QUOTE OF THE WEEK: Ron Rosenbaum on the new Bob Dylan movie:
"I hate to say this, Bob, but if you had a real friend, he’d tell you: Anyone who flaunts his humility so flagrantly—makes a big movie mainly about his own humility, makes a spectacle of his humility—is, well, not necessarily truly humble. Even Jesus didn’t write his own Gospels."
"Thou shalt not extinguish thine anger, but shall master it,
that thy conscience may not be blunted by adjustment
to wrong causes."
-The Dutch Ten Commandments to Foil the Nazis
25.7.03
23.7.03
HAHA: Courtesy Jay Nordlinger:
Three Americans and an Israeli soldier are caught by cannibals and are about to be cooked. The chief says, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather says, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili." The chief nods to an underling, who leaves and returns with the chili. Rather eats it all and says, "Now I can die content."
Al Sharpton says, "I'd like to have my picture taken, as nothing has given me greater joy in life." Done.
Judith Woodruff says, "I'm a journalist to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here, and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job to the last." The chief directs an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Woodruff dictates some comments. "There," she says. "I can now die fulfilled."
The chief says, "And you, Mr. Israeli Soldier? What is your final wish?"
The solider says, "Kick me in the behind."
"What?" says the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the behind."
So the chief unties the soldier, shoves him into the open, and kicks him in the behind. The Israeli goes sprawling, but rolls to his knees, pulls a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shoots the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leaps to his knapsack, pulls out his Uzi, and sprays the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals are all dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Israeli unties the others, they ask him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask the chief to kick you in the behind?"
"What?" answers the soldier. "And have you SOBs call me the aggressor?"
Three Americans and an Israeli soldier are caught by cannibals and are about to be cooked. The chief says, "I am familiar with your Western custom of granting a last wish. Before we kill and eat you, do you have any last requests?"
Dan Rather says, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili." The chief nods to an underling, who leaves and returns with the chili. Rather eats it all and says, "Now I can die content."
Al Sharpton says, "I'd like to have my picture taken, as nothing has given me greater joy in life." Done.
Judith Woodruff says, "I'm a journalist to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here, and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job to the last." The chief directs an aide to hand over the tape recorder, and Woodruff dictates some comments. "There," she says. "I can now die fulfilled."
The chief says, "And you, Mr. Israeli Soldier? What is your final wish?"
The solider says, "Kick me in the behind."
"What?" says the chief. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the behind."
So the chief unties the soldier, shoves him into the open, and kicks him in the behind. The Israeli goes sprawling, but rolls to his knees, pulls a 9mm pistol from his waistband, and shoots the chief dead. In the resulting confusion, he leaps to his knapsack, pulls out his Uzi, and sprays the cannibals with gunfire. In a flash, the cannibals are all dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the Israeli unties the others, they ask him, "Why didn't you just shoot them? Why did you ask the chief to kick you in the behind?"
"What?" answers the soldier. "And have you SOBs call me the aggressor?"
QUOTES: Great run in today's Best of the Web Today:
We Get Results
"According to U.S. intelligence officials, Saddam and his entourage simply move in with a private family. Members of the family, including children, are taken as hostages so that no other family member will be tempted to inform on Saddam's whereabouts. These sources said that when Saddam is ready to move to another safe house, the hostages are returned and the family is paid as much as $50,000 for the temporary use of their home." --United Press International, June 2
"Why doesn't the U.S. simply outbid the Baathists? If we were to offer, say, a $500,000 or $1 million reward, surely some Iraqi would be willing to sell out his family."--Best of the Web Today, June 3
"The United States on Thursday offered $25 million for any information that leads to the capture of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein or confirmation of his death. 'I am today announcing a $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a $15 million reward for information leading to the capture of either of his two sons,' Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator for Iraq, said in a statement."--Reuters, July 3
"The Iraqi informant who led U.S. forces to Uday and Qusay Hussein is in protective custody and will receive a reward of $30 million, a high-ranking U.S. military officer told CNN Wednesday."--CNN.com, July 23
BBC 'Imitates' Reuters
"Saddam's Sons 'Dead' "--headline, BBC Web site, July 23
"Iraq 'Deaths' Will Have Huge Effect"--headline, BBC Web site, July 22
"Tests 'Show Saddam's Sons Died' "--headline, BBC Web site, July 23
We Get Results
"According to U.S. intelligence officials, Saddam and his entourage simply move in with a private family. Members of the family, including children, are taken as hostages so that no other family member will be tempted to inform on Saddam's whereabouts. These sources said that when Saddam is ready to move to another safe house, the hostages are returned and the family is paid as much as $50,000 for the temporary use of their home." --United Press International, June 2
"Why doesn't the U.S. simply outbid the Baathists? If we were to offer, say, a $500,000 or $1 million reward, surely some Iraqi would be willing to sell out his family."--Best of the Web Today, June 3
"The United States on Thursday offered $25 million for any information that leads to the capture of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein or confirmation of his death. 'I am today announcing a $25 million reward for information leading to the capture of Saddam Hussein, and a $15 million reward for information leading to the capture of either of his two sons,' Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator for Iraq, said in a statement."--Reuters, July 3
"The Iraqi informant who led U.S. forces to Uday and Qusay Hussein is in protective custody and will receive a reward of $30 million, a high-ranking U.S. military officer told CNN Wednesday."--CNN.com, July 23
BBC 'Imitates' Reuters
"Saddam's Sons 'Dead' "--headline, BBC Web site, July 23
"Iraq 'Deaths' Will Have Huge Effect"--headline, BBC Web site, July 22
"Tests 'Show Saddam's Sons Died' "--headline, BBC Web site, July 23
AND AGAIN: I, of course, made this same point at GW, and for it, was called a "revolutionary." Obviously I'm a better Marxist than any of those supposed liberals. Then again, Andrew Sullivan is on my side on this one, which I guess makes me a better conservative than anyone who was there... I'm just whupping them all over the political spectrum, aren't I?
"We are still at war over there against the Baathists and much of the current criticism of the occupation as a whole is ultimately designed to weaken domestic support for the vital task in front of us. That's what the anti-war left and right are now trying to do. They lost the battle before the war and during the war. They now desperately need the U.S. to lose the post-war. It's time for those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq to fight back against this potentially catastrophic gambit. For the U.S. to give up now, to withdraw, or to show any vacillation in the face of great progress in the Middle East, would indeed make matters far worse than if we had never intervened in the first place. We have an obligation to make it work. If some Democrats continue to argue that we should cut our losses, they are simply not ready for government."
"We are still at war over there against the Baathists and much of the current criticism of the occupation as a whole is ultimately designed to weaken domestic support for the vital task in front of us. That's what the anti-war left and right are now trying to do. They lost the battle before the war and during the war. They now desperately need the U.S. to lose the post-war. It's time for those of us who supported the liberation of Iraq to fight back against this potentially catastrophic gambit. For the U.S. to give up now, to withdraw, or to show any vacillation in the face of great progress in the Middle East, would indeed make matters far worse than if we had never intervened in the first place. We have an obligation to make it work. If some Democrats continue to argue that we should cut our losses, they are simply not ready for government."
QUOTE: Sullivan again:
"As for the dangerous situation in that country: who can be surprised? Did people really believe it would be one Tocquevillean orgy as soon as the Baathists were deposed? Did we really hope that the vast Baathist military that disappeared at the climax of the war would literally evaporate? The fact that the three major groups - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - are still on board for a representative government is far more significant than the resilience of a few Baathist left-overs, coordinated by Saddam."
"As for the dangerous situation in that country: who can be surprised? Did people really believe it would be one Tocquevillean orgy as soon as the Baathists were deposed? Did we really hope that the vast Baathist military that disappeared at the climax of the war would literally evaporate? The fact that the three major groups - Sunni, Shia and Kurd - are still on board for a representative government is far more significant than the resilience of a few Baathist left-overs, coordinated by Saddam."
QUOTE: Andrew Sullivan rather hits the nail on the head on the whole Africa-Uranium story, which is really a non-story:
"But the reason I'm unmoved by this story is that I can't see why it matters. Intelligence is always a somewhat dubious enterprise. There is little certainty, only grades of uncertainty. No one - left, right or center, European or American, Democrat or Republican - believed that Saddam had come clean about his WMD ambitions in the months before the war. Does anyone today? That refusal is the entire reason for the war. Not our intelligence - his refusal. The notion that a single minor piece of evidence which is still defended by British spooks somehow undermines the case for war against Saddam is just loopy."
"But the reason I'm unmoved by this story is that I can't see why it matters. Intelligence is always a somewhat dubious enterprise. There is little certainty, only grades of uncertainty. No one - left, right or center, European or American, Democrat or Republican - believed that Saddam had come clean about his WMD ambitions in the months before the war. Does anyone today? That refusal is the entire reason for the war. Not our intelligence - his refusal. The notion that a single minor piece of evidence which is still defended by British spooks somehow undermines the case for war against Saddam is just loopy."
10.7.03
9.7.03
QUOTE: Andrew Sullivan, on something Democratic Party activists (ahem) might do well to remember:
"QUOTE FOR THE DAY: "If the Democratic Party intends to run against a popular war, its leaders might wish to recall the lesson of a Democrat who ran against an unpopular war. He lost 49 states." - Lawrence F. Kaplan, in the Wall Street Journal today. Lawrence is basically right, I think. Many liberal Democrats - and the media in general - are beginning to act as if the war is over and they can score debating points with a president's foreign policy, rather than seriously proposing their own. That's a formula for disaster. The unseriousness of the current Democratic field in national security matters is the determining factor in the next year and a half. Forget money, personality, media. The question every voter will and should ask of any Democratic in 2004 is a simple one: would I feel as safe with this guy in the White House? Right now, the answer is a resounding no. Until the Demsfigure out a way to tackle this, they're screwed. And they deserve to be."
"QUOTE FOR THE DAY: "If the Democratic Party intends to run against a popular war, its leaders might wish to recall the lesson of a Democrat who ran against an unpopular war. He lost 49 states." - Lawrence F. Kaplan, in the Wall Street Journal today. Lawrence is basically right, I think. Many liberal Democrats - and the media in general - are beginning to act as if the war is over and they can score debating points with a president's foreign policy, rather than seriously proposing their own. That's a formula for disaster. The unseriousness of the current Democratic field in national security matters is the determining factor in the next year and a half. Forget money, personality, media. The question every voter will and should ask of any Democratic in 2004 is a simple one: would I feel as safe with this guy in the White House? Right now, the answer is a resounding no. Until the Demsfigure out a way to tackle this, they're screwed. And they deserve to be."
QUOTE: Joel Engel (Berkeley grad), in the Daily Standard, on Baby Boomers:
You should take pride in knowing that we did better than any other generation could have done with such thin material, first by protesting against and then by abandoning both the suburbs and Vietnam as not being in our best interests. Yes, making the personal political required a kind of genius that, historians agree, no other generation had ever exhibited. It took unprecedented audacity and courage to trash the dean's office, shut down the university, set fire to the ROTC building--and then hand the dean a list of demands that began with "no reprisals."
But we didn't stop there.
Indeed, it took Boomers to point out the truth which not even veterans of Guadalcanal and the Bulge had the insight to coin--that war is not healthy for children and other living beings.
It took us to question authority (though given who our authority figures were, this should be considered a no-brainer rather than a profound accomplishment).
It took us to grant power to the people--the addition of "the" thus elevating a 100-year-old concept to sublimity by referring only and specifically to the crowds present at antiwar rallies.
It took us to realize that nothing on television is unimportant and that anything not on television can't possibly be important--both of which we realized by watching ourselves grow up on television.
It took us to abolish honorifics like "Mister," which made it okay for our kids' friends to say "Wassup, Bob?" and for all of us to feel good about it.
It took us to institute pass-fail in college (in order to do away with competition) and then transform kindergarten coloring books into elite preschool admission tests.
It took us to free our black brothers and sisters from four centuries of injustice and terror, which we did not by marching in Selma or becoming Freedom Riders (not our fault! we were too young!), but through far more subversive and effective means--by buying a hundred million Motown records.
And yes, it took us to bring the word "f***" into common, unashamed, mixed-company usage (as in "We don't want your f***ing war!", "What the f***'re you doing in my seat?", and "I'm warning you, don't f*** with me, Mom!").
You should take pride in knowing that we did better than any other generation could have done with such thin material, first by protesting against and then by abandoning both the suburbs and Vietnam as not being in our best interests. Yes, making the personal political required a kind of genius that, historians agree, no other generation had ever exhibited. It took unprecedented audacity and courage to trash the dean's office, shut down the university, set fire to the ROTC building--and then hand the dean a list of demands that began with "no reprisals."
But we didn't stop there.
Indeed, it took Boomers to point out the truth which not even veterans of Guadalcanal and the Bulge had the insight to coin--that war is not healthy for children and other living beings.
It took us to question authority (though given who our authority figures were, this should be considered a no-brainer rather than a profound accomplishment).
It took us to grant power to the people--the addition of "the" thus elevating a 100-year-old concept to sublimity by referring only and specifically to the crowds present at antiwar rallies.
It took us to realize that nothing on television is unimportant and that anything not on television can't possibly be important--both of which we realized by watching ourselves grow up on television.
It took us to abolish honorifics like "Mister," which made it okay for our kids' friends to say "Wassup, Bob?" and for all of us to feel good about it.
It took us to institute pass-fail in college (in order to do away with competition) and then transform kindergarten coloring books into elite preschool admission tests.
It took us to free our black brothers and sisters from four centuries of injustice and terror, which we did not by marching in Selma or becoming Freedom Riders (not our fault! we were too young!), but through far more subversive and effective means--by buying a hundred million Motown records.
And yes, it took us to bring the word "f***" into common, unashamed, mixed-company usage (as in "We don't want your f***ing war!", "What the f***'re you doing in my seat?", and "I'm warning you, don't f*** with me, Mom!").
1.7.03
NOW BECKY: I'm not saying you hopped on the Howard Dean bandwagon just to meet boys, but I did notice you're the only woman in this picture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)