Preacherman

Our beloved vice president has journeyed to Vilnius in the former Soviet Union to criticize the democracy being run by the current Kremlin-dwellers. The Russians, naturally, found him “completely incomprehensible.” (Welcome to the club, друзья.) Cheney also accused the Russian government of using oil and gas to intimidate or blackmail other countries. He then jumped over to Kazakhstan to promote a new gas pipeline that will bypass Russia. The BBC’s diplomatic correspondent writes:

The scramble for energy resources, so-called “pipeline diplomacy,” has been likened to “the Great Game” during the 19th Century—the struggle for influence in Central Asia.

The Russian press was paying close attention:

It is becoming more and more obvious that the struggle between the US and Russia for influence in the former Soviet republics is becoming more acute … Essentially, the US leadership is bidding for the creation on the territory of the former USSR of another regional alliance, called upon not just to become an alternative to the CIS but its gravedigger. (Vladimir Skripov et al., Vremya Novostey

Dick Cheney’s speech in Vilnius … was the sharpest attack on Russia an American leader has made since the end of the Cold War. The subject of the Cold War was the leitmotiv of the US vice president’s whole speech. This expression, first famously coined by Winston Churchill in Fulton exactly 60 years ago, was used by Dick Cheney three times … In effect, Dick Cheney’s words mean that the Cold War is resuming, but the “front line” has now shifted. (Mikhail Zygar, Kommersant)

On the one hand, Moscow was shown the advantages of “good behaviour” on her part. Iran was not mentioned, but the word could easily be read between the lines. On the other hand, the Kremlin was issued with an unambiguous warning … He (Cheney) is not the kind of politician with whom agreement can easily be reached. Even if Moscow meets them halfway and surrenders Iran, it does not at all mean that it will rid itself of Cheney’s sermons. He is like a bulldog which, once he sinks his teeth into your back, will not let go. (Mikhail Rostovsky, Moskovskiy Komsomolets)

Posted in Russia | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Aversions

I don’t know how it came up, but for some reason our daughter found a reason to tell her mother on the phone that she doesn’t like the word “flab.” Not that she doesn’t like flab itself (which may or may not be the case); she doesn’t like the word—something about the sound being too much like the thing itself. “Another word I don’t like is ‘moist,'” she said. She had mentioned that to a friend, and the friend said, “I totally agree.” Then she added one of her own: crusty. And our daughter totally agreed.

As for me, I don’t like the word “totally.”

Posted in Random | Tagged | Leave a comment

Colbert

I thought I could get away with just enjoying Stephen Colbert’s brilliant performance at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner. But I feel strangely compelled to say something, something more than the stray remarks I’ve dropped in my family forum and in comment boxes at various sites.

That the president didn’t find Colbert’s ironic “celebration” of him funny is hardly surprising. Some who were amused seemed to find it strange that the audience of reporters and muckamucks was not—that they were, in fact, visibly discomfitted, or hid their smirks behind their hands as they leaned on their elbows and watched the vivisection of George W. Bush, eyes darting from the torturer to the tortured up on the dais, mouths curled in disdain when the barbs would periodically change direction and land in their midst.

After initially reporting only on the president’s antics with his competent but predictable doppelgänger and largely ignoring Colbert, the corporate media bestirred itself a few days later to acknowledge the fact that Colbert, who supposedly bombed at the Washington Hilton on Saturday, was all the rage online on Sunday, Monday, Tuesday … (Copies of the C-SPAN’s broadcast sprouted all over the internet like mushrooms after a storm.) “Yeah, but he wasn’t that funny,” the big names of the big media sniffed.

In a sense, they were right. Colbert had bombed—them. The president and the press. And if you were one of them, it didn’t feel very funny. If you weren’t, and if you thought they have both been criminally negligent if not malfeasant for the last five years (or even more, in the case of the press), it wasn’t just funny, it was exquisite.

Supposedly Colbert broke the rules. Supposedly the annual Correspondents’ Dinner is a time for the press and the president to lay aside their differences and enjoy some good-natured ribbing. In ancient times warring Greeks would lay down their arms every four years and celebrate their common humanity in sporting competition. When Calvin Coolidge attended the first Correspondents’ Dinner, no doubt the feeling was similar, but without the naked athletes. It has since become a sort of high-toned amateur hour, with skits and standup performed by those who should keep their day jobs, and generally do.

So now, in the Year of Our Lord 2006, here cometh to the banquet the jester Stephen Colbert, and he gives them a spot-on caricature of a right-wing, fact-challenged TV blowhard. That’s what he does five days a week on The Colbert Report on Comedy Central. It should have been acceptable. Why wasn’t it? It soon became clear it was not “all in fun.” There was just too much nasty reality in it—truthy bits everyone is afraid to say to Bush’s face, the kinds of things a court fool would tell the king to keep the guy grounded.

But the main thing is, it showed that the White House correspondents had already broken the rules: they had not spent the previous 364 days being a pain in the president’s ass. They had been his willing accomplices for five years running. They had been derelict in their duties. So Colbert was being perfectly traditional in flipping the president–press corps relationship; it’s just that the relationship had already been flipped. The president would get one day of rough treatment after hundreds of days of kiss-kiss. Then they could go back to their high-status, high-paying stenography, the president could go back into his bubble, and Colbert would go back to his “proper” audience—folks who appreciate irony, think facts are worth paying attention to, and suspect the motives of those in power.

After rubbing the tender spots where they collectively got gored, the mainstream press may eventually smack its collective forehead and cry out, “Hey, that damned ox was right!” Then again, if the bloggers think Colbert was great, he must be a real stinker with a real stinking agenda. “God, I hate bloggers!”

Posted in Agora | Tagged , | 2 Comments

Pentagon

What a coincidence (see the previous post). Over at Salon, Farhad Manjoo interviews James Carroll, author of a “biography” of the Pentagon, House of War. “[I]f Carroll’s book actually reads … like a story not just of the Pentagon but of the last half-century of American foreign policy,” Manjoo writes, “well, that’s the point.” He then quotes Carroll, a former Catholic priest and son of an Air Force general who worked there: “The Pentagon has been so much at the center of national life that one could write an entire history of the contemporary United States in its terms.”

Here is Manjoo’s summary:

Carroll’s specific complaints will ring familiar to any peacenik: He argues that since Sept. 11, 1941, when ground was broken at the building’s site—Carroll makes much of this date, exactly 60 years before United flight 77 crashed into the building’s side—the U.S. has embarked on a series of foreign policy disasters. Among other things, he believes that dropping nuclear weapons on Japan was a mistake; that we should not have developed, and then shouldn’t have tested, the H-bomb; that we should have shared our nuclear knowledge with the Soviets and instituted an international framework to abolish nuclear weapons; that we were mistaken to think of the Soviets as our mortal enemies, and thus mistaken to have turned political differences into a near world-ending Cold War; that we missed many opportunities to end the nuclear arms race during that war, and that we were far more belligerent than the Soviet Union in how we conducted ourselves with those weapons; and that, finally, even today, though we no longer face an enemy that poses an existential threat to the nation, we’re needlessly maintaining a military force that is more dangerous than any other force in the world, capable of instantly destroying all life on the planet.

What’s interesting about this catalog, as Carroll points out, is that at various points in the nation’s history, many men in government made similar arguments. Their cries were drowned out, though, by the culture of the Pentagon, which always wanted more—more bombs, more planes, more ships, more war. It’s this thesis, as well as Carroll’s unquestionably solid research, that makes his story much more than a standard antiwar rant. Other than a few stock villains—notably the mad bomber Curtis LeMay, the Air Force general who controlled the American nuclear arsenal for more than two decades—Carroll doesn’t characterize the folks who worked in the building as evil. “The Pentagon’s is a story of ordinary people who acted with good intentions, faced tragic dilemmas, and resisted what they saw happening right in front of them,” he writes. They didn’t set out to make the mistakes they did; rather, institutional momentum led them astray.

The interview is well worth reading in its entirety. One answer in particular resonated with something said here a while back. Manjoo asks Carroll how the Pentagon has changed the American people. “You say we’ve become a militarized, ‘vengeful people.’ Do you really believe that?” Carroll says:

I do. I love my country, and the American people are good people. But we are allowing the government to do things in our name that are wrong, they are criminal. If I could say something really outrageous, I think that the American people today have turned against the war in Iraq for the wrong reasons. They’ve turned against it because we’re losing. We should be against this war because it’s wrong and unnecessary. If this war had gone the way Rumsfeld and company thought it would go, Americans would have been fine with it. And that’s appalling. And of course if it had gone the way they thought it was going to go, we’d be in Iran today. That’s the tragic good news here. This war has gone so badly that the American imperial enterprise has been stalled. Thank God for that.

But, again, we the American people have not reckoned with what we did at the end of World War II. And one of the things that happened on 9/11 is that we looked at ourselves and presumed to think of ourselves as world-historic victims. What we suffered was tragic, and indeed a catastrophe, but on the scale of suffering it was very minor compared to the kind of suffering we’ve inflicted on other nations, and we’re still doing today.

“Well, is it possible to change this?” Manjoo asks. Carroll replies:

To me the greatest symbol of hope is what happened at the end of the Soviet Union in the 1980s, beginning with Chernobyl. It’s a miracle of my lifetime that a nonviolent popular movement led to the demise of the Soviet system. And if that can happen, the equivalent can happen on our side. We have to break the myth of military power. We have to understand that there are many more grievous threats to our nation than those that the Pentagon can protect us from.

Posted in Agora, Russia | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Anglais

The University of Chicago Club of Washington, DC, is offering a guided tour of the Pentagon. According to the description:

English is the only language permitted inside the Pentagon. Please do not converse or otherwise communicate in any other language while on the tour or you will be escorted out of the building.

This after you’ve passed through an “airport-type, physical security screening” and shown “two (2) forms of picture ID.” (I’ve always loved when they put the number in parentheses. By which I mean, I’ve never understood it. “Oh, that two! I thought you meant 3, or some other number that is close to 2, or has 2 in it, or is just a different number entirely. Glad you cleared that up.”)

And, of course, when you signed up you gave them your full name, social security number, date of birth, place of birth, style of birth (Caesarean, forceps, breech, etc.), and nationality of the obstetrician.

Too bad for me—I only have one picture ID (my passport expired years ago). Not that I particularly wanted to go.

I wonder if a person would get kicked out for saying “Gesundheit.” Or for humming “La donna è mobile” (the Italian language is certainly implied in such an act, and besides, who knows what sort of signal that aria might be convey to … some other opera buff). Well, I know one thing for sure: the company that cleans my office doesn’t have the contract at the Pentagon. Olé!

Posted in Agora | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Attractive

Who would’ve expected to find Lorenz attractors on a box of Godiva chocolates?

Godiva box with Lorenz attractors

Here’s a nice Java applet that generates the Lorenz “butterfly.”

Posted in Random | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Remembering

Today persons of Armenian descent worldwide, along with their families and friends, commemorate the genocide that began on this date in 1915. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the government of Turkey, and its friends in high places, continue to deny that a conscious, government-directed genocide occurred. Last week PBS ran a documentary on the Armenian genocide in which Turkish citizens spoke about the events of that time as genocide, which was a brave thing, considering what happens to Turks who veer from the government line.

My brother-in-law Nick wrote an excellent essay that appeared today as an op-ed in the Racine Journal Times. He notes the passing of Grandma Vartenie, Racine’s last survivor from the 1915 Armenian genocide, and points out that it’s not a historical footnote for academics to quibble about:

History’s lessons are learned by facing the past honestly. The genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and the one raging today in the Darfur region of Africa demonstrate that the world community has failed learning its lessons.

The U.S., along with the other nations of the world, must set a new course by ensuring that history is not rewritten. This is the ultimate hope of those who gather each April 24.

Posted in Agora | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Funky

Laura does the gardening. I’m an appreciative audience. But when I accompany her to the gardening emporium, she usually says, “Why don’t you pick out something you like?” On Thursday this caught my eye, and now it graces the brick path out back:

African Daisy

It’s a variety of African Daisy, but it don’t look like no daisy I’ve ever seen.

Posted in Random | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Correction

A canard has been abroad for years: “George W. Bush doesn’t read the newspapers.” Well, apparently it just isn’t so. In his own words:

I say, I listen to all voices, but mine is the final decision. And Don Rumsfeld is doing a fine job. He’s not only transforming the military, he’s fighting a war on terror. He’s helping us fight a war on terror. I have strong confidence in Don Rumsfeld. I hear the voices, and I read the front page, and I know the speculation. But I’m the decider, and I decide what is best. And what’s best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.

He reads the front page. So there.

Posted in Agora | Tagged , | 4 Comments

Pomes

The conversation went like this. We were walking back from lunch, and I noticed the grass getting long (and remembered how ours needs cutting). I said to Ken: “So, have you cut your grass yet?” It turns out he hasn’t needed to, for reasons involving lack of sun in the front yard and kids running around in the back yard. “But,” he says, “I think I need to get my mower blade sharpened first.” And then he wonders out loud whether it’s steel. I say, “What else could it be, aluminum?” He says, “I was thinking plastic.” He was half-serious. It’s an electric mower, which he considers a toy almost.

Then, after a pause, he says:

I bought a wooden whistle, but it wouldn’ whistle. So I bought a steel whistle, and it stiiill wouldn’ whistle. So I bought a tin whistle, and now I t’n whistle.

It had the goofy sound of something a dad would say, and he said he thinks that’s where he heard it.

It reminded me of a rhyme my dad would always recite around this time of year, back in northern Ohio—in his rendering:

Spring has sprung,
The grass is riz.
I wonder where
The robins is.

I did some Googling recently and found what must be the canonical version:

Spring in the Bronx

Spring is sprung,
Duh grass is riz
I wonder where dem boidies is.

Duh little boids is on duh wing—
But dat’s absoid:
Duh little wing is on duh boid.

Penned by that prolific bard Anon, it can be found in Comic Poems (Everyman’s Library), according to this source.

Well, that sprang loose another bit of rhymed nonsense from Ken, channeling his dad. After hearing it, I wondered whether it, too, could be found in the aforementioned collection. At any rate, here it is:

One bright day in the middle of the night
Two dead boys got up to fight.
Back to back they faced each other,
Drew their swords and shot each other.
A deaf policeman heard the noise
And came and shot those two dead boys.
If you don’t believe this lie is true,
Ask the blind man—he saw it too.

Posted in Random | Tagged , , | Leave a comment