(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
I have to say, Bush’s latest speech on the Iraq situation didn’t really clarify anything for me. posted by Anonymous1:26 PM
• • • • •
Monday, October 28, 2002
Scientists have long pondered the relationship between warbloggers and mullets. Enter into the empirical fray Exhibit A: Rich Hailey (pictured above), a self-described critic of our own Philip Shropshire. This new bit of evidence will most likely lead to a whole new set of questions for the beleaguered scientists, such as: what kind of mullet is this? And: are there any other warbloggers out there also sporting mullets?
Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Andrew Sullivan's "non-partisan totally partisan ally," intesifies his prejudice against Progress and hastens his retreat from Advancement. His latest pithy pronouncement on analogies between the present peace movement and that of the Vietnam era is maddeningly stupid and morally ugly beyond belief. After excerpting from Andrew Stuttaford who purports to show that the anti-war movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s factored in the destruction of Vietnam and the attendant mass deaths and horrendous maltreatment of the populace, Professor Reynolds writes, "And the campaigners remain proud of their success."
The Professor has never marshalled logic that was anything above flaccid, and he has never furnished proof on his warblog of any capacity for sustained and reasoned argument - and even less proof of a sense of moral decency. Even with his demonstrated inability to reckon where the equator lies, this is an audaciously low blow.
Though GHR allowed himself just eight words, I wonder if a lengthier treatment would have concerned itself with the crimes of colonialism, the viability and legitimacy of a South Vietnam as a state, and the massive unpopularity of the war stateside, most notably among returned servicemen. The unpopularity of falling bombs with the people of Southeast Asia is, for The Professor, a non-issue. They are, for the warbloggers, if not beneath contempt, then beneath recognition. Their intrusion would upset the feel-good stories that Glenn and his allied idiots scribble so assiduously.
As a corrective exercise, substitute the word "blog" for "story" in the following: "A true war story is never moral. It does not instruct, nor encourage virtue, nor suggest models of proper human behavior, nor restrain men from doing the things men have always done. If a story seems moral, do not believe it. If at the end of a war story you feel uplifted, or if you feel that some small bit of rectitude has been salvaged from the larger waste, then you have been made victim of a very old and terrible lie."
August 26, 1969 -- It was revealed today that followers of Tate-Lo Bianco killer Charlie Manson wrote "Helter Skelter" on the walls of the Tate house during their murderous rampage. "Helter Skelter" is the name of a song by the popular rock group The Beatles. Manson and his accomplices also possessed Beatles albums, authorities said, and had been known to listen to them "at high volume," according to eyewitnesses.
"I'm sure it's just a coincidence," said law professor Glenn Reynolds, directing reporters to notice the sarcasm in his voice. "Beatles apologists are now telling us that Manson is a lone nut. But if he'd been a Lawrence Welk fan, the liberal media would have been all over it, calling it 'square rage.'"
"It doesn't matter whether Manson was formally connected to the Beatles or not," said journalist Andrew Sullivan. "But these killings are clearly Beatles-related. I was frightened by the music of the Beatles before, but now I'm literally nauseated by fear. The time has come to bomb Liverpool. Thank God President Nixon, the greatest orator since Demosthenes, gets it."
"I better not catch anyone playing Beatles music for my infant daughter," said suburban Dad James Lileks.
Some days back, when the estimable Atrios was compiling his lexicon of terms describing the wildly illogical and dishonest practices of G. Harlan Reynolds, I volunteered a neologism that while lacking the euphony of "Glennuendo" and "Disinglennuousness" seemed a bit more comprehensive: Harlatanry, defined as G. Harlan's charlatan insistance that he's qualified to dispense his prejudices as something approaching fact. Lamentably, Atrios decided against the term's inclusion. After having the New York Sun reject innumerable requests of mine to undertake an advertisement in its august pages, I had grown accustomed to rejection, so the hurt was minimal.
That doesn't mean that there isn't any Harlatanry in evidence. On the countrary, the Instapundit volcano of intellectual fraud erupts with force today, as Glenn mounts a spirited defense of Charles Johnson and his nifty warblog (credibly called a "hate site" by some). As always, Glenn advances his argument largely by linking, allowing himself the post-facto luxury of denying endorsement of material he "merely" linked to.
I have little desire to engage the Tarantos and Johnsons of the warbloggergarten. After all, they can bill their sites as a comprehensive reckonings of all the naughtiness committed by Arabs and Muslims - a simple reportorial exercise - though those whipping their hobby horses with excess vigor are often doing something other than what they claim. Israel Shahak, a learned and serious man, went to the grave in disrepute, his own friends and colleagues expressing wonder about his anti-Semitism in their obituaries and remembrances. And Taranto and Johnson - neither of whom closely approach Shahak in terms of learning or seriousness - are held up as realists if not heroes.
And that's what Glenn is doing. Note his rush to call the engagement of Johnson a "smear campaign," a campaign in which Anil Dash's effort is cited specifically. Yet if he had actually bothered to read Dash's piece, he would have seen plainly that it concerned itself with what Johnson actually wrote, linking to specifics throughout. A "smear campaign," Glenn, is far more similar to that series of cool, disinterested links you deployed against Scott Ritter and his alleged receipt of Iraqi payola motivating his about-face.
The Harlatanry is most pronounced in this pronouncement: "Johnson is a lefty who's faced reality, which apparently makes him offensive to those who prefer not to." Is this the launch of another PsyWar? Is he serious? Is he saying that anyone not manning an lgf-style warblog is somehow incomplete in their confrontation of reality? The Professor's crippled faculty for logic is awful to behold. What marks would he give to a student peddling such schlock? How badly would an opposing attorney in a court of law decimate The Professor if he dared venture such flawed reasoning?
We were moderately amused when Professor Reynolds exhibited his unfamiliarity with the queer argot by likening those calling Andrew Sullivan the "Blog Queen" to those employing the term "nigger" and took a swipe at Atrios by saying Atrios, in his response to Glenn's accusation via link that Atrios was homophobic, "says that they're worse at Free Republic, which seems to me to be a pretty lame defense." Today Teach tickles us further when he writes that one of his faithful sweathogs "references IndyMedia as a far more plausible example of a hatesite." Now that's a proper defense! posted by Anonymous11:29 PM
• • • • •
The fans of mass death are busy constructing ever-higher pedestals on which to place Christopher Hitchens, with G. Harlan Reynolds, as expected, registering his customary pithy approval. Reynolds seems to have erred, though, filing his take on Hitchens' latest on the main page of his warblog instead of his PsyWar page, as would have been appropriate.
The piece in question is another yawn-inducer in which Hitchens continues to mine the quarry of ex-leftism to great profit. This is done in strict adherence to the standard techniques: Mark Cooper-style statements about "the left," arguing by locating a few idiots in the crowd, and seizing on the most indefensible pronouncements of the fringe. It's tiresome stuff to read, and must have been tiresome to write, as Hitchens' steam is so reduced by the piece's conclusion that he descends into Chomsky-bashing. It's a shame he didn't bring up Chomsky earlier, when he was talking about "the left's" alleged indifference to the plight of the Kurds. But that wouldn't have advanced his argument any.
In the end it's another unremarkable Hitchens defense of imperialism. An appreciation of Kipling is sure to follow.
Remarkable that an apparently sentient, well-read man can fulminate against "those who thought the Taliban-al Qaeda base in Afghanistan was not worth fighting about" while assuring us that a military campaign against the people of Iraq will supply "the promise of a better life" for a portion of the same. Has he not followed the progress of The War Against Terrorism (TWAT) and the far more modest struggle to provide the Afghans with something better? The former has failed wholesale. In re: the latter, we have secured the services of a fine Mayor for Kabul and provided him a former ice cream man with whom to work. Outside Kabul, the misery seems undiminished, with some affirming they were better off under the Russians. Noted humanist Chuck Krauthammer recently noted America's "position to re-shape norms, alter expectations and create new realities" through an "unapologetic and implacable demonstrations of will," and Hitchens is ready and waiting to see those splendid "new realities" perpetrated against seemingly anybody. posted by Anonymous1:29 AM
• • • • •
Sunday, October 20, 2002
A new look to National Review's corner, where dunces are sat and where streetwalkers ply their filthy trade:
PLEASE BEAR WITH US... [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
The Corner is having some technical difficulties....we're doing what we can to fix....thanks for your patience....
Though techincal difficulties figure near the bottom of their difficulties rated by severity. The children playing in the corner have been doing so in material breach of common decency since the feature's inception, most notably with Rich Lowry's imbecilic contemplation of "nuking Mecca" and Momma's Boy Jonah Goldberg's recent enthusiasm for book banning and censorship.
I trust Rod Dreher's capitalizing on the down-time by catching up on his readings. posted by Anonymous12:54 AM
• • • • •
Saturday, October 19, 2002
ERIC S. RAYMOND HAS (FINALLY) LOST IT
Now, you have an unprecedented opportunity to witness one man's descent into insanity online. Apparently having begun his 'journey' by dressing up as James Bond and pretending his CD is a gun, computer nerd Eric S. Raymond has been on a slide into insanity ever since.
His descent into insanity is exemplified by a series of posts, so self-evident in their detachment from reality, that they really require no commentary. Over at his site, Raymond has been going through the motions of putting together an Idiotarian Manifesto or some such. He's been trying to get the words right, trying to work out whether the terrorists, who he defines rather broadly, are "feral beasts" or "rabid dogs". This manifesto is the latest in a long line of ridiculous offerings from Raymond, beginning with his series of factually-challenged screeds ranting and raving about the evils of Islam and the hitherto unknown spectre of "Islamofacism".
"The squares are running it. What we need are hip people." -- Oscar Brown, Jr. Oct. 3, 2002 on Democracy Now
Warbloggers are squares, too, aren't they? Take Scott Ganz, for instance--that boy is so square that if he were standing next to Soupy Sales, he'd be cramping his style.
Well. It seems that known Chickenhawk and Coward Dr. Weevil has banned me from his blog Stalinist style. (Did we pro-Castro, Stalinist loving peaceniks ever ban anybody yet...?)I can't tell you how hurt I am. Doc Weevil, as you may recall, was the first one to offer the Shropshire Challenge. I want to stress that my earlier post is meant to be taken as an opening position. You are welcome to add your own considerations and additions to any such possible contract. Being that I believe in compromise and negotiation in all things, I'm willing to meet you halfway. Anywho, Mr. Weevil offered a longer rebuttal and I offered some healthy suggestions of my own in his comments section, where I subsequently found out that I was banned. So enjoy.
Hey, let's make it three weeks to get there. (I was planning to go by train, which might take more time and no I won't be bringing any of my blow up dolls...)
Make counter offers fellas. I know you're not into the negotiation thing but that's how the world works--unless you really want and need to blow people up.
Philip Shropshire
PS: How about those Bali bombings...Yet, I was under the impression that bombing Afghanistan had crippled Al Qaeda. Seems like those people were wrong, huh? Now, these id, uh, "people", are telling me that we have to invade Iraq or, what? We won't stop Al Qaeda...hoookayyy. It's not about the oil or anything like that...Posted by Philip Shropshire at October 15, 2002 12:04 PM
Am I the only person reading this who finds Shropshire's gloating over the Bali bombing disturbing?
Maybe he didn't intend it to be this way, but he comes across as being thrilled that al Qaeda is still a threat on the global stage (as if anyone denied this; it is precisely the fear that Saddam Hussein will equip al Qaeda with WMD that is driving us towards war with Iraq).
This guy considers himself a peace activist?
I guess it is all in how you define peace. Posted by Iron Fist at October 15, 2002 01:51 PM
Well, it's not just Bali, it's also Yemen and what's happening in Kuwait. But let's recap the argument:
The warbloggers claimed that by bombing Afghanistan that we had dealt a severe blow to Al Qaeda.
People on the other side (myself included) argued that you're not fighting a war against states but against an organization that exists in 60 or more countries. We argued that you did nothing to stop terror by attacking one country--and that if you did pick one country you were probably better off picking either Saudi Arabia or Pakistan. Furthermore, not only would unilateral action not be effective against terror cells (As if you could stop the IRA by bombing Belfast...) but the completely opposite tactic, namely compromise and joint actions, would be needed to win the war on terror. However, to mix uses of force, to initiate joint operations with other countries, and use other incentives and punishments (other than killing the other guy) requires deeply intelligent leadership--which is something that we really don't have.
Some conclusions: You were deadly wrong about Afghanistan and you're probably wrong about Iraq. Not only are you not winning the war against terror, your dumb bombing frell the world attitude is making the world a deadlier place. I might note that none of these actions make me feel safer as an American. Posted by Philip Shropshire at October 15, 2002 02:42 PM
One other point: while I'm still waiting for you to come up with a counter offer, keep in mind that the $10000 fine has to be covered. That's because if it isn't covered the finee is probably looking at jail time. That's non-negotiable. Even if I just took the $2300, I'd still have to have that $10000 grand in place...
Where are your counter offers? No wonder you guys have to kill people who disagree with you. You lack the ability to find creative solutions...Pathetic. I will use the word chickenhawk every opportunity that I can... Posted by Philip Shropshire at October 15, 2002 02:48 PM
You stay snug and safe in Pittsburgh, as you obviously have every intention of doing anyway, admit that you are no more courageous than the average 'warblogger', delete the offensive T-shirt depicted on your latest post on WarbloggerWatch, stop using the terms 'chickenhawk' and 'chickenblogger', and apologize for ever using them in the past. In return, I will keep my opinion of your moral character and intelligence to myself, and encourage other 'warbloggers' to do the same. In short, stop acting like an asshole and you can gradually get your reputation back, though it will take a while.
Alternatively, you may keep on insulting your betters and lying about your own willingness to risk your life for . . . what exactly? Not your country, or your beliefs, or any higher cause, but for a big pot of other people's money. (More money than some warbloggers have made so far this year, by the way.) Do you realize just how greedy, mercenary, and stereotypically Republican that makes you look?
Of course, the $10,000 fine is a red herring. It might apply if you went to Baghdad as a human shield, but you insist that you would only go as a writer. Has the U.S. government ever fined or jailed a journalist for going to Iraq? I doubt it.
Of course, we guys don't kill people who disagree with us, only people who try to kill us. So Shropshire is safe, but Saddam is not. Seems (relatively) fair to me.
Posted by Dr. Weevil at October 15, 2002 03:21 PM
What's that chickenhawk? Gawd you guys make me sick. It's obvious that I'm serious. You send the check and I will go. I'll make another concession being that you're a stereotypical ugly American and think that compromise is for weaklings: If I'm not fined, then let's return that $10000. Here's another offer coward: Of that $13000 remaining, I'll split it with a Warblogger and we'll go someplace dangerous and yes I do think that Israel and the surrounding territories are fairly dangerous places but remember I'm open minded. Please suggest other dangerous places that we can visit. I believe in compromise, negotiation, meeting the other guy halfway...Try it some time:
Chickenhawk.
Philip Shropshire
PS: By the way, my belief in the hypocrisy, stupidity and yes the cowardice of the warblocracy is deepened by your every hollow shrilly exchange...One other point: I explained my thing on the money very carefully. Ted Rall got 8 grand. I'd like some money. There's a very good chance I won't be coming back. You don't mind if I get a paycheck do ya'? I thought you guys were capitalists, ready to invade Saudi Arabia for some oil? Gawd what cowardly pathetic hypocrites, on every frellin' level... Posted by Philip Shropshire at October 15, 2002 04:08 PM
Philip Shropshire: Fuck you, you greedy lying coward. You are now banned from this site. Go write your filth on your own site.Posted by Dr. Weevil at October 15, 2002
RALL: It has its dangers. It's not really so much that as it is -- well, first of all, the diarrhea is just out of this world. It just goes on and on. The first time you go to Central Asia, you'll have it for two to three weeks, and you're completely liquid the entire time. You're just deadly sick. I lost about 40 pounds and I weigh about 200. I was pretty messed up. And also, the climate's extreme. One bus ride I took, I was in shorts and a T-shirt because it was 120 degrees, and that night I was freezing my ass off above the snow line in the mountains. It's very uncomfortable. And because the distances are so vast, you might routinely find yourself going four or five days without a bath because you're stuck on a bus. I guess the biggest hassle of traveling out there is documentation, because it's the former Soviet Union and there are checkpoints all throughout. You're constantly being pulled over and hassled by the police, who are always trying to shake you down for bribes. The first time I went, this just enraged me. I couldn't believe the systemic corruption.
Well, when Ted puts it that way—with the extreme diarrhea and the 120 degree days and the freezing your ass off nights and the systemic corruption—who wouldn’t want to go to no doubt equally Hellish and bowel challenging Iraq?
I have to accept the Shropshire Challenge (with some conditions.) I mean, Frell, Grady already has accepted like 14 times. I figure I can at least accept once. There’s just a few minor conditional details: Instead of $2000, I want enough money to risk my life, at least as much money as my crazed hero Ted Rall got (8 Grand) plus $5000 because I’ll be needin’ bribes bribes bribes, and enough to cover the $10000 (1) fine that Americans face for going to Iraq. So, if you’ve got $23000 grand I’ll be taking that trip to Iraq! (Yeah I know sucks to be poor…)(I’m not rich enough to go anywhere for just $2000 for more than a month or so. I won’t have anything left to come back to. Got no trust funds around here.)This also answers another warblogger query: It takes a certain amount of wealth to be a rebel. The upper middle class people who threw their planes into buildings didn’t think like Americans. True, they had wealth and privilege but they didn’t think of themselves as rich because, unlike Americans—the bestest greatest keenest group of folks in the world who wouldn’t dream of killing 1 or 2 million peasants in Guatemala or East Timor—they probably thought I’m not rich unless my people are rich. I know, ker razyyyyy right Misha…
Keep in mind: The full amount has to be collected before I even deign to leave the Greater Pittsburgh area. I want half up front. The other half, including the $10000, should stay in the hands of a neutral third party, or a side or person that both side respects. I suggest the American Prospect. For that, I promise to spend a month in a war zone. Give me six weeks to get there (The only exception is if I’m physically not allowed to enter the country, then I should be given several (three) weeks to go to Dangerous Place option two or three. I choose my own transportation. If I don’t get to Iraq in time for the war, or if I’m not allowed in what may be the radioactive wasteland formerly known as Iraq then I’ll go to two other equally dangerous places: Israel, or the surrounding territories. And my third option is Venezuela. I’m game and I’m ready.
But I have to be honest, Iraq is probably the last place I’d like to be. I think that if Iraq is attacked then Saddam will unleash all the bad stuff that he does have. (I'll probably have to get a smallpox shot at the very least before I go.) Afterall, there would be nothing holding him back except Saddam's good conscience. Now, here's where it gets kind of interesting and it has to do with a point that Noam Chomsky made in a recent interview. Chomsky said that, essentially, Israel had once threatened the oil reserves by force which might yet be another reason the United States is such a strong supporter of Israel. Let's assume for a moment that our country is run by oilman and let us assume that maybe they've concluded that the biggest threat to their Crack-like oil supply is not the Arab countries, but a country that has over 400 nuclear weapons. Now, Sharon has said that he'll retaliate if Saddam attacks Israel with germ warfare. I'm making the assumption that Sharon means nuclear weapons. But what if the US doesn't let him? What if they decide to attack Israel preemptively in order to protect the oil supply? This is a pretty evil administration. The administration would simply have to choose what's more important: the sacred right of Israeli revenge or the pristine health of the oil fields and all the concomitant Bush/Cheney family oil deals tied to them past present and future. I think a sane presidential administration, not in the pocket of the oil industry or led by a guy who can pronounce words, would never lead us to such a point where such a horrific call would have to be made. Personally, I think this administration will always choose the pristine health of the oil fields over Israel.
It's also why I don't think attacking Iraq is good for Israel, unleashed bioplagues notwithstanding.
By the way, I will go as a writer, period. I'd rather not go, but if Ted Rall can go unarmed then maybe I can be courageous like him, at least once. I'd like to talk to and interview as many people as possible. I'll try to blog from the scene. Just like my hero, Noam Chomsky, I'm not under the illusion that Saddam is a nice guy. I just don't think that force creates longterm peace or stability as the quagmire known as Afghanistan would attest to, not to mention that Al Qaeda seems to be well and active. Wasn't Osama Bin Laden the primary threat? Oh, that's changed. I get it. It'll be France next week. And yes I'm open to negotiation. Bottom line: Collect $23000 grand. Write me a check for $11,500. I'll be in Iraq or options two and three within six weeks (If I'm not there, then you get your money back, unless I'm not allowed to enter the country or if there is no country, as I explained earlier.) Why, that's only $100 per venomous warblogger apiece and there's at least 500 of you. Send a commie pinko to Iraq. Come on. You warbloggin' cowards.
(1) This is a story about one guy who has already gone. Here's what I found in the story and here is the link: Neither that argument, nor the $10,000 fines imposed on some activists who've gone to Iraq in recent years without U.S. government permission, sway Mr. Mauger. Well, it sways me. I'm not rich.
I actually did a feature story about these cards back during the dark days when I worked for Scripps Howard. There are 35 cards that feature the worst assortment of dictators that we've supported. Whenever the usual heckler suspects show up at Warblogger Watch and talk about how wonderful our occupation will be for the Afghan /Iraqi people I just roll my eyes in disbelief at the screen. I mean, you support bloodthirsty dictators once or twice, then maybe it's not a pattern. You support bloodthirsty dictators 35 (not counting our recent democratic activity in Venezuela) times then, hey, that's a pattern. And an evil pattern at that. Anyway, check them all out. Here's what's on the back of this card.
13 GENERAL AUGUSTO PINOCHET
President of Chile
On July 2, 1986, 18 year old Carmen Gloria Quintana was walking through a Santiago slum when she and photographer Rodrigo Rojas were confronted by government security forces. According to eyewitnesses, the two were set ablaze by soldiers and beaten while they burned. Their bodies were then wrapped in blankets and dumped in a ditch miles away. Witnesses who spoke out about what they saw were beaten and arrested. Such events are not unusual since "Captain General" Augusto Pinochet seized power from democratically elected President Salvador Allende in 1973, and buried Chile's 150 year old democracy. "Democracy is the breeding ground of communism," says Pinochet.The bloody coup, in which Allende was assassinated, was carefully managed by the CIA and ITT, according to the Church Committee report. Tens of thousands of Chileans have been tortured, killed, and exiled since then, according to Amnesty Intemational. A U.S. congressional delegation was told by inmates at San Miguel Prison that they had been tortured by "the application of electric shock, simultaneous blows to the ears, cigarette burns, and simulated executions by firing squads." Despite Chile's bad human rights record, the U.S. government continued to support Pinochet with international loans. Even the state-sponsored car-bomb assassination of Chile's former Ambassador to the U.S., Orlando Letelier, did not convince the U.S. to break with Pinochet. Chileans called for his removal in a 1988 election, but he clung to the presidency until 1990, and remains the commander of Chile's army.
(Note: these cards ended in 1990 so you don't learn about the very just effort to put Pinochet on trial over the last several years...)
There's a lot of good stuff in this Z Magazine interview with Noam Chomsky. One of the things that his foamin' at the mouth critics often miss, aside from the complexity of his arguments, is that he's very funny.
Here's a highlight:
8. How will the Iraqi people react to a U.S. attack on Iraq? What are the likely humanitarian consequences of a U.S. war?
No one has a clue. Not Donald Rumsfeld, not me, no one. One can imagine a delightful scenario: a few bombs fall, the Republican Guards rebel and overthrow Saddam, crowds cheer as US soldiers march in while the band plays "God Bless America," the people of the region hail the liberator who proceeds to turn Iraq into an image of American democracy and a modernizing center for the entire region -- and one that produces just enough oil to keep the price within the range that the US prefers, breaking the OPEC stranglehold. And Santa Claus smiles benignly from his sleigh. One can easily imagine rather more grim outcomes. That's a normal concomitant of the decision to resort to massive violence, and one of the many reasons why those who advocate that course have a very heavy burden of proof to bear. Needless to say, neither Rumsfeld nor Cheney nor any of the intellectuals urging war against Iraq have remotely begun to meet this burden.
Noam Chomsky: He'll be appearing at Chuckles all this week.
G. Harlan Reynolds's enthusiasm for wargaming appears undiminished by recent allegations. Professor Reynolds links to an earlier piece he co-authored for the loons at NRO, which notes that to "anyone who knows it, geek culture is full of military aspects," and that "[g]eeks, who know that they can program their VCR, also believe themselves capable of cleaning a gun safely." We know of the ridiculous veneration of the machinery of death by many geeks, as well as their overestimation of their military competence. If this is a demonstration of the mastery acquired by gameplay, our predicament is indeed dire. posted by Anonymous5:27 PM
• • • • •
The tension in my facial muscles eased and the hyperventilation occasioned by prolonged and violent laughter now under control, I can respond to what is surely the greatest bit of online comedy since Andre Sullivan's personal ad.
It took me some days to find it. Ordinarily, you see, I avoid the moron-rookery known as the WBW Comments section, populated largely by morons who feel compelled to attack whatever is posted - often just minutes after posting. Reading their efforts is hard slogging, with each of the nitwits fancying themselves an incubus haunting the site, though coming across as a turd that refuses to flush. But several kindly readers sent notes saying I had been slandered in a most inexcusable way by an eminently forgettable commentator.
Irrationally extreme umbrage was taken at my acceptance of the so-called Shropshire Challenge - with the proviso that Jim J. Lileks, the right-of-center square, accompany me to Iraq to witness firsthand just how nifty a "regime change" can be. An occupant drone of the hive mind apparently believed the queen bee above the invitation, saying that he would stand in proxy ("I promise you that we will meet in the streets of Baghdad, only you won't like our meeting"). This alleged gentleman went so far as to apply for reenlistment with the Army, so he notes on his website.
I can imagine the scenes preceding his post:
After reading my post of 28 September, eminently forgettable commentator is seized with a jingoistic mania. "Honey, get me the clippers. There's something I gotta take care of..." A number-one crop self-inflicted, eminently forgettable commentator gets the old fatigues out of storage, though is unable to fasten the upper buttons on the trousers. He sits his oversized posterior down before the computer - perspiring freely after having exerted himself by shining his boots - to give voice to one of the most intemperate and inexplicable rants ever committed to a computer screen.
"So I'm not afraid to die," our fearless and eminently forgettable commentator assures us, saying he would "be happy to give whatever remains of my life to ensure that my sons have the same opportunities that I've had." The "opportunity" the man has seized on here is the familiar one of making a complete ass of himself.
Luckily in our age, honorable governments are snubbing fourth-raters in their quests to appropriate various toys to satisfy their vanity, though our less-than-honorable government may actually allow such idiocy in the eminently forgettable commentator's case. We can only hope he doesn't meet the sad end he seems to threaten me with, not because it would constitute a loss to reasoned discourse - surely the effect would be quite the opposite - but because it would spare the widow having to explain to the kids just what happened to daddy: "You see, your father was an amazingly insecure man, identifying completely with massive bureaucracies and their unelected functionaries. Every slight issued at 'Kumbaya HQ' was taken with the same outrage as if someone had perpetrated a brilliant new yo-mamma joke at his expense, or had laughed at his sub-average appendage in the YMCA locker room. Oh, yes, he was very insecure. Those same insecurities that drove him to Fisk 'to the molecular level' drove him to Iraq, where he was exploded to the molecular level."
"I have just filed an additional request for re-enlistment with the U.S. Army, hoping for a positive reply this time. I'll keep you updated," our little buddy notes. We, convinced that something so ridiculous could only have been offered as comedy, have just filed an additional nomination of the genius under consideration with The International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences, hoping to score him a Webby. We'll keep you updated. posted by Anonymous1:52 AM
"Go ahead. Send me a new generation of recruits. Your bombs will fuel their hatred of America and their desire for revenge. Americans won't be safe anywhere. Please, attack Iraq. Distract yourself from fighting Al Qaeda. Divide the international community. Go ahead. Destabilize the region. Maybe Pakistan will fall -- we want its nuclear weapons. Give Saddam a reason to strike first. He might draw Israel into a fight. Perfect! So please -- invade Iraq. Make my day."
Well, it looks like the US Congress has heeded Uncle oSAMa's call . . . For historical purposes, maybe we should discern the legal precedent for Bush's "pre-emptive" invasion of Iraq. Let's begin with the opinion of Francis A. Boyle, professor of Law at the University of Illinois: "Well, the San Francisco Chronicle interviewed me on that and asked what is the precedent for this? I said that the precedent again goes back to the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 when the lawyers for the Nazi defendants argued that we, the Nazi government had a right to go to war in self-defense as we saw it, and no one could tell us any differently. Of course that preposterous argument was rejected by Nuremberg. It is very distressing to see some of the highest level of officials of our country making legal arguments that were rejected by the Nuremberg Tribunal."
Lawyers? Scholars? Killbloggers? Care to find another legal precedent?
