WHEN THERE'S A WILL...

You know things are bad... Very bad, when George "The Shill" Will writes the following, as he did a few days ago, regarding the recent terror plot that was foiled by British intelligence:

"Cooperation between Pakistani and British law enforcement (the British draw upon useful experience combating IRA terrorism) has validated John Kerry's belief, articulated in 2004, that "many of the interdiction tactics that cripple drug lords, including governments working jointly to share intelligence, patrol borders and force banks to identify suspicious customers, can also be some of the most useful tools in the war on terror." In a candidates' debate in South Carolina (Jan. 29, 2004), Kerry said that although the war on terror will be "occasionally military," it is "primarily an intelligence and law enforcement operation that requires cooperation around the world."" (So what did Christopher Hitchens say? "Yes, America sucks at police work - after all, I sued the government because the means of its so-called police work do not justify the undisputably - to me - proper ends of combating terrorism - because the means involved my personal livelihood; only other means are acceptable, and by the way, thank god these other means included our use of brute force - the only option "available" to us because of our intelligence failure." Dear God - no wonder the man takes such offense in being called a chickenhawk!)

Will continues:

"Immediately after the London plot was disrupted, a "senior administration official," insisting on anonymity for his or her splenetic words, denied the obvious, that Kerry had a point. The official told The Weekly Standard:
"The idea that the jihadists would all be peaceful, warm, lovable, G-d-fearing people if it weren't for U.S. policies strikes me as not a valid idea. Democrats do not have the understanding or the commitment to take on these forces. It's like John Kerry. The law enforcement approach doesn't work."

"This farrago of caricature and non sequitur makes the administration seem eager to repel all but the delusional. But perhaps such rhetoric reflects the intellectual contortions required to sustain the illusion that the war in Iraq is central to the war on terrorism, and that the war, unlike "the law enforcement approach," does "work."
The official is correct that it is wrong "to think that somehow we are responsible — that the actions of the jihadists are justified by U.S. policies." But few outside the fog of paranoia that is the blogosphere think like that. It is more dismaying that someone at the center of government considers it clever to talk like that. It is the language of foreign policy — and domestic politics — unrealism."

*********************************************************************************

Hitchens and his ilk are always coming up with after-the-fact rationales (so-called) for why Bush invaded Iraq. "You see," he lectures us, "Had Saddam's sons not been killed, they might have resumed contact with bombmaker X, whom we knew to have been working on assemblage of material required to make a nuclear bomb. Therefore, the invasion of Iraq was correct, because we, in that invasion, killed these sons, thus preventing them from making contact with the bombmaker, thus giving him a disincentive to make the bomb, etc."

Or, another example: "Abu Musab al Zarqawi was al Qaeda and was permitted by Saddam to operate out of Northern Iraq. He never intended to acquire weapons of mass detruction, but was behind religiously motivated killings, although not in alliance with Saddam Hussein in said killings' execution. No matter, though. By our killing of Zarqawi, who was ratted out by fellow citizens, the war was justified because one al-Qaeda personage had been eliminated within Iraq, thus proving Bush's point - in a way that saved lives - that the war in Iraq and the war in al Qaeda are both the same thing - the war on terrorism."

Such mental gymnastics! Such desperation! It just shows how certain advocates of this war will indeed stop at nothing solely so that they can be right in their own minds (and make the rest of us suffer by making us know of this certitude).

Firstly, that Bush (well, not actually Bush, who has never read anything Hitchens has said) would have to rely on another's argumentation, continuously, to keep dispensing after-the-fact rationales for why the invasion of Iraq was necessary, shows that there was no initial convincing argumentation made by the Bush team in the first place. Put it another way: many times, conservatives on the Supreme Court hold some repressive state law that is patently unconstitutional, constitutional, on some theory never advanced by the state, but rather on some manufactured-for-the-occasion and good-for-one-day-only rationale that a single Justice came up with. Does anyone believe, after reading an opinion embodying such a rationale, that the state has justified its own argument on behalf of why the law should be upheld? Of course not.

Secondly, Hitchens' arguments suffer from what can be called Governor Tarkin syndrome. Princess Leia, in Episode IV, prissily intoned to the Governor, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems shall slip through your fingers."

The more Hitchens bends over backwards to say that event Z provided retrocontinuous justification for event Y, the more he abandons elementary logic, and the more he is able to relieve himself of having to answer the obviously unpleasant questions of intent and cause and effect.

LIEBENSRAUM

AP, Today

Iran's president launched a new phase in the Arak heavy-water reactor project on Saturday, saying Tehran would not give up its right to nuclear technology despite Western fears it aims to make atomic bombs.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was speaking just days before an August 31 deadline set by the U.N. Security Council for Iran to halt uranium enrichment -- the West's biggest worry in Iran's atomic program -- or face possible sanctions.

"No one can deprive a nation of its rights based on its capabilities," he said.

*******************************************************************************
"We need breathing room." - Hitler - 1938


It is said (by, among others, the reductive Christopher Hitchens, who appears to be substituting agitation for analysis the more we learn how one bad turn has begotten another in Iraq. He even gave Bill Maher the finger on Maher's show last night as he told Maher that Maher was "stupid" for calling Bush stupid. Of course, Hitchens can, with impunity, call Reagan a "cruel and stupid lizard," simply because Hitchens did not agree with Reagan's policies, such as they were. But because Hitchens agrees with Bush on one thing - Islamic fascism is bad (should Hitchens' internal logic lead him to decry this term as a Hitler comparison - which is, to him, a "weak" argument?), Bush should be shielded from being called stupid, (and moveon.org calling him stupid and comparing him to Hitler is the moral and legal equivalent of the government equating dissent with Bush to treason), and those who call him stupid are stupid (and the logic behind THIS declamation is?) Of course, Mr. Maher's point was not that Bush was stupid so much as that inarticulate gibberish could never be enunciated by an organized, thoughtful mind (and furthermore, that if one is intelligent, one has a thoughtful mind that has the power to convince). Since, therefore, Mr. Bush cannot articulate his reasons for why the Iraq was is so important (other than because it makes Hitchens more money than he earned when he wrote for The Nation), and according to Hitchens, there is a percentage of individuals who are "sitting on the fence" on this matter waiting to be persuaded by a President who can make the case for this war, what are we to conclude? That Bush does not have a thoughtful mind, and lacks the power to convince, perhaps, and that, dare I say it, he is unintelligent? Even if Hitchens is correct in stating that Bush "recognizes" Islamonutjobism as a dangerous threat (and there is no evidence that Bush does in fact recognize this, as opposed to say, Bush just being told that it is so and blindly repeating it), that alone doesn't make him intelligent, as Hitchens implies. ("The ability to speak does not make one intelligent," someone said to a super-annoying movie character). What Bush does with his recognition is the measure of the intelligence - and here his stupidity - which surely should be a matter of concern to us as much as Dick Morris' "triangulation" (which actually scaremongered no one) - shines through.

Hitchens is an interesting parallel to Bush. Bush believes he's smarter than everyone else because he is ill-learned and vacuous. Hitchens believes he's smarter than everyone else (and his self-labeling, like Bush's, naturally leads him to quickly label others and their motives) because he's well-read and pompous. Both men are living examples of the truism that intelligence (or lack thereof) is truly on some level immeasurable, just as stupudity is.

IT'S THE STUPID, STUPID

My brother, who thinks he is smarter than everyone, loves to pick a fight with someone just for the sake of it. If someone intones in his presence, "Bush is stupid," and explains the basis for that belief, my brother will say, "Oh, no - that's just an act he performs for the yokels - you know, to endear himself to the common man (is this an implied suggestion on Bush's part that the common American man is a buffoon? If so, then whether he is stupid or not, I have no concerns about slicing into his intellect, because whatever his intelligence level is, he thinks the level of intelligence of the American people is far lower than his own. Patronization, by the way, is a form of stupidity. I seem, in a few sentences, to have come up with a rejoinder to my brother's comments).

There are, of course, many kinds of intelligence, and many yardsticks used to measure each kind. I have listened to the unscripted remarks (i.e. "press conferences") and Presidential debates of American presidents from Johnson forward, and, in realizing that intelligence is a multi-feathered beast, have first come to the realization that while the medium may be the message, as Marshall McLuhan said, the medium is not necessarily dispositive of one's intelligence.

Ronald Reagan used the medium of television better than any president in history, but any notions that he possessed an above-average intellect or street-smarts were scotched by the substance of the words that came out of his mouth in unrehearsed (and sometimes rehearsed) moments. Reagan was not a deep thinker (this does not necessarily mean he was not intelligent), but it is generally acknowledged that he was not a deep thinker because he thought that problems (or what he defined as problems; his ability to define problems was reflective of stupidity) could be easily identified and solved, if enough bromides were dispensed about the greatness of America, its morning, and its flag. The paucity of writings Reagan left behind for scholars to examine confirmed that he did not seem concerned with analyzing over complex issues, or even worrying about them. One never caught Reagan in the act of "thinking." If he was intelligent, however that word is defined, it did not show. So just because one uses a medium well does not mean one is intelligent.

The converse, of course, is true as well. Jimmy Carter, for whatever reasons, never felt comfortable in front of the camera, nor did Richard Nixon, yet their grasp of policy and politics was obvious to anyone who listened to their press conferences, to anyone who read their memoirs (assuming these were not ghost-written), and to anyone who believes what their aides, both loyal and disloyal, have said about the two men. One can see the intelligence reflected in the bold policy initiatives proposed by each; Nixon, with his "Philadelphia Plan," and guaranteed minimum income plan, and Carter, with his creation of the Department of Energy. Neither man was ultimately able to SELL their concepts to the American people (Nixon, because he was a paranoid liar, and Carter, because he was politically inept), but both were intelligent - even though the medium of television did not capture that intelligence and present it in the best light.

President Clinton used television more effectively than any President before or after Reagan - and manipulated the medium to allow his intelligence come through. Clinton definitely had a "wonky" kind of intelligence - as befitted a Rhodes Scholar - but the intelligence that came through the tube was an understated, elegant intelligence, marked by an appreciation of the English language, organization of thought, and logical presentation of ideas. Clinton also (for the most part) knew when to leaven a speech with humor, and left the disgusting things he did on the White House rug, dresses, toilets and sinks. Republicans couldn't stand him, for among many other reasons, because he came off as being intelligent without appearing like an "egghead" a la Aldai Stevenson in 1952 and 1956 (1952 was the first year that Republicans celebrated stupidity as a Presidential virtue).

So, now we come to President Bush. No medium - print, broadcast, face-to-face communication, or any other medium of which I am aware, has put what intelligence he has (if any) to advantage. Monday's press conference, which might as well have been a written interview, or a one-on-one conversation that he did not know was being recorded, shows that yes, indeed, on some level, Bush is indeed stupid - in that he cannot recognize fundamental argumentative concepts, in that he mistakes assertion for argument, in that he believes that by repeating the same assertion over and over again, he has prevailed in an "argument," and in that by engaging in a straw man or ad hominem attack, he has not only won an argument but answered a question. These devices upon which he relies show at best stupidity and at worst that Bush literally does not understand what is being asked of him, and/or that he lacks sufficient intellect to actually think before responding to a question so as to come up with an answer.

I'll let David Corn from The Nation complete this blog, as David describes the press conference:

"George W. Bush keeps trying to rally popular support for his war in Iraq. But he has little to offer other than stay-the course-ism. He cannot point to progress in Iraq. Nor can he point to a plan that would seem promising. Thus, he is left only with rhetoric--the same rhetoric.

That was on display during a presidential press conference at the White House on Monday. Here's a selective run-down.

One reporter asked,

"More than 3,500 Iraqis were killed last month, the highest civilian monthly toll since the war began. Are you disappointed with the lack of progress by Iraq's unity government in bringing together the sectarian and ethnic groups?"

Bush replied,
"No." "I am aware that extremists and terrorists are doing everything they can to prevent Iraq's democracy from growing stronger. That's what I'm aware of." (DRL: He's not disappointed by lack of progress?)

He could not bring himself to say he is disappointed by the government's inability to curb the sectarian violence? That was an odd way to defend his actions in Iraq. Bush did go on to say,

"And, therefore, we have a plan to help them -- "them," the Iraqis -- achieve their objectives. Part of the plan is political; that is the help the Maliki government work on reconciliation and to work on rehabilitating the community. The other part is, of course, security. And I have given our commanders all the flexibility they need to adjust tactics to be able to help the Iraqi government defeat those who want to thwart the ambitions of the people. And that includes a very robust security plan for Baghdad." (DRL: reconciliation with whom? What does he mean by "rehabilitation"? What "community?" These terms are contextual non-sequiturs. His premise that the ambitions of the people dovetail with his own, and that these people are seemingly geographically confined to Baghdad, is textually and contextually incoherent).

A question: when would it be fair to judge the plan's success? The plan has supposedly already been implemented. (DRL: What plan?) Yet the death count is rising in Iraq. A sharp-eyed (or sharp-eared) reporter should have asked, "If the death count goes up next month, will that mean the plan is a failure? And how should Americans (and Iraqis) evaluate whether the plan is working?" Or as Donald Rumsfeld might say, what are the operative metrics?

Bush repeatedly said that it would be disastrous for the United States to disengage from Iraq. He claimed,

"It will embolden those who are trying to thwart the ambitions of reformers. In this case, it would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." (DRL: And what would the terrorists be able to do with this tool that our "friends" the Saudis are not doing already? I believe this statement more or less constitutes Bush's way of telling us why Iraq was invaded, don't you? Bush's "thinking" here is that of a man who, after day in and day out of successive rainstorms, seeks shelter in a termine-infested home, where, as each night passes, more rain comes in due to the infestation. It never occurs to the man that, instead of trying seek shelter in a useless house, he can try to find shelter in a house that hasn't been bitten to the ground. Our oiligarchial presidency thinks like Termite Man. It loves oil more than the terrorists, and its answer to disturbances in oil production is to just consume more oil - to keep letting the house rot - instead of finding a way out by seeking other sources of energy. Money brings out stupidity as surely as anything does).


Regarding the "reformers"--and Bush noted this included reformers throughout the region--the US invasion of Iraq and the recent (and partially still ongoing war between Israel and Hezbollah) has undercut the reformers of the Middle East, or so say many such reformers (DRL: this is because of their bigotry, but hey, when your true goal is to not bring democracy anyway to people who are unfit for it, it's only natural that these "reformers" will have something to get pissed off about). These reformers report they are on thinner ice (DRL: whatever that means) because of US policies.

Bush's actions, according to the grunts of Middle East reform, have not emboldened them. As for turning Iraq into a safe haven for terrorists and extremists, Bush has already accomplished that. An American journalist who had recently returned from Baghdad told me a few weeks ago that neighborhoods within a mile or so of the Green Zone in Baghdad are totally under the control of insurgents. Whole swaths of Iraq are beyond the authority of the Iraqi government. These areas can be safe havens for all sorts of miscreants. And it's fear-mongering to suggest that if the United States were to withdraw that anti-American jihadists will control the state and be enriched by oil revenues. Last time I checked, the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds all had an interest in Iraq. These groups are unlikely to turn the nation over to the few jihadist terrorists operating within Iraq. (DRL: Personally, I think that if we left, the savages would be more interested in killing each other than enriching themselves through oil revenues - this savagery is an impulse we cannot change now, and one that we cannot change once we have left - unless we plan to stay forever, in which case we become infected with the savagery, God help us).



One exchange did not inspire confidence. A reporter asked,

"Mr. President, I'd like to go back to Iraq. You've continually cited the elections, the new government, its progress in Iraq, and yet the violence has gotten worse in certain areas. You've had to go to Baghdad again. Is it not time for a new strategy? And if not, why not?"

Bush responded,

"You've covered the Pentagon, you know that the Pentagon is constantly adjusting tactics because they have the flexibility from the White House to do so."

The reporter--who was not asking about tactics--interrupted:

"I'm talking about strategy." (DRL: Not tactics, you MORON! Bush does not understand the difference).

Bush then said:

"The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society.

That's the strategy."

(DRL: Fucking President Von Clausewitz here). Actually, that's not a strategy. That's a goal. A commander in chief should know the difference. A strategy is how one goes about--in a general way--accomplishing goals. Tactics are how one implements the strategy. (DRL: Someone who is trying to remodel a country who cannot even define the different terms - someone with nuclear launch codes, no less - is such a scary person that the mind becomes silent in shudder).

After Bush talked about giving military commanders in Iraq the "flexibility" to "change tactics on the ground," this interesting back-and-forth occurred:

"Q: Sir, that's not really the question. The strategy --"

"THE PRESIDENT: Sounded like the question to me."

"Q: You keep -- you keep saying that you don't want to leave. But is your strategy to win working? (Note: The reporter has implicitly recognized how dumb Bush is by adding the phrase "to win" after the word "strategy.") Even if you don't want to leave? You've gone into Baghdad before, these things have happened before."

"THE PRESIDENT: If I didn't think it would work, I would change -- our commanders would recommend changing the strategy. They believe it will work." (DRL: The reporter is asking if it IS working, not whether some hypothetical commander - who is not the commander in chief and whose fatigues Bush cannot hide under - IN THE PAST BELIEVED IT MIGHT WORK. This assumes, of course, that Bush has not cowed these commanders into silence (ha!). Also, what wartime President (Truman, Johnson, Eisenhower, Wilson, Lincoln)'s conduct of a war has been limited SOLELY to passively receiving information from his commanders? Bush wants all of the POWERS associated with being a wartime President but none of the responsibilities. Under his "logic," if his commanders told him the sky was falling, he'd launch "Operation Raise the Sky." Of course, if some commander (or all of them) were brave enough to tell him that the goal should be to leave and the strategy to achieve that goal is to leave under stealth of night, THEN Bush would all of a sudden stop "listening to his commanders." The wonder of the mound of bullshit of it all.)

Seems as if Bush was saying that his commanders are in charge of the strategy. But isn't that his job?

Later on came this exchange:

Q: But are you frustrated, sir?

"THE PRESIDENT: Frustrated? Sometimes I'm frustrated. Rarely surprised. Sometimes I'm happy (DRL: That people are dying?) This is -- but war is not a time of joy. These aren't joyous times. These are challenging times, and they're difficult times, and they're straining the psyche of our country."

To recap: he is not "disappointed" (see above), but he is occasionally "frustrated." Yet hardly "surprised." Wait a moment. Does that mean he invaded Iraq realizing that the war there would turn into an ugly sectarian conflict that would bog down US troops for over three years? If so, why didn't he say something before the invasion about this? Or, better yet, why didn't he and the Pentagon prepare for such an eventuality? Citizens should hope he was damn surprised by what has happened in Iraq--even though that would not make him any less culpable.
Bush repeatedly acknowledged there is a legitimate debate whether the United States should disengage from Iraq. He noted,

"I will never question the patriotism of somebody who disagrees with me." (DRL: No, he won't question it. Questioning implies the person actually had the right to speak, if only to be smeared in return. He'll just try to get the person locked up).

This statement is--how should we put it?--not as accurate as it could be. Campaigning for congressional Republicans in 2002 Bush said that Senate Democrats were "more interested in special interests in Washington and not interested in the security of the American people." That certainly is not how one would describe a patriot. More recently, Bush's own Republican Party accused the Democrats of plotting to weaken the country. After a federal judge ruled that Bush's warrantless wiretapping program was unconstitutional, the GOP sent out an email headlined, "Liberal Judge Backs Dem Agenda To Weaken National Security." Accusing someone of having a gameplan to "weaken national security" is indeed questioning their patriotism. Has Bush decried this Republican National Committee tactic? Not in public. (DRL: or in private).

The press conference allowed for a brief exploration of Bush's rationale for invading Iraq. One journalist inquired,

"A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out [such as chaos in Iraq, terrorist running amok, etc.] seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?"
Bush fired back (DRL: with a total non-sequitur of an answer):

"I square it because, imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders (hee hee) to kill innocent life, who would -- who had relations (that's the best term he could come up with? As in "I had sexual relations with that terrorist?") with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East." (DRL: The reporter was asking him whether our invasion caused these things. His answer wen cheerfully beyond being a non-response and drifted into the realm of true daftness).

Well, as both Charles Duelfer and David Kay--administration-appointed WMD hunters--reported, Saddam did not have any serious capacity to produce WMDs. None. He had no weapons and no serious production capability. So, yes, one would have to "imagine" such a threat. As for Saddam's relations with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi (now deceased), there is no evidence that Saddam had anything to do with him before the war. As Colin Powell noted in his disastrous UN speech, Zarqawi at the time was operating out of northern Iraq, which was territory not under Baghdad's control. Once more, a healthy dose of imagination is required to follow Bush's argument.

The president continued:

You know, I've heard this theory about everything was just fine until we arrived, and kind of "we're going to stir up the hornet's nest" theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.

That led to this point-counterpoint:

"Q: What did Iraq have to do with that?"

"THE PRESIDENT: What did Iraq have to do with what?"

"Q: The attack on the World Trade Center?"

"THE PRESIDENT: Nothing, except for it's part of (DRL: he can't finish the fucking sentence) -- and nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- the lesson of September the 11th is, take threats before they fully materialize....Nobody has ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. (DRL: So, given that the terrorists attacked us BEFORE Iraq, how does that fact make the "hornet's nest" theory any less viable? And, by the way, we've been overtly or covertly pursuing a "freedom" agenda, as some would call it - in the Middle East - for over 100 years - propping up one dictator for another).

Not exactly. Dick Cheney and other hawks in the administration repeatedly said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9/11, citing an unconfirmed, single-source intelligence report that 9/11 ringleader Mohamad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before the attack. Yet the FBI and the CIA (and later the 9/11 Commission) had concluded that there was no evidence to substantiate this report and that the meeting likely did not happen (DRL: But Chirstopher "Yellowcake" Hitchens said it did, so it must be true). True, Bush officials did not claim that Saddam had "ordered" the attack, but they did suggest that Baghdad had participated in the attack--even when there was no evidence to support that assertion.

So over three years after Bush ordered US troops into Iraq, he is still claiming that Saddam was something of a WMD threat and he is refusing to acknowledge that his administration did attempt to link Saddam to the 9/11 attack--all while professing he has a strategy (or is it a set of tactics?) to win in Iraq. This is not the sort of stuff that will hearten a nation. Bush remains lost in Iraq, with the rest of the country (and the world) held hostage by the mistakes and miscalculations he will not concede.

CORRECTION

In a previous post, I noted that on the night of game 6 of the NLCS, my mother almost forgot to pick me up from Hebrew School (by the way, my father, when I mentioned this game to him a few nights ago, told me that he was on an appointment that night, as he has done many times). That is true but that is not all. My mother actually finished watching the game - which ended about 7:45 EST - before picking me up from Hebrew School, which ended at 7 that night. I did not know for sure why she was late, but I had an idea. She was not watching the game while aware of the fact that I was waiting for her to pick me up - at some point during her watching, she forgot to pick me up altogether. A short while after the game ended, she remembered to pick me up. By the way, she was not the only parent who picked up his or her child late that night, and was not the only happy parent or child that evening. I didn't mind the wait at all. The Mets were going to the World Series.

A SUPREMELY SHORT SUMMER?

Maybe, after this terrific decision:

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/images/08/17/nsa.lawsuit.pdf

PROFILES IN COURAGE

The British government has - sacre bleu - committed an act of logic, as reported today in a British newspaper:

"The Government is discussing with airport operators plans to introduce a screening system that allows security staff to focus on those passengers who pose the greatest risk. The passenger-profiling technique involves selecting people who are behaving suspiciously, have an unusual travel pattern or, most controversially, have a certain ethnic or religious background. The system would be much more sophisticated than simply picking out young men of Asian appearance. But it would cause outrage in the Muslim community because its members would be far more likely to be selected for extra checks."

Well, as G. Gordon Liddy, who would know from criminal activity, said, "If you stopped DOING it - and let's bear in mind here that you're the ONLY ONES who do it, then there'd be no need to profile."

SNIPERS FOR DIAPERS

"Yes, we knew they were screwed up. But some Shiite Islamists in Iraq are allegedly killing shepherds because they have not put modesty "diapers" on their goats! The goats are too tempting for Muslim males, it appears. Well, compared with the walking black tents they force their women into, goats are indeed quite fetching. The logic of religious fundamentalism is nothing if not relentless." - Andrew Sullivan

"What most male-run religious fundamentalisms include is a major exception for the hetero-male sex drive. Sex outside of missionary-position reproduction with legal wife/wives is officially verboten; but when frail male flesh gives in, the blame is almost always the object of desire - not the guy actually responsible. Hence: it's the goat's fault. The way they were dressed, they were asking for it.

So it's not the men buggering the goats who need monitoring: it's the goats and the shepherds for not covering them up sufficiently! As we know, holding straight men accountable for anything sexual is very tough in fundamentalist circles, be they Islamic or Christian. So Catholic priests and bishops were granted church and moral immunity for the rapes and molestations of thousands of minors for decades. The history of wayward pastors and priests getting away with sexual abuse and harassment is long and colorful. In many Islamic cultures, Women are deemed responsible for their own rape or molestation if they haven't dressed modestly enough. Gay soldiers are to blame if straight men cannot help themselves and start buggering them in the shower. It's never up to the straight guys to restrain themselves from getting a blow-job; it's always up to the gay men not to offer temptation. Adultery, likewise, is almost always the woman's fault in Islamist circles - and the women are the ones most often punished. The goat diapers are funny. But they are a function of a sexual pathology, maintained by religious norms, and all for sustaining the immunity of heterosexual males from the consequences of their sex drives - and the subjugation of women into near-slavery throughout many enclaves in the Muslim world. I don't see much progress toward democratic culture in the Middle East until their deeply disturbed sexual culture gets healthier."

******************************************************************************

I'm confused. The NPR article that refers to the diaper killings is firewalled, of course. But even if it were not, and I knew the details which the remainder of this post identifies as not within the grasp of my knowledge, the logic of the mullahs escapes me:

1. WHICH males do the mullahs believe will bugger the goats so as to make the mullahs issue the diaper edict? Sullivan's posts identify two possible classes: Muslim males in general, and a given shepherd's flock (wrong word?). How, exactly, though, do the mullahs believe that a non-shepherd Muslim male will manage to penetrate (so to speak) a shepherd's flock, get the shepherd's goat (so to speak), and bugger it? Do the mullahs believe that ALL Muslim men are capable of succumbing to undiapered buggery, or just that shepherds are? If the former, then why aren't non-shepherds, upon coming into contact with an undiapered goat, required to diaper it themselves? If a non-shepherd buggers an undiapered goat, to punish the shepherd but not the buggerer seems a little.... strange upon strange.

2. Andrew's second commentary claims, correctly, that the "non-deviant" (i.e. heterosexual, supposed to be chaste, etc) male is, in fundamentalist culture, not held responsible for the sins of the flesh - the object of the temptation is. If that is the case, then why should the mullahs, presuming they are ordering the execution of straight shepherds, require the shepherds to diaper the goats in the first place? Like Andrew said, "It's the goat's fault. The way they were dressed, they were asking for it." His contradictory conment that "it's the shepherd's fault for not covering them up sufficiently" runs counter to Muslim norms that dictate that a heterosexual male is not to be held responsible for sins of the flesh. After all, as strict as the laws regarding how Muslim women are to be dressed are, the women are not to be dressed with Everlast chastity belts or diapers by their husbands upon pain of execution should their husbands fornicate with them on a non-sanctioned occasion, right?

Andrew says that the logic of fundamentalism is relentless. In this case, it is relentlessly nonexistent. And here's another, more obvious question: are there actually ANY laws in Muslim countries against bestiality? The mere fact that an edict requiring DIAPERING of goats to cover up their private parts suggests that, shall we say, there have been issues with man and beast before where Sharia has not entered the field. And, if there still is no law directly prohibiting the buggery, consider the fascinating resulting legal and practical anomaly: you can put to death for not diapering your goat, but you can bugger it all you want through the diaper hole!

Truly unbelievable. The word "pamper" has just gained a new definition.

SCOTTY TOMORROW, II

Hopefully, you've looked up the details of Game 6 of the 1986 NLCS. In case you haven't, a brief summary.

The Astros got an early lead on the Mets, scoring three runs in the bottom of the first. The score remained Astros 3, Mets 0 through eight whole innings. Then, we come to the top of the 9th. Astros starting pitcher Bob Knepper (whose wife we see beaming confidently in the stands) prepares to deliver the final shutout inning. He blew a 4-0 Astros lead in game 3 (the Mets won this game on Len Dykstra's home run; I was in Whalen's drug store when the game was won, next to Grand Union shopping center, in Commack, NY where I grew up; a TV had been brought into the drugstore so that shoppers could watch the series), but all he needed in THIS game was three more outs.

Dykstra was unlikely to provide the final blow-if there were to be one - as he was up first. He smashed a pitch off Knepper into left field, delivering a triple. Mookie Wilson then drove him home. 3-1. The Mets then scrapped together another run after Knepper retired another Met. 3-2. Knepper was taken out of the game. Finally, the Mets got a third run, tying the game. No more runs for the Mets that inning, but no more were needed to send the game into extra innings, provided the Mets could keep the Astros scoreless in the bottom of the 9th, which they did.

So, the game went into extra innings. No runs were scored by either team in innings 10, 11, 12 or 13, although the Astros came awfully close several times. Had any one of these efforts been successful, Scotty Tomorrow.

In the top of the 14th, the deadlock was broken. The Mets punch in a run. Victory is in sight. We go to the bottom of the 14th. The Astros' Billy Hatcher, a man who was responsible for some of the extra-inning close calls, hits one deep to left field. The ball hits the foul pole, JUST on the fair side. Home run. Solo home run, thank god, but home run bad. Game is tied again.

15th inning-scoreless.

Top of the 16th - Mets blow the game wide open, scoring three runs. Surely, they figure, this must be it. Both teams have basically used up their rosters. To get three runs this late into the game is to get quite lucky. How could the Astros possibly answer THAT? So we go to the bottom of the 16th. Realize what has happened in this game so far. The game, which as far as both teams are concerned, determines who will go to the World Series (later that night, by the way, in the AL, the Bosox will play the Angels to determine who will be the Mets/Astros opponent; as of the bottom of the 16th, the Bosox series was tied, 3-3; the Angels, two games earlier, were ONE strike away from winning the series 4-1; Angels pitcher Donnie Moore blew the game by giving up a home run. Moore, devastatingly, killed himself a few years later, it is thought, because of his role in the loss of this game). The Astros, as of 1986, have never made it to the World Series. The Mets have not made it since 1973. Both teams came up together as expansion teams in 1962 and were looking to cap a glorious year by adding a league championship title to their accomplishments; the Astros, their first ever, the Mets, one that would adorn a regular season record defined by winning two games out of three - a record that completed a process of turning around the worst team in baseball to one that won its division in 1986 by 21 1/2 games. The stakes could not have been higher if God him/her/itself had raised them.

So, into the bottom of the 16th, 7-4. Improbably, the Astros score two runs. It's now 7-6. The crowd (whose loudness the whole night just seems to grow and grow and grow given that the game is played under a roof) is literally going berserk. The game, at this point, has reached the status of legend, regardless of who wins. But wait. There's actually more. The Astros have two runners on base - on first and second. Astros hitter Kevin Bass strides to the plate, with two outs, facing off against Mets reliever Jesse Orosco. Orosco was the only Met in 1986 who was a Met six years earlier; he alone had seen firsthand the team's development into greatness (he also continued to play in the majors after '86 longer than any other Met, albeit in his final days with another team). Orosco works the count up to 3 and 2. 3 balls, two strikes. Runners on first and second. The winning run on second. The pitch. Strike 3!!!! Game over. Mets win! Even some Astros fans respectfully clap on their way out, as they realize, although their team has suffered a devastating defeat, it has played one of the greatest games in history.

The Mets' next challenge is to win the World series against the winner of the Bosox/Angels matchup. The story of who wins that series is for another entry. All I will say about it is that as of the date of this writing, the Mets, the Red Sox, and the Angels, have all won at least one World Series since the 1980's.

Post-Script (or the past is prologue script). The Mets, this year, have the best record in the NL, 71-45. The last time the Mets won 71 games this quickly was.... in 1986. Now, there are three divisions in the NL (in 1986, there was just east and west; there is now east, central and west). Each division winner automatically gets a playoff berth; the team in the NL with the best record exclusive of those three teams gets the wild card berth. And wouldn't you know, the Astros are just two games behind in the race for the wild card? And remember how the Mets beat the second-place Phillies in the east by 21 1/2 games in 1986? The team in the NL East with the second-best record now is... Philadelphia, 14 games behind the Mets.

No more Scotty tomorrow, but perhaps Plenty in Twenty...

"SCOTTY TOMORROW"

(*Note: I love discussing this story with people. I love talking about it. I love the fact that, twenty years after the fact, the spectre of history of being made again looms large).

...was the chant of Houston Astros fans across the country on Wednesday, October 15, 1986. On that day, Game 6 of the National League Championship series between the New York Mets and Houston Astros took place. The Mets, before the game, were winning the best-of-seven series three games to two. The Astros had home-field advantage, meaning that if the Mets lost Wednesday's game, the two teams would meet again the following day in the Astrodome, where they met for games 1 and 2, for the decisive game 7.'

The Mets were scared to death of the possibility of a game 7. Their reasons were well-founded. The Astros' two victories against them, in Games 1 and 4, were delivered courtesy of Astros' ace pitcher Mike Scott ("Scotty"), who shut the Mets out in Game 1 and held them to one run in Game 2. Scott, a former Met, was the NL's premier pitcher in 1986. This fact naturally led to allegations throughout the year, and by Mets during Game 1 in particular, that he was scuffing the ball. The allegations went nowhere. Irony of ironies, Scott began his career as a Met, but was traded to the 'Stros in the early '80's, when the Mets felt he didn't live up to his potential. Soon after he joined the Astros, he learned the split-fingered fastball, and in 1986, he chalked up over 300 strikeouts and clinched the NL West title for the Astros on a night in which he pitched a no-hitter.

Game 6, then, as far as the Mets were concerned, was really do or die. To the Mets, the very idea of forcing a Game 6, let a Game 7 - was something of a joke. After all, the Amazins' had a regular season record of 108-54, which was not only the best record in the NL in over 70 years, but which was handily better than that of the Astros. No one was invincible in the Mets' regular season onsluaght, not even Mr. Scott.

Thus, when Game 6 rolled around, the Mets were ready to kick some serious ass. The Astrodome (which later became demolished, as the Astros next played in, yes, Enron Field; they now play in Enron Park; that should tell you everything you need to know about baseball and corporations) was packed. The game-lasted four hours and forty-two minutes, and sixteen innings. That's why I'm writing about it. By the way, the game was on during the mid-evening, EST. I was in Hebrew School that night from 4:30-7. My mother fondly remembers this night as "the night she almost forgot to pick me up from Hebrew school." The game, which ended right around the time school did, was that riveting. I, of course missed it, and have never seen it in its entirety - until now, thanks to the magic of the Internet. Snow White and Game 6 of the '86 NLCS. What more to life is there?

Let me tell you how great this game was. Newsday, just yesterday, did a retrospective of the Mets' 1986 season, and described the game as possibly "the greatest MLB game ever played." Numerous people who know far more about baseball than I do have called the game the best post-season game ever played. I have seen hundreds of baseball games, and have attended dozens. This game unquestionably was the best of them all. From what I saw of it in 1986, over the years, and now, in its completeness, it qualifies as the most suspenseful, the most draining, the most thrilling baseball game ever captured on television. Let's put it this way: those who are advised to stay off amusement park rides and to avoid horror movies because they are "faint of heart" should keep their distance from this one. It's as white a knuckler as any suspense film I've ever seen.


Want to find out the details? Look them up!

MY PET DIAPERED GOAT

In the "you cannot make this shit up" news category:

In Iraq, under mulllahs' orders and mutfis' edicts, if you are a shepherd and you do not diaper your goat(s), you will be executed. Why? Because the m&ms believe that the shepherds may get aroused if they happen to view the goats' genitals. Apparently this sort of punishment happens regularly in Nazaria, a suburb of western Baghdad, as does another innovative punishment: Are you a grocer who arranges your vegetables in a way that some mullah might find sexually suggestive? You get the death penalty too, or at least your store will be firebombed.

The diaper edicts do not apparently extend to sheep and camels. I wonder why? Could it be because when you're fucking or sucking one of them, you're not actually viewing the genitals? Or, could it be, as Yasser Arafat suggested to Bill Clinton when Clinton asked him with whom Clinton could have an affair next, "Sheep dont talk!"? Baaaa-fling!

I was unaware that Muslim society, at least in modern times, had these strictures against bestiality. But then again, when you think about it, the mullahs who come up with this shit (what kind of diaper is acceptable? What if the goat is allergic to it? How often is the diaper to be changed? Must the shepherd purchase a diaper genie? How can one change the diaper without viewing the genitals? If it is never to be changed, how can the goat reproduce?) couldn't care less about bestiality. No - this crap is all about trying to shame people into not thinking about genitals, which in turn, it is hoped, will shame them into not thinking about sex. Muslim men can't see Muslim women unclothed, but apparently, these men inexplicably are aware of the fact that human female genitalia exist, so the mullahs believe that covering up goat genitalia will control these males' desire to refrain from masturbating, fornicating with human females, and so on. Yes, that will do it. Being forced to inhale the smell of goat shit all day long will drive all thoughts of sex (as opposed to shit) out of your head. Maybe you won't want to have sex with a goat now until it is given a high colonic, but nonetheless, how does the diapering of goats prevent men from getting excited about HUMAN females? The act, and significance, of putting Huggies on your livestock bears no logical relation to one's ability to refrain from becoming aroused by one's wife, unless the wife actually looks like a goat, in which case the diapering may serve to reinforce a repulsion. May I suggest to the mullahs the following idea: have the men, in addition to diapering the goats, display pictures of their wives' heads on the goats' faces, carving out spaces for the goats' eyes, noses, mouth, and so on. (Kidding, of course. To be an animal in the Muslim world is to be mistreated by definition).

The problem (actually, one of many problems) with these mullahs is that not only do THEY have diapers in their hair; they have diapers in their heads.

"H.M.S."-PEERLESS

I figured it was about time to write a post, in honor of Roger Ebert (for whose speedy recovery I pray), listing what I consider to be the greatest 50 film scenes. Mr. Ebert compiled exactly such a list a few years back - the "scenes" on his list consisted of a "scene" as short as a single shot, and as long as an elaborate set piece. He described the scenes as having a commonality: he could not bear the thought of never being able to view the scenes again.

So, Roger, this is for you. My list (which doesn't necessarily describe exactly what transpired in a scene - in the hopes that maybe you can have the pleasure of discovering the scene anew, or for the first time; the list also does not necessarily pick the "obvious" great scenes of the films listed - in large part because many of those scenes are overrated, or have so become part of the common culture that it is hard to analyze them with a clear head), like Roger's, is in no particular order (it is simply alphabetical):

A.I. (2001): The Blue Fairy's gentle call: "Daaaaaavid..."
Aliens (1986): Ripley's dispatch of the "bitch" out the shuttle hatch (appx. 3 minutes)
All About Eve(1950): Margo Channing's final line to Eve Harrington
Almost Famous(2000): "Tiny Dancer" scene
Amistad (1997): oral argument adet the Supreme Court
Anatomy of a Murder(1959): "Oh, and as to why I didn't pay you.... I had an irresistible impulse."
Annie Hall(1977): The Marshall McLuhan scene
Another Woman(1988): The scene where Gena Rowlands' character realizes that her office's ventilator serves a dual function as an eavesdropping device
Apollo 13 (1995): The scene where Jim Lovell's mother, in a nursing home, cannot find any television station covering her son's mission
As Good as It Gets (1997): "Everyone wants that, dear. It.... doesn't exist."

Babe (1995): The scene where Farmer Hoggett guesses what Babe's weight is, only to be forced to guess again after Babe..... suddenly loses a few ounces.
Babe (1998): Pig in the City (one of the most underrated movies ever made): the animals' trek through the childrens' hospital; the raid for food. This movie is a must-see.
Bonnie and Clyde (1967): the getaway gone wrong


Casablanca(1942): Every other line in the final scene between Rick and Ilsa
Chinatown(1974): "I own everything in this town. I own her, too."
Clockers:(1995):The revelation of the identity of the murderer, and his explanation for his crime
Clockwork Orange, A(1971):"I was cured, all right." (one of the most ambiguous closing lines in movie history).
Close Encounters of the Third Kind(1977):The alien ship's musical signal
Color Purple, The (1985): Oprah Winfrey telling Dana Ivey to go to hell


Do the Right Thing(1989): The last ten minutes. It brought Roger to tears, and he's cried at the movies only three times.

E.T.(1982): The "death" scene where Elliott's brother runs out of the room, visibly anguished.


Fargo (1996): The second visit by Marge to William H. Macy's auto dealership. We realize, as this scene unfolds, why the seemingly pointless scene that preceded it (between Marge and the Asian man at the buffet) was absolutely instrumental to the plot. The way the film laid out Marge's thinking and translated it into action for us was done with incalculable subtlety).
Full Metal Jacket(1987): "I was trying to make a statement about the duality of man."

Gone With the Wind(1939) (so many to choose from):"War, war, war. It's all anyone ever talks about."
Graduate, The(1967): Dustin Hoffman slowly traveling along the airport "moving sidewalk."

Hoop Dreams(1994): Arthur Agee's mother finding out she's received her nursing degree
Hours, The(2002): "Surely even the lowliest patient has some say in the matter of her own prescription."

Incredibles, The (2004): The helpful insurance advice scene.


Jaws(1975):"Don't give me any of that working class hero crap!"

Kill Bill I(2003):The crowd clearing out of the Tokyo restaurant to make room for the crazy 88.
Kill Bill II(2004): Darryl Hannah loses her eye

Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring(2001): The 6-minute-or-so sequence that in effect summarized the entire length of The Hobbit.


Mr. Holland's Opus(1995): The surprise for Mr. Holland at the end of the film; Mr. Holland's line to the football coach: "It'll be a cold day in hell before they cut the football team's budget!"
Mulholland Drive(2001): "I've Told Every Little Star" audition.
Mystic River(2003):Dave's mother shutting the light off (this film, like a few others on the list, could make up its own list).

Network(1976): Let's just say there's a reason that Beatrice Straight won the Oscar for six minutes of screen time.

Ordinary People(1980): Mary Tyler Moore's reaction when her son (Timothy Hutton) kisses her.

Pulp Fiction(1994):"Mongoloid."

Quiz Show(1994): "Your name IS my name."

Remains of the Day(1993):"It's just a sentimental old love story...."

Shining, The(1980):Chef Halloran's description of the meals available to Jack Nicholson and his family during their stay at the Overlook
Star Trek II(1982): "I'm laughing.... at the SUPERIOR intellect."
State and Main(2000): "Don't flinch while you're talking to me, you speed-trap scheigits!"

2001: A Space Odyssey(1968):HAL's dispatch of Gary Lockwood into space

Unforgiven(1992): Little Bill Daggett working on his house

Verdict, The(1982): Scene where James Mason spits out names of cases and citations from memory immediately upon request.

Wizard of Oz, The (1939): "Here, Scarecrow, wanna play BALL?"

X-Men III(2006): The Final Stand: "Not you, too!!"

Young Frankenstein(1974): Scene with Gene Hackman

Zelig(1983): The movie is only 83 minutes, is one of Woody Allen's best, and allows me to have at least one movie for each letter of the alphabet (not that this was my goal). Therefore, the whole film qualifies as a great scene. (???)

****************************************************************************
The list will be supplemented as I think of more great scenes.

"CRUD"OVICO TREATMENT*

Someone has called out Ann Coulter - both the "real" and "for effect" one, in a truly terrific way, exposing her for the vast crud of human wasteland that she is: The author who delivers the treatment is the film reviewer for the website Richmond.com:

Richmond.com
Wednesday, August 09, 2006

"Only one thing would have made "World Trade Center" better - having Ann Coulter next to me being forced to watch the new Oliver Stone Sept. 11 dirge in its entirety with her eyelids taped back and her hands shackled to the seat - a la Stanley Kubrick's "A Clockwork Orange."You might remember how the conservative author and fashionably long-legged hate monger accused Sept. 11 widows of enjoying their husbands' deaths in her new book, "Godless: The Church of Liberalism."T

"Try saying that again after watching "World Trade Center," Ms. Coulter. I dare you."

***************************************************************************

Actually, the poor author underestimates Ms. Coulter's ability, feigned or delierate, for "outrageous'" savagery: If the WIDOWS of DECEASED victims of September 11th earned nothing but her braying and neighing, it should go without saying that, since the two principal characters in "World Trade Center" survive (and thus their wives are not made widows), the widows (the real life ones) will be attacked by the Coultergeist, simply because someone who does not like George Bush made a film depicting their fictional selves.

And by the way, a word to those who believe it's ALL an "act" with her: look on the web and find out about the role she played in the Paula Jones lawsuit. You'll then discover why the block of letters "ion" is not tacked on to the word "act." By the way, Jones' suit was dismissed for a 12(b)(6) failure to state a claim, since Clinton's alleged sexual harassment of her occurred at a private hotel, and he was not her employer, and there is no cause of action for sexual harassment outside of the employment context. Someone who went to the highest-ranked public law school in America (which, as it was back in the dayfor AnnK, is now harder to make for an out-of-state resident than Yale is to make for anyone) obviously knew this. Also, look at what her father did for a "living" and how she helped "him."

Look also at what drives this woman nuts - being ignored. The "furor" over her "widow" comments lasted only a week or so, so she had to dredge up new sludge. And so she did, declaring that Bill Clinton was gay. After this "accusation" got nowhere, she then "declared" that Hillary was gay. Attention is the oxygen that feeds this woman's hate, and ignoring her is the equivalent of dumping her out of the airlock of a starship. And remember - in space, no one can hear you steam.

*See "A Clockwork Orange" so you can appreciate how lame this pun is.

MANICHEAN MACHINATIONS

Fred Kaplan wrote an interesting article today in Slate about what appears to be a diabolical terrorist plot that was foiled by British intelligence:

Little is yet known about the plot to blow up at least a half-dozen airplanes as they carried hundreds of passengers over the Atlantic Ocean from England to America. But one thing seems clear: The plot was foiled because of intelligence information, much of it provided by a nasty source that has itself been linked to terrorist organizations.

According to the Times of London, Pakistan's intelligence service worked "closely with MI5 and Scotland Yard" and, at the request of British authorities, supplied information that proved "crucial in thwarting the attacks" and in arresting the alleged conspirators, most of them apparently of Pakistani descent.

If police hadn't nabbed them in their homes during a sweeping raid, the plotters would likely have sailed through airport security. Metal detectors are blind to liquid explosives. Short of an amazing stroke of luck (along the lines of the flight attendant who sniffed out Richard Reid's attempt to ignite his shoe bomb on an American Airlines flight from Paris to Miami in December 2001), not even the most astute guard would have looked twice at a soft-drink container or at the flash camera that was reportedly to trigger the blast.

Preventing (terrorist attacks) from happening requires good intelligence, and good intelligence requires contacts with the sort of people who hang around the dark alleys of the world.

There's a broader lesson here, and it speaks to the Bush administration's present jam throughout the Middle East and in other danger zones. If the British had adopted the same policy toward dealing with Pakistan that Bush has adopted toward dealing with, say, Syria or Iran (namely, it's an evil regime, and we don't speak with evil regimes) (DRL: bullshit), then a lot of passenger planes would have shattered and spilled into the ocean, hundreds or thousands of people would have died, and the world would have suddenly been plunged into very scary territory.

It is time to ask: Which is the more "moral" course—to shun odious regimes as a matter of principle or to take unpleasant steps that might prevent mass terror?

The two courses aren't always mutually exclusive. There are degrees of odiousness, some of them intolerable; and there are degrees of terror, some of them unavoidable.

In this light, it's worth looking back at an article by Seymour Hersh in the July 28, 2003, issue of The New Yorker. Hersh reported that, in the months following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center, Syria emerged as "one of the CIA's most effective intelligence allies in the fight against al-Qaeda." Syria had hundreds of files on al-Qaida, including dossiers on those who had participated—or wanted to participate—in the 9/11 attacks. Syrian spies had penetrated al-Qaida cells throughout the Middle East, and Syrian President Bashar

Assad was passing on loads of data to the CIA and the FBI. Some of these tips apparently foiled al-Qaida plots, including a plan to fly an explosives-laden glider into the U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet headquarters.

Assad's interests in this exchange were straightforward. As he explained to Hersh, al-Qaida had links to Syria's Muslim Brotherhood, which posed a threat to Assad's own government. "The need to cooperate [with the United States] was self-evident," he said. Hersh noted a more opportunistic motive: Assad wanted to get off the official U.S. list of states that sponsor terrorism; doing so would have allowed Syria to receive aid and investment. (In short, Assad wanted Syria to become the next Saudi Arabia. Both countries hate Jews, hate Israel, have given aid to terrorists, suppress human rights, and monopolize the world's oil supply, by the way. But we're "allies" with only one)
.
In a passage that's even more intriguing now than it was three years ago, Hersh reported that, in the fall of 2002, Gen. Hassan Khalil, head of Syrian military intelligence, told Washington that, in exchange for reopened relationships, Syria would impose restrictions on the political and military actions of Hezbollah.

A huge interagency feud broke out over what to do about the Syrian offer. The State Department and the CIA, which particularly valued Syria's intelligence pipeline, favored pursuing the talks. The civilian leaders in the Pentagon opposed the move; they were in the midst of planning the invasion of Iraq, and "regime change" in Syria was next on their to-do list (as Gore Vidal claimed in his recent book, Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia). Why Syria in particular, only Bill Krystol, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, and John Podhoretz know for sure.

The debate was soon moot. Once the war in Iraq began, Assad stopped the flow. Yet there he was, a few months later, telling Hersh that he was willing to turn the spigot back on again—to no response from the Bush administration. (Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists. Unless the terrorists have taken us hostage, in which case you're with us because we're with them. Or something like that).

It's unclear—Hersh noted as much in his article—where resumed talks might have led. Would Assad really have lowered the hammer on Hezbollah? If he had refused to do so, how far could the United States have pursued the relationship?

Still, the episode clearly shows—as does Pakistan's recent cooperation with MI5 and Scotland Yard—that the concept of morality in international relations is more complex than President Bush sometimes seems to recognize. Consider this: Had the CIA won the internal debate on whether to deal with Syria, is it possible that the current war between Israel and Hezbollah might never have taken place? How many compromises of "principle" would that have been worth?

***********************************************************************************
"If you can't take a little bloody nose," Q once told Picard, "maybe you ought to go home and hide under your bed."

The Star Trek analogy that is even more apropos (almost deadly so) of this situation stems from a second-season episode of Voyager, "Alliances."

A plot summary:

A series of brutal attacks by the Kazon (an emeny race with a really bad hairdo) leaves Voyager shaken and seriously damaged; the crew worried that if things continue in this manner, the ship will be destroyed long before it reaches the Alpha Quadrant (i.e. Earth). As a result, Chakotay suggests to Janeway that maybe the ship should do some Maquis-style thinking (i.e. realpolitik) and make a deal with the Kazon. Unfortunately, this goes against everything Janeway believes about Starfleet protocol and the Prime Directive issues (i..e. "stay the course," "don't negotiate with terrorists.")

So, Janeway arranges a meeting with a Kazon vessel and its crew. This leads one outspoken Maquis crewman to voice his opinion: That Voyager should just give the Kazon the technology they want in exchange for a truce. Janeway flat out tells him that she would sooner destroy the ship than hand pieces of it over to the Kazon ("Starfleet rules prohibit giving "enemy" cultures such technology, but the premise of Voyager is that the ship is completely cut off from Starfleet; in the opening episode, it was hurtled 70,000 light years away from Earth, which means that it would take the ship 70 years to get back. Do/should/can these "rules" apply in situations never contemplated by their authors? Why, this almost sounds like an argument about..... never mind). Chakotay (Janeway's first officer) thinks there may be a different way of bending the Prime Directive without breaking it completely.

Meanwhile, Neelix, the crew member whose function was never defined, prepares for a meeting with another Kazon faction (there are multiple factions, often with mutually exclusive interests). Neelix goes to the meeting by shuttle and is thrown into a cell with a group of Trabe refugees, a race despised mutually by all the Kazon factions.

Neelix allies himself with the Trabe to escape the Kazon in a jailbreak scene, and then Neelix and the Trabe rendezvous with Voyager. A Trabe governor named Mabus (Charles Lucia) lays everything down, including some interesting backstory explaining why the Kazon hate the Trabe, and why the Kazon have become a race of angry armies. It turns out the Trabe persecuted the Kazon like animals, almost treating them like slaves. Thirty years ago, when the Kazon finally got fed up, they exploded into violence and exiled the Trabe. Mabus admits the Trabe were wrong to treat the Kazon the way they did, and he offers to ally himself with Janeway. Together both Voyager and the Trabe would be less vulnerable.

This will surely make the Kazon furious. However, Mabus also believes that together, Voyager and the Trabe can negotiate with the Kazon and bring peace among everyone. It's a genuine gesture that could benefit everybody, so Janeway accepts it. Mabus arranges a meeting on Sobras and invites all the Kazon sect leaders.
The meeting is bound to be problematic, however. Several Kazon bigwigs, upon hearing the news, begin plotting almost instantly. Neelix hears a rumor that someone is planning an assassination attempt. And no Kazon trusts the Trabe.

The episode culminates with a chilling revelation and special effects display, in which a Trabe starship tries to kill all the Kazon leaders by descending from space, hovering outside the window of the negotiation building and opening fire. Fortunately, Janeway realizes the Trabe's deception just in time to warn everybody to GET DOWN!

The idea of the Trabe using Voyager under the pretense of peace just to kill everybody is a rather unsettling display that the Delta Quadrant doesn't seem (mind you, this was season two of seven - so let's emphasize those words "doesn't seem") to operate with many rules or underlying values. Janeway's subsequent confrontation with Mabus over his deceitful actions is very potent, showing an extremely forceful and angry, but very plausible, Captain Janeway.

"Troublesome," though, as a reviewer said, however, is the very ending, when Janeway tells the crew she thinks there's a lesson to be learned from all of this: That in this chaotic quadrant of very few rules, the best ally Voyager has are the principles and rules of the Federation (i.e. "they hate us for our freedom."). Sure, this is a nicely done speech, but I'm not really sure it's that easy. Is not making a deal and doing, in Chakotay's words, "business as usual" really going to help the crew in their next dealing with the Kazon? Or other enemy species? "I'm inclined to say no. This speech supplies a genuinely positive, non-cynical Star Trek ending, but it doesn't sit right considering all the deceit in the episode. Under the drastic circumstances, wouldn't Chakotay's attitude that you have to do what you can to survive be somewhat more appropriate, or at least worth another look? The ending as it is presents a cut-and-dry solution to a complex problem, where a more ambiguous approach would have been better. I would just as soon prefer no speech at all, leaving it up to the audience to reflect on the events that have unfolded. Janeway's attitude that the crew will get by if they hold to their principles has a strong air of naivete that rubs me the wrong way."

Voyager lasted for seven years. The writers, from the point of "Alliances" on, made a conscious decision to write not a series, but a show consisting of self-contained, hour-long episodes, that basically played like "The Next Generation" in a far away place. Basically, it was as if they swallowed Janeway's speech whole (on TNG< Starfleet rules were rarely broken). The effect of this non-rule-breaking was to squander the show's inherent potential to be something new and different - a show where survival depended upon creativity, compromise, and circumstance, not upon contrivance and coincidence.

As our reviewer noted in his review of one of the very last shows (which, ironically, featured Voyager cooperating with a group of alien ships to escape a proverbial black hole - it was almost as if the writers - if they were conscious of what they were doing - were making penance for the sin of "alliances") stated: "[I] think of ["Alliances] now as one of the biggest turning-point mistakes Voyager ever made. In that episode, a deal gone bad convinced Janeway that the Delta Quadrant was a socially turbulent and dangerous place. Her very naive solution was that staying the same would prevail over the prospect of changing."

At least Janeway's intentions were noble. The Bush people don't even have that excuse. Their Middle-East "allies" are a bunch of thugs, and the reason why they have allied themselves with some thugs as opposed to others is that the former thugs are better business partners and better arms traders. Every single reason the Bushies have given for refusing to work with admittedly despicable people (with whom they've already worked, just different ones) to gain valuable intelligence rings false: "Doing so would endanger democracy in the Middle East." (Like they care about whether Israel or any other country there is Democratic). "We don't negotiate or even talk to terrorists." (Then why was our air base removed from Saudi Arabia when Osama requested it be removed shortly after Sept. 11th? What was Iran-Contra if not a giant negotiation with terrorists? Removing Libya from our enemies list? Negotiating with terrorists. We negotiate with whom its in our best interests to negotiate. Note how "best interests," obviously, are the best interests of the American people only if the people are really, really lucky). "We have nothing to talk about." (Instead of saying that, make clear that at the first sign of deception, there will be no talks, and no deals, and that the offending nation will return to pariah status). "It's immoral." (Please, please, Oh Lord Please).

It arguably took Voyager a superfluos six years to get home simply because Janeway stood "alone with her principles" (had she opened herself up to alliances, she could have found a quicker way home). As long as we continue to abide by a Prime Directive that doesn't even exist, we'll NEVER find our way home.

SNOW LOWE

I've heard about how horrible the 8-minute-or-so opening number to the 1988 film year Academy Awards was practically dozens of times. (And mostly from the same book, no less - Inside Oscar). Yet, astonishingly, given that I only began taping the Oscars circa the 1991 film year, I did not have this priceless 8-minute bit in my collection. Over the years, I've made a few random, ad hoc attempts to gather the footage (which, of course, courtesy of the late producer Allan Carr, features, among other things, features such priceless bits as an actress-impersonator singing a takeoff of "Proud Mary" with Rob Lowe; singing and dancing tables at a tackily decorated set meant to be the Graumann's Chinese Theater, replete with Carmen-Miranda lookalikes participating in the festivities, and Lucille Ball, in her last Oscar appearance, somehow thrown into the mix of all of this, for approximately three seconds, and....) without success. Today, I struck gold, so to speak. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9H3EMCjJGg

Through the magic of youtubecom, I was able to watch essentially the entire opening act (save for the last minute or so, which was the only part of the opening act that was not a downright debacle). Now, many things I've read about for many years as being worse than a skunk's ass in heat bad, I end up finding, once I see them, that they are slightly better than they were described. Call it a reverse case of heightened expectations.

But not this time. The opening seven minutes of the 61st Academy Awards were every bit as horrendous as the unanimous verdict rendered upon those minutes declared: incomprehensibly, utterly beyond beyond awful, to the point that one cannot even begin to invoke the "so bad its good/it's bad/it's good/bad three times over" merry-go-round. I've seen fifteen Oscar shows and this opening segment takes the cake for sheer meretriciousness. It makes Debbie Allen's dance sequences for "The Thin Red Line" and "Saving Private Ryan" look like Stravinsky's "The Rites of Spring" in comparison.

The opening act was so bad, in fact, that Carr literally never worked in Hollywood again, and Disney sued the Academy for trademark dilution and copyright infrigement. The Academy knew it had a loser on its hands and settled out of court. The non-actress who played Snow White, Eileen Bowman, found that her non-career was runied. Rob Lowe - well, he's still a joke.

Wanna know just HOW bad the opening act was? The show was supposed to have a host and the songs nominated for best song were supposed to be performed live. During the first commercial break, the Academy Board of Governors determined that Allan Carr presumably (yes, this is a joke) somehow developed the production numbers that were the nominated songs, and that these things must not be allowed to infect people's TV screens, so the songs were ditched, just like that. The Board further determined that the presence of a host would add running time to the show, which the Board wanted over as quickly as possible. Didn't think a show could make major impromptu alterations? It sure can, but only if something that gives off that bad a Carr-ma happens.

By the way, the following year, Gil Cates produced his first Oscar show, and Billy Crystal hosted his first Oscar show. The "modern Oscar format" as we know it was born, and as tired, and tiresome, as that format now sometimes seems, things were once worse. A lot worse. As Carr himself said the night of the show, "I have Oscar diarrhea." If only he could have kept it in his pants.

BURNING RUBBER

In 1992, in Houston Texas, the day after Pat Buchanan foalminated in his famous Cross of Mold speech at the Republican National Convention about how ours was a Christian (mean: fat lazy rage-filled middle-aged white men in the red states fucking their zombie wives up the ass in Barca Lounges) country, George H.W. Bush gave his keynote address - which, if possible, was an even more genuine embarrassment that Pitchforkedtonuge Pat's was.

Among little Georgie's bons mots: 'Why, if that governor of Arkansas get elected President, nothing will ever get done in the Congress. Clinton-Gore, Gridlocked Congress (actually, it would stand to reason, according to the Republican viewpoint, that plenty would get done, but never mind. The intellectual difference between George W and George H.W. basically comes down to this: George W. wouldn't even be permitted to carry the fruitcake salad to a Mensa meeting, while George H.W. might at least be able to bring the cowpies). Just picture that. (And now, in a complete contradiction of what he said). And picture something even worse: (starts banging fist rapidly, bringing voice to stacatto crescendo): a rubber check Congress (a Congress that would spend out of control), and a RUBBER STAMP PRE SI DENT!")

(Crowd goes wild - that is to say, one member even does a jig - breaks into dance, that is).

So, from 1992-1994, some would say we had a "Rubber Check Congress and a Rubber Stamp President"
From 1994-2000, we had a "Rubber-Hating Congress" and a "Rubber-Less" President
What have we had from 2001-the present?

A Rubber check, rubber-hating, rubberized (i.e. Ted Stevens) Congress, and a President in rubber pants.

Beginning in January of 2007, could it just be that we have a GENUINE rubber check Congress (i.e. one that writes a check that ACTUALLY bounces, as if that could happen in Washington), one that no longer answers to a now lame rubber-duck President?

That, as Shakespeare said, is the rub.

NOTHING CAN STOP THE TIDE

It's hard to imagine, but there are individual days from before I went to college - days from high school, no less, when "the days blended together like melted celluloid," as Woody Allen once said - the details of which that I can remember with alarming clarity.

May 19, 1995 is one of those days. I'm glad I remember it. This is one of the few days I remember. The few. The proud. The....

Well, I get ahead of myself. The next word in the above paragraph was to be, had type been cast, "Marines." Strangely (or in just a lame attempt to make this post "flow well) enough, one reason why I remembered the day so well was because of something military-related.

May 19, 2005 was a Friday. The 1994-1995 school year was near a close, and, as I recall things, my homework load (and other loads) were light that weekend (yeah, like I recall the latter). The homework load must have been light; if it had not been, I would not have remembered this day at all. (To truly explain what this statement means would require poking into a proverbial valley of darkness a stick so deeply that by contrast, Frodo's mission to destroy the ring would come off as mere taking out the trash).

As soon as school let out (2:12 P.M.) on May 19, my father picked me up (I normally took the bus, but we wanted to get somewhere - fast), and took me to the grand opening of - I don't care what its actual name is - the Broadway Mall Multiplex in Hicksville (that's the name I remember). This theater celebrated its grand opening - you're not gonna believe how - by, starting early in the morning of May 19th, running a Star Trek movie marathon on one of its screens. Films one through four, six, and the recently-released seventh Star Trek film, played continuously on one screen. Film # 5 did not play because for some reason, the theater decided, when film #4 ended, to show only two more films, and gave the audience a choice of which two it wanted to see. The audience didn't specify... It simply said, "Not #5."

I came in approximately ten minutes before the close of Star Trek III. My first memory of Star Trek - ever - was seeing Star Trek IV (1986) on the big screen, so you can imagine what a thrill it was to see, if only for ten minutes, on the big screen, a Star Trek film I'd never seen on such a screen before. Just amazing.

And it was grand to see 4, 6 and 7 "as it was meant to be" (a certain character from #6 would appreciate that line) again, too.

At some point, there was an intermission between two showings. So, my father and I did what any sensible person would do - we went in to another theater and caught a large part of another film. The cinema actually let us do this, because the price of the ticket for the entire Star Trek marathon was very high, and because, as I remember, my father really needed a place to sit down (no, the name of the film was not "The Past is Prologue.")

The name of the film - and here's where the military thing comes in - was Crimson Tide (I'm making it sound like no one's ever heard of this movie), which had opened a week earlier. We came in at about the 20-minute mark, and left at about the midway (so to speak) point. What a riveting experience those 40 minutes - the set-up, the introduction and intensification of the film's major conflict, and the best set pieces all occurring within that time - proved to be.

The film, as you may (i.e. do) recall (I wouldn't be writing this entry if it weren't, on some level, my own attempt to do my own version of keyboard commandoing by linking the film's story to our present-day military atmosphere) involved a mutiny on a nuclear submarine, the U.S.S. Crimson Tide (named after the football team).

Now, anyone suborning or inciting mutiny on such a vessel, at a time when the captain of such a ship (played in the movie by Gene Hackman) could launch a nuclear attack upon confirmation of emergency transmission that he was authorized to do so (which basically meant the captain could launch whenever he felt like it, since he already possessed the codes; the transmission merely gave him the go-ahead to open the safe) would seem to be committing a spectucularly stupid act - as an Admiral investigating the mutiny (an uncredited Jason Robards) implies at the end of the film as he questions the captain and his XO, Hunter (Denzel Washington), who launched the mutiny.

The story, alarmingly enough, was based upon an amalgamation of events that actually transpired. In the early '90's, after the break-up of the Soviet Union, several rogue former Soviet nuclear subs were commandeered by that all-encompassing term, "terrorists," who threatened to launch the subs' warheads. The subs, it turned out, either did not have the capability of launching the missiles; the attempts to launch failed; or the subs were intercepted before any damage could be done (I really should research this; I sound like an idiot without giving more specifics).

Anyway, in the movie, a nutjob rebel from one of the Soviet republics that is always slaughtering people (I know - which one?) leads a revolution and commandeers four nuclear subs. The Crimson Tide, patrolling the region where these subs are suspected to be positioned (and, according to the NSA, suspected to be planning to launch their warheads at), receives an emegency message, authentic, which indicates, "authorization of launch of nuclear missiles has been authorized." As it just so happens, an Akula Russian sub, shortly before receipt of the transmission, was detected by the Crimson Tide, meaning that sixty minutes after receipt of the transmission, that sub, which the NSA has identified as one of the terrorists', will be nuked by the Crimson Tide (from a run silent, run deep, safe distance, of course).

As the sixty-minute clock counts down, with the Captain (Ramsey) literally wetting himself over the idea of launching a nuclear strike, the wrench is thrown into the works. The Crimson Tide at this point has dived to a distance sufficiently below the surface that, when a second emergency transmission alert is announced, the sub, not wanting to elevate itself lest it be detected, floats a buoy in the hopes that the alert signal will be amplified. As the buoy is floated, however (we see the ropes to which the buoy is attached unravel), a winch becomes loose, in the process shaking the ship up for a few seconds. The transmission is eventually received, but because of the jolt to the ship, the entire transmission was not communicated. The message simply says something to the effect of, "Crimson Tide re: launch of nuclear missiles," and then ends.

The Captain is unfazed by the message. He believes that as long as another one is not forthcoming, and given that only five minutes are left on the clock, to request that the transmission be duplicated is a deadly waste of time, and an implicit violation of orders (of the orders in the first message). He believes, not unreasonably, that the other ship is arming its missiles (as might be the other three), and that since there is no evidence that the incomplete message instructed the Crimson Tide to stand down, the attack must go forward.

His position is squarely opposed by the XO, who, although the film subtly attempts to get us to side with, stacks the deck by having the Captain come off as a warmonger. The XO is not a particularly honorable man, and there is a terrific scene where George Dzundza, as Chief of the Boat, quietly explains to the XO that the Chief's loyalty to his country outweighs his loyalty to either man's position, to either man. Neither man, we ultimately see, even if the film does not, gets the Chief's point.

The XO believes that if the missiles are launched as planned, one or more of the terrorist ships will retaliate, and, in true almost-Cuban Missile Crisis style, the REAL World War III will start (spoiler: perhaps you know how the movie will end now. I did, but was so caught up in the World War III between Hackman and Washington that I wasn't even thinking about the ending at all, let alone that the nature thereof was a foregone conclusion). The Washington character urges that the full contents of the message be received.

The rest of the movie involves, in what precise order I cannot recall, command of the boat exchaging hands between the two men on several occassions as a mutiny by Hunter and "counter-mutiny" by Ramsey are effected, while we are still left with the incomplete message.

Finally, Hackman regains control of the ship, and is just about to launch the missiles when....... The complete message, which says, "terminate launch, all missiles" comes in.

The susequent inquiry into the mutiny, held by the Robards character, is an eye-opener. He says, "On the record, you both performed with valor, bravery, blah, blah, blah." "Off the record, you've created one hell of a mess." Notably, he does not say how he would have resolved the situation, nor does the movie tell us what military protocol or law, if any, is applicable, or how. The scariest moment of the entire film, perhaps, comes at the very end, when we are told (as if to imply that this fictional story had something to do with it) that the President of the United States has sole access to nuclear launch codes, or something to that effect.

Is this progress?

HASSLING HASSLEBACK

Proof of conservatives' ability to dish it out but not take it, Exhibit 6,000,0001 (the number of Nazis Mel Gibson thinks Jews killed in Germany between 1941-1945):

Walters Harshly Scolds Co-Host On 'The View'

Veteran newswoman Barbara Walters hit out at co-host Elisabeth Hasselbeck live on the air Wednesday after a disagreement over the morning-after pill.

The panel on the talk show "The View" were discussing the day's "hot topics" -- including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's plan to consider selling the morning-after pill over the counter -- when the debate became heated.

The politically conservative Hasselbeck could barely contain herself as the topic was introduced saying, "My heart is almost out of my chest right now -- I feel very strongly about this" before venting her fury.

Guest co-host Lisa Loeb tried to step in and disagree, calling Hasselbeck's views "extreme."
Walters desperately tried to rein Hasselbeck in as she went on her rant, but was repeatedly cut-off, as Hasselback offered such priceless ministrations as, "Life begins at penetration." (Hers, or the baby's? What if no fertilization occurs?)

A visibly annoyed Walters took control of the conversation scolding her co-host saying, "Elisabeth, calm down! Everybody has strong opinions on this and there are many other arguments other people could give you." (Note: conservatives naturally think Walters' statement is evidence of her liberal bias, even though she hired Ms. Hassleback, dated (titter) Roy Cohn and Alan Greenspan, and was seemingly enraptured with both, and fired Star Jones for what some might call socialy promiscuous (read: liberal) behavior. Could it just be possible that Hassleback was giving her a headache in Liz' unrestrained act of cutting off anyone else from speaking, thereby implying, "I'm right, you're wrong, shut up?")

"I think the most important thing, which is what we see today, is to be able to have these discussions and listen to other people's opinions and not go so crazy that you don't listen to other people's opinions. (Of course, to listen to other's opinions, you first have to shut up for a few seconds. Hassleback couldn't even do this, much less take the much harder and probably impossible step of making the bare attempt to try to understand the words coming out of someone's mouth. Listening is not the absence of talking. It is an active exercise. When one's rageometer's batteries are in danger of threatening to break upon the mere threat of that person's opening her mouth, that person would consider having to listen to someone the equivalent of being tossed upon a pile of plutonium).

"We have to have a way of discussing this without exploding, because people have to understand each other," Walters said (naively).

When Hasselbeck tried to interrupt (demagogue) again, Walters said harshly (realizing that the dentist's drill, unlike the rageometer, was not running out of batteries), "Can we stop now?" (May I ask, what is so wrong/"liberal" about that? Watching "The View" is an painul enough experience as it is. If Ms. Hassleback wasnts to augment this pain by acting like a baby, someone, the host I guess ("who are you to decide who gets punished," a character once asked of Captain Kirk. "Who do I have to be," He replied), can squelch the tantrum. Sure, M. Hassleback could have expressed her views, like a mture republican woman (NRR 33 earplugs required). Since she failed to do so, though, what was Ms. Walters to do? Effectively silence herself and her other co-stars so that the show could turn into a mouthpiece for the unchallenged (notice how I didn't say "extreme"; that is a matter of opinion) views of one individual?

A visibly shaken Hasselbeck then ripped up her note cards as the show cut to commercial.
When the show returned, Walters was comforting her teary co-host, saying, "The wonderful thing about this show is we can have discussions that we feel very emotional about. We respect your opinion." (A disingenuous statement perhaps, but only to a point. Her opinion was respected enough that she was allowed to make her scene for a sufficiently long time without having her diaper changed).

Hasselbeck appeared on the verge of tears and kissed her co-host saying, "I love being here with you guys" before crawling into Walter's lap and being strangely cradled like a baby. (Passive-aggressive, of course; Ms. Hasselback must realize that she who lives to lap today learns to slap another day."

**********************************************************************************
As long as conservatives believe (supposedly) in the infallibility of the God in whose name they shill for, their arguments, at the end of the day, are more shrill and vitriolic than the arguments of those who do not make such arguments on the faux-basis of religious infallibility. Granted, many on the left, many Democrats, and various sundry flotsam and jetsam haters all across the world who do not believe in a God have a supply of poisonous venom all their own, but that veom does not spring eternal from the well of filth known as religion. The non-conservatives have to make up their hate sometimes, an act which takes away from the actual act of hating. Hardly a consolation for non-haters, but a distinction, yes.

MAHERVELOUS

Bill Maher, August 3, 2006:

"I suspect I'll have plenty more to say about Mel Gibson when Real Time returns to HBO on August 25 (PLUG!!!), but in the meantime a couple of thoughts:

As I watch so much of the world ask Israel for restraint in a way no other country would (Can you imagine what Bush would do if a terrorist organization took over Canada and was lobbing missiles into Montana, Maine and Illinois?) (*** why anti-gild the lily by using Bush as an example, especially with two blue states? Our actions in 1898 and 1945 were not even condemned as much as what Israel has done now. America is hated as much as Israel, and yet, in those two years, we invaded and colonized territory that did not attack us, and killed millions within the span of four days. Where was Germany's exercise of "restraint" in WWI and between 1941-1945? The North's in Atlanta? The South's in Americus? Britain's in murdering millions of Native Americans in a de facto war that waged on for decades? Spain's in ravaging South America? France's in Indochina? Russia's in Afghanistan, Hungary, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, East Germany, and Poland? All of these barbarians at the gate were barely "provoked" in the first place, if at all (Germany was not provoked in WWI or II). And don't even get me started on the countries who systematically exterminated their own populations without provocation, like Yugoslavia or China (not that such extermination can ever be "provoked"); these countries or their satellites/successsors tend to vote against Israel in Security Council meetings out of an envious longing for the "good old days," I guess.) (Maher: and, by the way, does anyone ever ask Hezbollah for restraint. you know, like, please stop firing your rockets aimed PURPOSEFULLY at civilians? - it strikes me that the world IS Mel Gibson.)

Most of the time, the anti-semitism is under control (note: Maher's implication, that the world is anti-Semitic, drew an eruption of protest from bloggers on Huffington Post, many of whom said "One can criticize Israel without being an anti-Semite. Unfortunately, some of these people are the same kinds who say, "Yeah, some of my best friends are black." Moreover, let's assume Maher was overreaching with his comment. I've read polls taken of nations throughout the world respecting those nations' opinion of Israel in particular and Jews in general, and the polls indicated that neither Israel nor Jews are viewed favorably. Let's narrow down why this might be. Muslims who were polled no doubt expressed "unfavorable" ratings; any number of European countries, including France and Germany, where, yes, sorry, but it's a fact, anti-Semitism is on the rise, as can be discerned from reading incident reports, expressed, no doubt, such ratings; black African nations - according to the polls I've read - expressed such ratings as well. So, we've got Western Europe, a large chunk of the Middle East, and Africa covered. Asia, Australia and Latin America have expressed slightly less unfavorable ratings. Overall, though, the ratings are negative. Whether this translates to "anti-Semitism" is a matter of semantics, considering where (and how) most of the people with the unfavorable opinions get their opinions and form the basis of those opinions, respectively. If someone is willing to show me that I am incorrect - that Jews are viewed favorably by nations at large, please provide me with statistics. Please.), but that demon lives inside and when the moon is full, or there's been enough alcohol consumed,or Israel is forced to kill people in its own defense, then it comes out.

I've heard Mr. Gibson say he's sorry, and that he's wrong, and others say, well, he was drunk, he's got a disease, etc.

But my question is, what is the root of this, Mel? I mean, we all say crazy things when we're drunk, and we've all undoubtedly had ugly moments when we're superstressed out and then drunk on top of it, I know I have - but what comes out at that moment isn't a tirade against the Jews. Yes, liquor releases demons, but I want to know why the demon in Mel Gibson is hatred of the Jews to begin with (I know, the father).

Why, when Mels's id is released, its about the Jews fucking everything up, just like it was with Hitler. Except Mel Gibson, when his id is in check, I believe, really knows how wrong that is, and how stupid (not so sure about that one. If bigotry and prejudice are learned to the point where they are hardwired into the consciousness as facts, at what point, if any, does the right/wrong calculus kick in? What would trigger it?) He, I believe, at least fights with himself about this. (I don't believe this either, but if there is fighting involved, I do hope that it is limited to self-fighting).

But he'll never win as long as he's so religious, because, I hate to tell you, the disease isn't alcholism, the disease is religion.

But that's another essay.

For now, let me just say again: the world has their simmering hatred of the Jews under check most of the time, but do watch them when they start weaving on PCH.

And Mel, let me remind you: The Jews have not started all the wars in the world. But they have greenlit all the movies." (One can almost picture Bill punctuating this final remark by his saying "Wink. Nod. Smile.")