[untitled #492]
Written at:
14:39 27 Mar, 2003 permalink
The Washington Post's sobering assessment of the war to date has one quote that is inappropriately funny when taken out of context.
Says retired general Barry R. McCaffrey, "I wouldn't go into Baghdad before I had another armored division come up into my rear."
I'll leave you to write your own wry comment.
ari goes meta
Written at:
13:42 27 Mar, 2003 permalink
Maybe I've just been reading White House press briefing transcripts for too long, but I found yesterday's transcript a bit surreal.
MR. FLEISCHER: There will be a news conference at 11:00 a.m. tomorrow at Camp David with Prime Minister Blair. And there will be no red-eye tomorrow as a result ? no red-eye, no gaggle, no briefing tomorrow, as a result of events up at Camp David. You'll instead be wined and dined and entertained by the summit-level news conference of the President and the Prime Minister.
Let the transcript show, open parenthesis, some mild levels of laughter, closed parenthesis. (Some mild levels of laughter.)
It's like a play within a play. Whoa.
[untitled #491]
Written at:
14:37 26 Mar, 2003 permalink
Apparently, the coalition of the willing now includes all intelligent mammals.
Not just monkeys, but also dolphins, which are also being used in clearing mines.
Dolphin spokesman Aquaman would not respond to comments that the Bush administration had offered to pay the dolphins three billion herring in return for their cooperation.
Also, there were unconfirmed reports that Saddam Hussein had summoned to himself crows, vultures, scorpions, snakes, wildebeests, and all manner of dark, evil creatures.
[untitled #490]
Written at:
18:32 25 Mar, 2003 permalink
In the midst of all this madness and death, there's monkeys.
[untitled #489]
Written at:
18:26 25 Mar, 2003 permalink
Things that make you feel great: as the CNN headline says, "China readies for future U.S. fight."
I love reading sentences like this one: "Until late last year, Beijing believed a confrontation with the U.S. could be delayed" — only delayed, mind you — but now we've subverted the old world order and seem hellbent on controlling everything.
If this is what being number one means, I don't want it.
[untitled #488]
Written at:
18:07 24 Mar, 2003 permalink
Slate has a series of articles from a journalist in Baghdad that make for much more informative reading than most of the crud splattered all over CNN.com these days.
Should be required reading for everyone so gung-ho about warring.
presidential endorsement
Written at:
03:40 24 Mar, 2003 permalink
From Friday's White House press briefing:
Q: Ari, two things. What do you say to these Americans who say they are patriotic, who want disarmament, but don't want war for the examples that we're seeing now ? death and destruction in Iraq? ...
MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President's message to those people is, they're just as patriotic as anybody who has a different view of how best to achieve disarmament. There is no question about that.
Good. Now if only all the bonehead would-be super-patriots in our fine country would arrive at the same conclusion.
making crime illegal
Written at:
02:40 24 Mar, 2003 permalink
You know what I love? Thought crime legislation.
According to the Oregonian, a ranking senator in the Oregon Legislature has "introduced a bill to 'create the crime of terrorism' and apply it to people who intentionally cause injury while disrupting commerce or traffic."
Correct me if I'm off my rocker, but isn't causing injury already illegal? And hey, maybe disrupting traffic, too.
So why the need for a new law? Because they're protesting the war, those freakin' commies!
Definitely worth life in prison, that.
political comix
Written at:
16:47 21 Mar, 2003 permalink
I've always loved political cartoons.
How else can one spout simplistic political views and draw people with funny-shaped heads and yet get a reaction from people such as the deeply-knowing nod?
Or, if one does things poorly, the "I don't get it" raised eyebrow.
Still, it's a mixing of two of my favorite pastimes, comics and politics.
I've always wished I could be a political cartoonist, but I suffer from two main deficiencies: I can't draw so well and my political views are rarely so simple as to fit in a cartoon box, much less a word bubble.
Oh, sure, I've considered radical attempts to solve this problem, such as some application of concrete poetry in which all the objects in the cartoon are actually composed of words which form a small treatise I'd just written.
However, at 85 line screen for most newspapers, this seems a bit untenable.
But in these topsy-turvy times when everyone's a pundit and any pretty face will in fact do, I figured maybe, just maybe, I'd try my hand at political cartooning.
I mean, I can't be any worse than this guy, right?
Below are my first two attempts.
I'm not saying they're all that good, for the reasons outlined above.
But I like them both because of the cute little world that appears in both. Maybe I should try to focus any subsequent cartoons on him.
And maybe I could call the strip "Worldy" or something. I'm mainly thinking of the plush toy opportunities.
[untitled #487]
Written at:
03:39 21 Mar, 2003 permalink
You know what? Tony Blair has much better speech writers than does George Bush.
Compare and contrast:
Tony Blair's speech.
Bush's.
I'd like to provide a more parallel analysis, but I don't think I'll have the time, so feel free to do so yourself.
Also, did anyone think it was weird when, in Bush's speech on March 17, he said, "Many Iraqis can hear me tonight in a translated radio broadcast, and I have a message for them: Mekka lekka hai, mekka haini ho. Mekka lekka hai, mekka chani ho."
Okay, I'm sorry, I made that up.
[untitled #486]
Written at:
16:53 20 Mar, 2003 permalink
Another interesting war-related read is the blog apparently titled Where is Raed?.
It would seem to be a blog of an Iraqi living in Baghdad, with his reports and views on what's happening.
I'm not sure if it will be posted to much after the war intensifies, but it seems current as of this writing.
[untitled #485]
Written at:
16:48 20 Mar, 2003 permalink
A senior editor at Salon.com takes the left to task for their anti-war stance*, and along the way mirrors lots of my thoughts.
Or at least my current secular leanings. As a Christian, I think I can't justify a pre-emptive attack, as morally reprehensible as I find Saddam's regime.
But from a purely practical standpoint, the article, though long, does a good job of asking what happened to the left's ideals.
* For those without a subscription to Salon.com or otherwise unfamiliar with it, click to on the link to watch an ad and get a free day's worth of access, at the bottom-right of the first page.
[untitled #484]
Written at:
17:53 19 Mar, 2003 permalink
Ever wondered what a red alert might be like in America?
Well, according to this article, it wouldn't be much like America at all.
In fact, maybe the red refers to tactics usually found in totalitarian communist regimes:
"The state police and the emergency management people would take control over the highways," said New Jersey's director of the office of counter-terrorism. "You literally are staying home ... unless you are required to be out."
This country gets more fun every minute.
country gone mad
Written at:
04:04 15 Mar, 2003 permalink
Oh. My. Gosh. I am so excited that country music is now one hundred percent all-authoritarian, all-the-time!
First, you know, the Dixie Chicks really ticked off a lot of people who, like, like living in America by saying they're ashamed of their president, which is, like, so unpatriotic and stuff, and, like fifty percent of the country voted for Bush, right, so nobody should be ashamed of him, okay?
Besides, I totally heard that lead singer Natalie Maines committed treason just because she's married to one of them, you know?
Okay, well, never mind, because while I was writing this, the Dixie Chicks managed to issue an apology or two while still using the same publicity still, which is kind of weird, right?
But then there's their number one song, Travelin' Soldier, which I guess was written before the Dixie Chicks turned into communists, but maybe not if you look closely at the lyrics, because it talks about a soldier dying, as if that's all war was about, and doesn't talk about all the Vietnamese people who won their freedom because of that soldier, so maybe they were athiests back then, too?
But I burned my Dixie Chicks album yesterday anyhow, and now I mainly listen to songs by real Americans like Lee Greenwood, and did you hear about how there are at least some people who still stand up for what's right in this country, like that guy at the Houston Rodeo who beat up a foreign guy because he wouldn't stand to the national anthem of Proud to be an American? I'm proud that guy's an American.
So yeah, things are going okay, right? I'm just waiting around for the war to start and wondering if they might bomb some of the rock-'n'-roll stations in town, because a lot of their music sounds like it might question our leaders, and that's unconstitutional.
code mauve!
Written at:
03:04 15 Mar, 2003 permalink
Things keep getting dumber: our leaders are already debating altering the recently implemented terror threat alert system.
Is it because they realized they got the rainbow order wrong and that blue should indicate the lowest threat level, not green?
No. According to CNN, "the current discussion was prompted by the belief ... that if the U.S. takes military action against Iraq the threat level should be raised above orange to indicate an even greater risk of retaliation ... But there is fear that raising the risk to the ultimate warning level would do serious harm to an already-shaky economy, the sources said."
Gosh, we wouldn't want people to know what sort of danger they're in if it makes the economy go sour, would we?
We wouldn't want to actually use the system as it was designed if it means people might be scared of the terrorist threats the system was designed to alert them to, right?
I mean, think of the economy! Would someone please think of the economy?!
But I'm not panicking. I know that any increased threats of terrorism merely stem from our actions in Iraq which are meant to make Americans safer from the threat of terrorism, and that, at the very least, this circular logic will form a magical umbrella over the heads of those who use it, protecting them from any form of evil.
Besides, I know that the Homeland Security advisory system isn't some sort of call to worry about how some terrorist sleeper cell living next door is going to kill you.
It's a call to be more prepared for the reality that terrorists have been living next door all along, and maybe to be more suspicious of foreigners or people who might appear foreign in some way. And also to wear your aluminum hat more frequently.
But seriously, I for one welcome the elevation of our threat level to code red. There's a lot of things I've been meaning to do, such as running around naked in the streets and screaming that the world has gone bat-freaking insane, that I don't think are warranted at code orange and below.
Still, if we're going to add another color, it doesn't make sense to add it between orange and red. No. We should add another warning level on top of red. It could be for a "mega severe" threat condition. And it would be code infrared.
Think about it. It's not red. You see, most countries, during a war will be at code red. And they're all the way up there, and where can they go from there?
Nowhere, exactly. But if you need that extra homeland security, you know what America can do? We can go to code infrared.
Some people from other countries might ask why not just make code red that much more severe and make it the top security alert. But I think they're just jealous of our alert system.
Ours goes to infrared.
[untitled #483]
Written at:
17:55 14 Mar, 2003 permalink
Silly conspiracy theorists, you had it wrong all along. Don't worry about the black helicopters.
It's the Cessnas you should be looking out for.
ari backpeddles
Written at:
04:05 13 Mar, 2003 permalink
Pity poor President Bush. All he wants is a little war, and yet everybody he meets makes him jump through so many hoops.
But life isn't much easier for his press secretary, who has to try to explain all the jumping that Bush does.
As an example, take the following exchange taken from the only thing that makes me laugh anymore, a White House press briefing:
Q: Ari, the President was categorical a week ago, saying that no matter what the whip count, he wanted a vote. Now the Secretary of State raises the possibility that there may not be a vote. Is this thing going completely south?
MR. FLEISCHER: It's interesting. One question is, is it going north; another question is, is it south. It's ongoing. And I don't think it should surprise anybody that as it gets down to the very last stages of diplomacy, there are different ideas that can be discussed, there are different ends to reach, different routes to reach that end.
And that's what you're seeing. You're seeing that on the question of the substance of the resolution, on the deadline. But one thing is not in doubt, no matter what the end is through diplomacy. What is not in doubt, in President Bush's mind, is that Saddam Hussein will be disarmed.
Q: Jack Straw said this morning that the second resolution is less likely than at any time before. Why should we not think this is failing? And since when is it up ? when is it likely that this President changes his mind? He hardly ever does. And, yet, he appears to have backed away from what he said at that press conference, about demanding a vote.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always said that the United States does not need a second resolution and we are going to work very hard with our friends and allies on this.
Q: That's not what I'm talking about.
MR. FLEISCHER: The President has always valued the counsel and the advice he gets from our foreign friends and leaders on this, particularly our European allies who are working on this issue with us, as well as allies from around the world. So the President will continue to work this and consult with our friends and allies about the best course to take to achieve the ultimate diplomatic outcome. If a diplomatic outcome cannot be achieved, there should never be any question and a doubt of anybody about the President's intent to disarm Saddam Hussein. I don't think there is any doubt.
Q: That wasn't my question. I want to know why he changed his mind. Apparently he is not going to insist on a vote under some circumstances.
MR. FLEISCHER: I think, again, what you're seeing is the President going the last mile on behalf of diplomacy. There is an end to that road. And the end is coming into sight. Until it is final and the road is traveled, this President is determined to pursue a variety of diplomatic options, and that ...
Q: You've evaded the question three different times. I want to know why the President ? who categorically said that he would demand a vote no matter what the whip count, because he wanted to see how all of these other nations stood ? is now apparently willing to back off and not have a vote?
MR. FLEISCHER: Because your premise is suggesting that in the conducting of diplomacy there can be no room for flexibility. And as the President travels the last bit of this road, he is going to work to consult with our allies and friends.
But the pit bulls in the press do not end their ceaseless yapping there. Oh no.
Q: One on Iraq, one on North Korea, Ari. On Iraq, when the Secretary of State said in public today that we have several options here, going for a vote or not, was he speaking for himself? Or was he basically speaking a position that the President, himself, has now taken on? This is just to understand whether the President has, in fact, reversed from last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think that I expressed it all from the point of view of both the President and the Secretary.
Q: He was speaking for the President; is that a fair assumption?
MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly what I just described is not inconsistent with anything either the President or the Secretary has said.
Q: Well, that's not true, because it is inconsistent with what the President said last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, in regard to Bill's question, as we pursue the diplomacy, there is flexibility.
Q: But there wasn't last week.
MR. FLEISCHER: David.
Geez people, what does it take to get a war started around here, anyway?
sacre bleu cheese!
Written at:
03:05 13 Mar, 2003 permalink
Clearly lacking anything better to do, two Congressmen decided that the word "French" should no longer appear in the House cafeterias because, well, France didn't do what we wanted and stuff.
So say hello to "freedom fries" (n?e french fries) and bon voyage to french toast (not that french toast is all that French, apparently, but why let facts get in the way of our chauvinism?).
Of course, this gauche renaming has its precedent in World War I, when Americans singlehandedly won the war and stuck it to the Gerrys by denying them any linguistic claim on our tasty vittles, turning hamburgers into Salisbury steak, and sauerkraut into liberty cabbage.
(And what an American reaction that is ? not to bother actually changing one's ways to make a point, but rather to keep eating the cuisine of one's foe and simply change the name. Oh, the resolve! It's enough to make me wonder how we as a country managed to live through the years after the Revolutionary War without inventing a whole new language.)
But then, and this apparently bears repeating, France isn't our enemy like Germany was in World War I.
Oh sure, they may lack the esprit de corps we expect from an ally, and their laissez-faire attitude towards Iraq clearly isn't tenable.
One could even say that their declaring a veto on a second Iraq resolution a fait accompli before it had been fully debated was a diplomatic faux pas.
Or maybe one could try to shoehorn as many words borrowed from the French as possible into an article about an attempt to cleanse ourselves of French influence, thereby making an awkward critique vis-?-vis the lack of savior faire in making France to be a b?te noire. Touch?.
You know what, forget all that. I took Spanish in high school. And I know the French can be haughty little buggers. So let's have our liberty fries and liberty toast.
But if we're going to do it, let's do it the American way ? over the top! Accordingly, I expect the following changes to ensue shortly:
- "French vanilla" changed to "vanilla of justice"
- "French cut green beans" changed to "one nation, under God, indivisible green beans"
- "French dressing" changed to "dressing where my fathers died, dressing of the pilgrim's pride"
- "Barbecue", owing to its French etymology, will be called by its English translation, "beard and tail", or for you southerners, "rooter to the tooter"
- "Chicken cordon bleu" changed to "chicken coalition-of-the-willing"
- All orchestras replace French horns with English horns until such time as the American horn is invented
- President Chirac to be addressed as "President Poop-head" in diplomatic circles
- France to be relabelled "Stupid-Jerk-Land" in all American textbooks
Of course, France isn't alone in opposing our actions diplomatically. Germany, Belgium, Russia, Turkey, Canada ... lots of countries are attempting to thwart us. Should we then remoniker their cuisine as well?
Of course we should. Accordingly, here are some changes I expect to see made in the coming days:
- "German pancakes" changed to "non-obstructionist popovers"
- "German measles" changed to "Friggin' German measles"
- "Chicken Kiev" changed to "Three Mile Island chicken"
- "Borscht" changed to "free-market capitalism can't be beat soup"
- Turkey taken out of all club sandwiches just like Turkey was taken out of the "pro war club"
- "Turkish delight" changed to "Turkish fear and apprehension of possible retaliatory moves"
- "Canadian bacon" changed to "Fifty-four forty or fight back bacon"
- "Belgian waffles" changed to "waffles that will not be so easily trampled by the Germans"
- And just for good measure, "swiss cheese" changed to "decidedly pro-war cheese"
Of course, we can expect some retaliation in kind from these countries.
For instance, I have heard that the French have begun calling American cheese "crap", which isn't actually a change, but it's still an affront to everything our forefathers worked for.
of course you realize, this means more war
Written at:
04:34 11 Mar, 2003 permalink
If you're like me, you're tired of hearing about Iraq all the time.
It's been, like, a year since we started talking about pullin' the thang out and all, and we still haven't banged, much less hit somethang.
I mean, Iraq is so last year. I don't really care what happens there anymore. Inspections, war, whatever. Double whatever.
I'm looking for the next big thing ? who's next.
Based on all George B's frontin', I'm guessing Pakistan's going to be number three on the Rumsfeld hit parade.
I mean, just like with Iraq:
- There is intelligence that some members of al Qaeda are operating out of Pakistan.
- There is also evidence that Pakistani officials might have helped al Qaeda years ago.
- Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Pakistan, and Osama bin Laden is rumored to be there.
- Pakistan has a known nuclear weapons program that was highly condemned when it was first revealed.
- Pakistan has a non-democratic government in which a dictator took control of the country.
- Pakistan has waged war periodically against its neighbors for decades now.
So if you're looking for something fresh and new, please join me in chanting "Bomb Pakistan! Bomb Pakistan!" with all our freedom-loving friends.
We meet in front of the library every Friday at 5:30pm.
of course you realize, this means war
Written at:
02:34 11 Mar, 2003 permalink
Conflicted as I am about the Real Soon Now war, I've resorted to picking at Ari Fleischer's answers to bide my time until the bombs drop.
From yesterday's White House press briefing:
Q: Ari, you've said today that the United Nations Security Council doesn't have a monopoly on the organization of international bodies. ... I'm wondering where a coalition outside of [the U.N.] would derive its legitimacy from in the international conscience?
MR. FLEISCHER: It would derive its legitimacy from, first of all, the legality is of course, as I said, expressed in resolution 678 of the United Nations resolutions.
Oh, I get it. If we decide that the UN is irrelevant because of its failure to act, our new, better club will derive its authority from the resolution passed by the now-totally-lame UN. Okay.
MR. FLEISCHER: It's also expressed in the Constitution of the United States of America ...
I guess he's referring to the part in section 8 where it says "The Congress shall have power ... to declare war", but that sure seems to say that only Congress can declare war, not the president.
MR. FLEISCHER: It also is derived from the will of the world to disarm Saddam Hussein ...
So even if we can't convince the world to disarm Saddam, much less convince the handful of countries in the Security Council, our actions are still the result of the will of the world.
"Baby, I'm doing this for you." "I don't want it like that." "Shut up! I said I'm doing it for you!"
busted!
Written at:
01:34 11 Mar, 2003 permalink
The Department of Justice recently cracked down on online drug paraphernalia vendors (dot-bongs?).
In explaining the need to protect the American public from such, um, functional glassware, Attorney General Ashcroft said that "quite simply, the illegal drug paraphernalia industry has invaded the homes of families across the country without their knowledge."
Which, I suppose, implies that the e-headshops are using some sort of push technology.
Among the items that made the DOJ's naughty list were "miniature scales, ... bongs, marijuana pipes, roach clips, miniature spoons and ..."
Wait, miniature spoons? Do you realize how many grandmas are drug dealers?!
Thankfully, these kinds of bongs remain completely legal to sell over the internet.
The lesson? While marijuana is scary and somehow manages to invade peaceful households, it's always a good idea to get completely sudsed with your frat brothers.
psychic friends
Written at:
16:18 08 Mar, 2003 permalink
And while I'm guessing when the war will start, I may as well go ahead with my prediction on Bush's running mate in 2004.
Okay, I don't actually have a clue who it will be, but I'm betting it won't be Cheney.
The best way for the Republicans to maintain power is to allow for a smooth transition in the White House from a two-term president to the vice president, as from Reagan to Bush Il-Song, and as botched by Gore in 2000.
Frankly, Cheney doesn't stand an environmentalist's chance on the energy council to be elected to the office of the President. He frightens too many people, and he wouldn't stand up to public scrutiny.
Besides, nobody wants a president who has a high likelihood of suffering a heart attack.
Therefore, Cheney's out as veep in 2004. The GOP will bring in some new blood to revitalize the ticket and increase the chances of a Republican president in 2008.
Of course, I don't think anybody wants it to appear that Cheney was asked to leave, so maybe he'll bow out for "health reasons", or to pursue "individual pursuits" in an underground lair somewhere in Nevada.
For my money, I really hope that Bush's running mate in 2004 is Libby Dole.
From a practical standpoint, it would be clever for the Republicans to attract women voters, given that they're likely to try to increase their efforts to ban abortion.
But that's not why I'm all about Libby. No, first, I would appreciate the confirmation of my growing feeling that United States politics is inbred and somewhat dynastical. Okay, and dumb.
But moreover, given the popular consensus that Hillary Clinton will run for the Democrats in 2008, I'm really looking forward to all the "Clinton v. Dole revisited" articles. I think it would be a boon to political cartoonists everywhere.
Written by: Mud
Written at: 18:29 27 Mar, 2003