The Inferiority Complex

2002-10-07T02:51:00.000-04:00

Why Lynda Hurst is Inferior

I've mentioned this before, and everybody's favourite (yes, that's right, 'ou'... I'm Canadian. Deal with it.) puppy recently picked up on it: commondreams.org is a veritable gold mine of Fiskile material (perhaps even enough to make a Fiskion bomb... I hope Saddam doesn't find out about this.) Since I hadn't posted for a while, I wanted to get back into the swing of things with something easy. So of course I looked no further than our good buddies who have a dream that they and the rest of their supporters have in common. Sure enough, my prayers were answered with this piece by Lynda Hurst, entitled "Caught in the Crossfire".

LOT OF people are going to be killed if, as looks increasingly certain, there is war in Iraq. Maybe one of them will be Saddam Hussein. Maybe not.

To start things off with a bang, Lynda decides on a grammatical misstep. And I just love her cute little maybe/maybe not. Almost Dowdish. Then again, maybe not.

"Of the several thousands who have been killed so far in Afghanistan, not one had been named Osama bin Laden," Phyllis Bennis, Middle East specialist at the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington, points out dryly. "So let's be very clear about who is going to pay the price in Iraq." Ordinary people.

It turns out that Lynda also likes to quote sources whose numbers are a wee bit out of whack. "Thousands" has been shown to be grossly inaccurate; most proper estimates have put the casualties at somewhere below a thousand. And we have evidence to suggest that Bin Laden may have been one of them. That doesn't mean he was; but it certainly isn't correct to say he wasn't. Or has Ms. Bennin seen something that we haven't. Somehow I don't think so. As well, she wants to be clear about who is going to pay the price. Unfortunately, she is anything but clear. By her logic, since Bin Laden wasn't one of those killed, therefore no terrorists were killed. Therefore in Iraq, only "ordinary people" will be killed. Of course in Afghanistan we killed many terrorists. And good riddance. If we're going to be clear, then in Iraq we will kill some who deserve it, and some who don't. Simple as that.

Despite reports of Pentagon plans for a quick, clean invasion of 10 days to two weeks aimed solely at "regime targets" and not innocent civilians, no one knows what Iraq's response will be. Weeks on end of bloody ground fighting — village by village, even street by street in Baghdad and Basra — cannot be ruled out.

Well of course no one knows what Iraq is going to do. But did Lynda ever stop to think (seems unlikely) that the planners at the Pentagon will be planning for a worst-case scenario, so that even in that case, casualties will still be minimized? While it isn't possible to completely avoid civilian casualties, and that's a terrible price, I have no problem with saying that given the choice, I'd rather them than me, or my parents, or girlfriend. True, a terribly self-centred thing to say, but that's the way it is. If we don't topple Saddam, it will be the citizens of Western nations (and especially the US) who will die instead. And that's unacceptable.

Nor can the spectre of Saddam desperately unleashing his much-vaunted stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, especially if, as Washington predicts, his troops capitulate early on. Whether he uses the weapons to harm his enemy or his own people is unlikely to be a consideration: Saddam has done both in the past.

So should out solution be to allow Saddam to continue creating more of these weapons? Or should we make a concerted effort to rid the world of his destructive tendencies? At one point or another, Saddam is a threat that will have to be dealt with. If we go now, at least we know that A) he doesn't have nukes, and B) his stockpiles of Chem and Bio weapons are smaller than they will be in the future.

"Assuming he has these weapons," says James Reilly, a University of Toronto Middle East specialist, "it's reasonable to assume that being attacked will be the trigger to use them." Then, too, as military planners are fully aware, the lethal arsenal of gases and viruses could inadvertently be released by American bombs.

First off, GO SCHOOL!!! (Sorry... I'm 3rd year CS at the U of T.) That having been said, ASSUMING? He has them. There is no doubt. And once he realizes that this may be his final hurrah, then he probably will use them. But again, better now than later. As for setting off secret stashes, it will be interesting to see how the left will react; it will be hard to avoid abject hypocrisy.

As U.S. President George W. Bush prepares to address the nation tomorrow night, observers say that whatever lies ahead, one thing is sure: It will be innocent Iraqi civilians who suffer. They have done little else in the past 12 years. Iraq was once a wealthy, literate, secular state of 24 million with a flourishing middle class, an efficient health-care system and the security of sitting atop the world's second-largest oil reserves. All but the oil is gone today.

And that oil is not being used to alleviate the suffering of the people, but rather to pursue Saddam's obsession with obtaining a nuke, and the missiles to deliver it into downtown Tel-Aviv. There is no one but Saddam to blame for the Iraqi people's problems. Sure, the left blames the very sanctions which they believe are better than going to war. But that doesn't count; the sanctions are in place to ensure that they can continue to blame the sanctions. And the sanctions would be lifted if Saddam would live up to his cease-fire agreement. If he doesn't, then I think he's getting off easy; cancel the sanction, and send in the troops.

Older Iraqis may remember the way life used to be; the young can have no idea. All they have ever known is hunger and disease, poverty and isolation from the rest of the world. Their existence is harrowing today, and about to become unimaginably worse, says Roger Normand, director of the Center for Economic and Social Rights in New York, which has been tracking the state of Iraq since the end of the 1991 Gulf War. "These people have been living on their knees for a long time. The vast majority, 80 per cent, depend on government food rations, but they will come to an end the moment war begins."

Again, whose fault is that? (hint: he shops at the same big 'n' tall man shop that Santa frequents). As for the food evaporating, that will be brief. Once Saddam is gone, the oil will flow once more, and the people will eat better than ever.

2002-10-07T02:01:00.000-04:00

Why ClearGuidance.com is Inferior

This site has gotten a lot of attention in the Blogosphere since it was first brought to light. Since then, the little buggers have made it so that you have to be a member to view the hate that they spew. Luckily, there's a mole, and they do good work. I was reading through some of the posts, and came across one where one of the young jihadis posted an angry letter that he sent to what appears to be a British Muslim organization. He accuses them of being hypocritical, and generally un-Muslim. He then goes on to say that this: "...the non-Muslims have made better representation then the likes of you. If you read the articles from the emminent journalists like R. Fisk and J. Pilger etc, they do not bend over and keep apologising but expose and attack the hypocricy of this so called war against "terrorism"."

Yup. There's no one better at exposing the truth than Fisk and Pilger. I can think of no stronger indictment against members of a western society than to be endorsed by CG.

2002-09-26T15:50:00.000-04:00

Why Barbra Streisand is Inferior

The Republicans need more celebs to send the Dems memos like this. Ms. Streisand's thoughts are rambling, incoherent, and, simply put, dumb.

DATE. September 25, 2002

TO: Congressman Dick Gebhardt

FROM Barbra Streisand/Margery Tabankin

RE. Take the Offense

As you know, Barbra Streisand is busy in rehearsals for the performance she's giving on Sunday for the DCCC, so she asked me convey to you her feeling that it is lime for the Democrats to get off the defensive and go on the offensive.

I think the "lime" may be Drudge's fault. Personally, I want to know who this "Gebhardt" guy is.

Naturally, Barbra's not surprised to see the Bush administration evoke strong rhetoric about Democrats caring more about their own 'special interests' than protecting the security of the country. Of course, the Republicans will say anything they need to in order to accomplish their own political agenda. Barbra feels that the Democratic Leadership must not continue to take this lying down.

Naturally, Babs doesn't quite seem to get politics. Does she really believe that the Democrats are doing something so different when they use the rhetoric of "using rhetoric" to serve their political interests? That's how things work in the real world. That's why political parties have agendas: so they can push them. And this memo is only serving her political agenda. So what the hell is she talking about? She condemns any actions on the part of the Republicans as self-serving, while at that same time helping out her own cause. Ouch.

While the Republicans are shouting about the Democrats' special interests, why are the Democrats not saying the same about the Republicans? How can we ignore the obvious influence on the Bush Administration of such special interests as the oil industry, the chemical companies, the logging industry, the defense contractors, the mining industry, and the automobile industry, just to name a few? Many of these industries, run by big Republican donors and insiders, clearly have much to gain if we go to war against Iraq. Barbra urges the Democrats to publicly convey this message to the American people.

There are two possibilites: Either Barbra believes we shouldn't go to war since it will be good for Bush's buddies, or she is neutral about the war, and merely wants the American people to be well-informed. Which is it? I think the next paragraph is fairly telling.

While there are serious problems with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, Barbra feels that we can't let this issue become a distraction from the country's domestic problems and the President inability to fully dismantle the Al Queda network.

So Babs is anti-war. And apparently, she feels that the problems (that she admits exist) with Iraq are secondary to the awful consequence of a war: some corporations will benefit. Well golly, we better not go to war then. How dare we act in a manner that assists the key agents in our economic system to prosper. Shame on us! She also believes that domestic issues should take precedence. I guess an Iraqi nuke detonated in downtown DC isn't a "domestic problem". Finally, she believes that the reason Al Queda [sic] hasn't yet been fully dismantled is that Bush has been foot-dragging with this Iraq issue. It couldn't be that complete elimination of al Qaeda is a practical impossibility, and that while there is still much work to be done, Iraq is a part of that job. It doesn't matter that the Taliban is gone, along with al Qaeda training camps and safe havens. It doesn't matter that there are almost surely al Qaeda elements in Iraq itself. Nope. Bush should do more to get rid of al Qaeda; he just has to pretend that there aren't any agents in Iraq. In short, she truly believes that she can hide behind "unresolved issues" in order to "prove" that Iraq isn't currently worth our time.

To "cement" her case, she says the following:

Afterall, Sadam Hussein did not bomb the World Trade Center.

Now, here's my question: WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT MEAN? Is she referring the 1993 bombing of the Trade Center, or Sept. 11? Not that it matters. In both cases, there is some (though not conclusive) evidence that Saddam may have been involved. But that is beside the point. That Saddam wasn't at the controls of those airplanes is completely irrelevant. While it would be a wonderful excuse to go after Saddam on those grounds, no one is trying that approach. Instead, a war is being considered for other, much more sensible reasons. Allow me to reduce the argument to a "Since... therefore..." statement. Let's imagine Barbra is holding a news conference (though how she found the time in her busy day I'll never know.)

Reporter: "Ms. Streisand, what are your thoughts on the situation in Iraq?"

Babs: "Since Saddam didn't bomb the World Trade Center, therefore we can safely ignore his penchant for nuclear weapons, his stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, his grudge against America, his history of belligerance, his apparent inability to correctly judge cause-effect relationships, his harbouring of terrorists, his complete disregard for 16 UN resolutions, his starvation of his own people, and his insane belief that he will one day control the entire Gulf region."

Stunned silence as Barbra beams triumphantly: She has once again humbled those crazy conservatives.

I suppose I shouldn't really expect that much from someone who is loathed by Trey Parker and Matt Stone, but this is ridiculous. I have faith that the Dems will ignore this piece of idiocy, debate, rather than skirt, the relevant issues, and eventually give Bush the approval to show Ms. Streisand what a collosally stupid piece of work she sent.

2002-09-17T15:26:00.000-04:00

Why Thomas Walkom is Inferior

Mr. Walkom wrote this op-ed for the Toronto Star (my city's largest paper.) And he just doesn't seem to get it. Let's see why.

Saddam Hussein has thrown George W. Bush and his pro-war friends a most difficult curveball.

Hmm... sounds like we have a problem. Good thing W likes baseball so much.

By agreeing at the eleventh hour to let United Nations inspectors return unconditionally to Iraq, Saddam has neatly finessed Bush's attempt to give his proposed war on Iraq legitimacy. If they want to keep their invasion on schedule, Bush and his fellow war buffs will now have to scramble for a way to reject as insufficient what appears to be a full capitulation by Saddam.

Like Mr. Annan, Mr. Walkom seems to have tunnel-vision. He sees the word "unconditional" in any communique Iraq puts out, and assumes they mean it. If he had actually bothered to read what Iraq wrote (as opposed to, say, watching CNN and hearing what the talking heads had to say) he would have realized that in the same letter that promises the "unconditional" return of inspectors, it also mentions discussing the "conditions" for their return. I suppose that if we really wanted to we could just ignore the latter statement, (and it seems Mr. Walkom already has.) But then that would be idiotic.

Neatly finessed? Saddam is far too transparent to have finesse. Not that there aren't those who will (and are) believing him. It's just that the U.S. isn't. They have already issued a statement to the effect of "this offer sounds like crap." And it is, and most people can see that. That means, of course, that no scrambling will really be necessary; it's clear Saddam hasn't capitulated at all.

They'll have to refuse to take yes for an answer.

Sort of. Again, if you're dumb enough to only see the "yes" part, then that would be what Bush and co. would be doing. But Saddam's answer was a "yes, but". It's like asking someone to marry you, and getting the response "yes, but only if you sever your right leg." In that case, you can be damn sure I won't be taking "yes" for an answer.

Back in Washington, Bush's more hardline advisers will be gnashing their teeth at the U.S. president's decision to move away from Washington's original position — which was to eliminate the Saddam regime regardless of what he agreed to.

Washington's policy remains regime-change, regardless of what Saddam does. As has been said by many, many bloggers before me, Bush made Saddam an offer he can't accept. There is no way that Saddam will be able to implement every resolution in a timely manner. Or even at all, considering he would be killed (in a timely manner.) The resolutions angle was a way of appearing "multi-lateralist", kicking the U.N. in the nads, and then crushing Saddam anyway. Bush's advisers know this. That's why, despite Mr. Walkom's claim, I haven't heard a single peep. This was their plan to begin with. I don't see why they would be pissed when everything started working.

But Bush was convinced he needed the cover that only the U.N. can supply. And so came his speech to the U.N. General Assembly last week in which he dared the world body, and more particularly its elite Security Council, to enforce its own resolutions against Iraq. Or, as the inimitable Texan put it this past weekend, "to show some backbone." The trouble is that the U.N. Security Council, a body of 15 nations (including the U.S.) charged with keeping the peace in the world, doesn't have quite the same take on Iraq that the Bushites do.

That was the point of his speech. Of course they don't have the same take. In fact, that they don't only made his speech more effective. He put the U.N. between a rock and a hard place. They can continue to be spineless, and thus confirm to the world that they are irrelevant, or they can let Bush do what he wants, and tag along for the ride. As well, I don't think Bush gives a rat's ass about the U.N. He using them for his own ends, and doing fine job of it. The U.N. doesn't provide cover. It provides the vehicle.

The 14 relevant Security Council resolutions on Iraq do not demand what the White House quaintly calls "regime change" and what normal people call overthrowing the government. Rather they speak to the much more limited idea of requiring Iraq to destroy all weapons of mass destruction and commit itself not to make any more.

They don't have to. Mainly because the U.N., no matter how arrogant, would never directly call for changing the government in a sovereign state. God help them if they try. But that doesn't matter. Bush never said "The U.N. called for a change, so get to it." He merely pointed out that the U.N. has allowed Iraq to do whatever the hell they wanted, including completely disregarding 14 resolutions that that U.N. passed. He told the U.N. to enforce their resolutions, or stop making them. That enforcement will almost certainly come from an American military response is the happy coincidence that the Bush administration is taking advantage of.

As for Mr. Walkom's "clever" jab at the phraseology, "wow" is all that comes to mind. Did he figure that out all on his own? Of course "regime change" means that Saddam's "government" will be overthrown. That's the point. And I don't think anyone out there really thinks "regime change" means anything else. My guess is Bush and co. like the fact that "regime change" has fewer syllables.

To this end, the Security Council had required Iraq back in 1991 to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country.

That's true. And what year is it now? Are there currently inspectors in Iraq? And were the inspectors given full (or even reasonable) cooperation? Yeah, the early 90's were fun. But they're gone, Tommy. Get over it.

It wasn't an easy task. The U.N. inspectors complained that Iraq was trying to foil them, which it was. Iraq complained that some of the inspectors were U.S. spies, which they were.

Again, not relevant in the slightest at this point.

Eventually, in 1998, the U.N. pulled its inspectors out so they wouldn't be caught in planned U.S. and British air raids on Iraq.

Close. Yes, the U.S. and Britain did start air raids. But the reads were not a cause. They were the effect of the futility of the inspections, due to Iraq's complete unwillingness to even come close to fulfilling their obligations. To say that the raids are what caused the pull-out is far too literal. The way the Iraqis were acting, the inspectors might as well have not been there at all.

Saddam refused to let them back in unless the U.N. lifted its crippling sanctions on Iraq.

Now that doesn't make a lick of sense. The sanctions are in place not to ensure the return of inspectors, but to ensure the success of the inspectors themselves. And that can only be confirmed once the inspectors are allowed back in!Saddam doesn't have a prayer on this. The nations of the world seem quite content to keep up the sanctions. And if they don't get their inspectors back, the option of war seems to be more palatable then a lifting of the sanctions. Your move, Saddam.

Which is where matters stood until Bush took it into his head to invade. But there was always a problem with Bush's proposed war. It was hard to keep in mind what the point was. Since no one, not even Washington, has suggested Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington, it was tough to use the war on terrorism as an excuse.

I think Mr. Walkom is confusing "point" with "reason". Allow me to elucidate. "Point" is the eventual goal of a war. "Reason" (or "excuse") is the rationale for starting the war in the first place. In theory, they should be linked. And they can be, for Bush's purposes. Thanks to his speech, the "Point" of this war has become the enforcement of the resolutions. The "reason" is then plainly obvious: Iraq isn't following the resolutions. That no one has connected Iraq to Sept. 11 isn't really relevant when the war is pushed through the apparatus of the U.N. As well, if the U.S. had concrete evidence that Iraq was involved, you can be damned sure that the U.S. would completely ignore the U.N., and leave a smoking crater where Iraq used to be.

Nor was it a simple matter to argue that Iraq deserved war just because it had flouted 14 U.N. security council resolutions. If every country in defiance of the U.N. were to be invaded, U.S. troops would be very busy.

As we'll see, the resolutions other countries are flouting have been made in a different context. And instead of having to dig through the U.N. archives, Tommy Boy provides us with a few examples that prove this. Let's take a look.

Pakistan, for instance has been in flagrant violation for 54 years of a security council resolution calling on it to immediately cease aiding insurgents inside Indian-controlled Kashmir.

So he says. Yeah, it's pretty damn likely that Pakistan continues to support Kashmiri militants. But we have no real proof, and Pakistan denies it. In Iraq, on the other hand, we have proof that they are in violation. And they admit it.

Israel has been condemned, deplored, censured and warned of dire consequences by the Security Council 60 times since the Jewish state was created in 1948. Indeed, the language of the Security Council resolutions condemning Israel (many of which were supported and none of which were vetoed by the U.S.) was as severe as anything said about Iraq. In 1981, the Security Council, including the U.S., unanimously condemned Israel for bombing — irony of ironies — a suspected nuclear weapons facility in Iraq, calling it a "clear violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the norms of international conduct."

For one, Israel's situation is completely different than Iraq's. Israel, a tiny nation (whose population at the time of many of these resolutions was not more than 4 million) that is smack in the middle of an extremely (and that's putting it lightly) hostile area. It has been attacked without provocation on several occasions. It's neighbours called (and some still called) daily for its destruction. So it's not really a big surprise that it had to act slightly outside the norm when defending itself. That the U.N. condemned them is pretty fucking irrelevant. Had they followed "standard" procedure they would no longer exist. And has happy as that would make many U.N. members, that clearly wasn't an option.

As for the resolution that Mr. Walkom cites, he would be advised to note that it made no demands. The resolutions concerning Iraq require the nation to act. And they refuse to do so. If the U.N. doesn't make them comply, what good is the U.N.?

In short, the failure to respect U.N. resolutions was always a dubious excuse for taking on Saddam.

Not at all. It was, and is, the best excuse, at least from a U.N. perspective. The best excuse from a U.S. point of view is that a pre-emptive strike removes the threat before disaster strikes. Of course this doesn't matter to the U.N., since they don't give a shit about the American people. Not that they should. But given that Bush would prefer the U.N. on his side, it only makes sense to offer an excuse that carries weight with the organization.

The U.S. tried to give this rationale more weight by suggesting that Saddam would pass on any weapons of mass destruction he developed to sinister Al Qaeda operatives. (In fact, if the U.S. wants to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands, it should probably invade Russia.)

Tried? Did they not succeed? It's a real concern, if not a certainty. And the classic "they should really (insert action word here) (insert unexpected country here)" line. This type of arguments rarely, if ever, hold water. And it certainly doesn't in this case. For one, it isn't the Russian government that is handing out nuke material. The equipment is passed along on the black market. Invading Russia still wouldn't control the flow of materials. And Russia is an ally. And Russia has nukes of its own. And so on. It's not the same, no matter how much Thomas wills it to be so.

None of the arguments really hung together logically. But jumbled together they provided U.S. talk show hosts with a plausible excuse for invasion.

Actually, I thought they hung together rather nicely. Here's a summary (for Mr. Walkom's sake): Iraq isn't listening to the U.N. U.S. only stopped attacking Iraq because Iraq agreed to listen to the U.N. Therefore, if Iraq does not start to listen to the U.N., the U.S. will continue to attack Iraq.

And another "clever" jab, this time at U.S. talk show hosts. These people make a living getting anyone they can to repeat what has already been said 100 times. And they do a damn good job of it (well, some do.) But who gives a crap? As well, they're an excuse for more than talk show hosts. Apparently, this thing called the U.N. has taken notice.

But in light of Saddam's offer, can the U.N. give Bush the carte blanche he needs? And if it doesn't, can Bush spurn the organization he just three days ago dared to take the initiative against Iraq? Has Saddam outfoxed the lonesome cowpoke by offering to let the U.N. verify what Bush critics such as former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter have long been saying: that Iraq isn't really much of a threat anymore?

Here are the answers to Mr. Walkom's questions, in order: Yes, yes, not a chance. To elaborate: Bush will have no trouble showing that Iraq has yet to, and most likely will not, offer "unconditional" return; Bush can do whatever he wants. If the U.N. tells him to take a hike, then they sign their own death certificate, and Bush goes ahead with a U.S. attack; Clearly, Saddam's strategy is far too transparent to have any effect at all.

As for Mr. Ritter, it's pretty obvious that Tom doesn't peruse the Blogosphere much. If he did, he might have discovered that Scotty has zero credibility left.

So there you have it. More crap from the Star.

2002-09-12T01:27:00.000-04:00

Why the Terrorists are Inferior

One year ago today (well, technically yesterday, but let's pretend I'm on the West Coast) I was stirred from my pleasant slumber by a call from my girlfriend. "Did you hear what happened?" she asked. I told her that I hadn't. "They bombed us." A chill ran down my spine. "Who?" "I don't know. They crashed planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. They're gone." "What's gone?" It couldn't be. "The towers. They're gone." The begining of that conversation shall forever be etched in my mind. It was the first time in my adult life that tears had come to my eyes.

Gone.

Huge concrete pillars filled with thousands of people. Gone. Mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, daugthers, sons, uncles, aunts, cousins, friends and neighbours. Gone. Firefighters, police and ordinary heroes. Gone. Those whose only crime was that they were on time for work. Gone. It was all too much. And so the tears came.

The rest of the conversation consisted of a discussion of possible culprits ("I hope it was Palestinian millitants. What a great excuse that would be." were her thoughts. Alas it was not to be.) as well as a discussion of possible retaliatory action, though that section was rather non-specific, given that we had no idea who had committed this act. In the middle, my mom called, to see if my girlfriend was OK (I live in Canada, while she makes her home South of our border.) After I got off the phone, I spent the rest of the day like millions of others. I paced. I watched CNN. I picked up the Star's special edition and pinned up their photo pages on my bulletin board. So many images. Too many horrifying images.

Probably the worst pictures I saw that day were the images of terrorists the world over cheering and dancing and rejoicing. They were truly happy that so many innocents had died. I couldn't comprehend the sort of climate that fostered such a reaction. I couldn't comprehend the evil. A year later, those images are gone, replaced by images of ordinary people behaving in extraordinary ways. And that's why we're better. That's why they will never win. Their celebration was short-lived, as it was cut-short by the armies of freedom. But while they take refuge in caves and plot their next move, we take comfort in the fact that we can do as we like. They cannot. And we will fight to the last to make sure it stays that way.

To the freedom loving people of this beautiful world of ours, I extend my heartfelt condolences. We stand together on the this day of rememberance.
To those who wish us harm, I have only this to say: We're coming for you.

2002-09-04T13:55:00.000-04:00

Why I'm Inferior

Over the past couple of weeks, I haven't posted anything. Shame on me. But at least I have excuses. A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting my girlfriend, and quite frankly, blogging sort of takes a back seat. Since then, I've had no internet, since I was moving into a new place, and wasn't going in to work. The Rogers High-Speed guy came this morning. Hooray!
Note: The date should be Sept. 11. Silly Blogspot.

2002-08-29T12:51:00.000-04:00

Why Air Canada is Inferior

Simple answer:
They don't know what the hell they're doing!!!

More later...

2002-08-23T16:04:00.000-04:00

Why Molly Ivins is Inferior

Well, not entirely. Maybe she is half-inferior. The first part of her article (mostly) makes sense: Corporate fraud is still a problem. Fine. Good point. For reasons unknown to me, she then shifts topics, discussing her views on AG Ashcroft, and the war on terror. Perhaps she feels that her article's title, It's Tough to Explain Stupid, but Here Goes, encompasses both topics. I suppose. It is just that the second does not really flow from the first. As well, she lessens the impact of her mostly correct analysis of measures aimed at reducing corporate fraud by leaving the reader with only the poorly argued after-taste. Not a strong move.

Speaking of Ashcroft, after spending a year on the investigation that netted 12 hookers in New Orleans, he has now announced that he is going after deadbeat dads, surely a more socially useful thing to do. But given his record on tracking down whatever terrorists may be lurking among us, the single mothers of the nation shouldn't get their hopes up.

Why not? Does Ms. Ivins really believe that tracking down deadbeat dads, who more often than not are not caught simply because no one tries to catch them, is as or more difficult than tracking international terrorists who have been trained to elude their pursuers? I think not. Ashcroft may be a bigot with too much power and too few smarts, but this attack is neither effective, nor accurate.

Ashcroft could screw up a two-car funeral.

I do not think the hyperbole is necessary. It suggests that Ms. Ivins's argument is based on her feelings about Ashcroft, rather than his actual bungling.

He is now holding two U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants" on alarmingly slim evidence.

That's true. He is. Unfortunately, Ms. Ivins once again weakens her point, this time by generalizing in the wrong place. In Mr. Padilla's case, she is right: the DOJ has shown little to no evidence. But that gets thrown out the window when one realizes that the statement implies that she considers the discovery of Mr. Hamdi in Afghanistan, fighting with the Taliban, to be "alarmingly slim evidence." I think not.

John Walker Lindh, a well-to-do white boy, went into the regular justice system and plea-bargained down to 20 years. Yasser Esam Hamdi, whose story is exactly like Lindh's, but has the wrong kind of name, was declared an "enemy combatant" and is now sitting in a military oubliette.

Also true. But not the point. Lindh had new information; Hamdi had Lindh's information. Unfair as it is, it makes sense that the Justice Dept. would only deal one prisoner, rather than both. But that would be contrary to Ms. Ivins's point.

Ditto Jose Padilla, who was arrested for allegedly planning to detonate a radioactive bomb except, oops, there turns out to be no evidence.

That would be the popular claim, but it does not quite add up. There is some evidence. The issue is that no one wants to tell us what exactly it is. That is a problem, but it is not the problem Ms. Ivins addresses. There is no way the DOJ would have picked a name from a hat and decided that that would be their dirty bomber. (Well, maybe not "no way", but the hat scenario is the type of conspiracy theory that I do not particularly care for.) The only logical (read non-conspiracy oriented) explanation is that through intelligence, the DOJ determined Mr. Padilla's intentions (or at least his likely intentions.) It very well may be the case that the method they used to get their evidence could be compromised by revealing the source. We don't know. To claim that there is "no evidence" reveals either Ms. Ivins's lack of reason, or her penchant for the intrigue that conspiracies bring. Either way, the relevant point that the DOJ should show us the evidence is lost by assuming that it does not exist.

As the head of an Egyptian human-rights organization recently said, "We were told initially the military law would be used only against drug dealers and terrorists."

Egypt is not known for its human-rights organizations. That she needed Egypt to find a quotation that supported her point says quite a bit about its strength. (To be fair, it may just be that Ms. Ivins is not paying attention to local human-rights groups: They have all been decrying the proceedings. Why wouldn't she use a quote from them? I have No idea.)

Ms. Ivins ends off with a quote that she hopes will sway readers with its cute tone, and thought-provoking message:

Well, as Bush said about global warming, "We'll get used to it." Or maybe we should do something before it's too late. Been enjoying the weather lately?

At least she got the cute part right. Though I don't know the context of that Bush quote (it seems like there may have been more there. Of course there is also the distinct possibility that Bush honestly believes we can all get used to global warming; he is dumb enough.), using it only serves to confuse. Sure, we know Bush doesn't really seem to know the score, and, if the quote is contextually accurate, global warming is one area where that is true. Coming up with a quote that highlights that fact just is not sufficient evidence to show it is the case in the current situation.

And yes, I think the weather has been quite lovely.

2002-08-23T15:08:00.000-04:00

Why the Palestinians are Inferior

There has never been any doubt in my mind as to the ultimate goal of the Palestinians: The systematic weakening and eventual destruction of the State of Israel. Lately, that aim has been furthered through a disguise of sorts. “President” Arafat, despite his previous and current terrorist activities, is viewed throughout the world as the leader of a legitimate government representing a people who just want what they deserve. I happen to disagree with them on exactly what that is. Regardless, the world, (outside the U.S., of course) has decided that Arafat is the man to be dealing with, a man to be trusted. This is strange considering his own ministers admit that he is corrupt and despotic. For this reason, when President Bush made his speech concerning his vision for a Palestinian state, he made it clear that Arafat had to go. Immediately. This demand was ignored, and it seems likely that even an election won’t change the situation, since most Palestinians support terror themselves.

Partly due to the apparent futility of attempting to effect a change in leadership, the U.S. made a new proposal to the Palestinian delegation that visited Washington earlier this month. The idea was simple, and quite logical: allow the Palestinian parliament to select a prime minister, so they might have a balance to Arafat’s absolute power. This approach, however, was also rejected.

In the words of chief negotiator Saeb Erakat, “We told them (the United States) that this is not your business… We were shocked during the discussions that the American side is speaking about changing the law of elections.”

Actually, it is very much their business. The U.S., which was gracious enough to host a delegation from the terrorist, has every right to suggest methods for fixing a situation that cannot produce a workable peace.

Shocked? Is he serious? There are two possibilities. Either the Palestinians don’t understand that U.S. likes democracy (a system that they don’t quite understand yet) or the PA is simply so entrenched in the Arafat quagmire, that to suggest even the smallest of checks is tantamount to suggesting complete destruction of their government structure. Which wouldn’t be a bad thing. They just don’t realize it yet.

The United States, he said, is trying to delay the balloting.

I don’t know why they would want to. They certainly don’t want Arafat around. And while an election is unlikely to unseat him, no election guarantees more Arafat.

But why would the Palestinians want Arafat to maintain a stranglehold on power? They see Arafat as a symbol of what can be accomplished through violence and death. Many Palestinians are happy enough to allow him to continue to harm Israel through his office. In their view, a prime minister could (though probably wouldn’t) change their current strategy of antagonism leading to concessions. Why should they change? Through their campaign of terror, they have managed to secure for themselves an independent state. What more could they want?

If the Palestinians truly want the U.S. to view them as anything more than a rather large terrorist entity, then they should move quickly towards democratic reforms. Not necessarily because the U.S. only supports democracies (can you say “Pakistan”? More on that in a later post…) but because the U.S. is a poor arbiter. The U.S. takes one side, and then makes demands of the other. Without compliance, the Palestinians lose U.S. backing. And despite the EUs best efforts, that still matters.

2002-08-23T13:00:00.000-04:00

Why Astrology is Inferior

Of course, this is nothing new; however, I think I may have spotted the most non-psychic nearly-guaranteed-to-come-true horoscope line ever (though perhaps I am biased, as it pertains to computers, an importart part of my life.) The line, one of a couple of suggestions from the "Technical" section of recent Excite astrological report, reads as follows: "Talk to as many strangers as possible. Target anyone with a laptop. You are bound to have the same OS preferences." I can see it now: millions of the astrological faithful scurrying around their office: "Wow. You have Windows on your computer? Me too! How did they know?"

I hate astrology, and feel sorry for anyone who reads their horoscope for anything more than a daily chuckle.

2002-08-22T13:28:00.000-04:00

Why the UN Commision on Human Rights is Inferior

Racism, in all its forms, is a repugnant and disgusting habit that we humans have picked up over the years. Something we've picked up more recently is almost as bad. In 1948, The UN Commision on Human rights published their "Universal Declaration of Human Rights", a list of thirty rights (along with associated sub-rights) that should be guaranteed to all people on this planet that we call home. Since then, the commission has fallen into a sad state. These days, they focus more on criticizing Western nations (read the U.S.), while equating the relatively tame Western trespasses to the gross mistreatment of millions in other areas of the world.

This attempt at equivalence is the main problem with the modern incarnation of the commission. Democratic nations should adhere to the freedoms they have granted to their people. On the other hand, it is difficult to compare the U.S. government's treatment of the Guantanamo Bay prisoners (who actually live better (if not freer) lives) to the treament of the white farmers in Zimbabwe. (Some argue that the prisoners at GB don't want the "better" lives. Of course that's irrelevant: the prisoners were combatants, so they were captured.) Unfortunately, the commission has the audacity to critize the U.S. more than Mr. Mugabe, ignoring the obvious disparity between the two issues.

Another example appeared in a commission report, released yesterday, warning that racism seems to be on the rise. To illustrate their point, they cite the following examples:
Numerous attacks on Jewish Synagogues
Increased calls for reduced immigration by nationalist parties.
Racial profiling of Arabs

Do these examples seem equally egregious?. Let's look at each type of "incident".

Attacking a synagogue: Is there a rational reason behind the act? Not really. Destroying a synagogue serves only to intimidate and harass Jews. Even the most fervent anti-Semites realize that no practical purpose (beyond harassment, a sort of personally practical aim) is served by destroying or defacing a place of worship. The end result of most attacks is that the damage is repaired, and Jews become slightly more weary when they go out at night. That's it.

Nationalist calls for reduced immigration: These calls, while most often based on the racist views of the party, are at least superficially practical. In reality, a reduction in immigration will most likely harm the nation. But not according to the party. They honestly believe that making it more difficult for others to settle in their country could improve the situation for current citizens. They are most likely wrong (as history as shown), but at least they give the appearance of being rational.

Racial profiling: Let's review. Out of 19 hijackers: 19 were from the Middle East and 19 were Muslim. According to those who oppose profiling, there isn't a pattern here. Sure, they submit their objections under the guise of an opposition to discrimination, but I don't think that's relevant in this case. Baseless discrimination is reprehensible; extra checks for higher-risk persons are just common sense.

Out of the three types of racist events mentioned by the report, only one is racist for it's own sake. Yet the commission, by mentioning them all in the same report, in the same manner, implies that all three are equally bad. And that's wrong. Even if one were to ignore the desired outcome of the nationalist parties, and simply look at the motivation, the conclusion remains the same: "common sense racism" is just as bad as other forms of racism.

The evidence on which the report was based is also somewhat suspect. The report claims that there have been "frequent instances of racial profiling at airports." I wish. Were that the case, Sept. 11 might have been a day like any other. Thanks to organizations that are more interested in protecting "rights" of the person, rather than life of the person, the effective technique of profiling has been avoided like the plague. Instead, airport "security experts" (and they're not... read this) go out of their way to anti-profile, reigning in grandmas, and other non-ethnically-identifiable people (like me... I've been the sole random search on my last two flights!) so that they preclude the possibility of a lawsuit. Another reason given for the commission's worries is that they found "more than 200 racist propaganda internet sites". That's it? Only 200? I'm pretty sure there have been a lot more than that for a while now. So why bring them up now, as opposed to ten years ago, when they first appeared? I don't know, and I don't think the report's authors do either.

So what does the commission think is the driving force behind this racist rennaisance? "The phenomenon would appear to be the consequence of the electoral successes of nationalist and extreme right parties in a number of countries... It may also be the consequence of terrorist attacks of Sept. 11." The article also mentions that attacks against Jewish synagogues and anti-Semitic graffiti coincided with the Israeli-Palestinian fighting now in its 23rd month. I guess the UN isn't big on analysis. They seem to be content with the time-tested "point out the painfully obvious". Of course an increase in the electoral success of nationalist parties is going to increase - if not the volume - the celebrity of their ideas. And of course Israeli-Palestinian violence is going to incite anti-Semitism abroad. And of course Sept. 11 could lead to increased profiling of Muslims (though I still dispute the evidence). Truly profound deductions.

Another problem with the report is its pop-culture-like approach: the report only mentions those events to which the radical left is opposed. The report fails to mention the racism that has been present in the world for the last hundred or so years. Like the "newly discovered" fact that the Islamic world is intolerant of non-Muslims. Or the way many whites in Africa are now being punished for the sins of previous generations, in a dispicable effort to "right history's wrongs". Or the nearly universal hatred of Israel stemming from deep-seated anti-Semitism that the world attempts to hide under "humanitarian" criticisms of Israeli efforts to protect its citizenry.That the commission doens't feel that these problems constitute racism is worrisome. These problems are the heart of the major racial tensions that exist in the modern world.

To ignore these problems in favour of more pedestrian issues is a major blunder. If the commission truly hopes to eliminate racism, and guarantee the rights that they claim to champion, then these are the issues that must be addressed. Treating all situations in an equitable manner is the key to eliminating the plague that is racism. I am skeptical of the commission's ability to fulfill their goals, however, when they are unable to treat the subject itself in a fair way.

2002-08-19T11:16:00.000-04:00

Why Bahrain is Inferior

While I’m not totally surprised by Bahrain’s announcement that they oppose U.S. military action against Iraq, the reasons they gave were sadly typical. They offered no new angle, no new ideas. They just spouted the same garbage as every other country in the Islamic world. In fact, their announcement was a joint one, in conjunction with Iran. Shame on you, Bahrain. Shame on you.

What bothers me the most about the refusal of Arab nations to allow the U.S. to use military bases that the U.S. built is how short the countries' memories seem to be. In 1991, when Iraq was intent on annexing its neighbours, the U.S. stepped in. Granted, the U.S. was hardly acting out of the kindness of its heart (the word "oil" comes to mind) but in this case, motivation is secondary. The U.S. (and, technically, its allies, though that was more for show) beat back the Iraqis, and saved poor little Kuwait. After the war, when the U.S. wanted to leave Saudi Arabia, the Saudis insisted that they stay. So did Bahrain (where the Navy's 5th fleet is based.) So they did. Now, 11 years later, the U.S. wants to do it all over again. Unfortunately, they are hampered by their Arab "allies", who wont allow them to use the bases that were built to defend them. It's not in the immediate interests of the Arab regimes to support the U.S. this time, so they won't. The problem I have is with the excuses they need. Let's look at a few.

The statement, carried by the official Islamic Republic News Agency, called for respecting "Iraq's territorial integrity and noninterference in Iraq's internal affairs."

Well, at least they're almost kinda right. Yeah, the U.S. shouldn't meddle where there isn't a need. But Iraq is not an ordinary country. It is run by a dictator whose letter to Santa probably reads something like this:
Dear Santa, I've been a really good boy this year, so I want a nuke, and some Sarin gas, and, if you have time, a whole bunch of Smallpox (in aerosol form, if you can.) Thanks, Sadaam. P.S. Being a hefty person myself, I was wondering if you could tell me where I could get some clothes that fit. You always look so good.
Or something along those lines. The point is, to leave Sadaam and his followers to their own devices is inviting doom to descend upon the U.S. There is no question in most people's minds that Sadaam does, and will continue to fund and outfit numerous terrorist groups who hope to strike U.S. targets. Even the Islamic world doesn't disagree. They just support it. Sorry Bahrain, but that argument doesn't hold water.

In a meeting with Sheik Hamad, Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said "any power planning to take action against the Islamic world today will definitely meet great problems," Iran TV reported. Khamenei said "any incident in this region will be detrimental to those creating it," an apparent reference to the United States.

Well, I guess we're damned if we do, and damned even more if we don't. To think that the Islamic world could possibly dislike the U.S. any more than it already does is hard to believe. Besides, beyond burning Bush effigies, and carrying posters of Osama (akin to what occurred after the U.S. attacked Afghanistan), what are they really going to do? Start a war? Ha. Aside from the fact that the Arab world possesses some of the most ineffective and technologically backwards militaries in the world, the end result would actually be positive: U.S. control of the world's major oil supplies. Sure, the terrorists will come one T.V. and warn us of a new, improved jihad (with 20% more Allah) and imminent attacks that will strike at the head of the snake, but that's not even remotely different from the current situation. Another meaningless statement.

In the Saudi coastal city of Jiddah, visiting Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said Sunday he opposed an attack on Iraq, saying it would have "serious repercussions for security in the region."

Like what? Muslim mistrust of the West? Again, a single word comes to mind: Ha.

Saleh told reporters Yemen "is maintaining the Arab stance that rejects striking (Iraq) because it is unjustifiable, especially after Iraq has declared its willingness to start dialogue on (weapons) inspection."

I don’t know where to start on this one. Are they actually that dumb, or do they understand that Sadaam is a liar who is trying to save himself, but don’t care because they want some reason to oppose an attack beyond “uh… we don’t like America.” Yes, there has been some indication from Baghdad that they would like to resume inspections. What the Arab countries don’t seem to care about is that, aside from the fact the Iraqis want certain restrictions that even the UN (gasp) doesn’t find palatable, they recently announced that they felt they had lived up to their end of the bargain. There was no need for, and would not be, a resumption of inspections. What does the Arab world say to that? Not much. Ignorance truly is bliss.

The president of Yemen - a southern Arab peninsula state that forged close ties with America following the Sept. 11 terror attacks - said changing Iraq's regime is "the business of the people of this country."

Would that they could. The Iraqi people are powerless to stop Sadaam. The military is afraid to defect, as Sadaam’s generals and secret police are right there to shoot them in the back. A vote isn’t possible, since the ballot card contains only two candidates: Sadaam, and some guy name S. Hussein. To think that the people of Iraq currently have the ability to save themselves is wrong. They don’t.

The rhetoric coming from the Arab world these days is rather bland and repetitive. Unfortunately, it does have support from the majority of the population. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the U.S. to drum up much support from the Middle East, which in turn will make it difficult to gain Europe’s support. Outside of Britain, it looks like the U.S. may be going it alone this time. Shame on you, Bahrain. Shame on you.

2002-08-19T00:02:00.000-04:00

There are no Words

Just watched CNN Presents about Sept. 11. Filled with murderous rage. There are no words to describe that day. There are no terms for what I wish upon those who revel in the sight of the towers collapasing. They will pay. Oh God, how they will pay.

2002-08-18T16:37:00.000-04:00

Why the Saudis Named in the 9/11 Lawsuit are Inferior

The idea behind the trillion-dollar lawsuit that was filed by the families of some 9/11 victims is beautiful: Attempt to expose the terror financiers for who they really are by using the American legal system. Brilliant. To me at least. The Saudis named in the lawsuit don’t seem to think so. Let’s see why.

Several Saudi banks and Islamic charities named in a lawsuit by families of September 11 victims vehemently denied on Sunday any role in funding terrorism and blasted the case as an attempt to extort Saudi wealth abroad.

Yeah, that’s what America is looking for: more money. They don’t have enough already.

The suit has sparked rare calls by commentators and newspapers in the kingdom to review traditionally strong Saudi-U.S. ties. Saudi Arabia has yet to comment officially.

I always smile when I read about “strong Saudi-U.S. ties.” Neither nation likes the other. To think that the connection between the two countries is anything but economic is laughable. The U.S. is a free and democratic country, whereas The Kingdom is a totalitarian theocracy that believes the Shari’a is freedom. Ha. As for the strength of the relationship, it erodes with every new drilling site in Russia and South America. Strong indeed.

Offended that the lawsuit named members of the royal family, including Defense Minister Prince Sultan -- the third highest official in the kingdom -- many Saudis accused Washington of putting pressure on the Gulf Arab state to make it conform with U.S. policies on Iraq and the Middle East.

Somehow I doubt it. First, the U.S. government is not involved in the suit. Second, assuming the whole thing is a big conspiracy (which is the preferred method of the Islamic world for disputing claims against them), if the government really wanted to meddle, a lawsuit is a lousy way of doing so. For one, it is unlikely the suit would be dropped if, for example, the Saudis suddenly agreed to let the Americans use the airbases in the Kingdom to attack Iraq. As well, the trillion or so dollars would soon find its way back to the Gulf kingdom in exchange for more oil. But hey, anything is possible.

The lawsuit seeks damages of over $100 trillion.

While this amount has been reduced to a little over a trillion, I think the original figure wasn’t enough. These guys should be taken for all they’re worth and more.

Officials at the banks involved said they were mulling a response but would not act or issue statements before consulting with government authorities in the conservative kingdom.

I wonder what their response will be? I see three possibilities.
They will run another campaign showing how (snicker) nice the Saudis are.
They will determine with absolute certainty that the lawsuit is a Jewish-American-Zionist plot to destroy the Islamic world, and call for a Jihad.
They will counter-sue the victims to “get what we didn’t get on Sept. 11.”

Some commentators in Saudi newspapers, which reflect government thinking, blasted the lawsuit as part of a wider campaign against the kingdom and called for a review of ties.

I couldn’t agree more. The U.S. relies far too heavily on Saudi oil. Alternatives should be explored, so that the Saudis would lose their biggest customer. Nice.

[Khaled al-Dakheel] said a U.S. media campaign launched against the kingdom after the September attacks, in which 15 Saudis were named among the 19 hijackers, was being fed not only by commentators but also by officials and decision makers in the administration.

Ummm, perhaps the Saudis don’t quite understand the way commentators work in a free society. Unlike in the Kingdom, commentators in the U.S. express their own opinions, rather than those of the House of Saud. If they think the fact that 15 of 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia (a fact which even the Saudis don’t deny) is indicative of the anti-American culture there, then that’s their opinion. And I happen to agree. As well, Mr. Al-Dakheel is most likely right. It would be foolish for anybody to assume that the hijackers’ origins shouldn’t be considered as troublesome. For U.S. policymakers to ignore it would be foolhardy.

Saudi and U.S. officials have gone to great lengths to stress that relations between the two countries remain strong.

Let’s look at why. The Saudis don’t want to be next on America’s hit list. The U.S. needs oil. Now tell me either country would say anything else unless the situation were to change on either side.

Some Muslim charities based in the kingdom, birthplace of Islam, dismissed the lawsuit as "political maneuvering.” “We have no links to (terrorism)," said Sheikh Ali al-Juraiss, general manager of the Muslim World League, which was named along with the International Islamic Relief Organisation and Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation.

I would believe him, except that the Islamic world has a long history of saying whatever they want, without being concerned with the veracity of their words. That being the case, I don’t. Not a word. Not a syllable. Actually, that's not true. I believe the "terrorism" part.

"I believe this is an extension of the campaign against Saudi Arabia, which has no logical basis."

Apparently the fact that nearly every Imam in Saudi Arabia incites hatred toward U.S. isn’t a logical reason to want to change the situation. (Actually, this is also the case with many Imams in the U.S. That being said, the U.S. isn’t run by the Imams; The Kingdom is.)

Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation General Manager Aqeel al-Aqeel said the campaign was aimed at the Muslim world. "They hope by doing this that they will pressure the Islamic world into accepting an attack on Iraq," he told Reuters.

They must think the U.S. is pretty stupid. Let’s look at their logic. The U.S. would like Muslim support for an attack on Iraq. The U.S. thinks: “Hmmm, if we sue the Saudis, maybe they’ll like us more so that they will support our plans. Yeah, that’s a good idea.” That makes a lot of sense.

"Naming Prince Sultan is the equivalent of saying J. Edgar Hoover was a communist spy," said economist Bishr Bakheet. "It is unacceptable for Saudis that such individuals be probed."

Hoover wasn’t a commie. He was just a little… odd. And besides, the beauty of living in a free country is that you could say something like that without fear of repercussions. I guess they still don’t quite get the freedom concept.

"Assuming the court proceeds with this lawsuit, the Saudi investment community, already in shock, will start withdrawing their money," he said. "People are really going to walk out." Saudi investments in the United States are put at $750 billion.

Perhaps the Saudis don’t have a firm grasp of economics either. $750 billion is a small fraction of total investment in the U.S. As well, divestment requires two things: A seller (the Saudis) and a buyer (someone else.) Quite frankly, Saudi divestment sounds like a great idea to me. I guess they have to take whatever threats they can get their hands on.

Relations between the oil superpower and Washington have been strained since the attacks and by Riyadh's refusal to allow Washington to use its territory to attack Iraq. Saudi Arabia has also repeatedly criticized perceived pro-Israel U.S. bias.

Perceived? Hardly. The U.S. is biased towards Israel for a very simple reason: Israel = free country that likes the U.S.. Other countries in the Middle East = virulently anti-American and anti-Semitic countries that are run by theocratic dictators. Do they really believe the situation should be reversed?

The potential success of the lawsuit is still very much unknown. Nevertheless, I still believe that it is a wonderful idea that shows the world you can fight back without violence. Take that, terrorists.

2002-08-16T11:14:00.000-04:00

Why That Guy on CBC Last Night is Inferior

More than enough has been written and posted concerning the views of some Muslims regarding Sept. 11. I know. I don’t care.

I was watching CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) last night. They were running a piece about Saudi dissidents, who want to sever the regime’s ties to America. Fair enough. Somehow, the conversation drifted away from Saudi politics, and the reported was asking about the man’s view of Sept. 11. The Anti-Saudite explained that Muslims (yes, he was speaking for all Muslims. I’m not sure how he knows what they all think, but whatever.) saw the collapse of the WTC towers symbolically: it was America crumbling under the weight of its international, and more specifically Islamic, oppression. Fine. He was then asked how the Muslim world could see it in that light, as opposed to, say, a mass grave of innocent people who thought they were going to work? A fair question. His reply? The sanctions against Iraq are the same thing: The US views them as necessary, while the Muslim world sees the millions of children dying.

I ask the same question that I asked in this post. How does this guy not burst out laughing? Is it that he actually believes what he’s saying? I suppose he probably does. Bad news for us. (Well, not news. It’s been plain for months that that’s how much of the Islamic world thinks. Still bad for us, though.)

Again, I know how often this sort of issue has been commented on, but it bothered me so much that I pretty much need to express my anger at the comments.

First, more than anything else, the view that the towers couldn’t be viewed as a mass grave, but rather the end result of American foreign policy always makes me bristle. Not so much at the individuals who mention it, but at the oppressive regimes that foster and promote the idea that the US is the root of their problems. And many of these governments actually have the audacity to claim that they are friends of the US. With friends like these, who needs enemies.

The other problem I had with the man’s comments was the comparison of Sept. 11 to sanctions against Iraq. The reasons why this comparison is faulty abound, but here are a few:
Millions of children is beyond hyperbolic. Iraq is a country of a little over 20 million people. To think that the sanctions could have killed off 5-10% of the population, all of whom were children is ridiculous. And supposing that were true, it would then be fair to assume that a million or so adults must have died as well. (If not, then they must have been completely depriving the children of supplies so that they could live. I sincerely hope not.) That means that, according to this bozo’s calculations, sanctions have cost Iraq almost 15% of its population. I don’t think so.

The intent of the sanctions was not to kill as many Iraqis as possible, but to attempt to force Sadaam to comply with the cease-fire agreement he had made. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has the admitted mandate of “killing Americans, wherever they are, whoever they are.” Sound the same to you?

The sanctions are not a strictly American policy. The sanctions were put in place by the UN, after Iraq violated the cease-fire had made with the UN. The UN is not some American puppet. As has become clear, the US frequently refuses to participate in UN activities due to their UnAmerican slant. Of course this point merely goes back to the issue that many Islamic countries have repeatedly informed the populace that their suffering is not due to the regimes policies, but to America. The fact the UN is responsible is irrelevant.

And there are other reasons. The problem is that in the Muslim world, introspection is almost entirely absent. Not matter what occurs, nearly all Muslim countries refuse to accept the blame. They are constantly shifting the onus onto other sources. Until the Muslim countries do some serious soul-searching (perhaps akin to that which finally led the US to abolish slavery), it is unlikely they will ever change for the better.

Unless the US decides to kick their asses. One can only hope.

2002-08-15T19:00:00.000-04:00

Why the Current IM Etiquette is Inferior

I have four main problems with instant message conversations:
1. The words are devoid of innuendo

2. There is no capacity for either side to respond to thoughts as they occur

3. Most messages are incomplete thoughts

4. There are far too many idiots using IM programs

Since my concerns are all of equal weight, I will address them in reverse order, for confusion’s sake.

Idiots: There are far, far too many of them flooding the IM netwaves. All too often I am pulled into conversations (kicking and screaming, mind you) where the best response my correspondent can come up with is “yeah.” or “haha. lol.” (Side note: I also dislike internet acronyms like “lol”, “ttyl” and “rotflmao”. Never mind why.) Surely they must something else to say. If not, then really shouldn’t be wasting my time with such responses. If they do, then by all means, I can’t wait to hear from them.

My main problem with such responses becomes clearer when the nature of an instant message conversation is understood. When two parties communicate via instant messages, it is essential to the viability of the conversation that each message elicit a response. This is because once a user sends a message, they almost always expect a reply before sending another message. If the message does not elicit a response, than the conversation stops.

Some might argue that these responses are the result of my own message being a poor stimulus. I have two things to say about that: 1. I am careful when sending an instant message that, unless the person on the other end specifically requested a fact, my message would warrant a reply with a least a little substance. 2. That’s no more of a reason than saying America deserved Sept. 11 because its foreign policy is the root cause of terrorism: it doesn’t excuse the terrorists, and it doesn’t excuse an instant message user. (NB. I in no way equate terse instant message users with terrorists. They both suck, but Terrorists suck in a far more vile and repugnant way.)

While stilted conversations are fine in some cases, I find that short responses are often replies to questions or observations that deserve a more elaborate answer. And that’s a problem

Incomplete Thoughts: This aspect of instant messaging would not be so annoying if users were not always trying to hide it. When someone sends me a message saying “it was OK” in response to “What did you think of the way Shakespeare uses blood imagery in Macbeth?” and then does not immediately follow it up with another, more complete thought, they should expect swift and punishing reprisal. OK, maybe not. But I would like it if they did. Instant messages lend themselves to just dashing off whatever pops into one’s mind first, without actually thinking about a meaningful message. This erodes the quality of the conversation, while not admitting that the message is any less important. And that’s a problem.

“Instant” Deficiencies: Sometimes a user will send one message, with the intent of sending a follow-up. Unfortunately, unless a warning is issued that a follow-up message is imminent, the other user may begin and send his or her response before the follow-up arrives. This can eventually lead to the conversation falling behind itself, with each side responding to what the other thought one thought ago. The reason this does not occur in ordinary conversation is simple: You take turns. First one person speaks, and then the other, then back to the first, and so on. Without a clear idea of when one person is done, it is impossible to ensure conversational integrity. And that’s a problem.

Lack of Innuendo: My most hated aspect of using instant messaging as a viable alternative to actual conversation is the lack of emotive power. Sure, CAPITALIZING ALL THE LETTERS CAN MAKE IT SEEM LIKE YOUR ANGRY!!! And using emoticons can add a hint of context. :-(. But it’s not nearly as effective as the volume, pitch and tone adjustments that ordinary human voice boxes can produce. It’s hard to discern when a statement is serious, and when a statement is sarcastic. It’s hard to tell when words are malicious, and when words are playful. So reliant are we on body language and tone that a huge amount meaning is lost when converting a sentence into an electronic format. Unlike previous translations of speech (like books), an instant message conversation has life. Books can have a narrator explain quotes, or attach adverbs to the speaking action. While this technique could be applied to an instant message, that would transform the conversation from an informal chat to a private eye novel. “Don’t worry about it,” I intoned. “I’m on the case.” And that’s a problem.

With all the problems that plague instant messaging today, there are simple solutions to most of them.
4. Please, please, please don’t send single-word, emotively-dead non-stimulating messages. Nobody likes them.

3. If you are going to spout a string of incomplete thoughts, do what I do: Identify them as such by appending “…” to the end.

2. If you are going to send multiple messages, say so! Let the other person know when you are finished. “Over” or “I’m done now” would do nicely.

1. This is a hard one. My personal view (and policy) is to restrict instant message conversations to fairly mundane topics, so the lack of emotive power is less significant. However, should you want to have a serious instant message conversation, make it abundantly clear how your words should be interpreted. If you’re angry, say so. If you’re being sarcastic, then use sarcasm tags. And so on.

Following these simple rules could save us all (and especially me) a great deal of aggravation. Please do.

2002-08-15T14:38:00.000-04:00

Brief Intermission

You can now post comments directly, instead of having to e-mail me. Nice.

2002-08-15T11:49:00.000-04:00

Why Transnational Progressivism (and, by association, much of the EU) is Inferior

First, I urge everyone to read this article (as well as the piece that directed me to the article.) It is well written, and brings up some excellent points. For those of you who are too lazy to follow a hyperlink, here's the gist of it. A newly termed movement, that the author identifies as Transnational Progressivism, is developing in the West, and especially in Europe. From what I read in the article, the movement is catching on. And it's no good.

At its core, the movement believes that power should rest not with the people, but with a ruling elite who "know what's best." Bothered? Wait, there's more. The movement also believes in ridding in the world of war by eliminating what they believe to be the causes of war. These include, though are not limited to, nation-states and uneven distribution of wealth. Upset now? There's still more. They believe that the democratic idea of equal opportunity is wrong: equal result is what counts. Angry yet? One more: They believe that by virtue of being a victim, a group deserves more clout than they might otherwise posses. Now scream.

Clearly, these ideals are completely at odds with the the US constitution. (Side note: the movement also believes that the constitution is dated, pointless, and should be abolished.) Of course no one said these people were interested in freedom, or democracy: they want a world where everyone is happy. Or at the very least, where the ruling class is happy. They are modern day hippies. Unlike hippies, however, they have a plan that goes beyond getting high and having unprotected sex with hundreds of partners.

The most disturbing elements of their plan are so undemocratic, that I am still in disbelief that they can call US foreign policy by the same term. I will address each misguided point in turn.

Firstly, the idea of wresting power away from the people (or, in the case of many areas of the world, maintaining the status quo) is one of my favourite parts of the TP movement's plan. Not because I agree with it, but because should this form of rule actually take hold somewhere in the world, this facet of their program would prove to be their undoing. To assemble a congress that isn't held accountable is a recipe for disaster. When things go well, the Progressocrats(?) would be fine. Unfortunately, like most forms of government where ousting the rulers via election or impeachment isn't possible, rebellion is the only other option. History has shown us that humans won't tolerate a government that isn't helping them; that they will do anything and everything to change the system. Of course there are countries where revolutions have produced highly unstable regimes, or dictators, but they too were and will be thrown out by force if they don't turn things around. It is sheer arrogance for these TPists to think that they will somehow maintain their stranglehold on power, while managing to avoid the same fate.

Similar problems await the TPists when they attempt to remove what they feel to be the causes of war. Completely removing all borders, so people can be citizens of the world is a grand idea. In theory. In practice, thought, eliminating the nation-state completely is not only detrimental to their plans, it's impossible. Suppose that borders were done-away with, and now all people are citizens of planet Earth. There is a government that controls how they live. Can one really say that this is any different from a really really big country? OK, maybe they can skip the Earth flag, and the Earth anthem, and there would be no Earth army, but these differences don't change the engine: they merely remove the racing stripes. Aside from the obvious problem of being unable to prevent a UFO invasion (as illustrated so intelligently by an episode of The Simpsons), an armyless super-state stretching the globe would be chaos. The reason the modern nation-state works (how well is another question) is geographic localization. People want to know that they are in the hands of someone down the block, not some unseen power from across the ocean. Or desert. Or whatever. Starting with the American Revolution, colonies the world over began to demand their independence, not only because they were not represented, but because they disliked the idea that problems imposed upon them by local conditions were not shared by citizens in their governing country. Thus their concerns went largely unnoticed. Likewise, in the case of a TP Earthwide utopia, problems of that nature would arise.

When I was growing up, my parents always taught me that I could be anything I wanted. A pilot. A fireman. A truck driver. A doctor. Whatever. Anything. Why was this possible? Because in a democracy, everyone has an equal opportunity. And while some say this leads to overkill in some areas, there's a safety valve built into the idea of a market economy: You can be whatever you want to be, but if nobody wants you, tough luck. Equal opportunity, as opposed to equal result, also means that those who posses a strong ability have an advantage over others. Unfair? Sort of. Yes, these people were born that way, and didn't really earn their gifts. On the other hand, it hardly makes sense to lessen the impact such people can have by affording less qualified people the exact same result. What would become of intellectuals in the Earthstate? Some might be asked to join the the ranks of the elite rulers. But there would never be enough room for all the intelligents of the world. They would be left to contend with the unfair rules imposed upon them. The result, again, would be disastrous. Without a motivated skilled workforce, it would be hard, if not impossible to maintain any level social services that the TPists hold so dear. Eventually, the skilled workers would simply form their own colony, create their own rules, and show the world anew that equal opportunity is what counts.

Hard-core Lefties, and now TPists, enjoy taking up the cause of any group that cries 'victim'. I'm not sure why. But they do. For some reason. They assume that victims have inherently more rights than the oppressor, if for no other reason than they are the 'victims'. What they don't consider, of course, is what happened that these oppressed people should be suffering in the way that they are. In some cases, it's because they are ruled by a cruel dictator who brutally represses the people through military might. Some cases. In other cases, the 'victim' cry is nothing more than a ploy. A ruse, so that they may enlist the support of the radical left without actually proving their case. And while this isn't necessarily a problem for the future megastate, it's a problem right now. (Can anyone guess who I'm going mention now? I bet you can!) Take, for example, the (self-proclaimed) Palestinians. They have been hollering 'victim' from day one. And the lefties have taken notice. While I'm not going to get into it now (mainly because the blogosphere is essentially saturated with reasons why the lefties shouldn't be supporting the Pals) I think it is enough to say that if a TP state were to exist, I fear for the group that doesn't call 'victim' first: their true problems will be falling on deaf ears. (Though I suppose that's not so bad, since without accountable government, it's an equally likely situation that their problems will be ignored anyway.)

Throughout the first part of my life, I considered myself a liberal: I believed in high quality social services (and still do). I believed taxes were best spent on peace initiatives, as opposed to military research. Etc. Now, though, it's becoming very difficult. While I still support some of the ideas in which the left believes, I find my views on Israel, war, government and capitalism diverging from theirs. The TP movement, as I see it, is the new path that liberals are taking to fight liberty on its own terms. And that can't be allowed to happen.

2002-08-14T10:50:00.000-04:00

Why Microsoft is Inferior

"Let me count the ways..." would be the Justice Department's first response. There's no need to get nasty, though. I've made a discovery. And I'm more amused with my discovery than anything else.

Those of us who were using computers before the internet, and before Windows 95 will remember (though perhaps not fondly) the strange error messages that MSDOS (and early versions of Windows) produced on a regular basis. Some classic error messages, that have been immortalized in different lists on the web, include: General Failure Reading Drive C:. Abort, Retry, Fail? "Ummm... I think I'll abort... nope that didn't work... ok, let's try again... hmmm same message... but I don't want to fail... ok fine, fail... hey it worked..." Another classic was from Windows 3.1. Occassionally, the software would decide that General Failure wasn't getting the job done, and would require his comrade, General Protection Fault to take over. And of course there was the blue screen of death. And so on.

For most DOS users, however, there is one error message that stands head-and-shoulders above the competition, if not for its somewhat cryptic phrasing, then for the maddening frequency with which it appeared."Bad command or file name." Grrr. How I loathe those words. That's why a smile crossed my face while using the command line processor shipped with Windows XP. I mistyped a command, and hit enter before I could correct the mistake. "'fto' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file." I blinked. Could they be serious? They weren't. No way. I tried again. "'whatthehell' is not recognized as an internal or external command, operable program or batch file." I blinked again. The words remained. It was at that point that I decided that Microsoft knew nothing.

Okay, clearly a lie. I've known for a long time. But now I've got a blog.

Changing the message is a good idea in theory. Computers are falling into the hands of people who are less-and-less computer savvy. For example, my girlfriend, who is fairly competent when it comes to using Office and surfing the internet, is admired as a computer genius at her law firm, due to the attourneys who view their computers as nothing more than glorified typewriters. On the other hand, I think it would be safe to assume that neither the attourneys, nor my girlfriend, require the services that DOS provides. I don't really either: I just dislike CuteFTP, and don't feel like downloading anything else. Those who do use the command shell occasionally (like sysadmins, or die-hard users who refuse to accept that computers are falling into the hands of the computer-illiterate and rebel against this transition by supporting a lousy OS that happened to be IBMs choice) are not doing so because they like the aesthetics. Neither do I. Personally, no matter how much I disliked the messages then, I now like the nostalgia. Strangely enough, I would like to be told that I've foolishly attempted to run a "Bad command or file name." I'm buddies the General, and I would like it if he were to pay me the occasional visit. Now, Microsoft has robbed me of these simple pleasures, because they have deluded themselves into thinking that the people who will be using this particular chunk of code want to be coddled. Oh, how wrong they are.

So what, you may ask, is humorous about this change? It's not hilarious, but it was enough to warrant a smirk: The carefully worded, yet unfortunately long new message could easily be summed up as "unrecognized command." On the other hand, woe to the one who would create an error message that wasn't at least a little confusing.

2002-08-13T13:21:00.000-04:00

U of T ASSU Inferiority Update

In addition to blogging my thoughts about the abhorrent dedication in the ASSU's anti-calendar, I sent an e-mail to the editor, hoping that they might issue a retraction, or apology. Today, I received the following reply:

The dedication in the Anti-Calendar does not mention any particular particular "group" nor does it mention "civilians". What was mentioned, and what was meant, was two regions of the world that, at the time of publication, had experienced deaths that were referred to as "friendly fire". This included not only civilians, of various nationalities and religions, but also military personnel who were not engaged in actual fighting.

ASSU did not take any position for or against any side. The only postion that was taken was the sadness that in so many places of the world it is the innocents that die. This was told to the Varsity.

I sent back this e-mail:

I agree that the inscription made no mention of any particular group, nor did it speak of civilians. On the other hand, making light of the situation in two areas where the majority of the dead were Muslims does implicitly slant the sadness in one direction, no matter what the intended meaning. As well, since there is no Palestine, the informed reader has no choice but to interpret Palestine as meaning "Palestinians," an identifiable group.

I understand that the intention was to make light of the sadness in so many places in the world. On the other hand, I find it hard to believe that these two areas deserve mention, while Israel does not. "Palestine" has decided that the only way to free themselves is to murder innocents. Ergo, they target civilians in pizza places and discos. If you are indeed interested in sadness, then it would make sense to include the sadness on both sides of a conflict, not just one. As well, it would be appropriate include sadness from around the world, not only two areas. Millions are starving in North Korea, Zimbabwe and many other countries throughout Africa. Nearly 3000 innocents were murdered on Sept. 11. Why not mention them? To choose two regions where it has been primarily perceived that it was the West oppressing and murdering Muslims is unfair to the others who were no less innocent.

The factual correctness and superficial intent of the dedication are not in question. The message lurking quite near the surface (whether or intentional or not) is the issue. I would again suggest that a retraction would be appropriate. Perhaps a new inscription, which encompassed a larger percentage of the current sadness, would then be in order.

Let's see what they say now. And dammit. I forgot to point out that the inscription never mentioned "friendly-fire" and that it would be almost impossible to think of that before thinking of (justified) American and Israeli agression. Damn damn damn.

Note: Though I mention North Korea and Zimbabwe in my reply, I point them out merely as areas of the world where many people are dying. In no way do I believe that there is anyone but the countries' respective dictators to blame.

2002-08-13T13:05:00.000-04:00

Why Linda McQuaig is Inferior

I found this article on Common Dreams, an apparently left leaning (to put it mildly) site that collects articles that appear to further their goal of... well, I'm not sure what their goal is. It doens't matter. They pick articles they agree with. I digress. The article, by Linda McQuaig, appeared in the Toronto Star, a paper notorious for its pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel slant. This article only reinforces the paper's left-leaning views. I've never liked the Star, and this article certainly doesn't help. (An unrelated, but still humourous irony alert: The Star provides the paper for free on the U of T campus, and is decried by activists on campus as corporate sleaze. I think if these people actually bothered to read the paper, instead of writing "LIES" in magic marker on the front of the paper-boxes, they might realize the folks down at The Star are on their side. Oh well.)

Back to the topic at hand. The article, titled "Why Canada Must Reject War on Iraq", is a half-hearted attempt to win anti-war support by appealing to Canadian loyalties. Ms. McQuaid informs her readers that Canada can, and should distance itself from the States on this one, if only because it will show that we're not under Washington's spell. A nice thought. And she's right: if Canada wanted to, we could decline to participate in an attack on Iraq, and relations with our big-buddy to the South would be as rosy as ever.

On the other hand, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. In this case, the issue of jumping on Uncle Sam's back isn't particularily relevant or important. More relevant is the fact that Iraq is a dangerous regime, not only to the US, but to democracies in general. Last I checked, Canada still fit into that category. To not participate in, or at the very least support, an attack on Iraq would serve only to placate the Islamic world (thought I don't know why, because Sadaam is a secular dictator. Perhaps the rewards he distributes to Palestinian terrorists have something to do with that), and to appease the Europeans. Why we would want to do either is something that I can't quite understand. The Islamic World certainly doesn't send us gift-baskets, and the Europeans disagree with the US mainly because they have lost so much power, and feel the only way to regain it is to create a world modeled after their own pacifist-international-law concepts, no matter how pie-in-the-sky their ideas may be. At this point in history, Canada should be putting petty power-struggles aside, and assisting in keeping democracy alive.

All that aside, the article in question has some fairly amusing ideas, that I now point out for your reading pleasure.

I think I'll start with her opening remark, her grabber:

"'WE HAVE TO think pretty hard about what kind of government we want to replace Saddam Hussein with.' Oddly, this comment provoked no particular reaction when it was made by a prominent U.S. commentator on a CBC radio program last week"

Odd indeed: Why did the host not point out that ending a sentence with a preposition is not grammatically correct. Oh... She's referring to the content of the comment itself. Well, maybe this is why the host's reaction is not so odd: Sadaam is dangerous, so Sadaam must go. We don't want Sadaam II: The Sequel to come to power once the original is gone. Thus, we must think about what kind of government we want. Any questions?

"Yes, Saddam Hussein is a dictator. But which international law — or any other type of law — specifies, in the absence of democracy, that responsibility for selecting a nation's leader falls to the United States?"

I'm not military expert, but I assume that it will be primarily the US army that will be ousting Sadaam. Let's look at the alternatives. It won't be anybody in the Middle East, because they don't seem to mind totalitarian governments. Israel has its own problems, as do countries in South America and Africa, though theirs are of a slightly different nature. Japan is too busy being Big Brother, and since WWII have become gigantic wussies. China and Russia don't like to agree with the US, so when the US labels Iraq as evil, communism, past and present, takes the opposite stance. Finally, Europe still feels that they can deal with Sadaam as a rational actor. The fools. So who does that leave? US firepower does the dirty work, US gets to decide on the next step.

"'Regime change' sounds strangely benign, like something that happens when voters go to the polls. In this case, however, it would happen when the world's most heavily-armed nation unleashes its massive firepower against another country — a plan that enjoys virtually no support in the world community."

Mainly because the world community (read rich western states, and the oil-providing caliphates who influence them) seems content not to interfere with aggression directed towards the US, so that perhaps they can gain influence when the US is knocked down a peg or three. As well, the world community, and its socialist buddy, the UN, are looking out for themselves. To assume that their opinion should govern US policy is a mistake.

Regarding Ms. McQuaids comment concerning voters, perhaps she has forgotten that the Iraqi voting cards are far simpler than those in Miami-Dade: there is only candidate.

Further, no matter what the words "regime change" sound like to Ms. McQuaid, that is the only feasible path to removing Sadaam's credible threat. Unless of course she has a better idea? I thought not.

"[Historian J.L.] Granatstein urges us to be 'practical' rather than 'emotional' in deciding whether to support the expanded U.S. war on terror — good advice. But he then goes on to make the odd assumption that full Canadian co-operation falls into the 'practical' column, while remaining skeptical belongs in the 'emotional' column. Surely, it's the other way around. There might be some emotional reasons — sympathy for Sept. 11 victims, for instance — for supporting the United States, but it's hard to see practical benefits in signing up for future wars."

How's this: you're both wrong. Every position in the spectrum of Canadian involvement has both emotional as well as practical aspects. That's not the point. The issue is judging the merits of the practicalities of a given position. In this case, is seems to make more practical sense to help defend a country on whom we rely heavily. While I have no doubt that the US could prosecute their war without us, it is important to show other countries that we agree with US action. The most effective way to do so is to commit troops.

"Rejecting U.S. warmongering might actually increase our clout in the world community. U.S. academic Tony Judt argued in the New York Review of Books last week that Canada and Scandinavian nations 'exercise influence far above their weight in international affairs because of their worldwide identification with aid and peacekeeping.'

As a Canadian, I have this to say: I have no interest in being grouped with the overly-socialist virulently anti-US/Israel Scandinavian EUers. What Ms. McQuaid describes as a benefit is really another reason to support a war.

"Judt's larger point was that Washington's obstreperous, go-it-alone behavior is diminishing its influence in the world, despite its overwhelming military power. 'Even the mere appearance of taking the world seriously would enhance American influence immeasurably — from European intellectuals to Islamic fundamentalists; anti-Americanism feeds voraciously off the claim that the U.S. is callously indifferent to the views and needs of others.'"

While the point is well taken, I think it is slightly off base. For one, the first thing President Bush did (or more likely was told to do; I'm not sure he understands the nuances of diplomacy beyond frying "evildoers" in the chair. YEEHAW!) was assemble a coalition against terror, that included many Arab states, as well as most of Europe. And where did that leave the US? In the same place is was before Sept. 11. To think that by providing lip-service to European intellectuals or Islamic fundamentalists the US will accomplish anything is naive. The Europeans are jealous, and the Islamists want to replace the constitution with the Shari'a. Even if they did buy it ("Don't worry Osama. We're not after you. *wink* *wink*), their support would be conditional on the US acting in accordance with their rhetoric. This is not likely, given that protecting American interests is what most critics dislike most about America.

"It hardly makes sense for us to get more firmly on board with Washington, when its swaggering lawlessness endangers world security."

Right. That's what's endangering world security. Not Islamists who want to execute a Jihad against the infidels. Not the dictators who starve their own people as a result of their obsession with obtaining weapons of mass destruction. It's America trying to prevent another Sept. 11. It's America wanting to remove itself as the target of a madman's nukes. Of course. How did I miss that.

"If that's the best we can muster as a nation, we better cross our fingers and hope there are some more courageous countries out there with the guts to speak out against grossly anti-democratic behavior, even when it's on the part of the well-muscled 'leader of the free world.'"

There are indeed "courageous" countries who have the "guts." Quick, name a Western European country: bang, there's your answer. On the other hand, I don't think that it is the "grossly anti-democratic behavior" against which they are speaking out. Recent polls have shown that the American public supports attacking Iraq, if only by a slim margin (though I think we can all agree that America is used to dealing with close races.) If the government makes a reasonable case for attacking Iraq, either by citing international law, or by showing that Iraq poses a serious threat, then there is nothing undemocratic about it.

2002-08-12T08:48:00.000-04:00

Why the State of Massachussetts is Inferior

I suppose it's not MA's fault, but it happens to be where Greg Stimpson lives.

2002-08-12T00:21:00.000-04:00

Why Robert Corrigan is Inferior

The concept of terror is attractive for two reasons: 1. It is simpler than amassing and equipping a real army. 2. It can be the gift that keeps on giving, provided you find the correct victim. Here's a hint: SFSU, and their president Robert Corrigan, is a good target. Why?

SFSU has decided that the appropriate response to anti-semitic riots is (get this) to create an Islamic Studies department.

While this isn't the worst idea, as it is a fairly common area of study at many major universities, the motivation behind the department's creation is less than admirable. And beyond that, the solution is, unfortunately, in keeping with the SOP for the entire US following Sept. 11. Since that tragic day, the entire country has been gripped by Islamania (sorta like Wrestlemania, only much less entertaining.)

The thought process of the government, as well as most institutions of higher learning, has been to come to the defense of Islam. Worried that that nation would have a knee-jerk reaction and slaughter the American-Muslims in the same way the terrorists slaughtered their fellow Americans in NYC, Washington and PA, frantic calls for "understanding" and "tolerance" were made. Desperate to protect the peace-loving Muslims, it became taboo to even mention the fact that the towers were obliterated in the name of Allah. The airwaves became flooded with Muslim intellectuals, explaining that the Qu'ran expounds peace and love, not death and destruction. The attacks, we were told, were perpetrated by radicals who had distorted Islam for their own twisted ends. Perhaps. But who cares?. The defense of Islam was as knee-jerk as the feared backlash.

Now, things have gone much too far. Tayloring the American way of life in order to best placate Muslims is not simply un-American: it's just plain nuts. The highest-priority after Sept. 11 should have been to reassure all Americans. As the SFSU solution shows, that particular task is still on the backburner.

Creating an Islamic studies department does not help anybody, for it shows that Muslim appeasement continues unabated. And while it would be folly to label all Muslims as evil (because, like people in general, some are, some aren't,) it is clearly much worse to continue to insist that any religion is more important than any other.

2002-08-11T15:08:00.000-04:00

Why the Readers of CNN.com are Inferior

I was at visiting CNN today, and I came across the following poll: "Should Saddam Hussein's offer on weapons inspections be taken seriously?" The results (as of 3:00pm EST): 42% think they should! In simpler terms: out of every ten CNN.com surfers, 4 think Saddam Hussein is a reasonable and honest individual. Simply amazing.

(P.S. Please do not e-mail me telling me "How can you say that since you were on the site too, and so you're also a CNN.com reader and therefore you're calling yourself inferior and ha ha you suck." I'm well aware of the smidgen of hypocrisy in what I'm saying. I'll say two things about that: 1. I voted that they should not be taken seriously (as a majority of readers did. Not the point: that even 1 out of 10 voted that way they did is cause for concern.) 2. I know I'm inferior.

2002-08-10T19:57:00.000-04:00

Why Women are Inferior

Don't get me wrong: Women are fantastic. They look nicer than men, smell nicer than men, feel nicer than mean, are nicer than men... The list goes on and on. But a new book called "The Rules for Online Dating" (based on the 1995 bestseller(!) "The Rules") caught me by surprise. And by surprise, I mean stupefied shock.

A quick synopsis: The authors felt that too many women weren't following the original "Rules" when dating on the internet, and felt that it was their responsibility to once again provide a guide for their poor, helpless comrades. The problem, according to the authors, was that "It was starting to become a really bad bar scene. Women are e-mailing with abandon, answering men's ads, meeting a guy, e-mailing him the next day -- making a million mistakes!"
What were these women thinking?

The fact this book exists makes my case on the spot. If I were a lawyer who had to prove to a jury that "Jack should get his dad's money, not Linda" it would be a slam dunk: "Exhibit A: The Rules for Online Dating," I would say. A gasp. The foreperson stands: "Your honour, we see no reason to continue this trial. Linda is clearly inferior." Case closed.

But it goes beyond mere existence. The advice handed out by this book is so.... painfully obvious that I... I... Here, see what happens to you: "Never e-mail on a Saturday night; it smacks of desperation." Wow. That this advice requires giving only further establishes my point: It's amazing that women are able to stand upright.

My other problem with this publication is that it "smacks" of greed. Since the original book was published, the authors have published two more books: The Rules II, and The Rules for Marriage (a wonderfully ironic title, as one of the authors, Ellen Fein, was heading for divorce when it was published.) The Internet version is simply a restatement of the original books, with "e-mail" replacing "phone-call." I guess Fein's husband won their court battle. Perhaps his attourney used my strategy.

Note: I am not, in fact, a chauvinist who truly believes women are inferior. Don't believe me? Ask my girlfriend: She's a feminist

2002-08-09T14:30:00.000-04:00

Why Some Logic is Inferior
A new article on MEMRI made me wonder: How do these people keep a straight face when they talk?

"...in the beginning Al-Qa'ida denied any connection to September 11. It turned out that Al-Qa'ida was not connected to the events. From an engineer's standpoint, I can prove that these buildings did not fall just like that because of a fire... Anyone who knows the properties of these buildings knows that Al-Qa'ida didn't do it.

So says Abu Hamza, Imam of the Finsbury Park Mosque. Despite his claim that it should be obvious to "anyone who knows the properties of these buildings" that 3000 degree oil fires covering entire floors would not be able to cause the buildings to collapse, I have yet to hear an engineer say anything except "I can't believe the towers stood as long as they did." On the other hand, why I would think that this would mean anything to this man is another story.

"These buildings were blown up from within..."

Right. That was the point of the planes. When they hit, that was the signal to hit the plunger. Good call.
Also, it turns out that Allah works in mysterious ways:

"I meant to go to Afghanistan, and prepared myself to do so, but Allah decreed otherwise - primarily in light of the fact that my passport was confiscated by the authorities."

Go figure.

2002-08-09T13:12:00.000-04:00

Why Trekkies are Inferior
Has anybody ever noticed that "To boldly go..." (what one might consider a fairly popular phrase) is a split-infinitive? Or am I missing something?

2002-08-09T12:19:00.000-04:00

Why the U of T ASSU is Inferior
I was at the University of Toronto registrar's office today, dropping off a form, when I came across the July 31st issue of the school paper, the Varsity. On the front page, there was an article titled "Campus-wide handbook raises ire among Jewish groups." Reading on, I learned that a recent publication by the Arts and Science Students' Union (ASSU) contained a rather biased dedication.

Every year, the U of T ASSU publishes the "Anti-calendar," which is a collection of student evaluations of courses, and the professors who taught them. On the inside cover of this year's edition, there was the following inscription: "Dedicated to the memory of the Innocents, Afghanistan and Palestine, murdered." I was somewhat "surprised", to say the least, for three reasons.

First, there is no country known as Palestine. There may be (self-proclaimed) Palestinians, but much to their chagrin, there is no Palestine. Period.

Second, the ASSU represents all U of T students who are enrolled in the faculty. To include a dedication that only a portion of Arts students agree with is not fair to those who do not. And while some might say that it is the editor's prerogative to dedicate their work to whomever they wish, that does not change the fact that the calendar is intended for use by every Arts student, and should thus not contain anything that could possibly be construed as biased, or offensive. I think this particular dedication fails in both cases.

My third, and deepest concern, is that this statement is symptomatic of the sentiment on campus in relation to the situation in the Middle East, and more specifically in Israel. Does everybody on campus truly believe that only the Palestinians are innocent in the conflict? Unfortunately, either answer is disturbing. If yes, then this goes beyond a mere attempt at moral equivalence. It presumes that Israel is the only aggressor, and that the Palestinians are morally superior. If no, then why not mention the Israeli victims? To quote the editor, when asked about whether or not the statement also included Israeli victims:

"When I wrote it, I didn't think of it that way, I must admit. I still don't. That's not what I meant, that's not what I implied. It's a very simple statement to me, those innocent people have nothing to do with politics or anything."

From the dedication, one can infer that the editor refers only to the innocents killed. While that is, superficially, a noble idea, it whitewashes the fact that, aside from the "Innocents," many Palestinians who have been killed were terrorists intent on murdering Israeli civilians. As well, by mentioning the Palestinians, and not the Israelis, the editor marginalizes the many Israeli "Innocents" who have died at the hands of the Palestinian terrorists.

It is a sad state of affairs when a supposedly non-partisan, unbiased organization produces such an incorrect, biased, and offensive addition to an otherwise helpful publication.

2002-08-07T21:27:00.000-04:00

Why I'm Inferior
It could be tomorrow. It could be a week from now. I really hope not, but that's the truth. As vigilant as the government claims to be, there is no way they can stop everybody. And it's only a matter of time before the world (well, most of the world anyway) recoils in horror from the next big attack. And there's nothing I, or anybody else, can do.

I suppose that's what bothers me. Those who lost their lives paid the ultimate price, but the living suffer in a different way. We are plagued by feelinglings of futility. There is nothing I can do to stop a terrorist from setting off explosives, or boarding an airplane, or taking out a gun and opening fire. Sure, if I was on the plane, I could attempt to subdue an attacker, but short of appropriating a firearm, I'm pretty much useless. That's why so much of the rhetoric coming out of Washington has been "Go out, live your life, but be vigilant." They understand that people are going to want to act. They also understand that beyong reporting your neighbours as terrorists (bonus points if they're a commie as well), there is little the ordinary citizen can do.

I guess that's the motivation behind this blog. Since Sept. 11, I have wanted to do something, but didn't know what that something could or should be. Now, almost 11 months later, I realize that this is it; this is what I'm going to do. And it's comforting, in a sad sort of way. My only fear is that when the next attack does come, what am I going to do then?

2002-08-07T09:12:00.000-04:00

Introduction: Why Superiority is Inferior
Hi. While the title of my blog may lead you to believe that this blog could be about anything, don't be fooled: Every post is going to be centred around why something or someone or somegroup is inferior. Not to me. Just in general. Enjoy!