More Hyperbole! I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan, so I'll usually join in on any trashing of the San Francisco 49ers. But I can't help but laugh at Kevan Barlow, a tailback that San Francisco traded to the Jets. Barlow said of Niner coach Mike Nolan:
He walks around with a chip on his shoulder like he's a dictator, like he's Hitler.It's true then. In the future, everyone will be Hitler for 15 minutes.
Musical Chairs: Well, I'll keep things light today after smacking the beehive with yesterday's post. It seems that Bob Dylan doesn't think too fondly of today's music, partly attributing its downslide to modern audio technology. It's no surprise that a 65 year old would be a curmudgeon about contemporary music. But I wonder, does anybody really like today's tunes?
I ask because this is the first time that I can remember when there doesn't appear to be a dominant rock band or musician on the pop charts. Ever since Elvis, really, there have been the Beatles, Rolling Stones, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, the Bee Gees, Madonna, Van Halen, Michael Jackson, Guns N Roses, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, and Brittany Spears. Love them or hate them, they attracted massive followings. Who rules the airwaves today? Nickelback?
I know I'm about to hit 30, so maybe I'm just blind to what today's kids are paying attention to. But we've gone through several seasons of American Idol without creating any actual idols to worship, which tells me that people are yearning for a pop star, but we can't seem to find one.
In the mean time, I'll stick to my old Metallica, Stevie Ray Vaughan, and Robert Earl Keen albums.
Language of Hate: Somebody is going to have to explain to me this hatred of Sen. George Allen. I know the Virginia Republican is running for president, which makes him open to scrutiny, but rarely is anyone raked over the coals for such insignificant garbage.
The latest drama is his use of some possibly obscure racial slur, "macaca". Hardly anyone has ever heard of this word. And when you see the junior senator from Virginia use it, it's obvious he had never heard of it as an epithet either. If you have to pull out a book on obscure African translations to be offended by an insult, then frankly it doesn't count.
Senator Allen had the misfortune of making an entertaining gaffe during the month of August -- when absolutely nothing is going on. Sen. Biden said something much worse, politically at least, with his 7-Eleven comment, but nobody cared.
And the whole "Welcome to America" remark is just an old politician's trick to say, "Where you're from doesn't count as real America." Texans say it to Californians. Californians say it to Texans. Both are wrong, because both are part of America. Inside the Beltway and out, we're all Americans, so please leave the canned political insults out of the conversation.
But the hatred of Senator Allen runs deeper than that. He is constantly being accused of racism, and for no good reason. He has actually pushed a number of bills through Congress to help minorities, including legislation to provide funding for historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions, and tribal colleges so those institutions can update their technology infrastructures. There's a digital divide between mainstream colleges and minority-serving institutions. He's been trying to help alleviate that.
Regardless of his legislative record, though, the evidence Allen-haters use to prove he's racist is pathetically scant.
George Allen is a rich boy from southern California who later in life adopted the southern ways of boots, dip, and honky tonk. That's kind of sad, really, and makes him a bit of a poser. But some people believe that because he emulates southern culture, he must be a racist deep in his heart.
To be a racist because you were raised in a racist family in the Deep South is one thing, racist by choice is a bit worse.The only evidence this guy comes up with is that Allen wishes he could live the life found in country music videos. Others back up that sentiment here.
Pardon the Inconvenience: Remember that heat wave we just had? Remember how everyone attributed it to global warming? It's the middle of August in DC, and the high temperature has stayed in the 80s.
Remember a couple big hurricanes we had last year? Remember how everyone attributed them to global warming? So far this year the hurricane season is shaping up to be pretty mild.
I don't mean to play down environmental issues -- there's a lot we should be concerned about with air pollution, energy conservation, etc. But when you harp on one datum of information and scream that the world is coming to an end, nobody will take you seriously anymore.
Now I'm going to go outside and enjoy the beautiful weather.
Birth of a Nation: Al Qaeda is forming a political group in Iraq. Is this good or bad?
I'd like to think that politics could have a mellowing effect on their extremism. If they're forced to play the political game, they may at times choose pragmatism over plastic explosives.
But, unfortunately, Al Qaeda could conceivably win. Just look at Hamas. However, even that Palestinian terrorist group has considered recognizing Israel's right to exist after gaining political power. It's not much, but it qualifies as progress.
Everyone's a Winner! President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared victory over Hezbollah after the ceasefire went into effect. Meanwhile, thousands of Lebanese, along with Hezbollah terrorists, are dancing in the streets celebrating their victory over Israel.
So goes the War on Terrorism. Battlefield tactics have given way to PR games.
Neither side accomplished much. Hezbollah is still a threat, and Israel is still stable. Israel tried to lessen Hezbollah's ability to wage terror, to little success. Hezbollah tried to kill many innocent people and survive as a group, which they accomplished. That seems to give the edge to Hezbollah, if only because their standards are so much lower.
As silly as all this seems from afar, the ability to declare victory is important, especially in the culture of the Middle East. If you recall at the end of the first Gulf War, we never made Iraq sign a surrender or admit defeat. It was simply a ceasefire. As that was going on, Saddam Hussein was declaring victory over the U.S. and our allies -- after one of the most lopsided defeats in history.
At the time, that seemed like a moot point. We won, and the fighting was over. But the decade-plus of stonewalling by Saddam Hussein can be traced in part to allowing him to claim victory, leading to our need to finish the job with a full invasion of Iraq.
Alert Level: Life in Israel takes a different perspective on terrorist threats. Residents are constantly listening to a radio station that plays nothing but silence. The station breaks the silence only when there is an impending attack, such as a rocket incoming. Residents only have about a minute to get into a protective room in their house with reinforced concrete walls and metal doors -- something every house built after 1992 is required to have.
But, aw, we in the U.S. can't carry hairspray in our carry-on luggage on the airplane anymore.
Liquid Diet: So this is what Red Alert is like.
Twenty-one people and at least ten planes. The terrorists would probably be better off sticking to smaller attacks. It's just more difficult to keep something a secret when so many people are involved. But Al Qaeda likes the big splash, so that will help us catch them.
I have to pick up a friend from the airport today. I guess I can expect her flight to be delayed. Still, I dare somebody to try to get through airport security wearing one of these beer hats.
Cliffhanger: It's a compelling story, one that many people don't want to see end. Now it looks like the political drama in Connecticut is ripe for a sequel.
Sen. Lieberman's loss in the Democratic primary yesterday is going to be analyzed many times over. And for good reason, because it does have national implications.
One of the most independent souls in the U.S. Senate is now running for re-election as an independent. His party got fed up with him and his conservative views on certain important issues, namely the war in Iraq, so they abandoned him for a true liberal.
Lieberman may or may not win in November. The question is whether an independent can win a major campaign and, if yes, whether an independent can serve effectively and influentially in the Senate.
The senator has his superstar status going for him. He's a respected politician who always appears honest and speaks his mind bluntly. I suspect many Democrats respect the man, but they can no longer ignore strong disagreements they have with him.
Nationally, though, Lieberman's primary loss helps solidify the Democratic Party as the anti-war party. Personally, I believe that's a shame. While my overall political views are moderate on balance, I am a hawk when it comes to foreign policy. I would rather both parties debate which one would kick more terrorist ass than one going all out and one seeking restraint.
But there have been so many problems in Iraq that it's understandable that the anti-war efforts have gained strength politically. Now in order to win a Democratic primary, it's understood that you cannot fully support the war in Iraq.
That's too bad. That gives Republicans an avenue to push their conservative agenda simply because it comes as part of the package deal with an aggressive fight against Islamic terrorism.
Honestly, I would have voted for Lieberman for president had he been the nominee against George W. Bush. At first I didn't see the need to replace one foreign-policy hawk with another. But when President Bush began campaigning strongly for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, I was furious. I know Lieberman also doesn't support same-sex marriage, which is unfortunate. But he's far-sighted enough to know that an amendment injecting bigotry back in the Constitution is the worst way to go.
I hope Lieberman wins re-election in November. Not only do I like the guy, but I would love to see how he'd use his newfound freedom as an independent in the Senate. Unfortunately, he could end up a less effective senator. Congress relies on group support to get anything done. Senators don't trust colleagues who have no allegiance to one side or another. While I despise partisanship, there is something to be said for loyalty.
An Army of Fun: The U.S. Army wants to build a military-themed amusement park in Northern Virginia.
"You can command the latest M-1 tank, feel the rush of a paratrooper freefall, fly a Cobra Gunship or defend your B-17 as a waist gunner," according to the proposal by Universal City Property Management III of Orlando.One official in Fairfax County, where the proposed park would be built, was less than pleased about the idea, according to the Washington Post article.
Supervisor T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee) was so upset after hearing about the Universal City proposal last year that he threw company representatives out of his office. He said he had no interest in turning a military history museum into "Disney on Rolling Road." After the meeting, he said, he thought the entertainment concept for the Army museum was dead.It's not dead. I guess it was just a matter of time.
Just Go Away: I never thought I'd see the day when liberals were celebrating that Tom DeLay will remain on an election ballot.
It's a shame really. He doesn't want to run. Nobody wants to vote for him. Yet the kind folks in Sugarland are denied a true choice for their Congressional representative come November. Conservatives can try to run a write-in candidate. But that provides an unnecessary complication in what should be a simple matter.
I understand the need for election law to prevent bait and switches that political parties would like to play. But in this instance, when something occurred after the primary election that changes the dynamics of a race, a party should be able to replace that person on the ballot.
I would criticize the Democrats for gaming the system by suing to keep DeLay on the ballot, but Republicans would have done the exact same thing were the situation reversed. And the 5th Circuit, which is the most conservative federal appeals court, and Justice Scalia, one of the most conservative on the High Court, upheld the Democrats' claim.
This is simply bad law.
Attack of the Clones: I love it when bloggers expose wrongdoings by the mass media. LGF struck again by identifying a doctored photo run by Reuters showing smoke rising from buildings in Lebanon that were bombed by the Israeli military.
Quick question though: Why bother doctoring these photos? It appears the photographer is anti-Israel and wanted to exaggerate the damage to sway public opinion. But the undoctored photo shows just as much smoke.
See for yourself. This is the doctored photo.
Notice the repeating patterns in the smoke cloud. That ain't natural.
Here's the undoctored photo.
I don't understand why the photographer created something that looked obviously doctored but conveyed the same general message as the undoctored photo -- Buildings burn. Smoke big.
Now a run through the photographer's portfolio finds many questionable images. Oh well. Reuters just ends up with another well-deserved black eye.
Update: Powerline has more. That photographer puts Jayson Blair to shame.
Q: When have economic sanctions ever worked?
A: Almost never.
Any other suggestions for getting Iran to shape up?
More of the Same: Israel is taking public heat for bombing a building full of civilians. The U.N. expresses shock, other leaders are stunned, and even the U.S. is trying to finagle an appropriate response.
Barely a word is mentioned about where the blame truly belongs -- on the terrorists who hide their personnel and weaponry among civilians, using them as human shields. No one is shocked by this action, partly because we're so used to it as typical terrorist activity. But it's not even condemned. Instead, Israel reaps the blame.
That's part of the difficulty in combating terrorism. The terrorists aren't fighting a conventional battle. It's a PR campaign set through violence. When they attack, they target civilians to scare the general public. They then expect a reprisal, so they hide among civilians so when the counter-attack happens, they use the collateral damage to make propaganda images and videos. And it's impossible to tell how many terrorists are ever killed in a strike, because all the terrorists dress as civilians.
The terrorists seem to get a break because they are regarded as the underdog, outmuscled by the United States and Israel. But it's the terrorists that instigate the violence and put the civilians at risk. They do it because they want to create a fascist state of Islam extremism throughout the Middle East, and the rest of the world. Their goals are wrong, their tactics are wrong, and their message is wrong. That's where the U.N. and the rest of the world should focus their scorn.
Evacuate: I'm out for another week. Don't bring peace to the Middle East until I get back.
Second Front, Stabbed in the Back: While there has been much condemnation from the Arab Street about Israel's military response to Hezbollah and Hamas, many Muslims are critical of the terrorists who instigated the new bloodshed. And not just moderate Muslims. In addition to the editor-in-chief of the Arab Times, the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia have spoken against Hezbollah, going so far to issue a Fatwa against them. (Hat tip, Stubborn Facts)
Granted, this stems partly from the Sunni/Shiite rivalry. But I think Hezbollah miscalculated the reaction to their deeds. They probably only expected a "proportional response" from Israel, which Israel wisely avoided. And I'm sure they anticipated more support from their fellow Muslims.
We're in the process of tearing down Middle East politics so we can put it back together again. What this will look like in the end, no one knows. But we couldn't let things remain as they were.
Fighting Side of Me: Critics are mad at Bush for not doing enough to end the hostilities between Israel and her enemies. I say Bush is interfering too much. According to this article, Israel only gets one more week before the U.S. will pressure for a ceasefire. That's not enough time to cripple Hezbollah and other terrorists Israel is facing.
The war underway now is unfortunate. But Hezbollah and Hamas instigated it and have been antagonizing Israel for years. The carnage we're witnessing is nothing compared to the death and destruction Muslim terrorists cause in Israel day after day.
If we want to win the War on Terrorism, we need Israel's help. The Israelis have the tactical intelligence and experience to defeat our common enemies. Instead of holding Israelis back, we should unleash their military. We've tried diplomacy and concessions for too long. Now let Israel kick some ass.
Dig on the Big Dig: The Onion, funny again.
Listen, when the government spends $14 billion on anything, you are going to have to accept that an innocent person will die under a concrete slab.
Coat Hanger in the Congressional Womb: Well, everyone who criticized Bush for never vetoing a bill, I hope you're happy. He's about to kill a bill that would allow federal funding for stem-cell research.
This is where I join the chorus of other critics who are counting down the days until Bush leaves office. He'll only be in power for two more years. I predict that the next president will sign such a bill into law.
But I never understood the criticism against Bush for not vetoing legislation. He's a Republican president with a Republican Congress. If they were constantly vetoing and overriding vetoes, it would be a mess. They're supposed to be on the same side. If partisans can't get along, how can we even hope for bipartisanship.
The fact that Bush and Congress were able to come to agreement on legislative issues shows a great deal of leadership and compromise. Unfortunately, much of that leadership led to overspending and record deficits. But Bush has been proposing unnecessary expenditures, so I'd have no expectation for him to veto such spending. Now Republicans in Congress have softened their opposition to stem-cell research and decided it is a good place to spend taxpayer money. Too bad we'll have to wait before that can finally happen.
As If There Ain't Enough News Goin' On: Everybody seems shocked, shocked, that President Bush said the word "shit". He said it not in a public speech, but in a private conversation that happened to be picked up by a microphone.
Some people are praising him for his tough, nuance-free speech. Others criticize him for being unpresidential.
It really shouldn't matter. The problem is, by drawing so much attention to this, we're reinforcing the idea that politicians cannot speak like normal human beings. This is why every word they utter is poll tested, filtered, and canned. Plain-spokenness carries too high of a risk factor. So we end up with the same old regurgitated speeches time after time.
Case in point, Kevin Drum expresses shock, shock, that Bush said "I think" Condi is going to the Middle East. The Political Animal seems to believe this implies that Bush doesn't know. No, he does know, but some details are still in flux, so he is speaking tentatively. Don't you know, Kevin, that this was not a prepared speech and that you're wasting your time trying to analyze every little word that's spoken off the cuff?
Not Anti-War. Just For the Other Side: This tops the "Screw them" comment from before. Someone named 'qrswave' at Daily Kos waxes poetically in a post titled, Imagine a world without Israel.
Muslims, Jews, and Christians could live in peace without fear of mutual destruction.The obvious retort is, "Imagine a world without Islam." Or more to the point, "Imagine a world without insane Muslim terrorists." The best response is from a commenter at LGF who says, "Imagine a world without Daily Kos."
There would be no more need for US AID or justification for Dimona.
We could bring down the Wall, send prisoners home, and families could be reunited.
We could dismantle checkpoints, open crossings, and pull down barbed wire fences.
...
News Break: This was the Reuters headline today.
Israel calls Hizbollah capture of soldiers act of war
I'm sorry, but Israel, the Palestinians, terrorist groups -- the entire Middle East has been at war for years. This is just more of the same.
Pourquoi? I broke down and decided to watch the World Cup championship game yesterday. I never felt more American than when I found myself bored to tears. Now I have respect for soccer players -- it's a grueling sport that takes a lifetime of practice and talent to excel -- but it ranks just above golf in terms of excitement as a spectator sport.
From what I observed yesterday and from snippets I've seen in other games, nothing really happens outside of penalty kicks and corner kicks. And the ridiculous rules only encourage this. If you brush up against a player in the "box", that results in a penalty kick, which is essentially a free goal. That's no biggie, except that a 1-0 match is a high-scoring game.
Nothing else is allowed to happen during regular play. If at any point a player gets the ball with a clear shot on the goal, he'll be called offsides. This has got to be the dumbest rule in sports. To prevent a player from scoring, all the defense has to do is stop running and let the player continue offsides.
And while I would never say this to any soccer player face-to-face, the constant diving, whining, and crying in attempts to draw fouls gets tiresome. I'll hand it to the players, though. They are better actors than those in the NBA. But they looked like a bunch of princesses out there. Be a man, for God's sake.
Hell, the coolest part of the game was when that French guy head-butted that Italian guy. Looks like instant replay is alive and well in soccer, despite what the official rules say. Oh well, at least the Italians won the game, although we could have saved two hours and just decided the game through penalty kicks.
But now what's really sad is I realize that we're in the summer doldrums when the only sport on TV is baseball, our national pastime, which I can't bother paying attention to until it gets close to the playoffs. The games just aren't meaningful this early in the season.
We have to wait a few months until we'll be able to watch real football again. There, head-butting is not only legal, it's necessary.
Mail Bag: Someone e-mailed me asking me to explain my point of view on affirmative action. Since I have nothing else to blog about, I'll make a post out of it.
My belief is that race can be used as a factor in hiring and admissions decisions. This does not mean instituting any sort of quota or choosing someone with poor qualifications because of his or her race. Among the qualified applicants, if one of them is a member of a minority group that is underrepresented, employers should take that into consideration when making the final decision.
The argument against affirmative action generally is that the most qualified person should get the job. I absolutely agree with that. But rarely in any hiring decision is there only one good candidate. Employers use all sorts of subjective criteria to make hiring decisions (posture, speaking voice, handshake). That's the entire point of an interview, to get a feel for a job candidate and to help the employer make a gut decision on who to hire. Otherwise, all hiring could be done by scanning résumés and checking references.
You're always taking a risk when hiring someone. You don't know how that person will perform on the job until several months have passed. So to say there's always one best candidate is a fallacy.
Diversity generally helps in a workplace, no matter what the field. If everyone looks the same, chances are many of them are going to think the same. Getting people with different backgrounds also brings in people with different points of view and experiences. Granted, some professions need that more than others do, but it's no secret that hiring people of different races and ethnicities has a positive effect on society, and that's reason enough.
If you don't get any qualified minority applicants, go find them. They're out there. Groups, from the National Association of Black Journalists to the Houston Hispanic Architects & Engineers, make for an excellent starting point when looking for qualified professionals of color. Instead of fishing from the same pond all the time and catching the same fish, diversify your search.
A little bit of effort goes a long way. You don't need to set quotas or discriminate against qualified white people. Everyone you hire, no matter what color, should be qualified to do the job. You just have to make a small concerted effort, or an affirmative action, to find a diverse workforce.
Team America: Ah, another Fourth o' July. Fireworks, flags, and patriotism. After I got back from the beach trip, I went to the Independence Day celebration on the National Mall. There I got to hear country star Jo Dee Messina declare that the United States of America was "one of the best countries in the world".
Apparently she's missing part of the concept of patriotism. When honoring your country, go ahead and say we're the best, not just one of the best. Objectively, this is pretty well verifiable. But even if it weren't, nobody would fault you for loving your country.
Or so you would think. I can forgive Jo Dee for misspeaking, perhaps, but now people are questioning Germans for cheering on their World Cup team (before the team got eliminated). NPR mentioned it this morning, and The Washington Post ran a sports piece about the guilt associated with German nationalism.
Why, you ask? Because of the Nazis, of course. You see, Germans love their country. And Hitler loved his country. Plus, it was the same country. Germany. Understand? Very dangerous!
Not to downplay Nazi atrocities, but just because someone associated with your country did something bad doesn't mean you can't have a little pride in where you're from. You can root for your country to win, whether the game be soccer or war, and honestly it's not jingoistic.
And despite the dangers of an incoming flag epidemic you can show your patriotism more than one day a year.