Veterans Day, Armistice Day

The New Neo Posted on by

Yes, indeed, I am that old–old enough to remember when Veterans’ Day was Armistice Day. The change occurred in 1954, when I was very small, in order to accommodate World War II. Since then the original name has largely fallen out of use–although it remains, like a vestigial organ, in the November 11th date of the holiday, which commemorates the day the WWI armistice was signed.

I’m also old enough–and had a teacher old enough–to have been forced to memorize that old chestnut “In Flanders Field” in fifth grade–although without being given any historical context for it, I think at the time I assumed it was about World War II, since as far as I knew that was the only real war.

You can find the story of the poem here . It was written by a Canadian doctor who served in the European theater (there is no separate URL for the discussion of the poem, but you should click on the “John McCrae´s Poppies in Flander’s Fields” link on the left sidebar). It’s not much as poetry, but it was great as propaganda to encourage America’s entry into the war.

The poem’s first line “In Flanders fields the poppies blow” (and by the way, I don’t mean to be picky here, but can anyone tell me why it’s not “Flanders’s fields” and “Veterans’ Day?”) introduces that famous flower that later became the symbol of Armistice–and later, Veterans–Day. Why the poppy?

Wild poppies flower when other plants in their direct neighbourhood are dead. Their seeds can lie on the ground for years and years, but only when there are no more competing flowers or shrubs in the vicinity (for instance when someone firmly roots up the ground), these seeds will sprout.

There was enough rooted up soil on the battlefield of the Western Front; in fact the whole front consisted of churned up soil. So in May 1915, when McCrae wrote his poem, around him bloodred poppies blossomed like no one had ever seen before.

But in this poem the poppy plays one more role. The poppy is known as a symbol of sleep. The last line We shall not sleep, though poppies grow / In Flanders fields might point to this fact. Some kinds of poppies are used to derive opium from, from which morphine is made. Morphine is one of the strongest painkillers and was often used to put a wounded soldier to sleep. Sometimes medical doctors used it in a higher dose to put the incurable wounded out of their misery.

Now a day to honor those who have served in our wars, Veterans Day has an interesting history in its original Armistice Day incarnation. It was actually established as a day dedicated to world peace, back in the early post-WWI year of 1926, when it was still possible to believe that WWI had been the war fought to end all wars.

The original proclamation establishing Armistice Day as a holiday read as follows:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

After World War II, of course, the hope that peaceful relations among nations would not be severed had long been extinguished. By the time I was a young child, a weary nation sought to honor those who had fought in all its wars and thus secure the peace that followed–even if was only a temporary one.

And isn’t an armistice a strange (although understandable) sort of hybrid, after all; a decision to lay down arms without anything really having been resolved? Think about the recent wars that have ended through armistice: WWI, which segued almost inexorably into WWII; the 1948 war following the partition of Palestine; the Korean War; and the Gulf War.

So this Veterans/Armistice Day let’s salute and honor those who have fought for our country. The hope that some day war will not be necessary is a laudable one–and those who fight wars hold it, too. But that day has not yet arrived–and, realistically but sadly, perhaps never will.

Are Bush’s critics lying about lying?

The New Neo Posted on by

Like Dr. Sanity and the Anchoress, I’m tired, tired, tired of the “Bush lied about WMDs” meme, which is itself a lie (or at least a grave error).

Fortunately, though, Norman Podhoretz isn’t as tired as the rest of us. He’s written this article of remarkable clarity on the subject in Commentary. If it were a lawyer’s brief, it would be–to coin a phrase–a “slam-dunk.” He carefully and patiently amasses irrefutable evidence that Bush did not lie. Read the whole thing, as they say.

But Podhoretz actually sounds a bit tired, too, I’m afraid:

What makes this charge [“Bush lied about WMDs”] so special is the amazing success it has enjoyed in getting itself established as a self-evident truth even though it has been refuted and discredited over and over again by evidence and argument alike. In this it resembles nothing so much as those animated cartoon characters who, after being flattened, blown up, or pushed over a cliff, always spring back to life with their bodies perfectly intact. Perhaps, like those cartoon characters, this allegation simply cannot be killed off, no matter what.

Nevertheless, I want to take one more shot at exposing it for the lie that it itself really is. Although doing so will require going over ground that I and many others have covered before, I hope that revisiting this well-trodden terrain may also serve to refresh memories that have grown dim, to clarify thoughts that have grown confused, and to revive outrage that has grown commensurately dulled.

The fact that the “Bush lied” meme went all the way around the world several times over before the truth had time to even get its underwear on, much less its pants, has caused me no end of puzzlement. Surely there are many ways to criticize the Iraqi war without using such a transparently inane one. Illogical and easy to disprove by offering quote after quote after quote (some of them from the very people making the accusations) and fact after fact suggesting that everyone thought Saddam had WMDs, the “Bushlied” meme seems to nevertheless have unusually strong legs.

That so many otherwise intelligent-seeming people have swallowed it points to something irresistable about this particular lie (or error) about lying. What could it be?

My first thought is that people tend to be angry at being misled about something, even if the misleading was in fact done innocently and in good faith; nobody likes to be wrong. So it’s easy–and very tempting–to strike out at the source and imagine one has been purposely duped.

My next thought is that people are understandably reluctant to commit to war, and it’s not unusual, ex-post-facto, to attack the reasons originally given for entering such a conflict. There are even those who question whether Roosevelt knew about Pearl Harbor in advance and let it happen.

And then there are those lingering memories of controversy over the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for example, which have made people in this country especially sensitive around this issue of being lied to in order to start a war.

The members of Congress who are criticizing Bush overemphasize his own reliance on WMDs as the casus belli, conveniently forgetting it was only one of many reasons he gave. Why do they do this? I think the answer is simple: it’s the reason that convinced them, the one that they gave the most credence to, the one designed to appeal most to a reluctant warrior or an isolationist.

What else? That old reliable, Bush-hatred, is part of the picture. To believe Bush was mistaken is one thing, and probably true (although he had plenty of company in this, to be sure). But to believe he lied requires a belief in a much greater depth of corruption.

Remember back when Clinton was in the middle of Monicagate, and he was accused of wagging the dog when he bombed Afghanistan and Sudan? Or when some thought Clinton had had Vince Foster murdered? It was one thing to not be a major fan of Clinton’s (I, for instance, counted myself among that number), but it was another to think him capable of a bombing to save his political skin, or a cold-blooded murder of a friend. Granted, the number on the right who believed the latter to be true never numbered anything remotely like those on the left who believe the “Bush lied” meme, but I think the process of believing both things is somewhat similar: each arises in the idea that the person in question is totally untrustworthy and almost devoid of a moral sense, not just lacking in judgment.

So, this one isn’t going to die, I’m afraid, despite how many convincing articles Norman Podhoretz has the stamina to write. More power to him, of course. But on this blog and others I’ve watched as the topic of WMDs and lies has been batted around in the comments section ad nauseum, without a single mind appearing to change.

Blogger Wunderkraut is tired, too (via Willisms)–tired, tired, tired–of blogging and debunking the same stuff over and over. It’s a dirty little secret that blogging is both invigorating and tiring, with peaks and valleys and long slow slogs.

Wunderkraut writes:

Maybe all bloggers go through this at some point. This must be where most give up, while others stick it out. You reach a point where you have written about the things that most interest you and you feel like you are repeating yourself. What more is there to say? How many more times can one point out the bias in the MSM? How many more times can you point out the hypocrisy of the Democrats in Congress concerning the war in Iraq?…

If I grow weary and the next blogger grows weary and this continues until the big name Conservative bloggers grow weary”¦then the MSM and their buds in the Democratic Party will have won and we will be left with the MSM passing forged “fake but accurate” documents to the unsuspecting American public.

Yes, Wunderkraut, it’s a war of attrition, and they’re hoping to tire us out. And blogging is a marathon, with no finish line.

Maybe we should all treat ourselves to one of these:

Poor Cassandra

The New Neo Posted on by

Varifrank posts a fine rant about those modern-day prognosticators who never seem to be called to account for the failure of their predictions of doom and gloom to come true (with, of course, the sole exception of Bush and the WMDs).

I’ve often wondered the same thing, in relation to pundits (especially those financial analysts who tell you where to invest), scientists, economists, fortunetellers, and psychics. But I’m not sure most of these predictions aren’t considered a sort of entertainment, much like disaster or horror movies, meant to impart a frisson of almost-pleasurable anxiety but not necessarily to predict reality.

I have one tiny quibble with Varifrank’s essay: he compares these people to poor old much-maligned Cassandra. Now I happen to know a little bit about Cassandra, having been fascinated by her back in high school when I first encountered her through Greek tragedies (yes, they used to make us read them in high school, and a public high school at that) and was moved to write a paper on her poignant plight.

Cassandra received one of those “yes, but” gifts/curses of which the Greek gods seemed so very fond. Her resultant powers, however, actually made her the opposite of those whom Varifrank decries: it was Cassandra’s terrible fate to make correct predictions about dreadful events to come, but to never be believed.

Who would ever host her on cable news?

Who is killing Saddam’s defense lawyers?

The New Neo Posted on by

Things that pique my interest are things that don’t make sense at first, that cause me to wonder what’s going on because something doesn’t quite jibe. One of those things is that two of Saddam’s defense lawyers have now been murdered.

Why doesn’t that make sense? After all, aren’t there enough people in Iraq who are angry at Saddam, angry enough to kill anyone who might want to defend him? Naturally, of course, no question–and it may indeed be just as simple as that.

But I doubt it. It somehow doesn’t have the right modus operandi–the fingerprints, as it were, of the opposition to Saddam: Shi’ite clerics calling for forbearance when their own people are bombed, anti-Saddamites supporting the ascendance of the rule of law. Instead, it bears more resemblance to what we’ve seen in the past from Saddam supporters.

Why would Saddam’s supporters kill his own lawyers, on his orders or on their own initiative? I’m not ordinarily a conspiracist, but in this case I might make an exception.

The world press has talked from the start about how Saddam’s trial shouldn’t be held in Iraq, and the murders of the lawyers could play to this belief and create clear proof in their eyes that indeed, it’s not safe enough. And who would benefit from a move? Saddam, especially if it’s to a European country with no death penalty (unlikely, but possible).

Who would benefit from a delay? Saddam (or his supporters). Who is a coldblooded killer who would murder his own best friend (and in Saddam’s case, probably has) many times over to further his power, or to protect himself? Saddam, or his supporters. Who would dearly love to give the impression that the anti-Saddamites are just as much cold-blooded killers as Saddam himself? Yes, indeed; you-know-who.

When one tries to learn more about the lawyers’ murders, the plot gets very thick indeed. Here, for example, is the Telegraph on the subject:

Today’s killing has raised further questions as to whether a fair trial can take place amid the violence in Iraq.

Defence lawyers have threatened to boycott the trial unless measures are taken to protect them, and one of the reasons the judge gave for adjourning the trial last month was that witnesses were too scared to turn up…

“There can be no fair trial without providing security for witnesses, judges and lawyers on an equal footing. No trial can take place in such conditions,” said Issam Ghazzawi, a spokesman for Saddam’s defence team.

Human rights organisations have also expressed concern.

Nicole Choueiry, a spokeswoman for Amnesty International, said: “The safety of these people is very important if the trial is to go on.

“It is the responsibility of the Iraqi government and the US military to provide protection.”

Makes sense, doesn’t it? So then, why haven’t these lawyers been protected? Well, see this, from the Hindu:

The assassination of a second lawyer associated with the trial was likely to raise new questions about whether this country can conduct such a sensitive prosecution in the midst of insurgency and domestic turmoil.

Following al-Janabi’s death, members of the defence team said they had suspended further dealings with the special court until their safety is guaranteed…

[Head of Saddam’s defense team] Al-Ubaidi said that the entire defence team had rejected an offer of guards from the Interior Ministry, pointing to frequent Sunni Arab accusations that ministry forces or Shiite militias linked to the government have killed members of the minority that was dominant under Saddam.

He said then that they were talking with U.S. officials about getting protection from American troops. But a later defence team statement said that it would seek United Nations protection for the Iraqi lawyers because they do not trust either the U.S. military or the Iraqi government to ensure their safety.

Saddam’s defence team, which includes some 1,500 lawyers who act as advisers, is led by Khalid al-Dulaimi and Abdel Haq Alani, an Iraqi-born lawyer based in Britain. Alani is the top legal consultant to Saddam’s daughter, Raghad, and believed to be backbone of defence team.

I can’t really blame them for not trusting the Iraqi government to protect them, to tell you the truth; I would imagine the motivation to do so would be a little weak. But the Amnesty spokesperson above is the very definition of a useful idiot, I’m afraid–either simply ignorant or willfully deceptive–because it seems clear that the defense will not accept protection from either the Iraqi government or the US.

Note the continual calls for UN involvement and the movement of the trial into a “neutral” (read: western European?) country–a country, no doubt, with an anti-US agenda, no death penalty, and even perhaps a history of being on the take from defendant Saddam:

[al-Dulaimi] blamed the government for Tuesday’s attack…

“The aim of these organized attacks is to scare Arab and foreign lawyers,” al-Dulaimi said. “We call upon the international community, on top of them the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to send an investigative committee because the situation is unbearable.”

He called for moving Saddam and his colleagues into a neutral country. Al-Dulaimi said defence lawyers do not recognize the trial’s next date which comes on Nov. 28.

Who is al-Dulaimi? I haven’t been too successful in finding much information. But he certainly doesn’t seem to fit the picture of the public defender, reluctantly taking on the case because he knows that the rule of law requires that even the likes of Saddam needs a defense lawyer for the trial to be fair.

No, al-Dulaimi has quite a different agenda. This interview in Der Spiegel makes it clear he reveres Saddam and considers the trial illegitimate. A few quotes:

The trial will be adjourned. The last chapter in Saddam Hussein’s life has not yet begun…The entire proceeding [the trial] is a farce…Although I am aware that this is not as much a criminal trial as a political process, I cannot imagine that the Iraqi judges will give in to pressure by the US occupiers…Neither the so-called governing council, which the former American governor appointed, nor the current Iraqi government are legitimate…By law, Saddam is still the head of state. The American invaders and occupiers deposed him and took him prisoner after having destroyed Iraq. Now they are using the law of the strong to impose their will and walk all over Iraqi laws…As far as I am concerned, the current government also lacks all legitimacy.

Clearly, al-Dulaimi is not just a defense attorney, but a die-hard supporter who seems to believe time is on his–and Saddam’s–side. And does anyone else hear the following sentence: I cannot imagine that the Iraqi judges will give in to pressure by the US occupiers–as a possible veiled threat?

Please note the following excerpt from this
article, which appeared in the Telegraph after the first killing of a defense lawyer, back in late October:

The killing raised worries about the viability of staging the emotionally charged case in Iraq.

Although heavy protection exists for the judges and prosecutors, security does not appear to have been provided for the defence team, all 12 of whom had been publicly named.

Mr Janabi, a friend of Saddam, is understood to have had no bodyguards at the time of his abduction.

Here we have the typical reaction–the trial may need to be moved–and the assertion (without further explanation) that the defense team has not been provided with security.

But the last sentence seems curiouser and curiouser. If Janabi had been offered but refused Iraqi government and/or US protection–as the entire defense team had done, apparently–why did he not have any bodyguards at all? Surely some could have been found? So his guardless state (if indeed this was even true) makes no sense to me, unless he was set up.

I don’t pretend to know what’s going on; these are mere speculations, gleaned from a few news articles that may not even be correct in their facts. But even a quick check of the Iraqi blogs didn’t reveal any inside information on the topic (if anyone can find anything, please post it in the comments).

So Roger, you write mystery novels–got any ideas?

Who is Sarkozy, and why are they saying all those things about him?

The New Neo Posted on by

Lost in the sound and fury of the French riots is the story of one of the main players, Nicolas Sarkozy. The story of the conflict between Sarkozy on one side and Chirac/Villepin on the other has its own drama, although it’s been played out on a smaller stage, that of internal French politics. It seems that well before these riots, Sarkozy made some enemies in high places (at least if you believe the following accounts).

Here’s some background information about Sarkozy, and some speculation as to what may be at least part of the reason behind Chirac and Villepin’s failure to get tougher at the outset of the riots. I have no idea whether this is true–not having my finger on the pulse of French politics–but it is certainly an interesting possibility voiced by those closer to that pulse than I am (via Brussels Journal on November 5):

The French establishment led by the corrupt President Jacques Chirac and his Prime Minister, the aristocrat Dominique de Villepin, an appointee who has never held an elected office, begrudged Sarkozy his popularity. The minister was distrusted. He was an outsider, a self-made man who had made it to the top without the support of relations and cronies, by hard work and his no-nonsense approach.

Sarkozy (whose real surname is Sarké¶zy de Nagy-Bocsa) is a second generation immigrant, the son of a Hungarian refugee and a Greek mother. “I like the frame of mind of those who need to build everything because nothing was given to them,” he said a few months ago about his upbringing.

The experience of his youth has made Sarkozy not only the most pro-American French politician, but also virtually the only one who understands what second generation immigrants really need if they want to build a future.

More important than the so-called “social benefits” ”“ the government alms provided by welfare politicians like Chirac, Villepin and their predecessors ”“ is the provision of law and order. This guarantees that those who create wealth do not lose it to thugs who extort and rob and burn down their properties.

Sarkozy’s decision to send the police back to the suburbs which had been abandoned by previous governments was resented by the “youths” who now rule there. That this would lead to riots was inevitable. Sarkozy knew it, and so did Chirac, Villepin and the others. Sarkozy intended to crack down hard on the rioters. If the French government had sent in the army last week, it would have been responding to the thugs in a language they understand: force. And the riots would long have ceased.

What happened instead was that Sarkozy’s “colleagues” in government used the riots as an excuse to turn on the “immigrant” in their own midst. Paris is well worth a mass, King Henri IV of France once said. Bringing down Nicolas Sarké¶zy de Nagy-Bocsa is well worth a riot, King Chirac must have thought. Contrary to the normal French policy in dealing with trouble makers, the authorities decided to use a soft approach. Chirac and his designated crown prince Villepin blamed Sarkozy’s “disrespectful rhetoric” ”“ such as calling thugs thugs ”“ for having detonated the explosive situation in the suburbs. Dominique de Villepin stepped in and took over the task of restoring calm from Sarkozy. While the latter was told to shut up and keep a low profile, Villepin began a “dialogue” with the rioters. As a result the riots have spilled over from Paris to other French cities. Do not be surprised if this French epidemic soon crosses France’s borders into the North African areas surrounding cities in Belgium and the Netherlands.

As for Sarkozy, the best thing this immigrant son can do is to resign and make a bid for the 2007 presidential elections as an outsider. His popularity with the ordinary Frenchmen has not been tarnished yet. But this could soon change if he remains a member of a Villepin government which is clearly unwilling to abolish the current “millet” system. French patriots do not like to see their country disintegrate into a cluster of self-governing city-states, some of which are Sharia republics.

Since the Brussels Journal post above was written three days ago, it may be that it’s already too late for Sarkozy to save himself–or France–from the consequences of letting the riots get out of control. In fact, this morning when I turned on my TV, a CNN reporter was declaring authoritatively (without, of course, citing any surveys or statistics), that (if my recollection of her words is correct) “Sarkozy is now the most hated man in France.”

Here’s another piece on Sarkozy, this one from this past May. It offers a reason as to why Chirac might want to sabotage Sarkozy’s political career, and describes the supposed ways he tried to do so (and how they backfired on Chirac–until now, that is).

Some lengthy excerpts:

The 49-year-old [Sarkozy] had the two most difficult jobs in the French government: Minister of the Interior and Minister of Finance. Few held even one of these positions and came out with a favorable public opinion. Sarkozy became the country’s most popular politician, with about two-third of the people viewing him favorably.

He was told that crime cannot be reduced, especially given the disenfranchised and alienated Islamic population. As the Interior Minister, Sarkozy put more police on the streets and introduced monthly performance ratings. Crime rate dropped and Islamic violence was curtailed. The man was also told that he cannot take on French labor unions and will never make France more business-friendly. He did – and the economy improved.

The new leader of the Union for Popular Movement party makes no secret of his desire to rise to the top. Running on a platform of lower taxes, flexible labor markets, more freedom for innovation and enterprise, his outlook seems almost American – and shockingly, the French are eating it up.

By the time he was 22, Sarkozy had won a seat in city council. At 28, he was elected city mayor and by 33, the young man was in the French parliament. Throughout much of this time, he was a protégé of Jacque Chirac, even dating his daughter for a while. Yet, a few years later, he ditched Chirac and backed Prime Minister Edouard Balladur for President. Chirac won and Sarkozy lost his position as a Budget Minister, finding himself outside the circles of power.

“The two men hate each other,” claimed an insider in an interview with Time Europe. But in 2002, Chirac’s government was floundering and Sarkozy was riding high as a popular, charismatic figure. Presuming that he can ride on the wave of Sarkozy’s popularity, while at the same time putting the young man in a no-win position, Chirac decided to appoint his former protégé as the Minister of Interior in the middle of an anti-Semitic wave of violence by Islamic youths. Sarkozy responded with policies so brilliant that people around the world began to talk about him as a future President of France. Chirac then moved Sarkozy to another no-win position – Minister of Finance at the time when the economy was not doing as well as most French would want. Once again, Sarkozy was a spectacular success.

Sarkozy privatized much of France Telecom, reducing the government’s stake to under 50%. He waived the inheritance tax, suspended the corporate tax and stood up to demonstrations by the mega-powerful labor unions.

Apparently, the French press are getting into the anti-Sarkozy act, also. Sarkozy seems to have been “dowdified” in his inflammatory “riff-raff” comments,for example.

It’s a sideshow to the main event, but an interesting and sobering one nevertheless. And in the end, any take-down of Sarkozy and his attempts to deal with the situation would most likely have long-term effects.

Riots roundup

The New Neo Posted on by

I don’t usually do a whole lot of linking. But there are so many interesting posts dealing with the riots that I thought today I’d list a few that caught my eye through my very brief trip around the blogosphere.

Chicago Boyz has a number of interesting takes on the situation, including why Germany has been exempt (at least so far), despite a large immigrant Moslem population; and reflections on the rioters’ seemingly careful calibration of the violence. Clive Davis has his own well-rounded roundup of links and opinions, including ones on the topic of just how intifada-like the riots are; La Shawn Barber offers some interesting views on how these riots are quite unlike the riots of the 60s in the black communities of the US, to which they are sometimes being compared; Melanie Phillips believes that the rioting “youths” are not interested in becoming part of French society, but rather seek to become autonomous from it (seems true, but which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do they want this now only because they were denied assimilation earlier, or did they always want to have their own separate fiefdom within France?); and No Pasaran has hard-hitting posts in both French and English.

This is one of those stories that started rather slowly in both the blogosphere and the MSM, but has been building rather than fading. What originally could be dismissed as just another riot which was expected to die down almost as soon as it began seems to have developed ususually strong legs–and reach. I still believe we are in the “fog” stage, and do not really understand the greater significance of these disturbances, although that certainly doesn’t stop anyone–including me–from speculating.

So, is it a “clash of civilizations?”

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday, Clive Davis expanded on some comments he made earlier here, about blog response and press coverage (or lack thereof) of the riots in France, and added some interesting-looking links to some French blogs. He also provides a helpful translation of a few bits for the non-French-speaking among us, which includes me.

Clive wrote:

Religion complicates things enormously in Europe, yes, but we’re not yet in a clash of civilisations. I don’t want to sound Pollyanna-ish. At the same time, there’s no point being apocalyptic either, even if it does give us a nice, warm glow inside.

Today, he adds further commentary on the question of whether this is indeed a “European intifada.”

So, are we in a clash of civilizations, or aren’t we? Clive is always worth reading and listening to, and I think he is correct to ask the question, and to say the answer is not a simple “either-or.”

But sometimes the answer is “maybe,” or “yes, and.” Unfortunately, I don’t think we are in any position to say for sure that we are not in such a clash, much as I would like this to be the case. The “fog of riots” has not lifted. And although there may be no point in being apocalyptic (not Now, at least), I don’t think it’s a good idea to dismiss the “clash” possibility out of hand.

Reasonable people may differ on this, of course. But I tend to think the evidence is quite strong that if we aren’t in a clash of civilizations at the moment, we are at least teetering on the brink. Whether or not these particular riots fall into the category “clash of civilizations” remains to be seen. But pundits and bloggers and people in the street are going to rush in to fill the vacuum of knowledge with theories, and the idea that there are Islamic fundamentalist supremicists behind this, pulling at least some of the strings (directly or indirectly, intially or presently), is not an entirely unreasonable one.

Even without those puppeteers, fundamentalist Islamic tradition has a strain of intolerence, supercessionism, and violence that might be irrelevant were it not being revived today among some Moslems, both in Europe and elsewhere, permeating their worldview and informing their actions. On this topic, here’s part of an interview conducted a year ago with Bat Ye’or, author of Eurabia:

Stephen Crittenden: The Muslim populations are here in Europe, in large numbers, particularly in France and Germany. I want to put it to you that there’s only one realistic political reaction to that for the future, and that is to learn to live together.

Bat Ye’or: Yes I agree totally with you. The problem is that Europe has tried to do that and this was in fact the basis of the dialogue, but the Europeans didn’t know how to proceed with the dialogue. They were not imposing their views, they were accepting always, but not imposing. They were apologetic and they didn’t say ”˜Here we are, we are like this and you have to accept our mores and our laws’, because the dialogue between Muslim and non-Muslims is not symmetrical, it is not based on equality. The non-Muslims always have to adopt an attitude of passivity and acceptance and flattery in relation to the Muslim. This was how the dialogue developed. Now they didn’t foresee that they would be themselves victims of this policy with a recurrence of Islamic fundamentalism, the return of the 7th century mentality. They didn’t see in the long term the cultural revolution, that migration will bring also the intransigence of the Muslim fundamentalists.

Stephen Crittenden: Where do you think this is all going?

Bat Ye’or: It is going to disaster, because either Europe will become the new continent of dhimmitude or there will be a very savage xenophobic movement, because this immigration was not integrated properly, it happened too quickly. It is not only because the immigration was Muslim, because this would happen with any immigration, when you bring millions of people coming into a country in a very short term, they won’t integrate necessarily. But on top of it there is a refusal from the Muslim population often, not always, to integrate because they reject totally the Judaeo-Christian civilisation. I mean for 13 centuries they fought to destroy it, and if we are not aware – us non-Muslims and Muslims – of this past, we will not be able to come together, to bridge through our differences, and we have to recuperate this whole history that has been totally destroyed by the Janissary, Edward Said, in order to build with the Muslims a future of peace, not on dhimmitude because this will be our future, but on freedom and equal respect.

[ADDENDUM: Austin Bay adds all sorts of perspective, historical and otherwise, to the question of whether this might be jihad, or at least some sort of hybrid of jihad and a host of other things. He also sheds some rather fascinating light on the “Is Paris Burning?” quote from WWII that many bloggers are using in reference to the riots.]

News flash: reporters are not stenographers

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, that’s good to hear: We’re not stenographers, we’re journalists says Philip Dixon, former managing editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and currently chairman of the Howard University Department of Journalism.

Dixon was criticizing the actions of the press in the Massey case, in which countless reporters apparently reported the lies of Jimmy Massey without bothering to verify them, although such fact-checking could have been done easily, and there were inconsistencies in his stories to act as red flags.

What is it that Massey lied about? Oh, nothing special; just allegations of war crimes committed by the US Marines with whom Massey served during the Iraq war:

…no one ever called any of the five journalists who were embedded with Massey’s battalion to ask him or her about his claims.

The Associated Press, which serves more than 8,500 newspaper, radio and television stations worldwide, wrote three stories about Massey, including an interview with him in October about his new book.

But none of the AP reporters ever called Ravi Nessman, an Associated Press reporter who was embedded with Massey’s unit. Nessman wrote more than 30 stories about the unit from the beginning of the war until April 15, after Baghdad had fallen.

One good sign in all of this is that even some in the press are questioning what went on:

“I’m looking at the story and going, ‘Why, why would we have run this without getting another side of the story?'” said Lois Wilson, managing editor of the Star Gazette in Elmira, N.Y.

Join the club, Ms. Wilson. Some of us have been wondering that sort of thing for a long, long time.

Dixon’s “we are not stenographers” statement was a response to this defense mounted by some reporters:

In many cases, journalists covered Massey as he was speaking at public gatherings. Some reporters said that because he was making public statements, they didn’t feel an obligation to check his claims. Some editors worried they could be accused of covering up his claims if they didn’t report on his speech.

What does all of this remind me of? As with many things, the answer is “Vietnam.” Not My Lai, of course; that was a well-verified story. Rather, the Winter Soldier investigations, reported (to the best of my recollection) uncritically and widely–and very influentially–at the time, despite what turned out to be the lack of substantiation of so many of the claims.

I wonder whether these sorts of false claims of US atrocities happened during or immediately after WWII. Somehow, I tend to doubt it, although if anyone has any information to the contrary I’d be interested in hearing it. My guess, however, is that the all-too-real My Lai gave copycat attention-getting false claimants an idea for how to make a big splash in the press. But they would never have been able to do this to such great effect if the press didn’t so often act as their accomplice and enabler.

One of those days–and nights

The New Neo Posted on by

Well, I guess I never got around to posting today–except for this.

Oh, I had intentions–great intentions. To go into any detail would be boring even to me, but suffice to say there were many little glitches, including some unforeseen car problems and computer problems and even some mother caretaker problems (an aide who was supposed to take care of my mother no-showed). So I never even got around to posting a “taking the day off, see you tomorrow” post.

Consider this it, friends. See you tomorrow!

It depends what the meaning of “its” is

The New Neo Posted on by

I try my best to pay attention to grammar and spelling, helped out by the always-handy Spellcheck (shh–don’t tell anyone, but I’m not the world’s best speller, unaided).

But as Harriet Miers before me discovered, no doubt to her chagrin, Spellcheck has its limits. And one of them is the proper use of the word “its.” “Its,” that is, vs. “it’s.”

Have you ever noticed how often those two words are confused? Even though I try to pay close attention, I’m always catching myself messing up, and my bet is that, despite my best efforts, some of them have slipped by here. I see it all the time in the work of others, too (and no, I’m not going to do an exhaustive search and link to examples; you’ll just have to take my word for it. Or not.)

The error almost always goes in one direction only: the use of the apostrophe, as in “it’s,” for the possessive form of the word, when it should only be used for the contraction “it is.” Example (the one that sparked this rumination): originally, instead of “…see this from Reuters, not known for its right-wing bias” I had written “…see this from Reuters, not known for it’s right-wing bias.”

Why do we do this? Are we all just stupid! No, no, a thousand times no! We are actually very smart, because we are extrapolating a general rule to include this word, and that is the rule about forming possessives. Usually we do this by adding an apostrophe and an “s,” as you no doubt well know. But with the words “it’s” and “its,” we choose to reserve the apostrophe for the contraction, and that leaves the possessive hanging out there, alone and forlorn and apostropheless.

In this, however, we’re following another rule (are you still with me? or have I already bored you to tears?), that of the possessive personal pronoun: hers, his, theirs, ours, yours, for example. All lack apostrophes. But they’re not confusing, somehow–perhaps because, unlike “its,” they clearly refer to people, and are never given an apostrophe because they never become contractions.

Now, aren’t you glad I cleared that up? But I bet it won’t stop me from making the same mistake again–and again and again.

The fog of riots

The New Neo Posted on by

I’m still trying to get a bead on what’s happening in France. This post by Clive Davis seems to be an attempt to do the same. It contains this interesting quote:

As of this evening, AFP is quoting police commanders as saying there’s “nothing to support the existence of an organisation behind the riots… speculation of “a radical Islamic influence is baseless.”

So, are these police statements merely the equivalent of a politically correct “move along now, nothing to see here”? An effort to avoid adding more fuel to the fire by calling attention to what is really happening? Or are they the truth?

In the same AFP article, (that’s “Agence France-Presse,” by the way), you have this:

The leader of one police union, Bruno Beschizza, described the riots as “urban terrorism”, led by a radicalized minority of criminals and “Islamic radicals”.

There is no doubt that a certain “fog of war”–or rather, “fog of riots” has descended for the moment. My guess is that, as usual, there’s a mixture here–and that, as I said before, a host of factors are coming together to create these riots: cultural, generational, economic, and yes, Islamic. I’d be foolish if I said I knew what relative weight to give all those factors.

I am surprised, however, that police chiefs have denied any organizing factor at all in the riots. This seems to contradict the bulk of the coverage. For example, see this from Reuters, not known for its right-wing bias:

While fewer clashes with youths were reported, judicial officials said the unrest was being organized via the Internet and mobile phones…”Without question what is taking place bears all the hallmarks of being coordinated,” Yves Bot, the Paris public prosecutor, told Europe 1 radio.

So, I feel I’m on fairly safe ground saying the riots are being organized. But by whom? My current theory: not one group alone, and not for one reason alone. All of the above.

Handy phrases for the American in Paris

The New Neo Posted on by

Yesterday I was trying to be witty in the comments section, and I was looking for the way to say (and spell) “excuse me” in French. Since I don’t speak French, that meant Googling “handy French phrases translated”, which brought me to this website.

It’s a place for renting villas and apartments in France, and the phrase page has the usual instructions on how to ask for the bill and, indeed, how to say “excuse me.” So I found what I was looking for–although a villa in Provence would have been nice, too.

But someone there also seems to have a sense of humor, not to mention a finger on the pulse of current French attitudes towards Americans. Under the heading “Getting out of trouble,” they offer the following indispensable phrases for the traveler from the US (complete with phonetic pronunciation guides, which I’ve omitted here for the sake of brevity), which I now offer to you:

Sorry, I’m American.
Excusez-moi, je suis americain.

In my next life I hope I am French.
Pour le future J’ espere etre francais.

France is far superior to other European countries.
France est plus superior que les autres pays europeens.

This all follows some phrases listed under a previous heading, “Getting in trouble with the French.” There you can find the following distinctly unhelpful phrases:

Where is the nearest McDonalds?
Ou est le McDonalds le plus proche?

California wine is better.
Le vin de California est le meilleure.

We would like to see Euro Disney.
Nous voulons voir Euro Disney.