Friday, January 9, 2009
Friedman Op-Ed
Here's what I consider to be a balanced look at the latest Palestine Israel conflagration, from Tom Friedman writing for the New York Times. Comments anyone?
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Hamas Charter
For those who are Middle East curious, here are some highlights from the Hamas Charter (it's like their Constitution...). Following I'll post the link to the full charter. Read up!
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Full Charter:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Full Charter:
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/documents/charter.html
Saturday, January 3, 2009
The Infidels
I forgot to mention previously that the Jews are not Muslims. This explains a lot. If the Jews converted to Islam we could get this friggin' thing to go away.
We're off to the Middle Ages! There's gold in them there Middle Ages!
We're off to the Middle Ages! There's gold in them there Middle Ages!
2 + 2 = 5
Good God. The Breaking News on CNN. Israel is going into Gaza to root out Hamas.
Here's a smattering of thoughts:
1. The media keeps pointing out that it'll be "very difficult" to separate Hamas from the civilian population in Gaza. Right. That's the point, isn't it? After lobbing rockets into Israel, start the PR campaign for sympathy when Israel retaliates. If Hamas is smart, they'll put their military installations right next to the Grade Schools. That shows the cruelty of Israel, not Hamas, right? Dumb asses.
2. Why does Hamas keep talking about "ending aggression"? Are they on LSD? What about the damn rockets they're launching every day into Northern Israel? What is that? Diplomacy? I don't get it. I really don't get it. Suppose Mexico started firing off missiles into Tucson, or El Paso, or wherever. Sure, that's aggression. Then the U.S. (after scratching its collective head for a while), has some response, maybe with the aim of stopping missiles from hitting American cities. The whole "protect our citizens" thing.
But then Calderon gets on the loud speaker, and goes on CNN, and starts talking about the American aggression, as if Mexico hadn't launched any missiles. Just bald faced starts talking like that. (Why? Because screw um', that's why!).
Are you serious? This is a scenario that, literally, my eight year old daughter could sort out. What a freakin' farce. Won't someone just say it?
3. It seems obvious to me that anyone, without prior political machinations, would conclude that Hamas is convinced that Israel, as a country, as a nation state, should not be in the Middle East (and maybe should die horribly, too). Apparently, they feel justified in creating all manner of mayhem to drive them away. Fine (I guess fine, not really fine). But it would be great for the rest of us if Hamas would stop the "save us from the aggression of the Israelis!" speak. Just say you hate the Jews, and you want to kill them. There would be more dignity in it.
Anyway, I'm sure someone can sensitize me to the issue, no doubt at the expense of common sense. (Now that's progress! Talking out your rear is progress!)
Here's a smattering of thoughts:
1. The media keeps pointing out that it'll be "very difficult" to separate Hamas from the civilian population in Gaza. Right. That's the point, isn't it? After lobbing rockets into Israel, start the PR campaign for sympathy when Israel retaliates. If Hamas is smart, they'll put their military installations right next to the Grade Schools. That shows the cruelty of Israel, not Hamas, right? Dumb asses.
2. Why does Hamas keep talking about "ending aggression"? Are they on LSD? What about the damn rockets they're launching every day into Northern Israel? What is that? Diplomacy? I don't get it. I really don't get it. Suppose Mexico started firing off missiles into Tucson, or El Paso, or wherever. Sure, that's aggression. Then the U.S. (after scratching its collective head for a while), has some response, maybe with the aim of stopping missiles from hitting American cities. The whole "protect our citizens" thing.
But then Calderon gets on the loud speaker, and goes on CNN, and starts talking about the American aggression, as if Mexico hadn't launched any missiles. Just bald faced starts talking like that. (Why? Because screw um', that's why!).
Are you serious? This is a scenario that, literally, my eight year old daughter could sort out. What a freakin' farce. Won't someone just say it?
3. It seems obvious to me that anyone, without prior political machinations, would conclude that Hamas is convinced that Israel, as a country, as a nation state, should not be in the Middle East (and maybe should die horribly, too). Apparently, they feel justified in creating all manner of mayhem to drive them away. Fine (I guess fine, not really fine). But it would be great for the rest of us if Hamas would stop the "save us from the aggression of the Israelis!" speak. Just say you hate the Jews, and you want to kill them. There would be more dignity in it.
Anyway, I'm sure someone can sensitize me to the issue, no doubt at the expense of common sense. (Now that's progress! Talking out your rear is progress!)
The Strangers
I watched The Strangers last night, an unfortunate movie, if only because its sole aim is to scare the dickens out of you, but (at least in my case) fails miserably. (Actually, I should say that I re-watched The Strangers, this time at the offices, in the dark, and completely alone, hoping for that jolt of fear. Nothin'.) Let me explain.
First, if you haven't seen it, it's essentially the Manson Family idea: two women and a man in creepy masks descend on a house in the country to harrass a hapless couple, who're staying at the house for the night (the house of the young man's parents, who aren't there). That's the basic idea.
As for the couple, Liv Tyler plays Kristen McCay, who has recently rejected a marriage proposal from the now-frustrated James Hoyt, played by Scott Speedman. I thought the chemistry between the main characters was fine; the problem creeps in (no pun) when the bad guys show up. This is made known by the obligatory eery knock on the door, at four in the morning (which terminates the unfolding love scene-- thanks a lot!), resulting in a peculiar exchange with a young woman at the doorstep, dead of night in the country, asking for someone in a dead pan I'm-in-a-horror-movie voice.
But Hoyt blows this off, and shortly after goes to get cigarettes for McCay, leaving her in the house by herself (yeah, right). Of course, you guessed it, the creeps from outside are soon inside, and the cat and mouse game begins.
By the time Hoyt arrives with the smokes, McCay is freaked. He's still got the dismissive must-be-okay attitude, but after seeing one of the antagonists standing menacingly in the shadows outside one of the windows, he digs out the family shotgun. Now, with two women and a man wearing Halloween masks in the country, in the early hours of the morning, with no phone access (the hard line's dead, and the one cell phone got chucked into the fireplace by the bad guys, who seem to be making excursions into the house to perform particular missions, only to go back outside to stand around and look scary), it would seem that there are two reasonable moves for our antagonized lovers.
One, get in the car and drive off. Two, retreat to a room of your choice (with no windows behind you, etc.), and sit there with the 12 guage and the several dozen shells Hoyt pocketed, and wait for daylight. Bad guys with Halloween masks disappear when the sun comes up (same goes with the audience's fear). Then, simple equation: bad guy shows up with knife, shoot bad guy. That's easy enough.
Neither option happens until it's too late, though Hoyt and McCay do, eventually, attempt to drive off (what a concept!), but get rammed by the creeps in their creepy pickup and end up back at the house.
So, move one failed, proceed to move two. Sit there with the shotgun and wait it out. This was too boring, apparently; better to run around, finding creepy places, exposing yourself to danger. Be the victim! Feel the victim! Oh well.
Incidentally, one thing I did find interesting: a menacing knock on one's door (with no peephole... that's cheating) in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, does present a dilemma. Open it up, might be bad. Yell through the door? I guess, but then if it seems harmless, you're obliged to open it ("What the hell do you want?" "Uh, my car broke down, I'm cold, and lost..."). Doing nothing seems a little too cautious (maybe even a little pusillanimous), and shooting through the door without understanding the situation is obviously absurd. Assuming there's no phone access, what would you do? Unfortunately, entertaining this mildly insipid question is the closest The Strangers came to pulling me into the Creep Zone.
First, if you haven't seen it, it's essentially the Manson Family idea: two women and a man in creepy masks descend on a house in the country to harrass a hapless couple, who're staying at the house for the night (the house of the young man's parents, who aren't there). That's the basic idea.
As for the couple, Liv Tyler plays Kristen McCay, who has recently rejected a marriage proposal from the now-frustrated James Hoyt, played by Scott Speedman. I thought the chemistry between the main characters was fine; the problem creeps in (no pun) when the bad guys show up. This is made known by the obligatory eery knock on the door, at four in the morning (which terminates the unfolding love scene-- thanks a lot!), resulting in a peculiar exchange with a young woman at the doorstep, dead of night in the country, asking for someone in a dead pan I'm-in-a-horror-movie voice.
But Hoyt blows this off, and shortly after goes to get cigarettes for McCay, leaving her in the house by herself (yeah, right). Of course, you guessed it, the creeps from outside are soon inside, and the cat and mouse game begins.
By the time Hoyt arrives with the smokes, McCay is freaked. He's still got the dismissive must-be-okay attitude, but after seeing one of the antagonists standing menacingly in the shadows outside one of the windows, he digs out the family shotgun. Now, with two women and a man wearing Halloween masks in the country, in the early hours of the morning, with no phone access (the hard line's dead, and the one cell phone got chucked into the fireplace by the bad guys, who seem to be making excursions into the house to perform particular missions, only to go back outside to stand around and look scary), it would seem that there are two reasonable moves for our antagonized lovers.
One, get in the car and drive off. Two, retreat to a room of your choice (with no windows behind you, etc.), and sit there with the 12 guage and the several dozen shells Hoyt pocketed, and wait for daylight. Bad guys with Halloween masks disappear when the sun comes up (same goes with the audience's fear). Then, simple equation: bad guy shows up with knife, shoot bad guy. That's easy enough.
Neither option happens until it's too late, though Hoyt and McCay do, eventually, attempt to drive off (what a concept!), but get rammed by the creeps in their creepy pickup and end up back at the house.
So, move one failed, proceed to move two. Sit there with the shotgun and wait it out. This was too boring, apparently; better to run around, finding creepy places, exposing yourself to danger. Be the victim! Feel the victim! Oh well.
Incidentally, one thing I did find interesting: a menacing knock on one's door (with no peephole... that's cheating) in the middle of the night, in the middle of nowhere, does present a dilemma. Open it up, might be bad. Yell through the door? I guess, but then if it seems harmless, you're obliged to open it ("What the hell do you want?" "Uh, my car broke down, I'm cold, and lost..."). Doing nothing seems a little too cautious (maybe even a little pusillanimous), and shooting through the door without understanding the situation is obviously absurd. Assuming there's no phone access, what would you do? Unfortunately, entertaining this mildly insipid question is the closest The Strangers came to pulling me into the Creep Zone.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Here Comes the Judge
I've argued previously (though not on this blog) that the Second Amendment makes no sense if it's not construed as granting an individual right to bear arms. Opponents of this view typically invoke a strand of Constitutional originalism: the Second Amendment says you have a right to form militias, not have a gun for self-defense. (Politics makes strange bed-fellows; progressives who suddenly discover the value of Constitutional originalism.)
My argument for the individual right to bear arms is grounded in the absurdity of granting folks the right to band together to form militias but denying the right in the case of a solitary individual. If gun toting militias are protected by the Second Amendment, a fortiori should individuals.
But my argument has a flaw, which I've recently come to realize; namely, that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment is interpreted as a statement about federalism: the states, under the "militia" reading, have the right to form militias. This makes more sense. And, alas, it leaves unanswered the separate question about whether the right to bear arms extends to individuals for the purposes of self defense (the right in both cases -- individual or state -- is essentially intended as protection against tyranny).
Anyway, the Heller decision last year upheld the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. As might be expected it was cheered by opponents of Gun Control. Interesting, however, that conservatives like George Will have questioned the Heller decision. Will points to 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Wilkinson's argument that Heller, like, over three decades ago, Roe v. Wade, uses the ambiguous wording of the Constitution as license for judicial subjectivity. With Heller, we get an individual gun right from the ambiguous language of the Second Amendment. With Roe v. Wade, we get a right to privacy that exists somehow in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment ("under the penumbra" is I think the famous phrase).
Wilkinson argues that judicial subjectivity is not the bromide for Constitutional ambiguity; rather, the matter should shift to legislation:
"...when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments -- particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations."
I hate to admit it, but I tend to agree.
My argument for the individual right to bear arms is grounded in the absurdity of granting folks the right to band together to form militias but denying the right in the case of a solitary individual. If gun toting militias are protected by the Second Amendment, a fortiori should individuals.
But my argument has a flaw, which I've recently come to realize; namely, that the "militia" language in the Second Amendment is interpreted as a statement about federalism: the states, under the "militia" reading, have the right to form militias. This makes more sense. And, alas, it leaves unanswered the separate question about whether the right to bear arms extends to individuals for the purposes of self defense (the right in both cases -- individual or state -- is essentially intended as protection against tyranny).
Anyway, the Heller decision last year upheld the individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment. As might be expected it was cheered by opponents of Gun Control. Interesting, however, that conservatives like George Will have questioned the Heller decision. Will points to 4th US Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Wilkinson's argument that Heller, like, over three decades ago, Roe v. Wade, uses the ambiguous wording of the Constitution as license for judicial subjectivity. With Heller, we get an individual gun right from the ambiguous language of the Second Amendment. With Roe v. Wade, we get a right to privacy that exists somehow in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment ("under the penumbra" is I think the famous phrase).
Wilkinson argues that judicial subjectivity is not the bromide for Constitutional ambiguity; rather, the matter should shift to legislation:
"...when a right's definition is debatable, generous judicial deference should be accorded to legislative judgments -- particularly those of the states, which should enjoy constitutional space to function as laboratories for testing policy variations."
I hate to admit it, but I tend to agree.
Happy New Year
I probably shouldn't post this, but...
Happy New Year! The most uneventful New Year celebration ever. I tried to be festive but had no enthusiasm for it, and ended up snoozing and watching bad T.V. By way of contrast, the best New Year celebration I had was in Seattle in 1995 (to be 1996).
I was in Pioneer Square for the countdown, which was packed with the merriest of folks, cheering beyond all reasonableness. I remember lifting the champaign to the sky and counting down with hundreds of my suddenly closest friends. What fun, that night.
Later I lost my leather jacket in a bar, and ended up staying with a woman named "Gretchen" details about which I'll omit. In the morning I awoke to a new year, in a new bed, and by noon was walking in rare sunlight (I remember it was sunny in Seattle) back to my apartment, which was across town and I guess at least three miles away. Gretchen didn't have a car. It was, I think, a New Year to remember, loosely stated.
In my old age and married with kids now, I just sort of nod off, watching Andersen Cooper in ear muffs and a bunch of now silly looking revelers cheering and whooping and hollering. Many have Gretchen stories, by now, too. They will, some day, many of them, recall with great fondness the first moments of 2009.
Happy New Year! The most uneventful New Year celebration ever. I tried to be festive but had no enthusiasm for it, and ended up snoozing and watching bad T.V. By way of contrast, the best New Year celebration I had was in Seattle in 1995 (to be 1996).
I was in Pioneer Square for the countdown, which was packed with the merriest of folks, cheering beyond all reasonableness. I remember lifting the champaign to the sky and counting down with hundreds of my suddenly closest friends. What fun, that night.
Later I lost my leather jacket in a bar, and ended up staying with a woman named "Gretchen" details about which I'll omit. In the morning I awoke to a new year, in a new bed, and by noon was walking in rare sunlight (I remember it was sunny in Seattle) back to my apartment, which was across town and I guess at least three miles away. Gretchen didn't have a car. It was, I think, a New Year to remember, loosely stated.
In my old age and married with kids now, I just sort of nod off, watching Andersen Cooper in ear muffs and a bunch of now silly looking revelers cheering and whooping and hollering. Many have Gretchen stories, by now, too. They will, some day, many of them, recall with great fondness the first moments of 2009.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
