Archives for August 2006

Unlike some of my favorite bloggers, I’m not a shrink. I’m not a particularly deep thinker. I’ve lived all my life paying attention to what I’m doing in the present, while remaining mindful of the possible consequences: I’m not a “what if” person.

This is probably due to the reason that at an early age I knew people who were so focused on the “what ifs” that they managed to supremely mess up their lives. For instance, a neighbor who, back in the days when I was in grade school, spent most of her waking hours wondering “what if” her abusive, alcoholic husband didn’t drink, and who later spent invaluable time wondering “what if” her son (who was my age) hadn’t become a junkie.

The worst kind of “what if”, the most egregious waste of time, is the “what if [bad event] hadn’t happened”. It is self-indulgent, wishful thinking, daydreaming at best, but mostly wasteful of energy and time, and a useless endeavor.

Once something bad happens, what matters is not what we’d be doing if things hadn’t gone wrong: we know what we were doing when things were fine. What we do when we’re faced with a huge problem is what really matters: our survival and very existence hinge on that.

Now New York Magazine has come up with an issue, I suppose because we’re nearing the 5th anniversary of the second World Trade Center attack, asking What If 9/11 Never Happened? A counterhistory. NYMag’s reason to indulge in “counterhistory” is to try to ascertain what are the vast political, cultural, and sociological, intellectual, emotional, and psychological changes.

In the 1970s and 1980s and 1990s while we were dancing in our sleep all the way up the sides of the volcano, plenty of bad things happened and we went on “as if” they were minor glitches: After the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 I recall that The Economist (they don’t have that issue on line) ran a chilling cover story on the emergence of radical Islam. Nobody paid attention. The scenario described in the article, dire as it was, came short of the reality we’re facing.

So now we’re in the midst of a long war, after kicking the can for as long and as far as it could be kicked, for decades, and a magazine wastes an entire issue on fanciful daydreaming. Rather than pay a dozen writers, (including Andrew Sullivan) to tiptoe through the imaginary tulips, how about if NYMag had shown some guts and featured leaders such as Aayan Hirsi Ali and writers from India, Australia, the Americas and the Middle East that are being attacked by fascist Islamists who want their destruction?

Because, as Leon Wieseltier said, if if 9/11 had not happened, then 9/12 would have happened, or 9/13 or 9/14.

Update The World Of The Simpleton’s ‘If Only’

(technorati tags 9/11, Terrorism, War, Politics, New York Magazine)

Today’s must-read, via Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred, How I became an ‘unconscious fascist’, by Fiamma Nirenstein, raises many issues on the latest version of anti-Semitism. Among them,

Here are the main problems that lead to distorted reporting of the Intifada:

1) Lack of historic depth in attributing responsibility for its outbreak. In other words, failure to repeat the story of the Israeli offer of a Palestinian state and of Arafat’s refusal which, in essence, is a refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish state, and which continues the almost 70 year old Arab rejection of partition of the land of Israel between Arabs and Jews as recommended by the British in 1936, decided by the UN in 1947 and always accepted by the Jewish representatives.

2) Failure, right from the very first clashes at the check points, to assign responsibility for the first deaths to the fact that, unlike in the first Intifada, in the second the IDF faced armed fighters hiding in the midst of the unarmed crowd.

3) Failure to recognize the enormous influence of the cultural pressure on the Palestinians from the systematic education in Palestinian schools and mass media, vilifying Jews and Israelis and idealizing terrorist acts of murder and mayhem.

4) Describing the death of Palestinian children without identifying the circumstances in which they occurred. The equating of civilian losses of Israelis with those of the Palestinian, as if terrorism and war against it were the same thing, and as if intentional killing was the same as a deplored consequence of a difficult and new type fight.

5) Using Palestinian sources to certify events, as if Palestinian sources were the most reliable. I am thinking of Jenin, of the unconfirmed reports that passed to printed pages or TV screens as absolute truth. In contrast, Israeli sources, which are very often reliable, are seen as subservient, prejudiced and unworthy of attention, despite the country’s aggressive free and open journalism, and the equally determined criticism of government policies by opposition parties, conscience objectors, commentators and journalists.

6) Manipulation of the order in which the news are given and of the news itself. The headlines give the number of Palestinians killed or wounded in most articles, at least in Europe, before describing the gunfights and their causes, and linger on the age and family stories of the terrorists. The purposes of the IDF actions, such as capturing terrorists, destroying arms factories or hiding places and bases for attacks against Israel, are rarely mentioned. On the contrary, Israel’s operations are often described as completely uncalled for, bizarre, wicked and useless.

7) Manipulation of language, taking advantage of the great confusion about the definition of “terrorism” and “terrorist”. This too is an old issue, connected to the concept of freedom fighter, so dear to my generation.

A few days ago, at a checkpoint, I was doing some interviews. It soon became clear to me that the use of the word “terrorist” sounded to each one of my Palestinian interlocutors a capital political and semantic sin. The press has learned this very well: the occupation is the cause of everything, terrorism is called resistance and does not exist per se. Terrorists who kill women and children are called militants, or fighters. An act of terrorism is often “a fire clash”, even when only babies and old men are shot inside their cars on a highway. It is also interesting to note that a young shahid is a cause of deep pride for the Palestinian struggle, but if you ask how a child of twelve can be sent to die and why young children are indoctrinated to do such acts, the answer is: “come on, a child can’t be a terrorist. How can you call a 12 year old boy a terrorist?”

This is perhaps the most crucial point: Given the fact that there is a ferocious debate on the definition of terrorism, it is widely accepted that terrorism is a way of fighting. This is a semantic and even substantial gift of the new anti-Semitism, where it is natural for a Jew to be dead. Namely, intentionally targeting civilians to cause fear and disrupt the morale of Israel is not a moral sin. It doesn’t raise world indignation, and if it does, it hides in its folds some or much sympathy for the terrorist aggressor. What the European press fails to or doesn’t want to understand is that Terror is a condemnable and forbidden way of fighting, regardless of the specific political goal it tries to achieve.

8) The media have promoted the extravagant concept that the settlers, including women and children are not real human beings.

They present settlers as pawns in a dangerous game they choose to play. Their deaths are almost natural and logical events. In a way, they asked for it.

On the other hand, when a Hamas commander is killed, even though, he obviously “asked for it”, an ethical, philosophical debate arises, on the perfidy of extra-judicial death sentences.

This would certainly be a licit debate, were it not for the grotesque double standard on which worldwide press bases it.

9) Not to go overlooked is that censorship and corruption within the PA and the physical elimination of its political enemies is hardly ever covered.

Read it all.

Update: Don’t apologize

As if there wasn’t enough obnoxiousness to go around, Chez Diva notices that

That’s right, Estee Lauder’s little boutique brand M.A.C. Cosmetics‘ pouty mouth spokesperson Sandra Bernhard is promoting “PlushGlass” by mouthing off and insulting Republican women. Here’s the words: “little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican thin-lipped bitch”. Now go see the disgusting, hate-filled internet video advertisement / commercial.

While the tastelessness(*) of the approach is obvious, I wonder who was the genius to approve the ad, which will alienate at least 50% of the female electorate.

Oh! I get it. That market fragment doesn’t count, at least for the crowd that M.A.C. wants to attract. On the other hand, as ChezDiva commenter Cricket noticed, maybe Sandra’s talking about Hillary.

Drudge picked up the item, too.

(*) I realize that I probably shouldn’t bring up tastelessness after posting these two items.
Fair enough.
At the same time, I’m not designing a national advertising campaign aimed at convincing women to spend $17.50 plus tax (in NJ, $18.25) on a lipstick that will probably do the same as a product that costs $3.69 plus tax ($3.95 in NJ).

Update, 8:30 PM Well, whaddaya know. The “little freaked out, intimidated, frightened, right-wing Republican thin-lipped bitch” disappeared from the ad.
As the Church Lady said, Isn’t that precious?

WATCH THE VIDEO!
Check out the latest update belowYou just can’t make this up.

Yesterday I was asking,

No word on what sweet nothings they said to each other.

France2 showed a video with the scene above but they don’t have last night’s broadcast on line yet, and the reporter was talking.

However, today, via Babalu, CNN has part of the video of Hugo’s bedside visit to Fidel. In the video, with stuffed dolls (or are those bobble head dolls? Go check out the video — I’m not making it up) of Hugo and Fidel in the background, Hugo holds Fidel’s wrist and the conversation goes like this:

Hugo: De todas las visitas que he hecho en mi vida, ni siquiera cuando visitaba a mi primera novia, la verdad es que un gusto.
Fidel: Pero cuando tu visitabas tu primera novia no estaba al frente el proceso revolucionario.
Hugo: ¡Ni soñaba!
(my translation)
Hugo: Of all the visits I’ve ever made, not even when I used to visit my first girlfriend, this is truly a pleasure.
Fidel: But when you visited your first girlfriend the revolutionary process was not ahead of you.
Hugo: Not in my dreams!
SEE CORRECTION BELOW

Small wonder Val calls it Brokeback Bedside.

CORRECTION: Barcepundit, who wasn’t laughing as loud as I was when I listened to the video, writes to clarify,

Fidel: Pero cuando tu visitabas tu primera novia no estaba al frente del proceso revolucionario,
which would be,
“But when you visited your first girlfriend was not leading the revolutionary process”

I got to stop laughing when I watch those two.

Update Don’t miss Three hours of tender intercourse.
That stick doesn’t look too tender to me.

Update: Scene: a secret Havana military hospital

Update, Wednesday August 16: More laughs at the link-rich Dictator love-shack roundup, plus via VCrisis, the mellifluous and tacky video:

(technorati tags Fidel Castro, Castro, Cuba)

Maria’s been sending lots of interesting articles, and now I have the chance to link to them:
Larry Kudlow notices that the American consumer’s Alive and kicking

Something you don’t hear about in the news, Humanitarian Aid Reaches Lebanon via the U.S. Navy High Speed Vessel Two Swift.

Norman Podhoretz’s Is the Bush Doctrine Dead?

The LA Times says A Defiant Hezbollah Rises From the Rubble, and concludes the obvious: “the militia is unlikely to disarm”.
An unmitigated disaster
Let the devil take tomorrow

WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?

Ben Steyn has A Few More Little Facts

Edinburgh learns that jokes about Jews are no laughing matter

CBS is now officially the communication for barbarians service. Speaking of which, Bernard Goldberg writes about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s Neighborhood. In today’s WSJ (by subscription only) Goldberg has a list of questions Mike Wallace didn’t ask.

Pollyanna on the Potomac: What Condi Should Say

The Disproportionate People

A link to the American Congress for Truth and Kevin Sites In the Hot Zone websites, which I’m adding to the blogroll.

CARIBOU COFFEE HOUSE 87% OWNED BY FIRST ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK

Red State Jews: Mugged by Mideast reality.

The Pride and Confidence are Gone

Israelis turn on Olmert as UN agrees ceasefire

The 1st casualty of war

Open letter to the mainstream media

How the media is working for the enemy.

Videos: Brothers in Arms
Mel Gibson’s Signs (of Anti-Semitism)

At the blogs
Moral confusion in the MSM – Brian Williams clueless

Author of L.A. Times Vietnam Atrocity Story Is Dedicated Leftist

Jack Bauer is running and Bauer06 is the “netroots” effort to elect him to represent both Connecticut and New York in the US Senate.

In an interview with French daily Le Monde, Philippe Douste-Blazy, French Minister for Foreign Affairs, doesn’t say that France insisted Hezbollah not be disarmed by force, but couches his words around the notion. In question #5 below, he says that France’s two conditions for the ceasefire agreement were
1.that once Lebanon would agree to deploy 15,000 troops to South Lebanon, there would be no multinational force.
2. and that no one was talking about an army with a mandate to forcibly disarm Hezbollah.
Phillipe knows how to couch his terms.
Belmont Club has an excellent post with the machine translation. Please read it all.

Here’s my translation of the interview. Note that I kept the original French text on questions 3-5, so those of you who know French can read the original text

Q. 3: Cette résolution porte de 2 000 à 15 000 les effectifs de la Finul. La France va-t-elle envoyer des troupes au Liban ?
La France estime indispensable que de nombreux pays puissent contribuer au renforcement de la Finul. Nous examinerons avec nos partenaires européens l’éventuel soutien supplémentaire que nous serons en mesure d’apporter, et le président de la République en décidera. Nous voulons le faire dans un esprit européen. Nous participons déjà à la Finul, nous sommes tout à fait d’accord pour participer à la Finul renforcée.
This resolution might involve 2,000 to 15,000 Finul [UN] troops. Will France send troops to Lebanon?
France believes that it’s essential that many countries contribute to Finul’s [UN troops’] reinforcements. We will examine with our European partners the possible additional support which we will be able to bring, and the President of the Republic [Chirac] will make a decision. We want to do it in a European spirit. As we already participate in Finul, we agree completely to take part in Finul [UN troop] reinforcements.

Q. 4: Le mandat vous convient-t-il?
Ce n’est pas un mandat d’imposition de la paix. La Finul assistera le gouvernement libanais dans plusieurs de ses missions : le déploiement de son armée au Sud, l’assistance humanitaire, l’aide au retour des déplacés. En même temps, elle surveillera la cessation des hostilités et observera le respect par les parties du cessez-le-feu permanent et de la “ligne bleue”.
Do you believe this mandate is appropriate?
It is not a mandate for imposing peace. Finul will assist the Lebanese government in several of its missions: deployment of its army in the South, humane assistance, assistance with the return of displaced people. At the same time, it will supervise the suspension of the hostilities and will observe how each party respects the permanent cease-fire and the “blue line”.

[My comment: Interesting wording, that: ‘will observe how each party respects the permanent cease-fire’; they won’t be enforcing the cease fire. They’re there just to look]

Q. 5: La France disait pourtant ne vouloir déployer des troupes qu’en appui d’un accord politique, après une cessation des hostilités. Ce texte prévoit un déploiement avant un tel accord.
Nous n’avons pas changé d’avis. Il y a eu deux éléments nouveaux. Le premier, c’est que plus personne n’a parlé de force multinationale, dès l’instant que l’armée libanaise a décidé de déployer 15 000 hommes au Liban sud, ce qui est un élément politique majeur. Et plus personne ne parle d’une force qui serait dotée d’un mandat offensif, pour désarmer le Hezbollah. Ce sont deux faits nouveaux, c’étaient nos lignes rouges.
France, however, said it only wants to deploy troops in support of a political agreement, after a suspension of the hostilities. This text forsees a deployment before such an agreement.
We didn’t change our minds. There were two new elements. The first is that nobody any more spoke about multinational force, once the Lebanese army decided to deploy 15 000 men in southern Lebanon, which is a major political element. And no one was talking about an army with a mandate to forcibly disarm Hezbollah. These two new facts were our red lines [i.e., their bottom line].

The rest of the interview went like this:

Q. 6: You think that Hezbollah will accept this resolution?
It involves sevent points of the Siniora government, and thus of the ministers from Hezbollah. The authors of the text spoke with the various parts and considered their red lines. I am persuaded that they will cooperate on the ground with the implementation of this resolution.

Q. 7: Did you obtain assurances from Syria?
We did not have contacts with Syria.

Q. 8: And Iran?
I had the occasion to talk to my counterpart, which I met in Beirut, about how much we believe that it’s important that Iran, which wants to play an important part in the area, can take its responsibilities within the framework for the Israeli-Lebanese conflict.

Q. 9: Do you regret having said that Iran played a stabilizing part?
No, I was misunderstood. I said that Iran was to play a positive part in this area. It is important for the stability of the area. On another issue, that of nuclear power, we’ve said that, if Iran does not take the hand that we tend to him, we’ll adopt sanctions. It is at the same time a language of firmness and opening, by hoping that Iran plays a positive part, and not opposite. It would be then for Iran to decide whether to insulate itself.

Q. 10: The negotiation was sometimes involved the United States and the United Kingdom. Will it have a long-term effect?
We worked in close cooperation with the Americans since the beginning of the crisis, each one with our specificities and in a spirit of confidence. But we never thought that a purely military solution could regulate the problem of Hezbollah. We agree on the objective, disarmament, but for us the means are purely political. It is a French approach.
Nothing can justify the destruction of Lebanon. Democracy was reinstalled in Lebanon thanks to the work which did with the Americans. No one can call that into question.

As Wretchard concluded,

Like experienced consumers we will have learned to read the labels on the packaging and achieved a certain level of “sophistication” the exact opposite of which is the “naivete” that Americans, especially from the Midwest, are said to be incorrigibly afflicted and for which they are roundly reviled. Of course, sophistication is another one of those words which in this context doesn’t mean what it’s supposed to — “knowledgeable” or even “complex” — it simply means the ability to engage in double-talk and coded conversation with the intent to deceive and get paid well into the bargain.

Now go and read Belmont Club‘s final word on this interview.

At Granma, the official organ (all puns fully intended) of the revolution:

No word on what sweet nothings they said to each other.

Time for (drum roll, and announcer with deep baritone voice says:) “INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!”Now, if you look in your browser at the document “source”, you’ll notice that all the photos are numbered 121, 12-2, etc. Hugo arrived in Cuba on August 13, not August 12.
Yesterday Granma was publishing some old pictures of Fidel showing off the proofs for an undated Granma article. What if the pictures of Hugo at Fidel’s bedside were taken back when Fidel busted his knee and are now made to look like they were taken yesterday?
Nothing, absolutely nothing is beyond Fidel and Hugo’s perfidy.
/end “INSANE CONSPIRACY THEORY TIME!”
Now excuse me while I go play some Beatles records backwards.

Update: France2 had the video in tonight’s broadcast, but their site’s still showing yesterday’s show.

Gentle, indeed.
(technorati tags Fidel Castro, Castro, Cuba)

SEE UPDATE #4: RAUL TURNED UP
It’s Castro’s birthday and people are waiting for him and his brother to show up.

That’s what it comes down to.

However, I used to believe that the Germans frequently outdid the Latin Americans when it came to magical realism. After all, the Germans have Nobel winner Gunter Grass (formerly of the SS), several other writers that would give Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Isabel Allende a run for their communist money, and movies like Run, Lola, Run, and all of Wim Wenders oeuvre. But the Cuban news from the past two weeks has made me change my mind. Magical realism is alive and kickin’ in Cuba.

Granma has a brief item from yesterday saying that “a friend” visited “the Commander” and claims that “the Leader” has been having physical therapy, walked a few steps and engaged in animated conversation. The “friend” says that the Leader is “strong as a caguairan“, a totally new word to me. After reading the article twice I assumed the aforementioned caguairan is some sort of tree, but I couldn’t find the word in any of my dictionaries, or at the diccionario. What I did find was caguayo, a Cuban iguana similar to a chameleon.

In that chameleonic vein, CBS News has an article saying people are “tainting him [Castro] in their own likeness” as if one could taint what is already corroded – including the Episcopal pastor of the Matanzas diocese saying

Fidel is a man of big faith in many things

While the pastor wallows in moral equivalence, let’s not forget the 31,173 documented murders brought about by Fidel, whose faith in being supreme ruler of an island prison never ceased. Coincidentally, still, Matanzas means killings in Spanish.

As if Granma’s articles aren’t bizarre enough, and the flora/fauna imagery adds even more oddness to the story, Raul’s been missing for at least as long as Fidel. Captain’s Quarters points out,

This again begs the question: why hasn’t Raul just simply made a public appearance and put an end to the speculation?

In more chameleon-like news, the St. Petersburg Times has an article saying Raul: He’s the pragmatic Castro, while Ion Mihai Pacepa, who has actually met Raul several times, both in Cuba and in Romania, has this to say:

Raul was always under the influence – of alcohol and self-importance. My Cuban intelligence counterpart in those days, Sergio del Valle, who was Raúl’s closest associate going back to their early days in the Sierra Maestra, used to call his boss “Raúl the Terrible” in a semi-serious allusion to the first Russian to crown himself tsar. Raúl was Cuba’s uncrowned tsar – his official title was “Maximum General.” Fidel gave the speeches, hour after hour. Raúl ran Cuba’s economy, her foreign policy, her foreign trade, her justice system, her jails, her tourism – even her hotels and her beaches.

Raúl is generally perceived as a colorless minister of defense, but he has also been the brutal head of one of Communism’s most criminal institutions: the Cuban political police. I met him in that capacity. He was cruel and ruthless. Fidel may have conceived the terror that has kept Cuba in the Communist fold, but Raúl has been the butcher. He has been instrumental in the killing and terrorizing of thousands of Cubans, and there is no question in my mind but that he would fight tooth and nail to preserve his powers.

In particular, most relevant and most ominous, is Pacepa’s statement that

Khrushchev, Raúl, and Shitov -not Fidel – pushed the world to the brink of nuclear war.

I doubt that’s what the St. Pete reporter had in mind when talking pragmatism, but ponder that while you read that Hugo, after shaking his cabinet, is visiting the island-prison today.

Hugo’s birthday gift to Fidel? Along with cake and a cup, a dagger.

Symbolism floods the mind when one contemplates that detail. Venezuela News and Views looks at the situation:

Coming back from his journey to radical lands where Chavez has cast his lot against democracy, he is met with the disease of Castro (or death?). There is no time to waste and radicalization of the regime must start without even waiting for the symbolic election of December. Chavez must assume the leadership of the radical left in the Americas before Castro “officially” dies. This is a ncessary step for him to assume a leadership of sorts in the world since his pals (such as Ahminadejad, Lukashenko(*) or the Korean weirdo) are even less palatable than he is.

But back to Fidel: The Beeb and El Nuevo Herald have official photos of Castro looking decades younger, which we are supposed to believe are the first photos taken after his surgery (video here), along with a statement saying that he’s improved considerably, but,

Les sugiero a todos ser optimistas, y a la vez estar siempre listos para enfrentar cualquier noticia adversa.
(my translation:)
I suggest that you remain optimistic, while at the same time be ready to face any adverse news.

The photo, as you can see has him prominently displaying the front page of yesterday’s newspaper, something that Elephants in Academia compares to “a bizarre and somewhat morbid imitation of a photograph taken to prove a hostage is still alive”.

Or maybe he was playing checkers at the local senior center. But wait, the checkers picture is obviously fake: he looks too old compared to the new photo.

(*) Update, via Sigmund, Carl, and Alfred, Lukashenko congratulates Castro on 80th birthday
Update Via Captain’s Quarters,

Update 3: Via Barcepundit, Sean Gleeson has more. Fools R Us:

The bottom line is obvious with anyone with a pulse. The photo on the left was taken years before the photo on the right. How stupid does the Cuban media think we are?

If any readers have any info on what year the Cuban Olympic Team(s) were wearing that jacket, we’ll be able to ascertain just how old is the photo.

Update 4: Raul turned up! Reuters:

Acting Cuban President Raul Castro appeared in public for the first time on Sunday, receiving Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Cuban state television images showed

Fox News also has the item.

Update, Monday August 14 I posted as a comment, in Sean Gleason‘s blog, If any readers have any info on what year the Cuban Olympic Team(s) were wearing that jacket, we’ll be able to ascertain just how old is the photo. Sure enough, Sean found this, taken in May 2002:

And now we have some pictures that were taken “yesterday”.

——————————
A reminder: Fausta’s blog has a new address. Please update your bookmark and your blogroll.
(technorati tags Fidel Castro, Castro, Cuba)