Pajama Pundits

Devastation extends to Pensacola FL. The entire Gulf Coast was hit hard.

One thing that anyone from anywhere can do is donate to the Red Cross.

In Shreveport alone, the Red Cross is providing shelter for 800 people, most of them from New Orleans.

There are hundreds of communities across the south where the Red Cross is doing the same. Governor Blanco just said it may be weeks before these people will even be able to survey the damage to their homes. They are not going home any time soon.

In addition, the thousands of people that are currently in the Superdome are going to be moved to other shelters.

In southeast Louisiana alone, there is likely over a half million people who are now homeless. I don't know how many to add to that number from Mississippi, Alabama, and the Florida panhandle.

The Red Cross is essential. Donate now.

With all the blogging here today on weight control and body image, it seemed appropriate to post a calorie-laden, but refreshing desert recipe.

I made these a couple of months ago and they were yummy. I especially liked the crust. I'm leaving the recipe like I found it (somewhere on the web, but I didn't bookmark it), but I suggest baking for little longer. After 25 minutes, they weren't done. It took more like 35. Of course, my oven temp could be off.

Crust:
1 1/2 cups flour
2/3 cups powdered sugar
3/4 cup butter

Mix ingredients together with a pastry cutter. When it resembles coarse crumbs, press firmly in the bottom of a greased 9 x 13 pan. Bake at 350 degrees for 15 minutes. Cool for 10 minutes.

Filling:
8 oz. cream cheese
2/3 cup sugar
3 egg whites whipped lightly
1/2 cup lemon juice (preferably fresh)
1 teaspoon vanilla

Add cream cheese and sugar to mixing bowl and beat until smooth. Add lemon juice and vanilla, blending well. Gently blend in beaten egg whites and pour onto crust. Bake for 20-22 minutes, or until firm.

Glaze:
2 1/2 cups powdered sugar
1/2 teaspoon vanilla
1 tablespoon milk
4 tablespoons lemon juice (preferably fresh)

Combine all ingredients, mixing to form thick glaze. Pour over cheesecake base and smooth out. Refrigerate overnight before cutting - which is the most difficult step in the entire recipe!

A geophysicist friend, remarked after a visit to one of the local casinos, "Casino gambling just isn't exciting after 40 years in the oil business."

I'm guessing some journalists are just now figuring this out.

I proposed to him a bet using what Julian considered the best measure of a resource's value: how it compares with the average worker's wage. I offered to bet that the price of oil would not rise faster than the average wage, meaning that future workers would be able to afford oil more easily than they could today.

Mr. Simmons said he favored a simpler wager, based on his expectation that the price of oil, now about $65 per barrel, would more than triple during the next five years. He said he'd bet that the price in 2010, when adjusted for inflation so it's stated in 2005 dollars, would be at least $200 per barrel.

Maybe bankers are as jaded as oil men when it comes to ordinary gambling. Kevin Drum points out that for Simmons to take Tierney's money in the original proposition, oil would only have to hit about $85 per barrel. He wants to take Tierney up on the original bet.

Enter Megan McArdle, non-gambler.

While the long term trend may well be upwards, in the short term, there's going to be a lot of volatility. To bet that oil will be above $85 a barrel in five years, you have to bet that China won't go into recession, Americans won't change their driving/insulating habits, Iraq won't be able to boost its oil production past the tepid prewar levels driven down by years of mismanagement, Saudi Arabia will default on its promises to raise production by 2.5 million bpd--indeed, no OPEC producers will respond to higher prices by increasing their pumping capacity, and that about a zillion other things that could drive down the price of oil, won't.

(So will I back John Tierney? Not I! How would little ol' me know when the bull will end its run and the bear will start?)

Oh heck, give me a roll of quarters and let's hit the slots. If I double my money, I'll be able to buy an almost full tank of gas.

UPDATE: Make that almost a half tank a gas.

Ann Althouse links this morning to a Robin Givhan article in the LA Times on the Dove advertising campaign featuring "real" women's bodies.

There's no real disagreement here with the conclusion:

It's healthy to occasionally pull back the curtain and remind readers of what most of them already know. Fashion is not truth. That has always been the operating principle of the business. Fashion is extravagance and incongruity, elegance and rebellion. It is envy and exclusivity. All of that may have been epitomized by Richard Avedon's 1955 image of the lithe model Dovima posing in a Christian Dior gown in front of a line of elephants.

All it takes to verify that fashion and reality have a limited relationship is an occasional visit to Manolo's Shoe Blog.

It is reassuring to occasionally see the machinations of the magician. It's nice to be presented with a female physique that is a little more accessible. And it is good to see the beauty fantasy broadened to include attributes such as strength and endurance. But no one wants to feel as though they've stumbled into the ladies locker room or caught their neighbors in their skivvies.

Given the news stories I’ve read about unauthorized photos of everyday people in just such situations showing up on porn sites, I wouldn’t go so far as to say no one wants that.

And just to prove that reality according to Dove may very well be inspiring, just take a look at their portrayal of Real Beauty:

Not exactly disheartening, are they?

However, if Nike listens to Givhan,

Perhaps Nike's next ad blitz should include a chubby lady with wobbly thighs. Her arms could be raised in victory as she wheezes across the one-mile marker.

I'll be there auditioning for that spot.

Or: Never tell someone something they already know, most particularly if they are trying to pretend isn't real.

Woman Offended by Doctor's Advice

ROCHESTER, N.H. - As doctors warn more patients that they should lose weight, the advice has backfired on one doctor with a woman filing a complaint with the state saying he was hurtful, not helpful. ADVERTISEMENT

Dr. Terry Bennett says he tells obese patients their weight is bad for their health and their love lives, but the lecture drove one patient to complain to the state.

Absent a lot more information; which, I must admit, I don't really even want; one should not make judgements about the scenario, but if you're dangerously overweight, and you go to your doctor for advice,,, can it really surprise you if he gives it?

"I told a fat woman she was obese," Bennett says. "I tried to get her attention. I told her, 'You need to get on a program, join a group of like-minded people and peel off the weight that is going to kill you.' "

... is there a 'sensitive' way to tell someone they're eating themselves to death?

... beat him in the press!

Lance Armstrong is back in the news. The organizers of the Tour de France, never happy that; with Armstrong in the race, everyone else is there to see who comes in second behind him; have come up with a new strategy. If you did everything you could to stop someone, and none of it worked... complain that he cheated.

PARIS (AP) — The director of the Tour de France claims Lance Armstrong has ``fooled'' the sports world and that the seven-time champion owes fans an explanation over new allegations he used a performance-boosting drug.

The allegations stem from a research project wherein, among other things, 6 year old 'samples' (nevermind) were tested for a performance-boosting drug for which no previous test was effective. Armstrong was not immediately available for comment, but his website denies the allegations.

Armstrong, a frequent target of L'Equipe, vehemently denied the allegations Tuesday, calling the article ``tabloid journalism.''

``I will simply restate what I have said many times: I have never taken performance-enhancing drugs,'' he said on his Web site.

It doesn't help that the paper making the allegations is owned by the company which puts on the Tour itself, and has never liked the fact that Armstrong dominated the field.

L'Equipe is owned by the Amaury Group whose subsidiary, Amaury Sport Organization, organizes the Tour de France and other sporting events. The paper often questioned Armstrong's clean record and frequently took jabs at him — portraying him as too arrogant, too corporate and too good to be real.

``Never to such an extent, probably, has the departure of a champion been welcomed with such widespread relief,'' the paper griped the day after Armstrong won his seventh straight Tour win and retired from cycling.

It had to be like what happened when Jordan retired, and all-of-a-sudden, the winner of the NBA finals wasn't known before the season started.

If the paper hadn't been so virulently anti-Armstrong for as long as he was winning the tour, if it weren't owned by the company which organizes the tour, if it weren't for a lot of things, I'd suspect it could well have an element of truth. The way things are now, however, they'll have to do a lot better than that.

I know it's old, old news, but Contratulations again, Lance!

TBIFOC (how is that pronounced?) - Let Cindy Sheehan meet the President

Classical Values - U.S. Out of San Francisco!

Yeah, Right, Whatever - Oh, no! The Frogs are Invading! On the same subject, Vince Aut Morire - The Mighty French War Machine. I would like to know how Rove pulled this one off.

The Very Best of Varifrank: 2004-2005. I recommend making a fresh pot of coffee before you go there.

Crescat Sententia - Book Vending Machines and The Wall of Wrecked Diets

Vodkapundit - This Won't Be Pretty: Bambi Vs. Godzilla

Pejmanesque - This is the End. Here's the new beginning - A Chequer-Board of Nights and Days

The Cassandra Page digresses from issues of war and peace to issues of baseball and brawls: Juan Marichal, John Roseboro - the 40 year anniversay of the "the brawl"

fling93 loves fishies - Oh no! He's got a camera! Run away!

Outside the Beltway - Pat Robertson is still nuts

Wizbang - Great Moments in Marketing. I got an A in that course, so further research is needed.

Kevin Drum: The Washington Monthly College Rankings, where Texas A&M comes out ahead of Yale, Harvard, Duke, John Hopkins, and most importantly, UT Austin.

Little Miss Attila: Condi in 2008. We could so easily do worse.

TigerHawk - Is atheism a religion? I say no, not without potluck suppers.

third world county - Lurching from one irony to another

The Moderate Voice - Was George Bush Originally Planning To Meet With Cindy Sheehan? Joe Gandelman, among others, has said all along that he should meet with her. I disagree. I think all she wants is the Chief Brody slap. How would that help either of them?

A Fragile Dawn of Empathy

In however partial, precarious, and imperiled a way, for a moment at least, the cycle has been broken.

I hope this lasts.

Wish AmbivaBlog a Happy 1st Birthday while you're there.

In a move that surprises absolutely no one, Iran's leader Khamenei says his country will not stop enriching uranium. Ostensibly, the purpose behind snubbing the UN and earlier agreements to suspend operations at the enrichment plant is to prevent 'becoming dependent' on western uranium sources to keep Iranian power plants operating.

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran does not intend to build nuclear weapons, but it will continue to enrich uranium because it does not want to be dependent on others for its nuclear fuel needs, the country's supreme ruler said Friday.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told tens of thousands of worshippers at Tehran University that Western allegations his country is secretly trying to make weapons are "a propaganda trick to deceive their own public opinion."

Were that the sum of the information, it would be an open question as to whether or not the UN and/or other nations could, or even should, do any more than watch. There is, however, more to the story.

Iran is building secret nuclear components, says rebel group

Ian Traynor Friday August 19, 2005 The Guardian

Iranian opposition activists said yesterday that Tehran was rushing to build nuclear components in breach of its commitments to the UN.

The National Council of Resistance of Iran, the political wing of the outlawed Mujahideen-e-Khalq guerrilla movement, which is classified as a terrorist organisation in Europe and the US, said the Iranian authorities were covertly building and concealing thousands of centrifuge rigs used to enrich uranium for nuclear fuel or weapons.

Admittedly, this is from the Guardian, and I have some reservations about their credibility. Also, as the article points out, the NCRI is listed as a 'terrorist group' both in the US and elsewhere. Too, the NCRI has apparently said lots of things about Iran and its nuclear policies/capabilities...
but some of those things have been confirmed.

... three years ago it [NCRI] was the first to disclose secret Iranian centrifuge operations in Natanz. Those allegations turned out to be largely true and triggered the international crisis over Iran's nuclear activities that has been running for two years.

Having perhaps learned something from Saddam Hussein's 12 year long shell game with UN inspectors... we have this:

As far as the UN inspectors are aware, the Iranians have less than 200 assembled centrifuges at Natanz.

In London yesterday the Iranian activists said Tehran has been fooling the UN and the EU by secretly constructing some 4,000 centrifuges while pursuing negotiations.

The centrifuges were said to be hidden at military and Iranian revolutionary guard facilities, off limits to the UN.

Earlier this month a senior Iranian nuclear negotiator, Hosein Mousavian, said on television that Tehran had exploited the two years of negotiations with the EU to refine some of its nuclear activities at Natanz and the uranium conversion centre at Isfahan.

Not to worry, the UN watchdogs are on the job, hurrying to allay suspicion.

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN nuclear agency has concluded that highly enriched uranium particles found in Iran were from imported equipment and not from Iran's own activities, diplomats said.

As always, the devil is in the details.

But the diplomat said the results of tests on cases of low enriched uranium (LEU) contamination, which is below weapons-grade and are also being examined by the IAEA, were "murky" and that the "LEU issue will probably never be solved."

Another diplomat said the inability to resolve the LEU question meant that the investigation's results "don't prove Iran's story is true. They prove it is plausible."

Too, the IAEA (the UN's Atomic Energy group) isn't quite willing to say,,, well,,, anything substantive.

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBarradei said on August 11 that while "all declared (nuclear) material in Iran is under verifiction . . . we still are not in a position to say that there is no undeclared materials or activities in Iran."

... I wonder if ElBarradei is familiar with the word 'duh'?

Other sources note that Iran apparently feels like it's holding a very good hand in this latest round of thermonuclear poker.

For their part, Iran's leaders seem to sense their advantages. In recent weeks, they have made clear they believe they have plenty of leverage and are less vulnerable to economic pressures from the outside. The country's new, hard-line president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, recently said "no economic or political incentive can dissuade us from getting peaceful nuclear energy."

A State Department official said the Bush administration has noted Iran's "new defiance" but believes it is symptomatic of "a new overconfidence by the Iranian regime in its level of international support."

I wonder if [German Chancellor] Schroeder, trying to make sure the Iranians believe no one is really serious about the whole idea, has anything to do with that?

A diplomatic effort to contain Iran's nuclear program — led by Britain, Germany and France and supported by the U.S. — hit a serious snag two weeks ago, when Iran rejected a package of political and economic incentives offered in return for abandoning its nuclear-enrichment program. Iran then resumed work at a uranium-conversion plant in Isfahan — a step that could assist in making nuclear weapons, though Iran says it seeks only civilian nuclear power.

One suspects that 'hit a serious snag' is world-government-speak for Iran telling the Euros, in almost exactly so many words, to stuff their proposal.

Or: Shhhh! That's not the way we're telling this story.

Hat tip to Pajamahadin, it seems there may have been 'links' between Iraq and Al Qaida, possibly even fairly directly to 9/11, all along.

Theirs is more of a shot at the 9/11 Commission and its,,, umm,,, less than zealous follow-up of intelligence received; the Weekly Standard has some very interesting information, regarding events in Europe, well prior to the 9/11 attack.

[regarding two Iraqi intelligence agents captured in Heidelberg] German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies.

Conclusive? No, but most assuredly worthy of a lot more consideration than the 9/11 Commission gave the implicational possibilities.

Our bathroom remodeling project is a quagmire. It has become so obvious that it can no longer be ignored. Initially, it was an astounding success. The evil bastard plumbing had been in place for over 30 years, slowly choking off the clean water supply, diverting it to the floor, while allowing the critical waste removal system to degenerate.

That's gone now. But the rebuilding is more difficult than we imagined. So many decisions to be coordinated and financed. I insist there be no improvised plumbing devices (IPD) while my husband insists they have their uses. I want the flooring with the 25 year guarantee so we won't have to do this over again in 10. But that's harder to install, says my husband.

Agreeing on the installation of a cabinet?. Well, let's just say that negotiations have been extended for at least a week.

Outside influences with their own agendas are also intruding. His pickup protested the diversion of cash and attention from it to the plumbing by imploding the steering column. The Air Conditioner (this is the South, Air Conditioner is properly capitalized) displayed its ability to adversely affect our lives by freezing up its fan motor.

Not only that, I demand the woman's right to have access to a bathroom on demand be respected here. The stability of our marriage and our property value is being eroded by protesters outside the door of the one functioning bathroom.

"How much longer are you going to be in there?"

"What are you doing in there?"

In case there are any sexists out there thinking women spend too much time in the bathroom, I'm the one standing outside the bathroom door with crossed legs demanding answers. I have absolute oral authority.

Last night, in my dream, Christiane Amanpour was outside our house giving a report of the situation by satellite phone, explaining in detail the lack of facilities here. Inexplicably, she was shivering and her hair was blowing in a nonexistent breeze. Other reporters were calling from their well-plumbed rooms at the Holiday Inn, secure in their ability to flush the truth without actually witnessing it.

On TV, Neil Cavuto and Brenda Buttner were talking about plumbing futures and the rising demand for plumbing in China. They showed appallingly graphic images of lines outside women's restrooms.

There was a knock at the back door. It was Kofi Annan. He was offering a deal. UN Chamber Pots. 50% kickback to him. He was mumbling something about fearing he'd end up without a pot to piss because Claudia Rosett just won't quit.

KBR called, offering a professional crapper prefab unit for $500,000. No bid contract, of course. I explained we only needed a one-holer and could get one for a $1000.

Then I woke up. I had to go to the bathroom. Too many blogs right before bedtime.

ADDENDUM: Maybe I got the title wrong. It should be This is my brain on blogs.

No... tell me it ain't so! Not in Louisiana! Not Democrats! Taking dirty tricks into the blogosphere

Eugene Volokh comments on the ongoing spat between the Tangipahoa Parish School Board members and the ACLU.

If only the schools would expend as much energy on making sure every student was thoroughly indoctrinated with mathematic and literacy skills.

This dump truck, headed north on I-220 in Shreveport LA, crossed the median, two lanes of oncoming freeway traffic and both lanes of Junior Place, a residential street, without colliding with another vehicle.

I'm guessing a blow-out on the right front tire as the cause, but I guess I've got a ways to go before I'm a good citizen journalist. I was reluctant to bother the firemen with questions, although I did manage to ask about the driver and was told he was okay.

I don't ordinarily write with the hawk's pen, because ordinarily, I like to think that grownups can discuss matters without needing such things. Naturally, it would take more than ordinary naivete to even pretend to believe that all grownups act as if they were, so I realize that 'discussion' isn't always going to work; yet I still, generally, leave the hard-core hawk writing to others. There are exceptions.

There was, shortly after 9/11, a piece Leonard Pitts wrote to the unspeakable bastards who authored that atrocity. I didn't cheer, but I thought then and think now that Pitts was absolutely right.

A person, or even a nation, may sometimes stray from the path they try to travel, but resolve is a funny thing. Years may pass and all sorts of petty little indulgences will reveal themselves in all sorts of people; some will be exploited, some will be swept under the rug, some will be justly ignored, but some things will never be forgotten. There is a specific organization at whose feet can be laid the horror of 9/11.

It would be a mistake to think that they have slipped the minds of those people tasked to track them down.

Al Qaida leader killed

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Al-Qaida's leader in Saudi Arabia was killed Thursday during clashes with police in the western city of Medina, the Interior Ministry said.

Saleh Mohammed al-Aoofi was among six al-Qaida militants reported killed during police raids on numerous locations in the holy city and the capital, Riyadh, security officials told The Associated Press.

One would like to think this will give at least pause to think for those people who continually crow about the Saudis and how they cheerfully support the terrorists, but one knows better. Too, the specific individual mentioned may not have been personally involved in 9/11, but he's part of the group that was, and the lot of them are going to be called to answer for it.

Another unspeakable bastard goes to his reward.

... it couldn't happen to a nicer sort of person.

UPDATE: There is some legitimate question as to whether this is a signal of real effort on the part of the Saudis, or a publicity stunt. I won't venture a guess, but I will say that, either way, a dead terrorist is a good result, regardless.

Or: If you are one of six people trying to paint someone as a radical, what do you do when the other 5 give up?

On the heels of Senator Leahy calling Roberts such a radical that he's almost ready to think about maybe perhaps opposing his (Roberts') nomination, the ABA steps in with an opinion regarding Roberts' fitness for the post.

Problem: it doesn't help Leahy.

Roberts 'Well Qualified'

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts on Wednesday received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, clearing another hurdle in his path to the nation's highest court.

The rating was revealed as the Senate Judiciary Committee announced its plans for Roberts' Sept. 6 confirmation hearings, which include having the nominee questioned by the 18 senators on the panel for almost an hour each.

I don't know how much of the inquiry would put most souls to sleep, but the idea of a group of career politicians trying to trip up, uhh I mean interrogating, err, I mean 'questioning' someone who gives every indication of actually being just as smart as he appears does give one a chuckle. (if that didn't sound like a backhand slap at the general intellectual gifts of the average career politician, it was supposed to)

This marks the third time the ABA has seen fit to call Roberts well-qualified for a Federal judiciary post.

(sigh) Somehow, I doubt it will matter.

PS: This might should have been posted as an update, but I didn't.

Senator Patrick Leahy (D Vermont) is almost convinced Roberts is a 'right' guy for the job. It seems, however, that some people are tough to really, really convince.

Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) says Supreme Court nominee John Roberts holds "radical" views and has been an "eager, aggressive advocate" for policies of the far right.

While stopping short of announcing his opposition to the appointment, the Vermont Democrat's written statement Tuesday was by far the most critical he has made since President Bush nominated Roberts.

Let me see if I have this straight: Roberts is a 'radical' and is an 'eager, aggressive advocate' for the 'far right',,, but that's not quite enough reason to oppose him?
Mind you, this is no endorsement of Leahy's opinion regarding Roberts, I'm just wondering exactly what it would take to completely convince the likes of the good Senator?

There is, of course, at least one other version of the story.

"The ease with which Sen. Leahy distorts Judge Roberts' record is troubling and may indicate that the Democrats are not yet done trying to make that argument, although it has already been discredited," [White House spokesman Steve] Schmidt said.

... as if that tactic comes as any surprise? (let me count the ways) It might be easier to find organizations who do not recycle already discredited arguments, than to note the ones who do. There's a reason for that: short public attention spans allow the tactic a dismayingly high success rate.

Here's where we get to the meat of the innuendo:

In material released Monday, Roberts emerged as an attorney serving in the Reagan White House who held views generally in line with those of other conservatives. He was sympathetic to prayer in public schools, dismissive of "comparable worth," referred to the "tragedy of abortion" and took a swipe at the Supreme Court for being too willing to hear multiple appeals from death row inmates.

I haven't read the 5000 released pages, and I doubt Leahy did, either, so I'll just note that it is possible, but given the distortions one has already seen with respect to Roberts' positionality, I'll take this with a shakerfull of salt until I get a lot more information.

The good Senator also weighs in on what seems to be the left's favourite 'for me, not thee' operational concept.

Leahy and Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., both expressed concern about documents that were not released on Monday, asking for investigations into a few that were reported missing.

Nearly 500 were kept private in their entirety on grounds of national security or privacy, according to Allen Weinstein, head of the National Archives and Records Administration.

I see Leahy's point, though. If memory serves, the way things like this should unfold is to deny any knowledge of the whereabouts of the documents, and later, have someone leave a purified set on the kitchen table someplace. Naturally, there can't be any real security interests that outweigh trying to manufacture dirt on a Supreme Court nominee....

More on the story here.

The Sheehan demonstration at Crawford is disturbing on many levels, but the one comment that really stuck in my craw was Maureen Dowd's statement:

...the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

"No it's not!" was my initial reaction. Then I got to wondering just exactly what "moral authority" is. It's one of those things you think you know until you try to define it. Google usually comes to the rescue, but this time, pickings were slim. I found only three links that seemed relevant.

One explanation from infed (an organization about which I know almost nothing) is:

If we are heeded it is mainly because people see us as deserving of respect. If we are not then people will ask why should they listen to us; why should our example be followed; and even why bother to engage in conversation with us?

In this relative view, it is up to the listener to grant the speaker moral authority. In that case, if Maureen Dowd thinks Sheehan deserves respect, then she's got moral authority. However, I'm not quite willing to accept a pronouncement from Dowd as the gospel truth.

The Glittering Eye, in commenting on Clare Short's absurd statement about the UN, identified three sources of moral authority, might makes right, top-down - derived from God, and bottom-up - the will of the people.

Sheehan has no might to make her right, and I doubt even her most avid supporters are going to claim "the divine right of kings" for her, so all that remains is to determine whether she was granted this moral authority by the will of the people.

As in the first example, those people who see her as Maureen Dowd does, would likely grant such to her. But, absolute? Wouldn't that be akin to a national unanimous "yea" vote? That's not happening, folks.

Butler Shaffer, who likely agrees with Sheehan that there is no noble cause in the Iraq war, writes:

Those who would express moral authority against coercive power must be persons devoid of conflict, not only within themselves, but with others. Such persons must be capable of transcending the partisanship that fuels the conflicts of the world. It is not a role to be exercised by those with divisive interests that separate humanity into competing groups, with political systems acting as the arbiter of disputes they have created. It is for men and women who grasp that one attribute of equality worthy of defending, namely, the inherent and undifferentiated worthiness of each individual to live and act for their own purposes.

Since Sheehan is actively seeking a confrontation, I think that qualifies as conflict. She has certainly not transcended partisanship and her actions are certainly proving to be divisive. The attribute of equality applies to her son's actions, but I do not see how it can pass from the son to the mother, due to the cause of his death.

Sheehan has no more moral authority to demand anything of anybody than any other law-abiding citizen. I'm sorry for her loss, and I hope she can get past this crisis in her life.

How many believable, competent, "just right for the job" presidential candidates does it take to change a lightbulb?

It's going to be a dark four years, isn't it?

There's more here.

After reading this early review, I put off seeing The Great Raid. I had originally intended to go last week, but procrastinated because I feared being disappointed.

I wasn't.

The weakness of this film is that the story it tries to tell is too big for one film. In trying to condense three intriguing stories into one film, it ends up portraying them all a bit shallowly. (Or four stories, there's more to the contribution of the Alamo Scouts too.) It’s still a good film, not at all a waste of time or money. You won’t leave the theatre disappointed, but you might leave wanting more.

The film would have to be really horrible for it not to be a somewhat emotional experience for me. My uncle was one of the 11 survivors of the massacre at the Puerto Princesa Prison Camp on Palawan that is briefly depicted at the beginning of this film.

This scene left the impression there were no survivors. Perhaps a third of the prisoners escaped the fire, many making it to the beach where they were shot, and eleven managed to survive. They were rescued by Filipino civilians and guerillas. It was their report that added urgency to the rescue of the prisoners at Cabanatuan.

Given director John Dahl also has a personal connection with the subject of the film, it's not surprising that its overall effect is satisfying:

“My father was in World War II. He was in the Philippines, and so for me it was kind of a great opportunity to learn more about what my father had gone through and what he had experienced.

“My Dad would always tell me, ‘That's Ben Steele. He was in the Bataan Death March.’ As a kid I didn't really know what that was. Once I started working on the film and realized what Ben had gone through, it took on a little bit different meaning for me. I've shown it to Ben several times and ultimately we wanted to get as many things right as we could.” ...

“I guess that one of the things that I'm pleased with is that most of the veterans who've watched it are pleased with the way the Japanese are represented in the movie. We really didn't sugarcoat it too much.”

Complaints about the story being difficult to follow or the characters not being well-developed didn't appear warranted to me, except for the POW Major Gibson. That is perhaps because I had also read Ghost Soldiers, one of the two books on which the film is based. Since I already knew something of the characters’ backgrounds, I probably just didn’t notice. (I plan to read the other book, The Great Raid, which also provided material for the movie, though it got lousy reviews on Amazon.)

The initial scene of the Palawan massacre is not well-developed, though it is visually horrifying. I caught only one line of dialogue from those POWs - why are they making us get in the air raid shelters - or something to that effect. Audience members that missed that line did not understand the significance of the Cabanatuan prisoners being made to dig air raid shelters.

The POW's and their situation were not portrayed as well as they could have been in the movie. Though the brief portrayal of the Palawan massacre, the field of crosses outside Cabanatuan and POWs digging new graves certainly conveys how dire their situation was, what was lacking was the spirit and humanity of the men.

It was a poor choice, I think, to make the lead POW a fictional character when almost all the rest were real people. Trying to capture the the poignant combination of hopelessness and hopefulness, bravery, and humanity of the prisoners in one character resulted in a one-dimensional and sappy portrayal. Reviewers more knowledgeable than I of acting and film making say this is at least partly due to a mismatch of actor and role.

My disappointment in the lack of depth in the portrayal of the POWs may also be due to my familiarity with their story. They did not resemble the men portrayed in Ghost Soldiers. Nor did they resemble the men in Last Man Out, the story of one survivor of the Palawan massacre.

And while the story of Margaret Utinsky and the Filipino underground smuggling medicine into the camp is also an amazing one, the relationship between her and the fictional Major Gibson was simply a distraction. The time spent on the romance would have been better used portraying Claire Phillips, lounge singer and spy. She had a correspondence with a POW (a chaplain) at Cabanatuan, and this may be where the idea of a romance came from.

The movie gets a good grade on historical accuracy - except for the fictional and annoying romance angle and the overly opulent prison quarters and wardrobes.

Though one of the few films to accurately portray the Filipino guerrillas, it didn't really do them justice. Captain Pajota's feat in holding back a 1000 Japanese soldiers with a small force should have had a few more feet of film.

The understated, almost too subtle, dialogue didn't quite make clear that the raid would have been an utter failure without the tactical brilliance of Captain Pajota and the participation of his men. Captain Joson - who might be missed entirely in the film if you're not paying close attention - was indeed overshadowed by Pajota, but still essential to the success of the operation.

The best performances in this film are by the Filipino actors. Cesar Montano portrays Captain Pajota with quiet strength and Natalie Mendoza as Mina, who helped smuggle medicine into the camp, is beautiful as well as talented.

The neatest bit of trivia about the actors is that Ebong Joson thought it merely coincidence that he shared the same name as his character. He did not find out until after accepting the role, that he would be portraying his grandfather.

Others on The Great Raid: Instapundit

Big Ten Extra - Great Raid, Great Movie?

Hoystory.com - The Great Raid

Power Line - Mass Murder One Atrocity at a Time

The Manifest - The "Great" Raid. Partially in English, enough to understand this Phillippine blogger thinks the Filipino role was understated too.

elpeezee - Bringin It Back- Randomly Thinking. Notes that the Japanese killed villagers as punishment for the raid.

Cindyfilms - Skip It

blackshama's blog - The Great Raid and War Movies in general

Nate's Daily News - The Weekend Movie Review. He gives it 8.5 out of 10.

marygraceguerra - guerra means war

ThoughtsOnline

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers! (This makes MY day!)

UPDATE: Gaze Theory relates then to now.

UPDATE: Dave at Garfield Ridge thinks Fiennes' was the best performance in the film.

Yet another UPDATE: Professor Froward says "It's a movie, not a seminar."

Colonel James W. Lewis laid to rest Saturday, August 13, 2005

Missing in action since 1965 and declared killed in action, body not recovered in 1974, Col. Lewis' remains were identified in July. He was last seen in the cockpit of his B-57B diving through thin clouds on April 7, 1965 over Laos.

I'm not an architect and I haven't even stayed at Holiday Inn Express recently, but does this building say "Screw You" or... what?

Most buildings I see remind me of everyday items in our tool using age. They are extraordinary examples of the ordinary. They are not only large, but inspiring. That they inspire me to reflect on the mundane is not their fault.

On Stemmons Freeway just northwest of downtown Dallas, are several buildings that have always made me chuckle.

On the left is the Wyndham Anatole (used to be Loews Anatole). The cluster of three buildings has always reminded me of Chinese food carry out containers.

Near the middle, to the right of the white building is the Renaissance Hotel (another Wyndham, I think). Whenever I see it, I think of a deodorant container.

On the far left is Dallas' World Trade Center building, part of the Dallas Market Center complex. I realized when my youngest daughter and I were driving through Dallas recently that you may have to be of a certain age to understand what this one reminds me of. It's one of those nifty little collapsable cups that I remember my mother carrying in her purse.

My favorite building in Dallas is still Emerald City... er, the Hyatt Regency Hotel complex.

You can see more photos and read a little history of Dallas at Dallas Sky, including Dallas Skycrapers We Never Saw.

Or: Isn't waggling my finger and saying 'Bad, bad boy!' good enough?

What does it take to convince some people that merely saying 'We are gravely concerned', just isn't going to worry some people?

German Chancellor Schroeder took exception, today, to President Bush saying that no options were off the table when considering Iran's possible violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Schroeder said Germany's allies in Europe and the United States must maintain a strong position while negotiating with Iran over its nuclear program.

"But take the military options off of the table; we have seen that they're not suitable,"

... perhaps someone should remind Chancellor Schroeder how much good political sanctions accomplished in Iraq over 14 years.

Mind you, I think no one should be in any hurry to even begin serious consideration of applying military force in Iran*, but if you promise to leave all your face cards out of the deck before you sit down to a game of international poker, you might be lucky to come home wearing a barrel.

Or: Why would 'I have my ball, and I say no one else should get one' work as a global policy?

The Iranians did, obliquely, bring up a point that has interested me for many years now.

But Iran's chief IAEA delegate, Sirus Nasseri, argued earlier that all countries should be permitted to produce their own nuclear power plant fuel to prevent being "dependent on an exclusive cartel of nuclear fuel suppliers — a cartel that has a manifest record of denials and restrictions for political and commercial reasons."

Laying aside the irony (Iran is a member of OPEC) one is moved to wonder how it came about that nuclear capable countries played such a big role in helping decide that no one else should become so.

Then again, at some point, one has to deal with the irony...

Having thumbed its collective, governmental nose at Franco-Germanic offers to supply their country with processed uranium for power production, Iran demonstrated what most other nations on Earth tend to when it becomes convenient: If the UN gets in your way, ignore it.

Resuming pre-processing conversion of uranium ore into gas, Iran broke UN seals on a facility that can begin the process for creating weapons grade (or, it must be admitted, power reactor grade) fissionable material.

The IAEA, (International Atomic Energy Agency; the UN's nuclear cops)

debated how to strongly rebuke Iran

It is devastaging sociopolitical blows like that which are at the root of the UN's staggering power to do absolutely nothing in world affairs.

Matthew Boland, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the IAEA, described the breaking of the seals as "yet another sign of Iran's disregard for international concerns."

What is sort of interesting, at least as far as this article is concerned, is this bit:

"The IAEA said in a letter to us today that it gives (the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran) permission to remove the seals and fully restart activities at the facility," Mohammad Saeedi, Iran's deputy nuclear chief, told state-run television Wednesday.

I'd be interested in hearing more about that letter.

More from Boland:

"We strongly support (Germany, Britain and France's) efforts to convince Iran to stop its dangerous activities," he said.

Okay, but Iran already refused the previous deal, and unfortunately, the world knows pretty well by now just how far the UN is willing to go. Governments tend not to be impressed by the UN's appeasement, and they aren't scared of its peacekeeping forces.

Is it a press to get a better deal from the Euros? Or is it just what the Iranians say it is, in which case, people should consider being more than just 'officially concerned'.

UPDATE: The IAEA isn't just 'officially concerned', they're 'seriously concerned'. I'm sure that makes all the difference in the world.

Or: Why would you listen to this bonehead?

I have never been one to particularly give a rat's (censored) about the 'doings' of celebrities. I understand that their livelihood is built around public exposure, and admit that it has to be difficult planning nearly your every waking move around the idea of getting as much of your day in print or on film as can be, but when it extends to things (brought to my attention recently by a friend) like what certainly seems to be a competition among the self-indulgent as to who can saddle their children with the oddest names, (have none of these people heard of Frank Zappa, to realize that the crown is forever his?) it simply reinforces the idea that these are people one would do best to simply ignore whenever possible.

How very, very strange, then, to find other, more 'normal' folk actually quoting these 'celebrities', and worse still, about things for which they have zero authority.

I won't link to the article, but it was some clinical psychologist deconstructing Tom Cruise, regarding that individual's dissertation on what's really wrong in people's heads. (about 14 doughnuts short of a dozen, that boy)

... as if it mattered?

Why on Earth would anyone (censored) care what he said?

Jane Fonda and war, Kate Hudson and relationships, Michael Douglas and guns, Harry Belafonte and racial stereotyping,,, Mickey Mouse and nuclear power...

I should listen to them because... ?

I suppose some of it might be considered 'sour grapes', simply because their bonehead ideas get more airtime than mine, but I very much welcome the idea of being challenged on my opinions, believing them grounded in something other than my own, self-awarded 'authority'; where much of their 'authority' seems due mostly to carefully making themselves public figures.

Okay, okay, in the interests of 'full disclosure'...
it's an old link (though, in limited defense, it did show up in a mailbox today) and I don't know what made me open it. I know better, I do,,, really.

... and why weren't they allowed to do anything with it?

I recall thinking, when I first heard of the legislation forwarded to create the 'Homeland Security' department, that it wasn't a bad idea. Of course, I thought that because I had the wrong information regarding what that department was supposed to do. My understanding had it that HS would be one management bureaucracy which would take the place of the management-level bureaucracies of several of the intelligence and federal law enforcement agencies. Silly me.

The advantages to having it work the way I understood it then would be many faceted, not the least of which might be a reduction in 'turf-protection' among government agencies all scrambling to make 'points' to use at appropriations time.

Then one reads an article like this one, and wonders if even that idyllic notion would have helped.

The way I read this, it's not conclusive; which won't keep the moonbats from deciding that George knew all and just let it happen for ratings; but further, it seems there were, or were reasonably believed to have been, legal justifications for why what did-or-didn't happen, did,,, or didn't.

The Discovery is home.

Hopefully, it's just the fan motor and not the compressor.

This minor crisis may motivate me to enter Lennox's Search for the Most Uncomfortable Home in North America.

It could be worse. The forecast for the next few days is not that bad, we have an attic fan, and the AC at Barnes and Noble still works. Maybe I'll use this time to obey the command to read Swinburne.

Miss a day (okay... a week) of blogging and end up hopelessly behind the pack. Now I'm playing catch-up.

1. Jane Fonda needs to go see Movin' Out. Not only is the Vietnam scene choreographed to We Didn't Start The Fire moving and emotionally intense, the two subsequent dances by the war widow suggest that one can be stuck in mourning beyond it's usefulness, whether it be the Civil War or Vietnam. It's way past time for Fonda to let go of her past, and allow this country to finally stop fighting the Vietnam War.

2. Sometimes I think religion is going to be the death of us.

3. If I knew where the center was, maybe Pajama Pundits would have made it on the list of bloggers asked to name their "Least Favorite People On the Right". Bill O'Reilly would have got at least one more vote. Then again, Eric at Classical Values has a good point - Inflammatory Talk Beats Colorless Totalitarianism. It is a wonder that James Sensenbrenner didn't make the list.

4. The 2nd Amendment is the canary in the Civil Rights mine.

5. Profound, or simply found?

6. Ace of Spades accused of being adult and mature! If he was a mature adult, surely there would be a link to Pajama Pundits on his site, right?

7. Dr. Sanity notes the humor in a headline and the insanity behind it.

8. This is even more insane: Hey New York Times…have you NO DECENCY? Finally, have you NO DECENCY?

9. Stephen Green on work habits. Stephen Green on ribs. Stephen Green on abortion, gun control, and evolution.

10. Sisyphean Musings - Selected (and incomplete) Biblio of the Decision to Go to War and the Elusive Phase IV Plan. This should keep me busy the rest of the day.

I haven't seen all the spy movies Ace lists, but he's so right on his number one pick (and for the right reasons too!) that I'll trust his judgment on the ones I haven't seen.

And he's right about Robert Redford too.

Or: Move over, CBS, ABC wants a piece of the 'okay, so we're sleaze, we got share off it!' pie.

ABC News took a broadside from Britain's Metropolitan Police Commissioner, over the network's decision to air unreleased photos of evidence held by Scotland Yard in the July 7 bombing attacks in London. (naturally, once they were public, everyone jumped on the bandwagon)

Speaking Thursday at a news conference in London, Metropolitan Police commissioner Ian Blair said he believed the pictures had been leaked in the U.S. and warned that the release of potentially sensitive information could damage the inquiry.

"I am concerned that some of the photos were supplied in confidence to some of our colleague agencies in the U.S. and were published there and subsequently around the world," Blair said.

British newspapers and television stations had used the pictures despite Met requests to not do so.

Doubtless it will later be put down as something of an heroic effort against censorship, but damaging a criminal investigation, any criminal investigation, just for ratings, would seem to me an (another?) indicator that 'journalistic integrity' has become an oxymoron.

"World News Tonight" executive producer Jon Banner said ABC News had asked for further information from Scotland Yard regarding why it didn't want the pictures shown but got no response. ABC proceeded with the decision to air the footage on "World News Tonight" after a vigorous process.

"It's something we take great care in. We have a vp of standards and practices. We talked to law enforcement in London and here in the states. We talked to our own security consultants," Banner said. "We thought the story was newsworthy. We believe that to this day."

Sure they have 'standards'. Standard One: will it get ratings? (standards 2-47 are identical to standard one) Standard 48: will it reflect, or can it be spun to reflect, poorly on Bush? (standards 49-104 are identical to #48,,, but I'm not a cynic)

In other news, the same network took further criticism over more typical ratings sensationalism, this time from the Russians.

Boris Malakhov, a Foreign Ministry official speaking on Russian television, said Moscow condemned "the airing on a leading U.S. TV network of an interview with a bandit and murderer of children, Shamil Basayev, who was put on the U.N.'s international terrorist list."

"By doing so, the U.S. network demonstrated an outrageous disregard for standards of journalistic responsibility and human values," Malakhov said. "The airing of this interview disagrees with the efforts of the global community, including Russia and the U.S., in the fight against the threat of global terrorism."

Someone needs to tell Mr. Malakhov that they aren't 'terrorists' anymore. (someone send him the memo)