[NOTE: This is a lightly-edited repeat of a post of mine that was first published in 2008.]
This Atlantic article by Nicholas Carr is a recommended read, about the reported loss of concentration and patience for absorbing longer works that he believes comes from too much internet Googling.
I was especially intrigued by an anecdote from the article about how the medium by which a person writes, rather than reads, can change an author’s style. Continue reading →
This is of interest:
The troubles for Molenbeek began under the administration of district’s socialist mayor Philippe Moureaux, who ruled from 1992 till 2012. Under his reign the law and order collapsed, and businesses fled the district unable to cope with rising crime. The district with migrant Muslim population of about 40 percent, has since turned into a No-Go Zone for law enforcement…
The decline of Molenbeek is the story of a declining European civilisation. Proudly bearing the nickname of “Little Manchester,” the district was once at the heart of Europe’s mercantile success story at the advent of capitalism. Decades of Socialist misrule and unrestricted migration have turned the suburb into “Little Beirut” ”” a safe haven for Islamic terrorism.
Socialism creates the decline, and other groups come in, like parasites on a weakened host.
Speaking of weakened hosts, there is a tide of opinion in Europe not just against the death penalty (abolished everywhere but Belarus), but even against life sentences.
[NOTE: SEE this for a previous post of mine about Molenbeek.]
You know, I keep taking vows not to respond to every petty thing Trump does. And for the most part, I think I’ve done okay (not perfect, but okay) at keeping to that vow, and trying to deal with only the bigger and more important things.
But today I’m torn. Because the smaller seemingly petty things are so telling about the man, and often so troubling.
So I’ll take up the gauntlet of Trump’s attack on Heidi Cruz, but I’ll do it by referring to two other blog posts that go into the back-and-forth in some detail: this and this. Read them, or at least one of them, in order to get the flavor of what we’re talking about here.
It tells us a number of things about what used to quaintly be called character. To me, it says that Trump’s either careless about the truth or willfully distorting the truth about the origins of the ad with Melania’s photo. It also says that low blows and threats are his stock in trade (but we already knew that). Giving this guy more power—much less the most powerful office in the land—would only encourage this monster within him to grow and thrive. And no, it’s not an act on his part, nor is it just politics—much less politics as usual. This dirty pool had been Trump’s m.o. for his entire adult life, probably even earlier.
Trump is juvenile. I don’t want someone juvenile in the Oval Office. Obama was juvenile enough for me, and Trump makes Obama look like an old graybeard. Why couldn’t Trump have answered the ad showing the semi-nude GQ photo of Melania (and which was captioned “Meet Melania Trump: your next First Lady”) by saying something like: “Aren’t I a lucky guy? That’s MY “first lady,” every single day!” Every man—and some women—in America would probably have chuckled and thought it a great thing. But he didn’t go there; he went in a completely different and much lower direction, because that’s his nature.
In the latter of those two posts I linked to, Ace writes:
Trump has exactly two business successes: Being successfully born to his mother, and successfully outliving his father.
I’ll be charitable and add three more: for the most part Trump has been good at large-scale real estate development, he is excellent at self-promotion, and he is good at channeling and expressing the frustrations of many voters these days. Those are very real accomplishments, but they are not transferable to being a good president, although so far they definitely have been transferable to success in the GOP primaries this year.
[NOTE: Some people would add a fourth accomplishment of Trump’s (one I consider irrelevant to the presidency): he’s a good father. That is based on how his kids seem to have turned out. I would agree that the evidence is that he’s certainly not a bad father—and that he loves his kids and they love him. But the evidence also is that he didn’t have all that much to do with raising the children during their earlier years—nor did their mother, for that matter. That task was left to a combination of nannies and their grandparents.]
Commenter “brdavis9,” who’s been around on this blog off and on for a long time, has this to say after remarking on how many blogs’ comments sections have gone to Facebook comments or had other problems with commenters lately:
Congrat’s neo: you’re now Eldest, and ”“ so far, at least ”“ the last remaining bastion of rational discourse and generally “polite disagreements” comportment. Kudos. Pray continue. Live long. Prosper.
””””””
”¦this season is simply not like others.50 years I’ve been politically aware, and active for 45 years ”¦and actively commenting since way before the world wide web (anyone else still recall the Prodigy community in the dial-up days ”¦and there were trolls and flame-wars then, too: it’s not exactly a recent phenomena) and this is ”¦simply madness.
Thank you, brdavis9, for the kind words. I’m not 100% sure I feel secure in being the Eldest or the Last One Standing, with my finger in the dike against the threatening flood, but I’ll try my best to keep it firmly planted there.
I have to put out a word for my fellow bloggers, though. This season really is the worst I’ve seen in the eleven years I’ve been a blogger. It seems to be worst in both volume of the troll/flamer influx, dogged persistence of same, and extremity of the attacks (ad hominems, obscenities, goalpost moving, insults of all kinds, gleeful gloating, etc.). I don’t know why this is, but I suspect that some of the trolls are paid political operatives—although that has always been the case (and some, as has also always been the case, have IP numbers from abroad, by the way).
It’s enough to drive a blogger nuts, and some of us weren’t so stable to begin with. What you see is the tip of the iceberg in terms of what is necessary to keep comments functioning and relatively civil.
Now, I realize we’re not running a tea party (small “t” small “p”) here, and of course there’s going to be disagreement, some of it quite bitter. But I try to enforce both the general rules of commenting on the blog and also the more specific ones on inter-commenter insults as best I can. Most of this is done behind-the-scenes, and there’s been a lot of it this campaign season.
The other thing that’s hard, and might account for some blogger burnout, is the disappointment this campaign season has brought for conservative bloggers. Most of them do not support Donald Trump, and “do not support” is putting it mildly. But just a short while ago it looked like it was going to be a wonderful campaign year with lots of excellent candidates and a very good chance of beating Hillary Clinton, the conservatives’ arch-nemesis. Most of us see Trump’s candidacy not only as the death knell of conservatism but as the surest possible way to elect Hillary Clinton. It’s understandable that a person who sees it that way would be less than patient with Trump trolls—as opposed to bona fide Trump-supporting commenters interested in polite and rational argument, who are welcome here and elsewhere.
Commenter “Artfldgr” has offered this link from Haaretz:
The security services knew, with a high degree of certainty, that attacks were planned in the very near future for the airport and, apparently, for the subway as well.
Despite the advance warning, the intelligence and security preparedness in Brussels, where most of the European Union agencies are located, was limited in its scope and insufficient for the severity and immediacy of the alert.
As far as is known, the attacks were planned by the headquarters of the Islamic State (ISIS) in Raqqa, Syria, which it has pronounced as the capital of its Islamic caliphate.
The terror cell responsible for the attacks in Brussels on Tuesday was closely associated with the network behind the series of attacks in Paris last November. At this stage, it appears that both were part of the same terrorist infrastructure, connected at the top by the terrorist Salah Abdeslam, who was involved in both the preparation for the Paris attacks and its implementation…
Abdeslam’s arrest was apparently the trigger for Tuesday’s attacks, due to the concern in ISIS that he might give information about the planned attacks under interrogation, particularly in the light of reports that he was cooperating with his captors…
The testimony of the detained terrorist, alongside other intelligence information, part of which concerned ISIS operations in Syria, should have resulted in much more stringent security preparedness in crowded public places in Brussels, along with a heightened search for the cell.
We don’t know whether this report is accurate or not, but let’s say for the sake of argument that it is.
The question is: what should the authorities have done that they didn’t do? Which is a subset of the question: how do we prevent attacks on soft targets at their most vulnerable points (the Brussels airport attack occurred before the security checkpoints were reached)?
I’ve often wondered about that, whether it be a mall, a subway, a bridge, an airport, a theater—even with a warning, how would you protect against such an attack? What should you, the government, actually do about it if you don’t know where or in particular when, or who? In the case of Brussels, do we really know that, after Abdeslam’s capture there wasn’t a “heightened search for the cell”? It’s not as though “heightened searches” necessarily lead to success, either, and it’s not as though there wasn’t probably a “heightened search” already going on, in order to effect Abdeslam’s capture in the first place.
I can’t find the information at the moment, but I remember reading long ago that in Israel airport security begins when a person is approaching the airport in a car. In other words, it doesn’t just begin at the security counter when people put their carry-ons on the machines, it starts long before. But just a moment’s reflection should make it clear that the Israeli approach can only work in a country so small with so few airports and flights. To do something similar here would nearly paralyze our air travel system, not to mention the traffic coming into airports.
The Haaretz article calls for “more stringent security preparedness in crowded public places.” Again, what would that entail in a city the size of Brussels? I would imagine it would mean more police presence looking for suspicious people, “suspicious” meaning those with backpacks or bulky clothing, which probably covers half the people on the subway. If you add “those who look Middle Eastern” into the prescription, you’ve still got a lot of people (for example, I and my entire family would most definitely be among them). This would require an extraordinary outlay of police, money, and public education, and I don’t think it necessarily would have prevented a thing. We also don’t know it wasn’t already in place in Brussels, at least to a certain extent.
The bottom line is that such attacks are extraordinarily difficult to defend against, even with advance (general) warnings.
There are other things I think should have been done. I agree that neighborhoods known to harbor Muslim immigrants who are radicals need greatly stepped-up surveillance and if necessary much more deportation (and greater border security and immigration limits, including from other EU countries, to avoid their coming back in). Same for radical mosques. Whatever the current level is, it does not seem to be nearly enough.
But there’s also the source— Raqqa, Syria. Why is that place still standing? Why has it been allowed to function for so long?
Another thing that troubles me is how much information—unnecessary and dangerous information, in my opinion—the MSM routinely gives out. The terrorists might have been concerned anyway that Abdeslam would squeal, but why oh why did we also have to be given “reports that he was cooperating with his captors”? It is not unusual for the MSM to reveal information that has harmed security and intelligence, all for the sake of a story.
[NOTE: I have little doubt that some people will say that the way to protect against such attacks is to deport all Muslims. I’ve already discussed that in several previous threads (including comments sections), such as this and this, among others. I also plan another post at some point soon that will discuss it.]
The other two were apparently suicide bombers and are dead.
The third man has not been publicly identified yet, but he had appeared on surveillance video in a light-colored jacket. Nor has it been announced how he was found, but reports are that he is already in the custody of authorities:
A third bomb, which did not explode, was found in a suitcase at the airport, leading authorities to believe the other bombs were also hidden inside suitcases. The man wearing the light jacket can be seen in the photo with a black suitcase authorities believe contained the bomb they found unexploded.
Police released a bulletin saying they are searching for the man in the light jacket, asking for public assistance in finding him. A senior U.S. official briefed on the case confirms that the IDs of the suspected attackers have been shared with U.S. authorities.
This is a case where the ticking time bomb scenario and dilemma could apply.
[ADDENDUM: Here’s some more information:
More explosive devices reportedly were turned up Tuesday as police raided homes throughout Belgium in a desperate manhunt for a third suspect believed to have survived the morning’s coordinated bombings in Brussels, where at least 34 people were killed.
Belgian federal prosecutors said the search of a home in the Brussels neighborhood of Schaerbeek “led to the discovery of an explosive device containing among other things nails.” Investigators also found chemical products and an ISIS flag…
Authorities were led to the Schaerbeek home by a taxi driver who had picked the three men up there earlier and driven them to the airport, Sky News reported…
Abdeslam [the recently-captured Paris attack terrorist] reportedly stayed in Schaerbeek, the neighborhood where the unexploded bomb and chemicals were reportedly found, for up to three weeks after he fled Paris in November. A more middle-class community than the infamous Muslim enclave of Molenbeek, the western portion of Schaerbeek is home to a large population of Turkish and Morrocan immigrants.
The flurry of law enforcement activity came after a channel on the encrypted messaging app Telegram that is maintained by ISIS described the operation and took credit for the carnage.
So it wasn’t Molenbeek.]
Yesterday Arizona went for Trump in its primary, and Utah went for Cruz. But that simple statement doesn’t even begin to express the difference in the outcomes in the two states, which symbolizes the split in the Republican Party.
In Arizona, Trump got about 45% of the vote, still failing to break 50%. This is the pattern that has been established so far even in the states Trump has won. In addition, “other” was a large group in Arizona, getting more votes than Kasich (who did poorly; about 10%). For example, because there is a great deal of early voting in Arizona, Rubio (who dropped out only fairly recently) got quite a few votes and actually beat Kasich. That sort of thing is one of the reasons I have suggested that early voting should not be an option in primaries; it’s absurd.
Utah is a caucus state, and Cruz won resoundingly with Trump doing very very poorly: almost 70% for Cruz and 14% for Trump, who did worse there than Kasich, who received about 17% of the vote. Utah is a conservative state, and the contrast with Arizona could not be greater.
Both states run closed primaries/caucuses. However, “closed” doesn’t always mean that crossovers can’t occur. In fact, it’s actually rather easy; for example, in Arizona, all a person has to do is register 29 days ahead of the primary as a member of the party (in Arizona, the Mar. 22 primary is technically referred to a “presidential preference election”). We have no way of knowing how many Democrats registered as Republicans in Arizona for the sake of voting Trump; maybe a lot, maybe a few. Nor do we know their motives: actual support of Trump that would transfer to a general election, or a desire to muck up the works for the GOP.
We do know that turnout was high in both states. But we also don’t know what that means, except that it indicates voter intensity.
Onward.
Now, this certainly seemed unlikely at the start of the campaign season. But this is what it’s come to:
Former candidate Jeb Bush endorsed Ted Cruz for the Republican presidential nomination on Wednesday, saying the U.S. senator from Texas represents the party’s best chance of winning the White House.
In a statement, the former Florida governor called Cruz a consistent, principled conservative who has demonstrated an ability to appeal to voters and win primary contests.
“Washington is broken, and the only way Republicans can hope to win back the White House and put our nation on a better path is to support a nominee who can articulate how conservative policies will help people rise up and reach their full potential,” Bush said.
I believe I can predict what Trump supporters and others who don’t like Cruz will say. Originally, the hype was that Cruz was a mean guy everyone hated, who couldn’t work with anyone and didn’t get support from his fellow-Republicans, and for some he was also too conservative, too radical. Now that people like Bush have endorsed him as the best remaining alternative (and those alternatives include the moderate Kasich, by the way), he will be tarred with the “RINO!” and “He’s just an establishment tool!” brush.
…and that changes on a day to day basis.
…here.
Multiple bombs went off in the Brussels metro and at the airport, resulting in terrible carnage with at least 28 killed. The attacks may have been revenge for the recent capture of Salah Abdeslam, who was involved in the Paris terrorist attacks.
Brussels has become one of the centers—if not the center—of Islamic terrorism in western Europe. But no one is immune. This is the sort of attack that would seem rather easy to accomplish, because it appears to have occurred prior to the security checkpoints, in an area where overweight luggage is weighed, and near a Starbucks.
The French leader, at least, is calling this a war:
Prime Minister Manuel Valls, speaking after a crisis meeting called by the French president, says “we are at war. We have been subjected for the last few months in Europe to acts of war.”
President Francois Hollande says “terrorists struck Brussels but it was Europe that was targeted ”” and all the world that is concerned.”
Hollande also warned that “this war will be long” so sang froid and lucidity are needed.
But words are cheap, and solutions few. The Belgian Prime Minister called it a “tragic moment.” While it is indeed a tragedy for the victims, I think “act of war” is a much better descriptor. Tragedies don’t necessarily have human agents, although they certainly have human consequences. This event most definitely has human perpetrators who intend to sow chaos and terror throughout the Western world.
I’ve said many many times that I don’t like speeches, with the exception of Churchill and Lincoln.
I don’t like them because I’m not an auditory learner and tend to mentally drift off during monologues, although I can pay very close attention to dialogues or to plays. I’m not sure what that says about me, but it’s always been the case. Speeches, sermons, lectures, book readings—it really doesn’t matter what it is, I have some difficulty with them all unless the speaker is unusually riveting or funny.
But I have another problem with political speeches that has less to do with my own personal idiosyncrasies and more to do with the medium itself, and it’s that although speeches tell us what message the politician wishes to give that day to that group, almost all politicians have speechwriters, which is the equivalent of a ghostwriter. Although the politician has final approval of the speech, and tells the speechwriter the general message he or she wants to convey, the speech actually tells us little else about the mind and thought process and intelligence of the speaker. It tells us a lot more about the mind of the speechwriter, who is often unknown and uncredited.
Of course, different politicians have different levels of interaction with their speechwriters. Some even suggest phrases and do some very heavy editing, while others give the speechwriter something closer to free rein, at least within the general boundaries of the basic point of the speech. The first type is reflected more in the speech he or she gives; the second type less.
Over time, a politician delivers a series of speeches that at least tell us something about what he or she wishes us to think he or she wants to do in office. But we still don’t know if those things will really be done, or whether the politician will even try. That’s why the phrase “campaign promises” contains a built-in sense of irony.
All of this applies to every politician who does not write his or her own speeches, and it’s one of the reasons I don’t think much of political speeches in general. It’s also one of the rationales underlying the debates—to give us the unscripted thinking of the candidates—although memorized sound bites (which every politician, not just Marco Rubio, employs) can take away from the extemporaneous nature of a debate to some degree.
Now, I don’t like debates either, as I’ve also stated many times. But that’s because I get frustrated at the way they focus on trivialities and sound bites, the length and number of them, the fact that all the candidates aren’t required to answer the same question, and the media’s (usually successful) attempts to get interpersonal conflict going. Debates are useful, however, for letting us know much more about the candidates’ minds and how they work than a speech does, and how they function under pressure. The same can be true of a non-softball interview. The general rule is that extemporaneous speech is far more telling than a prepared speech.
Donald Trump and Ted Cruz, the two GOP front runners and rivals, present an especially sharp contrast in that regard. The first contrast is in tone; brilliant lawyer and champion debater Cruz has a formal quality even when speaking off-the-cuff. Everything seems measured, including his pauses for emphasis. Although to me this speaks of an organized and disciplined mind and a stable emotional makeup, which I think are very good traits in a president, lots of people seem to hate it and to hate him for it. I’m not looking for a buddy (“who would you most like to have a beer with?”) in a president, but some people seem to be.
Donald Trump, with his casual and often fragmented and even incoherent, contradictory, and repetitive style is regarded by some people as fun, charming, non-PC, and a refreshing breath of fresh air. To me, his spontaneous remarks convey disorganization, and his catch-phrases (everything under him will be “great,” he “loves” just about everyone he doesn’t hate, other candidates are “nasty” or “stupid) are the product of someone who is speaking—not to be too-PC myself—empty bullshit or manipulative snark. Yes, I understand he’s signaling this that and the other thing, but to me he comes across as weak rather than strong, emotional rather than logical, inconsistent rather than firm, and bereft of ideas and even understanding of some of his own written (by someone else) policy positions.
But what really puzzles me is how often I see people reacting to a prepared speech by any candidate as though it means much more than the words that come out of a candidate’s own mouth unscripted. To me, that makes no sense.