Using Bees To Effect Vengeance

I get to be as self-indulgent as I want without wasting anyone's time. Guilt-free solipsism -- excellent!

Looking for that particular entry? Search Using Bees....




This page is powered by Blogger. Why isn't yours?

Weblog Commenting by HaloScan.com



Archives:


Email the Proprietor

Thursday, February 27, 2003
 
So the "Virtual March on Washington" appears to be a resounding success. Regardless of your views on Iraq, this is a total triumph for Internet activism -- check out the truly amazing real-time MarchTracker .

[via BoingBoing].

|

Tuesday, February 25, 2003
 
Just posted some new Dexographs...he's been thoroughly enjoying the ice today. Running around in the garden, slipping around, cracking the ice and chewing it like one of his beloved rocks....

|

 
Right, time for some new MP3s.

First up, "Cry 4 Help" by Har Mar Superstar. Are you ready for some hilarious white boy funk? "Again and again and again/This time with lotion".

And one more -- Shakespeare + Rufus Wainwright = mmmmmm. Actually it could have been a disaster (Shakespeare is such a spotty lyricist), but Sonnet 29 turned out quite nice.

|

 
Snow day today. Weren't snow days the absolute *best* when you were a kid? Unanticipated, undeserved...and all the sweeter for it. It's not the same now, knowing that you'll have to work that much longer and harder to meet your deadlines once you get back to work...but still, quite nice.

Did you catch the Strummer tribute on the Grammy's? I didn't expect much, but in the end I found it quite stirring. Elvis was terrific of course...the venom was out in full force. Bruce was nicely restrained vocally, which is not what I expected. It worked well. Dave Grohl was OK, and Miami Steve was alright I suppose. Anyway, if you didn't catch it, you can download the video here, as well as the MP3 (actually it's an MP2, but it worked fine on WinAmp). If you have the bandwidth and/or the time, I recommend checking out the video -- the visuals add a lot.

|

Monday, February 24, 2003

Friday, February 21, 2003
 
Haven't gone through it yet, but at first blush, this seems a highly entertaining journal of a new dad's first year con sprog. Must send to Michelle and Drew.... [via Metafilter]


|

 
The Ambivalent War -- Guess Which Wins is Ian McEwan's piece in the NY Observer. Good to know my ambivalence can boast such distinguished company.

(See also an interesting piece by Will Hutton -- one of the architects of the Blair's Third Way philosophy in the mid-90s -- arguing that it's not anti-Americanism but anti-Bushism that is animating Europe at present.)

|


Tuesday, February 18, 2003
 
I'm late on this, but Esquire has published a fascinating letter from Buhs's "faith-based guru" John DiIulio, in which he analyzes his time in the administration. His conclusion was that "the lack of even basic policy knowledge, and the only casual interest in knowing more, was somewhat breathtaking". DiIulio later apologized, but did not recant. [via JOHO]

|

 
Great stuff from rc3.org:

In any case, it seems to me that more and more people around the world hate and fear the US every day. And I blame the problems more on our diplomacy and approach than on our agenda, and that's purely the fault of the Bush administration.

I agree -- much of the antipathy towards the current US policy on Iraq stems from the Bush administration's abrasive approach.

|

Monday, February 17, 2003

Sunday, February 16, 2003
 
This is no way to drum up support.


|

Saturday, February 15, 2003
 
So as I write the DVD of Three Kings is paused. It's a great film, and obviously carries some resonance at this time. Watching it compelled me to read up on what ol' Martin Amis had to say about Iraq. Haven't found his comments yet, but I did run across ol' Christopher Hitchens', who has resigned from The Nation due to their anti-war stance and now appears to be one of the foremost hawks there is. Love him or hate him, you can always count on him to bring up some good points that you're not seeing elsewhere.

There seems to be a profound disconnect between media reporting on Iraq and how things feel on the street. I know I live in Austin, liberal oasis of the Southwest, and most of my friends live in New York, that European outpost on the East Coast, but practically everyone I know is against going to war. Not just the people I would suspect would be against it, but co-workers who do not seem particularly lefty, their Republican parents, the proverbial man-in-the-street. The recent New York Times poll confirms it as well.

The sheer number of people who took to the streets today was hugely impressive. I've never seen anything like it in my lifetime, and the absence of apathy is enormously encouraging (even if I find myself too conflicted to participate). Having said that, as I watched people streaming across the Congress Avenue bridge to gather at the Capitol building, I noted the signs with the blasted swastikas on them again. Drives me crazy -- I know signs and placards are not designed to convey nuanced political sentiment, but all Bush=Nazi signs tell me is that the bearer has no interest in persuading other reasonable people of his opinion, but is really in it in order to bask in the approbation of all the other people who already completely agree with him. Aargh. Besides, if you're looking for Hitlers, it wasn't Bush who gassed entire towns of ethnic minorities. If you're that much of an anti-fascist, you should be agitating for Hussein's overthrow, just as you agitated for intervention in Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and other venues for genocide.

As the above ramblings (and all of those below) indicate, I am most exercised by what I perceive to be the pisspoor anti-war arguments employed by many, at least in the media. Maybe that's a strawman, and not where I should be focused -- I've given short shrift to my enormous reservations about the Bush administration's handling of this crisis. But as usual, I expect more of the liberals. I'm frustrated by the speciousness of much of the criticism, when there are so many cogent criticisms going unarticulated (by me as well, of course).

|

Friday, February 14, 2003
 
Addictive, simple little Flash game that approximates the Mario-swimming levels on Super Mario Bros. Good for a Friday afternoon.

|

 
Sorry to sound like a broken record here, but I fully agree with Thomas Friedman's latest column on Iraq.

More inspectors isn't going to do jack. The issue is not that there aren't enough inspectors to do the job -- it's that Saddam is not complying. Powell is right when he points out that the UN resolutions demanded disarmament, and that the burden was on Saddam to come clean or face the consequences.

The French/Germans/Russians are right in saying that the inspections have not run their course and that they see no need for immediate action. However, their refusal to be pinned down on a deadline is a big mistake. All of the diplomatic advances so far -- the U2 flights, the unchaperoned interviews, hell the inspections themselves -- are due to the fact that Saddam Hussein was confronted with a credible threat of force that made concessions to the UN the preferable option. Without that threat, he would have had no incentive to give on any of these issues, because what are they gonna do about it?

By publicly conveying their total reluctance to go to war, these countries undermine the effectiveness of the inspections they purportedly champion. The way to make real headway is to stand together and say "We'll give inspections more time, but if the UN is not satisfied by Such-And-Such-a-date that Iraq has fully disarmed then we will all agree to disarm Iraq by force. This would give Saddam a deadline, and disabuse him of any hope that he can hold on by driving a wedge between the hawks and the doves at the UN.

Going to war alone would be very dangerous, especially, as Friedman points out, in the aftermath. We need to do everything we can to build a genuine, credible international coalition. Bush needs to back off and the Security Council anti-war bloc needs to realize that what has been working is good cop/bad cop, not good cop/good cop. There has to be a mutually-agreed upon deadline that everyone is willing to enforce.

Something tells me that there are all kinds of back-channel negotiations devoted to reaching exactly this kind of compromise -- at least I hope so. That is, if the Bush adminstration hasn't already burnt all those bridges. Actually, this is a completely fascinating, complex time for diplomacy -- Iraq, al-Qaeda, North Korea, Israel/Palestine, economic concerns, larger globalization issues, all tied up, all overlapping, players in each situation using the developments in the other situations to advance their goals . I can't wait to read the history about all this stuff.

|

 
So, as of next week, I'm going to have an office. My first office in five years, and the first one I've earned by dint of my unquenchable passion for middle management excellence. It's a small office with no windows, but it has a slightly dingy skylight, ample shelving, and best of all, will allow me to listen to music while working.

My greatest fear is that the move will be such a potent symbol of my superior status that it will corrode the breezy relationship I've taken pains to establish with my underlings, replacing it with the trepidatious deference that I naturally inspire in those who have yet to ascend to the eyrie that is Account Supervisor. I shall have to descend periodically, to dispense avuncular encouragement, engage in non-work-related banter (preferably relating to last night's TV shows, or perhaps a recent sporting event on the television), make free with the chucks under the chin, and occasionally deliver a firm-but-fair assessment of how they handled a recent work situation. I must say, I know Machiavelli's The Prince is renowned as a management bible, but in my experience, I have found that benevolent dictatorship tends to work better. Mussolini would have caught more flies if he were coated in honey, you know.

Anyway, I shall have to think a while on how best to decorate my office to reinforce the patina of authority that I've so effortlessly cultivated. Perhaps a sign on the door (hand-written, to convey my casualness) politely instructing visitors to knock twice before entering? An inspirational poster -- I saw one recently of a cat clinging onto a branch for dear life which was quite amusing as well as motivational. Maybe I ought to work on a cool hand-gesture that I can use to wave hesitant employees into my office -- I can see them now, peering around the door jamb like little Stan Musials -- while I'm on the phone having a Rather Important Conversation, Actually? So much to do, so much to think about!

Speaking of offices, I can highly recommend The Office, a show now airing on BBC America. It's supposed to be a comedy about an officious middle manager, but I must say I have quite failed to see what is humorous about it. Having said that, it is an excellent source of managerial ideas, and that David Brent character has seduced me with his ready wit, his convincing jocularity with the staff, and his subtle grasp of the machinations of office politics.

|

 
The recent judicial decision to forbid tomorrow's protesters from marching in Manhattan is appalling. The ACLU (who have a spiffy new web site) have filed an appeal. Safe AND free, people.

|

 
This is what worries me about the Bush foreign policy approach.

|

Thursday, February 13, 2003
 
The Hall & Oates revival rolls on -- the auteur behind indie favorites Death Cab For Cutie has fessed up to being a fan of the Philly soul twosome, going so far as to pen a list of his Top 10 H&O favorites for Pitchfork. I agree with his analysis of One on One, but would add that the falsetto in the chorus is Officially Beautiful. Even the beats hold up -- they're very 2003.

|

Thursday, February 06, 2003
 
So I'm taking a break from slaving over my template (I am absolutely *crap* at HTML. Why won't the bleeding title go across the top like it used to? I've compared before-and-after templates like a blogger possessed and I can't figure it out. DAMN AND BLAST) to post my reductive-but-possibly-insightful aphorism. Here it is:

Liberals would rather be dead than be oppressors. Conservatives would rather be opressors than be dead.

Or, if you'd prefer: conservatives would rather wrong others than be wronged. Liberals would rather be wronged than wrong others.

OK, laughably broad. But while it's overstated, I think there's a small kernel of insight, at least as regards current events. Essentially, I think that generally speaking (of course), liberals -- and I count myself here -- tend to be very concerned about their own consciences. About not staining their self-perception with questionable deeds. I think the common progressive slogan "Not In My Name" reflects this mentality perfectly. This worldview ties us up in knots when we're confronted with situations where there is no morally pure choice -- e.g post 9.11 foreign policy, Iraq -- and in my view sometimes leads us to distort our perceptions of reality in order to accomodate our desire to feel moral, progressive, possessive of unblemished integrity. It also makes us self-flagellating, very conscious of America's faults past and present, where conservatives enjoy an untroubled, often jingoistic faith in America's intrinsic goodness. This faith makes conservatives quite happy to exercise American power around the world, whereas liberals are very suspicious of the exercise of power.

I was poised to expatiate on this at even greater length, but am going to hold off at least for now. I would be happy to discuss further, should anyone wish to take up the conversation in the comments. For what it's worth, one of the main issues I've been grappling with as a liberal is that I no longer feel like we can avoid exercising power. America is the dominant economic and military force in the world, and as such we're burdened with power. It's a little existential crisis for the US of A -- America can do anything it wants except pretend like it can't do anything it wants. Liberals have to come to grips with the fact that we are going to be soiled by our power, that abnegating that power is neither possible nor desirable, and that there is no way to avoid unpleasant choices about how to exercise it. That's not to say we resign ourselves to being bullies, reconcile ourselves to being hypocrites, turn ourselves over to those who posit self-interest as the highest good. But when both leaving Hussein in power or removing him = dead civilians, we have to flail around in the muck along with everyone else.

Originally the aphorism boasted the even-more-inflammatory construction "Liberals would rather be dead than be Hitler; conservatives would rather be Hitler than be dead", but the H word is rarely very helpful, is it?

|

 
Update: as you can probably tell, found the code for claret...or something quite like it. Lots of other things to fix, but I'll get there.

|

 
Some news that is sure to make my siblings happy: John Cleese is writing the film version of The Twits, by genius writin', Patricia Neal-marryin', Jew-hatin' Roald Dahl.

(Template change forthcoming! Actually it may be exactly the same template -- how horribly lame is that? I just don't see any other ones I particularly like and I'm sure as hell not building my own. I'm toying with changing the color scheme to West Ham colors, but can't find the code for "claret".)

|

 
Dr Dre to team up with Burt Bacharach. Prediction: the next must-have gangsta accoutrement will be the baby blue cardigan.

|

Wednesday, February 05, 2003
 
So Iraq is a tricky one. I find myself in the reluctant-war-if-need-be camp, along with Thomas Friedman and Rafe Colburn, who I've found to be the most thoughful commentators on the subject, and whose evolving thinking on this issue has mirrored my own (a sly self-pat on the back there, eh?) Despite my innate dovish tendencies, I'm frustrated by what I perceive to be the overly simplistic stance of the anti-war camp. Marching on Washington with pictures of Bush-as-Hitler is not a terribly articulate argument for not going to war, and is somewhat offensive to boot -- lest it need pointing out, for all his faults, W is not and cannot be equated to Hitler. (Remind me to post about my neatly reductive but possibly quite insightful aphorism about the difference between liberals and conservatives). The best argument against is timing -- why now? That said, the UN was clearly never going to do anything about Saddam's brazen contempt for the various UN resolutions, and they should be ashamed that it took the US holding their feet to the fire to scramble into action.

I have a strong suspicion that the Bush administration uses their "cowboy" reputation as an instrument of foreign policy -- other countries think, "They're hellbent on war, we have to stop them", thereby engendering all kinds of serious diplomatic work that never would have happened had the Americans presented themselves as multilateralists completely devoted to finding a peaceful solution to every problem. There's no question in my mind that a credible threat of war/unilateral action makes diplomacy a much more attractive option.

Anyway, I was thinking on the car to work today, I said to my lovely wife, I said: "The people who should be most in favor of going after Saddam are the people who feel that the UN rather than the US should be the primary player in international relations, because he has badly undermined their credibility with [the aforementioned] brazen contempt for their various resolutions. If they really feel the UN is the true enforcer of human rights and non-proliferation, then they ought to be in favor of flexing some UN muscle."

|