World's Worst Marketing Campaign
The Tour de France is one of the biggest sporting events in Europe but passes largely unnoticed in the United States even though an American currently dominates the sport.
Lance Armstrong rode to his four victories wearing a hat and shirt emblazoned with the logos of his sponsors. Nothing unusual there. The event is also one of the most expensive sponsorship opportunities in the sporting world with companies spending millions of euros to have their name associated with the athletes.
So who is Armstrong's sponsor? The United States Postal Service.
If you think about it that makes about as much sense as the Bank of England sponsoring Jimmie Johnson's NASCAR team at the Talladaga 400.
Why advertise to millions of people who can't possibly use your service? And for that matter, why advertise at all if you are a government run monopoly? Is anyone going to buy more stamps, write more letters, or read more mail just because the USPS has sponsored Lance Armstrong?
And why is an organization that is hemorrhaging money squandering its scarce resources on nonsensical marketing campaigns?
Hmmm . . . I wonder if anyone from the Post Office got to attend the victory parties in Paris?
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Let's Give a Hand for Islamic Justice
The enlightened protectors of the holy cities have handed out justice against two pickpockets. I guess "handed out" is a poor choice of words since the justice involved involuntary amputation.
Interestingly, the Arab News reports this procedure as a "wrist amputation.” Does that mean they got their hands back but without the wrist?
Isn't that a bit like calling beheading a "neck amputation?"
The enlightened protectors of the holy cities have handed out justice against two pickpockets. I guess "handed out" is a poor choice of words since the justice involved involuntary amputation.
Interestingly, the Arab News reports this procedure as a "wrist amputation.” Does that mean they got their hands back but without the wrist?
Isn't that a bit like calling beheading a "neck amputation?"
9/11 Neutrality Watch
The Metropolitan Transit Authority is currently sponsoring an art exhibit at Grand Central Station called "Seen From Above.” It consists of large paintings of the view from the World Trade Center done in 1998 when the Port Authority gave 10,000 square feet of vacant office space in Tower One to a bunch of artists.
The exhibit, which is advertised heavily in the subways these days, is described in fluent newspeak as “an environment to reflect on the events of September 11.”
"Events?" Obviously a lot of deliberation preceded the selection of just the right word to describe what happened that day.
Why not "attacks?" Or better yet, "barbaric terrorist attacks on innocent men, women and children?" Exactly who's feelings are they trying to protect behind the word "events?" Why is it better to obfuscate the truth rather than to recognize it?
Indeed, just down the hall from the "Seen From Above" exhibit is a far more authentic artwork: the spontaneous collage of missing persons flyers posted by families and friends of lost terror victims. You see real faces of real people. You learn about them and see why each one was special and you can't help but compare them to your loved ones or even yourself.
I walk by that exhibit every day and it never fails to remind me of the ghastly injustice of the 9/11 attacks and it replenishes my thirst for vengence. Yes, I want the people responsible for these "events" to suffer as their victims did.
That has nothing to do with justice. God can determine what is just. But here on earth we administer vengence.
I can understand strongly held opinions even if they are diametrically opposed to mine. But I can't understand, nor can I respect, neutrality.
You cannot see this and remain neutral.
There is a time for contemplation and introspection . . . but this is not that time.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the September 11 attacks I will list here sort of verbal contortions people and organizations come up with to avoid offending somebody other than me.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority is currently sponsoring an art exhibit at Grand Central Station called "Seen From Above.” It consists of large paintings of the view from the World Trade Center done in 1998 when the Port Authority gave 10,000 square feet of vacant office space in Tower One to a bunch of artists.
The exhibit, which is advertised heavily in the subways these days, is described in fluent newspeak as “an environment to reflect on the events of September 11.”
"Events?" Obviously a lot of deliberation preceded the selection of just the right word to describe what happened that day.
Why not "attacks?" Or better yet, "barbaric terrorist attacks on innocent men, women and children?" Exactly who's feelings are they trying to protect behind the word "events?" Why is it better to obfuscate the truth rather than to recognize it?
Indeed, just down the hall from the "Seen From Above" exhibit is a far more authentic artwork: the spontaneous collage of missing persons flyers posted by families and friends of lost terror victims. You see real faces of real people. You learn about them and see why each one was special and you can't help but compare them to your loved ones or even yourself.
I walk by that exhibit every day and it never fails to remind me of the ghastly injustice of the 9/11 attacks and it replenishes my thirst for vengence. Yes, I want the people responsible for these "events" to suffer as their victims did.
That has nothing to do with justice. God can determine what is just. But here on earth we administer vengence.
I can understand strongly held opinions even if they are diametrically opposed to mine. But I can't understand, nor can I respect, neutrality.
You cannot see this and remain neutral.
There is a time for contemplation and introspection . . . but this is not that time.
As we approach the one year anniversary of the September 11 attacks I will list here sort of verbal contortions people and organizations come up with to avoid offending somebody other than me.
Thursday, July 18, 2002
Six Plans for Ground Zero
Six preliminary plans for the World Trade Center site are now on display at Federal Hall on Wall Street and online at www.renewnyc.com and, not surprisingly, they please no one.
Except me. I like two of them. They're the ones bearing the hauntingly evocative names Concept 5 and Concept 6.
Both of these site plans call for a relatively small open space memorial flanked by mid-sized office towers. Concept 6 includes a broad and elegant boulevard reminiscent of upper Park Avenue leading from Ground Zero to Battery Park. I like the dignified squares that mark the footprints of the toppled trade towers. There is also a quiet cul de sac for tiny St. Nicholas church, the original of which was vaporized under 200 stories of prime office space.
There are no building designs in these plans, but Concepts 5 and 6 lend themselves to a dignified traditional look that will stand the test of time better than some abstract modern statement.
Faced with such a (literally) monumental decision, New York architecture esthetes naturally turn to Herbert Muschamp for guidance. Muschamp, as I have noted here before, is the pretentious gas bag who passes judgement on architecture and the sweaty proles who have to live with it from the pages of The New York Times.
The plans "have little to recommend them" sniffs Muschamp, presumably while adjusting his monocle. They demonstrate "little besides a breathtaking determination to think small.”
The Duke of Muschamp complains that the designs are inappropriate for such an historic site. Too commercial says he. He also adds this absurd observation:
Well, thank God for that.
Personally I would much prefer a smoking, glow-in-the-dark crater in downtown Mecca to symbolize the troubled relationship between radical Islam and the United States.
Muschamp seems undecided about which of the plans he hates most. He says two of them "reflect the New Urbanist retro theme park approach" but doesn't say which ones they are. In the end he disqualifies the lot of them because “all six plans emanate from the underlying ideology of privatization.” Presumably, this privatization nonsense would leave an irreparable scar Manhattan's Financial District.
Imagine that . . . the private sector having a say in urban design? Good heavens no!
Of course, what has Muschamp truly bothered about the redevelopment plans is that no one has consulted him.
Even in the New York Times it's unusual for a reporter to devote half a news story to the news that he wasn't involved in the news story. As usual Muschamp drones on for another 700 words or so about the shortsightedness of everyone but him before ending his article in a characteristically petulant huff.
But enough about that bore, the plan that I like best of all is the one proposed by the firm Franck Lohsen McCrery. The FLC plan calls for a dignified and reverential square with a traditional memorial and a grand railway terminal bordering a sunken lawn. The firm recommends buildings that are "majestic and vigorous" in the style of the early 20th century "celebrating American pluck at its best.”
This is what people have in mind when they imagine a fitting replacement for the fallen towers. No recognition of American failure. Far from it. A rededication to the very things that make medieval Islamists blind with fury and the rest of the world green with envy: defiance, confidence, competence, and unshakable optimism.
That's what will eventually be built on the site of Ground Zero and Herbert Muschamp ain't gonna like it one bit.
Six preliminary plans for the World Trade Center site are now on display at Federal Hall on Wall Street and online at www.renewnyc.com and, not surprisingly, they please no one.
Except me. I like two of them. They're the ones bearing the hauntingly evocative names Concept 5 and Concept 6.
Both of these site plans call for a relatively small open space memorial flanked by mid-sized office towers. Concept 6 includes a broad and elegant boulevard reminiscent of upper Park Avenue leading from Ground Zero to Battery Park. I like the dignified squares that mark the footprints of the toppled trade towers. There is also a quiet cul de sac for tiny St. Nicholas church, the original of which was vaporized under 200 stories of prime office space.
There are no building designs in these plans, but Concepts 5 and 6 lend themselves to a dignified traditional look that will stand the test of time better than some abstract modern statement.
Faced with such a (literally) monumental decision, New York architecture esthetes naturally turn to Herbert Muschamp for guidance. Muschamp, as I have noted here before, is the pretentious gas bag who passes judgement on architecture and the sweaty proles who have to live with it from the pages of The New York Times.
The plans "have little to recommend them" sniffs Muschamp, presumably while adjusting his monocle. They demonstrate "little besides a breathtaking determination to think small.”
The Duke of Muschamp complains that the designs are inappropriate for such an historic site. Too commercial says he. He also adds this absurd observation:
"Nor will you find any sign of recognition that ground zero has become a tragic symbol of the troubled relationship between the United States and the rest of the world.”
Well, thank God for that.
Personally I would much prefer a smoking, glow-in-the-dark crater in downtown Mecca to symbolize the troubled relationship between radical Islam and the United States.
Muschamp seems undecided about which of the plans he hates most. He says two of them "reflect the New Urbanist retro theme park approach" but doesn't say which ones they are. In the end he disqualifies the lot of them because “all six plans emanate from the underlying ideology of privatization.” Presumably, this privatization nonsense would leave an irreparable scar Manhattan's Financial District.
Imagine that . . . the private sector having a say in urban design? Good heavens no!
Of course, what has Muschamp truly bothered about the redevelopment plans is that no one has consulted him.
Even in the New York Times it's unusual for a reporter to devote half a news story to the news that he wasn't involved in the news story. As usual Muschamp drones on for another 700 words or so about the shortsightedness of everyone but him before ending his article in a characteristically petulant huff.
But enough about that bore, the plan that I like best of all is the one proposed by the firm Franck Lohsen McCrery. The FLC plan calls for a dignified and reverential square with a traditional memorial and a grand railway terminal bordering a sunken lawn. The firm recommends buildings that are "majestic and vigorous" in the style of the early 20th century "celebrating American pluck at its best.”
This is what people have in mind when they imagine a fitting replacement for the fallen towers. No recognition of American failure. Far from it. A rededication to the very things that make medieval Islamists blind with fury and the rest of the world green with envy: defiance, confidence, competence, and unshakable optimism.
That's what will eventually be built on the site of Ground Zero and Herbert Muschamp ain't gonna like it one bit.
Sunday, July 14, 2002
The Way the World Works
Inexplicably, The Guardian has included me on their list of blogs they like. It notes that The Invisible Hand sometimes deals with politics and the Middle East.
For those of you joining us from the UK let me explain that, as does The Guardian, this blog has a point of view.
Regarding the Middle East my point of view it is this: Israel not only has a right to exist but it has thus far defended that right with the sort of restraint not often found in that region of the world.
The Palestinians, regardless of their grievance, have delegitimized themselves by allowing extremists to use murder to further their political aims. Those aims are not the establishment of a sovereign state but the ethnic cleansing of the existing sovereign state of Israel.
I also reject the labels "Liberal" and “Conservative.” They no longer describe coherent political perspective . . . and in the case of the Europe and the United States, they have taken on entirely contradictory meanings.
If I were to divide the world into two opposing political perceptions I would describe one as being made up of people who see human society as governed by natural laws of human behavior. Human beings quite naturally seek advantage for themselves. This urge to improve is neither good nor bad. Like gravity, it simply is. People in this category don't try to change human nature; they act upon it. They understand that everyone else is seeking their own advantage and the resources of intelligence, creativity and skill are not evenly distributed. This makes life an exhilarating experience in which individual combinations of talent can result in infinitely varied outcomes. As people seek to fulfill their potential they unintentionally create new opportunities for others to fulfill their own entirely different promise. The people with this outlook see life's awesome opportunities and are stirred.
The other political perspective is more pessimistic. These are people who believe the world is dominated by a permanent hierarchy of “others.” These "others" are unassailably powerful. They seek only their own interests and view the strivings of common people as a threat to their advantageous position. The primary concern of the "others" is to keep everyone else out of the ruling cabal. If the "others" can ever be dislodged it would be through violence and even then there would be no guarantee of success. The people holding this outlook live in a state of permanent opposition. They believe power rests with an unelected elite and they aspire to be unelected elitists. They never need to demonstrate progress toward their goal of a more just world because . . . well, the fix is in anyway, so failure is the only realistic expectation. Building a better world is out of the question at least not until the existing one is destroyed. These people look out on the vastness of life and are shaken by its bleakness.
So here are my two political categories. Those who are stirred and those who are shaken. What is useful about these categories is that they transcend all the various iterations of liberal and conservative.
In fact, individual political movements can evolve from stirred to shaken over time.
For example, the civil rights movement in the United States began as a movement of the stirred. With racism written into the laws of the government Martin Luther King challenged the status quo eloquently and nonviolently and succeeded in changing those laws. When he was murdered, the movement changed. The goal became segregation rather than integration. Its leaders spoke of the struggle against institutionalized racism even though the fix which had truly been "in" statutorily for so long had just recently been removed.
The movements toward social justice almost always started off stirred and end up shaken. This happens not because their leaders come to believe that progress is futile, but because inertia is far less challenging than progress and a shaken movement is more accepting of inertia than is a stirred movement.
Because this is a blog I will now attempt to simplify this construct to a childishly unsophisticated level.
Stirred.................................................Shaken
John Kennedy............................................Richard Nixon
Margaret Thatcher......................................John Major
Ronald Reagan..........................................Walter Mondale
Martin Luther King.....................................Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X.................................................Louis Farrakan
Judaism....................................................Islam
Virgin Atlantic............................................Swissair
Thomas the Tank Engine............................Teletubbies
Rolling Stones...........................................Beatles
Linux........................................................Windows
Britain.......................................................Europe
The Jackson 5...........................................Michael Jackson
Lesley Gore...............................................Gore Vidal
The Blogesphere........................................The Guardian
I hope that the editors of The Guardian will understand that I make no judgement about the merits of being either shaken or stirred.
That they have chosen my blog for special mention on Guardian Unlimited demonstrates their wisdom and insight . . . but it also could mean they believe resistance is useless.
Either way, thanks for the link.
Inexplicably, The Guardian has included me on their list of blogs they like. It notes that The Invisible Hand sometimes deals with politics and the Middle East.
For those of you joining us from the UK let me explain that, as does The Guardian, this blog has a point of view.
Regarding the Middle East my point of view it is this: Israel not only has a right to exist but it has thus far defended that right with the sort of restraint not often found in that region of the world.
The Palestinians, regardless of their grievance, have delegitimized themselves by allowing extremists to use murder to further their political aims. Those aims are not the establishment of a sovereign state but the ethnic cleansing of the existing sovereign state of Israel.
I also reject the labels "Liberal" and “Conservative.” They no longer describe coherent political perspective . . . and in the case of the Europe and the United States, they have taken on entirely contradictory meanings.
If I were to divide the world into two opposing political perceptions I would describe one as being made up of people who see human society as governed by natural laws of human behavior. Human beings quite naturally seek advantage for themselves. This urge to improve is neither good nor bad. Like gravity, it simply is. People in this category don't try to change human nature; they act upon it. They understand that everyone else is seeking their own advantage and the resources of intelligence, creativity and skill are not evenly distributed. This makes life an exhilarating experience in which individual combinations of talent can result in infinitely varied outcomes. As people seek to fulfill their potential they unintentionally create new opportunities for others to fulfill their own entirely different promise. The people with this outlook see life's awesome opportunities and are stirred.
The other political perspective is more pessimistic. These are people who believe the world is dominated by a permanent hierarchy of “others.” These "others" are unassailably powerful. They seek only their own interests and view the strivings of common people as a threat to their advantageous position. The primary concern of the "others" is to keep everyone else out of the ruling cabal. If the "others" can ever be dislodged it would be through violence and even then there would be no guarantee of success. The people holding this outlook live in a state of permanent opposition. They believe power rests with an unelected elite and they aspire to be unelected elitists. They never need to demonstrate progress toward their goal of a more just world because . . . well, the fix is in anyway, so failure is the only realistic expectation. Building a better world is out of the question at least not until the existing one is destroyed. These people look out on the vastness of life and are shaken by its bleakness.
So here are my two political categories. Those who are stirred and those who are shaken. What is useful about these categories is that they transcend all the various iterations of liberal and conservative.
In fact, individual political movements can evolve from stirred to shaken over time.
For example, the civil rights movement in the United States began as a movement of the stirred. With racism written into the laws of the government Martin Luther King challenged the status quo eloquently and nonviolently and succeeded in changing those laws. When he was murdered, the movement changed. The goal became segregation rather than integration. Its leaders spoke of the struggle against institutionalized racism even though the fix which had truly been "in" statutorily for so long had just recently been removed.
The movements toward social justice almost always started off stirred and end up shaken. This happens not because their leaders come to believe that progress is futile, but because inertia is far less challenging than progress and a shaken movement is more accepting of inertia than is a stirred movement.
Because this is a blog I will now attempt to simplify this construct to a childishly unsophisticated level.
Stirred.................................................Shaken
John Kennedy............................................Richard Nixon
Margaret Thatcher......................................John Major
Ronald Reagan..........................................Walter Mondale
Martin Luther King.....................................Jesse Jackson
Malcolm X.................................................Louis Farrakan
Judaism....................................................Islam
Virgin Atlantic............................................Swissair
Thomas the Tank Engine............................Teletubbies
Rolling Stones...........................................Beatles
Linux........................................................Windows
Britain.......................................................Europe
The Jackson 5...........................................Michael Jackson
Lesley Gore...............................................Gore Vidal
The Blogesphere........................................The Guardian
I hope that the editors of The Guardian will understand that I make no judgement about the merits of being either shaken or stirred.
That they have chosen my blog for special mention on Guardian Unlimited demonstrates their wisdom and insight . . . but it also could mean they believe resistance is useless.
Either way, thanks for the link.
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Outrage in Neverland
Michael Jackson is the latest washed-up celebrity to blame unseen forces for personal shortcomings, although the multi-millionaire plays the race card with certainly quirky panache. Essentially Jacko says he’s unpopular because he’s so popular.
According to the New York Post, Jackson claims music executives conspired to ruin his career because of his awesome ability to sell millions of records. He says the recording industry began to hate him once he had sold more records than the Beatles.
That makes sense. After all, if there’s one thing that record executives can stand it's selling records and making obscene amounts of money. That's where they draw the line.
Specifically Jackson claims that record execs can't stand the thought of a black artist selling millions of records. I'm sure Gore Vidal has verified this well-known yet little-known fact. What's more, these Hollywood types are exercising a chokehold on the book publishing industry as well.
It's pretty clear Jacko hasn't been to a bookstore in quite some time . . .nor has anyone from the crowd cheering him. It's also a bit peculiar that music moguls would be spending their time suppressing record sales by keeping books off the shelves. But Jacko knows this business better than I.
Actually I suspect it's a hell of a lot more likely that the last time Jackson was in a bookstore, Elvis and Mick Jagger were there too and taken together none of them had a black face.
That's hardly the sort of grievance that sustains a political movement. Let's see if it's enough to revive a spent career.
Michael Jackson is the latest washed-up celebrity to blame unseen forces for personal shortcomings, although the multi-millionaire plays the race card with certainly quirky panache. Essentially Jacko says he’s unpopular because he’s so popular.
According to the New York Post, Jackson claims music executives conspired to ruin his career because of his awesome ability to sell millions of records. He says the recording industry began to hate him once he had sold more records than the Beatles.
That makes sense. After all, if there’s one thing that record executives can stand it's selling records and making obscene amounts of money. That's where they draw the line.
Specifically Jackson claims that record execs can't stand the thought of a black artist selling millions of records. I'm sure Gore Vidal has verified this well-known yet little-known fact. What's more, these Hollywood types are exercising a chokehold on the book publishing industry as well.
Music moguls "are liars. They manipulate our history books. You must know that," he [Jackson] said, as the crowd cheered him on. "If you go to the bookstore at the corner, you won't see one black face. You'll see Elvis Presley and the Rolling Stones."
It's pretty clear Jacko hasn't been to a bookstore in quite some time . . .nor has anyone from the crowd cheering him. It's also a bit peculiar that music moguls would be spending their time suppressing record sales by keeping books off the shelves. But Jacko knows this business better than I.
Actually I suspect it's a hell of a lot more likely that the last time Jackson was in a bookstore, Elvis and Mick Jagger were there too and taken together none of them had a black face.
That's hardly the sort of grievance that sustains a political movement. Let's see if it's enough to revive a spent career.
Tuesday, July 09, 2002
Gore Vidal in Wonderland
Gore Vidal presents us with a target rich environment this morning care of the LA Weekly. It seems that the Chomsky of Amalfi is the last guy on earth who knows the truth about 9/11 that the Bush Administration has not yet been able to silence. Another FBI/CIA screw up no doubt.
Rather than make a conventional critique of the US response to the 9/11 attacks, Vidal immediately cliff dives into murky waters with some insane yarn about how Unocal Corporation needed the Taliban to help them build a pipeline to the Caspian Sea. This was going to be one hell of a long pipeline since Afghanistan is nowhere near the Caspian. The purpose was to sell oil to China. Of course, it would be a lot easier to sell Alaskan oil to China and Caspian oil to Europe . . . or that's just what THEY want you to believe.
Indeed, according to Vidal, the US government has been deliberately keeping American students in the dark about geography for the past 40 years for this very purpose . . . of course that doesn't explain 76-year-old Vidal's ignorance of the Caspian Sea's general location.
Unocal, with the US Marine Corps, was planning to occupy Afghanistan in October 2001. Apparently everyone knew about this but kept it quiet from you and me. Not sure why since we're powerless anyway.
Osama or somebody (this key bit of information eludes Vidal) attacked the United States pre-emptively on September 11th but that just provided Bush the pretext for toppling the misogynist Taliban regime. Which is good but for all the wrong reasons, and on and on.
At this point Vidal, with warning lights flashing and klaxon horns blaring, goes into full meltdown. Unocal, Enron, Henry Cabot Lodge, Noriega, The New York Times, the United Fruit Company . . . it's a conspiratorial Chernobyl! Even the interviewer loses patience with the old fool. The fact is, Chomsky is far better then Gore Vidal at this nonsense and frankly second-tier lunatic conspiracists are thick on the ground these days.
Gore Vidal is a true 20th century intellectual. He believes a cabal of huge corporations controls the world and that he is boldly speaking the truth to power. But the huge conglomerates of the last century and the command and control strategy they relied upon evaporated long ago. There isn't anyone in control . . . not the Rockefeller brothers, not the Trilateral Commission, not even the United Fruit Company.
Now some people would greet this realization with optimism . . . after all if no one is in control than that means each of us is free to strive and either achieve or fail on our own. But to others, the bracing breeze of freedom is a bit too chilly. They want to believe there is someone or something keeping them from being part of the controlling cabal . . . a position they deserve to occupy . . . well, isn't it obvious? If they're not getting the recognition and prestige they crave it must be because the fix is in. The alternative is a bit to troubling to contemplate . . . especially if you're fast approaching your eightieth birthday.
Gore Vidal presents us with a target rich environment this morning care of the LA Weekly. It seems that the Chomsky of Amalfi is the last guy on earth who knows the truth about 9/11 that the Bush Administration has not yet been able to silence. Another FBI/CIA screw up no doubt.
Rather than make a conventional critique of the US response to the 9/11 attacks, Vidal immediately cliff dives into murky waters with some insane yarn about how Unocal Corporation needed the Taliban to help them build a pipeline to the Caspian Sea. This was going to be one hell of a long pipeline since Afghanistan is nowhere near the Caspian. The purpose was to sell oil to China. Of course, it would be a lot easier to sell Alaskan oil to China and Caspian oil to Europe . . . or that's just what THEY want you to believe.
Indeed, according to Vidal, the US government has been deliberately keeping American students in the dark about geography for the past 40 years for this very purpose . . . of course that doesn't explain 76-year-old Vidal's ignorance of the Caspian Sea's general location.
Unocal, with the US Marine Corps, was planning to occupy Afghanistan in October 2001. Apparently everyone knew about this but kept it quiet from you and me. Not sure why since we're powerless anyway.
Osama or somebody (this key bit of information eludes Vidal) attacked the United States pre-emptively on September 11th but that just provided Bush the pretext for toppling the misogynist Taliban regime. Which is good but for all the wrong reasons, and on and on.
At this point Vidal, with warning lights flashing and klaxon horns blaring, goes into full meltdown. Unocal, Enron, Henry Cabot Lodge, Noriega, The New York Times, the United Fruit Company . . . it's a conspiratorial Chernobyl! Even the interviewer loses patience with the old fool. The fact is, Chomsky is far better then Gore Vidal at this nonsense and frankly second-tier lunatic conspiracists are thick on the ground these days.
Gore Vidal is a true 20th century intellectual. He believes a cabal of huge corporations controls the world and that he is boldly speaking the truth to power. But the huge conglomerates of the last century and the command and control strategy they relied upon evaporated long ago. There isn't anyone in control . . . not the Rockefeller brothers, not the Trilateral Commission, not even the United Fruit Company.
Now some people would greet this realization with optimism . . . after all if no one is in control than that means each of us is free to strive and either achieve or fail on our own. But to others, the bracing breeze of freedom is a bit too chilly. They want to believe there is someone or something keeping them from being part of the controlling cabal . . . a position they deserve to occupy . . . well, isn't it obvious? If they're not getting the recognition and prestige they crave it must be because the fix is in. The alternative is a bit to troubling to contemplate . . . especially if you're fast approaching your eightieth birthday.
Thursday, June 27, 2002
Forward Into the Past
Considering that the television has become the key piece of furniture around which most interiors orbit, isn't it odd that TV set design has remained virtually unchanged for the past 20 years? It's always a dull black cube. Even computers have evolved from beige boxes to something resembling creativity. But not TVs.
How come no one has tried to differentiate the commodity TV set through a unique design that would allow the canny manufacturers to charge a premium price?
Well, actually there is one very cool alternative already out there . . . Predicta; a company that makes bespoke television sets in the New Frontier style. They're wildly expensive but their look is spectacular and their innards are totally up to date.
If anyone knows someone at Predicta, tell them I am willing to demo one of their products and review its performance with total objectivity . . . or bias . . . It doesn't really matter, as long as I get one of these TVs..
Considering that the television has become the key piece of furniture around which most interiors orbit, isn't it odd that TV set design has remained virtually unchanged for the past 20 years? It's always a dull black cube. Even computers have evolved from beige boxes to something resembling creativity. But not TVs.
How come no one has tried to differentiate the commodity TV set through a unique design that would allow the canny manufacturers to charge a premium price?
Well, actually there is one very cool alternative already out there . . . Predicta; a company that makes bespoke television sets in the New Frontier style. They're wildly expensive but their look is spectacular and their innards are totally up to date.
If anyone knows someone at Predicta, tell them I am willing to demo one of their products and review its performance with total objectivity . . . or bias . . . It doesn't really matter, as long as I get one of these TVs..
Decision Time for Our Saudi Friends?
STRATFOR says that the new American policy toward the Palestinians is actually a challenge to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis made a solution to the Israeli/PLO conflict a prerequisite to their cooperation against Iraq and al Queda. But on Monday President Bush essentially said Palestine is a digression from the main topic and the time has come to choose sides in the war on state-sponsored terror. Which way will the Saud family decide?
Well, maybe a hint comes from Arab News, the Saudis' English language media organ. Today's edition is a cornucopia of rattling scimitars. Check out the top stories:
President Bush Said Exactly What the Israelis Wanted to Hear
Bush's Speech: A Vision of Permanent War
Bush Insulted Palestinians and Enraged Leadership of Arab World
Kingdom Studying Free-Trade Zone with Iraq
Objective journalism it ain't . . . but illuminating in it's way.
To cap it off there's an article lamenting "Internet disease.” One can only hope it's spreading.
STRATFOR says that the new American policy toward the Palestinians is actually a challenge to Saudi Arabia. The Saudis made a solution to the Israeli/PLO conflict a prerequisite to their cooperation against Iraq and al Queda. But on Monday President Bush essentially said Palestine is a digression from the main topic and the time has come to choose sides in the war on state-sponsored terror. Which way will the Saud family decide?
Well, maybe a hint comes from Arab News, the Saudis' English language media organ. Today's edition is a cornucopia of rattling scimitars. Check out the top stories:
President Bush Said Exactly What the Israelis Wanted to Hear
Bush's Speech: A Vision of Permanent War
Bush Insulted Palestinians and Enraged Leadership of Arab World
Kingdom Studying Free-Trade Zone with Iraq
Objective journalism it ain't . . . but illuminating in it's way.
To cap it off there's an article lamenting "Internet disease.” One can only hope it's spreading.
Wednesday, June 26, 2002
Is the Intifada Un-Islamic?
Last month, an Italy-based Muslim scholar, speaking in Canada, condemned the Palestinian intifada as being "contrary to Islam" and accused Hamas as being a "pseudo-Islamic" organization exploiting the Palestinian people and encouraging them to commit unspeakable violence.
He said the Qu'ran recognizes the area of present-day Israel as the heritage of the Jews and that since there are already two Palestinian states -- Egypt and Jordan -- there is no need for a third.
Yasser Arafat, by the way, was born and educated in Cairo.
Have any other prominent Muslims articulated such views? None that I'm aware of. That's why I'm starting a list of courageous Muslims who are willing to speak the truth and bear the consequences. Let's call them the White Rose Muslims.
First on the list: Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi.
Last month, an Italy-based Muslim scholar, speaking in Canada, condemned the Palestinian intifada as being "contrary to Islam" and accused Hamas as being a "pseudo-Islamic" organization exploiting the Palestinian people and encouraging them to commit unspeakable violence.
He said the Qu'ran recognizes the area of present-day Israel as the heritage of the Jews and that since there are already two Palestinian states -- Egypt and Jordan -- there is no need for a third.
Yasser Arafat, by the way, was born and educated in Cairo.
Have any other prominent Muslims articulated such views? None that I'm aware of. That's why I'm starting a list of courageous Muslims who are willing to speak the truth and bear the consequences. Let's call them the White Rose Muslims.
First on the list: Sheik Abdul Hadi Palazzi.
Saturday, June 22, 2002
Peaceful Non-Existence Watch (Act 6)
Is the Intifada a movement to create a Palestinian state or destroy the Israeli one? Personally, I believe the Palestinians have no intention of stopping the violence until every last Jew in Israel is dead.
But what do I know? I'm just an infidel.
So I checked out some Islamofascist discussion boards and guess what . . . some other folks are wondering the same thing including one charmingly named would-be martyr, Humid, who asks, "what is the goal of the Intifada . . . is it simply the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Al Quds (Jerusalem) or is it the entire area now known as 'Israel?'"
The answer? You can check it out yourself . . . it's an ongoing discussion. But here's one definition of intifada success:
Wouldn't that mean killing Israeli civilians?
Here's a photo of one the those battle-hardened Israeli commandos the brave Palestinian freedom fighters are facing.
Humid asks whether this would mean the elimination of Israel:
So, no negotiation, no settlement, no peace until Israel is "liberated." Much they way the Khmer Rouge liberated Cambodia presumably.
Hmm . . . I'm not surprised. But I hope Colin Powell is.
PS. There's also an interestingly heated discussion of the heresy of Ayatullah Fadhlullah. the Lebanese cleric who had the nerve to suggest that believers and infidels where basically all equal human beings in the eyes of God. Apparently, that kind of loose talk can get you iced in Islamotopia.
Is the Intifada a movement to create a Palestinian state or destroy the Israeli one? Personally, I believe the Palestinians have no intention of stopping the violence until every last Jew in Israel is dead.
But what do I know? I'm just an infidel.
So I checked out some Islamofascist discussion boards and guess what . . . some other folks are wondering the same thing including one charmingly named would-be martyr, Humid, who asks, "what is the goal of the Intifada . . . is it simply the liberation of the West Bank, Gaza, and Al Quds (Jerusalem) or is it the entire area now known as 'Israel?'"
The answer? You can check it out yourself . . . it's an ongoing discussion. But here's one definition of intifada success:
". . . the way that area was before 1948. So this practically means the liberation of all of palestine."
Wouldn't that mean killing Israeli civilians?
". . . there are no civilians in occupied Palestine."
Here's a photo of one the those battle-hardened Israeli commandos the brave Palestinian freedom fighters are facing.
Humid asks whether this would mean the elimination of Israel:
"Salam, brother. How can something be eliminated if it doesn't exist? Israel doesn't exist period. : )
So, no negotiation, no settlement, no peace until Israel is "liberated." Much they way the Khmer Rouge liberated Cambodia presumably.
Hmm . . . I'm not surprised. But I hope Colin Powell is.
PS. There's also an interestingly heated discussion of the heresy of Ayatullah Fadhlullah. the Lebanese cleric who had the nerve to suggest that believers and infidels where basically all equal human beings in the eyes of God. Apparently, that kind of loose talk can get you iced in Islamotopia.
Nasty Piece of Work . . . Ah Hate It
The BBC has a home show called Changing Rooms in which interior designers come in and re-do a person's home for them. Usually it's an improvement, but this is England after all and sometimes the new design is a palatable as Spotted Dick.
The best part is the Brits who have had this inflicted on them don't feel any restraint from calling it shite. Check out these video clips.
The BBC has a home show called Changing Rooms in which interior designers come in and re-do a person's home for them. Usually it's an improvement, but this is England after all and sometimes the new design is a palatable as Spotted Dick.
The best part is the Brits who have had this inflicted on them don't feel any restraint from calling it shite. Check out these video clips.
Gonna Find Out Who's Naughty or Nice
Are you ever confused about who in the United States Congress understands the true nature of the Intifada and who is a little . . . how do you say . . . a bit slow to grasp the truth? Then check out this handy site that seems to be a joint venture between the pitifully ignorant Rep. Earl Hilliard (D- AL) and the Palestinian Media Watch. Sure do seem to be a lot of Democrats here.
While you're at it, why not just ask Congressman Hilliard, who is running in a primary election this coming Tuesday with the endorsement of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, why he’s shilling for murderers.
But sometimes that's just the way the Jell-O judicates.
Are you ever confused about who in the United States Congress understands the true nature of the Intifada and who is a little . . . how do you say . . . a bit slow to grasp the truth? Then check out this handy site that seems to be a joint venture between the pitifully ignorant Rep. Earl Hilliard (D- AL) and the Palestinian Media Watch. Sure do seem to be a lot of Democrats here.
While you're at it, why not just ask Congressman Hilliard, who is running in a primary election this coming Tuesday with the endorsement of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, why he’s shilling for murderers.
But sometimes that's just the way the Jell-O judicates.
Thursday, June 20, 2002
More Infidel Magic!
As we're in a California state of mind, I draw your attention to this gnarly wave machine: the Bruticus Maximus. Be sure to check out the video.
Want to win over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world? March into Mecca and install one of these suckers in downtown and watch the devoted crowd around it like was the Kaaba.
(via Paul Nakada)
As we're in a California state of mind, I draw your attention to this gnarly wave machine: the Bruticus Maximus. Be sure to check out the video.
Want to win over the hearts and minds of the Islamic world? March into Mecca and install one of these suckers in downtown and watch the devoted crowd around it like was the Kaaba.
(via Paul Nakada)
Stroked But Not Bored
H.D. Miller of Travelling Shoes and an admitted Californian gives me the bird's eye lowdown on hot rods and decodes the remarkably complex lyrics of The Beach Boys' “Little Deuce Coupe.”
As for what the hell is a deuce coupe anyway? Miller explains:
What about a "flat head mill?"
And the somewhat painful sounding "ported and relieved and stroked and bored?"
"Lake Pipes" according to Miller:
I never thought I would need a mechanical engineer to translate a Beach Boys song but this does reinforce the point of my last post that the Beach Boys are perceived as frothy lightweights only because they are best known for their frivolous surfer songs.
Those may have paid for Brian Wilson's medications but his heart was in hot-rodding and that's clear just by reading his lyrics.
H.D. Miller of Travelling Shoes and an admitted Californian gives me the bird's eye lowdown on hot rods and decodes the remarkably complex lyrics of The Beach Boys' “Little Deuce Coupe.”
As for what the hell is a deuce coupe anyway? Miller explains:
A duce coupe is a 1932 Ford Coupe, a favorite among hot-rodders since the beginning of time, since it was a small, cheap, popular car with space for a big V-8 engine. The classic hot-rod shape.
What about a "flat head mill?"
A "flat head" is a Ford-made V-8 engine, one in which the valves are not on top, but on the side, hence the flat top. "Milled" means that the valves and moving parts have been worked to a very fine tolerance to increase power and efficiency.
And the somewhat painful sounding "ported and relieved and stroked and bored?"
These are all ways of machining an engine to increase it's power. "Ported and relieved" is a way of letting extra air into an exhaust port to reduce back pressure on a piston chamber (I think, that's it). "Stroked and bored" means that the piston chambers have been bored out to increase the size of the engine displacement, making it bigger than originally manufactured.
"Lake Pipes" according to Miller:
. . . are a type of exhaust pipe that goes outside of the body of the car, instead of underneath the chassis. I think, but I'm not sure, that Lake was originally the name of the manufacturer.
I never thought I would need a mechanical engineer to translate a Beach Boys song but this does reinforce the point of my last post that the Beach Boys are perceived as frothy lightweights only because they are best known for their frivolous surfer songs.
Those may have paid for Brian Wilson's medications but his heart was in hot-rodding and that's clear just by reading his lyrics.
Tuesday, June 18, 2002
Los Muchachos de la Playa
Only in summer can you listen to the Beach Boys without fear of ostracism. That's because their music, which to many ears ranges from frivolous to mindless dreck (apologies to MTZ), is acceptable only when the sun is high and your mind is soft as it is in the summer – or anywhere south of Staten Island.
I had never really questioned authority on the frivolity of garçons de plage so I was surprised yesterday when I paid attention to the lyrics of one of my favorite melodies, Little Deuce Coupe, for the first time. It was way over my head. I didn't understand a thing! Even the title . . . what exactly is a deuce coupe anyway?
Check out these lyrics . . . not exactly Hanson:
Ported and relieved? Flat head mill? Little deuce coupe, I don't know what you're talking about!
And that's not all. It goes on like this for a while:
Okay, I learned about the importance of pink slips only recently when I saw The Fast and the Furious, but "lake pipes?"
Perhaps I'm the last to notice but the Beach Boys originally wrote some great songs about cars before jumping on the surfer bandwagon.
You can tell Brian Wilson cared more about cars than surfing just by reading his lyrics. They're detailed and in the first person. In contrast, the surfer songs are all totally superficial and never mention actually surfing. Compare the above lyrics with South Bay Surfer:
Hell, this isn't so much about surfing as it is about looking for a decent parking space.
Too bad the Beach Boys sold out to surfing rather than held true to the hot rod genre that was their calling.
Who knows. Maybe Wilson wouldn’t have gone insane.
Only in summer can you listen to the Beach Boys without fear of ostracism. That's because their music, which to many ears ranges from frivolous to mindless dreck (apologies to MTZ), is acceptable only when the sun is high and your mind is soft as it is in the summer – or anywhere south of Staten Island.
I had never really questioned authority on the frivolity of garçons de plage so I was surprised yesterday when I paid attention to the lyrics of one of my favorite melodies, Little Deuce Coupe, for the first time. It was way over my head. I didn't understand a thing! Even the title . . . what exactly is a deuce coupe anyway?
Check out these lyrics . . . not exactly Hanson:
Just a little deuce coupe with a flat head mill
But she'll walk a Thunderbird like she's standin' still
She's ported and relieved and she's stroked and bored.
She'll do a hundred and forty with the top end floored
She's my little deuce coupe
You don't know what I got
Ported and relieved? Flat head mill? Little deuce coupe, I don't know what you're talking about!
And that's not all. It goes on like this for a while:
She's got a competition clutch with the four on the floor
And she purrs like a kitten till the lake pipes roar
And if that ain't enough to make you flip your lid
There's one more thing, I got the pink slip daddy
Okay, I learned about the importance of pink slips only recently when I saw The Fast and the Furious, but "lake pipes?"
Perhaps I'm the last to notice but the Beach Boys originally wrote some great songs about cars before jumping on the surfer bandwagon.
You can tell Brian Wilson cared more about cars than surfing just by reading his lyrics. They're detailed and in the first person. In contrast, the surfer songs are all totally superficial and never mention actually surfing. Compare the above lyrics with South Bay Surfer:
Look out here come those South Bay surfers
California's gettin' hot
There they go cruisin' down that coastline
Lookin' for their favorite spot
Hell, this isn't so much about surfing as it is about looking for a decent parking space.
Too bad the Beach Boys sold out to surfing rather than held true to the hot rod genre that was their calling.
Who knows. Maybe Wilson wouldn’t have gone insane.
Monday, June 17, 2002
Make War Not Defense
Peggy Noonan and The Poor Man (in a truly brilliant post) have expressed concern about the name of the new Department of Homeland Security. Homeland is not an American expression, says Noonan. It's troublingly Teutonic. She suggests as an alternative the Department of Heartland Security. That doesn't work either in my opinion – too Disney.
Let's just call our security departments what they are.
Instead of the Defense Department, let's revert to the Department of War. That more accurately reflects it's purpose and it would have the salutary effect of scaring our enemies and offending the thin-skinned.
And as for homeland security, isn't that properly the role of an entirely new Department of Defense? That name at least clarifies the new organization's mission. Plus, the employees of the new DoD's constituent agencies would instantly gain all the prestige they crave but would have lost as workers in an otherwise nondescript new amalgam government department.
Paradoxically, this cosmetic change would also convince many people that the Bush Administration is dead serious about making substantive changes to our homeland security infrastructure.
Even more important, the Department of War would help the public understand that when the Pentagon is fully activated we are waging war, not some ambiguous peacekeeping exercise.
The Department of War and the Department of Defense. I like it.
And while we're at it, why not change the name of that Foggy Bottom sinkhole to the Department of Appeasement?
Peggy Noonan and The Poor Man (in a truly brilliant post) have expressed concern about the name of the new Department of Homeland Security. Homeland is not an American expression, says Noonan. It's troublingly Teutonic. She suggests as an alternative the Department of Heartland Security. That doesn't work either in my opinion – too Disney.
Let's just call our security departments what they are.
Instead of the Defense Department, let's revert to the Department of War. That more accurately reflects it's purpose and it would have the salutary effect of scaring our enemies and offending the thin-skinned.
And as for homeland security, isn't that properly the role of an entirely new Department of Defense? That name at least clarifies the new organization's mission. Plus, the employees of the new DoD's constituent agencies would instantly gain all the prestige they crave but would have lost as workers in an otherwise nondescript new amalgam government department.
Paradoxically, this cosmetic change would also convince many people that the Bush Administration is dead serious about making substantive changes to our homeland security infrastructure.
Even more important, the Department of War would help the public understand that when the Pentagon is fully activated we are waging war, not some ambiguous peacekeeping exercise.
The Department of War and the Department of Defense. I like it.
And while we're at it, why not change the name of that Foggy Bottom sinkhole to the Department of Appeasement?
Friday, June 14, 2002
The Un-American Top 40
The Guardian provides us with a handy list of people who will be the first with their backs up against the wall when the revolution comes. Unfortunately, you have to slog through their turgid monologue before you get to their names.
Casey Kasem? Say it ain't so!
The Guardian provides us with a handy list of people who will be the first with their backs up against the wall when the revolution comes. Unfortunately, you have to slog through their turgid monologue before you get to their names.
Casey Kasem? Say it ain't so!
Lights Out for The Big City
For the past eight years, John Tierney has been the best writer at The New York Times.
He was given a weekly column, The Big City, and let loose to cover New York and its people. This is unusual for the Times because the paper usually ignores what actually happens in New York below the 20th floor. Like The Washington Post, the Times treats its hometown the same way it would some remote news bureau. Occasionally local news makes it into the paper but for the most part it is news not deemed fit to print.
Tierney balanced this willful ignorance by reporting on actual events and unnoticed trends in the city. In his past three columns I learned that flophouses on the Bowery are actually getting better now that some insipid "tenants rights" litigation has been defeated, that Manhattan used to be the flour capital of the New World with a vital windmill on the site of the Trade Center, and how the hawks introduced with much fanfare to the city's ecosystem some years ago are creating a sort of pigeon holocaust.
But aside from actually learning something new in a New York Times column, what was most unusual about The Big City was that Tierney was an unapologetic free-market liberal, which in New York means "right-wing extremist."
Moreover, he expressed his point of view with humor and intelligence in such a disarming way that he could change minds rather than enrage those who disagreed with him the way, say, Sean Hannity might.
I imagine Tierney as a once idealistic Democrat who over time realized how big is the gap between rhetoric and reality on the left side of the political spectrum. Like some many others, his brain eventually pulled his heart over to the right side.
Tierney is going to Washington, DC which in itself is utter blasphemy. He's staying with the Times though and it will be interesting to see what he writes about now. But for me, the big city just won't be the same without him.
Read his last column and see what you'll be missing.
For the past eight years, John Tierney has been the best writer at The New York Times.
He was given a weekly column, The Big City, and let loose to cover New York and its people. This is unusual for the Times because the paper usually ignores what actually happens in New York below the 20th floor. Like The Washington Post, the Times treats its hometown the same way it would some remote news bureau. Occasionally local news makes it into the paper but for the most part it is news not deemed fit to print.
Tierney balanced this willful ignorance by reporting on actual events and unnoticed trends in the city. In his past three columns I learned that flophouses on the Bowery are actually getting better now that some insipid "tenants rights" litigation has been defeated, that Manhattan used to be the flour capital of the New World with a vital windmill on the site of the Trade Center, and how the hawks introduced with much fanfare to the city's ecosystem some years ago are creating a sort of pigeon holocaust.
But aside from actually learning something new in a New York Times column, what was most unusual about The Big City was that Tierney was an unapologetic free-market liberal, which in New York means "right-wing extremist."
Moreover, he expressed his point of view with humor and intelligence in such a disarming way that he could change minds rather than enrage those who disagreed with him the way, say, Sean Hannity might.
I imagine Tierney as a once idealistic Democrat who over time realized how big is the gap between rhetoric and reality on the left side of the political spectrum. Like some many others, his brain eventually pulled his heart over to the right side.
Tierney is going to Washington, DC which in itself is utter blasphemy. He's staying with the Times though and it will be interesting to see what he writes about now. But for me, the big city just won't be the same without him.
Read his last column and see what you'll be missing.
Wednesday, June 12, 2002
Peaceful Non-Existence Watch (Act 5)
To the surprise of no one who actually comprehends the Middle East "Peace Process," the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Center has released a new poll that shows the majority of the 1200 Palestinians interviewed in Gaza and the West Bank this month said they understood the goal of the Intifada to be the total elimination of Israel.
An earlier poll shows that 72% of respondents do not believe even a permanent peace agreement based on "two nations with two peoples" would be sufficient to end the violence.
This, of course, helps to make sense of the suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. You don't murder your neighbors in the hope that someday you will be able to live together in peace.
Rather, they are going for broke. It's all or nothing for the Palestinian "movement." Either it achieves an ethnically cleansed Israel or it collapses.
The proper response should be to prove how hopeless this aspiration is by slowly and steadily thwarting every expression of it. Spectacular "operations" then become acts of desperation. Eventually, the true believers will be either marginalized or dead.
In the meantime, ordinary, non-homicidal people in the Islamic world are subjected to the most crude and unconvincing news reporting from Palestine such as this wire story from IRNA in Iran.
An "interview" with an Israeli armored bulldozer driver in Jenin yields this bit of insight:
Only a teetotaler would believe that drinking whisky would allow you to stay awake for three days and nights.
What does an intelligent Iranian my age think when he reads such garbage? I can only hope that it makes him wonder what the truth is. That will make him question the wisdom of the prevailing authorities. He will think about the world his children will live in and become concerned about the trajectory of current events. Are things getting better or worse?
As you read this blog, there is a 35 year old guy standing on a hot dusty corner somwhere in Tehran, or Damascus, or Baghdad who feels the best part of the 20th Century passed him by because the jerks who run the country are obsessed with some hopeless political posture that is totally irrelevant to me and, in the name of Allah, that's not going to happen to my son.
That's when real change is possible.
To the surprise of no one who actually comprehends the Middle East "Peace Process," the Palestinian Jerusalem Media and Communication Center has released a new poll that shows the majority of the 1200 Palestinians interviewed in Gaza and the West Bank this month said they understood the goal of the Intifada to be the total elimination of Israel.
An earlier poll shows that 72% of respondents do not believe even a permanent peace agreement based on "two nations with two peoples" would be sufficient to end the violence.
This, of course, helps to make sense of the suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians. You don't murder your neighbors in the hope that someday you will be able to live together in peace.
Rather, they are going for broke. It's all or nothing for the Palestinian "movement." Either it achieves an ethnically cleansed Israel or it collapses.
The proper response should be to prove how hopeless this aspiration is by slowly and steadily thwarting every expression of it. Spectacular "operations" then become acts of desperation. Eventually, the true believers will be either marginalized or dead.
In the meantime, ordinary, non-homicidal people in the Islamic world are subjected to the most crude and unconvincing news reporting from Palestine such as this wire story from IRNA in Iran.
An "interview" with an Israeli armored bulldozer driver in Jenin yields this bit of insight:
"For three days I just erased and erased every house. The officers warned the Palestinians to leave before I entered, but I didn't give anyone a chance to escape. I would come and give a big hit, the hardest I could, so that the house would fall immediately. I got great pleasure out of every house I took down."
When Nisim was asked how he was able to work three days and three nights without sleep, he said, "I didn't feel tired at all. I drank whisky all the time.
Only a teetotaler would believe that drinking whisky would allow you to stay awake for three days and nights.
What does an intelligent Iranian my age think when he reads such garbage? I can only hope that it makes him wonder what the truth is. That will make him question the wisdom of the prevailing authorities. He will think about the world his children will live in and become concerned about the trajectory of current events. Are things getting better or worse?
As you read this blog, there is a 35 year old guy standing on a hot dusty corner somwhere in Tehran, or Damascus, or Baghdad who feels the best part of the 20th Century passed him by because the jerks who run the country are obsessed with some hopeless political posture that is totally irrelevant to me and, in the name of Allah, that's not going to happen to my son.
That's when real change is possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
