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

Saturday, 24 April 2004

Topic: In these times...

Looking Back and Looking Forward

On January 25, 2004 in Just Above Sunset there is a review of a new book - see 1968 - Annus Mirabilis - except for the riots and assassinations...

The book is this:

1968: The Year That Rocked the World
Mark Kurlansky, Ballantine Books; 1st edition (December 30, 2003)
Hardcover: 464 pages ISBN: 0345455819

David Aaronovitch just read the book and seems to think we're there again.

See this:

Year the music died
In 1968 we thought we could change the world. But we didn't change that much.
David Aaronovitch, The Observer (UK), Sunday April 25, 2004

Here's take on the year...
These days, 1968 is principally remembered as a year of street demonstrations and hipness. It was the year of the Guevara icon, the year that the Yippies turned up to the Democratic convention in Chicago planning party games such as 'Pin the Rubber on the Pope'. It is fascinating now to see how, in so many places, the cause was different but the cast was similar.

In France the May student revolts (which killed practically nobody) seem in retrospect, says Kurlansky, to have been as much about the boredom of life in a wealthy, provincial democracy, run by an elderly, arrogant war hero. The 'revolution' was sexy, creative and largely without demands. It was as much about the end of deference as anything else. Over in China students were also having fun at the expense of their professors, tying hats to them, covering them in paint and forcing them to denounce themselves as part of the great Cultural Revolution.

Forty-nine per cent of the French, one year after the Six-Day War, thought that Israel should annex all the land it had conquered. Only 19 per cent thought that it should give everything back. In Poland protesters waved Israeli flags, because their government was pro-Arab - in Berlin they burned them because their government was pro-Israeli. In London we protested against an American war, in Cairo students demonstrated in favour of an Arab one. Only in Czechoslovakia that spring was anybody demonstrating in favour of their government.

Just as in 1956, there was a cold war symmetry. The Russians suppressed the quiet Czech revolt, and put an end to the illusion that there was any radical potential remaining in states ruled by 'existing socialism'. And the Americans began 1968 to the sound of the Tet Offensive, which showed that there would never be a settlement on their terms of the conflict in Vietnam; 14,000 Americans were killed that year.
Yep, that's how I remember it too.

Aaronovitch says that reading Kurlansky one sees both the parallels and non-parallels with Iraq.

Really?

There's "the danger of believing what you want to believe, that all opposition is communist or Baathist, that if you just hold out a while then things will come good."

I wish that didn't sound so familiar. But Aaronovitch points out there is no North Iraq, no coherent Iraq Liberation Front, and no great desire on the part of Iraqi people that there should be one. "The lesson could be that Iraq isn't Vietnam, but if the coalition does all the wrong things, it could become Vietnam, complete with its own My Lai massacres. In its consequences at least, Fallujah has come close."

Is this our Vietnam and is this 1968 all over again?

Man, this is all a bad dream.
The year ended, not with an anti-war Democrat, but with Richard Nixon in the White House, and with Cambodia yet to come.

It ended with the French Right winning a landslide in the post-?v?nement elections, with Labour entering a period of crisis which culminated, 18 months later, in a Conservative government.

Twenty-one more years had to pass before a new Prague spring, and Mikhail Gorbachev blamed 1968 for putting the cause of reform in the Soviet Union back by more than a decade. It saw the death of liberal republicanism in the States, and the beginning of the process whereby the civil rights movement in Northern Ireland was to be supplanted by 30 years of killings and murder. It was the year of Enoch Powell and a 30-year fear of even the word 'immigration'. It was the year that the great hopes of non-violent change, Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr, were murdered. This violence found its way into the language. As Kurlansky puts it: '"Motherfucker" was everybody's word that year'.
Okay, then... here we go again.

Plus ?a change, plus c'est la m?me chose.... ? boire ou je tue le chien!

Posted by Alan at 20:54 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Sunday, 25 April 2004 16:10 PDT home


Topic: The Culture

Religion and Politics Today...

Well, that Kristof fellow over at the New York Times started it off today with a plea for tolerance...

See Hug an Evangelical
Nicholas D. Kristof - Published: April 24, 2004

The idea is that since good Christians are tolerant of all sort of perverse left-wing folks, perhaps the left should good easy on the born-again folks who want everyone to accept Jesus as their personal savior so we can have world peace and all the rest.

Here's the beginning and end - and click on the link if you want the detailed middle -
I've argued often that gay marriage should be legal and that conservative Christians should show a tad more divine love for homosexuals.

But there's a corollary. If liberals demand that the Christian right show more tolerance for gays and lesbians, then liberals need to be more respectful of conservative Christians.

... Liberals often protest that they would have nothing against conservative Christians if they were not led by hypocritical blowhards who try to impose their Ten Commandments plaques, sexual mores and creationism on society. But that's a crude stereotype, and it ignores the Christian right's accomplishments. Polls show that evangelical Christians are more likely to contribute to charities that help the needy, and in horror spots in Africa Catholics and other Christians are the bulwark of the health care system.

Moreover, saying that one will tolerate evangelicals who do not evangelize -- well, that's like Christians saying they have nothing against gays who remain celibate.

It's always easy to point out the intolerance of others. What's harder is to practice inclusiveness oneself. And bigotry toward people based on their faith is just as repugnant as bigotry toward people based on their sexuality.
Okay. Fine. Let them go to Fallujah and hand out Bibles. Couldn't hurt.

But the real issue in the last few days has not been the evangelical protestant folks who want to flood Iraq with bright-eyed youngsters eager to show those Muslim folks the error of their ways and how the love of Jesus will save them.

The issue is this week with the Roman Catholic Church deciding it had to say something about American politics, specifically about one guy running for president.

That started here:

Cardinal: Politicians Need Follow Church on Abortion
Philip Pullella - VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Friday April 23, 1:41 PM ET

Throwing down the gauntlet?
In remarks that could influence the U.S. presidential race, a top Vatican cardinal said Friday that a Roman Catholic politician who unambiguously supports abortion rights should be denied Holy Communion at Mass.

Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke amid a debate over whether Democrat John Kerry should be denied communion, which Catholics believe is the body of Christ, because he supports abortion rights.

At a news conference presenting a Vatican document restating standing rules about the celebration of Mass, Arinze was reminded of the Kerry case and asked if a priest should refuse communion to a politician who unambiguously supports a woman's right to choose abortion.

"Yes," he answered. "If the person should not receive it, then it should not be given. Objectively, the answer is there."
Cool. Excommunicate him, if you'd like. And say no Catholic can vote for him or that Catholic too will be excommunicated, and face eternal damnation and all that sort of thing.

Not my business - I'm not Catholic.

As expected, however, some folks just have to see a problem with this church position.

See Good Christians: Kerry, Bush, and religious double standards
Amy Sullivan, Contributing Editor, The Gadflyer - 4.21.04

Amy says this -
... I want to know why these same questions aren't being asked of George W. Bush, a man who has Jesus as his running mate and who told Bob Woodward that he doesn't turn to his father (George H.W. Bush) for advice, because he's more concerned about what His Father (God) has to say. No word yet on what God actually says.

But this is not just a throw-away point. Does Bush deviate from the teachings of the United Methodist Church? Yes he does, on some crucial political issues. Has he been reprimanded by leaders in his denomination? Yes, particularly on the issue of war in Iraq. And if you want to make this a question of who's the better Christian, then it's fair to ask why President Bush doesn't go to church. You heard me - the man worships at Camp David and every so often wanders across Lafayette Park (although the park is pretty much impassable now what with all of the security construction going on) to attend services at St. John's Episcopal Church. But the man who has staked his domestic policy on the power of civil society and of good Christian individuals to change lives isn't an active member of a congregation - the very kind of organization in which he claims to have so much faith.
But, Amy, everyone knows George is born-again. He doesn't have to prove anything.

Another fellow who writes under the name Atrios suggests as this story gets hotter and hotter, maybe some logic should be applied -
If the media wants to report this story, they should be obligated to note that "pro-Choice politicians" includes more Catholics than John Kerry, and that there are quite a few prominent pro-Choice Republicans. But, they're completely corrupt and would never dare let us in on that little secret.

Monday morning we'll have a little fun calling around to the offices of various Republican pro-choice politicians and asking their people a) if they went to Church on Sunday and b) if they took communion. Clearly, the day-to-day activities and policy positions of prominent Catholic politicians from all parties must be scrutinized for any deviation from doctrine. The world must know if they have taken the sacraments improperly or not at all. Their confessions should be public information.

... Call CNN at 404-827-1500 and ask them why they aren't discussing other politicians who shouldn't be receiving communion according to the Vatican, such as Tom Ridge and George Pataki. George Pataki and Rudolph Giuliani are pro-Choice Catholic politicians.

Then, you can ask them why they aren't mentioning the fact that the leaders of George Bush's Church opposed the war in Iraq.
Well, that happened - Bush own United Methodist Church reprimanded him and said the war was a really bad idea - like it was immoral or something. But they were probably just kidding around.

Oh yeah - I almost forgot. Arnold Shwarzenegger should be mentioned too - Catholic and pro-choice. Poor guy. No communion for him. And no Catholic votes either.

Now over at a site called Liberal Media Conspiracy we get the long view, the historical perspective, as it were -
In 1960, Republicans insinuated that a Catholic, Democratic candidate with the initials JFK, was unfit for the Presidency because he would do the Pope's bidding as President.

In 2004, Republicans (with the aid of the buttinsky Vatican) are insinuating that a Catholic, Democratic candidate with the initials JFK, is unfit for the Presidency because he won't do the Pope's bidding as President.

We've come a long way in 44 years, haven't we?
Well, we, as a nation, have decided we want a religious man to run the country, one who is proud of it, and doesn't see why anyone would have different views.

And of course Bush's father, who was, oddly enough, president for a time himself, and had his own war with Iraq, had similar views.

Here's what George the First said on August 27, 1987 - concerning people like me who don't exactly have a dog in this fight and find the whole business puzzling: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots."

So I shouldn't say anything about this business at all.

It just find it all to be... most curious.

Posted by Alan at 13:56 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 24 April 2004 14:11 PDT home


Topic: Oddities

Minor book note...

Jonathan Kay posts this at the web log run by The National Post - a rather dull Canadian newspaper, as you might know.
There is a weird phenomenon going on in Britain: The hottest book on the market is about ... punctuation. It's called Eats, Shoots and Leaves and over 500,000 people have purchased it.

The story behind the title describes why punctuation is so important:

A panda walks into a bar. He orders a sandwich, eats it, then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air.

"Why? Why are you behaving in this strange, un-panda-like fashion?" asks the confused waiter, as the panda walks towards the exit. The panda produces a badly punctuated wildlife manual and tosses it over his shoulder.

"I'm a panda," he says, at the door. "Look it up."

The waiter turns to the relevant entry and, sure enough, finds an explanation.

"Panda. Large black-and-white bear-like mammal, native to China. Eats, shoots and leaves."
Indeed.

The problems of this world are directly related to punctuation?

Well, maybe not all the problems of this world....

Posted by Alan at 09:00 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Saturday, 24 April 2004 09:04 PDT home

Friday, 23 April 2004

Topic: Election Notes

How we choose our leaders -

Eric Alterman has this to say:
Based on his intellect, experience and knowledge of the issues Kerry -- like Gore -- is obviously more qualified to be president than Bush is. Furthermore he is morally far better qualified to send men to die in battle if need be. And finally, he is also closer to the American people on the panoply of issues that people say matter to them. What Kerry is not is more "likeable," at least as defined by the punditocracy. This may even be true. But so what? Just look where "likeability" has gotten us. We are the only advanced democratic nation in the world even to entertain such nonsense as a serious issue. And yet it will likely decide whether Bush and company are given a chance to finish the work they have begun: destroying the fiscal basis of our children's future; ensuring the violent hatred of our nation for generations to come and inviting Christian fundamentalists the right to determine what rights we enjoy in our public and private lives. I know that sounds overheated and inflammatory. I only wish it were, but there it is. That's all.
And the counterargument is?

Posted by Alan at 18:35 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
home


Topic: Political Theory

Building a nifty nuclear bulldozer -
Don't you get shivers when you see the term `cognoscenti' used in the opinion pages?


Fred Kaplan in SLATE.COM draws attention to a release from the Natural Resources Defense Council by one Christopher Paine. Paine uses official budget documents to lay out how much money we're spending these days on nuclear weapons and defense against incoming intercontinental nuclear missiles. In short, we're spending quite a lot. (Paine's report is here - in PDF format.) Kaplan wonders why. Many of us wonder why. Ah, in my NEWS WRAP in Just Above Sunset on February 1st you find a rant on that - which in turn points to this:

Pentagon seeks big hike for missile defense in $401 billion budget request
Pauline Jelinek, ASSOCIATED PRESS, 4:36 p.m. January 30, 2004

Kaplan's item this week is here:
Our Hidden WMD Program
Why Bush is spending so much on nuclear weapons
Fred Kaplan - SLATE.COM - Posted Friday, April 23, 2004, at 3:41 PM PT

Kaplan points out Bush is requesting $6.8 billion more for next year for nuclear weapons and a total of $30 billion over the following four years. This does not include his the actually-doesn't-work-at-all missile-defense program. He points out that this is simply for the maintenance, modernization, development, and production of nuclear bombs and warheads.

What's up with that?
There is no nuclear arms race going on now. The world no longer offers many suitable nuclear targets. President Bush is trying to persuade other nations --especially "rogue regimes" -- to forgo their nuclear ambitions. Yet he is shoveling money to U.S. nuclear weapons laboratories as if the Soviet Union still existed and the Cold War still raged.

... The report raises anew a question that always springs to mind after a close look at the U.S. military budget: What the hell is going on here? Specifically: Do we really need to be spending this kind of money on nuclear weapons? What role do nuclear weapons play in 21st-century military policy? How many weapons do we need, to deter what sort of attack or to hit what sorts of targets, with what level of confidence, for what strategic and tactical purposes?
Ah yes, good questions.

Well, for one things there's moving large amounts of dirt -
The one aspect of this reorientation that's attracted some attention is the development of a "robust nuclear earth-penetrator" (RNEP) -- a warhead that can burrow deep into the earth before exploding, in order to destroy underground bunkers. The U.S. Air Force currently has some non-nuclear earth-penetrators, but they can't burrow deeply enough or explode powerfully enough to destroy some known bunkers. There's a legitimate debate over whether we would need to destroy such bunkers or whether it would be good enough to disable them--a feat that the conventional bunker-busters could accomplish. There's a broader question still over whether an American president really would, or should, be the first to fire nuclear weapons in wartime, no matter how tempting the tactical advantage.
And that's still whole lot of money to move that dirt.

Kaplan points out (and links to) a recent report by the Congressional Research Service, that points out when Bush started the RNEP program two years ago, it was labeled as strictly a research project. Its budget was a mere $6.1 million in Fiscal Year 2003 and $7.1 million for FY 04. Now the administration has posted a five-year plan for the program amounting, from FY 2005-09, to $485 million. The FY05 budget alone earmarks $27.5 million to begin "development ground tests" on "candidate weapon designs."

Well, fine. We'll get a nifty nuclear bulldozer.

But as they say on the games shows - BUT WAIT! There's more!
Paine's report cites other startlers that have eluded all notice outside the cognoscenti. For instance, the Energy Department is building a massive $4 billion-$6 billion proton accelerator in order to produce more tritium, the heavy hydrogen isotope that boosts the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon. (Tritium is the hydrogen that makes a hydrogen bomb.) Tritium does decay; eventually, it will have to be refurbished to ensure that, say, a 100-kiloton bomb really explodes with 100 kilotons of force. But Paine calculates that the current U.S. stockpile doesn't require any new tritium until at least 2012. If the stockpile is reduced to the level required under the terms of the most recent strategic arms treaty, none is needed until 2022.

Similar questions are raised about the Energy Department's plans to spend billions on new plutonium pits, high-energy fusion lasers, and supercomputer systems.
So what is all this about? (And don't you get shivers when you see the term "cognoscenti" used in the opinion pages?)

In Kaplan's view this whole business seems to be about building new nuclear weapons that are "more usable" in modern warfare while at the same time also making the old nuclear weapons more usable, too.

Why? Does the administration see a different world than most others do, one where lots of nuclear weapons will be needed, and where we'll use them, and others, its seems, will use them against us? The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan aren't the real deal? Trains blowing up in Madrid and airliners slamming into skyscrapers are minor annoyances? If so, shouldn't they be telling us about this "other world" - as this is our money they're spending?

A cynic might say this is just a not very subtle way to throw lots of money at aerospace corporations and contractors who are all Republican friends. Executives work there, move into government, then they move back - it's an "old boys" thing where everyone gets rich (or richer). A paranoid person might wonder if the administration is getting into apocalyptic thinking a little too seriously. An historically minded person might conclude that these are all old guys who got stuck in "cold war thinking" and are simply unable to see this new world of extremely low-budget but massively effective terrorism. They don't get it.

Whatever. We are doing this stuff. And I suppose it doesn't really matter why.

Posted by Alan at 18:23 PDT | Post Comment | Permalink
Updated: Friday, 23 April 2004 18:49 PDT home

Newer | Latest | Older