perfidy

Phil Dennison has done a very brave and foolish thing: put a song by his band on the internet. They're called The Fragments, and they've written a damn good power-pop song. Go check it out!

With all due respect to my colleagues Buckethead and GeekLethal, who are certainly more schooled in foreign affairs than I, I have to disagree with their concensus that a victory for Spanish socialism is a victory for terrorism.

If the Spanish people's choosing a new government amounts to giving in to terrorists' demands, then what about the US' decision to pull troops out of Saudi Arabia? As I remember, Osama sure had his turban in a twist about those troops in the caliphate! And we just caved to him like the weak-willed infidel running dog traitors to Islam we are.

Yes, Spain's political shifts might be cause for worry, but just because a nation does something a terrorist group favors does not automatically mean that the nation has done so to appease terrorists. Or do you really believe that a vote for John Kerry is a vote for HitlerOsama?

Deficit Study Disputes Role of Economy

When President Bush and his advisers talk about the widening federal budget deficit, they usually place part of the blame on economic shocks ranging from the recession of 2001 to the terrorist attacks that year.

But a report released on Monday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that economic weakness would account for only 6 percent of a budget shortfall that could reach a record $500 billion this year.Next year, the agency predicted, faster economic growth will actually increase tax revenues even as the deficit remains at a relatively high level of $374 billion.

The new numbers confirm what many analysts have predicted for some time: that budget deficits in the decade ahead will stem less from the lingering effects of the downturn and much more from rising government spending and progressively deeper tax cuts.

Anybody else as shocked and confused by this turn of events as I am?

Last Wednesday, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was coasting to another victory in the polls. Thursday saw the worst terrorist attack in Spanish history. The Spanish government immediately seized on the idea that the ETA must have perpetrated the attack, the Basque separatist terrorists who have plagued the Spanish for decades. However, several early indicators led many, myself included, to lean toward the proposition that it was the work of Al Qaida or one of its franchises. First, the scale of the attack – far beyond any previous ETA efforts. Second, the ETA almost always gives notice of an attack, usually shortly before – and there was no notification. Third, the MO was quite in line with previous Al Qaida efforts - elaborate planning that was obviously involved, ten bombs timed to go off nearly simultaneously, and using mass transit as the vehicle and target for the attack. The timing was also peculiar – exactly two and a half years after 9/11, and I heard that that is exactly nine hundred eleven days after the attack on the Pentagon and the WTC. (The math adds up. Maybe that’s being excessively numerological, but they go in for that kind of thing.

Of course, now we know about the five men arrested, and the van and the tape and the Koran. The letter that was delivered to the Arabic paper in London. It seems clear that Islamic fundamentalists are indeed responsible. Which posed an important question for Spanish voters. And one that I think that they have answered wrong.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the Socialist who will become the new Spanish PM, has already declared that he will withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. Withdraw support from the war on terror. In short, join the axis of weasels. But what message does this send to the Terrorists? That the Spanish can be intimidated. Once you give in, once you flinch, the terrorists own you. You’re their bitch. Anytime that the Spanish do something that the terrorists don’t like, you can expect more bombs, not less. Spanish foreign policy will now center on the avoidance of terrorist attacks, which will mean placation, appeasement and kowtowing.

This is a huge defeat for civilization. While we can argue over what is the proper course and what exact methods and goals are appropriate, there is no question that we are fighting enemies of civilization. And those enemies just took out one of our allies as surely as if they had beaten them in a stand up battle.

When I first heard of the Madrid bombings, I said to Mrs. Buckethead that I hoped that some good might come of this evil, that Europe would realize that it is not just the United States that is fighting this war, but that it is a war that all the civilized nations must fight. I thought that perhaps it would be like Pearl Harbor was for Churchill – the moment he realized that the United States would enter the fight. I was wrong to hope that, it seems. The reaction has instead been a perception that had the Spanish not supported the US, they would not have been attacked. While I can see the logic of that view, it completely misses the larger picture.

To the Islamic terrorist, we are not the only Satan. Just the biggest one. Their fight is against the west, civilization, in general. Their fantasy ideology paints the Spanish and even the United States as crusaders, rehashing battles half a millennium in the past. (Battles that they mostly won, for chrissakes.) But Spain collectively decided that short-term safety is more important than fighting against terrorism and the delusional ideology behind it. They’re going to sit this one out.

I fear that should we have another large-scale attack here in the United States, there might be a similar reaction. But I don’t believe that another attack would convince the electorate to give up on the fight. I think if anything, another 9/11 would only strengthen our resolve. I pray that we don’t find out.

[wik] My coworker points out that even if the ETA was not involved in the bombing, we will likely see more bombs from them, not that they see that the electorate can be cowed by successful, horrific terrorist attacks.

[alsø wik] Mark Steyn makes many of the same points. But more clever like, damn him.

"THE bombs dropped on Baghdad exploded in Madrid!" declared one "peace" protester in Spain. Or as Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty put it, somewhat less vividly: "If this turns out to be Islamic extremists . . . it is more likely to be linked to the position that Spain and other allies took on issues such as Iraq."

By "other allies", he means you – yes, you, reading this on the bus to work in Australia. You may not have supported the war, or ever voted for John Howard, but you're now a target. In other words, this is "blowback". This is what you get when you side with the swaggering Texas gunslinger and his neocon Zionist sidekicks.

Good stuff, read the whole thing.

The Donald Sensing post that we were talking about back on Perfidy's Gay Marriage Day is now a polished article on the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Page. It makes just as much sense now as it did then.

Plucked from Slate. Is Rove really going to want to get into a war of words?

"God loves you, and I love you. And you can count on both of us as a powerful message that people who wonder about their future can hear."—Los Angeles, Calif., March 3, 2004 (Thanks to Tanny Bear)

"The march to war affected the people's confidence. It's hard to make investment. See, if you're a small business owner or a large business owner and you're thinking about investing, you've got to be optimistic when you invest. Except when you're marching to war, it's not a very optimistic thought, is it? In other words, it's the opposite of optimistic when you're thinking you're going to war." —Springfield, Mo., Feb. 9, 2004 (Thanks to Garry Trudeau.)

"See, one of the interesting things in the Oval Office—I love to bring people into the Oval Office—right around the corner from here—and say, this is where I office, but I want you to know the office is always bigger than the person."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 (Thanks to Michael Shively.)

"More Muslims have died at the hands of killers than—I say more Muslims—a lot of Muslims have died—I don't know the exact count—at Istanbul. Look at these different places around the world where there's been tremendous death and destruction because killers kill."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004 (Thanks to Michael Shively.)

"In an economic recession, I'd rather that in order to get out of this recession, that the people be spending their money, not the government trying to figure out how to spend the people's money."—Tampa, Fla., Feb. 16, 2004

"King Abdullah of Jordan, the King of Morocco, I mean, there's a series of places—Qatar, Oman—I mean, places that are developing—Bahrain—they're all developing the habits of free societies."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 2004

Phil Dennison has an indignant post up about the flaming bag of poo that is the 20 Century Fox film version of "I, Robot" starring-- get this-- Will Smith as the wisecracking future cop. Forget "Starship Troopers," "Johnny Mnemonic," and "Lawnmower Man." This will go down in history as the worst science-fiction adaptation of all time.

And it will, of course, make a fortune.

Let me take you back to Ohio, December 1991. I was a senior in high school, and deeply into music. It was all the wrong music, Nine Inch Nails, Ministry, and Jane's Addiction excepted, but music nonetheless. It was the era of hair metal, big ballads, and soaring, heroic guitar solos, and the radio was full of Warrant, Extreme, and other truly barrel-scraping dreck my memory refuses to give name to.

Then one day my friends and I started hearing this sound on the rock stations… crunchy and dumb, aggressive and sullen. Some band called Nirvana, and they were awesome.

I don't really want to mythologize it, but the genre of rock criticism-- the genre of rock itself-- kinda begs for it, so I might as well. I can’t quite describe what it was like for me. It was as if someone flipped a switch, and one day me and my friends were driving around in the Lust Bug or the Deathtrap Toyota listening to a tape of AC/DC or Pink Floyd and the next we were driving around obsessively combing the radio dial for that sound, that one song, named after a deodorant or something. For me at least, "Smells Like Teen Spirit" was a total break with the past, a Big Bang replete with loud guitars. In five minutes flat, the horizons of my world unfolded a thousand times. Music was reborn, a million possibilities surged forth, and Rock and Fucking Roll wielded infinite glory and power.

I can't overstate how different (and how incredibly good) Nirvana sounded, but I can't for the life of me figure out why that is. I was already into what we called at the time "progressive music," and was passingly familiar with the history of Rock from "Hound Dog" to "Pretty Vacant, so it wasn't like punk was terra incognita. Neither was the Black Sabbath-meets-Ramones riffage that was the song's bedrock. So Nirvana didn't contain anything new, but the way it was all put together sounded perfect... like the future.

I'm starting to get that feeling again. I've been hearing Chicago-born hip-artist Kanye West's music everywhere, and I love it. I don't understand what’s so great about him, really. His debut single, "Through The Wire" (off his major-label debut “College Dropout”) shouldn't add up to anything special. I can think of half a dozen hip-hop songs in the last year that are as hooky, that have as much soul. So he used a sped-up Chacka Khan sample-- who cares? Wu Tang did that in 1994, and now everybody does. The rhyme is interesting, not a 'ho in sight, but Eminem was funnier on "Slim Shady" and more poignant on "Stan." Even the central gimmick of "Through The Wire," namely that he's rapping through a wired-shut jaw thanks to a car accident, is nothing compared to 50 Cent's rhymes about multiple gunshot wounds. What's the big deal?

West raps about mundane stuff. His records sound kind of like Jay-Z's, which makes sense considering he’s on Jay-Z’s label and produced some of the big guy’s hits. On the surface, Kanye West should be no more or less interesting than Aceyalone, Mr. Lif, or any one of a thousand quirky local MC's with plenty of talent but no spark of genius.

But for some reason he is different. Despite the protests of my cynical, rational, music-industry-veteran mind, "Through The Wire" is totally irresistible and utterly perfect. I can't get it out of my head. Friday night I stayed awake waiting for MTV to play the video. Yesterday morning I heard “Through The Wire” twice on the way to the grocery store, but only because I was looking for it. Later, Goodwife Two-Cents and I drove up to Maine, and the whole time I was changing the radio, pretending to be sick of Journey and Missy Elliott, but really hunting for that song again. Last night I saw him perform on a rerun of Chappelle's show, doing a song about working a steady job for shitty pay, opposite a live performance by rap superstars N.E.R.D. on Saturday Night Live, and Kanye West made Pharrell & Co. sound like a bunch of uptight posers in an airport karaoke bar. That hook! That bass! That flow! That sound! Holy shit!

I’m usually wrong about what America will like, but I’m positive about this one. Kanye West is modern hip-hop’s Nirvana moment. Something about his sound seems to be from the future, or at least a map of how to get there.

Nice place.

[wik] How white am I? I'm going to refer you to an article in Slate for some background on who Kanye West is.

[alsø wik] How white am I? When I link Kanye West:[other epochal event], I think "Teen Spirit," not "The Message," "Roxanne, Roxanne/Roxanne’s Revenge" or "My Adidas."

[alsø alsø wik] How white am I? I like Kanye West so much, I wrote an essay about it! On the internet! I'm so white I make Alan Greenspan look like Chuck D!

[wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?] And yet, there's the bass playing thing. I can bring the funk when I come to play.

Now that Australia's banned people from having guns, people are arming themselves with swords (seriously!). Guess what? They've decided to ban them, too.

One can imagine a future Australia where glass bottles, coin-filled socks, and cricket bats will all be banned. But it's all good. They'll never think to ban the single most effective weapon in a street fight: the dreaded poo stick.

(Thanks to the ubiquitous Eugene Volokh.)

A mentally ill woman in Utah has been charged with murder of one of her unborn twins after she refused her doctor's advice to deliver her twins via Caeserian section. One of the twins died of an apparent infection two days before she delivered naturally. The woman was warned repeatedly that in her case, an immediate Caesearian was the only guarantee that both her children would live, and she declined the procedure. There is a bunch of hearsay about what she said and did, and why she refused the C-section, but at this point, the facts is just what the facts is.

Look, I understand and respect the growing concern for the rights of the unborn in this country, even if I think this issue is waaay too complicated for the law to handle. But this case is particularly disturbing for a number of reasons.

First: multiple births are always risky, and the risk of miscarriage or stillbirth is much higher than with single-fetus pregnancies. How do the law and the health care system deal with the implications of a "guilty" verdict, which would set a precedent by which any woman who delivers a stillborn fetus could be charged with murder?

Second: in this country, doctors can only give advice-- they cannot mandate that people follow it. You can't force people to have surgery. Unfortunately, an unborn fetus cannot give consent, and I don't see how a government can presume to speak on behalf of the unborn in every case without compromising the rights of the parents, health care providers, etc. The thorny moral calculus aside, there's the dirty issues of patient insurance, liability insurance, tort law, the costs of health care, patient rights, and hospital rights. It's just too complicated a set of issues to be resolved ad hoc by a patchwork of legal rulings, and I seriously doubt that an omnibus bill speaking to this could do anything but make matters worse.

Third: are we going to charge women with child endangerment for having a beer during pregnancy? For skydiving? Smoking? Sleeping on their back? Eating shellfish? Where is the bright line?

Fourth: this case, like the Scott Peterson murder trial is yet another attempt to subvert Roe v. Wade, which is currently the law of the land, like it or not.

Yet again, the law is stepping into dangerous territory, dealing with moral issues it's ill-equipped to manage. I guess activism isn't confined to the left side of the aisle. I don't like the implications of this one bit, much less the utter freakiness of the whole situation.

[wik] Eugene Volokh, an actual lawyer, weighs in on the legal quandaries.

[alsø wik] For his next trick, Eugene Volokh quotes a reader, an actual OB/GYN on the matter.