My Take on this Obama thing

Obama is a highly problematic candidate for the Democrats. On paper, he runs to the left of almost everyone on almost everything, and yet his rhetoric seems to be all about bipartisanship, and the Republi-cons ain't buyin' what he's sellin'. You can't reach out across the isle if the other guy thinks you are going to put him in a headlock and try to drag him over to your side. Thought Dubya was divisive? How is the tone in Washington gonna change if the right-wing ideologues running the show just get swapped out for left-wing ideologues?

The Democratic primary voters seemingly do not care about this because Obama is the candidate that makes you feel good about yourself. He is like a Hollywood idea of a black president. He isn’t Jesse Jackson, who was so deeply identified with identity politics that his very blackness became an issue. Obama transcends colour, and yet allows white voters to say to themselves “look at me, I’m voting for a black guy! I’m so progressive”. Deep down I think that if Obama was white, he would be dismissed by the electorate as quickly and comprehensively as other charismatic flash-in-the-pans like Edwards and Howard Dean. I think Liberal Blogmeister Cherniak is telling the truth when he writes the following:

Just like JFK actually won more votes because the media kept asking whether Americans would elect a Catholic, I believe that all this talk about whether Mr. Obama can win "white votes" has become a strength. It is almost like a challenge to white people to vote for him just to prove that they are willing to vote for him. He's a young, attractive, charismatic guy, so why not?

That would line up with what we saw on Super-duper Tuesday: Obama got the black and upper middle class white vote (i.e. people who love the idea of a black president). Hillary won low income whites, women, and latinos –all people who pragmatically ask "Which democrat is going to manage the economy and deliver concrete results for me and my loved ones?". Even some Republicans who loathe McCain have said they would vote for Hillary if it comes to that, because they recognize Obama for what he is, an empty suit.

For a great summary of the Campaign thusfar, read Hanson's article
Domacrats Want to Lose, Republicans Don't Want to Win

Good News All Around

Nathan Rabin just concluded his magnum opus. Now he has decided it will be an ongoing monthly feature!

***

Alot of talk of "Free Speech", Ezra Levant, Macleans and Mark Steyn among the blogeratti lately. At long last, these stories are just starting to gain the attention of the media with the news that Keith Martin will be introducing a Private Member's Motion to Change the Human Rights Act, thereby paving the way for a return to power of the National Socialists, or so you would think...

Who is this "hatemonger" Mark Steyn and What does he stand for? Incidentally... you never hear about fishmongers or ironmongers anymore, but hatemongering has become a very popular occupation, apparently. Here is the man at Pepperdine:



***

New Kraft Doubles!

Maybe it was this quote that gave me a fit of giggles:

After years of catering exclusively to depressed, lonely men in their 30s, Kraft is proud to present a product for people who are capable of experiencing love and happiness," Kraft CEO Irene Rosenfeld said at a press conference.

Why We Fight

"I believe in a strong international role for Canada. I think this world is getting more complicated, more difficult, more dangerous. I don't think those issues should just be resolved by nuclear superpowers. I think that countries like Canada have an important, meaningful role to play. Projecting our values. Standing for the rights of individuals, of the human security of people whose own governments can't protect them. That's something that we as Canadians have talked a lot about and we believe in.

And what's our alternative? ... This is not, you know, you can't turn the rheostat on this. You either stay. And you say you mean it. And you get something that we can call success, which is giving the Afghan government the ability to maintain its own security like any sovereign country should be able to do it. Or you get out.

And if we get out, what's the next mission? ... We're a rich country. We've gotta do some of this stuff. Would it be in Darfur? Well, you know, regrettably, the government of Sudan doesn't want anyone in Darfur. And, let me tell you, it'd be just as dangerous. It would be a combat mission.

Would it be in Rwanda? We didn't have a combat mission in Rwanda, we had blue helmets. And the result was genocide.

You know, the world isn't a pretty place. But I happen to believe that the people that came before me in the Liberal party, that believed in a strong role for Canada on the international stage, would say, there are times when we have to count. There are times when it matters. We're not prepared to retreat under the U.S. missile shield and live in fortress North America. We're prepared to be out there and we're prepared to pay the price. Because that's what you expect of a country like Canada. That's what I say."

John Manley, commenting on the release of the report of the Independent Panel on Canada’s Future Role in Afghanistan

Since Nato has now confirmed that it intends to support Canada in its mission in Kandahar province, it is probably a good thing that we have eloquent men like John Manley, a proud Liberal, to remind us what Canadians stand for. Sometimes, I fear we have forgotten who we are, and what we have always been, regardless of what the revisionists would have us believe.

If Canada really is a one-and-a-half party state and the Liberals are the party of "the majority" of Canadians, then Mr. Manley, who is very much a mainstream Liberal and is therefore without the ideological bagage of the Harperites, did something that no Conservative has been thus far able do: Speaking the language of modern liberalism and Pearsonian foreign policy, he gave a most compelling explanation of why centrist and left-of-centre Canadians should get behind the Afghanistan mission.

****

Related: Ivison beats up May for her profound silliness on Afghanistan. I hear that tomorrow there will be an encore of some type involving fish in a barrel and a firearm.

Human Rights Omission

If there really should be limits on free speech, I submit that perhaps this fellow comes a bit closer to crossing the line than either Ezra Levant or Mark Steyn ever did... Not that I believe free speech should be limited.

But tell me there are at least a couple of Osgood Hall Law Students willing to speak out against this kind of hatred and incitement... Nah, didn't think so.

The Killing of Canadian Troops is Legitimate and Well-deserved?

So what I really want to know is at what point do we start talking about treason here? This is about as bald-faced as one can get.

While he writes that he approves of attacking Canadian troops, he also says he would not do so himself.

Of course not! He's at University in Mississauga, enjoying all the benefits of living in Canada! He doesn't want to roll his sleeves up and you know, actually do anything for the global struggle! He may be "hot for jihad", as Steyn would put it, but he prefers to outsource his war on those of the Christian/Crusader Heritage --Incidentally, I thought Canada was a multicultural nation, but thank you Elizabeth May for clearing that up.

I bet you "the brothers" are really glad that they have pampered college jokers in Canada cheering them on from the sidelines.

Give Me That G-D Clickerbox

That title, completely unrelated to the content of the actual post, is in honour of Ma and Eddie Reardon,the grossly underappreciated culture critics from This Hour Has 22 Minutes. God how I miss them. Somebody should YouTube some of their stuff. It's classic.

On the subject of brilliant use of the 'ol YouTube...seen some of the promos for Cloverfield? There's some pretty groovy viral stuff out there. This is the trailer:



Have you seen Cloverfield? I mean the actual movie. In the words of Jules Winnfield, "That was some chilling shit".

Jonah Goldberg of the NRO says it is Godzilla meets Blair Witch. That seems like a pretty good description to me.

I dare not ruin any of it for you so I don't know what to say about it except to say it is very much worth seeing... Ryan and I had a little e-mail back-and-forth on it after we each watched it separately. Here is part of that conversation, sans spoilers. The names have not been changed to protect the innocent:

Ryan:

I am interested in the talk of a sequel as long as it doesn’t become a
Blair Witch 2 project type thing. I hear it may document another group’s
perspective of the attack. Still once may be enough. I really have no commitment
either way.

James:

agree… it is a singular movie event, and if they go
back to the well too many times, it will lose its unique appeal… maybe a TV news
team’s perspective, which would mean much better footage, and a more
professional approach. It could be unedited footage –a series of stand-ups and
interviews at various locations with the reporter giving her perspective and
talking to military leaders, survivors etc , followed by out-takes, where they
don’t turn the camera off, and we get exposition from various characters, and
even some “coverage” where you get some “combat camera” type footage. It writes
itself

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now watch those bastards steal my idea that I already stole from War of the Worlds!

Back to Blog

It has been about three weeks since I last signed on. Many family gatherings in the last little while, so I figured I would start off 2008 with a few photos from the holidays:

This is Malak, Nesrine's little cousin. She likes to dance whenever her uncle plays a certain song on his cell phone. Yes, it is adorable.

Three generations of the women of my family.

The old man thanks Joe and George for his Christmas gift: An Elliptical trainer.

I really like this photo. The Ellards have always been a demonstrative bunch, never shy about showing affection, as you can see.

Fantastic news! George and Yinzee announced their engagement at my folks' house.

Nesrine' aunt, a devout Shia Muslim, just got back from the Hajj, and the family had a dinner in honour of her return. She had some amazing photos of the pilgrimage and was still in a bit of a daze. I guess it can be an overwhelming event and I'm not surprised that it takes a while to process the experience.

Best Wishes for 2008

What did I learn this year?

A Calgary Bar Chick will gladly forsake the chance to become a prince's consort for a bit of cash... and if it means there is a chance that Pamela Anderson will play her in a TV movie.

Pam Anderson is now 40.

How about 46-year-old red-head Eric Stolz as Prince Harry?

*****

Bob Shaye's insanity was reversible after all. And all it took was a few flopperooneys for New Line. So rejoice, rejoice, o legions of the nerdly! Here comes The Hobbit.

*****

God and Science do not have to be at odds. Actually, I already knew that, but it is nice to read something intelligent that reinforces that notion!

*****

There is someone in Canada who writes about military affairs and actually seems to know what he is talking about --unlike 99% of the columnists out there.

And his name is not Scott Taylor, it is David Pugliese.

*****

Good news from Iraq may mean good news for us in Afghanistan ... and wouldn't it just piss some people right off to have the U.S. pick up the slack where NATO appears to have dropped it?

*****

Dana Perino is not that bright. Not that bright at all.

*****

And finally, life is tough for Osgood Hall crybabies. Why, oh why, won't anyone let them respond?
Damn those meanies at Macleans! Boo! They are so, like, oppresive, man!

Seriously, this face-off between Macleans magazine and the 4 law students is tiresome, and my wish for 2008 is that it be resolved quickly and utterly in favour of the magazine. The idea that the fundamental principle of free-speech could be challenged before a human rights commission is a startling enough notion, but the idea that these lawyers-in training only resorted to this measure because they were thwarted in their efforts to engage in a debate on the issue is ludicrous. Ali Eteraz, a lawyer whose progressive bonafides are beyond doubt, dismisses this notion completely:

“Thanks for your input, now what is left for you to do is to please show me the opening to this elusive gateway to public debate. Myself and thousands of Muslims would love to get a chance at engaging in this debate. This is the essence of the claim.

Please let us debate, please let us be heard, I urge and will even go as far to beg of you to help me express myself on an equal footing with these Islamophobes. You provide me a vehicle for debate I will gladly take that anytime of the year over a human rights complaint. What don’t you understand, we encourage debate, where is it? Please guide me to the forum!”

With all due respect, this is the saddest and most pathetic thing I have ever heard.

“Please let us be heard?”

“Provide me a vehicle for debate?”

Is something wrong with you?

1 -Did you call Mark Steyn’s agent and try and set up a public debate? I bet he’d love a go; the right wing pundits do.

2 - Did you contact opposition publications to Macleans and publish stuff there? I bet they’d love a go to make Macleans look bad.

3 - Did you try and raise funds to start a new liberal magazine so you can respond to people like Mark Steyn?

4 - Did you contact the writer of Little Mosque on the Prairie, who is quite sympathetic to the CIC, and ask her to make a snide reference to the demographics issue that Steyn raises?

5 - Did you call Tarek Fateh, who and his associates seemingly have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER getting published works critical of Steyn?

6 - Did you even think about taking me up on my offer to get you guys published in the Guardian?

7 - Did you try and contact Anar Ali, the short story writer, to use her influence to write a rebuttal?

8 - Did you try to contact Irshad Manji — who last year wrote a piece damning all those who seek to stifle immigration — to help use her influence in challenging Steyn?

9 - Did you try to contact an agent for yourself or your other equally inept legal friends so that you might write an anti-Steyn?

I’m sorry if this sounds too much like a generalization, but I’ve dealt with individuals propounding the same kind of rhetoric you are — willful victimization, complete ignorance of how the world works, wallowing in self pity — and they often love to attach themselves to Western Muslim communities after 9/11 and drag them down. I’m sure you’ve got a few Muslim enablers as well. The individuals I am describing often tended to be highly educated, driven by some kind of parochial original sin which motivates them to teach utter and total despair to the community they attach themselves to, so that they may then save said community, and feel good about themselves.

I bet you and the other law students who have done nothing but toe the line the entire life (and have now turned into “humanitarians!” in what I figure is the last year of law school) had grandiose visions of having your name appear in Macleans as “defenders of the weak.” To be followed by a parade led by beautiful Muslim muhajjibas (oh, but how dare I suggest that YOU might be an orientalist).

Again, like I said, the statement of yours that I just quoted, is one of the saddest things I’ve read; quite helpless in fact. I never respond at this length in the comments, and felt compelled to do so, because you are just so far gone its tragic.

Read the whole thread to get the picture!

*****

That's all I got for this year. Hope to blog alot more in 2008. If not for you, whoever you are, then for me, because it's fun to put my nonsense out there.

R.I.P. Borat Sagdiev

The well-known Kazakh reporter passed away suddenly yesterday



Mr Sagdiev is survived by his wife Lunelle, several girlfriends, a dozen prostitutes, a multitude of children (legitimate and illegitimate), as well as his mother and numerous brothers and sisters, half-brothers and half-sisters, brothercousins, sistercousins, ladyboys, he-shes and other indefinitely gendered relatives from the nuclear reactor zone near Kucik.

Funeral details and an obituary have yet to be published

¿¡Viva la Revolución!? ... ¡Viva Louis Vuitton!

The Spanish speaking world has been providing us with some good stuff lately! First King Juan Carlos telling off Chavez, and now this:



Basically, this Venezuelan politician is in the middle of a tirade:

"The only path to justice is socialism. It is not capitalism, it is not cannibalism..."

He is interrupted by the reporter:

"You want to talk about capitalism, and here you are in your Louis Vuitton tie and your shoes from..."

"Uh, that is, uh, I mean, uh...

(rough translation, but basically politician begins to stammer and do the speed-wobble)

...I would love it if all of this was produced in Venzuela, In which case, I would purchase everything that is produced here and we would not have to import 95% of the goods we consume."

Funny. The reporter has since been "disappeared" for double-plus-ungood thoughtcrime.

OK, maybe not...I made that last bit up.

The Chocolate Side of the Force



"**I move my frontal breathing vent away from the mic to respirate."

That's just awesome.

If you haven't yet, check out the original. Over 12 million views. Unbelievable.


*****

Jon Kay looks at military funding in this country over the last 40 years or so. The data may surprise you at first, but there is a reason something looks cockeyed. (hint: check the comments for the answer) The real kicker for me is that not only did I join the CF just as defence spending went into a nosedive, but I left just as it started to get better!

I can well imagine that nowadays the average no-hook buck private reservist with 18 months of service has already had access to more state-of-the-art military equipment and advanced training than I ever did as an NCM and Officer from 1993 to 1999. And that is as it should be.

Becoming a soldier today, even a reservist, is no longer the vague open-ended commitment it was when I got in fifteen years ago. The prospect of combat looms large, and the preparation for this eventuality must, I think, give the task of training and moulding the soldier a focus and urgency that the process may have lacked in the nineties.

For instance, I have no doubt that nowadays, the average recruit gets familiarized with every weapon in the infantry's arsenal, including mortars and anti-armour weapons, sometime in their first couple of years of service.

Yet even though something like the .50 machine gun is considered one of the basic arms of the mounted infanteer, and I perhaps flatter myself to believe that I was trained as an infantryman – I never got to fire a single round from one.

The fifty cals were always in “war stores” (reserved for use on UN missions overseas and workup training for UN missions) whenever it came time to break them out and learn how to operate them on any given course during any given summer of my unremarkable militia career. As time and time again my training on the weapon was deferred, the "Fifty" began to take on an almost mythical status.

After a while, I came to suspect that the 50 cal did not in fact yet exist -- that it was a theoretical weapon that military theoreticians had developed to help formulate future doctrine in the war colleges of NATO. It wasn't theoretical. It was in fact an antique - it had existed for close to a century; basically a precursor of the weapon was used during the Great War. Imagine my surprise the first time I saw one being fired on exercise, 4 years after joining the military!

Such was life in the militia in the nineties!

A Silly Story

Sir Archibald Barclay and his wife Lady Edith occupy the penthouse of a lovely downtown apartment block. The two bluebloods are from old money, and though reputed to be indolent and selfish, have actually worked hard for philanthropic causes and contributed alot of money towards cancer research. That being said, they are both chain smokers, so maybe they are hoping that all of the money they raise will enable a cure to be found before their nasty habit catches up with them.

One day, a couple of Sloan Ranger types; Piers Piggot and his girlfriend Alexandra Jones move into the apartment just below the Barclays. The young couple are nouveau-riche, not old money like their upstairs neighbours, and they are nowhere near as well-off.They enjoy smoking as much as Sir Archibald and Lady Edith do. With the success of Piers' business their net-worth is increasing, and as it does, they are starting to develop a taste for luxuries.

One day soon after the new couple arrives, the landlord of the building, Mr. Kimoto, decides that henceforth, the building will be smoke-free. There have been several fires in the building caused by cigarette butts in wastebins and the general negligence of some tenants. This is causing insurance rates to skyrocket. Besides, Mr. Kimoto informs his tenants, science has conclusively proven that everyone is affected by second-hand smoke, and therefore he cannot allow some to pollute the air of their building to the detriment of everyone else.

To be sure, there is much grumbling among the tenants, but most agree that its for the better. Better still, although Sir Archibald and Lady Edith immediately quit smoking, they decide they will continue their charitable work for cancer research. One day however, as they are arriving home from a luncheon, they detect the smell of cigarette smoke wafting through the vents in their condo. A bit irritated, they head downstairs to check if their new neighbours can also smell the smoke.

To their surprise, they are greeted at the front door by Piers, puffing away on a pipe. Behind him they can see Alexandra and another young couple sitting in the living room enjoying some brandy and expensive Cuban cigars.

"Terribly sorry, old chap" says a flustered Sir Archibald, "but you do realize we are no longer permitted to pollute the air of our building with tobacco smoke, don't you? It is terrible for your health and bad for the rest of us too!" Piers grins at the old gent and his wife. "Oh, be fair Sir Archie!... you have had years to smoke in this building, whereas Lexi and I just got here!" Sir Archibald raises an eyebrow and Lady Edith snorts haughtily. "Well," Piers continues "I mean, it is hardly fair that just as we get here, all of a sudden everyone is saying we are no longer allowed to smoke, something that the rest of you have been doing all along! In fact, we have decided that we are no longer going to smoke plain old cigarettes, but now that we can afford them, we'll have fancy cigars too!"

"My good man!" Says, a flustered Sir Archibald "I don't follow your logic whatsoever! Do you mean to tell me that we must make an exception to the rules governing the use of something we have all agreed is detrimental, just for you?... are you saying that you should be allowed to smoke--even more than you were doing it before, I might add, just because you didn't get a chance to smoke in this building when the rest of did?"

Piers shrugs "Well, you see, Lexi and I could not afford to live here for the longest time... and we certainly couldn't afford to smoke cigars every day. But now we can, so you and the rest of the old boys club can sod off, yeah?"

And with that, Piers blows a cloud of smoke in Sir Archibald's face, and slams the door.

"What a peculiar point of view" says Lady Edith.

"What a load of nonsense!" Says Sir Archibald

Laughter is Contagious



Sure, the act itself is lame, but the lead-up is just priceless

More Funny Stuff:

As far as pure comic talents go, it doesn't get any better than Jonathan Winters. Winters could adlib like nobody else. Here he is with Dino



Since 24 is postpond, here is the original 24 Pilot from 1994


Iowahawk: Hollywood seeks to expose the harsh truth about Christmas

"It's sad, but hopefully these wonderful films will do much better in the overseas market," said Ebert. "No matter how much down inside they know how Christmas is wrong, and Santa is wrong, it's hard for Americans to see their elves portrayed in a balanced, realistic way, as tragically haunted sadistic pederasts. By contrast European filmgoers are much more sophisticated and educated, so they eat that shit right up."

*****
For history nerds like me this is cool: Archeologists have found the heart of Rome. And on the topic of "old":

The Seikilos Epitaph is the oldest surviving example of a complete musical composition. It dates back to around the time of Christ. And to listen to it is to seriously freak oneself out.



It is exotic ...and yet oddly familiar. I can seriously imagine myself 2000 years ago throwing on a toga, kicking back on my couch in my villa's courtyard and digging the groovy tunes, man.

ADAMSKI

Killer

Live in Liverpool 1989



Damn! That really holds up... Even 18 years later

Grab-bag

Various items and tidbits that have caught my attention lately:



Redacted box office take as of November 25, 2007 - 10 days in release:

$44,651

Cuz I just can't let it go...

*****

Why do the Yanks have two land forces?

The Populist explains. A useful primer for anyone who has ever wondered what the difference is between the Army and the Marines.

*****

I have a bet with someone that Rosie will still be off the air one year to the day she left The View:
Right about now, my chances of collecting are looking pretty good! Keep it up, Rosie... I know I can count on your particular brand of crazy to sabotage any potential comeback.

*****

Who are hockey's real "most valuable" players?
Who would you rank first?

Hands up if you picked Milan Michálek of the San Jose Sharks.

Didn't think so!

This page gives you the straight numbers and a purely quantitative analysis, comparing salary, dollars-per-goal scored, dollars-per-game-played, and various other figures and ranks each skater accordingly. The others results may surprise you as well.

*****

And I thought eating Raw Kibbe was daring:

The Six most terrifying foods in the world

I simply must remember to pick up some Sardinian maggot-cheese for my next soiree.

*****

Prince Harry's brother Prince Baldy:

Wills needs some Rogaine pills



I thought I detected some straggliness on William's royal melon a year or two ago; those tell-tale whispy bits that don't quite end up as locks of hair. I know whereof I speak. I myself started to track the retreat of my legion of follicles a few years back. Thankfully in my case, it was a tactical withdrawal,and not a full-blown rout. I still have a reasonable head of hair.

The hair-challenged heir to the throne did pretty well for himself otherwise in the genetic lottery. Even if he ends up as bald as gramps,I'm quite certain he'll still cut a dashing figure.

*****

Last of all, Jon Kay heaps scorn upon the anti-racism racket:

For all their claim to progressive politics, there is something slightly old-fashioned and fusty about the people who run these conferences. Many of them have been fighting the evil of prejudice since the early days. And they have chalked up some spectacular successes during that time: the Charter of Rights, human rights tribunals in every province, hate speech laws, gay marriage, etc. Even more importantly, they have managed to make race-hatred the ultimate taboo -- a subject that can get you fired from any job or ostracized at any social gathering. But instead of taking a bow and declaring victory, the anti-racism industry is still chugging, seeking desperately to justify its existence by trumpeting ever more implausible and exotic theories of discrimination.

Read the whole thing, it really is worth it!

Iraq and Afghanistan

We may be witnessing something truly remarkable in Iraq:

OK, the New York Times is writing about it on the front page ... do we dare talk about it now? The possibility of non-defeat?

The Iraq War is a curious thing. It may very well end up being the first war where opponents of it get to paint it as a defeat, and the proponents get to declare victory, with no one being able to conclusively prove the other wrong.
















Nevertheless, as the NYT shows, even some longtime opponents of the war are just about ready to admit that things might be ever-so-slightly improving for Iraqis...

Is this permanent? Who knows. Is it reassuring? Definitely.

Does it jibe with what the Michaels (Totten and Yon) have been saying for weeks? Yes it does:


Here is some absolutely riveting writing from Michael J. Totten on the Anbar Awakening:

One night,” Lieutenant Markham said, “after several young people were beheaded
by Al Qaeda, the mosques in the city went crazy. The imams screamed jihad
from the loudspeakers. We went to the roof of the outpost and braced for a
major assault. Our interpreter joined us. Hold on, he said. They aren’t screaming
jihad against us. They are screaming jihad against the insurgents."

“A massive anti-Al Qaeda convulsion ripped through the city,” said Captain McGee.
“The locals rose up and began killing the terrorists on their own. They reached the tipping point where they just could not take any more. They told us where the weapon caches were. They pointed out IEDs under the road.”

Another missive from Iraq, one that dares give us hope that Iraqis can overcome their deep sectarian rifts: Muslims go to church

Then, on the other hand, there is Afghanistan:

The Senlis Council just released a sobering report, entitled Stumbling Into Chaos: Afghanistan On the Brink, which reminded me of something shocking Michael Yon posted on his site a few weeks ago.

I am far from a defeatist, but I must say that I am profoundly troubled. In the last year, the situation has deteriorated to the point that NATO is heading for a failure in its first major test as an organization. The implications of this are staggering, and we should not fool ourselves: A defeat in Afghanistan would be a fatal blow to the organization's credibility, and the dissolution of NATO thereafter would be likely. If NATO goes, what happens to Afghanistan? What happens to Canadian defence policy, for that matter?

So, given all of these developments, what will U.S. foreign policy be like in a post-Bush world?

Does the end of the Bush administration mean the end of empire? Not yet, says Macleans.

From the lips of Hilary Clinton:

"There is a refrain that we should intervene with force only when we face splendid little wars that we surely can win, preferably by overwhelming force in
a relatively short period of time. To those who believe we should become
involved only if it is easy to do, I think we have to say that America has never
and should not shy away from the hard task if it is the right one."

Looks like the next few years offer little in the way of certainty or reassuring platitudes from the heir-presumptive to the presidency.



Bonus heart-rending content:

A poignant remembrance of those who have fought and fallen there:

Last Letters from Kandahar

All my life I bugged my parents about when I could have a brother, and here I have all the brothers I could want.

Plus: Christopher Hitchens deals with a death

Instead of wasting your time going to see that Robert Redford flick, just read this. Trust me.

Invested in Defeat

Box office defeat, that is! Brian DePalma's Redacted is another failed campaign in the Hollywood War On Terrific Filmaking (HWOT):

As usual, Mark Steyn has some very interesting insights into a subject that has exercised me a great deal lately:

What the preview crowd were telling Berg is, hey, we'd love to see one film where our guys kick serious terrorist butt — and there isn't one, and there hasn't been one for six long years. If you buy the argument that Hollywood's anti Americanism derives necessarily from its role as purveyor of entertainment to the entire planet, well, so what? Terrorists killed a bunch of people in Bali, Madrid, London. Alongside the kick-ass Americans, sign Hugh Grant as an MI6 agent and Penelope Cruz as his Spanish dolly bird and Cate Blanchett as the head of the Australian SAS and Russell Crowe as her Kiwi bit of rough. As long as the enemy's the enemy, and not a Dick Cheney subsidiary. It's fine to show the American war machine warts and all, but Hollywood is showing only the warts — and, even if you stick perky little Reese Witherspoon in the middle of it, it's still just another pustulating carbuncle.

What is it with some of these filmakers? Do they really feel morally obligated to pontificate the way they do? Do they really see their role as educating the masses on what is really going down? Just where do they derive their expertise, or their moral authority, for that matter?

I could go on at great length about some of the new "secular religions" that have arisen lately, and the self-appointed popes who would be the guardians of orthodoxy... but also I'm starting to think that the problem lies with hybridization and the breaking down of barriers between education and entertainment.

More and more, when it comes to movies, the lines are blurring between the two. How many times do you hear that it is important that people watch a certain film to "learn something", and open their eyes to this or that particular issue?

That's absolutely fine by me, as long as people remember they also have to do some reading to supplement whatever that nicely-packaged, easily-digestible, inevitably slanted movie just taught them. The movie is context --an adjunct-- not the Gospel itself. Consider the danger of watching a piece of AgitProp like Loose Change free of any context or additional information.

I think back to all those days in Grade 12 English, watching movie adaptations of famous works of litterature. What if I had just watched the films and not read the books? Would Romeo and Juliet look like Baz Luhrman's South Beach, or Zefirelli's Verona? Having read the play, my Romeo and Juliet doesn't have to look like either... I can make up my own mind! I have additional information that gives me more context.

Do you go to the monkey cage at the zoo expecting a dissertation on Schopenhauer? Do you go to university, for that matter, expecting the professor to gibber, grimace and fling feces? So why should those who entertain us also have the role of educating us?

I say to Hollywood: Never mind the message movies... dance, monkey, dance!


******

Bonus: In addition to making reprehensible movies, DePalma is now torpedoing the careers of hungry young actors by allowing them to make fools of themselves and get eviscerated by critics.

Novice thespian challenged by role of improbably-obese, grotesque and ridiculous Marine caricature in Redacted

Bond-age

I've been watching some of the old Bond flicks that MPIX is showing ahead of their premiere of Casino Royale, the shockingly good "reboot" of the 007 franchise starring Daniel Craig.

After watching two of them back-to-back, I noticed that the famous "gunbarrel" opening was subtly different for each one.

I later found this video, which shows each opening montage in sequence, from Dr. No, all the way to Casino Royale.



Personally, I get a kick out of tracing the evolution of men's fashion as exemplified by the ever-stylish 007: The hat, which was de rigueur for a secret agent in the early sixties, has disappeared by the end of the decade. The seventies brings a bell-bottom sporting Bond, and the eighties puffier Bond hair. by the nineties, we have gotten a bit gimicky... a dapper tuxedoed Bond fires a bullet right down the barrel in one opening sequence!

It's also amazing how many variations people have come up with for Monty Norman's iconic theme. Each opening features a different take on the tune: Most of the big and brassy versions from the earlier Bonds I love. Some, like the late seventies disco version, I find hilarious. I also find a couple of the later ones horridly sythesized and overdone. Sure, they get points for trying to be original, but as far as I'm concerned, if it doesn't have that famous dum-da-da-dum-dum, dum dum dum, dum-da-da-dum-dum... it ain't the Bond song!

I also discovered that Monty Norman and legendary James Bond film scorer John Barry have each claimed credit for the creation of the theme, going as far as taking the whole thing to court. The issue was certainly worth a fight, given the royalties Norman must have been collecting.

More on those Hollywood wizards and their knack for reading their audience:

Hollywood misreads response to War On Terror

Critics say the films' failure shows just how badly Hollywood has misread Americans' response to the war on terror, confusing "the public's war-weariness with their own carefully cultivated rage", as Jonah Goldberg, in the Houston Chronicle, put it.

"Hollywood and the left generally have misread this political discontent thinking there's a mandate for their trite Vietnam-era nostalgia for mass protest and Joan Baez specifying," he wrote.

"But few Americans are eager to spend their money to listen to the Jane Fonda set say, 'I told you so!' for two hours."

My personal fave:
Directors say war films make up for poor reporting

Brilliant! I know that if you are like me, you want to get your news by paying ten bucks to sit in a movie theatre and munch your popcorn while you get "real reporting" from people who are supposed to be paid to entertain you. No wonder these flicks are doing boffo biz.

"There is a very big difference between the Vietnam war, where we saw the pictures, and the Iraq war, where we don't," De Palma told Reuters at the Venice Film Festival, where "Redacted" premiered and where he won the best director award.

No pictures? What fucking rock have you been hiding under, Mr. DePalma?

Iraq Combat

or if you prefer (and I am sure many will):

Abu Ghraib

Haditha

Hollywood Asks

Why don't these stupid, disgusting, evil, criminal moviegoers want to go see movies about the evil, disgusting deeds of their criminal government and stupid troops?

Grosses

Rendition $9,664,316
Lions for Lambs $7,913,999
In the Valley of Elah $6,727,968
Redacted TBD

Here's a hint:

Movigoers speak out


Roger Simon provides the straight goods:

These people represent a fair percentage of the (absent) audience. For years Hollywood insiders would joke about the cluelessness of the “flyover people” between the two coasts. But reading these comments, the flyover people, whether foreign or domestic, seem so much more intelligent than the Hollywood wags quoted in the article, it borders on the pathetic.

In fact, the box office debacle should be no surprise to anyone who had been paying the slightest attention, so the question is: Why was and is Hollywood so clueless?

Simon, a screewriter himself, tells us about the Hollywood establishment:

These are not curious people because they are highly self-protective. They live a hugely privileged lifestyle, often based to a great degree on luck (and they know it), and this existence could only be threatened by contradictory information. Who wants that – particularly when it would alienate your colleagues, hurt your reputation and cause work problems?

Better to produce movies that validate the orthodoxy, even if they are economic disasters. Your colleagues will be impressed and you might win a prize (De Palma did – at Venice). Most of them are low budget anyway – a piffle. And the distribution system is rigged anyway. The antiwar swill won’t lose that much money because, boring as the films may be, they will be force-fed into the global entertainment machine, grouped in packages with other movies and sold to foreign television distributors to re-emerge as late-night reruns in Albania or wherever on into 2027 and beyond. A minor loss, if any.

Viva El Rey!

I just saw Hugo Chavez get told off by the King of Spain, and it was awesome:



It's really just fantastic to behold. Here we have a paranoid buffoon unaccustomed to being challenged finally getting a dressing-down in a public forum --and by a President and a King, no less! This is what happens when some two-bit leftist thug starts to believe his own press and steps out of line in an international forum.

First Prime Minister Zapatero --and I am no big fan, incidentally --rounded on the Venezuelan leader and objected to Chavez speaking ill of Aznar, his predecessor.

"Not that I am close to Aznar ideologically, but ex-President Aznar was elected by the Spanish people... and I expect you to show respect..."

And then, as he continues to interrupt, even with his mike cut off (class act, that Chavez), the King angrily chastises him...

"Why don't you just shut up!"

...well, needless to say, I'm sure he was startled by the tongue-lashing. Would anyone dare speak to the great Hugo Chavez in such a manner back home?

Zapatero went on to plead for a respectful dialogue, befitting the "elected representatives" (ha) of their various peoples, but the very idea of a reasonable debate is anathema to Chavez. He has no opponents with whom he can respectfully disagree, only enemies whose character he must assassinate through calumnies and wild accusations. The King, who is himself intimately familiar with the ways of the autocrat, treated this contemptible little tyrant with the scorn he deserves.

I'm a big fan of Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon-Dos Sicilias. He was Franco's longtime protege and designated successor, and could have tried to keep the authoritarian regime alive after el Caudillo de España kicked the bucket. Instead, he surprised everyone by working with reformers to bring democracy to my mother's homeland --a system I fear will remain foreign to the people of Venezuela for many years to come.

King Juan Carlos has proven to be an excellent monarch who remains popular in Spain today. He evidently has little time for phony-tough little Napoleons.

Don't worry though, Chavez was undeterred by the King's intervention, and went right back to spouting more of his drivel a few hours later.

*****

Why Is This Man Smiling?



Someone from the Daily Mail just did a puff-piece on him

"Rage Boy" indeed!Funny enough, he seems to me to be more amateur grievance-monger than frightening religious zelot... heck, if he managed to get over here, he'd feel right at home among the professionals like Jaggi Singh, Maude Barlow and their ilk!