for fun, so his coming to the party was no big deal. He's been in every state east of the Missippi except Maine. He also said the smartest thing anyone said all night: "If you weren't opinionated, why would anyone bother reading you?" Classic.

Jerry Kaufman really likes people, and it shows. Unfortunately, he left just before the party really got swinging. Too bad, because he's very interesting and lots of fun to talk to. (Or should that be "lots of fun with whom to talk?")

For some bizarre reason, I spent four hours completely unable to remember Chris Lawrence's name. Despite that, he was all kinds of fun to talk to. Aside from Charles, he holds the record for being the person who travelled the longest distance just to make the party. I'm glad he made the effort!

My girl Dawn is much too shy, but very cool. She also has exceptionally good taste in music, and I can't believe she bought me that CD. It's Sunday night, and I've already listened to it three times. What a great lady. I hope to hook up with her again!

My man Lysander is a little shy in a crowd it seems. He's also another one of those damned teatoalers. Yet somehow, he's fun anyway. He also likes the Allman Brothers, which automatically makes him cool in my book. He also bought me this freaking cool DVD.

Steve Duane is a funny guy. For a guy who doesn't drink, he sure knows how to party.

My good friend Ara has the ability to make comments so funny that beer goes up my nose. This is a truly evil power, and I hope the government registers and regulates it soon. He also bought me a cool book, as a part of some nefarious scheme I'm sure. I also discovered that he has good taste in women. (Hope that works out for ya, buddy, I really do.)

Finally, I learned a couple of interesting things from Moe and his buddy Glen. First, that a good merlot is kosher. Second, that he understands the Gospel better than any Jew I've ever met. Third, that hip young Orthodox Jews wear baseball caps instead of the traditional yarmulkes. Fabulous.

Overall, it was the most fun night I've had in some time. I'm glad that everyone who made it was there, and am sorry that the rest of you didn't. I hope you can all make it next time!

I publish stuff that I think will interest you. But only because it interests me first.

"Interests" does not necessarily mean "agrees with." Even I don't agree with everything published here. I just want you to be enlightened, aggravated, titillated, annoyed, or amused by whatever you find here.

I am also glad you came by. Even if I think you're wrong about everything.

Seriously.

Considering how foul-mouthed I've been recently, I'm not the one to say this, but you shouldn't click on the following unless you can tolerate a lot of salt with your langage: Michele is funny.

God, I love that girl.

I plead "drunk at the time," but I recently made the mistake of misidentifying Arnold Harris as a jarhead. Which is a hanging offense in at least five states, last I heard. As well it should be. So in loving contrition, I give you:

There's More...

So the wife tells me to go to Merchant's Fine Wine in Dearborn. As it happens, despite the name they also have the largest selection of beers in Michigan. Literally hundreds of varieties, from all over the nation and world. We often go there for party supplies.

The wife tells me there's a surprise for me. A gift from a friend. Just go to the counter and ask for me. I hate when women get all mysterious like that. So I go to the counter, and give the clerk my name. She looks me like I'm from Mars, but gets her manager. The manager comes out, gets my name, and says, "Right, be right back." He comes back with two items:

1) A case of Rolling Rock, which is a fine light American lager: crisp, not too sweet, perfect on a summer's day. A good solid American brew that's a cut above your typical Budweiser/Miller/Coors fare, and a sign of excellent taste.

2) Even more surprising, a case of my very favorite American beer, Anchor Steam. A special brainchild of appliance heir Fritz Maytag and some fine German brewers, it is a uniquely American beer, made only in San Francisco. It is rich, flavorful, and complex, and easily the rival of any high quality English Bitter or German Bock. Yet in certain ways it's completely unlike any other beer made in the world. It's also bloody expensive stuff: a case will run you thirty bucks, easy.

Who does the manager say is the donor of this bonanza of zymurgic bliss? "Some guy named Arnold Harris from Wisconsin."

Well I'll be damned. This is gonna be a fun party, and the first toast will be:

To Arnold Harris, crusty bastard, shameless heathen, and one hell of a great guy. Semper Fi, my friend!

The other day, I quoted a phrase I'd seen floating around a bunch of places online. It turned out to have been originated by John Derbyshire. I should have done my homework and checked that for an original source. I was lazy, but that was wrong of me.

Still, several self-described liberals found themselves shocked and disappointed in me for posting it. Now why is that do you suppose? The phrase was this:

Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free health care and a high degree of literacy.

I started trying to explain, to reconcile, to apologize a little, even.

Then I realized this morning: The phrase could be "liberal" or "leftist," and I can understand someone's confusion over that. That's no big deal. But the fundamental truth of the statement? Let's not kid ourselves, shall we? The phrasing is not partisan, is not "one note" or "bashing," and while it may be "disappointing," what's disappointing is not that I said it. What's offensive is that it's the truth.

Indeed, let me be very clear about this: That statement is self-evident, and it is, furthermore, undeniably true exactly as written. Why the hell would I apologize, or even try to defend it? If you find it offensive, you damn well should, because it is indeed offensive. It's offensive that it's the truth.

Nor can you mealy-mouth your way into excusing its truth by pointing out that some conservatives are also guilty of this. It's liberals who spend their time prating about human rights and helping the poor and the innocent, and yet they are appallingly guilty in too many cases of absolute hypocricy here. It's shameful and disgusting that it is true, not shameful and disgusting that I should point out the truth. The other side isn't innocent? SO FUCKING WHAT? That is not a defense.

I'm tired of being such a fucking pussy. You don't like hearing the truth? Great. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out, you goddamned hypocrite motherfuckers.

But as you leave, you ought to read New Republic piece written by some real liberals who are willing to admit to the embarassing truth about this issue.

So now stick that in your pipe and smoke it. I have a party to go to.

(Happy Birthday to me, Happy Birthday To Me....)

"...Soldiers of the 101st Airborne Division found the grave on the side of a dry riverbed in Hatra, 200 miles north of Baghdad. An assessment team was sent to the site.

"Some 25 sets of remains all women and children have been pulled from the grave, each with a bullet hole in the skull. The military said the size of the area leads them to believe the site contains between 200 and 400 bodies.

"Since the end of the Iraq war, at least 60 mass graves, some with hundreds of corpses, have been discovered. The United Nations is investigating the killing or disappearance of at least 300,000 Iraqis believed murdered during Saddam's regime."

(Complete story here. Via Henry.)

Okay, I've obviously been missing something.

For the longest time, I've wondered about people who rant about cell phones. I never get annoyed when I see someone chatting on a cell phone. I don't feel any more distracted by their conversations than I do by conversations between two strangers on the street. I don't even care about cell phone drivers, because I think that concern is horribly blown out of proportion. The "bash cell phone users" trend has always seemed like some sort of obsessive / luddite / reactionary / authoritarian hangup, and I've never related to it.

Then I read this piece by Moira and I thought, "Hmm. Maybe I've just been lucky not to see this sort of thing."

It's a pretty amusing story. Scott Chaffin's response is pretty funny too, though.

CNN reports on nanotech Dockers. This appears to be an important innovation.

(Via Dawn.)

It's pretty unbelievable where medical technology is heading. They're increasingly able to fix deafness with implants, and now curing blindness the same way is on the horizon.

And so the concept of the cyborg increasingly comes closer to reality, doesn't it?

(Via James.)

Hey. All I can say is bring it on. Bring it on!

James at Outside the Beltway recently asked a perfectly reasonable question:

The main problem I have is that I don't know what an anti-Semite is anymore. Even more than the term "racist," it has been so misused as to be virtually meaningless. Obviously, Hitler was an anti-Semite. Beyond that, what does it mean? Does it simply mean "one who hates Jews"? Or does anyone who disagrees with the Likud party and the most extreme Zionism qualify?

I'm not Jewish, so maybe someone who is can chime in, but I know how I would answer this.

Being a critic of the Israeli government is not anti-semitism. But the pattern over in that region is depressingly familiar: terrorists intentionally target Israeli women and children and old men. Israel responds by finding terrorists in Palestine and attempting to capture or kill them, and sometimes innocents are hurt in the process.

80% of Israelis support giving the Palestinians their own state. The Palestinian Authority, however, has never given up its stated goal of reclaiming ALL the land of Israel. Regularly, Israel is slandered with accusations that it conducts wholesale slaughter of innocents, of committing "genocide" against the Palestinians. These are invariably shown to be lies.

Which is not to say there are never excesses, that anything the Israelis do is beyond reproach. But to suggest that there is an equivalence between the Israeli government and the terrorist thugs who rule Palestine is, at best, morally shallow. Ditto suggesting that there is no difference between the Israeli government's anti-terrorist activity and the terrorists. Or that the Israelis are "just as bad" as the terrorists. That's close enough to anti-semitism in my book. Even if a few self-hating Jews join in on the slander.

I've been meaning to write more on this theme. You should start by reading this Slate column by Chris Suellentrop. It's a very good article, but it makes one huge mistake: the first Presidential campaign to run in a very loose, decentralized way by making extensive use of the internet isn't the Dean campaign. It was the Buchanan campaign, back in 1996.

The World Wide Web was newer back then, and the self-styled "Buchanan Brigades" did use it. But what they used even more was email. Specifically, they ran a number of listservs to disseminate information: columns by Buchanan, position papers, campaign event notifications, news, etc. Some of the lists were discussion oriented, some were strictly for announcements. A standing order issued regularly from the campaign, though, was "don't wait for orders from headquarters!" They urged spontaneous gatherings and get-togethers and promotions by anyone who felt like doing it--and anyone often did.

On the lists, there'd often be quarrelling, and information that had little or nothing to do with the campaign often got disseminated by volunteers who did not work for the campaign in any formal capacity. There was fearmongering over the UN, black helicopters, supposed plans to call a Constitutional Convention and eliminate the Bill of Rights, and more. Some of the most paranoid stuff I'd ever seen in politics appeared on those lists.

It was all so interesting, especially because, over time, it became pretty clear that Buchanan wasn't really in control of his so-called "Buchanan Brigades." He would often wind up being associated with people and positions he would normally have had little to do with. This is part of why the charge of anti-semitism got stuck to him. Although some of his own statements in that regard certainly didn't help, he had plenty of Jewish friends and supporters who tried to defend him. But what Buchanan had obviously done was to tap into the most paranoid and seethingly furious element of the American Right, and it included some of those fringe holocaust-denier lunatics.

For the record, I was not a Buchanan supporter. I just found his campaign fascinating. I also bought into at least some of the fearmongering, and I thought it was significant that so many people felt so disenfranchised and vulnerable. Somehow, I suspect that this is what some are now saying about the most paranoid elements among Dean's supporters.

I now get email on a semi-regular basis from Dean supporters telling me that Bush wants to turn America into a military dictatorship. They also often suggest that Bush plans to declare a national emergency and suspend elections next November. As the old song goes: "Paranoia strikes deep, into your life it will creep."

Dean is now taking exactly the same gamble as Buchanan, and running exactly the same risks. His spontaneously self-organizing supporters have taken a lot of their pet issues and put them onto him, as other fringers did to Buchanan. By tapping into the seethingly angry, paranoid energies of America's radical left, he's making a name for himself. But long term I'm not sure it's the name he'll want.

* Update * It does appear that my suggestion that some of Dean's supporters are tinged with anti-semitism may have been a bit premature. A look over at what some of the folks at Nazimedia are saying suggests that the Jew-haters of the Left are becoming disillusioned with Dean. So the only question is, will all the Israel-haters walk out of his campaign, or only some of them?

Amir Taheri is an interesting fellow. He's an Iranian who's been involved in various aspects of journalism for decades, and is currently a CNN commentator. His most recent column on Iraq is must-reading, and does much to dispel the gloom and doom being spread about in the West.

His column on the new Iraqi governing authority is also pretty good.

I continue to suspect that, ten years hence, not only will Iraq be a functional democracy at least as stable as Turkey, but that other Arab nations will start talking about a "brain drain" as young talented people in the region start heading to Baghdad to seek their fortunes. Let's hope so, anyway.

* Update * You should also read this. Certain people want us to believe that Iraq is coming apart at the seams. Do we have to accept that? I think not.

I have seen messages saying that the articles here on Dean's World have been "weird" or "bizarre" lately. Which had me scratching my head. Not that my feelings were hurt, I just couldn't figure out the cause of this perception. I'm not doing anything different these days. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

Then I realized: it's Dean's World, baby. You're just living in it. :-)

Dean mentioned prejudice earlier this week and it got us both talking.

I have the opposite effect on people than he does. I am 5'7, I wear a size 12, I refuse to give my weight on the grounds that I'm a woman. Anyway, Dean said that I have a Shirley Temple quality. I immediately thought that was a bogus thing to say, then he clarified it. I have a girl next door look - I am (shuddering uncontrollably) CUTE. I appear very approachable. Strangers always feel compelled to talk to me wherever I am. I just look like a nice gal.

Then I open my mouth. I say what I think no matter what. Often times people think I'm joking because I just look too nice to say the things that I say. I am as I appear on this blog. I just don't look like Bela Abzug

I am a hellcat not a pussycat. Nobody would guess that to look at me though.

Andrew has some observations about the IRA that you really should read.

I also hope you'll keep it in mind next time you're in some Irish pub here in the states, and someone passes the hat for "the cause."

Jonathan makes a good point: when I used the term "well-heeled liberal" below, I should have said "well-heeled leftist." Jackboot apologists don't deserve the designation "liberal."

But by the way, I was not using the term "liberal" disparagingly, nor was I suggesting that all liberals are jackboot apologists.

And yes, I do still consider myself a liberal.

Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly remains imprisoned by the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Amnesty International reports:

As Father Thadeus Nguyen Van Ly prepared to celebrate Mass on the morning of May 17, 2001, hundreds of police officers appeared at his church and arrested him... A long-time, outspoken advocate for religious freedom in Vietnam, Father Ly was sentenced to 15 years in prison for peacefully exercising his right to freedom of expression and religion.

To support the release of Father Thadeus, please click here.

Wherever there is a jackboot stepping on a human face, there will be a well-heeled Western liberal there to assure us that the face enjoys free health care and a high degree of literacy.

* Update * I should note that I've been seeing this phrase floating around for some time, but it was recently pointed out that the original attribution should should go to John Derbyshire. I did not mean to imply that I owned the phrase; I just somehow thought it was one of those turns of phrase that floats around. I should have done my homework better. But for the record, for those complaining about how "disappointed" you are with me for repeating this phrase: if you're a liberal, do you deny that the phrase is true? If so, don't you find it as appalling and embarassing as I do?

Someone recently asked me why I'm interested in Cuba.

The headline gives you all the answer you need.

I have been waiting all week for someone to gainsay me on this. So I'll make the statement again, and wait for someone to tell me I'm wrong:

There is no functional difference between fear of the "religious right" and anti-semitism.

None whatsoever.

Much is being made in some circles about a group calling itself "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity." Supposedly, they are a non-partisan group of retired intelligence professionals who believe that the Bush Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and inappropriately pressured the CIA to "cook the books" on the matter.

However, as James Taranto reveals, this is a sham. "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity" is a highly partisan political group, with deep and extensive ties to other left-wing activist organizations.

And so something I've said before remains true: BushLied(TM) is not an intellectual position. It's a product for sale by political partisans. It's also a statement of religious and emotional faith.

Well let me just tell Nick Krisof something: I'm not buying, and neither are most of the rest of us.

* Update * While I picked on Ara a little bit with my link to him above, he really does try to be fair. Just for the record.

He is, you know.

Diffuse rage. Fear. Resentment. Paranoia. Anger, anger, anger. Resentment. Rage.

And just a little smidge--vociferously denied--of anti-semitism. Don't believe that? Ask your average Dean supporter what he thinks of Israel.

He's the left-wing Buchanan. That's really all he is.

I stand about 5'11" tall. I weigh a bit over 250 pounds. I'm missing a front tooth. I used to reposess cars.

Despite all that, I'm the biggest pussycat you'll ever meet.

Funny, huh?

Just between you and me:

We've been talking about you, and we think you're getting paranoid.

Yesterday, I linked to an article by Reverend Brill. Mark Noonan was somewhat offeneded by the article, and suggested that for balance I should link to First Things. Well I have no problem linking to First Things--which is why I just did it.

Noonan accused Brill of "supreme arrogance," however, which I do take exception to. This is almost like the guy in the comments of an earlier article who called Brill a "Leninist." Let me just say this: We're all guilty of overheated rhetoric now and then--I am certainly not innocent of that particular sin--but let's try to get a grip, okay?

This brings me to something that's been percolating in the back of my mind. It's the one area where I've been meaning to take (moderate, non-angry) issue with Brill. He speaks, for example, of "well-funded" opponents to his theological perspective. But I've come to realize that there's no such thing as the Religious Right.

If you take any article written about the "Religious Right" and simply change all such references to "Zionist Conspiracy," you'll probably get my point. We live in a liberal democracy, which I am unbelievably happy about. If I weren't a bright, I'd certainly thank God for it. In fact, maybe I will anyway. Because it leads us to certain wondeful outcomes, which amount to this:

People think certain things. They argue about them. This is normal human behavior.

Let's just keep that in mind, okay?

Okay, seriously:

I feel guilty whenever I squash an insect. Especially spiders, which I love.

I'm not kidding.

Am I the only one?

There goes Reverend Brill, raising troublesome questions again. Man, I hate when he does that.

The New York Times reports that Alan Greenspan has a bright outlook on the nation's economy.

Good to hear, eh?

I can see clearly now, the rain is gone,
I can see all obstacles in my way
Gone are the dark clouds that had me blind

There's More...

Does anyone think that any of this will significantly change the political dialogue? Call me a cynic, but I doubt it.

Daryl Cobranchi asks a rarely-asked question. At least, rarely asked in America.

While I think that the political compass quiz is too limited in too many areas, a lot of people like it. Every time I take it I get a different answer because too many of the questions are too vague for me. However, they do have a wonderful historical quiz that will challenge your preconceptions. That one I liked quite a bit.

A political curiosity is that most Americans believe that Republicans oppose Affirmative Action. But it's virtually impossible to find a case of a Republican politician, or a Republican organization, taking a stance against it. They're more likely to favor it than oppose it, in fact.

There's More...

I notice that, on a regular basis, images simply don't display properly on this site. I double-check the path, and it's fine. My buddy Ed Wagner suggested making sure there was a slash (/) at the end of all path names, but that changes nothing. I see again this morning that half my images don't display. I have no idea why. Sometimes when I clear my browser cache and restart, the problem goes away. Sometimes it doesn't.

Anyone else got any bright ideas?

As if I needed more of an ego boost, Sage One interviewed me recently. If you just have to have more Deanish goodness, I guess you can find it there. :-)

Given our earlier discussion on modern art and its excesses, I was reminded of a fascinating art site I read about last year.

As I said earlier, I'm not an art reactionary per se. I enjoy abstract, impressionism, post-impressionism, even some of the dadaist and cubist stuff. At the same time, I think that stuff belongs in the category of "interesting genre," and am tired of the way so much of it has come to dominate the art museum set. Most of it, frankly, is self-indulgent crap. Although I often invoke Sturgeon's Law (90% of everything is crap), it does seem that an awful lot of today's art has so far gone into the self-indulgent, the abstract, and the shallow. A reappraisal, and a rediscovery, seems in order.

If nothing else, it reminds me of something an artist I once knew said: Before you go tramping off into the wilderness, have a firm base and a map to start from. Learn from the past. Have the discipline to know what the hell you're doing before you decide to be provocative and change the world.

Which is why the Art Renewal Center is, in my estimation, doing some wonderful work, and performing a wonderful service. I strongly suggest that if you like art at all, you go and spend a few hours over there. Great stuff, really. If I were wealthy, I'd leave them some money from my vast estates.

(Thanks to Andrea for helping me find this when it popped back into my brain and I couldn't remember where to find it.)

* Update 3*

Hoo-yaa! Erica, my Swirlspice girl, says she's definitely coming to the party. Now I know we're gonna have some fun!

*Update 2*

So far, Jerry Kaufman of Israel Commentary, Dawn of Altered Perception, Ara Rubyan of E Pluribus Unum, Lysander of Double Helix, Chris Lawrence of Signifying Nothing, CG Hill of Dustbury, and Moe Freedman of Occam's Toothbrush have all said they'll be at the Blog Bash on Saturday. Other blog notables will include Paul Fallon and Kevin Brehmer (frequent contributors to Dean's World), myself, my lovely wife Rosemary, and possibly some others who've given tentative responses.

Anyone else think they're coming? Speak soon, we'd like to know how many to expect!

(Note: When I posted this earlier I accidentally said "Friday" when I meant Saturday. The party is definitely on Saturday!)

At one time, I was diligently learning Linux. Two years ago, I stopped. I want to get back into it, and will need to at some point for school anyway.

I have a Gateway Solo 9300 laptop, with a 500 Mhz Pentium III and 256 megs of RAM. It has Windows 98 installed on a primary DOS partition, and about 6 gigs of unformatted, unpartitioned space left on the drive.

Can anyone advise me a good, fairly standard distribution that will be easy to set up in a dual-boot configuration? I'm looking for a decent GUI and a decent command shell. I am also looking to minimize my options--in other words, I don't need a lot of geeky power tools and, "well if you want you can do A, and B, and C, and....X, and Y, and Z, and then if you do X and J and Q, those will let you do G and H, unless you don't want H in which case you can have K, which will let you do..."

No. No, no, no. What I want to hear is: "THIS is a good solid distribution that you can download, and should install easily on your laptop, and should let you begin learning again with a minimum of effort."

Any advice?

Make a few of your friends aware that, according to Palestinian sources, there appears to have been no Jenin massacre. It further appears that the few civilians who were killed were being used as human shields by terrorists.

Of course, it's only one source. We'll see if it holds up. But it seems likely to hold up, since this is what's typical for "massacres" inflicted by Israelis upon Palestinians.

While you're contemplating that, you may want to donate some money to the Blogathon. It's a worthy cause.

The Truth Laid Bear is famous for his Blogging Ecosystem. I'm sometimes surprised by how popular it is among some bloggers, especially because it lists only 3,372 weblogs (at this writing). By comparison, the Myelin Ecosystem currently lists 64,968 weblogs. The most comprehensive of all, however, seems to be Blogstreet, which lists 146,075 weblogs at this writing. The latter two do suffer a glitch, in that some non-blogs make it into their listings, which the Bear seems to have managed to avoid. But spurious entries seem to be a fairly small percentage of the latter two's content.

On the other hand, the Bear's system seems more fun.

There's More...

Dawn has an article on racist propaganda that you should read.

If you've ever doubted that the political left and right have switched places--that the "liberals" are now the conservative reactionaries and the so-called "conservatives" are the real liberals--look no further than this utterly absurd Doonesbury comic.

Here's a clue for you, Mr. Trudeau: this is no longer 1969. Maybe when you learn to confront those of us who have decided that free markets work better than socialism, who reject racism in the name of "affirmative action," and who advocate democracy around the world in the name of peace, and maybe even voted for Bush, all because we are liberals, you'll get out of that reality tunnel you've trapped yourself in for the last quarter century.

Oh, and can you bring Michael Kinsley, Jonathan Chait, Eleanor Clift, and the reactionary old fogeys who run The American Prospect and Common Dreams along with you when you leave? Thanks man.

Yes, tomorrow's my birthday. Yesterday was Moe's.

Also my buddy Paul Fallon's celebrating his birthday these days. So are, I believe, the Twins. Thus leading to my general proposition:

All the really cool people were born in July.

I went to the Birth Order Site after reading about it on Trinity's site. I find it interesting, accurate and a little creepy. Check it out!

I am a 3rd born child:

THIRD
BORN

The second born picks on the third in the process of trying to pass on the feeling of inadequacy. Rather than feel inadequate, the third born feels vulnerable. He or she learns to think that anyone can get to him or her.

Characteristic Bad Feeling: Vulnerability
Strategies for survival: Being Strong, Attacking
Felt Loss: Protection
Sense of Justice: There is no justice, victims must be rescued
Thought Pattern: Comparison
T-shirt: "No problem, it doesn't bother me any"
Childhood Behavior: Rebellious
Emotional Expression: Sympathy, Attack
Source of Anger: Putdowns
Nature of Humor: Putdowns
Means of Relating: Rescue
Spirituality: Devotional, Strength through prayer
Relational: Pleaser, Sensitive to others' wants/needs
The Child Within: Wounded
Type of Procrastination: Puts off tasks to pursue more interesting projects
Blind spot: Cooperation
Boundaries: None for self
A walk in the woods: Only goes in the woods to help others
Careers: Sales, Police Officer, Newspaper Reporter, Inventor, Poet, Animal Trainer, Child Care
Strengths: Compassion, Practicality, Creativity
Parenting: Protective, Nurturing
Marriage: Wants to please spouse and children
As Friend: Often has only one close friend
Social Contributions: Inventions, Poetry, Inspiration
Expression of Love: Pleasing Others
Driving Style: Fearful or Fearless
Listening Style: Listens for what lies behind the words
Common Phrase: "No Problem"
Responds To: "Please"


Want to see Dean's?

There's More...

I suddenly wonder: how is it that I have gone 15 months running this blog without ever once mentioning that Cartoon Network's Samurai Jack has got to be one of the best cartoons ever made for television? And that if you aren't watching it, you're missing out on something wonderful?

(Yes, Arnold, we know you probably don't like cartoons. We like you anyway, you heathen.)

In response to my mention of Palestinians who'd rather have lives than lifelong violence, Judith mentioned an interesting writeup of Omar Karsou you should read.

Crush terrorism. Step 1? Arafat must go.

You know, I'm generally not hostile to the concept of "modern art." I'm not. I can enjoy the aesthetics of many abstract paintings, some abstract sculptures. I think it is often self-indulgent crap, but some of it's interesting. I'm not one of those "that ain't art!" bloviators. At least, not as a general reaction to these things. That stuff has its place. I do regret that classic ideas of aesthetics and form seem to be lost on a lot of young artists though.

I also find most "performance art" to be insufferably rank. And Jerome at The Tears Of Things has written an article about the artist who seems to be the living embodiment of everything wretched about the modern art world: Santiago Sierra. The guy's a real winner.

(Jerome's also done a little piece of art inspired by the recent God-talk in the blogosphere that I kind of like.)

Remember Bali? I haven't forgotten. At all.

You've gotta think, if anyone would cause your average Ozzie to wonder if that whole "no death penalty" business was such a hot idea, it would have to be this bucket of rotting dingo's kidneys, wouldn't it?

(Thanks to Jared Rendar for the note.)

I've long been a sympathizer with the Palestinian cause--much to the dismay of some of my Zionist friends.

Then again, my idea of "support the Palestinian cause" means, "find some way to help the Palestinians gain freedom, including freedom from the terrorist bug Arafat, Hamas, and the rest of the gangsters who rule Palestine and make it impossible for the Israelis to find a way to make peace."

I've long believed that most Palestinians, even if they hate the Jews, would much rather have peace, and a decent job, than continued violence--but that they are afraid to say so openly for fear of being killed.

So what are we to make of the news that a recent poll of Palestinians that suggests most do not particularly want to "return" to Israel's territory, and would happily accept some sort of compensation instead? Or the fact that the pollsters were mobbed by Palestinians trying to suppress that bit of data from being released? Well, it certainly supports my preconceptions, anyway.

Michele is a lot tougher on the Palestinians than I am, but I like her observations anyway, and Dell Addams (in her comments) has some interesting additions to the story.

Okay. Not only do we know that there is, indeed, a connection between the Iranian government and the North Korean government, especially in terms of trading weapons technology.

Now looks as if the Cuban government is also working with the Iranian government to block satellite broadcasts by Iranian-Americans into Iran.

This is far less surprising than it may seem at first. Cuba has had close and very friendly ties with North Korea for, literally, decades.

(Thanks to Kelley Blight for the heads-up!)

This is funny. You can generate your own "Goth" name. Mine is "Candlelight Chaos."

Which, as a friend of mine would say, is "rather faggy without being at all homosexual."

(Via Altered Perceptions.)

Chris Muir asked me to let everyone know that yes, he really is only on hiatus, due to a temporary medical condition. He says he'll be back, as promised, within 30 days. I'm relieved, because, unlike some people, I find his character-driven dialogue-humor very funny.

Meryl has discovered that the Zionist movement was, from the beginning, just a reaction against communists and other progressive movements. This and other highlights from a recent hatefest at Rutgers. Check it out.

I look in the dictionary and I notice something about the word "bright." It is defined as follows:

There's More...

Casey Tompkins recently wrote me to express his frustration with the almost-nonexistant coverage the protests in Iran got from the mainstream press this week. I'm with him on that. Fortunately, he did point me to this excellent StrategyPage article on Iran. So at least it didn't go completely unnoticed.

I guess if CNN and the New York Times don't cover it, it doesn't get covered does it? (I'm not being snotty, by the way. Those two sources really do seem to be responsible for most overseas reporting in the US.)

If you enjoy economics--and believe it or not, I do--you could hardly do better than to check out the new weblogger on the block, Econopundit. He's independent-minded and thought-provoking, and has neat data. Check him out.

Also, those of you linking to Kamil Zogby's Zogbyblog should note that he has a new address. For those of you not familiar with Kamil: yes, he's related to John Zogby, and yes, he's an interesting blogger.

(Thanks to Bill Hobbs for the heads-up on Econopundit.)

Andrea is probably trying to stop her fist of death from smiting me. I must admit I am fearful of her wrath, which has incinerated greater men than I. But no matter: I believe what I believe, and I'm staying out of the closet. I'm a bright, and happy to continue helping to spread the meme. I see that Tufts University Professor Daniel C. Dennett is also on board, and is noting that a lot of his colleagues, including some Nobel laureates, are too.

I am bemused by how many people so angrily and defensively say, in response to this, that "if you want to be called a bright then you must think I'm dim!" I don't think any such thing. Furthermore, I'm bemused by the fact that, the more I say that I don't think that, the more people tell me that it "must be" what the term means anyway. They're inferring it, therefore, we must be implying it.

But here's a point I'd like to make:

There's More...

It would be quite useful, don't you think?

Bill Hobbs is attempting to raise funds for three wheelchairs for some young boys who need them. Any of you think you could help him out?

Please go out of your way this weekend to check out Persian Girl's article on Iranian bloggers and their impact on the political situation over there.

I hate that Joe Katzman. He always gets the best stuff!

Remember our old "Women in Combat" thread? That went fairly well I thought.

What I find interesting is that studies like this one seem to reinforce something that the vast majority of the women in that discussion said: women should only be allowed in if they can meet all the same exact physical requirements as the men, even if that means most of them wash out.

(Thanks to Fuzzy for the link.)

Okay. What's more twisted and weird: that Stan Lee is behind a new animated superhero series called Striperella, starring Pamela Anderson? Or that a stripper is suing Stan Lee, claiming he stole her idea?

God bless America.

Reading my email has become like drinking from a firehose. I have finally reached the point of critical mass: I can no longer find the time to both read and respond to all of it. I'm not happy about it, but that's the way it is.

So, if you send me an email and you don't get a response, please know that I'm not being snobbish or ignoring you on purpose. This doesn't mean you shouldn't send tasty links my way, either. It just means you may not get a response, and for that I apologize in advance.

To what am I referring? Why, the Michigan Blog Party, of course!



Next Saturday, July 19th, we invite bloggers and blog-readers to visit the Esmay abode for a party, starting at around 6 pm and running until well into the wee hours of the morning. It will coincide roughly with my 37th birthday. It will be an outdoor/indoor affair, largely BYOB although snacks will be provided.

If you think you want to come, please leave a comment here. If you are NOT coming, there's no need to respond. We'd just like to get some idea of how many people to expect, and who needs directions.

Jim Miller's celebrating the completion of his first full year of blogging, and has a nice summary of his best work. I liked his piece on Howard Dean especially, as it had a good line: A partisan prefers that the other parties' candidate be weak and foolish; a patriot wants all parties with a chance to win to present decent candidates with sound ideas.

Yes. Excellent, Jim. Many happy returns.

I was listening today to an old favorite CD: the Duane Allman Anthology: Volume 1. It's a compilation of musical tracks cut by a young man who died almost exactly 30 years ago in a tragic motorcycle accicdent, one Howard Duane Allman. I was seven years old when he died, and yet I can honestly say that he is, without a doubt, my favorite electric guitarist. I frankly do not know why he is not universally hailed as a true musical genius.

I was listening to this compilation of his best work this afternoon, when I heard again a particular track: Please Be With Me by a group called Cowboy. They were a fairly obscure early '70s group. As I listened to this particular track, I thought to myself, "There is no more quintessentially American song, and no more heartbreakingly beautiful song, than what I am listening to right now."

Which leads me to my question for the audience: can you name a song you have heard that no one else you know has ever heard, but which in your estimation is exquisitely beautiful? Mine is Cowboy's Please Be With Me. What's yours?

This isn't exactly "news," but, are you aware that the primary advisor on police affairs to Iraq's provisional government is Bernard Kerik?

This is the guy Rudy Giuliani hired to help him clean up the streets of New York. He's also the guy who was in charge of police matters during 9/11.

I don't have anything profound to say about him, except: is this guy cool or what?

There is a tendency among linguistic conservatives to suggest that the English language is descending into incoherency and silliness. I submit that they are wrong: humans communicate, on an instinctive level, fairly well, regardless of (and even despite) the efforts of grammarians to preserve the language. Usage changes, but over time we do not tend to devolve into stupidity and incoherence.

For example, at the time of the compilation of the King James version of the Bible, and the time of Shakespeare, there was a common word that we no longer use: "verily."

"Verily" basically meant "truly" or "truthfully." A phrase you would probably read from that time would be, "Verily, verily, I say unto you." Which, translated into modern English, would be something like, "Truly, truly, I'll tell you."

So here's my observation: "Verily" has been replaced in modern English with the word "really." I submit that, in fact, there is no semantic difference between the Shakespearean "verily" and the early 21st century "really."

For example: "Are you really sure?" and "Art thou verily certain?" are the same sentence. Or consider this: "Really, this hurts a lot," and "Verily, it doth pain me greatly." Is there, functionally, any difference?

If you don't believe me, okay, but, I'd like you to give me an example of a sentence where I couldn't substitute the word "really" for the word "verily" and have it work perfectly well.

Here's another observation: Fourteen years ago, a movie called Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure was a big hit, especially among teenagers and young twenty-somethings. In it, two quite stupid young men went through some fairly ridiculous comedic adventures. They were not very bright, but were frequently given to two exclamations: "Awe-sommmme!" and "Egg-sulent!" (I.E. "awesome" and "excellent").

But here's my observation: despite whatever comedic intent behind their somewhat-silly pronunciations, and whatever snobbish notions that we might have about such a silly movie, the fact of the matter is that they used the words "awesome" and "excellent" completely correctly. Pick up any dictionary, look up those two words, and tell me: what, if anything, was wrong with their usage?

I suggest that, whatever eye-rolling we might do about such a silly movie, there's something quite wonderful about the fact that two fabulous words like "awesome" and "excellent" should make their way into the everyday parlance of modern American teenagers.

Are you sneering? If so, tell me: why I am I wrong?

Dr. Weevil says he's tired of seeing the same old contemptible lies being repeated about the U.S. and the U.K.'s efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Arguments that have been demolished rise up and must be answered again and again and again, because no canonical answers to these spurious accusations exists.

I'm sure some of you are familiar with the litany: "Only poor ghetto kids are fighting over there," "America was convinced to go to war with Iraq based on the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction," "America only goes to war against People of Color," and so on. Weevil's tired of explaining, again and again, why these claims are bogus. So am I.

A FAQ should be developed, which can be referred to by those who want to debunk these tiresome, spurious claims. I would happily contribute to such a project, but I just don't have the energy to spearhead the effort. I would, on the other hand, be happy to provide input and resources, such as mailing lists and web space, to help make it happen.

Such a project would require a small group of leaders--two or three people at most I would think--to guide contributors. To be clear, this could not be a "democratic" effort: someone would have to be in charge of determining what makes sense vs. what does not, what's merely partisan point-scoring vs. what are legitimately fair answers to spurious accusations.

Anyone interested in working on such a project? There's no money involved, just the chance to say you helped make it happen.

Okay, I lied. I have a few more minutes to spare than I thought, and I came across two things written by a soldier in the Middle East that you really should read: Stubborn Things and Weary But Determined.

Please don't just read them. Take an extra step and tell your friends about them, and spread them around however you can without feeling foolish.

We need to make sure we don't betray these guys. It's important.

I don't read him every day, but Sheila said I should make a point of reading yesterday's column on Iran. It was a good recommendation.

The always-excellent Winds of Change is hosting the latest Carnival of the Vanities this week. A bargain at half the price!

Indeed, with that to entertain you, I don't think I'll need to be blogging much more today. I have some errands to run, and then I think I'm going to get a bottle of wine and relax with my sweetheart.

I really like Texas Democrats' sense of humor.

Childish? Yes. What of it?

On August 27 of this year, the planet Mars will be closer to the Earth than it has been in more than 50,000 years. The Planetary Society will celebrate this with a public event, which will include an 83rd birthday party for Ray Bradbury. Now, isn't that just cool?

A couple of weeks ago I asked Reverend Brill of "The Right Christians," a Christian site dedicated to answering and criticizing the "Religious Right," a few questions. The upshot: when does criticism of the "Religious Right" become paranoia, even prejudice and bigotry? He has written a response that you might want to read. You might even want to leave him a comment or two, to let him know what you think.

I've been planning on writing a response to some of the points he makes, which I take (moderate) issue with. But I've been procrastinating and finally realized today that I was being rude not to at least acknowledge his response in public. It's thoughtful and worth reading, so give it a look if you have a chance.

AN OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN FROM THE WEBLOGGING COMMUNITY

We are not politicians, nor are we generals. We hold no power to dispatch diplomats to negotiate; we can send no troops to defend those who choose to risk their lives in the cause of freedom.

What power we have is in our words, and in our thoughts. It is that strength which we offer to the people of Iran today.

Across the diverse and often contentious world of weblogs, each of us has chosen to put aside our differences and come together to declare our unanimity on the following simple principles:

- That the people of Iran are allies of free men and women everywhere in the world, and deserve to live under a government of their own choosing, which respects their own personal liberties.

- That the current Iranian regime has failed to create a free and prosperous society, and attempts to mask its own failures by repression and tyranny.

We do not presume to know what is best for the people of Iran; but we are firm in our conviction that the policies of the current government stand in the way of the Iranian people's ability to make those choices for themselves.

And so we urge our own governments to turn their attention to Iran. The leaders and diplomats of the world's democracies must be clear in their opposition to the repressive actions of the current Iranian regime, but even more importantly, must be clear in their support for the aspirations of the Iranian people.

And to the people of Iran, we say: You are not alone. We see your demonstrations in the streets; we hear of your newspapers falling to censorship; and we watch with anticipation as you join the community of the Internet in greater and greater numbers. Our hopes are with you in your struggle for freedom. We cannot and will not presume to tell you the correct path to freedom; that is for you to choose. But we look forward to the day when we can welcome your nation into the community of free societies of the world, for we know with deepest certainty that such a day will come.

---------------------------------------------------------------

The above, in very slightly edited form, comes by way of John Weidner's Random Jottings weblog, and was distributed on several other weblogs just about exactly one year ago. So today, July 9th, 2003, seems a good day to remember that campaign.

Iranian Girl says that July 9th, 2003, is a ...day that Iranians will show what they really want, & will prove that they're not a kind of people who leave alone the students & the young guys who are spending they life in prisons, just because they wanted freedom for all Iranians. I really hope that they do it well & I myself will try my best to do whatever I can as a young girl, we must also encourage each other; that's very important…

If you run a web site of your own, you may want to think about posting something about this too.

Many web sites are participating. Winds of Change and Cox & Forkum have more excellent stuff you should read and links you should follow.

Godspeed to our brothers in Iran.

A Farsi version of the OPEN LETTER IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF IRAN is also available. I couldn't remember where that was, but Kathy Kinsley remembered where to find it.

Erica asks an interesting question: Is there an equivalent male term for "spinster?"

So far as I know, "confirmed bachelor" really is the only equivalent. There are several reasons that I can think of (and, believe it or not, this is probably worth reading):

There's More...

Some time ago, I wrote an article called Kicking the Old Man Around, in defense of Robert Byrd. Alas, I do not think that people will stop picking on Byrd for his 60-years-ago KKK membership until the political Left in general stops acting as if the Republicans are the source of most racism in America. Which probably won't happen any time soon, although it would be nice to see.

If I might make a suggestion to my old party (I am still a registered member), Democrats could start by ceasing to spit on the grave of a 100 year old man who ended his segregationist fight almost 40 years ago: Strom Thurmond.

Jeff Quinton has put together a lot of articles about the life and death of Thurmond, and the increasingly hideous grave-dancing over the last couple of weeks in the wake of Thurmond's demise. I suggest you start here and then perhaps read this and this.

Then I will repeat my plea: isn't it, seriously, just about time we give up on these old hatreds? With malice toward none and with charity toward all?

I won't hold my breath. But I'd like to see it. I really would.

(I'll give Jeff one tip though: public delinkings are bound to get you talked about and generally don't accomplish much, buddy. Michele's okay, she really is. You two should kiss and make up.)

So the upshot is: the Blair government blew it but didn't lie.

The Bush administration paid more attention to what the Blair government told them than what some of their underlings said.

Oops. Not that we didn't have ample reason to suspect that's all it was all along. But now it's out, and we can move on, right? Well, sane people can anyway since, of the over a dozen reasons given for the war which were debated for over a year in this country, it turns out that one (fairly small) part of one of the many reasons we were given was based on a flub.

But Democrats, of course, want a "full investigation."

Having sat through the idiocy of the Iran/Contra witch hunts, the agonizing Whitewater/Lewinsky debacle, and having seen the insanity in response to the Warren Commission's investigations, I have had just about enough of these neverending "investigations" which never end and never, ever convince the partisans of anything--except that every mistake or gap in the record is proof of the need for still more investigation. Especially when there're points to score in an upcoming election.

No thanks, kids. Let's hope the Bushies have the sack to call the Dems the witch-hunters that they are, and to otherwise ignore them.

It is an interesting quirk of human psychology that most people don't realize that we are still at war in Afghanistan. Like most mopping-up operations, Afghanistan has taken quite some time, and we still see conflicts erupting in parts of the country where remaining Taliban have holed up and from which they occasionally launch attacks. Occasionally we hear about American servicemen being killed there, although the number tends to go down over time, with occasional spikes here and there. It gives some the impression that Afghanistan is still a mess.

But, in fact, if you follow the situation in Afghanistan, you know that for most people, life is getting better all the time, as stability, peace, and freedom are gradually brought to more and more of a nation that hasn't had any of those things in almost four decades.

It would be wise to remember that most news emphasizes the negative over the positive.

I read over at Joanne Jacobs' place that the head of the National Education Association is, publicly, saying that maybe the NEA's image as a wholly-owned, lock-step subsidiary of the Democratic National Committee hasn't been, entirely, unjustified. They're even thinking that, maybe, it would be a good idea to stop treating Republicans like Satanists. Maybe even--dare we think it?--endorse one for election?

Well. To think that I've lived to see pigs fly.

What's next? Support for the notion that maybe, just maybe, teachers should be judged by something beyond how many university-issued letters they can tack on the end of their names?

Oh, mummy, is such a miracle really possible?

Don't bet on it, kid.

Stop the presses! The Red-Headed Sheila has been interviewed by Sage One. Now that I know she's lived in Chicago, I realize why I like her so much.

Well, this isn't entirely surprising. Dean's World has been rated:


What rating is your journal?
brought to you by Quizilla


It's not surprising, although I thought the questions weren't very descriptive of how we really do things around here.

My heart bleeds: Michael Savage has been fired.

Here's a clue for you: if you want to think homosexuality is sinful, that's entirely okay: people think lots of things I do are sinful, and I'm just fine with that. If you want to think it's icky, that's your own business, too.

But if you think it's okay to be viciously hateful and demeaning to people just because you don't like or approve of what they do in their private lives? Well, it's your right as an American, and God Bless her for it. But I think you're a Bozo. You certainly won't find me in your audience, and you'll get no sympathy from me when your bosses decide you're a liability to the bottom line. Which, I am incredibly pleased to say, you were.

Buh-bye, now.

In other cheerful news, a certain powerful cultural and political institution is starting to catch the hint that condemning people for their private behavior is a political liability. And maybe certain gay Americans are starting to figure out that your sexual preferences don't define your views of things like gun control, taxes, abortion, or foreign policy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if you want your community to have truly meaningful representation in this country, you had better make sure you have members with a voice in both of its major political parties. Besides, do people like this really deserve to go unheard, or to be treated like "traitors," forever?

By the way: yay Alan Simpson!

(Hat tip: Kelley Blight and John Kusch.)

I hate Dorothy Rabinowitz.

Not that I know anything about her. I've never read anything by her until yesterday. I have a friend who says she's Satan, but won't say why. All I know is, she calls Ann Coulter the "Maureen Dowd of the Right". For this, she must be punished. For you see, that comparison popped into my head about week ago, and I'd been planning on using it at an opportune moment.

Alas, my moment in the sun is stolen. Stolen! Curse you Rabinowitz! Is this some new Jewish trickery?!? Snatching ideas from hapless white men as they sleep?!? This is an outrage, do you hear?!?

The article is merciless to Coulter, by the way, and Coulter deserves every bit of it and more. Ye Gods, what I wouldn't do to be able to turn that woman over my knee and spank her silly for about an hour.

On the other hand, Dodd Harris thinks the Dowd-Coulter comparison inappropriate. I can see his point. Coulter is, like Dowd, a nasty shallow shrew. That part of the comparison is true enough. But unlike Coulter, Dowd has a charming literary style married, in some ingenious Frankenstein manner, to the brain of a blue-footed booby. Coulter, on the other hand, has a mind as sharp as a tack, even if its honesty-circuits are wired up in Clintonian fashion. Meanwhile, her literary ability would probably not even rival those of Kilgore Trout. It might be fun to spank her silly, but 2/3rds of the fun would be just in making her shut her yap up.

Given all that to be true, Mr. Dodd's suggestion that the more appropriate comparison would be to say that Ann Coulter is the Michael Moore of the Right. Sadly, this must be true, since both are talented, both are intelligent, and both are vile. I know which one I'd rather see in a bikini, though.

At least one of them's good for something.

(Why, yes, Dean can rant. When he wants to. You didn't know?)

Well, it's the cartoon of the year for me, anyway. Yep, yep, yep!

One of these days I'll set that damned tip jar up. I'm just too lazy to figure out how to do it.

Fritz the Organic Clone has a script snippet of just about the funniest Twilight Zone episode never made.

Or wasn't it? Hmmmm.....

I'm not usually a big William Safire fan, but this article where he invokes to the ghost of Richard Nixon to explain Bush's political strategy struck me as completely on the target and quite insightful.

The whole thing's worth reading, but I particularly liked this part:

Q: What's your media advice to Bush?

RN: Continue with no formal press conferences; he's killed that tradition and you guys have given up nagging. Come the late fall, he should make a big vision speech at some dramatic occasion like Saddam's funeral, or Bin Laden's, or a Middle East breakthrough, or some love fest with Blair and Chirac and Schröder and the new Iraqi leader.

After Safire's conversation, I dialed up Nixon myself and muffled my voice to sound like Safire, to see if he'd give me one more bit of advice. Do you know what he said?

Oh, yeah, I forgot to add this: Democrats will really hate you if you stay out of the presidential debates. But stay out, they're ridiculous theater. Besides, they already hate your guts. The way those debates are framed nowadays tells you nothing useful about anything. Make your arguments directly through ads and the Get Out The Vote effort. Besides, even though you were better in the debates than your critics expected--pretty neat how you keep doing that--they aren't your forte. Stay the hell out of 'em, and hope it makes you a trendsetter.

Mighty smart boy, that Tricky Dick.

(Thanks to him again.)

Now this is the kind of dame I like.

What she said.

Not long ago, someone in our comments section scoffed at the notion that people's rights could be violated simply for their opinions.

However, I notice that the fine folks at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has given us yet another case of exactly that happening. A flier for a speech given by a black man named Mason Weaver, author of It's OK to Leave the Plantation. The posting of a flier for a speech to be given by this man was deemed "hate speech" by a group of students, and the kid who posted the flier faces possible expulsion.

This is, of course, nothing new for American campuses. It's been going on a long time: just ask Eden Jacobowitz. It's why I'm such a big fan of groups like FIRE. Unless FIRE's accounting is just a big fat pack of lies (and I did a lot of news searching to find out if that might be the case, and came up dry), this university's action is simply despicable.

It also leads me to a point I've tried to make many times: people scoff at the notion that certain groups ask for "special rights." But I assert that some groups already have special rights: the right to intimidate, destroy academic or professional careers, for the sole reason that they disagree with someone, and have the power to scream "racism!" without being challenged.

It ain't right. At all.

I admit to having some small discomfort: if California Polytechnic State University were a private school, I'd simply think they were being jackasses and criticize them for deplorable conduct for an educational institution. But they're a state university and, that being the case, legal action seems entirely justifiable.

"Jackassity." A wonderful word you probably won't find in most dictionaries. If you want to see a sterling example of jackassity in action, however, simply check out this appallingly smug, self-righteous bit of jackassity that Dodd spotted in... well, do I even have to tell you which newspaper?

Easily the most interesting new weblog I've seen in quite some time is this Autopsy Report weblog run by an intern at a Medical Examiner's office.

It is, of course, not for the squeamish or faint of heart.

(Thanks to Gary Utter for sending this to me last week.)

The first thing I wondered when I saw this Saudi Flash animation was whether or not it was faked. Not that I know it's faked, and it certainly looks legit. Still, if we look at it and are disturbed by it, questions of its validity would also be in order.

For example, we are shown pictures of huge crowds in a lighted night time gathering. But were the words being chanted really being heard by that crowd? Or was that just a still photo of a Universal Peace & Love Festival, with the chanting put over it by someone who wasn't even there? Do we know if the words match up with their "Translation," or is this a recording of some guy singing at his mother's funeral with fake "translations" underneath?

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I'm trying to make a point.

I grant that it's not much different from other things we've seen from that part of the world. I am not saying it's faked. I am saying that some questioning is in order. I'll grant, however, that things like this certainly do go far in explaining why so many Americans are frightened of Islam, and distrustful of the "Islam is a religion of peace" claim.

Although I believe that it has been such a religion many times in history, it's pretty clear that it's got a whackjob element that truly frightens a lot of people--especially given its apparent size and willingness to encourage its followers to die to implement its goals. That's really one thing we're constantly fearful of: exactly how big is the whackjob element?

We have had a lot of discussions recently about homosexuality. It got me thinking and talking with my gal pals.

Here are some questions from my thoughts on the subject.

Why is it that mothers that are tolerant of homosexuality cease being so with reagards to their young children? (Example: Ruth has gay friends but she will not allow her child to watch Will & Grace)

Why is the idea of two women a "turn on" to some heterosexuals while the idea of two men is just plain "icky"?

If people can be born with a predisposition toward gayness...would it not follow that people can be born with a presdisposition toward finding gayness abhorrent?

If you can't help finding the idea of homosexuality icky (you are born that way - it's not choice) wouldn't forcing you to accept it in society be an attack on your civil rights?

If we find a "gay gene", will the government get back into the abortion debate to protect the civil rights of unborn gay children at the expense of a woman's right to choose?

Will religious zealots start redefining when life begins to weed out the "defect"? Or would they be christian about it and decide that if God made them that way then it's okay?

Help me out here.

I have seen a few references in comedies lately, where people want to tease the audience by putting scary looks on their faces and chanting in unison, "One of us! One of us! You're one of us!" I'm sure this must be a reference to a horror movie or something, but either I've never seen it or I'm drawing a blank.

Anyone know what I'm referring to?

Dan over at Reason of Voice is annoyed with Karl Rove and Howard Dean, for closely related reasons. Essentially, he thinks Dean is a disaster candidate who'd guarantee a horrendous loss for Democrats next year if he wins the nomination. He also seems convinced that this is horrible because Bush's act of dropping the top income tax rate from 39.6% to 34% and a 5% reduction in the Capital Gains tax threatens the very survival of the nation's social programs.

Rand Simberg also has some thoughts on Dean which run in a similarly negative vein about his electability.

I'll go on record: He is not the kind Democrat I could vote for--and yes, there are Democrats I could vote for. But so much of the commentary (Dan and Rand's are just examples) I've seen share the assumption that Dean, if nominated, could not possibly hope to win. Myself, I'd call him a longshot, but you just never know with elections: upsets and surprises happen. Any candidate can be beaten at any time.

For example:

There's More...

Bryan over at Arguing With Signposts raises some interesting concerns that flow from some things we've been discussing around here lately.

These are two subjects which I'm about ready to drop for now. David Strain's right, these things can get people emotionally overwrought, and when people start to repeat themselves, it's a sign that it's time to move on for now. Still, Bryan's message is worth a read, and you might want to let him know your thoughts.

James Taranto made a very good point earlier this week:

Did we not say, back in March 2002, that the road to Middle East peace goes through Baghdad? At least one Palestinian official now agrees with us. The New York Times reports on the current "road map" and cease-fire between Israel and various terrorist groups:

The American defeat of Saddam Hussein played a central role, as Hamas sponsors in Syria and Iran came under new American pressure and Arab governments, including Saudi Arabia's, moved to calm the region. "After Sept. 11, the Palestinian resistance lost its international support," said Samir al-Mashharawi, a top official here of Mr. Abbas's mainstream Fatah faction. "After the Iraq war, the Palestinian resistance lost its Arab support."

There's ample reason to be skeptical of the road map's prospects for success, especially in the short term. But no one can deny that removing from power the most intransigent Arab dictator enhanced the prospects of eventually resolving the Israel-Arab dispute.

Yes, just as it has led to a decline in terrorism worldwide.

There's More...

The hot item on blogs this week is a trick where you go to Google, type in "Weapons Mass Destruction," and hit "I'm Feeling Lucky." It's pretty amusing, but all it really does is bring you to this page. That page first made the rounds on many weblogs I read, literally months ago. All that's changed now is that the page has gotten enough links that Google brings it up as the first item on a Google search. Since all the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button does is automatically take you to the first item of any search, it takes you to that page. Note that it's the third item or so if you search on "Destruction Weapons Mass."

The page is funny. I just find it equally amusing how many people are utterly enchanted by the trick. ;-)

Summary of the Last Seven Days

* At a Madrid seminar, former Czech President Vaclav Havel urged the European Union to establish a fund in support of political reform in Cuba. Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said, "Fidel Castro's regime has run its course. The Cuban Suarez (a reference to Franco's minister that led the Spanish transition) is already in Cuba ... In a few years, Cuba will be a democratic country." (El País, Madrid, July 2)

* A Pax Christi representative, attending the Madrid meeting, suggested a "selective boycott" against "Cuba's government elite" denying them the right to travel to European Union countries. (Libertad Digital, July 2)

There's More...

Have you ever heard the term "Polyamory?"

Well, you'll find lots of interesting reading if you do a Google search on the term. I especially recommend the alt.polyamory FAQ as fascinating reading.

I'd also really like someone to tell me why these folks aren't going to develop into a political constituency at some point in the next few years.

Ara Rubyan recently wrote that I find the idea of gay marriage discomfiting. To which I respond: Why are you so prejudiced toward me, my old friend? Is your whole intellectual world about 'people who want to change the world vs. the neanderthals who don't'?"

* Update * -- I seem to have overreacted to Ara's message. I want to also make it clear that the other comments I left below are not directed at him, but at everyone involved in this difficult discussion.

I'm quite favorable toward the idea of giving gays the benefits of marriage, either through allowing them to marry or by giving them an alternate solution such as "civil unions" that effectively give them the same benefits. Indeed, I was in favor of this long before it was a political hot-button issue. I've had gay friends since I was a teenager, and defended them from people who thought they were loathseome, long before it was politically fashionable. I've always said exactly the same thing: their life, their choice, and they don't deserve to be abused or shat upon because of it.

What I do wish is that those who advocate gay marriage or civil unions or whatever would be honest enough to admit that what they're asking for is unprecedented in all of human history. They're asking for society to do a wholesale re-evalation of an ages-old institution. Given that the gay rights movement is only about 30 years old, I'm appalled that certain people act as if gays are horribly repressed simply because some people are confused and uncertain.

As Charlie B., a gay political activist, recently put it so eloquently:

Not only is it an historically unprecedented idea that two individuals of the same sex should form a partnership that has the same legal and social status as marriage....but also that there are large numbers of people who are in a position to do so, and indeed have already performed all the necessary pre-requisities to doing so. This all rests on an equally historically unprecedented state of affairs, that gay people in the US and Western Europe now to a very large extent understand their homosexuality as something that is a morally neutral and personally positive human variation (not a sin, crime, sickness, weakness, perversion, disgrace or whatever); and, in view of this, increasing numbers of them affirm their homosexuality and live openly as homosexuals. This has come about as a result of demographic, social, political, cultural and ideological changes that are irreversible. We are in uncharted waters, and new socio-legal arrangements are in order. Which is a reason, in and of itself, not to look to or force ancient religious institutions to initiate reformation...it is, however, reason....to look to and expect the civil order to be progressively reshaped to reflect those changes, and make possible non-conflictual personal and contractual general relations between its members.

To put it more bluntly: Can we please stop treating this as a "forces of darkness vs. the forces of light" matter? Can we stop treating people who have questions, concerns, and fears about this as a bunch of Archie Bunker neanderthals who secretly hate faggots?

There are issues here that need to be dealt with honestly. Given that gays have only become an identifiable political constituency within the last couple of decades, can we at least try get over this, "if you question me you must hate me and secretly want to kill me" dialectic? It gets old, it really does.

I wanted to write a tribute to the late Katherine Hepburn this week. I loved that woman. I really did. So far as Hollywood women go, she was someone I always--always--had a crush on. From my earliest memories of the movies, it was always so.

Was there ever a more beautiful, elegant, intelligent, ballsy lady to walk across the silver screen? The question is hyperbolic, for the answer is self-evident: no, there was not.

I couldn't think of an appropriate way to pay her tribute, though. I did not want to write something about her that wasn't special, but for whatever reason I couldn't think what to say. Then, like magic, I discovered that Doggeral Pundit said it for me. Atop that I can add nothing, except this:

Goodbye Kate. This world will not see your like again.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America

WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

There's More...

I seem to have offended one of my British readers with my comments below about the foolishness of His Majesty's Government in the late 1700s. I do apologize, and to show that we're not at all mad anymore, have a look at this wonderful letter home that Shell posted.

Now it's time to go out and have some barbecue and beer!

Had George III and the British Parliament not been such short-sighted fools, Philadelphia would now be the center of the largest and most powerful Empire in world history.

For those of you who would say that America is an Empire now? Please show me the Empire whose Emperor submits himself to popular election every four years, and is limited to 8 years in power at most. Whose most controversial decisions have to be ratified by a majority of 535 elected legislators--legislators who quite frequently tell him "no," and can overrule him any time they think he's gone too far.

Please show me the Empire where critics of the government, no matter how angry and vitriolic their rhetoric, are allowed simply to continue their insults and provocations because everyone recognizes the fundamental right to express contrary opionions.

Please show me the Empire which, for the price of a week's wages (a few hundred dollars), a few tests which the average 15-year-old could pass, and a couple of years of minor bureucratic hassles, would make you a full-fledged citizen with all the rights and priviledges of any native-born person.

Please show me the Empire which, when victorious in war against another land, makes no effort to force its language or its religion upon its vanquished foes.

Please show me the Empire which goes about the messy and difficult and costly business of establishing democratic forms of government in lands it vanquishes in war. The Empire which demands no taxes, no tribute from its vanquished enemies. Show me the Empire which, when politely asked, usually simply leaves, so long as she is sure her citizens will not be imperiled if she does.

Irving Berlin, an immigrant Jew from Russia, once penned some interesting words. They were written in 1938, as the clouds of a war started by Emperors named Hirohito and Hitler loomed on the horizon. Most of America was afraid of the future in those days. 65 years later, Hirohito's Empire (Japan) is a peacefully democratic and self-determining state. The Japanese people continue to ask America to help defend them from the Chinese Empire, and in response what does America do? She defends Japan from the Chinese, asking no taxes or tribute, and allowing the Japanese to compete with her economically in return. In the meantime, Hitler's Empire (Germany) is a peacefully democratic and self-determining state who America continues to defend from foreign enemies, even while Germany's people compete with us economically and, quite frequently, insult us.

Indeed, the Germans do frequently insult us these days, and what is our response? We call them names and consider leaving their country. That's it. "Screw you guys, we're going home" is the sum total of the American Empire's wrath against those who insult her. Yet, perversely, the very fact that America considers leaving lands where people insult her is considered "arrogant" and "imperialist" by her harshest critics.

This is an Empire? Yes, all right, we're an Empire. One that demands no taxes and no tribute, forces no language or religion on anyone, and which, when she has military forces in another land, usually responds to vicious insults by simply leaving. An Empire which defends freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and democratic election of rulers. Yes, that's quite some Empire, isn't it?

Oh, to get back to the words penned by that great American, Irving Berlin? In 1938, with the clouds of a truly horrible war on the horizon, he wrote the following. I hope you know them, and, if you are an American, I hope you can sing them:

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us swear allegiance to a land that's free,
Let us all be grateful for a land so fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer:

God bless America, land that I love
Stand beside her and guide her
Through the night with the light from above
From the mountains to the prairies,
To the ocean white with foam
God bless America, My home sweet home!

For years, certain feminist organizations have been upset to note that support for abortion-on-demand as a no-questions-asked absolute civil right is not particularly prevalent among women generally. Worse, the younger women are, the less likely they are to view it that way. This particularly irks feminists who believed that, somehow, all those nasty reactionary pro-life women (who typically make up the majority of the crowds at pro-life rallies, by the way) would die off while the young hip women, freed from the bondage of patriarchal oppression, would see the "real truth." Unfortunately, it ain't happening: the younger a woman is, the more likely she is to consider herself pro-life, and bumper-sticker catch-phrases like "a woman's right to choose" and "women's health issues" aren't working the same magic they used to, either in opinion polls or in the voting booth.

A new survey by a (pro-choice) advocacy group now shows that the trend has finally reached the point where a small majority of women now consider themselves pro-life. The center says they aren't exactly happy about the results but they're honest enough to be willing to publish them anyway.

I'd like to see more of the survey data on that, because I'll bet it also shows another well-hidden secret: most polls show that the most reliably pro-choice group in America is men. Particularly men aged 18 to 35. Which also blows away the rabidly hateful and hurtful rhetoric of certain people, who use the tired, cliched, "men are trying to control women's bodies!" rhetoric at the drop of a hat. No, my friends, young men are quite the most reliably pro-choice crowd in America.

You libertarians might want to keep all that in mind when arguing about this in the future: the old platitudes just don't describe the various sides of this debate honestly. Also, since there are plenty of atheist and non-religious pro-lifers, I would really like to see my fellow pro-choicers become classy enough to stop posturing about "separation of church and state" and such. Yes, many religious people (mostly women--if you don't believe it, just go to any pro-life rally) are involved in the pro-life movement, just as many religious people were involved in the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s. Which was every bit as legitimate then as it is now. That doesn't make it about "imposing religion on others," any more than religious people being involved in AIDS treatment advocacy are "imposing their religion on others."

By the way, for anyone who cares, I really am pro-choice. Just like most men. However, I think this article goes a long way toward explaining why most young people don't see the abortion issue in black and white terms, and likely never will. The radical pro-choice crowd is shrinking, not growing, and it's certainly not because evil fundamentalist religious types are taking over the country, or because men are trying to put women "back in the kitchen"--although some anti-Christian and misandrist bigots would like you to believe that.

The FBI says that Al Qaeda has acquired a number of blank Saudi passports. Oh, thank you so much, our good friends.

Although, in fairness, there's no proof the Sauds gave them to Al Qaeda on purpose. Al Qaeda also is known to have fraudulent Pakistani and Columbian passports. Still, why is it than whenever I read or hear something about Al Qaeda, it smells slightly of the House of Saud?

A Prayer of Thanksgiving

The Lord be with you.

And also with you.

Lift up your hearts.

We lift them to the Lord.

Let us us give thanks to the Lord our God.

It is right to give him thanks and praise.

And so we join the saints and angels in proclaiming your glory, as we sing:

Holy, holy, holy Lord, God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory!
Hosanna in the highest!
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest!

A true friend recently sent me a great gift: a copy of the Book of Common Prayer.

It's been said that this one little volume is the envy of non-Anglican Christians the world over. Just reading it, one can see why. It's a genuine treasure of the English language.

(The other book's way cool too. Thanks Paul.)

In our recent Heterophobia thread, I was mildly amused to watch John Kusch and Charlie B. (two gay atheists) tangle swords with each other, while Erica (a lesbian agnostic) chimes in and holds her own. Anyone who thinks "diversity" is a great thing should be watching that particular thread.

Meanwhile, I said a few things in the comments that I'm sufficiently proud of that I thought I'd repeat them here:

There's More...

As my friend Ara so thoughtfully put it recently, the ultimate truth is simply Dean's Law: "DIRAE" (Dean Is Right About Everything). I sincerely hope the rest of you spread this important meme, for the future of humanity hangs in the balance.

However, I think you should all know that Some Poor Schmuck has established the logical corollary to Dean's Law.

I sincerely hope the rest of you make note of this important modification to the Paradigm of Perfection (DIRAE). Yea, verily, it is worth pondering, at great length and with appropriate supplicatons.

Anyone interested in A Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy?

Saturday, July 19th, we invite bloggers and blog-readers to visit the Esmay abode for a party. It will coincide roughly with Dean's 37th birthday. It will be an outdoor/indoor affair, largely BYOB although snacks will be provided.

I don't know what all of you consider snacks to mean, but to a Polish girl, it means MEAT! If you get to the party early enough it means a lot of meat. I have a large barbeque and I plan to cook up a boatload of meat.

Brats, burgers, dogs, chops, steaks and whatever else I find on sale.

Just so you all know, in advance, I cook my RED MEAT MEDIUM or less. If you want to eat a hockey puck - I'll try to accomodate but ruining good meat goes against my nature.

If you arrive fashionable late - we will have chips and stuff. Polish women like to cook and cook in huge quantities. My Mom will be here with her hand in the cooking and if you are all good I may even make a big pot of "authentic" and the best you've ever had "golumki" Polish style stuffed cabbage. Not that junk they sell in stores. Anyone that has ever tried it, the ones that said they knew they wouldn't like ... LOVED IT!

REMEMBER:

Carivores
Come Early To EAT MEAT!!!

Vegetarians
Come later on and we'll have chips and we'll probably be three sheets to the wind!


Hope to see you all there!!!

If you need directions, drop a note to "dean" here at deanesmay.com. Shoot us a note and we'll drop you our phone number. We'd love to have you.

The latest Carnival of the Vanities is being hosted at Amish Tech Support this week. Hours of reading pleasure at your fingertips.

Next year, the pixel will turn fifty years old. "Pixel" is a term meaning "picture element," basically a fancy word for "dot." The pixel is connected directly by a piece of memory inside a computer. An array of memory represents a grid of dots, making it possible to display images on a computer screen. It's a simple idea, but given enough resolution, you can use it to represent any image you can see.

In 1954, at Princeton University's Institute for Advanced Studies, a small matrix of glowing vacuum tubes was used to spell out letters in the first-ever instance of computer memory being mapped directly to dots in a display. Later came early personal computers with "high-resolution" (hah!) 300 x 200 screens. Memory and processing resources were at such a premium in these machines that they had a separate "text mode" that used dedicated hardware to generate text, a vestigal feature that still endures in Intel-based computers. In 1984 -- the thirtieth year of the pixel -- came the Macintosh, the first personal computer that didn't have a text mode but rather treated on-screen text as just another graphic.

Twenty years after that, pixels are everywhere. Even our entertainment is broken down into pixels, compressed, and disseminated digitally via satellite, cable, DVD, and the Internet. This simple idea has touched all of our lives in unimaginable ways. All glory to the pixel!

(Found at Boing Boing)

In the following essay, Scott Harris examines the differing ways America and much of the world view the concept of honor, and the misunderstandings that result from those different world-views.

-- Tim Machesney

AN AMERICAN SENSE OF HONOR

by Scott Harris

A FUNDAMENTAL REASON America is misunderstood by other societies, regardless of race or region, is that many throughout the world view America as dishonorable. This is due to the fact that many non-Americans relate to one another based on the historical concept of honor, or "face." To those who live according to this ideal, an insult is a threat and honor demands a defense.

There's More...

Oh boy. The Blair government is being criticized by gay rights advocates as "heterophobic" for its proposed "Civil Union" legislation. Apparently, for some, compromise is not acceptable--it's the whole ball of wax or it's nothing at all.

Bill Kristol recently suggested that within a few years, in America, it's quite possible that the legal idea of "marriage" will become nothing but a contractual one, with only the private sphere (church and family) defining anything else about it. Would that be a bad thing? I think not, and I imagine it's where the Brits are probably headed too.

Walter in Denver has joined the Blogspot Exodus.

Summary of the last seven days:

* Cuba's Foreign Minister, Felipe Pérez Roque, said, "The so-called dissidents are a creation of the aggressive policies of the United States," in the presentation of a book of interviews with agents who infiltrated the opposition. The book denounces alleged destabilizing activities financed by "subversive institutions." Among those accused was the Center for a Free Cuba and its director, Frank Calzón. ("Mesa Redonda," Cubavisión, June 26).

There's More...

I was sitting there at my computer, drinking a glass of wine and listening to some music. I was relaxing and contemplating the universe and life as we know it.

Then, in the middle of writing an email to a guy I'd recently disagreed with, it struck me like a bolt of lightning: I honestly, truly, knew the answer to everything. There would be no more war or strife in this world, and everything would be better, as long as we all understood one fundamental truth.

Do you know what that fundamental truth is?

There's More...

Cody Hatch writes that a cap on donations won't get excessive money out of politics. What will, he argues, is a cap on politicians' power.

-- Tim Machesney

IT'S NOT THE MONEY -- IT'S THE POWER

by Cody Hatch

MANY PEOPLE VIEW the ridiculous amounts of money spent on political campaigns as a problem. They rightly believe that campaign donations from various special-interest groups buys favors from a candidate should he or she be elected to office, and in short, believe the contributors are expecting a return on their investment. But while supporters of campaign finance reform are doing well to try and limit the influence of special interest groups in our political process, they are off the mark. The problem is not special interest money in politics. That's just a result of the problem. The problem is the far-reaching extent of government -- and the power that a politician wields over the lives of his or her constituents.

There's More...