Timatollah |
|
 Comments, possibly informed. Tim Wilson Daytona Beach, Florida, USA timatollah@mackandtim.net Personal Homepage Professional Homepage Agenda Bender Dave Barry Bull Moose The Corner Defense Tech Matt Drudge Half Bakered Hit and Run Huffington Post Instapundit Kausfiles Mark Lane Ken Layne James Lileks Josh Marshall PaperFrog Virginia Postrel Shattered Buddha Mike Silverman Sploid Andrew Sullivan TPM Cafe Tapped Matt Welch Archives  |
Tuesday, September 24, 2002
Wednesday, September 18, 2002
Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Translation Today's New York Times quotes Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz as saying, "All the reasons for an attack have been eliminated." I ran this through my translation program for what's said by lying sacks of shit, and out popped: "All the reasons for an attack remain, possibly with increased urgency." Monday, September 16, 2002
But what about 'Back-Assward"? Gary Leff points to reports of new recognition for an old word. Okay, okay. Word phrase. Friday, September 13, 2002
Warren Zevon Does His Chores "Nobody does my chores so I can go upstairs and jam with Branford, y'know?" That's Warren Zevon in this piece in the L. A. Times. He's got terminal lung cancer, but it sounds like he's got a thing or two about living in this life figured out. Good on him, and good luck to him. I saw him once. At the Tennessee Theater in downtown Nashville. Christopher "Ride Like the Wind" Boring-Ass Cross opened. Zevon rocked the place. Sometimes I think that a decent life starts with "do your chores." It think Warren Zevon's had a decent life, even if he once was a wild-assed yahoo and then a drunk. You don't hold those against a man forever. Some people get over those too soon. They seem to make -- or they try to make -- the switch from drunk or stoner or junkie or sex fiend to family man or church deacon overnight, and it just doesn't wash. They haven't taken time to just start doing their chores; instead, they make the switch, then they're all in everyone else's face about how to live right. I think I'll ignore them and listen to Warren Zevon and those in similar situations instead. What's that album called again? Oh yeah. "Life'll Kill Ya". So it will. Better get on with the livin', then. Start by doing your chores. Thursday, September 12, 2002
Florida Election The votes seem to be counted (story here from the Orlando Sentinel). It seems likely that Bill McBride is going to be declared the winner of the Democratic guvernatorial primary. If I was Ms. Reno, I'd concede and endorse him right away. If she wants to help folks sue the counties that had election screwups in a civil suit demanding damages because they were disenfranchised, okay, more power to her and to them. Screw ups clearly happened, and they shouldn't have. But she should not be a party to any kind of further rerun of the post-2000 election. Bush's Speech II I just read the text of Bush's speech to the U.N. this morning (here at the Washington Post, link courtesy of Drudge). In many respects, he's challenged the U.N. to get onboard or get out of the way. I believe he's saying that a responsible multilateralism is something the U.S. would welcome, but that the U.S. is not going to turn a blind eye any more to Iraqi refusal to comply with Security Council resolutions. And neither should the U.N. Bush's Speech I I thought Bush's speech last night was, overall, sweet. The setting was entirely appropriate and just beautiful. That humongous flag waving in the background looked great. The tone of optimism and committment even given the horrible events of a year ago seemed about right to me. Respectful, but determined. Wednesday, September 11, 2002
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
More Dave Barry Here's last year's post-9/11 column by Dave Barry. Link courtesy of this set of comments by Ken Layne. Monday, September 09, 2002
Focus on Gettysburg It's well known that NYC ceremonies reflecting on the events of 9/11/01 and its heroes will feature a reading of Lincoln's Gettysburg address. Today's New York Times features this column by William Safire on how Lincoln's words tell a story of conception, birth, death, and rebirth. It's nice. While Safire's piece is about words and how one instance of them described the arc and origins of a nation's still-in-process story, this piece by Dave Barry (link from Instapundit) is about the actions in that story at two places in Pennsylvania-- Gettysburg during the Civil War and Somerset County, where Flight 93 went down, last September -- and about how we remember, or how we try to remember, those actions. It's incredibly moving, and there's no way I can summarize it succintly. I very strongly recommend it, if you haven't read it already. Sunday, September 08, 2002
Back Yeah, I'm back. Momentarily. I had lost my rhythm, and I had a hard time getting it back. That's not a promise that I can maintain it. I've currently got actual responsibilities that I get renumerated for that make spending time doing this regularly more difficult than it was in the summer. They're higher priority right now. For those of you reading, though, many thanks for your time. Circularity Is it possible to write a blog entry about the continuing and recurring naval-gazing aspect of blogging by some of the more popular bloggers around without being naval gazing? Forgive me if I don't go back through numerous entries by Reynolds, Sullivan, et al.; I think there are enough that any reader of this tiny corner of the world knows exactly what I'm talking about. Good grief, people. Just do your thing and quit worrying about blogage as compared to big bad traditional media. The topic was played about a year ago, and the dragon-slaying self-promotional shtick is getting moldy. Silber Strikes Again Texas transplant to Massachusetss and former Democratic candidate for Massachusetts governor and former Boston University president John Silber is back in the saddle. He's again president at BU, and he's raising hell. See this story in the Boston Globe. Sibler has a natural talent to get people into "with him" or "against him" thinking. Some people don't like his shoot-from-the-hip qualities. Some don't like that he's got almost as much cajones as Ms. Reno. He's never really been deeply accepted in Boston because he's not from that most parochial of American cities. But he's brilliant, and he's got vision and insight. What he does at BU indirectly affects every other second-tier private university in the USA. More Reasons to Vote for Ms. Reno My entry last night (here) about this Tuesday's primary was more about why voting for McBride was, in fact, a likely lose, not a win. It was an invitation for the "we have to vote for McBride because Reno has too many negatives to defeat Jeb Bush" to reconsider whether, in fact, McBride will be as strong of a candidate in the general election as they seem to think. I didn't give a lot of reasons for why Ms. Reno would likely make a good governor. Here are some:
Some people hold the Waco and Elian Gonzales incidents against Mr. Reno. I believe that they demonstrated the qualities that would make her a good governor: A clarity in understanding situations realistically, regardless of the politics of them; the ability to make a potentially unpopular decision; a willingness to assert legitimate governmental authority against individuals and groups who seem to believe that their own perception of being right justifies their acting outside the rules, processes, and procedures the rest of us obey and participate in day-in and day-out; and an understanding of the necessity of taking responsibility for the consequences of the use of authority (instead of blaiming it on others). In a word: Cajones. Comments on Comments Today's New York Times features a collection of short comments (here) on America after 9/11. I just gave them a brief, not a deep, read. My first impression is that some people get it. Some people understand that an overwhelmingly evil event like what happened on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, is not something that can be dismissed easily. While the effects may not linger for generations -- and only time will tell what does -- they certainly linger into today, sometimes with the same strength that they had in the immediate moments afterward. My second impression is to be deeply -- deeply -- suspicious who use what happened then to justify their interests at or before that time. Neither "I told you so" ism from one part nor "it just proves what I've been saying about Topic X" (where Topic X is something that the party speaking has held near and dear for a long time) from another strikes me as indicating that the speaker/writer understands what happened that day, except from a perspective of political expediency. (It is, of course, possible that a few particular Topic Xs might be pertinent; it's almost statistically impossible that all the Topic Xs for which 9/11 is being used to further Topic Xs' agendas are relevant.) Of those the Times asked to write something, I think that Stephen Carter, Cynthia Ozick, Richard Possner, Mary Karr, John Edgar Wiseman, Newt Gingrich, and Bill Bennett, in some senses, get it. They understand that something happened on that day that is more important in the long-run than any particular thing they might've had on their minds before then. What they write reflects, to my mind, a degree of reflection, of consideration, of widening of context, of trying to see reality as it is and to remember accurately what happened as it did. Mohammad Ali's piece is, I think, harmless, even if it does focus, to some degree naturally, on American attitudes towards Muslims taken as a generic class. Tom Dachle's entry is only mildly self-serving, but it doesn't show evidence of growth or reflection too far beyond, "Oh, shit. If the Congress doesn't get with the program, we'll get turned out. We'd better act like we're doing something." He also uses the odious "homeland" word. Ugh. The other pieces strike me as missing something. Of not understanding. Martha Nussbaum's seems to me to be something she was likely promoting before 9/11 (i.e., "I've been telling you that this was important. Now, maybe you'll listen"). Kathleen Sullivan, of Stanford Law School, argues that post-9/11 actions by the government are a good reason to reign in executive power in times of emergencies. It comes across as rehashed post-Watergate analysis. I don't mean to dismiss the serious civil-liberties issues involved in the responses to the attacks of last year; I do mean to argue that the issues in no way make it obvious that the issue is one of the executive overreaching its authority in a time of crisis. I find Tony Kushner's piece particulary ugly. His words seem to attempt to yoke the post-9/11 responses with the 19th-century concept of imperialism and the 20th-century fantasy of American involvement in those projects. The framing of American participation in the world post the Spanish-American war as if it was a continuation of European imperialism is a popular usage by certain individuals on the left, but their arguments are specious and unconvincing. That's why it's a fantasy, not an accurate description of reality. Mr. Lincoln is reported to have said, "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, because calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." The 20th-century American projection of power around the world is, of course, a projection of power; it's, of course, done with American interests first and foremost. But it is not "imperialism" as the term is intelligently and thoughtfully used. Nor is the projection of American force in Afghanistan today imperialism. Of the pieces I found thoughtful, the ones that moved me the most were Cynthia Ozick's and John Edgar Wiseman. Wiseman's has a postmodern slant to it. The towers should be rebuilt or forgotten or memorialized or avenged: these reactions and countless others being suffered, alleged, fabricated, litigated, commodified, spectacularized or manipulated should not point us backward. No consensus about the nation's health and priorities existed before Sept. 11, and if we attempt to restore a mythical America, we'll be repeating a fatal error. We live in a world that destroyed the World Trade Center. This world, whether we like it or not, is as much a source of hope as it is a cause of grief.Ironically, much of what Wiseman is saying has a certain resonance with what Kushner says, particularly the way in which each of us brings something to the framing, something to the discussion, something to the outcome further down the road. But while Kushner uses that perspective for continued beating of a horse that's not dead since it never really existed, almost bullying the reader to see the world in his way and only his way regarding the bad old USA, Wiseman leaves the reader room for interpretation, for building a model of what happened, for designing a path to a future that each of us is in some part responsible for. Wiseman's piece is the most moving; Cynthia Ozick's is the most challenging. She points out that in the time since 9/11 what once was a clear view of what had happened has become clouded. I would argue that the clouds are (1) obfuscations intentionally introduced by the Tony Kushners, and the Noam Chmoskys, of the world, likely in some misguided belief that the way the world is structured is all wrong, and (2) confusions brought about by those who just don't get it. Who can't stop talking about what they were talking about before 9/11, whether it's states' rights or Mexican immigration or race relations or tax cuts or whatnot. She quotes Forrester's "Only connect" instruction, and we would be wise to continue to attempt to connect. To put the pieces of the puzzle together, to connect the dots, to see the causal sequences but to apply responsibility to those sequences in the most thoughtful and prudent manner, which means holding the most closely-connected causal agent responsible for the damages wrought, not following a causal chain to distant, largely unrelated, sources. Her closing comments are worth seeing again: As for the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, last September there were relatively few voices that held America responsible for the aggression committed against it. Today there are many more. Saturday, September 07, 2002
Reno for Governor The party primaries for Florida's gubernatorial election are being held this coming Tuesday. The choices in the Democratic primary are former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, lawyer Bill McBride, and Florida state representative Daryl Jones. I'm going to vote for Reno. First and foremost, I think she'd make a better governor than Jeb Bush, I think she'd make a better governor than the other two Democratic candidates, and I think that, even with her high negatives, she'll make a better candidate than the other two Democratic candidates. The last point is, in Democratic circles, the likely point of contention. McBride, from Tampa, has the support of Democratic leaders in much of the state, even, I think, in south Florida. He has the endorsement of the Florida Education Association. While that is taken by many as evidence for supporting him, I think it would be a great big millstone around any candidacy he might have in the general election. There seems to be somewhat of a consensus in Florida that primary and secondary public schools need something, but what that something is very few seem to know. My gut feeling is that by-and-large, folks know that the problems with public schools start from two distinct points: One is gutting of education budgets at the federal and state levels: blame for that falls pretty much at the feet of the Republicans from Reagan and George H. W. Bush and Newt Gingrich and a sequence of Republican-controlled congresses. The other, though, is the teachers' unions, both at the national and state levels. The teachers' unions have resisted fundamental change in primary and secondary education too often. The teachers' unions have made it difficult to remove educators who don't perform. The teachers' unions have supported an expansion of pointless educational bureaucracy. Lots of people know how bogus the teachers' unions claims to be concerned about education are. They know that the concerns of the teachers' unions are, first, the officers of the teachers' unions, and second, the educational bureaucracy in Washington and the state capitals and the school boards. There's almost no evidence that the teachers' unions are concerned about educating tomorrow's citizens, and a broad swath of people know that. And that means that Jeb Bush will be able to use that as a major hammer against any possible McBride campaign. Reno, on the other hand, while making some of the same noises toward education as McBride, has something that McBride doesn't. Independence. There's little reason to believe that if the FEA tries to jerk Reno around that she'll respond with anything other than the good will she shows all, regardless of what their positions are. And if they try to jerk her around too hard, she's likely to call them on the table for it. McBride would, instead, be in their pocket. I don't think that's a desirable position for a governor to be in, and I'm pretty sure that the Jeb Bush team would make great political mileage out of it. I believe there are other reasons to be for Reno besides McBride's being a toady to the FEA. Those include her experience in Washington, where she demonstrated she could work with the opposition, behind the scenes, if need be, when the opposition is bashing her in public. Mc Bride is a political neophyte. There's little reason to believe he would know how the levers of government work to the degree that Reno could. There are ample people that I respect who intend to vote for McBride. Their reason's don't convince me. While there's some reason to believe that Reno might energize the Republican base to vote for Bush, there's also reason to believe that she could energize aspects of the Democratic base that otherwise might sit out the election. The idea that she would demoralize Cracker Democrats in the Panhandle and technoDemocrats along the I-4 corridor seems specious to me, especially when you compare it to McBride's bland style which is unlikely to energize anyone. Besides, my own gut feeling is that those Cracker Democrats yapping about voting for Jeb Bush if the Dems nominate Reno are going to vote for Bush anyway. So, if you're in Florida and going to vote in the Democratic primary on Tuesday, I encourage you to vote for Janet Reno. And should McBride win the nomination, I welcome you to watch how the Bush hardball team disembowels him between now and the primary. All this business about Bush attacking McBride backfiring on Bush by increasing McBride's likelihood of winning the primary and beating Bush in the general is a scan. The whole reason for the Bush team to attack McBride now is to get him some press and increase the chances that McBride will be the nominee. If he wins, they'll take him apart, starting with his kowtowing to the teachers' union. Wednesday, September 04, 2002
Blog Still Broked If you're seeing what I'm seeing, then my blog is still broked in some formatting ways. And I'm too swamped with work I get paid for to do much about it in the very short run. So please accept my apologies, both for the screwy look and for the lack of current content. Monday, September 02, 2002
Liar Speaks The current lead article on CNN's web site starts with: "Everybody in the world should know that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq," Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz told CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer." Can someone explain why major media outlets treat well-known lying sacks of shit like Tariq Aziz as if they're telling the truth? Doesn't some kind of journalistic ethics require noting that Aziz lied his head off during the lead up to the Gulf War? Saturday, August 31, 2002
Frisbyterianism A Frisbyterian:
Thursday, August 29, 2002
Bullies for "Family" The Tampa-based Florida Family Association is pulling out the stops and acting like bullies in trying to keep the City of Orlando from implementing an anti-discrimination provision regarding sexuality. The story, from the Orlando Sentinel, can be found here. It's such an honest shame that some folks can't see that the condition of human rights and respect isn't a zero-sum situation. Protecting the rights of sexual minorities is, in fact, perfectly consistent with protecting the rights of religious people and families. Framing it any other way is, in my opinion, a short-sighted mistake. Supposedly, these "Family" folks are against porn. What's that got to do with whether an employer should be able to release or not hire someone because that person isn't heterosexual? Hmmm. Could it be that these "Family" people are really more interested in imposing their version of Christianity on everyone else than in stopping the downsides of pornography? Hmmmm. Yet Another Bad Statistical Analysis by a Journalist Here's a less than useful article on traffic accidents and fatalities along the interstate highways in Volusia County from today's Daytona Beach News-Journal. Featured inanities:
The News-Journal, it should be noted, rarely met an accident on I-95 or I-4 that it didn't want to put a picture of on its front page or on its web site. Someone at the paper seems to have an almost fetishistic interest in crash scenes. It's kinda creepy. Wednesday, August 28, 2002
Debate Coverage from Around the State Addendum: Added the streaming-video link. Here's streaming video (Real) of the debate from the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union. Here's a transcript of the debate, from the Palm Beach Post. Here are links to stories from the websites of various Florida print media outlets:
Debate Comments As reported in most major media outlets, the debate last night between the Democratic candidates for governor of Florida was anything but exciting. Here's my impressions. McBride had the most to gain. He's in second place (although still tens of points down), has endorsements out the wazoo (as noted here by Mark Lane), is the candidate of the party establishment, teachers' union, etc. I couldn't tell that there was anything leadership-like about him. He didn't make any compelling case that he should be governor, although he did do a pretty good job of reminding folks that Jeb! shouldn't be. Daryl Jones, in third place in the polls, probably did actually gain the most. He was effective in presenting himself as someone who knew his way around Tallahassee, and he demostrated lots of energy. Maybe too much energy. Maybe to the point of crossing a threshold that says, "whoa there fella, slow down". He was just a bit over the top: from the Jerry Brown-esque "here's my 800 number" and "here's my website" to donning a hardhat during his closing statement (reflecting back to his comments about home building in his opening statement). Still, if he does get folks out on street corners -- wearing yellow hardhats and giving out Jones campaign material -- it'll likely be worth the momentary no-shame quality it had last night. Reno was effective if boring. Unlike McBride, she didn't need to demonstrate leadership qualities because she's a known quantity. Too much so for some people. Still, everyone knows she's got cajones the size of avacadoes. She seemed to have learned a few things from sitting at the Cabinet table with Bill Clinton: how to slip in the anecdote, how to raise several issues in one answer. Still, except in stature, she was not head and shoulders above the other two candidates. Overall ranking: A very close debate with only marginal differences between the candidates. I'd say Reno won, Jones came in second, and McBride third. I also think that Reno is very likely to win the primary and to be much more effective against Jeb! than is currently presumed, especially by the Anyone-But-Reno crowd. She held her own against her own boss (Clinton) and the Republican leadership in Congress, so I figure she's likely to eviscerate Jeb! to a much better degree -- even if she does it in sly and subtle ways -- that many have realized. She may have strong negatives, but she can probably make clear those of the sitting governor better than the other two candiates. Tuesday, August 27, 2002
Florida Dem Gov Candidates Debate I was cooking supper and missed the debate. Here's a link to streaming video (Real format) from the Jacksonville Florida Times-Union. I just started watching/listening to it, so no comment yet. Fukuyama on Us and Them Here's a speech by Francis Fukuyama on us (USA) vs. them (Europeans) in the post-9/11 world. His point is that European and American differences on the legitimacy of international institutions are real; he gets at some of the reasons for those differences, particularly European evolution of (not necessarily democratic) trans-national institutions to limit expression of the various European nationalisms in contrast to American unilateralism based on national-based democratic institutions. Those explanations alone make it a good read, regardless of your opinion about his suggestions for what the USA could do differently to smooth things out between us and other nations. The link's from Alterman. Monday, August 26, 2002
Odds and Ends Stuff I shoulda linked to a long time ago:
|
