Bizarre historical parallels

This just in from Fox News: BELGRADE, Serbia-Montenegro — Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic has been assassinated, the Reuters news service reported Wednesday.

Yes, I finally gave in and installed an Amazon "Click to Give" button. The way I see it, if I can get back the $15 I paid Blogger to get rid of those annoying banner ads, then I'll be happy. That's all. -EAL

Vikings, ho!

Shameless plea for links - It would seem I’m getting a lot of traffic thanks to my NYT subscription parody (below). Since you’re here, how about adding me to your blogroll? C’mon, it’s easy! Did I mention you look fabulous today?

Are Inspections Working?

The Washington Post has a long editorial today called “Are Inspections Working?” It’s pretty clear they think the answer is “No.”

Mr. Blix has dodged repeated requests that he judge Iraq against the terms of Resolution 1441; instead, he has retailed indications of "progress" on such issues as interviews with scientists, which in turn are hailed by some as proof that the "inspections are working." Such discussions have a surreal quality, because they ignore the elephantine fact that Iraq has still not disclosed its weapons. Mr. Blix doggedly pursues "unanswered questions" about huge stores of unaccounted-for materials -- but in reality, his team has little of substance to do. It can only wait to see if Iraq will be more forthcoming, or hope for a lucky break that will lead it to hidden stockpiles. [Emphasis in original]

Between Iraq and Miguel Estrada, the Washington Post editorial page has been a welcome anecdote to the self-righteous and confused blather of the New York Times. “Elephantine” – that’s great.

Slate's Saddameter update - holding steady at 99% chance of war with Iraq.
(Will this post make my permalinks work now? Only the Blogger knows)

To the Subscription Department of the New York Times:

I have received your third letter requesting remittance for my New York Times newspaper home delivery. I’m disappointed that you have threatened to cut off delivery of my daily paper, especially in light of my continued efforts towards compliance within the agreed framework of the subscription contract.

Soon after my daily subscription started, I received a bill from the NYT. I immediately complied with this request for payment by sending in $0.25. While this was not a “full” payment (as defined by you), it was clearly a signal that I intended to comply within the structure of our mutual agreement. This was followed up a week later by an additional $0.25 payment; once again, a clear indication that I was conforming to your demands. However, although I was paying for my newspapers, you seemed to indicate that the level of compliance was out of step with what we agreed to. In response to this, I accelerated my payment schedule to $1 a week. Granted, this was significantly less than the “total” newspaper cost, but I think you’d agree that progress is being made.

In your letter, you also indicated that you would submit my name to a collection agency to recoup losses from papers already delivered. I view this as an unreasonable escalation on your part, which can only lead to mutual hostility between us. Furthermore, it is unsupportable when viewed next to my continued compliance as I’ve noted above.

However, if you continue to feel that such drastic action is required to ensure my full compliance with the subscription contract, I’m going to have to demand that you get permission from the editors of Le Monde and Pravda before moving forward.

Best,

Eric

Meanwhile, here in the “Commonwealth”

I was doing my Massachusetts state taxes the other day and saw that there was an extra line added to this year’s form: an option to pay a higher tax rate of 5.85% instead of the regular 5.3% rate.

This can’t be a bad idea, right? After all, the state that voted for George McGovern and Al Gore – the home of the Kennedys - must be chock-full of self-loathing liberals who feel they just aren’t being taxed enough.

Or maybe not.

(Hat tip to Daily Pundit).

USA Today gets it

An editorial in today’s paper “U.S. opponents squander last chance to avoid war” reiterates that the only thing Saddam Hussein understands is force:

Any doubts about how Saddam Hussein behaves when pressures on him are relaxed even a little now can be erased. Though chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix gave only a lukewarm endorsement Friday to Iraq's grudging disarmament steps, Saddam is acting as if he deserves a reward rather than a rebuke.

- - - - -

The diplomatic blitz has not won over France, Russia or China, any of which can veto the plan. They claim inspections are working and offer as evidence Saddam's destruction of more than a third of his 100-plus al-Samoud missiles. Ignoring the fact that the missile destruction came only after a U.S. troop buildup in the region reached invasion strength, they propose no alternative for sustaining the pressure. Instead, their solution is to give inspections more time, a tried-and-failed formula that merely invites Saddam's cat-and-mouse games.

This indirectly brings up a good point: do the Euro-weenies think inspections “will work” because the U.S. has now positioned a quarter-million troops around Iraq? Furthermore, do they expect me (the American taxpayer) to support these troops stationed in the Mideast while the endless inspections drag on? In other words, if the U.S. backs off, brings the troops home and says “OK, inspect away!” do you think there is the slightest chance that Saddam Hussein would then allow unfettered inspections? It’s ludicrous.

In fact, how’s this for a counter-proposal to the United Nations? The U.S. withdraws American forces from the area in exchange for stepped-up inspections which includes fast-moving helicopters and the right to stop tractor-trailers driving along the Syrian border. If the Iraqis balk at any aspect of the inspections, then the French military will bear the cost of forcing Iraqi compliance, since it’s the French who most vocally insist Saddam Hussein is willing to disarm.

Why are you laughing?

Judicial wars

Here's an excerpt from the NYT Magazine article "The Power of the Fourth" about the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals:

Clinton finally tried an end run around Helms by nominating a Virginian, a soft-spoken African-American lawyer named Roger L. Gregory….His nomination had bipartisan support. But even Gregory couldn't get a hearing scheduled.

So Clinton resorted to an extraordinary tactic. During his last days in office, after Congress had recessed, Clinton unilaterally appointed Gregory to the bench. President Bush, eager to demonstrate bipartisanship and win support for his own candidates, eventually allowed Gregory's temporary appointment to become permanent.

With regard to President Bush thinking he would get equitable treatment from the Democrats, I would quote Otter from "Animal House": "You f----- up, you trusted us!"

Michael Moore cuts back on burger budget…buys books

Today I got my Sunday New York Times and – WTF? – Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" is #1 on the Hardback "Nonfiction" Best Seller list. Despite the fact the book has been out for nearly a year, the leftie book jumped from #9 last week to the top spot this week. And, as has been the case for as long as I've been tracking the book, the NYT has a dagger next to the listing indicating "some bookstores report receiving bulk orders."

I find it extremely hard to believe this book is still maintaining some semblance of popularity. For 46 weeks now? I mean, c'mon. Moore must be sending out some acolytes to purchase books in massive numbers to keep his name on the best sellers list. There's really no other supportable conclusion.

Upholding the dignity of the office

Jimmy Carter burnishes his *cough* well-earned Nobel Peace Prize with an editorial in the New York Times today (Sunday). Is there any point in reading it? War? He's against it. Permission from the United Nations? He's for it. Blah blah - ah, just go read the superb counter argument on OxBlog and be done with it.

Whatever happened to the tradition of ex-presidents retiring from the public eye and leaving the field to the new Commander-in-Chief? Write your memoirs, make some speeches, and then play golf. But not the Democrats: Jimmy Carter and Bill "60 Minutes" Clinton simply cannot keep their gums from flapping and expressing their perpetual disappointment. Please, have some self-respect, and shut up.

You gotta know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em

During the President's press conference the other night, he used the poker term "show your cards" to indicate that U.N. members should be forced to reveal their true position on disarming Iraq (and, peripherally, the utility of the United Nations). As an amateur linguist, I'm always on the lookout for words and phrases that pop up in the American vernacular. Bush's gambling reference sent me scurrying to my copy of "The Story of English" from the PBS series, and I faithfully re-typed this section:

The French origins of poker – present in usages like ace and deuce – were soon forgotten, especially when the Westerners evolved into their own varient, stud poker (one card down, the other cards up). As the wild men of the West carried the game far and wide, so phrases like put up or shut up, I'll call your bluff, and passing the buck entered the language. (The buck was the buck-horned-handled knife placed in front of the dealer and passed by a player who did not care to deal the next hand.) Deal itself, as word with a long pedigree, now acquired a whole new resonance, spawning a family of phrases, from square deal to new deal, to fair deal to raw deal and big deal! Once the cards had been dealt, the quality of bluffing became an important factor in the game. By the middle of the century, bluff was synonymous with poker, and the best way to win was to have a poker face and to hope that the cards weren't stacked against you. Such gambling terms are now common in English. We talk about having an ace up one's sleeve, and we boast that we will up the ante, we say of someone that he has hit the jackpot, or loaded the dice, or thrown in his hand, or played both ends against the middle, that he wouldn't follow suit and preferred to play a wild card when perhaps he should have recognized the chips were down.

Does the prevalence of gambling terms in the American language reveal something about our character? Maybe we're willing to take risks where others would prefer not to play at all. I'd bet on it.

More Monty Python fun

I had a jarring revelation of the perfect model for the U.N. inspection team in Iraq. They’re just like the Roman soldiers searching for the People’s Front for Judea in the movie “Life of Brian”. This script really doesn’t do it justice, but in the movie the Romans come to a miniscule apartment looking for Brian; the members of the People’s Front hide themselves by doing things like putting a towel over their heads. About a hundred soldiers march into the room (way more than could ever fit), only to come back out without finding anyone. They leave but come back a few seconds later, claiming they failed to look in one place. In they go (clomp clomp clomp) and out they come; a sergeant proudly states “Found this spoon, sir”. “Well done, sergeant!”

Rent the movie. You won’t regret it.

Moss-backed windbag gets her comeuppance

This:

"This is the worst president ever," Mrs. Thomas told the Daily Breeze of Torrance, Calif., in January. "He is the worst president in all of American history."

And this:

For four decades the White House correspondent for United Press International, Mrs. Thomas, 82, has in recent months harangued Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer, asking how President Bush can slaughter innocent Iraqis in a quest for oil.

Leads to this:

Syndicated columnist Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy, was relegated to the third row in last night's East Room event and — if the memory of press corps veterans is accurate — received her first presidential snub.

One reporter who has covered the past six presidents said: "I don't remember a press conference in which [Mrs. Thomas] didn't get a question."

It’s about time.

Estrada update

The Washington Post had some pretty strong words for the Senate Democrats in the main editorial today: “Escalation in the Senate”:

But a lower court nominee has never been stopped by filibuster, nor has withholding a vote ever been used to force a nominee to discuss matters about which nominees traditionally remain silent. The Estrada vote, therefore, formalizes a dramatic escalation in the war over the courts -- one Democrats may come to regret.

The Republicans need to break out the cots and put aside the “gentleman’s” filibuster. Make the Democrats defend the indefensible.

Double entendre of the day

From the article: “Hooters Air Takes Off with Waitresses in Hot Pants”

Henry Harteveldt, an airline analyst for Forrester Research in San Francisco, described Hooters Air as a novelty idea that would not give established carriers such Delta Air Lines, which operates on the same route, anything to worry about.

"I expect Hooters Air to bounce along until they go bust," Harteveldt said.

(Fill in your own breast joke here)

Slate's Saddameter: holding steady at 99% chance of war with Iraq.

Melinda? Have you seen my wallet? I had $10 billion in there!

The Economist has a graph of “The World’s 12 Richest People” Bill Gates lost $10 billion dollars in 2002 and he’s still the richest man in the world.

Here's a little follow-up on Gates and author Robert X. Cringely from Wired:

Cringely was thrilled when Gates tried to disprove an anecdote from Accidental Empires. In the book, Gates goes to a convenience store in 1990 (net worth at the time: $3 billion) to get a tub of butter pecan ice cream. At the checkout counter, he can't find a 50-cents-off coupon he had brought, and as he searches and searches, a frustrated customer farther back in line finally tosses him two quarters, which Gates takes. The customer calls out, "Pay me back when you earn your first million." Gates told Cringely the story couldn't be true because coupons come in the daily newspaper, and he doesn't get a daily newspaper. "He wanted me to buy it!" Cringely marvels. "Why? Who am I to him?"

Nerd fight!

For the past two months, a country has been missing

The tiny island country of Nauru (population: 10,000) lost their phone system in early January and had been cut off from the rest of the world until an Australian engineer fixed their phone system this past week. As if this wasn’t strange enough, well…read about the history and present problems of Nauru. It involves phosphate, London musicals, and Iraqi refugees – ‘nuf said.