Site of the Week

Here's a great site from one of the ol stomping grounds, The Mock's Crest Tavern. And the best part? They even have a picture gallary from multiple Pub Crawls.
Scroll down to the link that says "Photo album"

[UPDATE: I corrected the broken link. It should work now]

Quote of the Day

"I hate Republicans and everything they stand for..."
-- Howard Dean 1/29/05

Just in case you were worried that partisanship would prevent America from ever being united again, enter Howard Dean: The frontrunner to become the next DNC Chairman.

Exploding Heads and Breathing Fire

Ok, perhaps I'm fixated (and juvenile) but I can't get enough of this stuff. This is another article relating to the explosion of Mt. Vesuvius that destroyed Pompeii and Herculanean in 79A.D. It's talking about the History Channel's new documentary on the distaster (which I'll have to see because it sounds awesomely outrageous). Some highpoints:

"The first surge caught residents of Herculaneum on the beach, where they were hoping for rescue from the sea. "The people on the beach died of thermal shock. At such high temperatures, their skin vaporized and their bones were incinerated. Their brains boiled, then exploded. Even today, their skulls are still stained from the red cerebral matter that poured out. Like glass that shatters under boiling water, their bones snapped in half and their teeth disintegrated."

Now, I remember reading about the distaster as a child, but they never described it like that...Actually, having been to Pompeii, I feel a little weird knowing that my friends and I were all having a merry ol' time there, without any conception about the reality of the horror...

Anyway, read the article and see the documentary. Even though it premiered yesterday, I think we all know that since it's on the History Channel, they'll replay about 6,462 more times...this week alone.

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

The End of the Sosa Era in Chicago

Well, it's finally happened. The Cubbies traded Sammy Sosa. It's been on the radar screen for a long time now...perhaps since Sammy walked out of the last game of last season just 15 minutes after the first pitch.
It remains to be seen from a statistical standpoint if the deal with the Baltimore Orioles is a good one for both clubs. The Cubs acquired Jerry Hairston, Jr., plus two minor leaguers in exchange for Sosa (part of whose contract will be paid by the Cubs). I have a strong suspicion that Sosa is going to have a big year next season. Sammy is a phenomenonal talent (irrespective of what some ignorant pundits will say when referring to Steroid abuse). Even despite his "off year" last year, Sosa still was among the leaders in numerous categories, hitting 35 HRs (at a rate of 1 HR/13 plate appearances) despite missing over a month of the season. More important than Sosa's physical ability is the strength of his character and work ethic. While Sosa seems to have a fragile ego, he also seems driven to find the accolades and love he once received from fans in every park. Indeed, having watched the large majority of the Cubs game for the last 3 seasons, I've always felt that more than any other player I've ever watched, Sosa seems to feed off the energy of the fans around him. He wants, it seems, to make fans like him and cheer for him. He knows that to do this he must perform, and so I don't doubt that he is driven to return to the days of glory he once enjoyed. I expect big things from Sosa next season.
The Cubs pick up an excellent utilityman in Hairston, and I expect that he could very well provide a needed spark to the Cubs run production. I would've liked to see the Cubs pick up closer Jorge Julio in the deal, but I'll defer to Cubs GM Jim Hendry's abilities and assume that it simply wasn't possible. Once I've had a chance to analyze the minor leaguers the Cubs picked up, I'll have a better idea how balanced the deal is.

More than anything though, I think the whole affair is a sad one in Cubs history. Perhaps because of recent success, Cub fans seemed to have changed. Once savvy, intelligent, and reasonable, I feel like that as the ranks of Cubbydom have swelled with success, the quality and intelligence of the fan base has diminished. Now, there has never been any inherent baseball intelligence gained from living in Chicago (the fact that White Sox fans booed Frank Thomas for grounding into a double play at a time when he was leading the league in batting is evidence enough of that). However, perhaps because to be a true die-hard fan of Chicago given the futility and disappointment in their history, you had to educate yourself to the game, Cubs fans have a long history of reasonableness, intelligence, and good sportsmanship (Now before someone emails me to remind me of battery-throwing or other ignoble instances, let me say that I don't mean to say that the Cub fans never have failings or lowpoints; they do, but we also have numerous high points, as for example the behavior of Cub-nation following the death of Cardinal Darryl Kile in Chicago, during a crucial series against our biggest rival. In general, the positive moments far outweigh the low points.) Getting back to my point, success has bred a breakdown in Cub fans ability to intelligently analyze the game. The symptoms of this are evident in the treatment that Sammy Sosa received in Chicago this last year. The frustration Cub fans felt at the underperformance of the Cubs seemed to finally focus solely on Sammy's performance. Now, certainly Sosa's status (often self-proclaimed) as the "heart of the team" made him a focal point, however pinning everything that went wrong with the Cubs on Sosa was certainly unfair. He didn't, afterall, have any role in the injuries that occurred, he didn't have any role in the poor performance of the bullpen, and he certainly didn't cause the rest of the lineup to decide to have their bats take an early off-season with 6 games left in the season. Indeed, the only thing that one might be "critical" of Sosa is that he failed to undertake a Herculean feat of carrying the team single-handedly as he had in the past. Yet the boos continued to build with each downturn the Cubs took. Cub fans seemed to be unwilling to accept that Sosa wasn't a mythical, indomitable figure as he had once appeared. He was simply a ballplayer that for a variety of reasons, was having an "off" yet still relatively successful season.
Now, clearly Sosa does bear some culpability for the speed in which things soured. Sosa's personality and ego clearly worsened the atmosphere in Wrigley, as he became defensive and quick to complain. Yet graciousness in the face of overwhelming criticism is an uncommon virtue; especially when the criticism is largely unjustified. Sosa obviously doesn't possess it; is it fair castigate him for lacking a skill most people also lack? I would argue that we that we can lament that he didn't have it. But no one can expect or demand that he posses it.
As Jayson Stark argues on ESPN.com today, Sammy Sosa was "good for baseball...and good for the Chicago Cubs." His stats for the last 6 or 7 years were nothing short of astronomical. Above all, the enthusiasm that he brought to the field, and the electricity that it created all around Wrigley, the greater Chicago area, and the country as a whole, helped recapture the greatest game our country has ever known. It's unfortunate that Sammy will be remembered in Chicago for what went wrong. For much of his tenure as a Cub, Sammy embodied all that was right with our game, our ballclub, and our temperament as a nation. I wish him well in Baltimore.

Responding to a differing viewpoint

Ok, my quick response to criticism of my post re: Arab Columnists, but specifically my indictment of Chomsky. (See below for the original post and response)
First off, establishing a straw man argument by mentioning Ann Coulter is pretty weak. I never even referenced Coulter, therefore I'm not beholden to defending her, as if it's Coulter's team vs. Chomsky's team.
I grant that Chomsky is a bright guy, at least in the realm of his focus, which is Language Analysis primarily. Why he is taken seriously in regards to Foreign Policy studies is beyond me. Now specifically I've never heard him reference Qutb, even in pieces specifically about terrorism; if someone can show me to be incorrect, then I willingly retract my statements. I would argue at that point, that he apparently chooses to ignore Qutb impact in his analysis, which is usually (if not always) an analysis of what America has done wrong in the world.
As for the MSM. Admittedly, on 9/11 I was living in Europe, so I can't vouch for what they did or did not say in the immediate time after the attack. Since returning to the States, I have yet to hear any MSM reference Qutb in their analysis, particularly in regard to Iraq. (HA! You say, but Iraq has no connection to al-Qaeda!) Well, regardless of if al-Qaeda was in Iraq prior to the war, they are unmistakably there now. To this end, then, it would be logical to place in context the ambition of Zarqawi, et al.. They are not "minutemen" as Michael Moore would have us believe. They are totalitarian disciples of Sayyid Qutb who wish to eliminate Liberalism from the face of the Earth. The mainstream media should be trumpeting that message from the hills. The fact is, they are too busy blaming us for everything that goes wrong in the world.

Statistic of the Day

% who believe that using military force is best way to defeat terrorism (using 2004 Candidate support as prism):

Bush Voters: 66% ][ Kerry Voters: 17%


In words, 66% of the those polled who voted for Bush believe that using military force is the best way to defeat terrorists. Whereas, 17% of the people that voted for Kerry agree (i.e. 83% of Kerry voters believe that military force is not the best way to defeat terrorism)

Certainly illustrates the strategic vision gap that divides the country.

Data from the Pew Research Center

Haloscan commenting and trackback have been added to this blog.

Social Security Calculator!

Click on the image above, or click here to calculate the amount of social security benefits you will receive. Really interesting stuff.

Arab Columnists Speak Out

Here are some interesting columns from Arab newspapers. In particular, the column by Abdallah Rashid in the Al-Itihad is an excellent analysis of the roots of terrorism. It's striking to me that the authors are willing to clearly and openly discuss the cancer within their society despite the danger doing so causes them and their families. Interesting as well that the authors recognize what spurs terrorism, even while Chomsky, NY Times, et al. here in the States is too busy lost in a little dream where U.S. policy has created Islamism.
Actually, Chomsky and American media have probably never even heard of Sayyid Qutb, so it's no wonder they wouldn't understand Islamism.

(Btw. I haven't been brushing up on my Arabic. I just read English translations of the columns thanks to the MEMRI institute)

David Brooks

A good column from David Brooks on America. Click here to see it (probably need to log in via NY Times; it's free)

Hey Noam, did you catch that?

I don't doubt that Chomskyites will find a way to still maintain that the U.S. is the the cause of al-Qaeda (through our imperialism/hegemony/unfair economic practices/arrogance/poor manners/love of baseball/or whatever other theories they've come up with), and that if we didn't act the way we do, Osama and company would be peaceful lovers of all that is good in the world. Still, one would hope that the latest quote from al-Qaeda in Iraq under Zarqawi might make them start to wonder if maybe Arab fundamentalist really are the totalitarians that Paul Berman says there are:

In their latest announcement of January 24, Zarqawi announces that "We have declared a fierce war on this evil principle of democracy and those who follow this wrong ideology. Anyone who tries to help set up this system is part of it."

For the full article, click here (Too bad this kind of news can't make frontpage above-the-fold, instead of being hidden in the "International Section")

Incidentally, it's quite the world we live in when the terrorists in Iraq understand that America is fighting for democracy, and yet the disciples of Moveon.org and Indymedia still think we're fighting for oil...

Let's make Remembrances more Vanilla, shall we?

Somehow stuff like this still surprises me. According to the London Times, British Muslims (or at least one of the governing representative bodies) will be boycotting events to commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz, saying:

"it is not racially inclusive and does not commemorate the victims of the Palestinian conflict."

Really? How outrageous that they would not commemmorate something that is totally unrelated from a different time period! The nerve!

The Times goes on to say that "similar events held in other European countries w[ere] "inclusive day[s]" that commemorated deaths in Palestine, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, as well as the former Nazi death camps."

Now, one thought I have is that those "inclusive day" celebrations are idiotic for even equating Palestinian violence with organized, systematic genocide/ethnic cleansing in the other regions mentioned. But I'll likely write a longer post about the Palestinian conflict later, so I'll save that line of argumentation.

What I will say is that by trying to "group" horrible events in human history, we diminish their significance. Do we really feel that such events aren't weighty enough to stand on their own for contemplation?

Moreoever, the "logic" (using the term very loosely) of the Council of British Muslims is garbage. Taking their reasoning to its logical conclusion, any observance of Sept. 11th terror attacks in the United States, for example, would somehow be invalid unless we also always mentioned every crime that's been inflicted to every group in the world. I guess we should have a Boar War/Trail of Tears/Ukrainian Starvation/Sept. 11th terror attack/Pinochet Remembrance Day, eh?

Actually, my example is probably more valid than the British Muslims thinking, if only because at least Pinochet and WTC attacks shared something in common in their dates of occurrence...

Don't expect me to be donating any funds to the Muslim Council of Britain any time soon...

[Nod to Andrew Stuttaford at NRO]

Hey, it's only the library of Western Civilization. What's the big deal?

If this isn't cool, I don't know what is. As an aside, for those of you who haven't had the chance to visit Herculaneum's sister-city in catastrophe --Pompeii--, it's an amazing experience. I mean, how often have you walked down the streets of a Roman city that is nearly perfectly preserved? (Nod to: The Corner)

Peggy Noonan: Forgetting Reagan's Lessons

Peggy Noonan came out with her analysis of President Bush's second inaugural. I note first that I am huge fan of Ms. Noonan. I must also say I was surprised by the negative review she gave the speech. I suppose though, it wasn't necessary that she didn't like it that surprised me (I never expect her to merely parrot the official line; and dissent is often a healthy thing even among a party [perhaps especially among a party]). What surprised me though was that it seemed to me that her main complaint was that Bush overreached by overzealously supporting liberty and freedom as a force in the world. Two thoughts come to mind:

1) What would Ronald Reagan say to one of his old speechwriters taking umbrage with someone who vociferously extols the power of freedom in the world; especially if that someone is the President of the United States (especially freedom openly supported by the power and might of the United States)? Noonan's criticism reminds me of the same criticism that was lobbed against Reagan when he had the nerve to imply that Soviet Union could be defeated, despite what CW maintained.

And 2)That anyone could criticize a President for taking a stand against tyranny illustrates how far our country has come (Ever read the Federalist Papers?). It makes me wonder if our "elites" have become so infatuated with the "diplomacy of nuance" that as a nation we are really willing to accept that our action (or inaction, perhaps more accurately) can allow for injustice and the snuffing of human liberty so long as we aren't perceived as with too much hubris or imperialism. Maybe it's that I am too much of a neo-conservative, but I don't particularly care what we are perceived to be. Now, I perhaps overstate my general disregard for nuance in foreign policy. But the day that nuance trumps American support for liberty in the world is the day that America stands for nothing. Our country was founded on the principle of certain inalienable rights. While the Founding Fathers realized the limitation of their ability to guarentee the sanctity of the rights God gives all man, I seriously doubt they would argue that it is somehow anethema to Americanism to believe that those "inalienable" rights only are applicable to American citizens. Their Higher Power, afterall, held domain over all man. Not just America. To this end then, I believe that as long as we act in the belief of and on the behalf of the righteousness of human liberty in the world, then posterity will judge us well. I believe this was Reagan's guiding principle. In part, I learned this from reading When Character Was King by none of than Peggy Noonan. How she missed that part of her book is beyond me.

Adventures in MatrixLand

[Note: This is an archived piece dating from May 15, 2003]

So, as hopefully most of you know, the Matrix: Reloaded came out last night in preview shows (and of course if opened today all over). Well, as anyone who remembers my spiel about the "Crazy Summer of 2002," (which of course morphed into the "Wacky Summer of 2002" for anyone who made fun of me for my excitement...may you go to hell) I've been excited about the sequel to the Matrix since I first heard about it way back in the days of my youth.
And now it's here. So, in the words of Sean Connery, "HA, my day has come, Trebeck." ...Or so I thought. I forgot that my friends here in Portland for the summer are all lame-asses (particularly the males) who go to bed at 7PM (and use excuses like, AND I QUOTE, "I'm a working man in my prime." I won't use their name here, so as to protect them from the deriding they surely deserve, except to say WHATEVER, QUANTE).
So, picture me last night crying my little head into my huge pillow as I'm trapped car-less, movieless, and Carrie Anne Moss-less, wondering what in the world I did to deserve such torment as not getting the instant gratification that I so richly deserve. Yes, it's a tough life I lead...
BUT, low and behold, my new best friend Jenny came to my rescue (for the record, I never included her in the 'lame-ass-go-to-bed-at-7PM' category). Bored, Jenny agreed to go to the Matrix (which surprisingly was not sold out...ALTHOUGH, it was the 11:30PM show, which may have had something to do with it. Plus not a lot of people knew that it opened last night for preview...the fools).
SO anyway, there I was, giddily (YES, it's a word. Get off me.) handing over my money and receiving my oh-so-precious ticket to ride...er, watch. My entire life has led up to this moment: The chance to once again see Ms. Moss a.k.a. Trinity in tight, shiny, black leather, accentuating every part of her luscious, supple, delectable...personality. Yes, sir. I felt ALIVE. Incidentally, Jenny was equally excited to see Trinity's personality. Don't let her deny it.
So, after handing St. Peter my ticket, walking past the concession stand (I have no time for such foolishness. Who needs food when we have the Matrix?), we walked into Theater #8 and found a very good seat.
At this point, I think it pertinent to describe the crowd. Aside from the over-abundance of trailer trash (if I may be elitist, which I may 'cause this is my damn email), the loud, obnoxious guys drinking beers on the right side of the theater, the guys smoking cheech behind us, the comic-book-reading nerds loudly snorting with glee after each Matrix joke they told, and surefire Medical Students all around who competed to see who could exclaim the loudest witticism while using a ratio of 3 'f-bombs' to every 'uh', I'd say the crowd was pretty typical. For a zoo, anyway.
It was sitting amid such an intimidating roomful of intellect that the tone of the evening was set. The imposing figure of a Theater Manager scurried down the aisle to inform us that an error with the projecter was delaying the start of our movie by 15 minutes or so. Well, no big deal I thought. The noble body of Roman senators surrounding me reacted, of course, with composure normally reserved for angry gerbils on speed.
After many a thoughtful remark from the peanut gallery, the movie finally began...
And what a movie it was...
At this point, I'd like to describe the climax of the movie, to save you the trouble of having to see it yourself. So here goes: NEO, with a flurry of kicks, punches, and clear mastery of Kung Fu stops in his tracks. With a piercing gaze he looks out from the screen and suddenly...his face melts downward, along with the surrounding background. In FACT, the whole screen melts downward. Sitting there, I'm thinking that despite the millions of dollars spent on the movie, this is pretty cheesy special effects. Sub-par even. The screen goes black. And stays black. Interesting ending...a bit artsy, but...
YESSIR, you guessed it. Millions of dollars spent can't prevent the projector from MELTING THE FILM. And not only melting it, but melting it at the EXACT moment of the climax of the movie.
SO I have no idea how the movie ends. Needless to say, the neandertals in the crowd were 'less than pleased.' Despite many calls for riot (particularly coming from the Med Students), order was maintained, although I felt sorry for the movie workers who had to deal with everyone.
They ended up giving us readmission passes, mentioning of course, that the theater is totally sold out for tomorrow (or today, technically). SO, to make a long story longer, I have to wait a couple days to fulfill my Matrix fix.
I think we can all agree that my life is tougher than most.
So that's my tragic story. I hope your Matrix-enjoying experience was better than mine. And if you haven't seen it...well, let's just say I can't believe we're friends. I mean, haven't you SEEN Carrie Anne Moss's personality?
Anyway, I hope everyone is well. Feel free to drop me a line. Just don't call after 7PM, cause we don't want to wake my roommates up...

The Left's Love of Cuba: Bad Medicine

Nick Kristoff of the NYT (and former Oregonian -- the State, not the paper) recently published a column on Cuba [update: column now archived], so I thought I'd drop my two cents into the pot.

My senior year in high school (in Jan. of 2000), I was a member of a delegation of student Debaters who went to Cuba to challenge our Cuban counterparts in a series of "Congress format" debates across Cuba, with special permission from the U.S. State Department (we were guests on CBS's Morning Show prior to our trip, so you might have heard about us. A documentary was also made of the trip, which you might have seen on PBS or other similar venues).
During our 9-day trip we debated everything from the Embargo (or 'Blockade' as the Cubans say), to human rights, and pretty much everything in between.
We discussed at length the Cuban health care system, including tours of several medical facilities (courtesy of our Communist Party Escorts, who it seemed were more concerned with monitoring what the Cubans said to us, as opposed to what we did). From what I saw (and what I'd gathered in research for the trip, etc.), I think it is fair to say that the Cuban medical system does feature some outstanding medical professionals, who do some great work with the limited supplies that they have. What annoys me, though, is that so many liberal pundits like Kristoff use the oversimplified snapshot of Cuba's medical system to try and imply some sort of redeeming quality to Castro's rule in general. There are several key points that such pundits miss however:

1)Cuban doctors often study in the U.S., or at least that's what we were told by our Cuban minders. In fact, the Cuban system doesn't have the capability to create the level of advanced medical study/research necessary to sustain their system. In other words, the Cuban system is dependent upon the American medical system that Kristoff and others love to criticize.

2)The compliment that "Cuban doctors do great work with the limited supplies they have" is as much a damnation of the Cuban system as it is a compliment to the individuals of the system. Despite what the Cubans may say, it's not the Embargo that ultimately prevents modern medicine and technology from reaching Cuba. Were the Embargo lifted tomorrow, the Cubans would simply be unable to afford the market value of the supplies they need now that Cuba is in the "Special Period" (Castro's term) thanks to the end of $6B worth of Soviet subsidy. Now that the Russians stopped bailing out Cuba, it seems apparent that their system (economic and medical) is simply untenable (Maybe if Castro didn't steal and spend all of his citizen's money on maintaining his police state things would be different, but if Leftist pundits have their way, we'll never know).

To this end, it is baffling as to how Kristoff could extol the virtues of a medical system that can't propagate itself, even despite the head start given from American research and education...

Welcome!

Well, inaugurations aren't limited to just one coast this week. And while I may not have quite as many private donors or host quite as many events to rub elbows with with arrogent snobs...ahem. I mean Senators, at least the party on this side of the continent offers a little more breathing room (and more Microbrews).

So let me welcome you to the inaugural ball for the creation of The Birdnest, a site that will take a look at government, politics, and society with a mind towards history, political science, and good ol fashion common sense.

I hope you enjoy and I look forward to hearing from you all...