Friday Hot: Gene Tierney

`


Ms. Tierney married Oleg Cassini, had a romance with a younger JFK, and married Texas oilman W. Howard Lee (who had been married to Hedy Lamarr) and happily lived out her last decades of life in Houston as an excellent contact bridge player. Despite her romance with JFK, Ms. Tierney voted for Nixon in 1960, saying: "I thought he would be a better President."

Ms. Tierney experienced a famous tragedy: while pregnant, and entertaining troops, she contracted rubella from a Marine who had sneaked out of the infirmary to see her show. Her second child, a daughter, was subsequently was born prematurely, blind, and with cognitive limitations. Ms. Tierney and Oleg Cassini had three children in total.

H/t to "If Charlie Parker was a gunslinger...." for the photo.


`

Ayaan Hirsi Ali at University of Wisconsin, Madison

Photo by The Badger Herald, which has a good article about the event.


These quotes below are quickly cobbled together, on the fly, as I listened to the video. These quotes eschew the proper ellipses [...] which I usually use.

The video. On the upper right of the video page, you can watch video of Ms. Hirsi Ali entertainly entertaining hostile questions from the audience.



Ms. Hirsi Ali:

The Muslim mind needs to be opened in the 21st Century. Today, 1.75 Billion persons identify themselves as Muslim.


Muslims make up 1/5 of the world population, yet Muslims commit 2/3 of the violence in the world.


The Muslim mind today is in the grip of Sharia and Jihad.

What I want to make clear is that Islamic values are incompatible with American values. Note: Islamic values, Islamic theology - not Muslims. Muslims are diverse - they are individual human beings, they are adherents, they can change their minds.

[...]
Freedom. Contrast the Declaration of Independence with Islam. The accurate definition of Islam is submission - specifically submission to the will of Allah as related by Muhammad.

Freedom and responsibility vs. submission.

Islamic scripture is clear: women are inferior, and do not enjoy equal rights with men. An individual man can take the law into his own hands and punish a woman, including stoning and lashing.

The Koran is clear about homosexuality: the punishment is death.



Is Islam a religion?

Many people offset Islam against Christianity. I think it's more accurate to offset Islam against other political theories, b/c Islam is a political theory.

The concept of America is also a theory. It's a defined relationship between the state and citizens.

Similarly, Islam provides rules for relationship between the state and subjects, between men and women, and provides punishment for breaking laws.

I find that Christianity, after many centuries of questioning and criticizing, has evolved over centuries. There is separation of state and religion. Islam has not evolved. The ideas and expressions of individuals are narrowed to what the Prophet Muhammad deemed to be moral. Any ideas or expressions outside of what he said are forbidden. Islam retains the cruel punishments of medieval times.


If there are Christians who want to kill, such Christians are stopped by other Christians, by the rule of law, and they are condemned. This does not happen in Islam.


Can Islam be reformed? is perhaps a question we will hear more than any other question this century. But if we cannot question, if we cannot look at what is happening today, then Islam cannot be reformed.

What should we do? We should approach Islam as a political system. It is a political system. We should debate it as we debate communism and democracy.

Currently, Islam is exempted from scrutiny, for instance, by feminists. To me, it seems as if feminists only work for white women. By abstaining from condemning the terrible principles held by men of color, western feminism has become a force that protects only white women.

What of Amina and Sarah in Texas?

Greg's Notes:

Sarah (left) and Amina (right) Said ==========>

Good girls, good students at Lewisville, TX High School, athletes. Murdered, by their father. Their bodies left in their father's taxicab in Las Colinas. He had preplanned his DFW Airport escape flight to Egypt, from whence he will apparently escape American justice, forever. His actions do not violate Egyptian law; do not shock the Egyptian conscience.

Possible Honor Killings in Lewisville, TX, Part I; Part II






Aqsa Parvez, of Toronto, was murdered b/c she would not wear her hijab. She would wear western clothes under her hijab. Upon arrival at school, she would remove her hijab in the school bathroom, only donning it again before taking the bus home.

Aqsa Parvez and Western Denial, Part I; Part II






Return to Ms. Hirsi Ali:

How many have heard of them[Amina and Sarah]? Please raise your hands. 6 persons in a room of 1003 people. They were 16 and 18 years old, and were killed by their Egyptian father b/c they were dating American boys. Imagine if they were Christian, and their names were Ruth and Mary? Would more of us have heard of them?


Muslim women are forced to live in tall apartment buildings, and to never leave the apartment.

When well-meaning westerners, eager to promote respectful minority religions and cultures, sweep practices like forced marriages and confinement under the carpet in order to stop society from stigmatizing Muslims, they deny countless Muslim women and girls their right to press their freedoms from their parents culture and religion. And we, by being silent, become complicit. And harm the same vulnerable minority whom we all seek to protect.

`

Sarah Palin calls for Rahm Emmanuel's resignation over "retarded"

`

An issue near and dear to Trig's mother.

However, calling for resignation is a rhetorical bridge too far. I would prefer this type of public comment: It was an insensitive and hurtful statement, and I appreciate that Mr. Emmanuel has apologized.

Asking for resignation is trying to run up the score: is trying to get her name out there as a fighter and as a leader. Mistake.* On multiple levels.

Political mistake for herself, as she now loses the high ground. She has willingly jumped into the mud pit.

Political mistake vis a vis conservatives. The right cannot win an ongoing back and forth contest of pc accusation with the left, and it's silly to try. The left has the media, and therefore will always win the majority of these types of victories; will always win the major victories.

Most importantly: it's simply wrong to embrace a political correctness which is antithetical to American values and is significantly damaging America. Rahm Emmanuel offended some people, and has chosen to make apologies. Only politically correct thinking would demand his head for having unintentionally offended a group of Americans in this almost routinely human fashion: we all make verbal gaffes. Or, only politically correct thinking would pretend to divine, from thin air, Emmanuel's true intention. Rahm Emmanuel gets to say what his words meant. No one else knows what was going on in his head (we know Rahm has no heart, so the intentions of his heart are not an issue). Conservatives must rise above Political Correctness; must make an effective argument that political correctness is national poison. Speech must not be chilled in this way: must not be chilled by pulling out a guillotine in response to inevitable human gaffes. Such damages our culture and our nation.

Classic 76 seconds of television - comparable to Abbott and Costello's "Who's on First", with the Southpark kids understanding exactly what they are talking about:

*It's maybe less of a mistake if she has no intention of running for President, and instead wants to serve as a grenade lobber. It still costs her gravitas for any future grenades she would lob. So, under these particular circumstances, I still wouldn't like it, but maybe it would be less of a mistake.

The History of Political Correctness - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.

Link to video




Related:

Political Correctness is a bigger threat than Harry Reid's potential racism

I like Michelle Bachmann; I don't like her making hay over Arlen Specter's "Act like a lady"

`

Ping Pong: a great way to meet chicks?

Watch CBS News Videos Online

Sally Jenkins chomps into opponents of the Tebow ad

`

Read it all. But I can't resist:

I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time.
[...]

Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one. I would like to meet the genius at NOW who made that decision. On second thought, no, I wouldn't.
[...]

Trouble is, you can't focus on the game without focusing on the individuals who play it -- and that is the genius of Tebow's ad. The Super Bowl is not some reality-free escape zone. Tebow himself is an inescapable fact: Abortion doesn't just involve serious issues of life, but of potential lives, Heisman trophy winners, scientists, doctors, artists, inventors, Little Leaguers -- who would never come to be if their birth mothers had not wrestled with the stakes and chosen to carry those lives to term. And their stories are every bit as real and valid as the stories preferred by NOW.

Potentials of lives: engineers, firemen, nurses, soldiers, mothers, lovers who caress, nuns, people who push children on swings, people who repair things, people who devote their lives.

Ed Morrissey:

The ad asks people to choose life, not to ban abortion. If NOW really was pro-choice, they’d see nothing invalid....

`

Lady Gaga Grammy Monster and D'yer Maker

The Anchoress studied Lady Gaga for NPR,

and I've been learning, slowly but inevitably, who Lady Gaga is. And she is, kind of ... Madonna ... and David Bowie. And there's nothing wrong with that. All three are/were excellent artists/performers/entertainers (though not necessarily excellent vocalists). Once Lady Gaga sat down at the Grammys' piano (at 3:10), I enjoyed her medley with Elton John. Lady Gaga does have a voice, is an actual musician, and is a veteran professional performer. Points for her.

Lady Gaga & Elton John perform at the 2010 Grammy Awards from Zach Johnson on Vimeo.

The Anchoress says Gaga's major subject matter is the inner monsters we all have. This is worrisome. Does Gaga have the philosophical depth to bring the subject matter full circle: to a satisfying and responsible conclusion? I want to say I'm doubtful, but the truth is I just don't know. Stephani Germanotta might surprise us. I hope so. She's playing with fire.




Stephani Germanotta pays some dues (and rent):









Women who can sing and perform:











Earl Scruggs and Joan Baez





The End Zone likes girl singers:

Maria McKee
Desiree Bassett = best girl guitarist
Imelda May:

1) "Don't You Do Me No Wrong", & "I've Got a Lover"
2) "Johnny Got a Boom Boom", & "Big Bad Handsome Man"

Joan Baez:

1) w/ Earl Scruggs: "Love is Just a Four Letter Word"
2) "Diamonds and Rust"

Lisa Hannigan: "I Don't Know"
Daniela Mercury
Duffy
Jenny Silver
Brandi Carlile
Brandi Carlile and Norah Jones
Kelly Clarkson
Carrie Underwood has perfect balance in her batting stance
Julianne Hough has booty
Susan Boyle: Les Miserables, "I Dreamed A Dream"
Lady Gaga: 2010 Grammy Awards with Elton John + "D'yer Maker"

`

Recognition of Complexity leads to Modesty and Morality

`
Eric Raymond:

When I look at the pattern of failures, I am reminded of something I learned from software engineering: planning fails when the complexity of the problem exceeds the capacity of the planners to reason about it. And the complexity of real-world planning problems almost never rises linearly; it tends to go up at least quadratically in the number of independent variables or problem elements.

Recognition of complexity is a reason we humans rely on morality to inform our actions. Existence is too complex for us to predict the future; too complex for us to predict all consequences - think of the "Butterfly Effect".


When we reject morality, we fail to respect the complexity of existence. We believe, at least temporarily, that we can adequately control results and consequences. We believe we are quite powerful, indeed.


`

Perry Jones, future Baylor Bear

Only a couple days after finding out who Perry Jones is, i.e. the third ranked basketball recruit in the nation, and a future Baylor Bear, I walked into the Grand Prairie gym to watch Cousin Jacob play basketball, and ... what the (?!) ... thats Duncanville and PERRY JONES warming up down at the far end of the court! Alright! I was psyched. And Perry Jones did not disappoint.

Before beginning: Cousin Jacob did not disappoint. I've seen him play half a dozen times, and his court savvy is a pleasure to watch. He's a forward who can shoot it and dish it. When he's on the court, he is THE leader of his team. They all look to him during tough moments. Kudos, Jacob.

Perry Jones

First, his demeanor was excellent. Duncanville won big, yet Perry Jones did not taunt. He was classy and dignified throughout. He gave good effort.

Second, Perry Jones did not hog the ball. He played within Duncanville's system; supported and cheered on his teammates. He dished. He moved inside the offense.

Third, Perry Jones is amazing: he is 6'10"ish, yet can do everything. He played in the post, yet showed an outstanding stroke from 17 feet and from 21 feet. At one point, he thought about launching from 23 feet, then thought better of it. His shot has a natural high arc, making it difficult to block.

Perry Jones' versatility and skills reminded me, really, of Detlef Schrempf. Perry handles it like Paul Pressey: once leading a break up the middle of a crowded court, and no one was going to take it from him: the ball was on a string. Perry dishes it like Detlef; blocks shots like Kirilenko. Perry crosses over his dribble like a guard: not high and sloppy, but tight - difficult for a defender to counter.

You put it together - the size, the dignified demeanor, the skills - how good can Perry Jones be? His defensive footwork, OF COURSE, needs work. EVERY high school kid needs work on defense. That said, I expect Perry Jones would start, next year, for any college in the nation. I expect he would be the featured player for many colleges. I expect an NBA team like the Mavs, who draft late in each draft, would happily give up, right now, a couple years of draft choices for the honor of making Perry Jones rich.

I don't know what kind of scorer Perry Jones will be. I don't know if he will be a dominant scorer, as dominant scorers must be aggressively selfish, and the Perry Jones I saw was consciously fitting in with his teammates. I don't know if Perry can dial up the aggression at will, or if he will always be a Detlef Schrempf style of glue player. Either way: the result will be good.

Perry Jones in summer 2009, at a Las Vegas Showcase. The first part of the video is a bunch of dunks which are kind of boring. For a taste of what I saw last night, watch the ball handling between 1:00 and 1:20 (and at 1:33). Then skip backwards and watch it again. I did.

You Tube shows another 2010 Baylor Recruit: Stargell Love.




`

NYT blogger calls Christina Hendricks fat; posts digitally widened photo of her; gets slammed

`
Anytime NYT gets slammed - even a NYT blogger - it's a feel good story!


Non widened image of Christina at the Golden Globes:




She looks fantastic! I'm a Christina Hendricks fan: she was born to fill out a dress.






















Re the Golden Globes dress, my comments at Webutante and here:

It was a Hollywood event, and she wore a Hollywood dress. I like it when actresses have fun dressing glamorously and being photographed. It's a campy occasion, and actresses ought have fun with it. How many times in life do you get to dress up your best body and face in maximum glamour? Christina enjoyed it, and I liked that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

one-woman campaign to return female body concept to a glorious natural state.

Beloved Emjay, tasked with reeling me in when I've gone too far, quibbled w/my opinion re "natural state":

If you think those boobs [and hair] are "natural" I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you!

I do think those boobs are natural, soo ... about that bridge: is it a good deal?



Webutante:

This woman is a tour de force of femininity.... I can see Greg's attraction and think it and she's definitely got it goin'on. The ruffles work for rather than against the total package.

Having said that, she's a man's choice and wouldn't be mine though I do think she's fetching and clearly enjoying herself.

"Tour de force of femininity". Love it.





Popeater has the current story:

'Mad Men' starlet Christina Hendricks drew lots of eyeballs -- and Internet comments -- thanks to her dress at the Golden Globes earlier this month. Flaunting her curvaceous figure and a whole lotta cleavage, Hendricks' dress prompted one blogger for the New York Times to say: "You don't put a big girl in a big dress," which caused an uproar in the comments section and across the Web. Well, now Hendricks' husband is fighting back, calling the comments "ridiculous."


During the Globes, New York Times fashion critic Cathy Horyn posted a digitally widened photo of Hendricks, saying: "You don't put a big girl in a big dress. That's rule number one". She later said that the photo was mistakenly distorted, and it was replaced on the page.

Geoffrey Arend, who tied the knot with Hendricks last October, tells PEOPLE he "was just upset about the whole Golden Globes dress thing. I thought she looked so gorgeous. And that New York Times blogger saying that... It's so ridiculous."

Arend goes on to say the best part of the whole fracas "was seeing the entire internet come after that blogger. That was really cool. It was the first time I saw just a solid block of 'You're crazy! What's wrong with you? You should be ashamed of yourself!' [in the comments.] And honestly, the Grey Lady should be ashamed of themselves to print a picture like that, that they widened!"

Hendricks' gown was designed by 'Project Runway' winner Christian Siriano.

`

Obama to America: there were elements of death panels in the health care bill

`
Both the headline and the body are edited, with some text disappeared and some text changed, to reflect my new understanding of Pres. Obama's statement. I originally read the statement as "you cannot keep your doctor." I was wrong. Rather, the statement was, in so many words: yes, there were death panels.
`

Have skimmed through video of Obama and House Repubs. I rechristen the event

"The Gouge Your Eyes Out Due To Obama's 'Baffle Em With Bullshit' Answers Event"

My title for the event is only 1/20th as long as Obama's typical answer, and 1/40th as long as Obama's occasional answer, and 1/80th as long as a couple of answers where Obama really got rolling and threw in kitchen sinks from the Philippines AND Hawaii AND Pepperdine AND Columbia AND Pahkeestahn AND the South Side of Chicago.

Two things struck me:

First, more frivolous, but it did strike me: in my estimation, Pres. Obama is a lie-a-minute man. In basketball, they used to have the concept of a "point-a-minute" player, i.e. a player who averaged one point for every minute he played. Pres. Obama has adjusted this concept to politics.

Second, Pres. Obama admitted that a couple of health care provisions get "in between you and your doctor in your decision making". Therefore, Obama was saying, basically, "death panels", i.e. we promised no one would get between you and your doctor; we called Sarah Palin a damn liar; but, um, she was kinda right, b/c there would've been people and/or regulations and standards in between doctors and patients.


Tom Bevan, at Real Clear Politics, has the Obama quote:

For example, we said from the start that it was going to be important for us to be consistent in saying to people if you can have your -- if you want to keep the health insurance you got, you can keep it, that you're not going to have anybody getting in between you and your doctor in your decision making. And I think that some of the provisions that got snuck in might have violated that pledge.

Dems and SCOTUS politics

William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection:

So why the anger and fury [over Citizens United and over Alito at the SOTU]?

Let me suggest it has something to do with likelihood that Justice Stevens will be retiring at the end of this term. Democrats are attempting to ... pressure Obama to pick an activist liberal justice to replace Stevens, and [Dems are attempting] to justify confirmation.

The argument will go that since Alito and Roberts are activist on the right, there must be an activist on the left appointed as a counterbalance.

There is method to Democrats' madness in attacking the Citizens United decision and in demonizing Alito and Roberts. But it's still madness.

An outstanding take by Jacobsen. A note: Dems don't have to pressure Barack to pick a liberal justice: Barack is enthusiastically on board with that goal - which is why he attacked Citizens United in the first place.

This also explains why Schumer leaped to microphones and excoriated Citizens United as if it were Dred Scott squared. It's likely that Schumer, well in advance of Citizens United, had been thinking ahead: had been searching for strategy and tactics to aid the nomination and confirmation of a liberal SCOTUS justice; had been searching for a SCOTUS decision(s) which could be demagogued as extreme.

Are Dems way better at SCOTUS politics than Repubs? I do think, definitely, Dems are way more desperate about SCOTUS politics than Repubs. Repubs don't use the judiciary to implement agenda; Dems do. When you are more desperate, you think about things more. You strategize as you lay in bed at night. You tend to be more successful than persons who are less desperate. Sun Tzu:

The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand.

Added rant:

This entire Citizen's United/Samuel Alito brouhaha exemplifies leftist hysteria.

Citizens United doesn't hurt the left. Corporations give almost exactly equal contributions to both left and right. On the other hand: unions give 97% of contributions to the left. Most persons on the left understand this. Many left side "complaints" are actually political posturing for purpose of positioning Dems as virtuous and Repubs as unvirtuous.

Alito
Fer cryin out loud: Alito just reacted, out his own personal sense of justice, at the SCOTUS decision being blatantly mischaracterized. Do the persons criticizing Alito have no familiarity with typical human reactions? Alito takes pride in his work, studied and worked hard on Citizens United, then had to sit and watch his work be lied about. Humans are human.

The Anchoress:

Obama is the President of the United States, and he had the pulpit, the microphone, the cameras and the attention of the whole chamber. Alito was one robed judge among 7, barely noticeable in the crowd. The president’s remarks were premeditated. The justice’s muttering was reflexive. One act meant to be both disrespectful and elicit a partisan response, the other was probably not even voiced at all and was meant to satisfy the justice’s own sense of, well, justice.

The Anchoress receives email saying: Bush did it too! She responds:

While we’re at it, I wonder when the left is going to realize that validating the actions of President Obama by bringing up the actions or near-actions of a president [GWB] whose every move they despised does not really help them in their defense.
[...]
It is a crazy way to live -saying what your guy is doing is okay, because the guy you thought was an evil moron did it first – it is cognitive dissonance to the nth degree. And when the argument is used in this case, citing one president’s broad statement against another president’s focused and narrow admonishment, well…it doesn’t work at all.

And, finally, Glenn Greenwald writes dreck; obscures truth when it suits him. His Alito article is tiresome manure. He calls Alito a "partisan sideshow"? Bull. Again, notice that "partisan" is exactly part of the political message Schumer and Obama are trying to send.

Ann Althouse fisks Greenwald:

Alito's response didn't signify political disagreement. It was simply self-defense — a defense of the Court. It meant: We decide cases according to the law. That is apolitical.
[...]
Shaking one's head and mouthing 2 or 3 words is "flamboyant"? Alito was sitting in his seat and he evinced a subtle reaction to a severe political attack. That doesn't make what he did "highly politicized." If anyone was "highly politicized," it was Obama. Alito's response was more of a reflex, and it was, I would assume, grounded in a belief that the Court does what it is supposed to do — decide cases according to the law.

As to Greenwald's convenient deceitfulness, Althouse finds a examples:

While Presidents do not commonly criticize the Court in the SOTU address, it is far from unprecedented either.

[Greenwald's] link goes to Tony Mauro at The Legal Times, who says that this kind of talk is "almost unprecedented." "Almost unprecedented" = "far from unprecedented"? Come on, Glenn. Your sleaziness is showing.
[...]

Yale Law Professor Jack Balkin documents that roughly 25% of Franklin Roosevelt's 1937 State of the Union address was devoted to criticizing the Supreme Court and various rulings which struck down his domestic legislation.

Roosevelt's attack on the Court — quoted by Balkin — was, at the most severe point:

"We do not ask the Courts to call non-existent powers into being, but we have a right to expect that conceded powers or those legitimately implied shall be made effective instruments for the common good."

Think about how much more respectful that was toward the Court than the blow that made Samuel Alito flinch last night.

Greenwald concludes:

Whatever one thinks of the one paragraph of Obama's address devoted to the Citizens United ruling, it was not "unprecedented."

Who is he quoting there? Balkin doesn't say "unprecedented." Is it Mauro's "almost unprecedented"? For all his annoying verbiage, Greenwald can't get anywhere in this effort to show that Obama was just fine and Alito did something outrageous. Pathetic!

`

Friday Hotness: Julie Newmar

If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger titles it:

"Sex Education #126"

From a distance, Julie Newmar has always seemed a decent gal - if in a quirky, artistic, melodramatic, I'm a diva who requires massive amounts of fawning attention kind of way. You sense that you couldn't really live with her for life - or maybe even for a month - yet she seems to have a streak of loving decency, and seems as if she would be really fun company for dinner. And that is not nothing: I appreciate and value that.

Now 75 years old, Wikipedia says she has been: "...pianist, dancer, actress, mother and real estate entrepreneur. Newmar is currently working on 3 books." Her only child, a son, has Down Syndrome. She's an enthusiastic gardener. Mr. Miyagi was her batting instructor.

Lee Smith, author of "The Strong Horse", on anti Americanism

The best interview I've ever seen about the Middle East: Michael Totten interviews Lee Smith. Smith is author of the newly released The Strong Horse.

Today, rather than highlighting Smith's brilliant views on the Middle East [which he explains during the first part of the interview], let's look at Smith's views on anti Americanism in the world - especially in the Middle East, in Europe, and amongst American Intelligentsia - and at Smith's views on America's (desperate and pitiful, imo) desire to be loved:

Lee Smith: ... And as for turning the region [the Middle East] against the US, we shouldn’t forget that a lot of people in the region cheered the [9/11] attacks. Our mutual friends and colleagues in Lebanon tell us that people were handing out baklawa in the streets of Beirut, nor of course was this the only Arab city where 9/11 was celebrated.

Michael Totten: On the subject of anti-Americanism, I think you nailed it, and it really isn't that complicated. You wrote,

"Anti-Americanism is the region's lingua franca, and from Nasser to Nasrallah it has not changed in over fifty years. The United States is hated not because of what it does, or because of what it is. The United States is hated for what it is not, not Arab and not Muslim."

Now, surely the fact that the U.S. plays a powerful role in the Middle East feeds into this. Like you said, it goes back to beginning of our presence in the region. If we had the geopolitical footprint of, say, Belize, hardly anyone in the Middle East would spend much time even thinking about us. But since we aren't going to shrink our footprint to the size of Belize or even Europe—not even with Barack Obama as president—is there really much we can do about this?

Greg's note:

I think Totten and Smith are slightly off: the Middle East hates America for

1) not being Arab

+

2) not being Muslim

+

3) being prosperous, powerful, influential, and happy.

In other words: they hate us for what we are not in combination with what we are. They hate us b/c of the entirety of the equation.



Lee Smith: The short answer is no. The long answer is also no—but I’ll elaborate anyway. Arab anti-Americanism, as I point out in the book, did not begin with the Bush administration, but goes back to the very beginning of our presence in the region and becomes the pre-eminent channel for anti-colonial sentiment after the Suez Crisis of 1956. The irony is that as President Eisenhower asserted the US’s anti-imperialist credentials and demanded that the French, British and Israelis withdraw from Egypt and leave Nasser alone. We had effectively ruined France and Great Britain’s position in the Middle East and it was not long before they left entirely—France left Algeria and Great Britain abandoned its position in the Persian Gulf. Hence, we were the only remaining Western power in the region and all the anti-colonialist sentiment was directed at us, even if our presence there has never resembled anything like that of a classical colonial power.

There is also a tribal element behind the anti-Americanism that I detail in the book, but it dovetails nicely with the once reigning anti-colonial sentiment articulated by the Arab nationalist intelligentsia, a theme encouraged at the time by our Cold War rivals in Moscow. Of course it was nonsense: Colonial powers extract wealth from their holdings for their own sake, as Syria did during its 15-year-long occupation of Lebanon; they don’t typically go in and produce wealth for the sake of the locals, like the Americans did in discovering oil in Saudi Arabia, marketing it, and protecting it and the Saudi Royal family for some 65 years at the expense of the American taxpayer. The money we’ve spent over the years protecting the Gulf, including the outlay for the Bahrain-based 5th Fleet, dwarfs the figures we’ve provided Israel and Egypt, the two top US aid recipients.

Of course, neither facts nor precise language will have much effect on Arabs who hold anti-American positions, nor on Americans or other Westerners who have similar views, from a so-called leftwing perspective. The major concern then is with that portion of Americans who really affect how we interact with the world, not just US policymakers, but our opinion-makers, journalists, talking heads etc., and whether or not they understand the sources of anti-Americanism and the various political and strategic purposes to which it’s put. For instance, Hendrik Hertzberg recently wrote in the New Yorker that, “Obama damped down the flames of global anti-Americanism.” Maybe Mr. Hertzberg missed the footage from Pakistan when they were burning the effigy of the 44th President, just as they did with the 43rd President, but this New Yorker writer has no choice but to ignore reality because anything other than fulfillment of the wish that Obama will make us loved around the world, rather than hated, as ostensibly Bush did, is too terrifying to contemplate.

I think this need to loved is about two things. First, anti-Americanism, not just of the Arab variety but the entire genre, is very old, dating back to even before the founding of this country. Barry Rubin has a book on anti-Americanism where he goes into this: Europeans felt they had to justify to themselves why they weren’t coming to the new world, this new Jerusalem, this city on a hill, so they concocted a narrative, some of it based on sheer fantasy, imaginary beasts, etc., about why the new world, America, was a very bad and dangerous place that rationalized their decision to stay in Europe. That is to say, anti-Americanism is originally a European phenomenon: we rejected Europe by coming to these shores and they rejected us in turn. The Europeans have had problems with America, the idea and reality, for 300 hundred years and it’s not going away anytime soon. This is the well from which our prestige intelligentsia is drinking; a large portion of our elite is relieved to see America put down so long as they are not included among the great unwashed by the people who, for some good reasons, they admire and, for not such good reasons, whose love they desire: the Europeans. It’s a prestige thing for this section of our elite. They don’t hate America, they love it. They just want their version of it—urbane, often ironic, international—represented to that part of the rest of the world that’s of most concern to them: Europe.

Since the ideas of the world that this class of Americans holds—the junior-year abroad school of US foreign policy—are rooted in insecurity, fear, and what the French call ressentiment, they are not very clear ideas about the world, neither about the scary parts nor the relatively gentler regions, like France, for example. I love France, I love the French, I especially love their strategic posture: can you imagine, a nation so devoted to its historical character that it is still trying to project power even though it has neither the military nor the economy to do so? Some would say it’s the opposite of what Obama is trying to do with the US—turn what is in reality a great power into a middling power, like France. I deeply admire France’s aspirations, even as many of their policies are repugnant. The fact is that France is usually successful to the extent its calculations are cynical, which is characteristic of French foreign policy throughout the ages. The idea that France’s actions on the world stage embody some sort of moral authority is perverse, ahistorical, and anti-intellectual insofar as there is scant evidence in the written record of France ever acting in such a fashion; but there you have it, our prestige intelligentsia was outraged that Bush didn’t take his marching orders from the French President on Iraq.

The other reason we are so concerned with anti-Americanism is quite simply mortal fear—we want to be loved because it is scary to be hated by scary people who set fire to things when a cartoon offends them, and blow things up when they get really mad. To be sure, Americans seem to be needier than the inhabitants of any other great power in world history—did the Romans require love? The Ottomans? The Brits?—but the fact is that people really do hate us. Maybe they hate us for what seem like good reasons, at least to them anyway, maybe it is about our policies, for instance. But many Arab Sunnis hate Arab Shia for what seem like good reasons to many Arab Sunnis—they hate the way the Shia practice Islam; they hate Shia “policies” about Islam. So maybe if the Shia don’t want to get blown up by a madman like Zarqawi they should change their policies regarding Islam and become Sunnis. Of course it’s ridiculous, as is the notion that Bin Laden and friends want to kill us because of our “policies.” We support Israel, they say; but we also are allied with every Arab state except Syria. We support Arab regimes that tyrannize their own peoples, they say; and then we deposed Saddam and you saw how the Arab Sunni masses reacted. The issue is not our policies; the issue is an existential one, and it is not about us, rather it is about a society that makes no room for difference, or what is known in academic circles as “the other.” If Zarqawi becomes a folk hero for slaughtering Arab Shia, this is not a region where a non-Arab, non-Muslim superpower is going to find much love.

We are a Great Power, and while some Americans, including some of our policymakers, may say they are uncomfortable about it, we all benefit from our size and ability to project power, hard and soft, the latter of which is earned exclusively by the successful employment of the former. But power and wealth are always going to attract attention from dangerous characters; it earns us envy as well as respect and there’s not much you can do about it because this is part of human nature. We all know the apparent paradox about how big guys get into so many fights because little guys are looking to prove themselves. A wise club owner will hire small, quiet—and deadly—men to keep peace at his bar, but the USA is not a tavern, we are big whether we like it or not, and so we seek to shrink ourselves at our own peril.

I’d love to ask the President about the last fistfight he was in

Greg's note:

Dear Mr. Smith,

I'm confident President Obama has never been in a fistfight, ever - even as a child, much less as an adult. Not that I, as a rule, condone fistfights. But, rather, I just know what I know, and would be shocked if he has ever been in a fistfight.

If Pres. Obama had ever been in a fistfight, I actually would feel much better about him. It would mean he had - wisely or unwisely - come to a point where he said: That's it! No more. You've committed an act UP WITH WHICH I WILL NOT PUT! Then he threw down and began swinging. Even if the act up with which he would not put was his own face being pummeled: this would at least mean Barack Obama was willing to fight for something. Whether or not the fighting was wise, the more important revelation would have been that Pres. Obama had some strength; had some gravel in his belly; had some point at which he was willing to stop masquerading and start fighting. I would feel a lot better if I believed Pres. Obama had something up with which he would not put; had something he were willing to fight for. He appears to be an incredibly weak and feckless man.

—not as a macho, posturing thing, but just to find out what he thought in the aftermath, regardless of the outcome. Did he think, “what did I do to make that vicious drunk come after me? Maybe he was covetous of my iPhone? Maybe my date was dressed too provocatively?” Or did he think, “gee, that was scary as hell and it spun out of control real fast and I’m pretty lucky I was able to handle myself and my pals were there, and next time it might not be a wild haymaker I can see from a mile away but a crisp jab that catches me on the chin.” There are reckless and dangerous predators in the world; some of them pick fights in bars, some of them rule nation states, and others run planes into buildings.

In short, I think American foreign policy gets stupider the further it’s removed from our actual experience of the world. Surely before the President met and then successfully courted his beautiful wife, the First Lady, he struck out with other women, perhaps like most of us, many other women. The lesson that any half-sane adult American male draws from dating is that no matter how hard you try you can’t make people love you. Love is given by choice. By matching actions to words, you can earn respect, but you cannot coerce love, not from another human being, and certainly not from a foreign people.

Ranty Barack Rant #101

Updated, at bottom, with photos.
`
I almost can't look at Barack without thinking he is demonstrating exactly what I do not want in a POTUS.

photo h/t

Look at the way Barack is holding his beer. C'mon Barack! Thats not the way a man holds a beer! Fer cryin out loud, man: even your shirtsleeves look effete - you could get beat up in some bars for your shirtsleeves alone. The only thing you got going for you, your only hope of getting out of some bars alive, is that you kinda need a shave. That's your best hope. I would start for the door immediately. A speedy exit is your friend. On the way out, if confronted, DON'T try to negotiate. You fail to understand: there are people in this world who do not negotiate. Also, don't, under any circumstances, even utter the word "preconditions". That might get you beaten up AND left in a ditch outside of town.

Even Barack's facial expression looks like a child who is trying to get away with something. Is this a guy who has never sat at a bar and downed a beer? Who has never sat at a bar which didn't have ferns?

And what's with the glass?

A beer looks like this =====>

or like any of these on this page - just scroll down. What does that glass hold? 6 ounces? 7 ounces? We men are exactly stupid enough that we expect each other to drink a proper amount of beer. That can be one beer. But it cannot be 6 ounces. They gave Barack the girl glass - they knew their customer. It's a champagne flute. For lesbians. Man rules can seem stupid, but they are THE RULES! Follow em, or suffer the consequences.

Barack is an embarrassment to manhood. Lately, when I see a photo or video of him, I usually see something revealing - and not in a flattering way.

Update:



Teleprompter of the United States, aka TOTUS, set up in a schoolroom during a statement to assembled media.








TOTUS deployed to help POTUS speak to his own staff inside the White House. Including staff aides who are standing out of camera range: there are a reported 20 to 25 persons in the room.

My State of the Union lasts 1 minute

Barack begins by comparing the Union forces being turned back at Bull Run, and America's losses at Omaha Beach, to the Obama Administration losing the Health Care battle. He didn't explicitly cite health care, but that's what this little beginning was about.

That's it. I'm done. No more State of Union Speech for me. The television is off. I wonder if, despite all the horrifying difficulties Barack has been forced to overcome, our Union is strong? Guess I'll never know.

Maybe our Union is stronger than ever? I'll have to live with not knowing.

I wonder if it's Wall Street's fault? If the entire chamber will rise and applaud the assertion that it's Wall Street's fault. If the corrupt tax criminal Charlie Rangel will be shown on camera, madly applauding? Guess I'll never know whose fault it is. I do know whose fault it is not. Is the suspense killing you? Barack Obama. It's NOT Barack Obama's fault. I know that w/o even watching, b/c, well, some things you just know.

I wonder if the Stimulus/Porkulus succeeded in staving off the worst economic depression EVER? I'm pretty sure it did. I wonder if it saved over 300 million jobs? I'm pretty sure it did. I wonder if Barack feels the pain of the unemployed? I'm pretty sure he does. I'm pretty sure he will save them. I'm pretty sure Barack is all about jobs. I'm pretty sure he even feels like Job, except tougher and braver, and with greater faith in ... um ... Marxism wait Black Liberation Theology no fixing America's image in the world not getting Muslim terrorists to love us didn't work ... um ... am pretty sure Barack's faith in, um, Eric Holder - yes! - am pretty sure Barack's faith in Eric Holder exceeds Job's faith in God. So, anyway, Barack feels like Job(s).

Am pretty sure some straw men ("there are those who say....") will be propped up and toppled over tonight. Will be tough on straw men.

Am pretty sure Barack will be so perfectly clear that he will warn us: "Let me be perfectly clear."



Update: Bobby Flay is BBQing chicken on the Food Network. Tasty.


`