Prager is a Ho

Dennis Prager used to be smart. In the past I had felt that his prodigious intelligence allowed him to say important things despite his obvious mental flaws (he threw away his Orthodox education in favor of easy pornography and Egotheism - i.e. the belief that you are smarter than God so you can make your own rules). But ever since the rise of Bush II Prager has torn off his reasoned facade and entered the moon-tube of the depraved Hard Right.

Many reject Prager for his embrace of Mel Gibson. I now reject him because he is a Jewish Rush Limbaugh - spouting clear, obvious lies while crushing his moral compass between the dollar bills he received from selling so sadly out.

Read his latest nutjob screed: "Note to Angry Republicans - Stay Angry but vote Republican"

Clifford Geerz dies

Oh my! See the obituary from Princeton.

He was the father of modern, decent, anthropology. Oy.

Pic from the Princeton obit.

The most dangerous U.S. cities

This story, about the most, least dangerous U.S. cities (from Yahoo News) is obviously wrong because New Haven is not even listed!

Fun Site of the Day

Googlefight! You enter in two words and see which is more common on Google. And you get to see a cool graphic of stick figures fighting. So, for example, Moses beats Moshe.

And, alas, 'clown' beats 'styx.' Ain't it the truth.

Backpost finished 2009-11-29, so this is probably old news to long time surfers

Cartoon of the Day: Sheldon

Backpost, put up 3-23-2009; it was all ready to go, I just let it lie fallow.

Don't know why this is funny...but it is.

Ah, "Sheldon" why did you leave my subscription comics service?

Video of the Day: NJOP

"This is very good" said I, back then. I haven't watched it since, tho. It's from NJOP and the page describes it as:

Hillel Gross' Address at the 10th Anniversary of the Lincoln Square Synagogue Beginners Service.... This video was recorded at the 10th Anniversary celebration of the Lincoln Square Synagogue Beginners Service on February 23, 1986 held in Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Manhattan.

See here.

Backpost finished 4/30/08, 11:50 PM.

Dubya: Smart? Or Dumb? by Timothy Noah

I didn't read this at the time (March 13, 2001) but I have said many of the same things: "Dubya: Smart? Or Dumb?" - Timothy Noah in Slate Magazine

What the Internet is For: The Baby Name Wizard

This is the type of thing we need the internet for; a JAVA program that allows you to see the frequency of certain names over the past 100 years: The Baby Name Wizard. My first name is ranked in the top 10, my middle name is #602...

Some See It

It's heartening to me, as a failed optimist, to know that there are some astute republicans still left not many, but enough to make the rest of them guilty of free-will choices.

Daniel Pipes on Iraq

Sent along by my wife - about a possible solution for the quagmiasma (mix of quagmire and miasma) in Iraq is to partition into 3 sub-states.

In Iraq, Stay the Course - but Change It
by Daniel Pipes, New York Sun, October 24, 2006

As coalition policy reaches a crisis, may I resurrect an idea I have been flogging since April 2003? It offers a way out of the current debate over staying the course (as President George W. Bush has long advocated) or withdrawing troops on a short timetable (as his critics demand).

My solution splits the difference, "Stay the course – but change the course." I suggest pulling coalition forces out of the inhabited areas of Iraq and redeploying them to the desert.

This way, the troops remain indefinitely in Iraq, but remote from the urban carnage. It permits the American-led troops to carry out essential tasks (protecting borders, keeping the oil and gas flowing, ensuring that no Saddam-like monster takes power) while ending their non-essential work (maintaining street-level order, guarding their own barracks).

Beyond these specifics, such a troop redeployment would imply a profound and improved change of course. It means:

Letting Iraqis run Iraq: Wish the Iraqis well but recognize that they are responsible for their own country. Or, in the words of a Times of London headline, "Bush to Iraqis: you take over." The coalition can help but Iraqis are adults, not wards, and need to assume responsibility for their country, from internal security to writing their constitution, with all due urgency.

Seeing violence in Iraq as an Iraqi problem: The now-constant violence verging on civil war is a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one, an Iraqi problem, not a coalition one. The coalition should realize it has no more responsibility for keeping the peace between Iraqis than it does among Liberians or Somalis.

Terminating the mammoth U.S. embassy in Baghdad: The American-created "Green Zone" in Baghdad is too high profile already, but work now underway to build the biggest embassy in the history of mankind, a 4,000-employee fortress in the heart of Baghdad, will make matters significantly worse. Its looming centrality will antagonize Iraqis for years or decades to come, even as it offers a vulnerable target for rocket-wielding enemies. Scheduled to open in June 2007, this gargantuan complex should be handed back to Iraqis, the over US$1 billion spent on it written off as a mistake of war, and a new, normal-sized, embassy built in its stead.

Ending the coddle: The inept, corrupt, and Islamist leadership in Baghdad discredits the Bush administration's integrity; conversely, Washington's embrace makes it look like a stooge. Other Iraqi institutions – my pet peeve is the National Symphony Orchestra in Baghdad – also suffer from the patronizing embrace of American politicians. Muslim sensitivities about rule by non-Muslims makes these rankling offenses.

Reducing coalition ambitions for Iraq: From the start, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was too ambitious and too remote from American interests ("Operation Coalition Security" would have been a better moniker). Give up on the unattainable goal of a democratic, free, and prosperous Iraq, a beacon to the region, and instead accept a stable and decent Iraq, one where conditions are comparable to Egypt or Tunisia.

The situation in Iraq has become a source of deep domestic antagonism in the coalition countries, especially the United States and Great Britain, but it can be finessed by noting that the stakes there are actually quite minor, then adjusting means and goals on this basis. Do you, dear non-Iraqi reader, have strong feelings about the future of Iraq? I strongly suspect not.

Iraqis want possession of their country; and peoples in countries providing troops serving in Iraq have wearied of the hopeless effort to transform it into something better than it is. Both aspirations can be satisfied by redeploying coalition troops to the desert, where they can focus on the essential tasks of maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity, keeping the fossil fuels flowing, and preventing humanitarian disasters.

The idea has developed since World War II that when the United States protects its interests by invading a country, it then has a moral obligation to rehabilitate it. This "mouse that roared" or "Pottery Barn rule" assumption is wrong and needs to be re-evaluated. Yes, there are times and places where rehabilitation is appropriate, but this needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, keeping feasibility and American interests strictly in mind. Iraq – an endemically violent country – fails on both counts.

Pic from here. Backpost finished on 2009-11-29 - yet another one that I let sit around even though it was totally finished. Gak.

I Wonder if AIPAC is Behind this too?

And I wonder if he'll automatically get the Jewish vote?

Quinnipiac Poll - Joe Ahead by 17

A promising poll from Quinnipiac University has Lieberman leading Lamont 52 to 37. Even more interesting, see the full breakdown of Joe's support.

Fried Coke

This is one blessing about keeping kosher - I am not confronted with the food at State Fairs where they are able to deep fry anything and everything - including liquids, at least according to this AFP story: Fried Coke a big hit at US state fairs

Fried coke?! Oh baby.

2009 Update: Pic from here.

Mehlman's Mail

I need to get a copy of this email! This will prove my point (or, if not, let's forget the whole thing)

Hotline On Call: Why The White House Has To Be Optimistic: "If you're ever read a profile of Ken Mehlman, you know he is obsessed with metrics. For him, one of the most important sources of data is a weekly e-mail his political team prepares called the 'Weekly Grassroots Report.' It meticulously records the work of tens of thousands of volunteers in targeted states, counties and congressional districts across the country. The data summary allows the RNC to determine which states are meeting goals and which states are falling behind."

Bingo - the GOP Insider Speaks

In conformation to what I sent this morning, here's the disgusting Robert Novak confirming that the GOP expects to lose the House but keep the Senate - which is enough for at least some impeachment issues.

Mandate of Heaven

Here's a letter I sent to the TPM in response to this.

I'm very glad you wrote this post. I have been saying this to people for a long time - that the reason we feel that the Democrats have 'no leadership' etc is because the press has been trashing the party because they have been pretty consistent losers, so why bother looking for signs of leadership. If we do win in November I suspect there'll be a dozen of new leaders popping up (usually the ones who will be in charge of the potentially dozens of investigations).

This leads into your question, though, of why Bush/Rove look so confident about November. I guess by the "Mandate of Heaven" post you are tending to believe it's a bluff. Personally, I believe it's because these schmoes are so disgusting that they know that a 1% victory is the same as 51% and they see the same board we do. They may have put so much money in one of the scary tossups (MO, VA, NJ) for GOTV that they know that despite massive gains, the Democrats will fall 1 short of the majority. And that's all they need.

Kinky Friedman

Were I living in Texas, and haven't already immolated with fright or shame, I would definitely be voting for my good ol' Texas Jewboy Kinky Friedman. He was interviewed by the Weekly Standard. Here's a primo choice quote:

The musical revelry hits a speed bump when we start talking about his close friend Willie Nelson, whom he calls the "hillbilly Dalai Lama," and with whom he currently has a double-or-nothing wager. Willie took him for a grand on how the Iraq war would turn out (Kinky thought Bush and Blair would be "heroes"). Kinky now stands to win two grand if Joe Lieberman beats Ned Lamont--eight thousand if you count his Lieberman side bets with other suckers. Kinky's an inveterate gambler who takes "fact-finding trips to Vegas," though "these days, I'm bettin' on Texas." Still, of Lieberman, he says, "That f--er better win."

Camera Obscura

A very important story - that the famous episode of a Palestinian boy allegedly targeted by Israel at the beginning of the 2000 Intafada was completely fabricated by actors! This is a New Republic story, not "The Daily Wignut Times Tribune" - check it out:TNR Online - Camera Obscura

America closer to battlefield laser weapons

This is a discussion from 2003, so if it's accurate we can tell (because the stuff was predicted to be ready this year). In any case, the technical specs are awesome to read about and since I am an incredibly ignorant technophile, the physics-engineering mumbo-jumbo makes it all sound plausible (specifically see the posts from Stokes Pennwalt)

Laser Weapons

I have no idea if this guy is correct, but this discussion is awesome; see the 7th post down (by Stokes Pennwalt).

Backpost finished on 2009-11-25. Pic from here - which is a good companion article, found/added in 2009.

GOP Implosion

Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard describes the meltdown of the GOP chances in November in his timorously titled column:
How Bad Will It Be?

Fred knows the direction of the campaigns and public opinion are bad. He still can't get himself to see why. For example, Bush is still a great leader to Fred. Observe [emphasis mine]:

In [Bush's] stump speeches, the president concentrates on terror and taxes. And the contrast he draws between terror-fighting, tax-cutting Republicans and wimpy, taxaholic Democrats is reasonably accurate. But it's failing to attract independents or lure disgruntled conservatives back to the Republican fold. Should Democrats capture the House, "they would raise your taxes and figure out new ways to spend your money," Bush said at a rally in Chicago last week. "It's amazing what happens when you cut taxes. The economy grows [and] you end up with more tax revenues." On national security, he said, "If the security of the United States is the most important issue, then part of this issue is which party has been willing to step up and give those charged with protecting you the tools necessary to do so." He didn't need to identify which party has and which hasn't.

He doesn't seem to realize that the reason why the GOP is doing so badly - because the GOP has spent money without raising taxes, meaning we're in debt to China and Mexico. And the GOP has talked like macho goons but have *not* protected us, as seen by the debacle in Iraq and North Korea getting nukes.

Ah well, maybe the Democrats can win in November. Then our long national and international nightmare can be stopped.

Wieseltier vs. Judt

I spoke against the press coverage of the Hater, Tony Judt, on Shmini Atzeret. Here is a trenchant piece from today's New Republic by my man Leon Wieseltier: The Shahid.

Never Again Watch

According to a newly released news story (from the London Times)(found and linked from Sullivan) Kim Jong-Il's government in North Korea systematically practices eugenics:

THE North Korean regime’s obsession with racial purity has led to the killing of disabled infants and forced abortions for women suspected of conceiving their babies by Chinese fathers, according to a growing body of testimony from defectors

Never again? This should be stopped by the world.

Maps of War

A good informative overview of the history of the Middle East (in 90 seconds): Maps of War

Letter to TPM About Foley

This is a letter I sent this morning to the Talking Points Memo about an open question about why the GOP is steadily falling in the polls.  The question, basically put, is "Is it all Foley?":

Dear Josh,

 

Re: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/010338.php

 

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina. 

 

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people.  The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context.  Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility.  Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communinties across America were losing native children.  Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war.  Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

 

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered.  Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun.  Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? i'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard. 

 

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it).  Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign.  North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq.  Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning.  The WMD were ready to be aimed at us.  Because we didnt find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq.  It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

 

Then Foley.  Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people.  The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didnt look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home. 

 

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit.  Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc.  This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

 

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocracy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianist Fundamentalists.  The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys.  They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff.  That, I believe, is the real snapping point.  To use a crude metaphor it's as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff [when he ran for President as the anti-segregationist 'Dixiecrat' party]

 

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think.  Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master.  It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes.  And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think.  Adrien Brody?  Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!  

 

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth.  So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the scandals mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year.  And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

 

My 25 cents. 

 

All the best,

[The Styx]

 

 

Foley and the GOP for November

A letter I sent TPM, Re: Is It All Foley? - about the dismal state of the GOP's electoral chances in November:

Dear Josh,

I would say that the paradigm shift you describe (without calling it that, poor Kuhn has been abused by too many to risk even an accurate reference), that the country has said 'enough' started in earnest with Katrina.

The whole episode showed that Homeland Security was a farce and that the GOP activity does not care about people. The fact that Bush ignored Sheehan helped set that context. Then came Miers, to show the GOP core that Bush doesn't even know he has lost credibility. Then the Iraq war kept getting worse and worse and more communities across America were losing native children. Then major players of a distinct Republican identity - the heads of military - were almost unanimously against the conduct of the war. Then the public break of GOP Senators over the torture bill (John McCain! John "Elizabeth Taylor" Warner!) made it clearer.

None of the real substance - the stuff we who read newspapers/internet know about - mattered. Torture, habeas corpus, NIE reports are either too detailed or easily spun. Even the massive corruption scandals of Abrahamoff, DeLay, Cunningham, Ney are either 'business as usual' (corrupt politicians? I'm shocked, shocked) or in someone else's backyard.

I think the Foley case and North Korea coming almost simultaneously were the one-two punch that finally made people snap (as you described it). Basically because both are Katrina, one domestic, one foreign. North Korea getting the bomb is absurd in light of the war in Iraq. Most people in America felt that we had to go in because Saddam Hussein, after killing James Bond, deployed the planes that destroyed the WTC and that was only the beginning. The WMD were ready to be aimed at us. Because we didn't find any doesn't mean they didn't exist, just like there still can be Dragons over the lip of the flat earth. But when one of the Axis of Evil countries actually develops WMD while we just sit and mumble destroys whatever credibility was left about the rectitude of attacking Iraq. It's thank God not as bad as another attack on US soil, but its almost the same thing rhetorically.

Then Foley. Which shows that, like Katrina, the GOP just doesn't care about people. The wonderful denials, the blaming of Democrats, the belief that the creepy IMs didn't look troubling, the fact that Foley has repeatedly shown up drunk at the Page dorms - these things hit home.

And, to again use the paradigm-shift theory, because the Catholic church scandals of the past few years have already prepared people's opinions on the matter, people instantly knew what to think when Foleygate hit. Everyone except die-hards attacked the Catholic Church hierarchy; how could they ignore the abuse etc. This is why Foley's actions are considered so bad (even though it wasn't near the levels of the priests') - because we already knew what this was.

Lastly, Foleygate shows the hypocrisy of the GOP gay-bashing to the Christianists. The Christianists all believe that gay men prey on young boys. They didn't know that the GOP leaders (Hastert, Santorum) had openly gay chiefs-of-staff. That, I believe, is the real snapping point. To use a crude metaphor its as if Strom Thurmond in 1948 had a black chief-of-staff.

However, all my wonderful analysis is moot because who cares what the majority of people think. Its all GOTV and Karl Rove is the world's master. It reminds me of how badly I do at predicting the Oscars; I base my predictions on what I think deserves an award and the Oscar goes to whomever receives the most votes. And I have no idea who is in the Academy nor how those people think. Adrien Brody? Roman 'Pederast' Polanksi?!

As we saw in 2004, Rove managed to find enough people - people who had not been responding to pre-polling - to get their tushes in the voting booth. So all the outrage, and the poll numbers, all the outrages mean nothing if we don't know who Rove has managed to connive into voting this year. And what is most frustrating is that Rove is 100% correct - who cares about the issues if all that matters is getting enough votes in one 18 hour period on one day in history.

My 25 cents.
All the best,
JC

Pic from here. Backpost put up 2009-12-08.

Nobel Peace Odds

Tomorrow they will announce the Nobel Peace Prize, the most important - and most farcical - prize of them all. Because we live in a degenerate age, the best way to calibrate who will win is to go to a sports betting site, like this one (Centrebet). Note, Slate sent me to this link.

Personally, I think that Bill Clinton should have better odds (he's not even listed).

Ya see, Literature and Peace have by design or adaptation become purely political. Literature is basically a second peace prize (does anybody actually consider a bunch of Swedes capable of determining the quality of art? The Lit prize is a joke. Science is universal and a group of scientists in scandanavia have probably as much acumen as anywhere else as to what research deserves a prize. And in the past years there's been very little dissent over appropriateness of the receipients - if there has its over people who were overlooked). But Literature?! How much world lit is written in Swedish? Which means these bozos are reading it in translation. And its art. Ah well)

As I, and anybody with a brain, predicted, Literature went to a Muslim (Orhan Pamuk). Considering that the Muslim world has shown in the past 12 months that they are against any form of free expression no matter how benign (cartoons?!) or important (Mozart), this seemed inevitable just as last year's lit that went to an anti-war (and anti-British) activist (Pinker).

The fact that both Lit and Peace are given by the Swedes/Norse to change the world's direction, I wouldn't be surprised if the Peace Prize went to someone that repudiates the current American administration. Given that Bill Clinton has spearheaded in the past year the US relief efforts for the Tsunami, for Katrina, and his Clinton Foundation Thingie has been doing high-profile do-goody things all over... and because he is getting more popular in world opinion every living second when held in comparison to the unhinged brute malevolence of his successor.

The odds for peace this year seem to be for Martti Ahtisaari of the "Crisis Management Initiative." Now that I've seen his bio on the wiki, I'm seeing why he's a front runner. First, his group negotiated a peace treaty in Indonesia. He also was in charge of the Vienna Peace Treaty for Kosovo. Most importantly, he was the former President of Finland. That's locks it - those lapland types stick together.

Sick enough, there's decent odds on Mordechai Frickin Vanunu (the traitor who revealed Israel's Nuclear program). That should also favor heavily into the Nobelian system. What better way to send a message for world peace than to thump Israel?

Needs More, But Sounds True

According to a recent analysis, The Daily Show is as substantive as the "real" news - i.e. if you judge substance by 'time spent reporting the story' then TDS is the same as standard network news. This is clear to anyone who has watched TDS all these years.

Cheney Amok

Why do I not have trouble believing this? Cheney has a man arrested for having the gall to criticize him in public: Rocky Mountain News