Tristero

Friday, December 19, 2003

Seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup  

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:17 AM

Thursday, December 18, 2003

Proof That Americans CAN Tell The Difference Between Important TV And Mindless Fluff  

CNN:

He may have beaten Saddam Hussein, but President George W. Bush got clobbered by slinky socialite Paris Hilton when her television show got higher ratings than Bush's exclusive ABC interview Tuesday night.

posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 8:51 PM

The Scientific Argument FOR Burqas  

It's empirical! Pretty women scramble men's ability to assess the future.

Margo Wilson and Martin Daly of McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada decided to investigate discounting behaviour and see if it varied with sexual mood.

Male students, when shown pictures of pretty women, were more likely to opt for short-term economic gain than wait for a better reward in the future.

Both male and female students at McMaster University were shown pictures of the opposite sex of varying attractiveness taken from the website 'Hot or Not'. The 209 students were then offered the chance to win a reward. They could either accept a cheque for between $15 and $35 tomorrow or one for $50-$75 at a variable point in the future.

Wilson and Daly found that male students shown the pictures of averagely attractive women showed exponential discounting of the future value of the reward. This indicated that they had made a rational decision. When male students were shown pictures of pretty women, they discounted the future value of the reward in an "irrational" way - they would opt for the smaller amount of money available the next day rather than wait for a much bigger reward.

Women, by contrast, made equally rational decisions whether they had been shown pictures of handsome men or those of average attractiveness.

Of course, another conclusion would be simply to permit everyone to wear whatever they want but let women make any decision that needs to be entirely rational.
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 11:19 AM

Quote of the Day  

Joe Conason: "Why has no one yet asked Trent Lott to comment further on his late colleague's legacy?"
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 10:29 AM

Callousness Squared: "So What's The Difference?"  

In an article entitled, White House Memo: Remember "Weapons of Mass Destruction"? For Bush, They Are a Nonissue, the New York Times finally makes the point I made repeatedly, that Bush simply doesn't, and didn't, care whether Saddam had WMD. See, for example here, here, here, here, and here.

And they quote Bush's breathtakingly cynical, indeed sick, comment to Diane Sawyer:

In the debate over the necessity for the war in Iraq, few issues have been more contentious than whether Saddam Hussein possessed arsenals of banned weapons, as the Bush administration repeatedly said, or instead was pursuing weapons programs that might one day constitute a threat.

On Tuesday, with Mr. Hussein in American custody and polls showing support for the White House's Iraq policy rebounding, Mr. Bush suggested that he no longer saw much distinction between the possibilities.

"So what's the difference?" he responded at one point as he was pressed on the topic during an interview by Diane Sawyer of ABC News.

"So what's the difference?" Tell that to the mothers and fathers of the kids who got killed in Iraq.

As I've mentioned many times, I do not hate Bush, I hate the fact he is president. It simply isn't worth much effort to waste time summoning up any emotions about Bush the person. Nevertheless, this latest remark of his made me very upset on a personal level. In fact, I cried.

What kind of human being sends US troops to war with such a careless attitude towards both facts and lives? And then, sadistically, says it in public, where those who directly suffered from his indifference can hear him?
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 10:03 AM

Josh: Ivestigate Perle's Ethics And Possible Crimes. Otherwise, Ignore Him.  

Josh Marshall still thinks it's worth the effort to debunk Richard Perle when he lies and distorts. It is not. I wrote Josh yesterday, when I tried to listen to a panel with Josh and Perle:

Dear Josh,

I heard Mr. Kaplan, [the host of the panel] I believe, specifically prohibit ad hominem attacks on the cspan show. Then immediately afterwards, I heard Perle attack you as "obsessed", out of touch with reality, and so on. After another 2 minutes of more of the same, I couldn't take any more.

I gather you stayed for the entire two hours, I honestly don't know how you could stand it. You are clearly a man with infinite resources to think the best of some of the foulest specimens our species can produce. This is an admirable quality for which you deserve kudos. And with that duly noted... There are times when it pays not to suffer fools, even when they are powerful.

*Especially* when they are powerful. For to appear on the same panel with someone like Perle is to legitimize his viewpoints, just as Velikovsky was legitimized whenever a real scientist took the effort to criticize him. It is because so many decent people endured Perle for so long that, despite all evidence that his thinking was truly off the deep end, his foolishness gradually accumulated a thick coating of respectability via his association with well funded right politicians first, and then even establishment institutions.

However, no matter how enticing that coating might appear, it was produced by a very rotten oyster that stinks to high heaven. There is hardly a grain, and certainly not a pearl, of wisdom in anything he has said or done in all his years of festering at the bottom of conservatism's back bays. Believe me, your career does not hinge upon inhaling the air next to Richard Perle, let alone dignifying his "views" by taking the effort to rebut them.

Except when it comes to investigating his numerous illegal and unethical activities, the sooner Perle is ignored, the sooner we'll be rid of the numerous dangers we face having to live with the consequences of his screwy ideas.

In short Perle's ideas are crafted from pure baloney, not abalone. He deserves no one's attention, especially from someone as intelligent as you.


posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:40 AM

Of Course It Was Preventable  

After the shock wore off that day and commonsense came back, I knew that. The attacks were too numerous, the number of people involved too great, the coordination too meticulous for word for it not to have leaked out.

Now, even Republicans are admitting 9/11 could have been prevented. And let's not forget one thing: the Clinton administration thwarted the Millenium plot. It was Bush, obsessed with Star Wars, that permitted the neglect that led to the tragically successful attacks of 9/11.

For the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented, reports CBS News Correspondent Randall Pinkston.

"This is a very, very important part of history and we've got to tell it right," said Thomas Kean.

"As you read the report, you're going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn't done and what should have been done," he said. "This was not something that had to happen."

Appointed by the Bush administration, Kean, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

"There are people that, if I was doing the job, would certainly not be in the position they were in at that time because they failed. They simply failed," Kean said...

Kean promises major revelations in public testimony beginning next month from top officials in the FBI, CIA, Defense Department, National Security Agency and, maybe, President Bush and former President Clinton.

There is one area, however, which I think even this commission may finesse, namely the full extent of the 9/11 plot. I'm sure all of us who were paying attention that day recall all the numerous rumors: additional planes, bomb trucks headed for the George Washington Bridge, and so on. I suspect that 9/11 was actually far more extensive than those attacks that actually succeeded, more proof that the sheer extent of the plot must have been detectable to any US government that was paying attetnion.

No, none of the loopier rumours are true, that Saddam was involved, that Bush "let it happen" in order to advance his goals, that the Jews were warned, that bin Laden and the Bushes are in cahoots, etc. No, the truth is scandal enough: that this government turned away, out of sheer incompetence, and the most egregious incompetents are still in their jobs.
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:17 AM

Monday, December 15, 2003

Given Jessica Lynch, Samarra, Turkey Flight, And The Bird Itself...  

...is there any reason on earth why we should believe the administration's version of the capture of Saddam and not, for example, this one?

A number of questions are raised by the incredibly bedraggled, tired and crushed condition of this once savage, dapper and pampered ruler who was discovered in a hole in the ground on Saturday, December 13:

[Snip: Seven unusual facts about Saddam's capture.]

According to DEBKAfile analysts, these seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner.

After his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25 m prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia.


These circumstances would explain the ex-ruler’s docility – described by Lt.Gen. Ricardo Sanchez as “resignation” – in the face of his capture by US forces. He must have regarded them as his rescuers and would have greeted them with relief.


From Gen. Sanchez’s evasive answers to questions on the $25m bounty, it may be inferred that the Americans and Kurds took advantage of the negotiations with Saddam’s abductors to move in close and capture him on their own account, for three reasons:

A. His capture had become a matter of national pride for the Americans. No kudos would have been attached to his handover by a local gang of bounty-seekers or criminals...


B. It was vital to catch his kidnappers unawares so as to make sure Saddam was taken alive. They might well have killed him and demanded the prize for his body. But they made sure he had no means of taking his own life and may have kept him sedated.


C. During the weeks he is presumed to have been in captivity, guerrilla activity declined markedly... [emphasis in original]

I'm not saying I agree with this analysis: I wouldn't have any way of acknowledging its plausibility or lack of same. Rather, I'm saying that there is no reason to trust the Official Bush Line on anything, including the capture of Saddam Hussein.
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 6:09 PM

To David Frum: Beware The Wrath Of The Lord  

Dear Mr. Frum,

I believe I have some insight into an issue you raised today: "For now, let’s say that while the President’s opponents have made much sport of the idea that God called George Bush to the presidency, it’s becoming increasingy [sic] difficult to doubt that God wants President Bush re -elected [sic]. "

As it happens, sir, God and I have a chat every Sunday night. And yesterday, God was quite clear:

"George Bush! That meshugginah nincompoop that's messin' up my world! Tryin' to clean up after him's been aggravatin' my lumbago major big time! The sooner he gets back to Crawford, the sooner I can take Sundays off again, ferchrissakes. "

To be frank, Mr. Frum, I've rarely seen God so angry (or so tired - the Eyes That Seeth All were as bloodshot red as the Red Sea). Now to be fair, in my experience, God sometimes...how to put this?... overreacts to the follies of we mortals - that Sodom/Gomorrah thing, f'rinstance. So we can all simply pray that the Exalted Presence was simply letting off some sacred steam during last night's rant at the US president.

Nevertheless, I will be voting against Bush in 2004 and strongly suggest it is in your interest do the same. Better to let God get back to a well-deserved snooze on Sabbath than anger an already cranky Supreme Being out of some misplaced loyalty to a fellow who, God assures me, has "not a tinker's chance in Hell" - the Very Words Of The Lord - of entering the Pearly Gates.

Trust me: One of these days you'll thank me for this advice. You really don't want to go where Bush is going for all eternity. For one thing, I hear it looks a lot like Crawford.

Love,

Tristero
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 2:07 PM

WRITE LIKE NEDRA PICKLER DAY!  

In a rush to get to work this morning, Nedra skipped her Two Minute Hate session with Ed Gillespie and became disoriented. At first, she wrote:

In the kind of self-serving and blunt statement the press has become accustomed to hearing from Bush's main Democrat opponent, Howard Dean said that the capture of Saddam Hussein was "a great day for the administration." What Dean failed to mention was that Saddam had no way to communicate and coordinate attacks on the occupying powers, so his capture will not necessarily lead to a reduction soon in violent atttacks on US soldiers.

Fortunately, the error was caught by her editors after a limited initial wire release and she was able to quickly revise her copy:

Howard Dean, in a move which some commentators likened to John Kerry's contradictory statements about the war, warmly praised President Bush's brave capture of Saddam Hussein. By doing so, Dean further distanced himself from persistent rumours that Saddam was Dean's preferred running mate in his upcoming attempt to oppose the re-election of President Bush.

posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:54 AM

Seraphiel's Daily Cartoon Roundup  

1
2
3
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:46 AM

More On Talking Dogs  

A recent post took note of the fact that Dave Neiwert and Eric Blumrich are missing the obvious when they denounce Misha "The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler" for issuing a death threat against the latter. Shoveldog, the proprietor of Reptile Wisdom recalled a similar incident:

A guy sees a sign in front of a house:
"Talking Dog for Sale."

He rings the bell and the owner tells him the dog is in the backyard.
The guy goes into the backyard and sees a black mutt just sitting
there.

"You talk?" he asks.
"Sure do." the dog replies.
"So, what's your story?"
The dog looks up and says, "Well, I discovered my gift of talking
pretty young and I wanted to help the government, so I told the CIA about my
gift, and in no time they had me jetting from country to country,
sitting in rooms with spies and world leaders, because no one figured a dog
would be eavesdropping. I was one of their most valuable spies eight
years running.

"The jetting around really tired me out, and I knew I wasn't getting
any younger and I wanted to settle down. So I signed up for a job at the
airport to do some undercover security work, mostly wandering near
suspicious characters and listening in. I uncovered some incredible
dealings there and was awarded a batch of medals. Had a wife, a mess of
puppies, and now I'm just retired."

The guy is amazed. He goes back in and asks the owner what he wants for
the dog.

The owner says, "Ten dollars."

The guy says, "This dog is amazing. Why on earth are you selling him so
cheap?"

'Cause he's a liar. He didn't do any of that shit."
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 9:05 AM

Sunday, December 14, 2003

Good  

Saddam captured. Hopefully, the optimists are right and this will lead to less attacks against US and coalition soldiers, not to mention Iraqis, such as happened this morning when 17 were killed at a police station.
posted by tristero permanent link to this entry 7:43 AM