Notes on how things seem to me from out here in Hollywood... As seen from Just Above Sunset
OF INTEREST
Click here to go there... Click here to go there...

Here you will find a few things you might want to investigate.

Support the Just Above Sunset websites...

Sponsor:

Click here to go there...

ARCHIVE
« April 2004 »
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
Photos and text, unless otherwise noted, Copyright © 2003,2004,2005,2006 - Alan M. Pavlik
Contact the Editor

Consider:

"It is better to be drunk with loss and to beat the ground, than to let the deeper things gradually escape."

- I. Compton-Burnett, letter to Francis King (1969)

"Cynical realism – it is the intelligent man’s best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

- Aldous Huxley, "Time Must Have a Stop"







Site Meter
Technorati Profile

Monday, 5 April 2004

Topic: Iraq

Sunday, Bloody Sunday... Events beyond Fallujah

Matt comments from up near Canandaigua -
Fallujah is the graveyard of America...

Or as political commentator Mark Shields put it - "Fallujah in '04 is not Paris in '44."

It seems to me there is only one principled stance with regard to Iraq: US troops should get out.

We are an invading and occupying force. Straightening out the mess we have made there should be turned over to the UN. The US should pay for it. More particularly, Cheney, Bush and Halliburton should pay for it.

But that won't happen.

What I fear will happen is that John Kerry will get elected. He won't have the nerve to pull US troops out. It will become his war. It will be the reasons he is unable to cement a left-center coalition in this country. And he will serve one term.
Well, in the middle of last week I thought the Fallujah episode was the tipping point in the war, as did so many others. What were we to do now?

We are now in the process of cordoning off the city - a cordon sanitaire, allowing only food and medical supplies to pass trough. Seems we are soon going to go in "in force" and clean up the place, whatever that means. I guess we'll create a number of new martyrs and many more angry insurgents. And I mentioned I did come across a letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times (not available on the web) that argued that we incinerated hundreds of thousands of civilians in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and we fire-bombed Tokyo killing maybe even more civilians that we did with the nuclear weapons, and we fire-bombed Dresden, and, well, after all, we WON. Why not do the same to Fallujah? A lot of that talk is floating around the web, particularly over at TWONHALL.COM and other "right" sites.

To repeat myself... These are options? The first - the cordon sanitaire - won't satisfy our need for closure, as it is often put. Closure? Vengeance? Whatever. The second, suggested by that fellow from Santa Monica in the Times seems a bit over-the-top. And there would be, with that apocalyptic response, some diplomatic fallout (no kidding!) and further calls for revenge from the bad guys.

But then there was this last weekend - Bloody Sunday. We lost eight or ten more guys. What's that about?

Well, the business in Fallujah was the Sunni folks trying to suggest we get out of town, now. We expected that, really. But this last weekend was the Shiite folks, an entirely different crew, suggesting we get out of town, now, or sooner. And the Shiite folks were, up until this weekend, being halfway reasonable. Their leader, Sistani, was a pain in the ass at times, but trying to work things out with us. His rival, Moktada al Sadr, with a private army - the Mehdi Army of ten or twenty thousand - gave us this weekend's uprising. The whole southern half of Iraq was (is) rising up. Damn.

With three months to go before sovereignty is handed over to a provisional government, things spiral further out of control. It was clear that elements in the Sunni minority would resist the reconstruction in one way or another - and we were told by the Bush crew this Sunni Triangle was unusual, an anomaly, the single part of Iraq where there would be trouble. But we could handle it.

Now we also have the extremists among the Shiites, under Moktada al Sadr, unleashing a war of resistance against the occupation. Riots nationwide. And this morning we announced we plan to arrest Moktada al Sadr for murder, if we can find him. Last week we shut down his newspaper for being anti-American. Now we have an APB out to get him.

Isn't putting any Islamic cleric in jail and humiliating him somehow... counterproductive?

All choices now seem counterproductive.

And if this is the state of affairs now, what will happen to "civil order" when our military guys take an even more passive role after June 30?

As one commentator says, and that would be Andrews Sullivan, a right-side Bush guy most of the time ...
More and more, it seems hard to avoid inferring that we made one huge mistake: not in liberating Iraq, but in attempting to occupy it with relatively few troops. You have to have unquestioned security before any sort of democracy can begin to function. But, under the Rumsfeld plan, we never had the numbers or resources to do precisely that. So the extraordinary gains that have been made since the invasion are constantly at risk of being overwhelmed by violence.
Yep. Joe Biden and Richard Lugar - the Democratic and Republican senate foreign affairs heads, are saying send more troops and screw then June 30 deadline. Bush this afternoon said the June 30 deadline is firm. He won't change his mind on that.

So we apply more brute force.

And as I commented here regarding Fallujah on Thursday, 1 April 2004 -
Perhaps there are other, non-military options...

I'm not sure we do those any longer - that political, diplomatic stuff. We don't believe in that any longer, or at least our government doesn't believe in such things any longer. Just as Ariel Sharon has brought peace to the West Bank and Gaza, and made the Palestinians love and respect him and leave Israel safe, so we will do the same in Iraq.

Mao knew that power comes from the barrel of a gun, and Ariel Sharon knows peace comes from targeted assassinations, and we know that Jeffersonian democracy comes from the belly of a B-52 (The BIG Pacifier) whether you want it right now or not.

Well, perhaps these angry Iraqis will have an attitude adjustment. It could happen.

It is a reflection of my own bad attitude that I'm skeptical about such a change of heart.

But at the White House they have faith this could, maybe, possibly, perhaps happen. I guess you do have to admire their optimism.
Yeah, well, this from a fellow writing from Baghdad this afternoon...
A coup d'etat is taking place in Iraq at the moment. Al-Shu'la, Al-Hurria, Thawra (Sadr city), and Kadhimiya (all Shi'ite neighbourhoods in Baghdad) have been declared liberated from occupation. Looting has already started at some places downtown, a friend of mine just returned from Sadun street and he says Al-Mahdi militiamen are breaking stores and clinics open and also at Tahrir square just across the river from the Green Zone. News from other cities in the south indicate that Sadr followers (tens of thousands of them) have taken over IP stations and governorate buildings in Kufa, Nassiriya, Ammara, Kut, and Basrah. Al-Jazeera says that policemen in these cities have sided with the Shia insurgents, which doesn't come as a surprise to me since a large portion of the police forces in these areas were recruited from Shi'ite militias and we have talked about that ages ago. And it looks like this move has been planned a long time ago.

No one knows what is happening in the capital right now. Power has been cut off in my neighbourhood since the afternoon, and I can only hear helicopters, massive explosions, and continuous shooting nearby. The streets are empty, someone told us half an hour ago that Al-Mahdi are trying to take over our neighbourhood and are being met by resistance from Sunni hardliners. Doors are locked, and AK-47's are being loaded and put close by in case they are needed. The phone keeps ringing frantically. Baghdadis are horrified and everyone seems to have made up their mind to stay home tomorrow until the situation is clear.

I have to admit that until now I have never longed for the days of Saddam, but now I'm not so sure. If we need a person like Saddam to keep those rabid dogs at bay then be it. Put Saddam back in power and after he fills a couple hundred more mass graves with those criminals they can start wailing and crying again for liberation. What a laugh we will have then. Then they can shove their filthy Hawza and marji'iya up somewhere else. I am so disappointed in Iraqis and I hate myself for thinking this way. We are not worth your trouble, take back your billions of dollars and give us Saddam again. We truly 'deserve' leaders like Saddam.
Fallujah last Wednesday, and now much of the rest of southern Iraq is falling apart - and this fellow says chaos is near in Baghdad. Great. Did you see the shots of our helicopters doing strafing runs? Cool.

We're screwed.

And check out this news report -
Immediately after the Kufa firefight, representatives arrived to consult with Sadr officials from the Badr Organization, the militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, and a delegation from the Dawa Party, the two most prominent Shiite parties represented on the U.S.-appointed Governing Council.

But armed men from Fallujah and Baqubah -- centers of resistance in the Sunni heartland west and north of Baghdad -- also appeared at the mosque, offering support.
What's that - the Sunni and Shiite guys are hooking up? And Sadr last Friday had announced that he was opening Iraqi chapters of Hezbollah and Hamas. One big happy party.

Yep, George Bush told us he was a uniter, not a divider.

Now what?

Pull out now? Let them be happy we're gone, then later fight it all out in a giant civil war among themselves - while the Kurds sit up north and laugh their asses off? We'd look bad, and not get the oil.

Bring in the UN? They've already said no, we should get things stabilized first. They lost enough people last year, and one of their best, when we couldn't protect their Baghdad headquarters building. Boom. No thank you.

NATO? They've already said no, as they're close to being overcommitted in Afghanistan, helping us out there. That well is dry. They don't have the warm bodies to lend us.

It doesn't matter. Anyone can suggest anything. Bush has committed us to pacifying Iraq by brute force and turning over the place to someone or other on June 30 of this year. And that man does NOT change his mind. He calls that leadership.

Kerry may win, and he's already said we cannot walk away from this. But he may be able to build an international coalition - a real one this time - to try to figure out what to do now. And he may be a slightly more flexible man, willing to consider all options, willing to listen to others without sneering at them. We'll see. If he wins.

Right now. Buckle up. This will be a rough ride.

Posted by Alan at 19:41 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: The Culture

Invoking Roland Barthes can make you famous and respected and all that stuff...

I see today that the Los Angeles Times won five Pulitzer Prizes, the second most ever won by a newspaper in a single year, for coverage that included wildfires, wars and Wal-Mart. Note this - Dan Neil won the Pulitzer for criticism.

Andrew Bridges of the Associated Press adds detail:
Auto critic Dan Neil won after joining the paper in September. He previously had been a freelancer and wrote promotional stories for the advertising department of a North Carolina paper.

Neil, 44, said the Times was required to submit 10 columns to qualify for Pulitzer consideration, but at the time he had published just 16.

"They didn't have a lot to choose from," said Neil, whose reviews were singled out as "one-of-a-kind" by the Pulitzer board.
Hey, a star is born.

My readers might remember his riff on semiotics and SUV ownership and much else from reading this from Wednesday, 18 February 2004 in these pages: What would Roland Barthes drive? - and the guy is a hoot! You might recall he progressed from a discussing the Kama Sutra to an HBO series to the Toyota Prius being a both the automotive equivalent of corrective shoes and a clear declaration of sexual security.

And this on pickup trucks vis a vis Roland Barthes:

"America's love of pickups: Like the soft-handed Parisians who bought up Millet's peasant paintings, pickup poseurs would find rural virtue a different thing entirely if they spent a day in the fields.

"Barthes loved to flog the petite bourgeoisie with their own illusions.
"

I'm glad he won.

Oh yes, in Volume 2, Number 8 (Monday, February 23, 2004) the same item on Neil's observations appeared in Just Above Sunset Magazine. And it had this photo of a car Barthes philosophized about, with the appropriate irony, courtesy of Ric Erickson over at MetropoleParis, as he had just visited the R?tromobile show over at ParisExpo, Porte de Versailles.



Posted by Alan at 17:22 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Sunday, 4 April 2004

Topic: Photos

New issue of JUST ABOVE SUNSET MAGAZINE now online!

No blogging today.

Sunday is the day I do final assembly and post the week's new issue of this: Just Above Sunset Magazine.

Commentary here will resume tomorrow.

In the new issue of the magazine you will find items not here on the web log...

You might want to check out Conservative Aesthetics: Why are conservatives always so cheery and liberals always so glum? The case against gloom and doom.

And there's Martha's Secrets - new fiction from Deborah Vatcher.

Items you find there that look like items that have appeared here are extended with new links and commentary.

Check it out.

Posted by Alan at 22:04 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
home

Saturday, 3 April 2004

Topic: Photos

No entries here today...

I'm off to Carlsbad, just north of San Diego - Rhett is turning five and there's a party. But for those who find this site, here's a pretty picture...

This is a side street in a village in Provence, Lourmarin, where Albert Camus retired - he took his Nobel Prize money and bought a place here, saying it was the most beautiful village in France. He was buried here, in the cemetery a bit to the southwest of the village. As I recall, this particular village is a bit north of Aix and a bit east of Avignon.

And the photo here has not been retouched. Those are the actual colors... This is from June 2000 on a very hot afternoon - after lunch in Aix on Cours Mirabeau a meandering drive north through the countryside....

In this modern world of course Lourmarin actually has a website - http://www.lourmarin.com/ - with music, and you can toggle between French, English and German... ? Lourmarin en Provence est class? parmi les plus beaux villages de France. Situ? dans le Parc Naturel du Luberon, le village de ... ?

Yeah, yeah.


Posted by Alan at 08:18 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 4 April 2004 21:59 PST home

Friday, 2 April 2004

Topic: Election Notes

The GOD Franchise - Who Owns the Trademark?

Noted on this pages, Monday March 29 (see Interesting commentary...) a Bush administration representative has said that it was ""beyond the bounds of acceptable political discourse" for Kerry to mention Scripture in his rebuke of Republican policies.

Yep, on Sunday, just the day before, Kerry had delivered a speech at a church service and quoted James 2:14-17 -

"What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, `Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,' but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead."

And Kerry then pretty much lit into the whole idea of compassionate conservatism. We get the conservatism. Where's the compassion part? Got my bible here. I see these words about making things better for people. I see God says you ought to do more than talk about it. So, where's the action to match the words?

Oddly enough, this echoes Clara Peller back in the mid-eighties - the woman who played a crusty old lady who slapped the counters of all sort of hamburger joints and loudly asked the probing question - "Where's the Beef!" This implied that the only place in town where she could get a hamburger with an ample portion of "beef" was at Wendy's. A clich? was born. And then Walter Mondale used the phrase "Where's the Beef!" in his 1984 presidential run against his rival Gary Hart.

Here Kerry is doing something parallel. Hey, George, where's the beef?

The Bush folk got very angry. Heck, they own the franchise on using Christian devotional references in political discourse. This was kind of like trademark infringement - a matter of branding. The "Faith-Based President" was being mocked.

Most curious.

And now we have Marina Hyde in the April 3rd Guardian (UK - thus the odd spelling below) on religion in American politics who does her riff on this. After explaining the Kerry bible quote blow-up she comments -
Take into account the burgeoning (if niche) appeal of a bumper sticker which reads "God Is A Democrat" in the States, and you've got what the politicians seem bent on making the key issue in the forthcoming election. Namely, who the hell's God backing?

Now, I'm not a theologian of the calibre of, say, Melvin Gibson, and am therefore wary of pitting myself against a bumper sticker, but I'd have to hazard on current evidence that God is a Republican.

Most things you've ever heard about him suggest this. He's associated with territorial creations and divisions, smiting people, retribution - your basic liberal nightmares.

Indeed, a few years ago, Newt Gingrich went so far as to explain to a group of conservative students that there was only one thing separating them from evil tax-and-spend liberals: belief in God. "That is the core cultural issue of this society," he declared. "Are we in fact endowed by our creator, which then implies a whole range of implications about the nature of life, or are we randomly gathered protoplasm, temporarily together, seeking, in some situation-ethics rational way, to temporarily make sure we're not in pain? Now, those are two radically different world views." Yes - God v tax. Who says debate isn't what it used to be?

Meanwhile, there was a point where George Bush would specifically align himself with the priest figure when speaking to the nation (invocations to pray for the September 11 victims, for instance). Then he graduated to aligning with Biblical prophets (quoting Isaiah on the day of "victory" in Iraq). Now, he seems pretty much indivisible from the deity in some of his speeches (recent claims that justice "is ours"). In short, he's not a New Testament kinda guy, and not just because he hasn't read that far yet.

But Jesus - now here's hope for John Kerry, because Jesus just has to be a Democrat. Ask yourself this: would Jesus be more concerned with feeding the poor and sorting out education or earmarking another few billion for the global ballistic missile defence programme?

And yet Kerry's brave move to sink to Bush's level may still backfire. At this stage, it could all come down to the Holy Spirit. And who's to say that mystery-wrapped-in-an-enigma isn't voting for Nader?
Bush loves the idea of the Old Testament God of vengeance and power. Kerry seems to like the idea of Jesus and compassion for the meek and lowly (the wimp version). Mel Gibson likes to think long and hard about Jesus being tortured - as that gets Mel all worked up. Nader is probably a Buddhist.

What does it matter? The secular Europeans must think us mad.

So who does God favor?

Remember Randy Newman - "God's Song"
Man means nothing he means less to me
Than the lowliest cactus flower
Or the humblest yucca tree
He chases round this desert
Cause he thinks that's where I'll be
That's why I love mankind

I recoil in horror from the foulness of thee
From the squalor, and the filth, and the misery
How we laugh up here in heaven at the prayer you offer me
That's why I love mankind ...

I burn down your cities - how blind you must be
I take from you your children and you say how blessed are we
You all must be crazy to put your faith in me
That's why I love mankind
You really need me
That's why I love mankind
God, if there is one, probably isn't taking sides. He, or she, or it - your choice - is amused, and a bit bored with this all.

Posted by Alan at 19:16 PST | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 2 April 2004 19:23 PST home

Newer | Latest | Older