So I'm guessing that the perfect moment for some people would be a little something with the loved one, while noshing on a cinnamon roll (or whatever) and maybe a little Beethoven. Or something. (Well, I can't imagine getting "the chills" from rock and roll.)
I wonder if it counts if the music just makes you want to get up and dance. (Although I suppose that would be counterproductive if you were already ... um, never mind.)
@ 01:29 PM CST [Link]
Short, terse, to the point ... and either desperately wrong or deliberately misleading. Of course there's more danger to Israel as this campaign gets underway. After all, they're there. Granted that we probably have a fair number of these terrorists over here; there are more of them over there, as it's closer to home.
And I can't imagine, given circumstances, that any Israeli would find it even remotely comforting that the US will be sharing advance intelligence.
@ 01:11 PM CST [Link]
Now activist groups are facing an even more sophisticated assault in civil court. Huntingdon Life Sciences, Europe’s largest animal testing company, together with Stephens, Inc., its largest investor, have filed a lawsuit claiming that U.S. animal protection groups have violated federal racketeering law by joining together to force the companies to change their business practices. If the company wins, it will bankrupt three national animal protection groups: In Defense of Animals, Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty and the Animal Defense League. [...] The companies seek millions in "economic damages" because they say animal rights groups formed a violent interstate network, using cell phones and e-mail, which violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970. RICO was originally created to bring down mob bosses, not non-profits. It wasn’t used against activists until the National Organization for Women waged a 12-year court battle against anti-abortion groups, claiming they were part of a national conspiracy to shut down abortion clinics. In 1998, the Supreme Court said RICO could be used this way, and the anti-abortion activists were eventually convicted of 21 acts of extortion.
Well ... I understand why they did it, but the Court seems to have opened Pandora's Box with this one. I suspect the original case was wrongly decided, at its core, and it would be well for Congress to revisit the RICO statutes to narrow their focus. (And to tell the IRS that civil disobedience is no grounds for going after an organization's nonprofit status.) Unfortunately, at the current time, they're more likely to look to broaden the statutes to go after those who support terrorist crimes, which is going to be hard on free speech.
There may be some interesting lessons buried in this, although how they can be applied is beyond me. What will eventually wind up happening is that the new laws will be challenged in court, and it will depend entirely on how well funded the organizations are and how determined they and the individuals involved are. And the particular bent of any given judge hearing the cases.
@ 11:53 AM CST [Link]
You know ... normally, I'm mostly in favor of the freedom of the press, their right to report news of public import. (Conversely, I don't happen to feel that people's private lives are, in general, of public import, so when invasion of someone's privacy is justified by the statement, "The public has a right to know!", my response is usually, "No, actually, they don't." But I digress.) That said ... I honestly don't think we, the public, needed to know this. Not yet, in any event. Maybe it wouldn't have come as a particular surprise to the Taliban, but they possibly didn't know for certain that this was happening. (And, purely as a side note, having your military wandering around in a foreign country looking to kill or capture a person therein is up there on a list of international crimes.)
The other thing I'm wondering is ... if this country is remotely prepared for what will happen if the operation to kill or capture bin Laden actually succeeds. Maybe funding for all sorts of operations in the more distant future will be crippled, but it won't harm operations already in progress. And it's likely to simply kick many into high gear, because they'll know that their financial support is about to dry up.
And what the hell would we do with him if we captured him, anyway? What prison in this country has the security necessary to protect him from us, let alone any fanatics?
@ 11:22 AM CST [Link]
God Angrily Clarifies 'Don't Kill' Rule
There's ... not really a lot to say about this one.
@ 03:06 PM CST [Link]
As President Bush encourages Americans to get back to business as usual after the terrorist attacks two weeks ago on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, he is simultaneously warning that a long struggle lies ahead and that more terrorist attacks are possible. Delivering these extremely disparate messages is a challenging balancing act for the president. Yet the carefully calibrated dual message appears to be working so far.
Um ... OK, I admit, I just don't get what they're not seeing. Or what they are seeing. Whatever. It's only realistic to tell people to get back to normal, that this will take a long time, and that more terrorist attacks will come. What's so challenging about telling people the truth? (Assuming that he is telling people that more terrorist attacks will come -- and the only things I've heard from him on that topic have danced very carefully around that point.)
If the challenging part is that he's not calling for sacrifice ... what sacrifice could he call for? This isn't your normal war effort, with a clearly defined enemy in a specific place; it's not the sort of enemy that you can just throw people and munitions at and that will win the war. What sort of sacrifice could he call for that would be appropriate?
In terms of calling for heightened daily vigilance or alertness ... well, he's rather hamstringed by the nature of things at the moment, isn't he? You can tell people to watch out for strange packages or odd objects or whatnot, but typically, what you would ask is for people to watch out for other people behaving strangely. And these days, that would immediately devolve to, "Help! It's a brown person in a turban or a headscarf! Doing ... something!"
@ 02:22 PM CST [Link]
Can I just say that there's something terribly weird about Elton John talking about the women he ogles? It's not just me, is it? It's weird?
@ 01:39 PM CST [Link]
Well, well, well. Now THAT is going to be an interesting balancing act. Convince the people of Afghanistan that we are going to attack so they don't come back. Convince neighboring states that we're not attacking so that we don't destabilize friendly (relatively speaking) governments. Convince our own population that we're going to do something so that the government doesn't lose support -- and whatever we do has to be noticeable enough to satisfy the hawks.
I have no idea how they're going to walk that tightrope.
@ 01:33 PM CST [Link]
Gas masks selling out at area stores.
Um ... yes. Well.
I don't think they do anything against biological attack, actually.
And somehow, I just don't see terrorists thinking, "Hmm ... We need to do a little germ warfare now. What would be a good place to inspire maximum terror in the US? .... I know! Southern Indiana!" (Although, in fact, depending on what exactly was done, it could be fairly effective, at that.)
@ 01:28 PM CST [Link]
You know, the more I hear about the Justice Department proposals for new police powers, the more I wonder what on earth they're really up to. The proposal for indifinite detention based purely on suspicion is so outlandish that they must expect that Congress won't let the provision through in that form and that any federal judge worth their salt would immediately strike the prohibition on judicial review. And why on earth would you need to make hacking, of all things, a capital terrorist offense? Most hackers have nothing to do with terrorism, as such; they're usually bored, overbright teenagers with a studied lack of common sense. There are so many things wrong with the justice department proposals that you have to conclude that many of the things in the bill are there for the express purpose of giving Congress something to change and strike; that behind the scenes, Justice is telling Congress, "OK, look: this is what we really want and what we feel is minimally acceptable, and we'll fight for those." You just wonder what those things actually are.
In the meantime, taking advantage of the situation, the "Justice" department is abusing its powers on a scale heretofore unseen. Detainees aren't allowed to contact lawyers. For all the high-falutin' rhetoric from Bush and Ashcroft that racial profiling of Arabs and other Muslims won't be tolerated, it's happening on an obnoxiously wide basis. The government is releasing statements saying, "Look! A terrorist!" about some people, and then later saying, "Oops. Wrong guy. Sorry," having trashed a person's reputation from coast to coast. People are being removed from the cities and towns in which they live and are being sent to New York for interrogation; of course, they are entirely likely to experience a reasonably fair process in the midst of a city directly traumatized by such a heavy loss, now aren't they? Given the numbers -- the feds are aiming to find about 800 people total at this point -- it is inevitable that some will serve a very long time in detention before the feds really even get around to questioning them and investigating thoroughly enough to realize that they're innocent. Some will undoubtedly lose jobs and homes because of this.
This "war" is likely to go on for many many years. Britain has been going up against the IRA and its relations for 40 years now. Israel and various Arab factions for nearly the same amount of time. We're likely to have to go at least as long. Do we really want to continue acting like this for 40 years or more?
@ 01:13 PM CST [Link]
You know, I swear I can't figure out if someone is trying to make some sort of point. Romania is far and away one of the worst countries in Europe with regards to the human rights of gays and lesbians. People think things can be bad here, but in contrast to Romania, this country is a virtual paradise. You are, in general, fairly unlikely to be arrested for homosexual conduct (outside the military, anyway), you're relatively unlikely to go to jail for it, and others in society don't, in general, consider it their divine right to rape you just because you're gay. (In general.)
So why on earth would you send a gay ambassador to Romania? If he's gotten a position because he's a career civil servant and knows his stuff, why wouldn't you send him back to Prague, or to Budapest, or Bratislava or some such?
@ 02:41 PM CST [Link]
The United Nations Security Council has given the green light to the United States to launch a "proportionate" military strike inside Afghanistan in retaliation for the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Sources inside the Security Council say the 15 member nations unanimously agreed that their Sept. 12 resolution condemning the attacks also endorsed an initial military response by the United States, and that Washington requires no further UN permission to act. [...] The change has come about, say the sources, because Washington's approach to retaliation appears to be "measured" and "in the spirit" of the resolution.
In other words, because we haven't already bombed Afghanistan off the face of the planet, they're reasonably certain that we won't bomb them off the planet.
Of course, this is also, one suspects, in part because most of the nations of the world would dearly love to see the Taliban overturned. (Conveniently forgetting, as the US has been required to forget for the moment, that when the opposition parties were in charge is when things started to go to hell in a handbasket. Then again, I'm not sure how the opposition could be that much worse than what they've got now.)
@ 12:24 PM CST [Link]
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken a few days after the attacks showed that Americans were supporting special measures intended for those of Arab descent. In the survey, 58 percent backed more intensive security checks for Arabs, including those who are United States citizens, compared with other travelers; 49 percent favored special identification cards for such people, and 32 percent backed "special surveillance" for them. [...] The shooting death of an Egyptian-American grocer at his store near Los Angeles was being investigated on as a possible hate crime [...] In Phoenix, Prosecutor Rick Romley said Frank Silva Roque targeted minorities during a shooting rampage Saturday in which Balbir Singh Sodhi died. [...] And in Dallas, FBI agents were also investigating whether a Pakistani grocer's slaying stemmed from anger at Muslims for the terrorist attacks. [...] Thursday in Minneapolis, three Middle Eastern-looking men were denied permission to board a Northwest Airlines flight to their homes in Salt Lake City, Utah after several passengers complained of their presence [...] In Southern California, Arab students at Orange Coast College are calling for the institution to fire a professor who they say called one of them a terrorist ... The discussion in Hearlson's Tuesday class started when Hearlson compared Muslim students on campus to Nazis and said they shouldn't be trusted, according to CC Abdelmuti, a Muslim student in the class....
I keep waiting for something major to happen. Something so far beyond the pale, so utterly unforgiveable that it may jolt the country into realizing what it's doing.
They're already firebombing mosques in Canada, of all places. Attacks against Muslims reported in India, China and Australia, as well.
Maybe when/if the US attacks Afghanistan (or whoever), that will defuse something, make people a bit calmer. Although, frankly, my suspicion is that it will simply unleash something that's held itself in check until then.
@ 12:19 PM CST [Link]
Whatever its mistakes, the idea that America brought the onslaught upon itself is absurd WHO is to blame? The simple answer—the suicide attackers, and those behind them—is hardly adequate, just as it would hardly be adequate simply to blame Hitler and his henchmen for the second world war, without mentioning the Treaty of Versailles or Weimar inflation. But that does not exculpate the perpetrators of last week's onslaught, just as the Versailles treaty does not excuse Auschwitz: whatever their grievances, nothing could excuse an attack of such ferocity and size. So what explains it? A surprising number of people, and not just gullible fanatics looking for someone to hold responsible for the hopelessness of their lives, believe that to a greater or lesser extent America has reaped as it sowed.
Defended by the Economist, of all places.
But it is welcome to see this type of analysis and defense, I will admit. (And something of a side issue: whatever validity their points may or may not have had, I will never understand the timing of Susan Sontag and Michael Moore in saying what they said when they said it.)
@ 12:22 AM CST [Link]
You know ... I hate to say it, but I can actually agree with Coulter when she mercilessly derides some of the things the FAA and Department of Transportation are doing to make air travel "safer". I would agree that some of them seem peculiarly pointless.
Just when you think that perhaps her previous call for a crusade was just immediate reaction to events, that perhaps her brain has returned to something resembling rationality, she does just manage to sneak her real agenda in: All 19 hijackers in last week's attack appear to have been aliens. As far as the Constitution is concerned, visitors to this country are here at the nation's pleasure. Congress could pass a law tomorrow requiring that all aliens from Arabic countries leave. (More on that next week.) Congress could certainly pass a law requiring all aliens to get approval from the INS before boarding an airplane in the United States.
Just remember, the country is only here for the non-immigrants. (The fact that, unless you're an American Indian, EVERYBODY is descended from immigrants being one of those things that just sweeps past her, no doubt.)
And purely as a matter of law, unless Congress plans to repeal the parts of the Constitution regarding rights of association, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure and a few other things, I don't believe that they can require all aliens to get approval from the INS to simply board an aircraft. (Mind, this isn't likely to stop them from trying.) I'm quite certain that INS wouldn't want the responsibility of monitoring such requests. And how do you handle emergency requests due to death or disease? Federal bureaucracies are not remotely configured to move quickly.
I can hardly wait for the "More on that next week" column. The naked bigotry and racism will be just wondrous to behold. (And just when the National Review's editor had apologized for her last column -- if "apology" is remotely the right word for Mr Lowry's response. It certainly does put the agenda of The National Review right out there for all to see, doesn't it?)
@ 01:47 PM CST [Link]
Hoping to thwart terrorists, Washington is on the verge of enacting - quickly - the most sweeping changes in law enforcement in a generation - changes that will touch the lives of almost every American. [...] "Maybe that will make us feel safer," says Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who opposed the amendment. "Maybe. And maybe what the terrorists have done made us a little bit less safe. Maybe they have increased Big Brother in this country."
You know, I'd been keeping track, or trying to, of what Congress had been doing since the attack. And the provision allowing searches of computers somehow completely slipped past me. Wonder how much else has just sneaked through and we won't find out about it until far too late.
The provisions of the various laws are both appalling and baffling. For example, what use will education records generally be? Is there a Terrorism 101 major at colleges that we're not aware of? I can imagine that at some point in making certain types of cases, the government would jump up and say, "Ah-HA! You took chemistry and biology in college! You knew how to make this bomb!" To which many people could respond, "Those were required courses. I had no choice about taking them if I wanted to get my liberal arts degree."
The opposition to the various provisions is rather impressively broad. I can't imagine that this will make much difference, although it might give Congress some impression that perhaps they should consider things a bit more. But when the FBI and CIA sit there and say, "If you don't do this, we can guarantee that there will be more such attacks," especially right after such an attack, Congress isn't likely to sit there and think calmly, Well, there will be more of these attacks no matter what we do, and making laws that compromise the basic principles of the country are perhaps not the best way to go about preventing them.
@ 01:12 PM CST [Link]
Terrorist organizations throughout the world will attempt to carry out attacks in the United States and the United Kingdom in retaliation for the anticipated US attack on Afghanistan, according to Israeli security experts.
Oh, wonderful. More fun in store.
You wonder what they'll do now that throwing planes around is less likely, but frankly, I really don't want to know.
I do wonder why they're targeting the UK specifically, and not western Europe generally. Britain isn't the only US ally. (Although, according to a news report I saw on France2's English language rebroadcast, France is perfectly neurotic right now. You'd think that they blew up the Eiffel Tower.)
@ 10:40 AM CST [Link]
Osama bin Laden and the Taliban received threats of possible American military strikes against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and Washington, which were allegedly masterminded by the Saudi-born fundamentalist, a Guardian investigation has established [...] Mr Naik's recollection is that "we had the impression Russians were trying to tell the Americans that the threat of the use of force is sometimes more effective than force itself".
Yes. Well. Apparently, in this case, we should possibly have forgone the threat.
Though, given that everyone and everything necessary was already in the US and in place, I don't suppose it would have made the least difference.
@ 10:32 AM CST [Link]
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!