Thoughts, comments, musings on life, politics, current events and the media.



Blogroll Me!


Comments by YACCS

 

And when are the Dutch going to rescue New Amsterdam?

The New Republic's Peter Beinart takes the US to task for hypocrisy. Because we're all acting triumphalist about how we helped in Iraq while Old Europe sat around baking cookies and being useless -- but meanwhile, back in Africa, France and England have been solving problems (in the Ivory Coast and Sierra Leone, respectively) while the US is too busy watching American Idol to do anything. Okay, that argument has some merit. At least until you hear Beinart's reasoning:

Compare that with what the United States has done--or not done--in Liberia. Liberia is as American as Côte d'Ivoire is French or Sierra Leone British. Founded in 1847 by returning American slaves, Liberia's flag resembles the Stars and Stripes. Its capital, Monrovia, is named for America's fifth president. During the cold war, it was America's closest West African ally. Yet the United States, which pledges to bring security and liberty to a vast new sphere of influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, has done nothing of the sort in Liberia, a sphere of U.S. influence for 150 years.

Hmm. France ruled the Ivory Coast up until 1960. The UK ruled Sierra Leone for 150 years, up until 1961. The United States ruled Liberia up until -- oh yeah, never. It was founded in 1822, and became a formal republic in 1847. And the US? Never ran the place. Liberia was never a colony of the United States.

So how exactly does Beinart conclude that "Liberia is as American as Côte d'Ivoire is French or Sierra Leone British? Are there some historical ties between Liberia and the US? Sure. But that's not in any way comparable to actually being an American colony.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/20/2003 07:31:00 PM |

 

Who needs to go to the movies for nudity? That's what the internet is for.

Are you not seeing enough naked chicks at the local multiplex lately? Blame global warming. No, I mean blame John Ashcroft:

Hollywood's diminishing appetite for sex is partly attributed to the influence of a more socially conservative government under George Bush, the president, and his attorney general, John Ashcroft, a member of the Pentecostal church noted for his moral certitude.

Paul Verhoeven, the director whose film Basic Instinct drew more attention for Sharon Stone's risque leg-crossing scene than it did for the quality of its plot and acting, told Premiere magazine: "There's a drip-down effect of this government's position in the film industry, so you will see much more other things than nude scenes on your screen." He added: "What do you expect with Ashcroft who is an ultra-Christian puritan?"

I don't know. What would he have expected if Tipper Gore were living in the White House?

And what do you expect when Hollywood types open their mouths? Verhoeven hasn't had a movie out since George Bush took office. His troubles really have nothing to do whether the U.S. Attorney General is an "ultra-Christian puritan" or a flaming homosexual libertine. But I can understand that he'd sooner blame his lack of work on a lurking-under-the-bed Ashcroft rather than accept that it might have more to do with his not having a real hit since before the elder George Bush left office. (That would be the aforementioned "Basic Instinct", which came out in 1992. Incredible that a Republican president would allow that movie to be relased, isn't it?)

As for the rest of Hollywood, where anti-Ashcroft feeling borders on psychosis, you'd think that they'd be cramming movies full of more sex and violence just to tick Ashcroft off. But the fact is there aren't as many R-rated movies these days simply because studios tend to make more money with movies rated PG-13, PG, and G. Note that on a list of the highest-grossing movies of all time, the top R-rated movies are "The Matrix Reloaded", currently at #22, and 1984's (!) "Beverly Hills Cop" at #30. If only that dirty Ashcroft hadn't been secretly pushing Star Wars, Harry Potter, and The Lord of the Rings (all movies a supposed "ultra-Christian" would love, don't you think?) on an unsuspecting American public...
posted by Peter at 6/20/2003 02:37:00 PM |

 

Americans are from Mars... Europeans are from Never-Never Land

It's well known that there's a split between the United States and Europe on the issue of capital punishment. (Or at least between the U.S. and European elites; I've seen polls in the past suggesting that the European aversion to the death penalty isn't quite as universal as has been portrayed.) But if this Op/Ed in yesterday's New York Times is accurate, the gap in attitudes is far greater than that:

In the rest of the Western world, the desires for retribution and permanence — so compelling when one sees through a victim's eyes — do not drive legal policy as they do in the United States. The European Court of Human Rights has suggested that to deny lifers the consideration of change and the chance of parole is "inhuman and degrading," and of the Western European nations, only England does. It has all of about 20 such prisoners.

Like our use of the death penalty, our embrace of the natural-life sentence is seen as alien by almost all the countries that share our culture and legal heritage. (Tellingly, death penalty opponents in the United States have been vocal advocates of life without parole, as though to supply a substitute answer to the acute American need for vengeance and finality.)

Wow. I'm speechless. Now that takes bleeding-heart soft-on-crime liberalism to a whole new level. Even life-without-parole is too harsh for them?
posted by David Nieporent at 6/19/2003 12:07:00 AM |

 

But did they include the effects of blogging in the study?

Remember all that venom directed at the Bush administration for repealing the ergonomics rules that President Clinton put into place at the eleventh hour? Remember the diatribes from self-proclaimed labor advocates who declared that Bush was going to cripple millions of workers? Well, it turns out that a large part of that argument just ain't so:

Frequent on-the-job use of a computer keyboard does not pose a major risk for carpal tunnel syndrome, according to the largest study of the topic to date. The findings were published June 11 in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

There are, of course, critics of the study (aren't there always?), and it did find a small possibility that mouse use -- I have a trackpad, so nyah -- may contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome. But it seems as if there's little chance that carpal tunnel syndrome comes from sitting in front of the PC. That doesn't mean that repetitive stress injuries can't be caused by job-related activities, of course; this study only covered the use of computers. But that would have been an awful lot of unnecessary regulation if Bush hadn't acted.

Pity the poor makers of those wacky "ergonomic keyboards," though.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/18/2003 04:44:00 AM |

 

Running the gamut from A to A

Some Democrats think Bush's tax policies favor the rich too much, and other Democrats think that Bush's economic policies favor the rich too much. Which, prompts this great headline in the New York Times:

Democratic Candidates Assail Bush Across a Wide Spectrum

Other Democrats dislike Bush's foreign policy, in case you were wondering.

Only the New York Times would think John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, and Dick Gephardt represent a "wide spectrum." (I wouldn't put it past the Times to change this headline, but trust me: I cut-and-pasted it directly. Didn't even retype it.)
posted by David Nieporent at 6/18/2003 03:02:00 AM |

 

Government gets fatter and fatter

New Yorkers will soon be paying extra tax (on top of the 8.75% we already pay) on junk food. Oh, not now, maybe not even next year, but I'd say probably by the end of the decade. A state assemblyman has floated just such a proposal, and fortunately it looks like it will go nowhere in this session:

ALBANY, N.Y. - A proposal to tax junk food, video games and television commercials to pay for an obesity prevention program faces stiff opposition from lawmakers and business groups.

Chances of the proposal passing before lawmakers go home for the summer on June 19 looked slim after a spokesman for Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno said he would not support the tax.

The 1 percent tax hike proposed by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz would apply to junk food, video games and television commercials, which Ortiz blames on New York's growing obesity problem. Ortiz, a Democrat, did not rule out proposing tax increases on other things that he believes contribute to obesity.

Ortiz said the proposed tax would raise at least $1 million to jump-start the obesity prevention program aimed at developing health promotion campaigns, establishing nutrition and physical activity programs in schools and others.

Business groups oppose the proposal, arguing New Yorkers already face high taxes. The Legislature recently increased the state sales tax and income tax to help the state's fiscal crisis.

If there were any illustration as to why I generally prefer "business groups" to government, this is it. I'm sure the reporter looks at it differently - you know, Assemblyman Ortiz trying to save the children while evil "business groups" stymie him at every turn.

Unfortunately, given that the proposal purports to be "for the children" (and just incidentally means more power to lawmakers who feel it is their duty to tax things they don't like), the chances of it being signed into law after a few more tries are about as good as J. K. Rowling doing well on the New York Times Best Seller list in the next few weeks.

Newsday's Sheryl McCarthy goes from being skeptical to being a nearly-enthusiastic supporter in a single column. Oh, she opines that the tax won't really stop people from eating junk food. She notes that deciding which food should be labeled "junk" won't be easy. She implies that any money raised by the tax will probably be wasted on pork projects. And she admits the tax will fall heaviest (pun mine) on the poor. Yet she still thinks it's a good idea:

Is Ortiz's fat tax sounding better? Instead of trying to figure out if a candy bar that contains protein is a junk food or a health food, we could start by putting a 1-percent tax on soft drinks. Everyone agrees that they ruin your teeth, pack on the weight and have no nutritional value whatsoever.

Yes, but not everyone agrees that this is a valid reason to tax something! Note that she practically hopes that a tax on soda is just the beginning. What next? Apple juice? Coffee? Tea?
posted by Peter at 6/17/2003 07:31:00 PM |

 

I hear Poland is nice this time of year

I can't speak for the entire U.S. population, but last winter my wife and I were planning on taking a vacation in France this summer. Not anymore. My parents are planning on taking us on vacation as a Christmas present this year. We haven't decided where we're going, but my mom was clear that France is not an option. And I assure you it's not an exchange-rate issue.

(But even if we weren't angry with the French, who'd want to go there now? It sounds like the whole country is a big mess.)

It would be interesting to see how the drop in tourism to France compares to any changes in tourism to other European countries.
posted by Peter at 6/17/2003 06:27:00 PM |

 

Another one bites the dust?

One out of three members of the Axis of Evil (*) is gone; another one appears to be crumbling. I'm not an expert on reading Tehranian tea leaves, but I've got to imagine that this can't be a good sign for the regime:

Police arrested dozens of pro-clergy militants who smashed their way into university dormitories and beat up sleeping students in a wave of violence aimed at putting down protests against Iran's Islamic government.

...

Saturday's arrests appeared to be an attempt by Iran's ruling hard-line clerics to rein in their militant supporters, reflecting fears that the violence might only stoke the past week's anti-government protests, which were the largest in months.

These "militants" are simply thugs employed by the mullahs to suppress dissent; that they would be arrested says to me either that there's significant dissension in the ranks in the upper levels of the Iranian regime, or that the regime is worried enough about the current situation that they feel the need to try to mollify angry protestors by making this gesture. Either way, it's a good sign for the United States and the Iranian public, and a bad sign for the government.


Something else which hasn't been remarked upon much: credit (or blame) for encouraging the protests has gone to various satellite television channels:

Khamenei has accused arch-enemy the United States of orchestrating the unrest. Many protestors seeking to join the fray were answering calls from US-based Iranian opposition-run Persian language satellite television channels -- notably the Los Angeles-based pro-monarchist NITV.

NITV describes itself as "an independent 24 hour Persian TV station" which is "not affiliated with any political or government organization" (emphasis in original). The extent to which NITV's influence has been significant I cannot say, of course, but to the extent that it is true, it's very interesting. Many people have criticized the American government's propaganda efforts in the Middle East for being ineffectual; NITV, on the other hand, is a privately-owned affair. Yet another example of the private sector accomplishing what the government cannot?


(*) In the interests of accuracy, I should note that President Bush never said that Iran, Iraq, and North Korea made up the Axis of Evil. He never said that there were three "members" at all. What Bush said was that countries such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea make up an Axis of Evil. Subtle but important difference.
posted by David Nieporent at 6/16/2003 02:47:00 PM |