The Worst Nightmare For A Driver In Minnesota
A woman. On her cell phone. Driving a gargantuan SUV. 'Nuf said.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Winning A Hard Peace After An Easy War
Although successive US generals proclaimed victory at hand, American soldiers kept dying in ambushes, telegraph lines kept getting cut, and army convoys kept getting attacked.
If you substitute oil pipelines for telegraph lines you could easily be describing the situation in Iraq today. But the description is of the Philippine War from Max Boot's much praised (and deservedly so) book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power:
Pacifying the Philippines had proved to be much more difficult than virtually anyone had predicted. Between 1898 and 1902, a total of 126,468 American soldiers served there (though never more than 69,000 at one time) and fought in 2,811 engagements. By July 4, 1902 the US had lost 4,234 dead and suffered 2,818 wounded. By comparison, only 379 Americans were lost in combat in the Spanish-American War. By their own count US forces killed 16,000 Filipinos in combat. As many as 200,000 civilians also died, victims of disease and famine and the cruelties of both sides. Yet in the end the US did triumph. Decisively.
Hopefully the Philippine War will not prove to be the model for the current counter-insurgency in Iraq. It was a nasty brutish war on both sides and far too many soldiers and civilians died as a result. And we certainly don't want to wait forty years before allowing the Iraqis to have complete independence as we did with the Philippines. But it is an example that needs to be recalled more often, especially when most members of the mainstream media historical grasp of conflicts of this sort begins and ends with Vietnam.
There are also political lessons that a certain party should draw from the Philippine War:
Aguinaldo (the Filipino guerilla leader) intensified his campaign in the months leading up to the US election of 1900, hoping to deliver a victory for the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, who had proclaimed his opposition to imperialism. Some of the more outspoken American anti-imperialists even openly wished for Aguinaldo's victory "against our army of subjugation, tyranny, and oppression." Many soldiers were bitter about the antiwar rhetoric coming from home. "If I am shot by a Filipino bullet," complained General Henry Lawton, who was in fact killed shortly thereafter, "it might just as well come from one of my own men...because...the continuance of the fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent from America."
The perceived link between the insurrectos and the Democrats backfired for both. The Republicans were able to paint their opponents as unpatriotic, and Bryan, who had actually abandoned anti-imperialism as an issue just before the election, was trounced by the McKinley-Roosevelt ticket.
If you substitute oil pipelines for telegraph lines you could easily be describing the situation in Iraq today. But the description is of the Philippine War from Max Boot's much praised (and deservedly so) book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power:
Pacifying the Philippines had proved to be much more difficult than virtually anyone had predicted. Between 1898 and 1902, a total of 126,468 American soldiers served there (though never more than 69,000 at one time) and fought in 2,811 engagements. By July 4, 1902 the US had lost 4,234 dead and suffered 2,818 wounded. By comparison, only 379 Americans were lost in combat in the Spanish-American War. By their own count US forces killed 16,000 Filipinos in combat. As many as 200,000 civilians also died, victims of disease and famine and the cruelties of both sides. Yet in the end the US did triumph. Decisively.
Hopefully the Philippine War will not prove to be the model for the current counter-insurgency in Iraq. It was a nasty brutish war on both sides and far too many soldiers and civilians died as a result. And we certainly don't want to wait forty years before allowing the Iraqis to have complete independence as we did with the Philippines. But it is an example that needs to be recalled more often, especially when most members of the mainstream media historical grasp of conflicts of this sort begins and ends with Vietnam.
There are also political lessons that a certain party should draw from the Philippine War:
Aguinaldo (the Filipino guerilla leader) intensified his campaign in the months leading up to the US election of 1900, hoping to deliver a victory for the Democratic candidate, William Jennings Bryan, who had proclaimed his opposition to imperialism. Some of the more outspoken American anti-imperialists even openly wished for Aguinaldo's victory "against our army of subjugation, tyranny, and oppression." Many soldiers were bitter about the antiwar rhetoric coming from home. "If I am shot by a Filipino bullet," complained General Henry Lawton, who was in fact killed shortly thereafter, "it might just as well come from one of my own men...because...the continuance of the fighting is chiefly due to reports that are sent from America."
The perceived link between the insurrectos and the Democrats backfired for both. The Republicans were able to paint their opponents as unpatriotic, and Bryan, who had actually abandoned anti-imperialism as an issue just before the election, was trounced by the McKinley-Roosevelt ticket.
There Is Unrest In The Forest, There Is Trouble With The Trees
It looks to me like we have a clear case of tree terrorism here (via Drudge). They're fighting back against those evil SUVs, folks. Consider yourselves warned.
I understand several squirrels were seen parading along the forest floor with tree fragments in their claws praising the tree's ultimate sacrifice and proclaiming victory over the infidel invaders.
It looks to me like we have a clear case of tree terrorism here (via Drudge). They're fighting back against those evil SUVs, folks. Consider yourselves warned.
I understand several squirrels were seen parading along the forest floor with tree fragments in their claws praising the tree's ultimate sacrifice and proclaiming victory over the infidel invaders.
Margin Of Error: 3.996 Trillion
Even when they think they've made their point at the New York Times, they're wrong.
Even when they think they've made their point at the New York Times, they're wrong.
Monday, August 18, 2003
Impartial And Even
Isn't this precious.
Stick to making salad dressing, Paul, and leave the sarcasm to the professionals.
Isn't this precious.
Stick to making salad dressing, Paul, and leave the sarcasm to the professionals.
On Pursuing Glory
An occasional loss can be ennobling. Chronic loss can be crippling. Right now I'm somewhere in the middle and the trend ain't good.
No, I'm not talking about my recent descent in choosing worthy topics to blog about (Mark Dayton, Brian Lambert, the City Pages). I'm talking about much more serious matters. Trivia, to be precise.
Keegan’s, a classy Irish bar on the fringes of nordeast Minneapolis, hosts a Tuesday night trivia challenge. By happenstance a few months back I found myself there with a fellow Fraters Libertarian, and we commenced to clean house. (And then we put our brooms away, sat down, and played some trivia.)
Actually, we came in second. But given the sophisticated level of the questions (think NTN times 10), the non-multiple choice style of questioning (delivered in mic-wielding, Socratic fashion by the bar owner), the stiff level of competition, and the stiffer nature of the bar pour, it felt like victory. More to the point, it felt like victory because we got the same prize as those who came in first--a free drink.
Of course, I considered the future attainment of first place a mere formality. Pay a little more attention, spend a little less time monitoring the Twins game on the TV, slow the booze's neurological numbing affect by nursing my black-and-tans a little more, and stop shouting down teammates who doubt my knowledge of sub-Saharan African geography, and victory would surely follow. Or so I thought.
How painfully wrong I was. Despite our best efforts, in four subsequent attempts at Keegan's trivia not a single free drink was earned. Our scores have flattened out to 16 out of 25 questions correct, which gets you nothing more than third place (at best), a pitying yet empathetic look from the owner's pretty wife when she hands back your scorecard, and the torturous realization that your public school education has placed yet another insurmountable obstacle in your path.
But over time this pain does go away, usually by the time the next round of drinks arrives. What doesn't go away so easily are the nagging suspicions that perhaps we ain't really as dumb as we look. Yes, we only get 16 out of 25 correct and that fact is not in dispute. Objectively speaking, it is what it is. But it's the relative measurement that bothers me. Are there really at least two other teams better than we?
I will concede perhaps there is one. A group of four men whose age, appearance, and personal hygiene lead me to believe they are either tenured college professors or the smartest group homeless guys on University Avenue (cosmetically speaking, the difference is negligible). During the game they caustically laugh and knowingly nod, meaning either they know the answers or are very self-satisfied in their selection of seasoned curly fries over the waffle cut potato wedges to accompany their fish sandwiches.
However, they have yet to actually win a match, since another team is consistently announced as bringing home the free booze. Week after week, this same team wins. According to sources, this team is composed of various generations of one family. A family related to our very own Atomizer.
I don't want to start a firestorm of controversy here, but since my sacred honor and reputation as a guy who knows a lot of useless facts is at stake, I feel compelled to publicly present my evidence that maybe they're not the knowledge juggernaut they comport themselves to be.
This is from an email I circulated to interested parties last week.
The Emperor has no clothes. Plus, the Atomizers' trivia prowess at Keegans ain't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, they're smart people. But something smells rotten (besides those college professors in the corner). I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of putting the fix on the game. But the appearance of impropriety is, well, apparent.
It's clear the Keegans know the Atomizers well. After announcing their inevitable victories, the two families socialize with each other--laughing it up for 30 minutes after the game. To me and the rest of the losers in the bar, it looks unseemly.
Is it reasonable to suspect that given their relationship, perhaps Keegan is gearing many of the questions to the known knowledge set of his good pals the Atomizers (maybe subconsciously, maybe not) ? Is this why we get a half dozen questions on fey English poetry and not one about 80's TV, just to mix it up a bit? (Not that I'd necessarily feel good about winning the contest because I know what the initials ALF stand for, but still.)
As I said, it's not an intentional fixing I'm worried about, rather it's the intrinsic, institutional bias that haunts my every waking hour.
Also, the presence of repeat questions is profoundly disturbing. The last two weeks I've heard questions already asked in previous weeks. Since the Atomizers are there all the time and have been holding court since the day the place opened, it wouldn't surprise me if they already heard 20 of the 25 questions in advance.
I cannot remain silent on these matters any longer, since the half-baked, circumstantial evidence of malfeasance has reached a critical mass. Please respond with all haste, as the credibility of big league trivia in the Twin Cities hangs in the balance.
Anyone out there with further information on these matters is encouraged to contact the relevant authorities. And soon. Tuesday rapidly approaches, yet there's still a chance for justice.
No, I'm not talking about my recent descent in choosing worthy topics to blog about (Mark Dayton, Brian Lambert, the City Pages). I'm talking about much more serious matters. Trivia, to be precise.
Keegan’s, a classy Irish bar on the fringes of nordeast Minneapolis, hosts a Tuesday night trivia challenge. By happenstance a few months back I found myself there with a fellow Fraters Libertarian, and we commenced to clean house. (And then we put our brooms away, sat down, and played some trivia.)
Actually, we came in second. But given the sophisticated level of the questions (think NTN times 10), the non-multiple choice style of questioning (delivered in mic-wielding, Socratic fashion by the bar owner), the stiff level of competition, and the stiffer nature of the bar pour, it felt like victory. More to the point, it felt like victory because we got the same prize as those who came in first--a free drink.
Of course, I considered the future attainment of first place a mere formality. Pay a little more attention, spend a little less time monitoring the Twins game on the TV, slow the booze's neurological numbing affect by nursing my black-and-tans a little more, and stop shouting down teammates who doubt my knowledge of sub-Saharan African geography, and victory would surely follow. Or so I thought.
How painfully wrong I was. Despite our best efforts, in four subsequent attempts at Keegan's trivia not a single free drink was earned. Our scores have flattened out to 16 out of 25 questions correct, which gets you nothing more than third place (at best), a pitying yet empathetic look from the owner's pretty wife when she hands back your scorecard, and the torturous realization that your public school education has placed yet another insurmountable obstacle in your path.
But over time this pain does go away, usually by the time the next round of drinks arrives. What doesn't go away so easily are the nagging suspicions that perhaps we ain't really as dumb as we look. Yes, we only get 16 out of 25 correct and that fact is not in dispute. Objectively speaking, it is what it is. But it's the relative measurement that bothers me. Are there really at least two other teams better than we?
I will concede perhaps there is one. A group of four men whose age, appearance, and personal hygiene lead me to believe they are either tenured college professors or the smartest group homeless guys on University Avenue (cosmetically speaking, the difference is negligible). During the game they caustically laugh and knowingly nod, meaning either they know the answers or are very self-satisfied in their selection of seasoned curly fries over the waffle cut potato wedges to accompany their fish sandwiches.
However, they have yet to actually win a match, since another team is consistently announced as bringing home the free booze. Week after week, this same team wins. According to sources, this team is composed of various generations of one family. A family related to our very own Atomizer.
I don't want to start a firestorm of controversy here, but since my sacred honor and reputation as a guy who knows a lot of useless facts is at stake, I feel compelled to publicly present my evidence that maybe they're not the knowledge juggernaut they comport themselves to be.
This is from an email I circulated to interested parties last week.
The Emperor has no clothes. Plus, the Atomizers' trivia prowess at Keegans ain't all it's cracked up to be. Yes, they're smart people. But something smells rotten (besides those college professors in the corner). I'm not necessarily accusing anyone of putting the fix on the game. But the appearance of impropriety is, well, apparent.
It's clear the Keegans know the Atomizers well. After announcing their inevitable victories, the two families socialize with each other--laughing it up for 30 minutes after the game. To me and the rest of the losers in the bar, it looks unseemly.
Is it reasonable to suspect that given their relationship, perhaps Keegan is gearing many of the questions to the known knowledge set of his good pals the Atomizers (maybe subconsciously, maybe not) ? Is this why we get a half dozen questions on fey English poetry and not one about 80's TV, just to mix it up a bit? (Not that I'd necessarily feel good about winning the contest because I know what the initials ALF stand for, but still.)
As I said, it's not an intentional fixing I'm worried about, rather it's the intrinsic, institutional bias that haunts my every waking hour.
Also, the presence of repeat questions is profoundly disturbing. The last two weeks I've heard questions already asked in previous weeks. Since the Atomizers are there all the time and have been holding court since the day the place opened, it wouldn't surprise me if they already heard 20 of the 25 questions in advance.
I cannot remain silent on these matters any longer, since the half-baked, circumstantial evidence of malfeasance has reached a critical mass. Please respond with all haste, as the credibility of big league trivia in the Twin Cities hangs in the balance.
Anyone out there with further information on these matters is encouraged to contact the relevant authorities. And soon. Tuesday rapidly approaches, yet there's still a chance for justice.
Yeah, But Was He Better Than Elvis?
I really think this story will give Gray Davis the boost he needs to survive this whole recall thing.
I really think this story will give Gray Davis the boost he needs to survive this whole recall thing.
Will The Apparent Rush To Address The Strib's Scheer Bias Continue?
In recent months I've noticed that the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial page seems to be offering up more pieces that represent the conservative point of view. Of course they still feed us heavy does of Krugman, Ivins, and Dowd but conservative voices are breaking through more and more often. Yesterday's front page of the editorial section was a perfect example. The page was devoted to the California recall and alongside the usual left wing drivel from Robert Scheer appeared a piece from George Will and most shocking of all Rush Limbaugh writing on how the liberal elite hates losing control. Two out of the three editorials were by conservatives. Was I really reading the Minneapolis Star Tribune?
In the past George Will was often the token conservative columnist featured in the editorial pages of the Strib. Six months ago the notion of a Will editorial and a piece by Rush appearing on the same page in the Strib would have been inconceivable. In fact the idea of the Strib even publishing Rush would have seemed far fetched. The times appear to be changing.
In recent months I've noticed that the Minneapolis Star Tribune editorial page seems to be offering up more pieces that represent the conservative point of view. Of course they still feed us heavy does of Krugman, Ivins, and Dowd but conservative voices are breaking through more and more often. Yesterday's front page of the editorial section was a perfect example. The page was devoted to the California recall and alongside the usual left wing drivel from Robert Scheer appeared a piece from George Will and most shocking of all Rush Limbaugh writing on how the liberal elite hates losing control. Two out of the three editorials were by conservatives. Was I really reading the Minneapolis Star Tribune?
In the past George Will was often the token conservative columnist featured in the editorial pages of the Strib. Six months ago the notion of a Will editorial and a piece by Rush appearing on the same page in the Strib would have been inconceivable. In fact the idea of the Strib even publishing Rush would have seemed far fetched. The times appear to be changing.
The Top Bulldog
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has asked a group of bloggers (including us) to select the The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century. The number one vote getter should not come as much of a surprise.
John Hawkins at Right Wing News has asked a group of bloggers (including us) to select the The Greatest Figures Of The 20th Century. The number one vote getter should not come as much of a surprise.
Sunday, August 17, 2003
The Fraters Echo Effect
In advance of Rick Rickert’s excellent adventure in Slovenia, King over at SCSU Scholars reports his observations on what faces not-ready-for-prime-time US athletes attempting to make a go of it in Europe.
Also, Mitch Berg expounds on my post about the City Pages Babelogue and their role in the burgeoning “No Justice, No Pants” movement. His contrasting of mass blogging exercises among the Right and the Left bears repeating:
Right Blogs - Coordinated blogging on Iranian independence day, to draw attention to the anti-theocracy protesters and their suffering, and to support their yearning for freedom.
Left Blogs - Coordinated blogging on behalf of comic Al Franken, to support his yearning for relevance.
Right Blogs - Gang fact-checking the New York Times, eventually helping to lead to the exposure of a culture of PC and disregard for the truth at the Old Gray Lady.
Left Blogs - "Cyber-mooning" Fox News.
And in my final attempt to move the news cycle forward, no word yet from Drudge, Instapundit, George Will, or Charles Krauthammer on my passionate appeals for their assistance in making CiCi Anderson a national star. Developing.....
In advance of Rick Rickert’s excellent adventure in Slovenia, King over at SCSU Scholars reports his observations on what faces not-ready-for-prime-time US athletes attempting to make a go of it in Europe.
Also, Mitch Berg expounds on my post about the City Pages Babelogue and their role in the burgeoning “No Justice, No Pants” movement. His contrasting of mass blogging exercises among the Right and the Left bears repeating:
Right Blogs - Coordinated blogging on Iranian independence day, to draw attention to the anti-theocracy protesters and their suffering, and to support their yearning for freedom.
Left Blogs - Coordinated blogging on behalf of comic Al Franken, to support his yearning for relevance.
Right Blogs - Gang fact-checking the New York Times, eventually helping to lead to the exposure of a culture of PC and disregard for the truth at the Old Gray Lady.
Left Blogs - "Cyber-mooning" Fox News.
And in my final attempt to move the news cycle forward, no word yet from Drudge, Instapundit, George Will, or Charles Krauthammer on my passionate appeals for their assistance in making CiCi Anderson a national star. Developing.....
Saturday, August 16, 2003
The City Pages Babelogue: Pressed Hams Under Glass
People are constantly telling me there’s no joy in reading the blogs associated with the local alternative newspaper, the City Pages. Between the seething, hysterical anti-Bush ranting, the wild-eyed John Ashcroft-related conspiracy theorizing, and the general level of obscenities and vulgarities, even for Lefty fellow travelers it’s an unpleasant exercise trying to get through even a couple of these things. (That is, when their regular columnists aren’t taking their customary two or three weeks off between postings.)
I sympathize with this review of what’s happening on their so-called Babelogue. However, I will suggest you give them one more try, as a recent posting on their blog index gave me more smiles than a month’s worth of Tom Tomorrow cartoons.
Apparently last week there was a coordinated effort among Left leaning blogs across the nation to protest the lawsuit filed by Fox News against Al Franken, his upcoming book, and his use of their trademarked phrase “Fair and Balanced.” As far as I can tell, the blogs were all supposed to gratuitously use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” in their posts, in an attempt to spite Fox’s attempts to protect its trademark.
Try not to laugh as you read the Babelogue Index’s report:
Fair and balanced? Was it ever! ...... over 500 participating blogs letting Fox News know how very, very much we love them ..... but the big news was the scope and success of the first-ever cyber-mooning. Exposing their ass cheeks to power, the online Left may have just come of age.
(The laughter of Saint Paul echoes throughout the empty offices of Fraters Libertas.)
Ahem, yes, I think they have come of age. And apparently that age is fifteen. Which isn’t bad for a bunch of ‘alternative’ journalists whose median age appears to be somewhere close to 40. Keep swinging for the fences kids.
People are constantly telling me there’s no joy in reading the blogs associated with the local alternative newspaper, the City Pages. Between the seething, hysterical anti-Bush ranting, the wild-eyed John Ashcroft-related conspiracy theorizing, and the general level of obscenities and vulgarities, even for Lefty fellow travelers it’s an unpleasant exercise trying to get through even a couple of these things. (That is, when their regular columnists aren’t taking their customary two or three weeks off between postings.)
I sympathize with this review of what’s happening on their so-called Babelogue. However, I will suggest you give them one more try, as a recent posting on their blog index gave me more smiles than a month’s worth of Tom Tomorrow cartoons.
Apparently last week there was a coordinated effort among Left leaning blogs across the nation to protest the lawsuit filed by Fox News against Al Franken, his upcoming book, and his use of their trademarked phrase “Fair and Balanced.” As far as I can tell, the blogs were all supposed to gratuitously use the phrase “Fair and Balanced” in their posts, in an attempt to spite Fox’s attempts to protect its trademark.
Try not to laugh as you read the Babelogue Index’s report:
Fair and balanced? Was it ever! ...... over 500 participating blogs letting Fox News know how very, very much we love them ..... but the big news was the scope and success of the first-ever cyber-mooning. Exposing their ass cheeks to power, the online Left may have just come of age.
(The laughter of Saint Paul echoes throughout the empty offices of Fraters Libertas.)
Ahem, yes, I think they have come of age. And apparently that age is fifteen. Which isn’t bad for a bunch of ‘alternative’ journalists whose median age appears to be somewhere close to 40. Keep swinging for the fences kids.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)