This is the coolest bike
in the world for short trips around town, the Strida.
Folds in seconds, relatively light, rolls when folded,
stores easily, grease-free Kevlar belt (instead of a
chain), able to fit easily on subways and buses. I've
had mine for almost 3 years and love it! Perfect
for NYC. Click here
to visit the site.
Blaahhhhhh!!!!! I just put on my shoes and was getting ready to go out to a movie when I felt something odd under my sock. I had a bad feeling about it. Took off my shoe and a huge cockroach, really one of those water bugs more than an inch long, was in there. Eeeewwwaaahhh!!!
A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present. Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality." Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists. Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."
I haven't asked Nick whether this is our mutual friend I'm letting myself believe it is. Either way, he sent another email which Nick publishes, including the news that Hertz in Kuwait calling him on his cell phone about the SUV that he rent (and is not supposed to be driving in a war zone, due to insurance limitations).
UPDATE:
Confirmation: it is our mutual friend writing Nick, as I suspected.
You must read Where Is Raed, from a guy (who goes by Salam Pax) apparently blogging from Baghdad. Paul Boutin, a reporter for the New York Times among other pubs, does some research and comes to the conclusion Salam appears to be legit. Fascinating reading. I wonder how he gets Internet access. He reports, among other things, that the French apparently getting lots of airtime on state TV.
Slightly worrisome that he hasn't yet posted today.
Even before discovering "Where Is Raed" (blogging from Baghdad; see above), I had thought that a key part of the reconstruction of Iraq should be free Net access. What better way to let those poor souls reunite with the world than Google, Hotmail and Blogger.
Well, it seemed too good to be true. The CNN journalist Kevin Sites, who had recently started blogging from Iraq, to much fanfare in the blogosphere, was told to stop by CNN:
I've been asked to suspend my war blogging for awhile.
But I don't want let you down -- I'm chronicling the events of my war experiences, the same as I always have, and hope to come to agreement with CNN in the near future to make them available to you in some shape or form, perhaps on this site.
That's certainly going to mute sympathy for CNN's cries of censorship in getting kicked out of Baghdad themselves.
Check out the BBC correspondent blog instead, as well as John Pendygraft's blog, a photographer for the St. Petersburg Times who is blogging from the front lines. And don't forget Where Is Raed, the real Blogger of Baghdad (or so we're led to believe).
Having blogged about the war and gotten a link from InstaPundit, I'd have to say war blogging is better. Graphic stolen from step-brother Jay (coming soon to a city near me and looking to meet interesting new people; call for details on how you can take part in this limited-time offer).
"Splattered through bleeding lips while singing We Shall Overcome," he writes:
Being in opposition to a war that's already happening is like having a massive head wound. Sooner or later, you will realize that it doesn't matter how you got it, or who gave it to you. What matters is that you need immediate medical attention and you want to not have a massive head wound....
I also picked up this little ditty from his site:
The French
They are a funny race
They fight with their feet
And fuck with their face
I feel bad joining in on all the French bashing, as I do love them so, but you have to admit racist insults are funnier when they're dirty and rhyme.
Nick Denton published an email from a journalist friend holed up in a Kuwaiti farmhouse 15 kilometers from the Iraqi border, well provisioned (dining a sumptuous dinner the night reported) and looking forward to seeing the "fun" in Baghdad shortly. It's a fascinating first-hand report, very intimate. All the more so because I also have a journalist friend thereabouts, myself. May well be the same guy, tho Nick has lots of journo friends, so who knows. I also have a friend in the military somewhere in the vicinity, whom I haven't spoken with in a month. They are both prominent in my thoughts these days.
We hope to resume normal programming of inconsequential observations about life shortly.
Pentagon Threatening to Bomb Independent Journalists?
Oh, I'd love to stop being a war blogger already, but of course I'm obsessed now with the news. Listening to NRP constantly. Frightening. Huge international outcry (so much for the foregone-conclusion,-let's-all-make-the-best-of-it approach), and protests in Time Square have reportedly turned violent (according to WNYC radio).
But I've got to finish a project for a client, so I'm trying to remain radio silent at least till morning. Meanwhile, I just figured I'd note this interview Adi sent me, the lead of which begins:
The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."
Ugh. This doesn't feel so good now that it's actually happening.
But how hilarious, all things considered, would it be if that first missile strike took out Saddam. Boom! and we're done. Oh, if only. Something to balm my dreams tonight, anyway, this odd, first official night of war.
I'm not a praying man, I won't lie, but I am in my own way pulling really hard for everyone tonight. Come on, men and women of the U.S., U.K. and international armies of the world, make us proud. Oh pretty please...
And for the Iraqi people, please forgive us. Speaking for myself, I am supporting this war, as I know are many people throughout the world and among most of the soldiers you'll soon be encountering, with only the best intensions in mind. We wish that military victory, the regime's overthrow and you're country's liberation from tyranny will be as swift, painless and just as possible. We wish you restful nights, full bellies, happy children and peace and liberty as soon as humanly possible.
And to Saddam, I wish that your last conscious thought is as ignominious and wretched as possible.
An Irish toast: May God bless all of our friends. And may God also bless our enemies, and turn their hearts so that they will become our friends. And if he won't turn their hearts, may he turn their ankles, so we shall know them by their limping. (With apologies to good-hearted limpers out there.)
If you didn't see this PBS Frontline documentary that aired shortly after Bush's 48-hour deadline speech Sunday night, I highly recommend it. It was a very sober, fair and detailed documentary edited together from five prior documentaries they've done on the U.S. history with Iraq and Saddam Hussein over the past several years. Most of the content appears to be available digitally, including lots of additional online-only material.
Normandy Vet Tells France Where They Can Put Their Medal
I heard this piece first last night on the BBC, but now I can't find that story on the BBC's site, but here is the story from AP about a an 80-year-old WWII vet (thrice wounded and captured as a prisoner of war) who is flying to Washington to return his Normandy Medal to the French embassy as a protest over their proposed U.N. veto. The BBC interview was much more detailed than this AP piece, so if anyone knows how I can track that down, I'd love to link to it there. The funniest part was at the end of the interview when the vet said he was going to tell the French where they could put the medal.
"An Arab case for war" - on NickDenton.org, the translated transcript from a program on Al-Jazeera in which an Egyptian historian and an Algerian journalist discussing why Arab countries are so screwed up (short answer: their corrupt rulers who fill their heads with lies)
The case for colonialism - by British political pundit Daniel Kruger (which my dad called my attention to, via Arts & Letters Daily), who argues that the West has a responsibility to help the Third World achieve the same freedoms we enjoy:
"Slowly, obscurely, enunciated with difficulty in thick Texan accents, a new doctrine of international order is emerging, of which the imminent war is a crucial outing. It is the doctrine of humanitarian intervention — or, to give it its proper name, neo-colonialism. This doctrine is driven by the firm belief — uncluttered by relativist self-loathing — in the universal principles of liberty and justice. It gives expression to our sense that everyone, not just the West, has a right to live in a decent country — and that the West has a duty to help them do so."
Okay, I broke down and did email the link for my pro-war rant below to blog buddies Nick Denton and Jeff Jarvis, both of whom linked to it (though they both have high enough standards that I'm sure they would not have unless they thought it worthy). Presumably Glenn Reynolds saw one of those and linked to it himself, and traffic is now pouring in.
Actually, I don't track my traffic on Bruner Blog, but I've gotten more than a dozen emails from the post, which is rare for this blog. All but two (from an Austrian and a German reader), I'm pleased to say, were in support of my argument (granted InstaPundit probably appeals most to a conservative crowd). To accomodate opinions, I've added a comments field to that particular post.
I'm writing this some hours before Hans Blix is supposed to be presenting to the U.N. his latest report about what Iraq has to do to comply with disarmament demands. Talk about shutting the barn door after the horses are gone...
To hear the popular media spin it, I thought something like 90% of Britains were adamantly opposed to war. In fact, according to to the latest poll from the Guardian, that bastian of English language left-wing reporting, 38% of Brits are now in favor of the war, while only 44% oppose (the rest undecided). Guardian writer David Aaronovitch puts the reluctant UK hawks' position in perspective.
What I should really be doing today, on this most beautiful day NY has seen
in many months, is working on overdue client assignments. But here, on perhaps
the literal
eve of war, I figure I should have the courage of my convictions, such that
they are, and for better or worse state publicly my regrettable support for
a war to depose of Saddam. So here is my mother of all rants. I doubt I'm going to change anyone's opinions at
this point, as I don't pretend to be any great thinker on matters of international
politics, and I'm sure this posting will not endear me to my many friends
who are in the anti-war camp. In fact, I'm quite sure I'll regret this in the morning. But I feel a responsibility to state my position,
or else what is the point of pretending I have opinions worth reading on this
blog. So it's come to this: I'm a war blogger at last.
For the record, let me say first of all I genuinely dislike President Bush.
Lest anyone have any doubts, I've intentionally left on display here on this
blog for many months the picture of a T-Shirt proclaiming "I Still Hate
George Bush." His stance on the environment, the economy, tax cuts, the blurring of religion and government and many other of his
policies make me sick. I do agree he's done terrible damage to international
relations with his ham-handed approach to this whole situation, and I relish
the opportunity to vote against him in the next national elections regardless
of what nimrod the Democrats put up to contest him.
All that said, I still think he's right on the question of Saddam. I may be
naive, but I do believe Saddam is a serious threat to the stability of that
region, to the U.S., to the world and, not least, to his own citizens, who seem most
neglected by all those who oppose war. Moreover, if the U.N. stands for anything
today, I don't see how it can possibly reconcile appeasing him more than it
already has for too many years.
Opponents of the war apparently see the long list of reasons
that the Bush Administration advances for war as evidence that it does not have
any single reason to justify its stance and is simply hell bent on taking the
guy out. I, on the other hand, interpret that long list as simply more than
enough justification to get rid of the guy. In short, I do buy many of the administration's
arguments while none of the arguments from the anti-war camp succeed in swaying
me as they're supposed to, given that I've been a life-long liberal to date
(the date specifically would be 9/11/01). Therefore, I frame this argument in
favor of war by addressing many of what I hear as the anti-war camp's "best
reasons" for opposing it:
We should respect Iraq's sovereignty. Saddam's rule of that country
hardly demonstrates respect for his own country's sovereignty, much less that of Kuwait, Iran, Israel or Saudi Arabia,
or the U.N. for that matter. He has squandered any claim to respect
of sovereignty he might have had. I wrote six months ago about a drunken neighbor when I was a kid who more than once threatened the neighborhood with his arsenal of guns when he went on a bender. I was only too happy when the police came to get rid of him. Although they actually succeeded in talking him out, they were there in flack jackets, and I wouldn't have been sorry to see them kick in his door to do it. He had lost the right to be treated in a good neighborly fashion.
World public opinion is against it. As a professional researcher,
I can assure you that public opinion is a poor gauge of what is right and
true. I really wonder if European public opinion in 1938 about whether Jews
were human beings or not would have supported Hitler's view, or, for that
matter, whether the majority of Americans in the late 1800s would have deemed
blacks as more than half persons, at best. Thankfully, leadership is not about doing
what is popular, it's about doing what is right. Let history be the judge.
We should give the U.N. weapons inspectors more time. More time
for what? How is it that so many can ignore the fact that the weapons
inspectors are not
there to play hide and seek? They are there to confirm that Saddam is
actively and enthusiastically disarming, which, despite crumpling a handful
of missles, he clearly is not. He's playing the U.N. for fools, as he has
done for years, and I really don't see the point in taking it up the ass
any longer for the sake of delaying the inevitable. More to the point, there
is no question that Saddam would not be cooperating at all, and for that
matter no other members of the world community would have put the issue
of renewed inspections on the table at all had it not been for the U.S.'s
clear willingness to advance the very credible threat of force to make him
comply. If the French et al had their way, we'd be blithely halfway into
the fifth year of no inspectors and no attention to the real threat Saddam's
regime represents.
The US is acting unilaterally. This one really pisses me off, as
it's so obviously untrue. Granted, we do not have unanimous world support for
a war, but Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Britain, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, South Korea, Turkey and Uzbekistan are all publicly on board. What are
they, chopped liver? I wonder what all those countries think about being
considered non-entities by headline writers around the world. The truth
is, world opinion is divided, pretty much down the middle, as far as I can
tell, but to say we're going it alone is just blatantly false.
The U.N. should be the forum to solve this. We should get allies behind
us first. So what the hell are they waiting for? This is a catch 22.
Public opinion in France and everywhere else says that were the U.N. to
get behind the war effort, then the majority of all those countries would
agree to support the war. So...all that's lacking is France et al supporting
U.N. action. And they accuse the Bush administration of circular logic? No one can argue the U.S. hasn't tried to rally its
allies. Granted, our approach to diplomacy could have been more diplomatic,
but we've been at it for months. At what point do we give up trying? (Tomorrow,
apparently.) What is most galling is that those balking in the U.N. are
not willing to call a spade a spade. On paper (1441), they have given Saddam
one last chance to actively and fully disarm, but it's clear to all (including Hans Blix) he is
not doing so. Yet rather than coming out and clearly saying that what the opponents of war
prefer to do is appease this ruthless dictator because they don't have the
balls to deal with him, they are pretending to be giving him the benefit
of the doubt, pretending that inspections are "working" (towards
what end?). That is the voice of authority and leadership that should command
the world's respect? No, it is not the U.S. that is dividing the world against
itself, it is the gutless prevaricators
within U.N. who are doing so. Besides, in the 200+ wars the world has
witnessed in the last 50 years or so, only three had U.N. blessing, namely Korea
(1950), Iraq (1991) and Afghanistan (2001). Notably, those do not include
Kosovo, Bosnia or Somalia, where, in each case, it was the U.S. that stuck
its neck out to attempt to prevent genocide that it had no direct stake
in. And, at the rist of sanctimony, let's not forget WWII, where the U.S.
sacrificed thousands of lives to preserve the democracy in Europe that now
gives France and Germany the freedom to snub their noses at us today.
Saddam hasn't done anything reckless in 12 years. Yes, but the only
reason he hasn't succeeded in his ambitions of Kurdish genocide or regional domination is thanks
to the no-fly zone enforced by the U.S. and England that are so unpopular
with peaceniks in the free world. There's that word again: genocide. I love
how the media keeps referring to Saddam gassing "his own people."
Actually, from his point of view, the Kurds he was gassing are not
"his own people." That's exactly the point. Left to his own devices,
it would be genocide, pure and simple.
Saddam has no active nuclear program. With all due respect to Muhammad
al-Baradei, we really don't know that. Let's not forget that in 1991, Saddam's
nuclear program was much
further developed than international intelligence agencies or the International
Atomic Energy Agency had imagined. He is a master of cat and mouse. We're
never going to know for sure how far along he is until we can gain unfettered
access to the place, and that is clearly not going to happen in today's inspection environment.
Besides, even without nukes, the large stores of chemical and biological
weapons he is widely believed to be hiding are good enough for me to constitute
a clear and present danger to the world.
Al Qaeda wouldn't collaborate with Saddam because they're religious
zealots and he's a secular tyrant. Gimme a break. Al Qaeda demonstrated
clearly in their planning for September 11th they'll do whatever it takes to
smite their enemy, even if that means suffering through lapdances in the strip
clubs of the Great Satan. If they can buy box cutters in our Wal-Marts,
I'm sure they could suck it up to borrow a few kilos of anthrax from Saddam.
And as for Saddam, if his prior support of religious terrorists (e.g., paying
off widows of Hamas suicide bombers) were not enough, how about his latest threat to retaliate against an attack "wherever there is
sky, land or water."
France has the moral high ground and is giving voice to world opinion.
Hey, I've been to France several times and love the place and its people,
but in this debate, France can suck my weener. Please remind me of one time in the 20th Century
when France demonstrated moral authority. How about inviting
Mugabe for champagne in Paris last month while the
rest of the world is ratcheting up sanctions against that bastard? That
was a nice move. France is perhaps the only democracy with a worse record
than us when it comes to coddling dictators, notably including Saddam (then and now).
Bush is arrogant. Yes he is. And rather stupid, too. And...so what? This
isn't charm school, it's a test of right or wrong. This is a bad
time to be arguing about style over substance. France is willing to sacrifice
unity in the Western world and reward a vicious despot in order to teach
us boorish Americans a lesson in manners? I mean, what really matters here?
Don't the Iraqi people deserve better? France's only interest in this whole
thing is its ego, pretending they're still a world power. They know perfectly
well we're going to do this with or without them (I recently heard someone
quip that going to war without France by our side is like going hunting
without an accordion), yet they've decided it would be in the world's
best interest to let us bear the burden alone while they make us look as
bad as possible in the process. What makes me so sad is that this is
the right thing to do -- Saddam is a danger to all around him and he
no longer deserves the benefit of the doubt; and even if you don't believe
that, the bottom line is it's going to happen regardless, as there is no
practical way Bush could back down at this point anyway (what message would
that send to Saddam and his ilk if Bush did so at this point?) -- and therefore
it would be so much better for the whole world in the long run if our "allies"
presented a united front with us. You can't convince me that France (and
by France I really mean by proxy all those objecting in the Security Council)
honestly has the best interest of the Iraqi people or even world security
at heart. No, I think they just want 15 minutes of glory in having stood
up to "the big bully," regardless of whether what the supposed bully is
proposing in this case is right or not. So, from now on it's every man for
himself? That's just great. The truth is, we can take care of ourselves,
if that's what it's going to come down to. But if the next plane does fly
into the Eiffel Tower, packed with anthrax, bon chance, bebe. We'll see
how helpful good manners are for you then.
It's too bad Clinton is no longer president, because he was charming
and smart. My opinion on Clinton: what a tragic waste of potential.
All those brains and yet he failed to really recognize the opportunity he
had to profoundly shape the world order in the obvious power vacuum of the
post-Cold War. Nothing makes me angrier than thinking he was perfectly well
aware of the growing discontent in the Third World and mounting threat of
terrorism, watching as thousands marched through Bin Laden's training camps
in Afghanistan and yet, instead of recasting the role of the CIA and using his ample charms
and intelligence to try to lead the direction for the New World Order -- or
even just keep tabs on who Bin Laden was training -- he spent his time gloating
about the bubble economy, hand-holding in Northern Ireland, befriending
North Korea while they schemed behind our backs, morphing his party into
Republicans Lite, and getting blow jobs under the desk. What a sorry self-aggrandizing
ass he turned out to be. I'm so glad I voted for Nader in '96.
What about North Korea? Aren't they the greater immediate threat? Sure,
but the problem is North Korea already has nukes, which makes holding
them to account for it a lot more complicated. And I can't understand how it makes
me a hawk to think so, but I do subscribe to the principle that you don't
reward their aggression by negotiating with them on their terms. As long
as we refuse to let them dictate the agenda, the ball is still in our court.
I can't say I really know what the best course of action is there (although
I do like the Chuck
Barris idea), but frankly I think that the whole North Korea crisis
is that much more reason why we should act now with Saddam instead
of waiting till we're in the same situation with him as with Mr Il (a more aptly name crackpot I can't think of, though I do like that Saddam Hussein sounds so much like So Damn Insane).
Bush is rushing to war. Going to war with Iraq has been this administration's
agenda for well over a year (actually, since he first came into office). The inspectors have been in Iraq again for
nearly six months. That's a rush? Remind me not to call your fire department. How long should we wait? Another 12 years?
If we go after Iraq today, who's next? Who indeed. Just because we can't go after all
the evil doers in the world (and, yes, I'm using that phrase ironically)
doesn't mean we shouldn't confront any of them. We're all guilty of coddling
dictators too long in this world. I love that according to the peaceniks
we can't win for losing: in supporting the Saudis and other evil bastards,
we're collaborating to suppress innocent civilians in those countries, yet when we impose
sanctions on Iraq because its bastard is especially evil, then we're starving babies to death. What exactly is the consistent
position we're supposed to be abiding by? Should we do business with dictators or not? Or, like France, should we do so and just try to keep a low profile about it? If attacking Iraq is making all
the other tyrants around the world right now soil their drawers, terrific.
Realistically, we're going to pick our battles. But, in my opinion (as I've
suppose made tediously clear by now), this is one worth fighting.
Our foreign policy created all these monsters in the first place.
Maybe. Well, us, together with France, Germany, England and the rest, anyway.
But that is supposed to be a good reason why we shouldn't realize the errors
of our ways and try to right our own wrongs now?
We should solve the Palestinian problem first. Yeah, like that's
a realistic answer. The Palestinian problem has been there for 100 years or
so. It will still be waiting for us in a few months. Besides, if mighty Clinton was no match for it, you actually think Bush is going to figure it out? That said, he seems already to have gone farther towards a commitment to a Palestinian state than I remember Clinton ever doing.
War is hell. No shit. So is life under Saddam. Besides, better them
than us. I was a pacifist when I was 18, but I've lived long enough to realize
sometimes you have to do unto other before they do unto you. Yes, many Americans
will die in this war, and many more Iraqis, and I'm sad for both cases, but not as many Iraqis will die in a war as would
continue to suffer and die under the sanctions and Saddam's dictatorship for another 10 years. More to the point,
I'd much rather we bring it to them than wait for Saddam to bring it to
us. There are no good options here. It's a crass analogy, but to my mind
it's like ripping off a BandAid: it's going to hurt like hell for a little
bit, but better to endure that short pain now than let the wound fester
any longer.
Going to war in the Middle East is just going to fuel more terrorism.
If September 11th taught us anything it is that we don't have to provoke
terrorists for them to attack us. I live in NYC (i.e., likely to be ground
zero yet again for future terrorist ambitions). I'm not saying that makes me as
brave as signing up to serve on the front lines, but I don't think that
cowering in fear from a possible terrorist backlash is the responsible way
to face the threats of the new millennium. It's so hackneyed as to almost have lost all meaning, but in that case the terrorists truly would have won. In all likelihood, war with Iraq will help Bin Laden recruit more angry young men to his cause, but it will also doubtless do more
to raise the hopes of dissidents and everyday misserable wretches living
under the thumb of wicked dictators in that part of the world and elsewhere
than would sticking our heads in the sand like so many "allies" recommend.
It may all go horribly wrong. Yes, that's a real risk. But honestly
I believe it's much more likely to go (more or less) the way the Pentagon predicts:
swift U.S. victory. So much so that I've decided to go on record here supporting it, come what may.
Iraqi soldiers are already tripping
over themselves to surrender right now. It's a risk worth taking. Frankly,
the status quo in the Middle East is so screwed up today, I say let's go
ahead and stir things up and see what happens when the dust settles. Obviously,
we can't predict exactly how it's going play out, but I really believe whatever
comes next for Iraq can't be worse than Saddam. At this point, better the devil we don't
know. Chances are it will not be a flowering of democracy there over night, if ever,
but any measure of freedom that may result will be an improvement.
And let's just imagine that, like in Afghanistan, the citizens there actually
do feel liberated and some measure of gratitude after all is done. Is that such an extreme fantasy?
I don't think so. And I, for one, look very forward to seeing what the French
are going to have to say for themselves to the Iraqi people then.
For the last year and a half (do the math), one quote has guided my thinking
in this regard above all else, and I know you've all heard it several times already by now, but it bears repeating: Edmund Burke's
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
nothing."
Listening to a rebroadcast of Prairie Home Companion this morning from their annual "Talent From Towns Under Two Thousand Contest" (from April 2001), I was quite astonished by the talent of (then) 11-year-old Kyle Coolidge. Not only was the piece he played on the piano quite complex for those little fingers to get around, but he composed it himself: "Pahs Gahs Nos. 1, 2, & 3" (RealAudio file). Part Chopin, part Monk. Really remarkable. Unfortunately, he doesn't come up much on Google that I can see, so I don't know if his talent has been much recognized since. Nor did he win the contest, which went instead to (then) 17-year-old fiddler Katie Kerkhover, who, by constrast, is quite web savvy (with her own site that includes a newsletter and downloadable screensavers and wallpaper of herself, no less), and who won, I suspect, in large part because she's a little hottie and was wearing a prom dress.
Fascinating interview (RealAudio file, 8:24 min) on WNYC the other day between host Brian Lehrer (my hero) and Michael Walzer, professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study and author of Just and Unjust Wars. Walzer proposes a "third way" to resolve the Iraq crisis, an "intensified containment regime" short of war (though backed by the credible threat of war...which is where I thought we were already) but beyond the French/German non-plan for appeasement. Most gratifying is how well he articulates that the French stance is really nothing more than a power-play to make the U.S. look as bad as possible without offering up any real viable alternative (e.g., the only reason Saddam has been as forth-coming as he has in recent months is the 250,000 U.S. troops on his border, and France's idea for indefinite continued inspections would rely on our keeping them there indefinitely at our expense and risk). I'd excerpt passages, but it's late and I don't feel like transcribing, and so much of it is so good I'd be hard pressed to pick the best parts. Just give it a listen.
Interesting looking debate in NYC this Tuesday evening titled "What Liberal Media? Truth and Bias in the American Media's Coverage of War and Peace." Free. 6pm at CUNY Graduate Center, Fifth Avenue and 34th Street.
