Tuesday, December 25, 2007
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A Strange Obsession with TIME
To avoid being buried in the comments, I thought I should create a new post so as to successfully distance myself as much as possible from my colleague's misguided remarks about TIME.
I cannot stress enough how wrong TIME is to name Putin as the Person of the Year, and in that regard, LMD03 is completely correct. David Petraeus, however, deserves the distinction only slightly more than Putin, and drastically less than other individuals. Al Gore, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even Anna Nicole Smith deserves the title more than Petraeus.
Realistically, and I think my Liebermanesque comrade would agree, there's a stronger case to be made for Ahmadinejad than for Putin. Maybe I missed something, but what has Putin done this year except try to claim the North Pole as Russia's and be his normal power-grabbing self (something Chavez does far more noticeably than he)? So he's decided to be Prime Minister once his hand-picked successor appoints him as such, so fucking what? I share LMD03's outrage over the choice of Putin.
Petraeus, however, does not have a "legitimate right" to be Person of the Year. I would agree that he should be in contention for it, but the fact is, he himself has not had the kind of impact that a Person of the Year generally has. He was a mere surrogate. If you want to give him the title, you should just give it to Bush for implementing the "surge". On that note, we must discuss the premise of LMD03's argument about the potential embracing of Petraeus.
The idea that Petraeus was denied simply because it would look as though TIME is endorsing something done by Bush is nothing more than elitist, right-wing mumbo jumbo. It's effectively going back to the nonsense that the "liberal media" is rooting for our country's destruction. Let's not play those games here..
The surge has succeeded in adding some security to the Baghdad area, with a heavy cost of course. The problem, though, is that even if there were ZERO security breaches in Baghdad, the war would not end because no political progress is being made. Political reconciliation just is not happening; the elected officials simply can't accomplish the business of their people. Things like distributing oil revenues fairly are sticking points that have no end in sight and only cause further sectarian tension. We could send another 60,000 troops onto the streets of Baghdad and it won't make a difference. Our presence there does not insight them to take responsibility for their own country, i.e. taking over the security for their own country. The surge, therefore, has ultimately accomplished nothing in terms of bringing the war closer to an end. Instead, it's only caused more American casualties in its first six months (January '07 - June '07) than any six month period of the war before it. Is the scapegoat appointed to lead this futile operation on the ground so the President can hide behind him really worth naming the Person of the Year?
I was disgusted by the fact that the administration scheduled Petraeus to testify beginning on 9/11. They never fail to distract from the business at hand. But honestly, did you actually believe that the big Petraeus report in September was going to change anything? This more than any other reason is why he shouldn't be Person of the Year. He wasn't going to come back and say, "Yes, it's time for us to get out." Nor was he going to say, "You know, we're kicking so much ass that we're going to end this thing soon, just hang on." You're a fool if you thought one of those extremes was going to happen. It was completely predictable months in advance. All the hype around Petraeus was put there by the administration and weasels in Congress to buy time. I don't doubt the credentials or wartime prowess of the man; I just don't think he should be the Person of the Year because Republican propaganda wanted him to be front and center instead of the feckless wimps in Congress who still refuse to stand up and block funding. (That includes scores of Democrats.)
The Person of the Century debate will surely rage on between me and my distinguished friend. I am not surprised, however, that he refuses to recognize the importance of Einstein as being far above and beyond that of Stalin given the fact that he thinks human behavior is more predictable than the climate. By the way, do you like reading this blog on that computer monitor of yours? No Einstein means no special relativity. No understanding of special relativity means that cathode ray tubes (what computer monitors were first made out of) would never produce anything more than a blur. Would you be able to live today without email? Well, my friends, the optical flashes that carry electronic messages are in fact lasers. Townes and Schawlow, the discoverers of modern day lasers, began their work using an idea that Einstein had floated around some 40 years earlier about excited state electrons.
You'll find Einstein's tracks in every corner of our comfortable world. Stalin, not so much.
I cannot stress enough how wrong TIME is to name Putin as the Person of the Year, and in that regard, LMD03 is completely correct. David Petraeus, however, deserves the distinction only slightly more than Putin, and drastically less than other individuals. Al Gore, Hugo Chavez, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, even Anna Nicole Smith deserves the title more than Petraeus.
Realistically, and I think my Liebermanesque comrade would agree, there's a stronger case to be made for Ahmadinejad than for Putin. Maybe I missed something, but what has Putin done this year except try to claim the North Pole as Russia's and be his normal power-grabbing self (something Chavez does far more noticeably than he)? So he's decided to be Prime Minister once his hand-picked successor appoints him as such, so fucking what? I share LMD03's outrage over the choice of Putin.
Petraeus, however, does not have a "legitimate right" to be Person of the Year. I would agree that he should be in contention for it, but the fact is, he himself has not had the kind of impact that a Person of the Year generally has. He was a mere surrogate. If you want to give him the title, you should just give it to Bush for implementing the "surge". On that note, we must discuss the premise of LMD03's argument about the potential embracing of Petraeus.
The idea that Petraeus was denied simply because it would look as though TIME is endorsing something done by Bush is nothing more than elitist, right-wing mumbo jumbo. It's effectively going back to the nonsense that the "liberal media" is rooting for our country's destruction. Let's not play those games here..
The surge has succeeded in adding some security to the Baghdad area, with a heavy cost of course. The problem, though, is that even if there were ZERO security breaches in Baghdad, the war would not end because no political progress is being made. Political reconciliation just is not happening; the elected officials simply can't accomplish the business of their people. Things like distributing oil revenues fairly are sticking points that have no end in sight and only cause further sectarian tension. We could send another 60,000 troops onto the streets of Baghdad and it won't make a difference. Our presence there does not insight them to take responsibility for their own country, i.e. taking over the security for their own country. The surge, therefore, has ultimately accomplished nothing in terms of bringing the war closer to an end. Instead, it's only caused more American casualties in its first six months (January '07 - June '07) than any six month period of the war before it. Is the scapegoat appointed to lead this futile operation on the ground so the President can hide behind him really worth naming the Person of the Year?
I was disgusted by the fact that the administration scheduled Petraeus to testify beginning on 9/11. They never fail to distract from the business at hand. But honestly, did you actually believe that the big Petraeus report in September was going to change anything? This more than any other reason is why he shouldn't be Person of the Year. He wasn't going to come back and say, "Yes, it's time for us to get out." Nor was he going to say, "You know, we're kicking so much ass that we're going to end this thing soon, just hang on." You're a fool if you thought one of those extremes was going to happen. It was completely predictable months in advance. All the hype around Petraeus was put there by the administration and weasels in Congress to buy time. I don't doubt the credentials or wartime prowess of the man; I just don't think he should be the Person of the Year because Republican propaganda wanted him to be front and center instead of the feckless wimps in Congress who still refuse to stand up and block funding. (That includes scores of Democrats.)
The Person of the Century debate will surely rage on between me and my distinguished friend. I am not surprised, however, that he refuses to recognize the importance of Einstein as being far above and beyond that of Stalin given the fact that he thinks human behavior is more predictable than the climate. By the way, do you like reading this blog on that computer monitor of yours? No Einstein means no special relativity. No understanding of special relativity means that cathode ray tubes (what computer monitors were first made out of) would never produce anything more than a blur. Would you be able to live today without email? Well, my friends, the optical flashes that carry electronic messages are in fact lasers. Townes and Schawlow, the discoverers of modern day lasers, began their work using an idea that Einstein had floated around some 40 years earlier about excited state electrons.
You'll find Einstein's tracks in every corner of our comfortable world. Stalin, not so much.
George W. Bush is Never Right, Dammit!
Or in other words, Vladimir Putin, tsar of Russia, is TIME Magazine's choice for "Person of the Year," and no, I won't link to Richard Stengel's high-minded nonsense. For an excellent counter-argument, read here, if some of you can manage to leave your cocoon for a time. Few subjects as irrelevant as Person of the Year (or Decade, Century, etc) are as good for debate and reveal so much about individual personalities. Case in point: the editors of TIME.
No choice should have proven as overwhelming for the choosers since 2001, which, incidentally, they also got wrong. For all my displeasure with 2006's "You" goofiness, at least there wasn't a clear choice, given that no Democratic leader stood as the unquestioned force behind the first party change in the House of Representatives in a twelve years. Michael Barone labels Vladimir Putin an "odd choice," and aptly chronicles past befuddling decisions by Henry Luce's semi-heirs. The editors chose Putin for a simple reason: they couldn't pick General David Petraeus because that would signal a categorical support for the "surge" policy of President Bush, first announced in January.
What, the president's policy actually didn't make things worse? Can't admit that, can we?
Stengel's article takes great pains to inform us that he does not support Putin's ultra-tight control over government and society, but that this designation is not an "honor." So why couldn't the editors have compiled a similar, sobering account of Petraeus and the new Iraq policy? Or ask yourself this question, if the President had accepted The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendations, do you have any doubt that James Baker and Lee Hamilton would've graced the cover? Any??? And for all my negative vibes toward the GOP "realist," he would have certainly deserved it, the whole commission even.
So we are left with the impression that TIME's editors think their influence is so prodigious that had they chosen General Petraeus, well, support for the policy would've increased, and perhaps, horror of horrors, the president's approval rating would rise too. Can't have that, can we? Get over yourselves. Do they not feel Richard Stengel or any of their other writers is capable of clearly indicating that the magazine is no more endorsing the surge then it cheered Adolf Hitler (1938) and Joseph Stalin (more than once)? Or, more recently, the contemptible Ayatollah Khomeini (1979)?
I'm not saying that the picture of General Petraeus should emulate WWII iconography, but can we truly deny his importance in the last year? Without him, doesn't new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former ISG member, persuade the president to go along with much of the report and send ever-eager-for-a-Nobel James Baker for long, unconstructive talks with Assad and Ahmadinejad? Would the Cheney faction have stood up to that and a determined-for-a-Nobel herself Condoleezza Rice? Perhaps they would've tried, but without much success.
As if his roll out in the early portion of the year wasn't enough, didn't the Petraeus hearings in September clinch the debate, at least for the foreseeable future? Unless everything unravels next spring, Republicans likely will not demand a withdraw to save their political hides next November--a prospect once deemed quite likely by the national media. This in turn has forced the leading Democratic candidates to back off end-of-2005 statements about the War in Iraq. Now only Bill Richardson, among serious Dem candidates, will go on record declaring all US troops will leave Iraq by the end of his first term. John Edwards once denigrated the policy as the "McCain strategy," speaking of another person more deserving than Putin...
Okay, so we don't want to pick an American general looking to successfully carry out Mr. Bush's war policy, I get it. Guess what, we still don't need to pick Putin. How about the Venezuelan citizenry, narrowly defeating the grandiose, unchecked power-play of Hugo Chavez just a few weeks ago? Despite a recent smashing victory in reelection campaign, the strongman couldn't persuade enough of his supporters to back his agenda, and, just as relevant, knew he couldn't jam the measure down the public's throat--illegally--without fomenting a measure of distrust which could threaten his one-party rule. For the future of republicanism, if possible, in South America, no one deserved the honor more.
Notice I said "honor," yup, that's right, whether it should or should not be is immaterial as that horse left the barn long ago. TIME does HONOR people and individuals for their achievements, and don't let them argue otherwise. Henry Luce began the issue because TIME had foolishly forgotten to place Charles Lindbergh on the cover the week after his Spirit of St. Louis landed in Paris--so, presto, Time Man of the Year for 1927. Stengel's argument thus holds as much water today as it did in 1979 or 1938, i.e., none.
Perhaps TIME still kicks itself for lacking the courage to place Osama bin Laden's mug on the cover in 2001, instead of, what exactly? A man who recklessly endangered his security apparatus, made sure he got in the camera frame with a protective mask, and, uh, tried to preserve his power in New York City on dubious reasoning. And so we received Rudy Giuliani in our mailboxes for 2001. Never mind the man who actually selected the mastermind of the attacks or the man who actually decided to send the armed forces to invade Afghanistan, sanctuary of al-Qaeda. No, the editors thought we needed a patriotic portrait. Maybe if TIME hadn't chosen the American Soldier in 2003, they could've done in 2006, but would anyone have complained? After all, the soldier in Iraq today is of a different mindset than the first arrivals most assuredly.
In sum, to deny David Petraeus his legitimate right as Person of the Year, TIME persists in denying reality, to borrow a line from Al Gore (in his first loss of the year). Aside from organizing a temper tantrum when Estonia tried to remove a Soviet-era monument, Putin's Russia did little new. They continued to boost Serbia's hopes to reel in their wayward province, continued to roll in the gas and petro rubles, yet hasn't this trend been a continuation of the last several years? No question, Russia's long road back to its "glory" days is a major story of this decade and Putin is the primary mover. Nothing he did this year or has ever done has proven as significant as the PR victory General Petraeus won for his commander-in-chief in 2007, and that is all but inarguable.
Perhaps one of my compatriots will chide me for championing David Petraeus, presumably while taking the time and space to launch yet another rationale into TIME's misguided choice of Albert Einstein as Person of the Century (1999).
No choice should have proven as overwhelming for the choosers since 2001, which, incidentally, they also got wrong. For all my displeasure with 2006's "You" goofiness, at least there wasn't a clear choice, given that no Democratic leader stood as the unquestioned force behind the first party change in the House of Representatives in a twelve years. Michael Barone labels Vladimir Putin an "odd choice," and aptly chronicles past befuddling decisions by Henry Luce's semi-heirs. The editors chose Putin for a simple reason: they couldn't pick General David Petraeus because that would signal a categorical support for the "surge" policy of President Bush, first announced in January.
What, the president's policy actually didn't make things worse? Can't admit that, can we?
Stengel's article takes great pains to inform us that he does not support Putin's ultra-tight control over government and society, but that this designation is not an "honor." So why couldn't the editors have compiled a similar, sobering account of Petraeus and the new Iraq policy? Or ask yourself this question, if the President had accepted The Iraq Study Group's (ISG) recommendations, do you have any doubt that James Baker and Lee Hamilton would've graced the cover? Any??? And for all my negative vibes toward the GOP "realist," he would have certainly deserved it, the whole commission even.
So we are left with the impression that TIME's editors think their influence is so prodigious that had they chosen General Petraeus, well, support for the policy would've increased, and perhaps, horror of horrors, the president's approval rating would rise too. Can't have that, can we? Get over yourselves. Do they not feel Richard Stengel or any of their other writers is capable of clearly indicating that the magazine is no more endorsing the surge then it cheered Adolf Hitler (1938) and Joseph Stalin (more than once)? Or, more recently, the contemptible Ayatollah Khomeini (1979)?
I'm not saying that the picture of General Petraeus should emulate WWII iconography, but can we truly deny his importance in the last year? Without him, doesn't new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, former ISG member, persuade the president to go along with much of the report and send ever-eager-for-a-Nobel James Baker for long, unconstructive talks with Assad and Ahmadinejad? Would the Cheney faction have stood up to that and a determined-for-a-Nobel herself Condoleezza Rice? Perhaps they would've tried, but without much success.
As if his roll out in the early portion of the year wasn't enough, didn't the Petraeus hearings in September clinch the debate, at least for the foreseeable future? Unless everything unravels next spring, Republicans likely will not demand a withdraw to save their political hides next November--a prospect once deemed quite likely by the national media. This in turn has forced the leading Democratic candidates to back off end-of-2005 statements about the War in Iraq. Now only Bill Richardson, among serious Dem candidates, will go on record declaring all US troops will leave Iraq by the end of his first term. John Edwards once denigrated the policy as the "McCain strategy," speaking of another person more deserving than Putin...
Okay, so we don't want to pick an American general looking to successfully carry out Mr. Bush's war policy, I get it. Guess what, we still don't need to pick Putin. How about the Venezuelan citizenry, narrowly defeating the grandiose, unchecked power-play of Hugo Chavez just a few weeks ago? Despite a recent smashing victory in reelection campaign, the strongman couldn't persuade enough of his supporters to back his agenda, and, just as relevant, knew he couldn't jam the measure down the public's throat--illegally--without fomenting a measure of distrust which could threaten his one-party rule. For the future of republicanism, if possible, in South America, no one deserved the honor more.
Notice I said "honor," yup, that's right, whether it should or should not be is immaterial as that horse left the barn long ago. TIME does HONOR people and individuals for their achievements, and don't let them argue otherwise. Henry Luce began the issue because TIME had foolishly forgotten to place Charles Lindbergh on the cover the week after his Spirit of St. Louis landed in Paris--so, presto, Time Man of the Year for 1927. Stengel's argument thus holds as much water today as it did in 1979 or 1938, i.e., none.
Perhaps TIME still kicks itself for lacking the courage to place Osama bin Laden's mug on the cover in 2001, instead of, what exactly? A man who recklessly endangered his security apparatus, made sure he got in the camera frame with a protective mask, and, uh, tried to preserve his power in New York City on dubious reasoning. And so we received Rudy Giuliani in our mailboxes for 2001. Never mind the man who actually selected the mastermind of the attacks or the man who actually decided to send the armed forces to invade Afghanistan, sanctuary of al-Qaeda. No, the editors thought we needed a patriotic portrait. Maybe if TIME hadn't chosen the American Soldier in 2003, they could've done in 2006, but would anyone have complained? After all, the soldier in Iraq today is of a different mindset than the first arrivals most assuredly.
In sum, to deny David Petraeus his legitimate right as Person of the Year, TIME persists in denying reality, to borrow a line from Al Gore (in his first loss of the year). Aside from organizing a temper tantrum when Estonia tried to remove a Soviet-era monument, Putin's Russia did little new. They continued to boost Serbia's hopes to reel in their wayward province, continued to roll in the gas and petro rubles, yet hasn't this trend been a continuation of the last several years? No question, Russia's long road back to its "glory" days is a major story of this decade and Putin is the primary mover. Nothing he did this year or has ever done has proven as significant as the PR victory General Petraeus won for his commander-in-chief in 2007, and that is all but inarguable.
Perhaps one of my compatriots will chide me for championing David Petraeus, presumably while taking the time and space to launch yet another rationale into TIME's misguided choice of Albert Einstein as Person of the Century (1999).
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
The Greatest Sports Highlight of All Time
Yet another ESPN.com contest provides yet another forum to engage in argument and debate. I will however say that this topic is among the most interesting: Chris Berman's quest to find (and presumably narrate) the greatest sports highlight of all time. Before announcing my Top 10 and then ranking them accordingly, here are my criteria:
1) The bigger the name the better: This is not to say that less legendary figures cannot make spectacular plays, a well known name adds a certain extra quality to a highlight, particularly because the lesser known are usually there for something more resembling a fluke.
2) Athletic brilliance over wackiness: Just me, but I'd rather see greatness than strangeness. A guy wiping out on a ski mountain or another crashing through the outfield wall, doesn't quite do it for me. A play known as the Immaculate Reception will surely make the list, but what did Franco Harris truly do?
3) Stage matters: If the LSU near-miracle TD pass to beat Kentucky (I was present) had occurred in a battle of Top 10 or even Top 5 teams, I would've included it. As it is, neither team had a particularly memorable year, UK finished 7-5, LSU lost in the SEC Championship Game to Georgia.
With that in mind, a few highlights neglected by the good service...
Dante Hall's reception against Denver: Known primarily as a kick returner, the former Kansas City Chief's greatest play, alas, is nowhere to be found on YouTube (or not at last check), but if you ever get a chance to view his catch-and-run at the new Bronco stadium, it is something to behold.
Kind of cheating, but, the end sequence of the 2002 South Regional of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (yes, here for this one too). Duke trailed by four with seconds to play when Player of the Year Jay Williams drilled a three... and got fouled. Cut to the hysterical reaction of Indiana coach Mike Davis. J-Will's free throw softly spins out (the hardest way to miss a foul shot) right to fellow All-ACC (and future NBA star) Carlos Boozer who misses a point-blank lay-up as time expires.
Luis Gonzalez, 56-homer man, lifts a shallow fly off Yankee closer Mariano "Hammer of God" Rivera, just over Derek Jeter, to end New York's dreams of a fourth straight title and complete a 1-2 deficit against baseball's greatest postseason pitcher with a 3-2 win in Game 7 of the World Series.
Brief note: I didn't see Mark McGwire's "62" from September 1998 on the list, did you? What, it didn't get better with age? Hmmm...
Now, in chronological order: the LMD03 Top 10.
1954: Willie Mays makes his "Catch"
1980: Julius Erving makes the famous lay up in NBA history
1986: Diego Maradona scores the FIFA Goal of the Century v. ENG
1987: Magic Johnson makes his "junior skyhook" at Boston Garden
1987: Bo Jackson completes a 91-yard run to "Tacoma"
1992: Christian Laettner... moving on
1995: Tyus Edney goes length of the floor to save UCLA's season
1996: Kerri Strug puts team over individual in her final vault
1996: Michael Johnson runs an impossible 19.32 in the 200m
2007: Boise State completes a two-point conversion to upset OU
In some respects, the easy part.
10. Julius Erving's lay up against the Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980 NBA Finals. No, the Sixers didn't win the championship, but this is perhaps the most famous shot in basketball history and the pinnacle of Dr. J's artistry. Watch the tape and then try it sometime... and then have someone guard you.
9. Michael Johnson's world record in the Men's Final 200m at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games "destroys his old record" and makes possible the 200/400 double-gold. No real drama here, but the incredible time plus the astonished reaction of the champ as he saw his time makes this a top selection.
8. Boise State's "statue of liberty" call in overtime wins the Fiesta Bowl over perennial power Oklahoma and directly leads to an Ian Johnson marriage proposal. This play and Chris Peterson's offensive calls for the entire game won a lot of "Blue Turfers" for one night, as the Broncos finished as the only unbeaten team.
7. Willie Mays's putout in center field off a long Vic Wertz blast prevented two Indian runs from scoring in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series at the Polo Grounds. This enabled the Giants to win the ballgame in extra innings, which, despite their American League record 111 wins, the Cleveland Indians never recovered from, as they were swept a few days later thanks to Dusty Rhodes and merciless Giant pitching. Mays always thought the return throw to the infield was a bigger play.
6. Kerri Strug's final vault, completed on a busted leg, captured gold for the "Mag 7" as the Women's Gymnastics team was known at the Atlanta Games. Morceanu and Miller were bigger names, but neither of them will prove remembered longer than one of the toughest competitors in Olympic history.
5. Despite purposely stepping on a UK player earlier in the game, the Player Everyone Loved to Hate, improbably, made his second Final Four-clinching buzzerbeater in three years for a 104-103 win for #1 Duke over Kentucky at the old Spectrum in Philly. Laettner's 10/10, 10/10, 31 point line may never prove topped. With Sean Woods's running lay up seconds earlier, a gritty Wildcat bunch seemed poised to reach Minneapolis, yet with a perfect Grant Hill pass, a haunting dribble and pause, well, there isn't any more to say.
4. Trailing by one, MVP Magic Johnson drove around several Boston Celtics and lifted a picturesque half-hook (3:08) that silenced Boston Garden. With three titles apiece, the '87 Finals would likely decide "Team of the Decade" status and Magic helped claim it for the Lakers by leaving Game 4 of the Finals, up 3-1. Symbolically, Larry Bird narrowly missed a potential series-tying three seconds later.
The following three represent the most awesome display of singular athletic achievement of my viewing lifetime.
3. Perhaps if RCT deigned to return, he could describe this World Cup '86 moment better than me. Diego Maradona, one of two greatest football players ever, had already scored his "Hand of God" goal against England for Argentina, but what followed, and sealed that triumph for Argentina in Mexico, is the stuff of legend and a YouTube classic. If the goal had broken a tie, it may have ranked #2.
2. Tyus Edney didn't have much of an NBA career, but for one moment, the UCLA senior point guard rescued #1 UCLA from the brink of an embarrassing defeat at the hands of Missouri in a second-round game in 1995. Manuevering the length of the floor in the blink of an eye, Edney's hanging toss proved the Bruins biggest scare in their march to Eleventh Heaven. The little guy's sublime behind the back dribble--near half court, at full speed--will keep this play in memory for a long, long time. Others have made game-winners (see: #5), but the all-on-me desire combined with spectacular artistry in a win-or-go-home moment make it the greatest clutch highlight ever.
Leaving only, Bo.
1. A ninety-one yard run to glory on Monday Night Football in 1987 by a rookie running back for the Los Angeles Raiders. In a career of bats broken by the head, mounting outfield walls, and flattening tacklers, this one stands above the rest. Jackson takes a simple hand-off to the left and starts toward the sideline. All-Pro safety Kenny Easley has the angle, and then, he doesn't. ESPN.com recently published a piece on this game as part of an interview with Bo, the greatest "wow" athlete of my lifetime. The writer, rightly, struggled to find a verb to describe the gear-shift, as acceleration didn't cut muster. Teleportation? Not far off. Bo himself punctuated the run by sprinting all the way into the locker room, prompting Dan Dierdorf to quip that he was headed for a nearby city in Washington State. It may have lasted only three seconds, but Bo's turn toward the sideline is perhaps the closest any athlete has come to motion fitting for a deity.
1) The bigger the name the better: This is not to say that less legendary figures cannot make spectacular plays, a well known name adds a certain extra quality to a highlight, particularly because the lesser known are usually there for something more resembling a fluke.
2) Athletic brilliance over wackiness: Just me, but I'd rather see greatness than strangeness. A guy wiping out on a ski mountain or another crashing through the outfield wall, doesn't quite do it for me. A play known as the Immaculate Reception will surely make the list, but what did Franco Harris truly do?
3) Stage matters: If the LSU near-miracle TD pass to beat Kentucky (I was present) had occurred in a battle of Top 10 or even Top 5 teams, I would've included it. As it is, neither team had a particularly memorable year, UK finished 7-5, LSU lost in the SEC Championship Game to Georgia.
With that in mind, a few highlights neglected by the good service...
Dante Hall's reception against Denver: Known primarily as a kick returner, the former Kansas City Chief's greatest play, alas, is nowhere to be found on YouTube (or not at last check), but if you ever get a chance to view his catch-and-run at the new Bronco stadium, it is something to behold.
Kind of cheating, but, the end sequence of the 2002 South Regional of the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament (yes, here for this one too). Duke trailed by four with seconds to play when Player of the Year Jay Williams drilled a three... and got fouled. Cut to the hysterical reaction of Indiana coach Mike Davis. J-Will's free throw softly spins out (the hardest way to miss a foul shot) right to fellow All-ACC (and future NBA star) Carlos Boozer who misses a point-blank lay-up as time expires.
Luis Gonzalez, 56-homer man, lifts a shallow fly off Yankee closer Mariano "Hammer of God" Rivera, just over Derek Jeter, to end New York's dreams of a fourth straight title and complete a 1-2 deficit against baseball's greatest postseason pitcher with a 3-2 win in Game 7 of the World Series.
Brief note: I didn't see Mark McGwire's "62" from September 1998 on the list, did you? What, it didn't get better with age? Hmmm...
Now, in chronological order: the LMD03 Top 10.
1954: Willie Mays makes his "Catch"
1980: Julius Erving makes the famous lay up in NBA history
1986: Diego Maradona scores the FIFA Goal of the Century v. ENG
1987: Magic Johnson makes his "junior skyhook" at Boston Garden
1987: Bo Jackson completes a 91-yard run to "Tacoma"
1992: Christian Laettner... moving on
1995: Tyus Edney goes length of the floor to save UCLA's season
1996: Kerri Strug puts team over individual in her final vault
1996: Michael Johnson runs an impossible 19.32 in the 200m
2007: Boise State completes a two-point conversion to upset OU
In some respects, the easy part.
10. Julius Erving's lay up against the Los Angeles Lakers in the 1980 NBA Finals. No, the Sixers didn't win the championship, but this is perhaps the most famous shot in basketball history and the pinnacle of Dr. J's artistry. Watch the tape and then try it sometime... and then have someone guard you.
9. Michael Johnson's world record in the Men's Final 200m at the 1996 Summer Olympic Games "destroys his old record" and makes possible the 200/400 double-gold. No real drama here, but the incredible time plus the astonished reaction of the champ as he saw his time makes this a top selection.
8. Boise State's "statue of liberty" call in overtime wins the Fiesta Bowl over perennial power Oklahoma and directly leads to an Ian Johnson marriage proposal. This play and Chris Peterson's offensive calls for the entire game won a lot of "Blue Turfers" for one night, as the Broncos finished as the only unbeaten team.
7. Willie Mays's putout in center field off a long Vic Wertz blast prevented two Indian runs from scoring in Game 1 of the 1954 World Series at the Polo Grounds. This enabled the Giants to win the ballgame in extra innings, which, despite their American League record 111 wins, the Cleveland Indians never recovered from, as they were swept a few days later thanks to Dusty Rhodes and merciless Giant pitching. Mays always thought the return throw to the infield was a bigger play.
6. Kerri Strug's final vault, completed on a busted leg, captured gold for the "Mag 7" as the Women's Gymnastics team was known at the Atlanta Games. Morceanu and Miller were bigger names, but neither of them will prove remembered longer than one of the toughest competitors in Olympic history.
5. Despite purposely stepping on a UK player earlier in the game, the Player Everyone Loved to Hate, improbably, made his second Final Four-clinching buzzerbeater in three years for a 104-103 win for #1 Duke over Kentucky at the old Spectrum in Philly. Laettner's 10/10, 10/10, 31 point line may never prove topped. With Sean Woods's running lay up seconds earlier, a gritty Wildcat bunch seemed poised to reach Minneapolis, yet with a perfect Grant Hill pass, a haunting dribble and pause, well, there isn't any more to say.
4. Trailing by one, MVP Magic Johnson drove around several Boston Celtics and lifted a picturesque half-hook (3:08) that silenced Boston Garden. With three titles apiece, the '87 Finals would likely decide "Team of the Decade" status and Magic helped claim it for the Lakers by leaving Game 4 of the Finals, up 3-1. Symbolically, Larry Bird narrowly missed a potential series-tying three seconds later.
The following three represent the most awesome display of singular athletic achievement of my viewing lifetime.
3. Perhaps if RCT deigned to return, he could describe this World Cup '86 moment better than me. Diego Maradona, one of two greatest football players ever, had already scored his "Hand of God" goal against England for Argentina, but what followed, and sealed that triumph for Argentina in Mexico, is the stuff of legend and a YouTube classic. If the goal had broken a tie, it may have ranked #2.
2. Tyus Edney didn't have much of an NBA career, but for one moment, the UCLA senior point guard rescued #1 UCLA from the brink of an embarrassing defeat at the hands of Missouri in a second-round game in 1995. Manuevering the length of the floor in the blink of an eye, Edney's hanging toss proved the Bruins biggest scare in their march to Eleventh Heaven. The little guy's sublime behind the back dribble--near half court, at full speed--will keep this play in memory for a long, long time. Others have made game-winners (see: #5), but the all-on-me desire combined with spectacular artistry in a win-or-go-home moment make it the greatest clutch highlight ever.
Leaving only, Bo.
1. A ninety-one yard run to glory on Monday Night Football in 1987 by a rookie running back for the Los Angeles Raiders. In a career of bats broken by the head, mounting outfield walls, and flattening tacklers, this one stands above the rest. Jackson takes a simple hand-off to the left and starts toward the sideline. All-Pro safety Kenny Easley has the angle, and then, he doesn't. ESPN.com recently published a piece on this game as part of an interview with Bo, the greatest "wow" athlete of my lifetime. The writer, rightly, struggled to find a verb to describe the gear-shift, as acceleration didn't cut muster. Teleportation? Not far off. Bo himself punctuated the run by sprinting all the way into the locker room, prompting Dan Dierdorf to quip that he was headed for a nearby city in Washington State. It may have lasted only three seconds, but Bo's turn toward the sideline is perhaps the closest any athlete has come to motion fitting for a deity.
Monday, December 10, 2007
He Will Be Your Prophet
Gore admirer Sarah Lyall of our Old Cranky Lady reliably pens the narrative of one man's journey into becoming the face and voice of Global Warming, Inc. We reference, of course, Al Gore, Jr., as America's greatest vice president received a loving caress (perhaps you-know-where) from those enlightened descendants of the man who invented dynamite.
Admittedly, this writer possesses a certain affection for women of the Times, but Ms. Lyall, undoubtedly writing from the same cocoon as, well, likely the other two members of this fine blog, demonstrates something only slightly less than sheer contempt for the hostile voices in opposition to our beloved Jeremiah. In fact, the discrepancy between this offering and a palpably naive Rosenthal standard issue op-ed is, well, almost nothing.
My problem (and somewhat opposition) to Mr. Gore's "crusade" is quite similar to my historical reading of Woodrow Wilson. The edge in this dubious race goes to the Almost 43rd; Wilson wins the prick, narcissism, and messianic categories, yet not by much. Each man attempted to sell their nations on a singular idea: Wilson, democratic advancement and protection through the League of Nations; Gore, societal advancement and preservation through a significant restructuring of the US and world economies, pending Chinese/Indian assent.
Wilson, in his own time, failed miserably, and the reasons for this owe much to his personality. Like Mr. Gore, the Twenty-Eighth US President unilaterally declared an end to "debate" and challenged the a slumbering, illiterate society to accept his wisdom as gospel. In another era, Wilson likely takes to the DVD medium to make his case too. One of Mr. Gore's better virtues is a more couched piety than the Wilson model of 1918-19. Nonetheless, he presents us with much the same choice our current president's antagonists have derided the present administration with for years: follow my lead, or die.
It should be said, from no small part from my strong support for alternative lifestyle rights (especially same-sex marriage, yet not hate-crime legislation), a woman's right to an abortion, mandatory universal health care, and a smorgasbord of leftist economic tendencies, that I consider myself something of a radical. Elijah Lovejoy and Victoria Woodhull rate among my favorites from history, as do even the most violent of abolitionists, who, as the author so eloquently put it, "purged this land with blood." One would thus conclude I should strongly support the "climate change" movement, or billion dollar enterprise designed to make us "greener."
If Mr. Gore only advocated either a) becoming the last industrialized nation to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and agreeing to German chancellor Angel Merkel's ambitious programs or b) recommending a stronger "Beyond Kyoto and 2012" package in Bali--he would likely command my support. I acknowledge that significant warming, in the last few decades, has occurred on this oblate spheroid, and, yes, the Times with their scenic shots of collapsing icebergs in the Arctic has not permitted me to forget. Do we need to cap carbon emissions (CO2)? I can't dismiss the possibility and could certainly back it provided "other issues" received some attention from the international community. What do I object to then?
The arrogance. Don't get me wrong, I consider "arrogance" one of the finest qualities in people, especially women, natch. On the other hand, arrogance fara sufficient credibility is mere foolishness and posturing, which only serves to undermine its very goals and aspirations. I do believe Al Gore wishes to do good in the world, one could argue only a few Americans played a more constructive role in the blossoming of this country, technologically-speaking, in the last quarter-century. Yet, rather than admit that he has no real idea what the world will look like in 2050 or beyond, and that scientific calculation is prone to human error and institutional bias, he charges ahead, with gems such as these:
"our world is spinning out of kilter"
"planetary emergency"
"ominous and destructive potential"
This, madams and sirs, is alarmism, straight out of the textbook of many a winning political campaign. Now, you may well say that it is justified alarmism, i.e. the world will not "act" unless we serially exaggerate not only what we know and can prove but by what we can "predict." Do individuals truly believe that we can no more scrutinize and question the work of Rajendra K. Pachauri, the international climate panel chair, and his scientists than we can the periodic National Intelligence Estimates from our spooks?
No and no.
I don't doubt Mr. Gore's passion, even though he stands to enrich himself enormously through his crusade, noble or otherwise. I have slightly less confidence in the alleged non-political judgments of the CIA... err.. the UN panel on climate change. The former veep is doing what many have done in the past: win a political issue by steadfastly denying that it is a political issue. He also knows his audience: we are a moral nation (unlike, say some larger powers just east of Japan) and we take pride the demise of slavery and the end of de jure segregation. Yet, those political issues were won, yes through blood, but also through a constitutional process aided by sympathetic jurists.
The reality is that sixty-seven votes do not exist in the upper chamber to ratify Kyoto, let alone what may come to pass after 2012. There is nothing wrong with a "liberated" Mr. Gore taking his case to the American people, yet he exposes himself to assaults on his motives, needlessly I would add, with some of the core tenets of his slide-show presentation. He does not answer his critics, in any form, and were he to reenter politics, his halo would prove no more, especially in a presidential race. He has succeeded in playing his role of martyr to the fullest, had the current White House occupant better emulated his 1988, 1920, and 1908 (to name but three) Republicans in open elections, perhaps the world would no longer provide Mr. Gore his perch.
Yet, it does, it most surely does.
If you think, as does at least Joe, that my rationale is in error or condescending to the "movement," just change a few words, say, the topic and a few other, modern portions of Mr. Gore's lecture. Where have we seen this apocalyptic-sounding rhetoric before, in our own land and abroad? How have we responded to people who have declared, my way is the only route toward salvation, and so openly threatened and taunted their critics in ways Dems still fantasize Republicans did to John McCain in 2000, to Max Cleland in 2002, to John Kerry in 2004, to...
Al Gore, thankfully (and perhaps fleetingly?) differs from those fire-and-brimstone radicals in one key respect: he does not advocate violence to achieve his targets. He believes that the American people support his view, ergo, the next administration will kiss his ring. Yet, what if they don't? What if Rudy Giuliani or some other Republican slips past the Democrat? Would Mr. Gore advocate the overthrow of the Executive Branch? Well, if the situation is as dire as he says, how could he, in good conscience, not do so?
He sounds as certain that climate change without dramatic environmental reform will destroy the Earth as did John Brown, vis-a-vis slavery, in the 1850s. I, Al Gore, am now quite certain. Mr. Gore champions the parade of reported "experts" who tell us that what we do in the next "several" years will determine our future. Does that mean every US Senator voting against Kyoto 2.0 should not only lose their seat, but their life if necessary? I am simply trying to follow these arguments to their logical conclusion: is the former vice president a fundamentalist hell-bent, even if the "science" changed in the next 5-10 years, to do things his way and woe to anyone who tried to stop him?
Or is he merely a confidence man, out to better his family's existence through a series of near-hyperventilative speeches designed to frighten Americans that their children will not enjoy anything but a permanent "carbon summer" if we don't comply with his edict? We have also seen their kind before, the proud folk who told us the world would end countless times, to name but one subcategory.
Yet we should not fear the growing consolidation of power in the Arab world fueled by radical tenets not so distant from Qur'an literalism? As stated previously on this blog, no one really knows the clime for 2050, whether we mean the return of the caliphate or the global temperature and all its ramifications. Could we not just as easily compute data to extrapolate where the roads of Islamic radicalism veiled in nationalism plus rising birthrates and perpetually failed autocratic governments will lead? Could we not just as easily prove severely misguided and deeply wrong?
Lastly, Mr. Gore's recommendations echo of another era and another land, that of China, circa 1958. The Maoists termed it "The Great Leap Forward" and yet the resulting three-year agricultural adjustment project only provided one of the worst famines in recorded history and precious little in the way of grain to dying families. Large-scale government efforts very rarely meet their goals without substantial work from the private sector, which often has to see where the government is blind.
I don't know if Albert Gore, Jr. is blind or if his ravings will warrant an inordinate amount of revision (even from his sycophants) in the next half-century. I tend to believe our planet would mock us for trying to ascertain the state of our livelihoods so far out, even if such time is but a nanosecond in the history of the Earth. It is possible I will owe the Prophet, likely deceased, a major apology, should I live to see his worst-case scenario come to pass at the time of senior citizenship. It is also quite possible, and I would add slightly more likely, Mr. Gore's overreaction, snake-oil salesmanship, and, yes, rampant alarmist rhetoric will make murky his otherwise superlative legacy, in his myriad roles and services, to the United States of America.
Admittedly, this writer possesses a certain affection for women of the Times, but Ms. Lyall, undoubtedly writing from the same cocoon as, well, likely the other two members of this fine blog, demonstrates something only slightly less than sheer contempt for the hostile voices in opposition to our beloved Jeremiah. In fact, the discrepancy between this offering and a palpably naive Rosenthal standard issue op-ed is, well, almost nothing.
My problem (and somewhat opposition) to Mr. Gore's "crusade" is quite similar to my historical reading of Woodrow Wilson. The edge in this dubious race goes to the Almost 43rd; Wilson wins the prick, narcissism, and messianic categories, yet not by much. Each man attempted to sell their nations on a singular idea: Wilson, democratic advancement and protection through the League of Nations; Gore, societal advancement and preservation through a significant restructuring of the US and world economies, pending Chinese/Indian assent.
Wilson, in his own time, failed miserably, and the reasons for this owe much to his personality. Like Mr. Gore, the Twenty-Eighth US President unilaterally declared an end to "debate" and challenged the a slumbering, illiterate society to accept his wisdom as gospel. In another era, Wilson likely takes to the DVD medium to make his case too. One of Mr. Gore's better virtues is a more couched piety than the Wilson model of 1918-19. Nonetheless, he presents us with much the same choice our current president's antagonists have derided the present administration with for years: follow my lead, or die.
It should be said, from no small part from my strong support for alternative lifestyle rights (especially same-sex marriage, yet not hate-crime legislation), a woman's right to an abortion, mandatory universal health care, and a smorgasbord of leftist economic tendencies, that I consider myself something of a radical. Elijah Lovejoy and Victoria Woodhull rate among my favorites from history, as do even the most violent of abolitionists, who, as the author so eloquently put it, "purged this land with blood." One would thus conclude I should strongly support the "climate change" movement, or billion dollar enterprise designed to make us "greener."
If Mr. Gore only advocated either a) becoming the last industrialized nation to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and agreeing to German chancellor Angel Merkel's ambitious programs or b) recommending a stronger "Beyond Kyoto and 2012" package in Bali--he would likely command my support. I acknowledge that significant warming, in the last few decades, has occurred on this oblate spheroid, and, yes, the Times with their scenic shots of collapsing icebergs in the Arctic has not permitted me to forget. Do we need to cap carbon emissions (CO2)? I can't dismiss the possibility and could certainly back it provided "other issues" received some attention from the international community. What do I object to then?
The arrogance. Don't get me wrong, I consider "arrogance" one of the finest qualities in people, especially women, natch. On the other hand, arrogance fara sufficient credibility is mere foolishness and posturing, which only serves to undermine its very goals and aspirations. I do believe Al Gore wishes to do good in the world, one could argue only a few Americans played a more constructive role in the blossoming of this country, technologically-speaking, in the last quarter-century. Yet, rather than admit that he has no real idea what the world will look like in 2050 or beyond, and that scientific calculation is prone to human error and institutional bias, he charges ahead, with gems such as these:
"our world is spinning out of kilter"
"planetary emergency"
"ominous and destructive potential"
This, madams and sirs, is alarmism, straight out of the textbook of many a winning political campaign. Now, you may well say that it is justified alarmism, i.e. the world will not "act" unless we serially exaggerate not only what we know and can prove but by what we can "predict." Do individuals truly believe that we can no more scrutinize and question the work of Rajendra K. Pachauri, the international climate panel chair, and his scientists than we can the periodic National Intelligence Estimates from our spooks?
No and no.
I don't doubt Mr. Gore's passion, even though he stands to enrich himself enormously through his crusade, noble or otherwise. I have slightly less confidence in the alleged non-political judgments of the CIA... err.. the UN panel on climate change. The former veep is doing what many have done in the past: win a political issue by steadfastly denying that it is a political issue. He also knows his audience: we are a moral nation (unlike, say some larger powers just east of Japan) and we take pride the demise of slavery and the end of de jure segregation. Yet, those political issues were won, yes through blood, but also through a constitutional process aided by sympathetic jurists.
The reality is that sixty-seven votes do not exist in the upper chamber to ratify Kyoto, let alone what may come to pass after 2012. There is nothing wrong with a "liberated" Mr. Gore taking his case to the American people, yet he exposes himself to assaults on his motives, needlessly I would add, with some of the core tenets of his slide-show presentation. He does not answer his critics, in any form, and were he to reenter politics, his halo would prove no more, especially in a presidential race. He has succeeded in playing his role of martyr to the fullest, had the current White House occupant better emulated his 1988, 1920, and 1908 (to name but three) Republicans in open elections, perhaps the world would no longer provide Mr. Gore his perch.
Yet, it does, it most surely does.
If you think, as does at least Joe, that my rationale is in error or condescending to the "movement," just change a few words, say, the topic and a few other, modern portions of Mr. Gore's lecture. Where have we seen this apocalyptic-sounding rhetoric before, in our own land and abroad? How have we responded to people who have declared, my way is the only route toward salvation, and so openly threatened and taunted their critics in ways Dems still fantasize Republicans did to John McCain in 2000, to Max Cleland in 2002, to John Kerry in 2004, to...
Al Gore, thankfully (and perhaps fleetingly?) differs from those fire-and-brimstone radicals in one key respect: he does not advocate violence to achieve his targets. He believes that the American people support his view, ergo, the next administration will kiss his ring. Yet, what if they don't? What if Rudy Giuliani or some other Republican slips past the Democrat? Would Mr. Gore advocate the overthrow of the Executive Branch? Well, if the situation is as dire as he says, how could he, in good conscience, not do so?
He sounds as certain that climate change without dramatic environmental reform will destroy the Earth as did John Brown, vis-a-vis slavery, in the 1850s. I, Al Gore, am now quite certain. Mr. Gore champions the parade of reported "experts" who tell us that what we do in the next "several" years will determine our future. Does that mean every US Senator voting against Kyoto 2.0 should not only lose their seat, but their life if necessary? I am simply trying to follow these arguments to their logical conclusion: is the former vice president a fundamentalist hell-bent, even if the "science" changed in the next 5-10 years, to do things his way and woe to anyone who tried to stop him?
Or is he merely a confidence man, out to better his family's existence through a series of near-hyperventilative speeches designed to frighten Americans that their children will not enjoy anything but a permanent "carbon summer" if we don't comply with his edict? We have also seen their kind before, the proud folk who told us the world would end countless times, to name but one subcategory.
Yet we should not fear the growing consolidation of power in the Arab world fueled by radical tenets not so distant from Qur'an literalism? As stated previously on this blog, no one really knows the clime for 2050, whether we mean the return of the caliphate or the global temperature and all its ramifications. Could we not just as easily compute data to extrapolate where the roads of Islamic radicalism veiled in nationalism plus rising birthrates and perpetually failed autocratic governments will lead? Could we not just as easily prove severely misguided and deeply wrong?
Lastly, Mr. Gore's recommendations echo of another era and another land, that of China, circa 1958. The Maoists termed it "The Great Leap Forward" and yet the resulting three-year agricultural adjustment project only provided one of the worst famines in recorded history and precious little in the way of grain to dying families. Large-scale government efforts very rarely meet their goals without substantial work from the private sector, which often has to see where the government is blind.
I don't know if Albert Gore, Jr. is blind or if his ravings will warrant an inordinate amount of revision (even from his sycophants) in the next half-century. I tend to believe our planet would mock us for trying to ascertain the state of our livelihoods so far out, even if such time is but a nanosecond in the history of the Earth. It is possible I will owe the Prophet, likely deceased, a major apology, should I live to see his worst-case scenario come to pass at the time of senior citizenship. It is also quite possible, and I would add slightly more likely, Mr. Gore's overreaction, snake-oil salesmanship, and, yes, rampant alarmist rhetoric will make murky his otherwise superlative legacy, in his myriad roles and services, to the United States of America.
Friday, December 7, 2007
The CIA's Blunder Points to 9/11 Truth
So in the wake of this obstruction of justice that Porter Goss's CIA committed in 2005, an astute commentator on one of the sites that I frequent, or my cocoon as LMD03 calls it, has pointed out the possibility that it's not torture which the CIA wanted to cover up; it was what came out of the interrogation. If you get a chance, read this.
Here's the just of it:
One of these tapes was the interrogation of a man named Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda operative involved in the planning of 9/11. Apparently, at some point after his capture, he was sent to Saudi Arabia to be interrogated by the Saudis. It's there, according to two different Saudi intelligence sources, that he named four names. These were four individuals who also knew of the 9/11 plan and were involved in funding it. In what may come as a surprise to those who mock the 9/11 truth movement, three of them were Saudi princes, and the fourth was the chief of the Pakistani Air Force. All four died mysterious deaths shortly thereafter.
It's funny how the Bush administration suppressed the evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11. In fact, only one newspaper in the U.S. has ever reported on it, despite it being common knowledge in much of the rest of the world. Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that the 9/11 Commission's final report states, "The U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used in the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." What? It's of little practical significance who was wiring money to Mohammad Atta for months before 9/11? Yes, if it's in a royal gang of thugs in one of the most oil-rich nations of the world that we chum around with, then it is of little practical significance apparently.
On the morning of 9/11, Pakistan's Air Force Chief, Mahmood Ahmed (who had been wiring Atta money for the attacks), was meeting with Porter Goss, who was then the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. That's right, as the attacks were taking place. Goss went on to co-chair the joint inquiry into 9/11, and eventually became the head of the CIA when George Tenet resigned. While at the CIA, he ordered the destruction of the interrogation tape of none other than Abu Zubaydah on which Zubaydah probably (according to these two Saudi intel sources) named Ahmed as having been involved in the financing of 9/11. Well, fuck me. We've been made a fool of again.
And how about the White House claiming Bush "has no recollection of the tapes existing or being destroyed"? That gave me a good chuckle.
Here's the just of it:
One of these tapes was the interrogation of a man named Abu Zubaydah, an al-Qaeda operative involved in the planning of 9/11. Apparently, at some point after his capture, he was sent to Saudi Arabia to be interrogated by the Saudis. It's there, according to two different Saudi intelligence sources, that he named four names. These were four individuals who also knew of the 9/11 plan and were involved in funding it. In what may come as a surprise to those who mock the 9/11 truth movement, three of them were Saudi princes, and the fourth was the chief of the Pakistani Air Force. All four died mysterious deaths shortly thereafter.
It's funny how the Bush administration suppressed the evidence of Saudi involvement in 9/11. In fact, only one newspaper in the U.S. has ever reported on it, despite it being common knowledge in much of the rest of the world. Perhaps even more shocking is the fact that the 9/11 Commission's final report states, "The U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used in the 9/11 attacks. Ultimately the question is of little practical significance." What? It's of little practical significance who was wiring money to Mohammad Atta for months before 9/11? Yes, if it's in a royal gang of thugs in one of the most oil-rich nations of the world that we chum around with, then it is of little practical significance apparently.
On the morning of 9/11, Pakistan's Air Force Chief, Mahmood Ahmed (who had been wiring Atta money for the attacks), was meeting with Porter Goss, who was then the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. That's right, as the attacks were taking place. Goss went on to co-chair the joint inquiry into 9/11, and eventually became the head of the CIA when George Tenet resigned. While at the CIA, he ordered the destruction of the interrogation tape of none other than Abu Zubaydah on which Zubaydah probably (according to these two Saudi intel sources) named Ahmed as having been involved in the financing of 9/11. Well, fuck me. We've been made a fool of again.
And how about the White House claiming Bush "has no recollection of the tapes existing or being destroyed"? That gave me a good chuckle.
Thursday, December 6, 2007
About that NIE
Earlier this week, America's eighteen distinct intelligence agencies combined to form a revised intelligence estimate of Iran, specifically its nuclear program. Concluding with "high confidence" that Tehran had shuttered its drive for nuclear weapon technology in 2003, the analysts appeared to do a 180 on their 2005 estimate.
Media members, naturally, strained to hide their excitement. Some columnists came right out and said it: President Bush now has NO excuse for launching a war with Iran. John Edwards took the opportunity to bash Hillary Clinton for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Harry Reid, not the first time showing his level of sophistication, called for a "diplomatic surge" to resolve the problems with the mullahs. Conservatives, echoing the Israeli government, reacted skeptically to the report, and one blog has pointed out that "hyper-partisan officials" (the words of one intel source about the report's main authors) wrote the report to support a particular political position.
"Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions" Joe referenced this development in a prior comment thread, in effect asking, will you now stop believing what the "neocons" (a top descriptive for a cocoon-dwelling anti-Bush partisan in need of a pejorative label) from the White House tell us. I succinctly dealt with that straw man argument, but what about my general thoughts? Am I still a war-mongerer hell bent on executing regime change in Tehran?
I should begin by saying that I hope, for once, the intelligence agencies (who flopped in 2003, 1990-91, and the mid-1980s) got it right. The hosannas from an adulatory news media (looking at the NYT and the WaPo) are present only because these spooks confirm the liberal worldview.
It is a fair criticism that my writing is not as cogent or as jargon-free as one would like and no one would deny the importance of communication in debate, with that in mind, here are a few key questions, whose answers serve to separate my position from the presumed one of my blog compatriots, the MSM/Democratic line, etc.
War is not the worst-case scenario.
I cannot conceive of a better place to start. If you genuinely believe war is the worst possible outcome, not pacificistic, then even the ego-driven efforts of the IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei in Vienna are conducive to "peace" or "diplomacy." I think, at present, full atomic weapon capability in Iran is a worse result than a war with Iran. I may err significantly in presuming Iran wouldn't do a d___ thing (save for yelling loudly to Vienna, Brussels, and Moscow) if America struck Natanz. I don't think they'd close the Strait of Hormuz either, but if that is a risk associated with such an attack, it is one we should take. Our role could prove minimalist (quietly assist Israeli forces in their preparation) or otherwise.
John Edwards believes that war is a worst-case scenario, in fact, aside from an attack on the homeland, I'm trying hard to find a predicament where he would use force. Irrespective of his magnificent wife and bold, daring domestic policies, this is why I did not endorse him for the nomination (unlike 2004). Barack Obama largely agrees with this line of reasoning, but we'll focus more on him in the "diplomacy" section.
Very few people seem to appreciate that if you're not willing to use war (or a stick, in Mrs. Clinton's parlance) then the more odious of regimes can and will take advantage of you.
If a President Obama explicitly disavowed regime change prior to his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the ayatollahs, he would weaken his opportunity for success. Hillary Clinton understands this, in her own clumsily argued fashion. Yet, the starkest difference between "hawks" and "doves" vis-a-vis Iran comes from another source.
We err in treating Iran, a fundamentalist Islamic state with thinly-disguised ambitions, as a rational state.
The biggest of these errors is to assume that the "Islamic Republic" truly cares about getting re-accepted into the international community. Quite simply, they are not Moscow. Vladimir Putin's Russia is clearly interested only in rubles and euros. The lack of a centrally-dominated religious ideology helps to explain this. Of course, Russia, along with China, abets the Iranian regime by refusing to seriously consider "sanctions," the lovely by-word so cherished by UK and US diplomats.
I also assume, again, perhaps wrongly, an Iranian disinterest in integrating into the status quo - they're in business to change it, as drastically as possible. They would rather forgo the sizable economic incentives (think Edwards or Obama offering entry into lucrative trade organizations) and continue with their uranium development than to cease and desist. Islamic-led people, remember, are serious ones, which means the offer of more money will not impress them. The achievements of prior caliphates, however, do.
Largely lampooned and ridiculed, President Bush's purposeful remark challenging the international community to avoid "World War III" is more accurate than first supposed.
The administration, correctly in my view, believes a nuclear Iran will inspire a calamitous arms race perhaps along the path of certain European powers almost one hundred years ago. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others would likely begin--and at a less leisurely pace--nuclear weapon programs. The first world war, in part, came about because Germany feared its power would only diminish after 1913 and that if it had to fight a war, best to do it now. How other Arab nations will react to a nuclearized state in the midst is one of the great questions of this century. A terrorist attack on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is likely the biggest threat to another world meltdown (perhaps literally), yet the Bomb in Tehran is not far behind.
Most Arab nations, especially the three mentioned in preceding paragraph, view their populations with a very jaundiced eye. While King Abdullah, "President" Mubarak, and King Hussein would not support Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is reasonable to predict that their people might dissent from their views. Since the demise of Nasser's dream forty-odd years ago, the lure of Pan-Arabism has continued to tempt many in the region, most recently Saddam Hussein, self-styled Saladin successor, in 1990.
Revolutionary outcry over the lack of support (or even open hostility) from Riyadh, Cairo, and Amman for Iran's caliphate restoration project (laugh at the possibility if you must, the 12th Iman will get you!) could well topple all three governments and usher in a new era of terror and chaos, something like the offspring of the 1848 Revolutionary Fever and the French Revolution. Allowing, which is what it would be doing, Iran to acquire the Bomb is the first step on this possible road.
The road to peace in the Middle East has floundered at virtually every opportunity, does it go through Tehran?
The decapitation of the Iranian regime would remove the single biggest threat to Israeli security. At this point, they may well prove willing to deal back the Golan Heights for peace and thus appease Damascus. Yet, as Joe pointed out, the only true way this conflict will end (aside from the possibility a US president will pull the plug on Truman's vision) is through a vicious war. Here we can see yet another argument for denying Tehran nuclear weaponry: what is to prevent them from supplying Hamas and its ilk the munitions needed to vanquish Tel Aviv or capture the entirety of Jerusalem? Why wouldn't they? If they are serious Islamicists, would anything do more to assist their Pan-Arab ambitions then to flatten Israel, broker a peace with Europe, thus estranging the US from even its most loyal NATO allies?
One could well argument, a la Iraq, that regime change almost never goes accordingly to plan. Point taken. On the other hand, Iran's elite is not nearly as stratified and the issue of hellacious minority rule upended would not occur. One of President Bush's greatest mistakes, to my mind, has been his failure to reach out more to serious-minded, if reflexively anti-Bush, Iranian dissidents. I retain far greater confidence in their ability to thwart a return trip from the theocrats than Iraqi leadership, particularly given the half-hearted support from Sistani in the latter.
The gravest danger from an assault on the Iranian regime is the powder-keg that could well ignite in Saudi Arabia, especially if the Royals are not seen as terribly sympathetic to their neighbor's plight. Yet, the regime withstood the collapse of Saddam's Gulf initiative in 1991 and even his government in 2003. America would do well to end the (at times impassionate) love affair between its government and the one in Riyadh--for the sake of diminishing our rampant hypocrisy in foreign affairs as relates to democracy promotion--but the collapse of the Saudi aristocracy wouldn't benefit the US for a very long time.
In the end, which will surprise few, my analysis and recommendations purusant to Iran read the same: tentative support for a surgical strike of Natanz, most preferably in coordiation with Israel, but no further destabilization maneuvers (i.e., ground invasion) at this time, though I favor the concept in the abstract. Firstly, this administration has not shown itself capable of properly prosecuting such a conflict, and secondly, almost with question we have yet to complete the groundwork for a post-ayatollah existence. The ayatollahs, as speculated earlier, would lack the popular support to return, and thus would become erstwhile leaders confined to Qom. Exactly who would replace them is unknown, but cultivating their recent Nobel Peace Prize laureate would prove a good place to commence.
Iran is playing a tricky game here, mostly gambling their enablers in Moscow, Beijing, and to a slightly lesser extent in Vienna, will keep sanction talk at just that, talk. Obviously they're emboldened by the NIE, but were the US and Israel to "send a message" with an attack on Natanz (or other suspected areas), that would make them think twice about testing America's resolve. Whilst lashing out at either Israel or the US would seem too tempting to pass up, escalating conflict with either country has not proven a wise course of action. Yes, Tehran is rich in the "black gold," but the Saudis have far more control over the market. Finally, any response by Iran could well mean curtains for the regime as this US president, for one, has a record of taking action against perceived and real threats to US national security. Iran hopes for more compliant successors and may well receive them.
Putting on the other cap, it is definitely in the Iranian interest, with RUS/CHN backing, to irritate the US and its allies at every turn, to include funding for IED attacks and border crossings in Iraq. It is also definitely in the regime's interest to continue their plans toward full nuclear power. This entire strategy is predicated on the assumption that the US will not attack, even Natanz, and that it will not allow its ally to do so either. Should either or both come to fruition, however, the ayatollahs are in significant trouble. They would have to accept the humilation of Natanz's ashes and blubber before the UN about "satanic forces."
The day may soon come when Pan-Arabism is strong enough to legitimately endanger US national security and prevent Osirak/Natanz-style bombings. That day is not yet here.
I can say, ironically enough, with "moderate confidence" that the advantages of bombing suspected nuclear development sites outweigh the disadvantages.
Some, most assuredly, would dispute that assertion.
Media members, naturally, strained to hide their excitement. Some columnists came right out and said it: President Bush now has NO excuse for launching a war with Iran. John Edwards took the opportunity to bash Hillary Clinton for her vote on Kyl-Lieberman. Harry Reid, not the first time showing his level of sophistication, called for a "diplomatic surge" to resolve the problems with the mullahs. Conservatives, echoing the Israeli government, reacted skeptically to the report, and one blog has pointed out that "hyper-partisan officials" (the words of one intel source about the report's main authors) wrote the report to support a particular political position.
"Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions" Joe referenced this development in a prior comment thread, in effect asking, will you now stop believing what the "neocons" (a top descriptive for a cocoon-dwelling anti-Bush partisan in need of a pejorative label) from the White House tell us. I succinctly dealt with that straw man argument, but what about my general thoughts? Am I still a war-mongerer hell bent on executing regime change in Tehran?
I should begin by saying that I hope, for once, the intelligence agencies (who flopped in 2003, 1990-91, and the mid-1980s) got it right. The hosannas from an adulatory news media (looking at the NYT and the WaPo) are present only because these spooks confirm the liberal worldview.
It is a fair criticism that my writing is not as cogent or as jargon-free as one would like and no one would deny the importance of communication in debate, with that in mind, here are a few key questions, whose answers serve to separate my position from the presumed one of my blog compatriots, the MSM/Democratic line, etc.
War is not the worst-case scenario.
I cannot conceive of a better place to start. If you genuinely believe war is the worst possible outcome, not pacificistic, then even the ego-driven efforts of the IAEA chief Mohamed El-Baradei in Vienna are conducive to "peace" or "diplomacy." I think, at present, full atomic weapon capability in Iran is a worse result than a war with Iran. I may err significantly in presuming Iran wouldn't do a d___ thing (save for yelling loudly to Vienna, Brussels, and Moscow) if America struck Natanz. I don't think they'd close the Strait of Hormuz either, but if that is a risk associated with such an attack, it is one we should take. Our role could prove minimalist (quietly assist Israeli forces in their preparation) or otherwise.
John Edwards believes that war is a worst-case scenario, in fact, aside from an attack on the homeland, I'm trying hard to find a predicament where he would use force. Irrespective of his magnificent wife and bold, daring domestic policies, this is why I did not endorse him for the nomination (unlike 2004). Barack Obama largely agrees with this line of reasoning, but we'll focus more on him in the "diplomacy" section.
Very few people seem to appreciate that if you're not willing to use war (or a stick, in Mrs. Clinton's parlance) then the more odious of regimes can and will take advantage of you.
If a President Obama explicitly disavowed regime change prior to his meeting with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the ayatollahs, he would weaken his opportunity for success. Hillary Clinton understands this, in her own clumsily argued fashion. Yet, the starkest difference between "hawks" and "doves" vis-a-vis Iran comes from another source.
We err in treating Iran, a fundamentalist Islamic state with thinly-disguised ambitions, as a rational state.
The biggest of these errors is to assume that the "Islamic Republic" truly cares about getting re-accepted into the international community. Quite simply, they are not Moscow. Vladimir Putin's Russia is clearly interested only in rubles and euros. The lack of a centrally-dominated religious ideology helps to explain this. Of course, Russia, along with China, abets the Iranian regime by refusing to seriously consider "sanctions," the lovely by-word so cherished by UK and US diplomats.
I also assume, again, perhaps wrongly, an Iranian disinterest in integrating into the status quo - they're in business to change it, as drastically as possible. They would rather forgo the sizable economic incentives (think Edwards or Obama offering entry into lucrative trade organizations) and continue with their uranium development than to cease and desist. Islamic-led people, remember, are serious ones, which means the offer of more money will not impress them. The achievements of prior caliphates, however, do.
Largely lampooned and ridiculed, President Bush's purposeful remark challenging the international community to avoid "World War III" is more accurate than first supposed.
The administration, correctly in my view, believes a nuclear Iran will inspire a calamitous arms race perhaps along the path of certain European powers almost one hundred years ago. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and others would likely begin--and at a less leisurely pace--nuclear weapon programs. The first world war, in part, came about because Germany feared its power would only diminish after 1913 and that if it had to fight a war, best to do it now. How other Arab nations will react to a nuclearized state in the midst is one of the great questions of this century. A terrorist attack on the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is likely the biggest threat to another world meltdown (perhaps literally), yet the Bomb in Tehran is not far behind.
Most Arab nations, especially the three mentioned in preceding paragraph, view their populations with a very jaundiced eye. While King Abdullah, "President" Mubarak, and King Hussein would not support Iran's nuclear ambitions, it is reasonable to predict that their people might dissent from their views. Since the demise of Nasser's dream forty-odd years ago, the lure of Pan-Arabism has continued to tempt many in the region, most recently Saddam Hussein, self-styled Saladin successor, in 1990.
Revolutionary outcry over the lack of support (or even open hostility) from Riyadh, Cairo, and Amman for Iran's caliphate restoration project (laugh at the possibility if you must, the 12th Iman will get you!) could well topple all three governments and usher in a new era of terror and chaos, something like the offspring of the 1848 Revolutionary Fever and the French Revolution. Allowing, which is what it would be doing, Iran to acquire the Bomb is the first step on this possible road.
The road to peace in the Middle East has floundered at virtually every opportunity, does it go through Tehran?
The decapitation of the Iranian regime would remove the single biggest threat to Israeli security. At this point, they may well prove willing to deal back the Golan Heights for peace and thus appease Damascus. Yet, as Joe pointed out, the only true way this conflict will end (aside from the possibility a US president will pull the plug on Truman's vision) is through a vicious war. Here we can see yet another argument for denying Tehran nuclear weaponry: what is to prevent them from supplying Hamas and its ilk the munitions needed to vanquish Tel Aviv or capture the entirety of Jerusalem? Why wouldn't they? If they are serious Islamicists, would anything do more to assist their Pan-Arab ambitions then to flatten Israel, broker a peace with Europe, thus estranging the US from even its most loyal NATO allies?
One could well argument, a la Iraq, that regime change almost never goes accordingly to plan. Point taken. On the other hand, Iran's elite is not nearly as stratified and the issue of hellacious minority rule upended would not occur. One of President Bush's greatest mistakes, to my mind, has been his failure to reach out more to serious-minded, if reflexively anti-Bush, Iranian dissidents. I retain far greater confidence in their ability to thwart a return trip from the theocrats than Iraqi leadership, particularly given the half-hearted support from Sistani in the latter.
The gravest danger from an assault on the Iranian regime is the powder-keg that could well ignite in Saudi Arabia, especially if the Royals are not seen as terribly sympathetic to their neighbor's plight. Yet, the regime withstood the collapse of Saddam's Gulf initiative in 1991 and even his government in 2003. America would do well to end the (at times impassionate) love affair between its government and the one in Riyadh--for the sake of diminishing our rampant hypocrisy in foreign affairs as relates to democracy promotion--but the collapse of the Saudi aristocracy wouldn't benefit the US for a very long time.
In the end, which will surprise few, my analysis and recommendations purusant to Iran read the same: tentative support for a surgical strike of Natanz, most preferably in coordiation with Israel, but no further destabilization maneuvers (i.e., ground invasion) at this time, though I favor the concept in the abstract. Firstly, this administration has not shown itself capable of properly prosecuting such a conflict, and secondly, almost with question we have yet to complete the groundwork for a post-ayatollah existence. The ayatollahs, as speculated earlier, would lack the popular support to return, and thus would become erstwhile leaders confined to Qom. Exactly who would replace them is unknown, but cultivating their recent Nobel Peace Prize laureate would prove a good place to commence.
Iran is playing a tricky game here, mostly gambling their enablers in Moscow, Beijing, and to a slightly lesser extent in Vienna, will keep sanction talk at just that, talk. Obviously they're emboldened by the NIE, but were the US and Israel to "send a message" with an attack on Natanz (or other suspected areas), that would make them think twice about testing America's resolve. Whilst lashing out at either Israel or the US would seem too tempting to pass up, escalating conflict with either country has not proven a wise course of action. Yes, Tehran is rich in the "black gold," but the Saudis have far more control over the market. Finally, any response by Iran could well mean curtains for the regime as this US president, for one, has a record of taking action against perceived and real threats to US national security. Iran hopes for more compliant successors and may well receive them.
Putting on the other cap, it is definitely in the Iranian interest, with RUS/CHN backing, to irritate the US and its allies at every turn, to include funding for IED attacks and border crossings in Iraq. It is also definitely in the regime's interest to continue their plans toward full nuclear power. This entire strategy is predicated on the assumption that the US will not attack, even Natanz, and that it will not allow its ally to do so either. Should either or both come to fruition, however, the ayatollahs are in significant trouble. They would have to accept the humilation of Natanz's ashes and blubber before the UN about "satanic forces."
The day may soon come when Pan-Arabism is strong enough to legitimately endanger US national security and prevent Osirak/Natanz-style bombings. That day is not yet here.
I can say, ironically enough, with "moderate confidence" that the advantages of bombing suspected nuclear development sites outweigh the disadvantages.
Some, most assuredly, would dispute that assertion.
Monday, December 3, 2007
The BCS is Bullshit.
It's time for a 16 team playoff resembling the college basketball system. It's the only fair way.
Every year, one or more teams gets completely fucked over because their schedule is perceived to be too weak or because they're in a non-BCS conference. This year it was Hawaii, the undefeated WAC champs with a Heisman contender. Last year, it was Michigan and Boise State. Tulane in '98, Marshall in '99. The BCS effectively takes away the possibility for a true underdog (meaning a school without much name recognition or well-known athletic program) winning the national championship. I dare say that if Boise State had been given the chance they deserved in 2006, they could have pulled off the same kind of stunning defeat over The OSU that Urban Meyer's Gators did. And you know what? It would have been better for college football.
The BCS is like everything that's wrong with campaign financing in America. Only the big dogs have a level playing field because of their history and and the size of their following. If you have a Big Ten team playing an SEC team in the national championship, it's going to get better ratings than if the Buckeyes were to face a team called the Rainbow Warriors. And it's a travesty.
Don't even get me started on how losses in the BCS system are more important at the end of the season and almost inconsequential at the beginning if isolated. Not to mention, the BCS usually fucks over the SEC, without question the toughest conference there is. Yeah, Arkansas had four losses this year, but they're still a better team than Kansas. I mean come on, Kansas plays Toledo every year!
A playoff is the only fair system. 16 teams would be just enough to make sure nobody has a legitimate complaint of being ignored, and still few enough that it could be played over 3 or 4 weeks without seeming too sparse. Hell, you could even keep a BCS-style ranking system. Can you imagine what would happen if the current top 16 teams in the BCS all got the chance to duke it out for #1? Even Tennessee could technically end up running away with it.
Be forewarned: There will probably be a colleague of mine on this blog responding about how it will and should never happen. He's an Ohio State fan.
Every year, one or more teams gets completely fucked over because their schedule is perceived to be too weak or because they're in a non-BCS conference. This year it was Hawaii, the undefeated WAC champs with a Heisman contender. Last year, it was Michigan and Boise State. Tulane in '98, Marshall in '99. The BCS effectively takes away the possibility for a true underdog (meaning a school without much name recognition or well-known athletic program) winning the national championship. I dare say that if Boise State had been given the chance they deserved in 2006, they could have pulled off the same kind of stunning defeat over The OSU that Urban Meyer's Gators did. And you know what? It would have been better for college football.
The BCS is like everything that's wrong with campaign financing in America. Only the big dogs have a level playing field because of their history and and the size of their following. If you have a Big Ten team playing an SEC team in the national championship, it's going to get better ratings than if the Buckeyes were to face a team called the Rainbow Warriors. And it's a travesty.
Don't even get me started on how losses in the BCS system are more important at the end of the season and almost inconsequential at the beginning if isolated. Not to mention, the BCS usually fucks over the SEC, without question the toughest conference there is. Yeah, Arkansas had four losses this year, but they're still a better team than Kansas. I mean come on, Kansas plays Toledo every year!
A playoff is the only fair system. 16 teams would be just enough to make sure nobody has a legitimate complaint of being ignored, and still few enough that it could be played over 3 or 4 weeks without seeming too sparse. Hell, you could even keep a BCS-style ranking system. Can you imagine what would happen if the current top 16 teams in the BCS all got the chance to duke it out for #1? Even Tennessee could technically end up running away with it.
Be forewarned: There will probably be a colleague of mine on this blog responding about how it will and should never happen. He's an Ohio State fan.
Sunday, December 2, 2007
A F______ Teddy Bear
Observe: Gillian Gibbons (what, having a difficult time finding her name in the mainstream press?), a heroic woman from England that journeyed to the hellhole of al-Bashir's Sudan to teach English, remains confined by "Islamic hardliners" for the grave offense of, yes, of course, insulting the Prophet. I cannot have enough respect for the woman that went to Khartoum and I cannot have enough disdain for Islam. Fortunately, some people are getting embarrassed.
Good.
Islam is the greatest cancer to the hope for the 21st Century, more so than "climate change" ever has or will prove irrespective of alarmists such as Al Gore. (Of course, if mainstream liberals took the challenge of combating Islam seriously maybe I could show more than tacit support to their quixotic environmental crusade.) I don't think the fault lies anywhere else.
Bigoted thugs cover themselves in Islam to frighten away an easily scared media. Bill Maher once said, paraphrasing, if you say "religion," you can get away with anything. For no other reason could Islamic governments get away with their heinous, human rights-depriving rule if not for the Book of Blood, the Quran, and its biggest star, Muhammad.
These are not conclusions I came to easily or overnight, in fact I studied Islam at university, in particular the life of the Ayatollah Khomeini, in a vain and ultimately fruitless effort "to get it." For someone of my current organization, perhaps America's finest gift to the world, it is not politically-correct to state, but Islam is the problem. Here is why we cannot solve it:
1) We don't understand how serious these people are because we ourselves (the US and to a lesser extent, the West) haven't been serious in quite some time. Yet every poke and prod at the vaunted image of their Prophet is grounds for a fight to the death. Worse, the only thing they respect is force and resolve, and America has none of it, witness the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005. We come from a world obssessedw with American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and the disappearance of every remotely attractive young woman. Our religious leaders, again from Maher, are ignored or even ridiculed. In short, we are SUPERIOR, but we are not them.
This problem also manifests itself in the Iranian crisis: too many people think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a publicity-seeking posturer who really just wants to keep his office in Teheran. The Old Cranky Lady, repeatedly, browbeats our president for not "seriously engaging" Iran. As if all the "Islamic Republic" desired was a guarantee of security, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum, and a chance to "come in from the cold." Uh, no. Like Sudan, like many others, they simply don't care. Why? I believe because while you can call radical Islamicists a lot of things, fraudulent is not one of them.
If you sincerely believe in the teachings of the Qu'ran, the 21st Century is a disgrace deeply in need of a remedy if not a returned calpihate. This is why English teachers are jailed for naming a teddy bear after Muhammad, why women are third-class citizens in Saudi Arabia, and why hatred breeds more hatred in Pakistan. The ideal is the 7th Century or surely no later than the 15th.
2) Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan, in a post widely disseminated through the media, has declared that the best argument for Barack Obama's candidacy is the "logarithm" increase in US soft power it will have for the average, disgruntled Pakistani youth. As if this new face of America will overnight begin to change the culture. Now, my endorsement of the Senator has been posted on this blog, but I just don't buy this reasoning. Frankly, I don't think the serious-minded Pakistani give a flying you-know-what about the American president until said person travels to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to sign away the Israeli state or converts to Islam itself and participates in the hajj. This is yet another misunderstanding of Islamic believers.
So, what is the solution? Well, you must confront the problem, even if the fanciful idea of twenty-feet rises in sea levels has greater appeal for the cowards among us. You have two options, one reasonably easy and other quite difficult.
The first option calls for a campaign and regime change of Tehran. The Ayatollahs, if knocked from their perch, wouldn't command the kind of authority required to return, and would probably hole up in Qom to deride the Great Satan. Destroy the government of the Islamic Republic and at the same time settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner that favors the latter, as the former would no longer have a looming threat on its doorstep. Perhaps this would also lead to the much desired collapse of Assad's government in Damascus, which won't be missed. Yes, this option calls for a great deal of violence but under the proper management (not this president) it would work.
The second option is far more peace-friendly but in the end would require far more billions of US treasure to achieve a result through soft power. We would have to remove Hamas from the equation and finance the Palestinians ourselves, US money would also flood to Iranian and Syrian dissidents while also being used to pay for discount-price food for their people. America would withdraw all US troops from Arab lands, mitigating the PR debacles for the last five years in the region. Why not offer enormous sums of money as incentive for regimes to change their behavior? But here is the problem: if they are serious, Allah-fearing Muslims, they won't do it, as no amount of money would lead them to adopt 21st Century policies.
I don't think there are enough incentives in the world to bribe Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weaponry. A President Obama would earn international praise of a lavish nature but he would return home empty-handed from Teheran. Iranian leadership, by the next generation, will begin to zero in on the much-longed for hope of Islamic followers: the return of their power on the world stage. True, at the moment their GDP is not even in our solar system and their armed forces are rather pedestrian, but give them time, and allow the current birthrate and failed government policies of the Arab world to foster even more resentment from (in particular) jobless young males.
We don't have their seriousness, as they remain the only group to repeatedly commit suicide for their cause, which, as ever, include the dismemberment of Israel, the financial destruction of the United States and its allies, the overthrow of the Saudi Royal Family in Riyadh, as they wait in joyful hope for the return of the Twelfth Imam.
China and Russia have made their position crystal clear: they don't care, and no moral justification measures up to their bottom lines. If "President" Putin can make sweet energy deals in places where non-believers are stoned to death, and if the Chinese directory can import oil from places where naming teddy bears after Muhammad is crime that courts death, there isn't much hope from our allies, the ones that have lacked significant military force for at least sixty years.
You can no more come to terms or negotiate a credible peace with radical Islam than our predecessors could at Munich in 1938. No, the power isn't centralized (yet) and the supreme leader doesn't exist (ditto) with a military power ominous enough to threaten Western Europe, but, most troublingly of all, their belief is far stronger than even the most fanatical National Socialists of the former Prussia.
Just remember, a teddy bear, and never claim you weren't warned.
Good.
Islam is the greatest cancer to the hope for the 21st Century, more so than "climate change" ever has or will prove irrespective of alarmists such as Al Gore. (Of course, if mainstream liberals took the challenge of combating Islam seriously maybe I could show more than tacit support to their quixotic environmental crusade.) I don't think the fault lies anywhere else.
Bigoted thugs cover themselves in Islam to frighten away an easily scared media. Bill Maher once said, paraphrasing, if you say "religion," you can get away with anything. For no other reason could Islamic governments get away with their heinous, human rights-depriving rule if not for the Book of Blood, the Quran, and its biggest star, Muhammad.
These are not conclusions I came to easily or overnight, in fact I studied Islam at university, in particular the life of the Ayatollah Khomeini, in a vain and ultimately fruitless effort "to get it." For someone of my current organization, perhaps America's finest gift to the world, it is not politically-correct to state, but Islam is the problem. Here is why we cannot solve it:
1) We don't understand how serious these people are because we ourselves (the US and to a lesser extent, the West) haven't been serious in quite some time. Yet every poke and prod at the vaunted image of their Prophet is grounds for a fight to the death. Worse, the only thing they respect is force and resolve, and America has none of it, witness the Danish cartoon controversy of 2005. We come from a world obssessedw with American Idol, Dancing With the Stars, and the disappearance of every remotely attractive young woman. Our religious leaders, again from Maher, are ignored or even ridiculed. In short, we are SUPERIOR, but we are not them.
This problem also manifests itself in the Iranian crisis: too many people think Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a publicity-seeking posturer who really just wants to keep his office in Teheran. The Old Cranky Lady, repeatedly, browbeats our president for not "seriously engaging" Iran. As if all the "Islamic Republic" desired was a guarantee of security, a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conundrum, and a chance to "come in from the cold." Uh, no. Like Sudan, like many others, they simply don't care. Why? I believe because while you can call radical Islamicists a lot of things, fraudulent is not one of them.
If you sincerely believe in the teachings of the Qu'ran, the 21st Century is a disgrace deeply in need of a remedy if not a returned calpihate. This is why English teachers are jailed for naming a teddy bear after Muhammad, why women are third-class citizens in Saudi Arabia, and why hatred breeds more hatred in Pakistan. The ideal is the 7th Century or surely no later than the 15th.
2) Atlantic blogger Andrew Sullivan, in a post widely disseminated through the media, has declared that the best argument for Barack Obama's candidacy is the "logarithm" increase in US soft power it will have for the average, disgruntled Pakistani youth. As if this new face of America will overnight begin to change the culture. Now, my endorsement of the Senator has been posted on this blog, but I just don't buy this reasoning. Frankly, I don't think the serious-minded Pakistani give a flying you-know-what about the American president until said person travels to the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem to sign away the Israeli state or converts to Islam itself and participates in the hajj. This is yet another misunderstanding of Islamic believers.
So, what is the solution? Well, you must confront the problem, even if the fanciful idea of twenty-feet rises in sea levels has greater appeal for the cowards among us. You have two options, one reasonably easy and other quite difficult.
The first option calls for a campaign and regime change of Tehran. The Ayatollahs, if knocked from their perch, wouldn't command the kind of authority required to return, and would probably hole up in Qom to deride the Great Satan. Destroy the government of the Islamic Republic and at the same time settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a manner that favors the latter, as the former would no longer have a looming threat on its doorstep. Perhaps this would also lead to the much desired collapse of Assad's government in Damascus, which won't be missed. Yes, this option calls for a great deal of violence but under the proper management (not this president) it would work.
The second option is far more peace-friendly but in the end would require far more billions of US treasure to achieve a result through soft power. We would have to remove Hamas from the equation and finance the Palestinians ourselves, US money would also flood to Iranian and Syrian dissidents while also being used to pay for discount-price food for their people. America would withdraw all US troops from Arab lands, mitigating the PR debacles for the last five years in the region. Why not offer enormous sums of money as incentive for regimes to change their behavior? But here is the problem: if they are serious, Allah-fearing Muslims, they won't do it, as no amount of money would lead them to adopt 21st Century policies.
I don't think there are enough incentives in the world to bribe Iran to stop its pursuit of nuclear weaponry. A President Obama would earn international praise of a lavish nature but he would return home empty-handed from Teheran. Iranian leadership, by the next generation, will begin to zero in on the much-longed for hope of Islamic followers: the return of their power on the world stage. True, at the moment their GDP is not even in our solar system and their armed forces are rather pedestrian, but give them time, and allow the current birthrate and failed government policies of the Arab world to foster even more resentment from (in particular) jobless young males.
We don't have their seriousness, as they remain the only group to repeatedly commit suicide for their cause, which, as ever, include the dismemberment of Israel, the financial destruction of the United States and its allies, the overthrow of the Saudi Royal Family in Riyadh, as they wait in joyful hope for the return of the Twelfth Imam.
China and Russia have made their position crystal clear: they don't care, and no moral justification measures up to their bottom lines. If "President" Putin can make sweet energy deals in places where non-believers are stoned to death, and if the Chinese directory can import oil from places where naming teddy bears after Muhammad is crime that courts death, there isn't much hope from our allies, the ones that have lacked significant military force for at least sixty years.
You can no more come to terms or negotiate a credible peace with radical Islam than our predecessors could at Munich in 1938. No, the power isn't centralized (yet) and the supreme leader doesn't exist (ditto) with a military power ominous enough to threaten Western Europe, but, most troublingly of all, their belief is far stronger than even the most fanatical National Socialists of the former Prussia.
Just remember, a teddy bear, and never claim you weren't warned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
