SUBSTANTIVE VS. MANUFACTURED, REAL VS. UNREAL

None of this may make sense to you, but it certainly makes sense to me. Paul Mirengoff at Power Line is the instigator:

Ever since 9/11 “changed everything,” Democrats and other leftists have been looking for an event that would change everything back, or at least change something. The search -- extending, among other locales, from Niger to Downing Street to al Qaqaa to Guantanamo Bay to Crawford -- has been largely fruitless. Then came New Orleans.

I never understood why Hurricane Katrina might change anything. Unlike 9/11, it taught us only things we already knew -- bureaucracies are a bit slow and inefficient; corrupt bureaucracies can be [dysfunctional]; poor people aren’t as mobile as non-poor people but they have enough sense to come in out of the rain; the MSM can’t be trusted; federal power tends to expand in response to misfortune.

The Democrats seemed to have milked Katrina for all it was worth (and, as noted below, it wasn’t worth much -- Bush’s approval rating is at its pre-Katrina level). They are now doing what they do best, which is to “move on.” In other words, they are off chasing the next political ambulance.

That’s it. That is it. They are off chasing the next political ambulance.

That captures (for me) so much of the unseriousness I’ve seen in our politics since 9/11 and I think I know why.

There’s a scene from my personal past that haunts me a little bit; every now and again it flashes back through my memory, and until now I’ve been unable to determine the reason.

Here’s the scene: it’s Halloween. I’m with some old high school friends. We’re at the new home in Green Cove Springs of one of the guys from our Orange Park High pack. He’s also a University of Florida graduate and (at the time) a Navy pilot. It’s Florida-Georgia weekend during Steve Spurrier’s first year as coach and the game has just ended. The Gators have kicked that ass, 38-7, and we are happy. That night would continue to be one of fun for us but we go a bit overboard with the trick or treaters who come by. You simply can’t get too many guys together on Halloween after a big football victory. Things happen and all in all, this wasn’t that big a deal (I don’t think) but we scared the ever-loving hell out of some of the kids who came by for their “treats.” Our philosophy was – hey, it’s Halloween – TRICK or treat, right? The trick was this – we had the treats, and we were going to absolutely give up the treats – but you had to deal with some fright along the way before we gave up the goodies.

Oh, man. Some mothers were mad with us that night. Fathers, too. Some kids were so traumatized they (in essence) said the hell with the treats, get me the hell out of here, Mommy!

Many other kids weathered the storm, dealt with the fright (guys jumping out of the darkness of the bushes leading up to the doorway, fake props suddenly coming to life, etc.), added a vivid memory to their Halloween experiences, and took home their treats. It was a male thing, in our minds, and perfectly acceptable.

None of that forms the basis for my haunting memory, though. Instead, it was a comment I made earlier in the day before the game started when everyone is reacquainting themselves. This was one year before my graduation from law school, one year and a half or so before failure on the bar exam, and years before many of my deeply held political assumptions would explode in my face. In response to a question about my plans, I indicated that I was probably coming back to Jacksonville to work for the State Attorney or Public Defender for a few years and then become a Trial Lawyer. “It’s like playing the lotto,” I said.

That’s the remark that haunts me.

It’s also what I think of when I read these sentences on Power Line: “They are now doing what they do best, which is to “move on.” In other words, they are off chasing the next political ambulance.”

I guess I need to say at this point that I very much believe in Plaintiff’s lawyers and civil litigation. I very much believe in the idea of a state-sponsored Public Defender’s Office within our concept of criminal law. But there’s a mental concept required for legal advocates who practice in either of those areas of the profession, and that mental concept or mindset is an artificial one – as artificial as is the “innocent until proven guilty” mandate that juries are routinely challenged, or admonished, to meet. In fact, in the four jury trials I conducted in Gadsden County, Florida while interning, I would openly discuss the fact that jurors walk into court presuming guilt or something very close to it. I would then challenge them to overcome their human bias and do honor to the American standard of justice: make the public prosecutor (I loved using that phrase) prove the charge.

I didn’t lose any of my jury trials.

The mental concept or mindset allowed Plaintiff’s lawyers in civil litigation and criminal defense lawyers totally embraces a brand of zealous advocacy which, by definition, is devoid of personal responsibility. This, in turn, has had such a wildly disproportionate effect in the African American community that its unintended consequences reverberate throughout our culture and is presently wreaking havoc in our community (not to mention the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party).

As I continue to explore my personal failings and try to own up to them, there is an “inculcated irresponsibility” that must be overcome, and I can’t help but flash back to that Halloween day and night in 1990.

 

ABOUT THAT SERENITY FLICK

First up, a selection from Glenn Reynolds:

MORE SERENITY REVIEWS: Here, here, here ("Where Sith was fast food that left you feeling nothing but gas, Serenity was a seven course meal.")

Also here, here, and here, as well as here, here, here, and here.

Also here, and here.

UPDATE: Here's another, from Will Collier.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Neil Gaiman and Joss Whedon talk about stuff, in Time.

MORE: Still more blog reviews, here, here ("Much better than anything Lucas has done in the last 10 years. Go see it."), here, and here.

Every time I visit Glenn’s site I can’t help but think to myself, “That is one linking fool!” And we’re better off because of his efforts. Now, as for my thoughts on the flick:

·        I enjoyed the hell out of the flick and the audience I watched it with did, too.

·        I watched it at Regency Square Mall in Jacksonville – and not only did I see no evidence of any Universal Pictures reps, it didn’t look like the folks administering the screening really knew anything about a blogging component to the screening.

·        I have a “thing” about what I call WBKA flicks (white boys kicking ass). Don’t get me wrong, I can love kick-ass flicks just as much as the next guy, if not more. I just desire a greater mix in the kick-ass lead actor. This flick gave me that, and more.

·        Especially impressive was the good soldier played by a brother with perhaps the name of the year, Chiwetel Ejiofor – who played “The Operative” in the flick. That was a damn good substantive role. Bravo Joss Whedon! And the character Zoe, played by Gina Torres? Yeah, baby – hell yeah!

Here’s a plot summary from the Internet Movie Database:

The crew of Serenity takes on any job that will pay, even if it's not exactly legal. Malcolm Reynolds (Nathan Fillion), the captain, was on the losing side of a galactic war, and now all he has is his ship, named Serenity, and his loyal crew: his second in command and most trusted ally, Zoe (Gina Torres), her husband, the pilot, Wash (Alan Tudyk), the mechanic, Kaylee (Jewel Staite), and the muscle, Jayne (Adam Baldwin). When Malcolm takes on two new passengers, a young doctor, Simon Tam (Sean Maher) and his unstable, telepathic sister River (Summer Glau) he gets much more than he bargained for. The two are fugitives from The Alliance, the conglomerate that controls the galaxy. River learned something no one was ever supposed to know... and The Alliance will do anything to make sure no one will. Morena Baccarin, Ron Glass, and Chiwetel Ejiofor also star.

Uhhhh, “The Operative” doesn’t simply also star. As Captain's Quarters Blog noted, C.E. played that part with “monstrous humanity.”

Agreed.

Go see the flick, you will not be disappointed. Although . . . if you’re like me, you will have a quibble or three. But, there’s no need to nitpick. It was a flat-out good flick.

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT TO AFRICAN AMERICANS EVERYWHERE

In a piece castigating a typically stuck on stupid think tank operative for the Democratic Party who believes Democrats should blame (in essence) the Ownership Society and Bush’s compassionate conservativism for the so-called failed response to Hurricane Katrina, Rich Karlgaard in Forbes makes this point – way back when, FDR had it right:

“Dependence [on welfare],” said FDR in 1935, “induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.”

The creation of wealth does the opposite. It builds up the human spirit. It strengthens the national fiber.

For decades now, a can-do people have been systematically pussified – all under the banner of social justice. Which might have been all well and good, had the concept of “rights” not been divorced from the concept of “responsibilities” – but, we know that did, in fact, occur.

Collectively, we can still hear JFK saying, “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” I meet remarkably few Democrats willing to contemplate that mandate, and the consequences for walking away from it. Here’s how Kennedy closed his inaugural address – as a mirror, it damns the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party mightily:

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again--not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need--not as a call to battle, though embattled we are-- but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, “rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation”--a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility--I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it--and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us here the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God’s work must truly be our own.”

Somehow, many Democrats now not only piss on the very idea of patriotism but on the idea of a “generation of Americans [being] summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty.”

Incredible.

 

ORGANIZED LEFT-WING DISINFORMATION

Remember that New Orleans Times-Picayune article I quoted the other day, proving the dramatic misrepresentation of things in the immediate aftermath of the levee’s breaking and the city flooding? Well, Roger Simon cited it too, and asked his readers (rhetorically) what it reminded them of – immediately answering his own question thusly:

I tell you what it reminds me of - Baghdad immediately after the invasion. Remember all those reports of the mass looting of their national museum that turned out to be little more than some minor thefts (most returned), principally by the museum’s own directors? Yet the media behaved as this were the mass destruction of antiquities from the cradle of civilization and the US was to blame.

Of course the major intent of the misdirection and distortion in Baghdad and New Orleans was the same - to embarrass George Bush. Frankly I don’t care that much about George Bush. He’s just one guy. But I do care, intensely, about democracy. The media’s dislike of George Bush easily trumps their love of democracy. That’s why they’re reactionaries.

This further confirms my suspicion that there is an organized campaign to try and “spin” immediate news accounts of major events in an anti-American direction. Some of the most bizarre formulations get dropped into the media stream at the outset of some event, and dedicated echo chambers bounce the thing around the globe – no matter how outrageous.

There has to be some major political public relations firm involved in this – has to be.

 

OF THE LEFT, BUT CERTAINLY NOT “LIBERAL”

Dr. Sanity refers one and all to this important piece on academia from James Pierson in The Weekly Standard. It’s called, “The Left University” (as opposed to the “liberal” university):

In many important ways, the left university reversed or modified the assumptions and practices of the liberal university. The architects of the liberal university were optimistic about the prospects for the nation, and looked ahead to the progressive advancement of democracy and liberty, but the leaders of the left university are dour and pessimistic and view our history as a tale of oppression. The liberal academics believed in progress through the application of reason and knowledge, but the academic left asserted that reason and knowledge were masks for corporate or conservative interests. Yet, while the old liberals carved out a role in politics for experts and expert knowledge, the left disdained expertise and embraced the doctrine of diversity, which is based on the naked assertion of group interests. The liberals believed in academic freedom for all, but the academic leftists support academic freedom only for themselves, not for conservative or moderate faculty, not for speakers who disagree with them, and not for students who wish to learn from a nonideological standpoint. The liberals of a century ago took over the university with an intellectual vision grounded in 19th-century philosophy, while the radicals of our time seized control through politics and political pressure by organizing demonstrations and protests and by shrewdly leveraging assistance from governmental regulatory bodies.

That’s some good chit. African Americans have been used as proxies in precisely the same manner.

 

SERENITY, THE MOVIE

Tonight, I’ll be screening my first flick. You may have seen notice of the promo at various other blog sites. Here are the basics on the film, SERENITY:

Joss Whedon, the Oscar® - and Emmy - nominated writer/director responsible for the worldwide television phenomena of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE, ANGEL and FIREFLY, now applies his trademark compassion and wit to a small band of galactic outcasts 500 years in the future in his feature film directorial debut, Serenity. The film centers around Captain Malcolm Reynolds, a hardened veteran (on the losing side) of a galactic civil war, who now ekes out a living pulling off small crimes and transport-for-hire aboard his ship, Serenity. He leads a small, eclectic crew who are the closest thing he has left to family –squabbling, insubordinate and undyingly loyal.

And here’s an ad:

 

Ordinarily, I like a decent SciFi flick. I’ll definitely let you know my thoughts and I hope to have a young nephew with me who should be representative of the younger crowd.

 

THE AFRICAN FAILED STATE PROBLEM

This commentary is from Stephen Ellis, who is described as follows:

Stephen Ellis is a researcher at the African Studies Centre in Leiden, the Netherlands, and the former Director of the Africa Program at the International Crisis Group. He is a co-author of Worlds of Power: Religious Thought and Political Practice in Africa.

Here’s some representative text:

Liberia is just one example on a long list of African states that have spent years on the brink of collapse (or have long since succumbed) despite international efforts to help them. Together, these countries (the list also includes Sierra Leone, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Somalia) point to a stark truth: the conventional approach for helping Africa’s failed and failing states does not work.

Part of the problem involves the way that the international community understands failed states in the first place. The conventional view relies on a misleading mechanical metaphor, which leads policymakers to suppose that, like broken machines, failed African countries can be repaired by good mechanics. In fact, dysfunctional governments are more like sick people. Like humans, states fall ill in a variety of ways, can continue to function (after a fashion) even when sick, and do not all respond to treatment the same way. Some illnesses can be treated quickly, whereas others require long-term care. Most important, serious illnesses often leave their victims -- whether people or governments -- permanently changed, unable to return to their former condition.

The author says some ideas, like an international trusteeship – discarded with the bad aftertaste of colonialism, must be rehabilitated. Haiti, right here in our back yard, is a clear argument for the soundness of that judgment.

Although the trusteeship idea might sound complicated and costly, the sums of money involved in restoring African states to health will be small -- far less than what is now pouring into Iraq or is given as aid to a range of other countries. In many cases, the new paradigm would involve no new allocations, but would simply spread out over longer periods what has already been budgeted. Expensive, large-scale peacekeeping forces would not generally be required, certainly not for the long term. Where peacekeepers are needed, the best approach would be to copy the Sierra Leone model: use a small number of Western soldiers (800 British troops were deployed in Sierra Leone) to spearhead a larger force of regional peacekeepers (such as the West African troops deployed in Côte d’Ivoire or the AU forces sent to Burundi and, more recently, to Darfur). The AU has expressed interest in creating an African standby force, but this may take years to assemble and organize.

Such forces should not occupy whole territories, but simply guarantee effective military intervention in defined circumstances -- such as if a legitimately elected government is threatened by a coup or if a troubled country is threatened by invasion. As the British armed forces have shown in Sierra Leone, the credible threat of a deployment by an “over the horizon” force serves as an effective deterrent when part of a wider political strategy.

We shall see, but the present approach is clearly unacceptable. That piece does, however, tie in nicely with one posted by Paul Gigot of the Wall Street Journal on the new head of the World Bank – the infamous Paul Wolfowitz.

When Paul Wolfowitz returned to the World Bank from a trip to Africa in June, he made a presentation to his staff. "I made the mistake of calling on the first questioner, somebody who was obviously even older than I am," recalls the 61-year-old but freshly minted World Bank president in an interview. "And he said, 'I've been around since 1972 and we've heard all this stuff before.'"

Welcome to the soaring idealism of the world's greatest "development" body. When President Bush appointed Mr. Wolfowitz to run the World Bank last spring, liberal critics quickly attributed it to cynical politics--rewarding an architect of the Iraq War, turning the Bank into a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Mr. Wolfowitz would never say this (or even agree with it), but I think the truth is closer to the opposite.

He's the idealist. The World Bank is the land of lifers and experts who've seen and heard it all before. His mission--since he's been crazy enough to accept it--is to make the world's largest development bank believe once again that it really can help the poor. It certainly would be one of history's larger ironies if the man so reviled by the political left ended up helping more people than all of those who spend their lives attending U.N. conferences.

Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. But Wolfowitz the NeoCon is going to lead in a pragmatic, 21^st Century kind of way. An enterprising historically black college or university, one like FAMU, if it ever comes to its senses, would immediately establish a Center for African Studies revolving not around the social sciences but around business instead. The Center we have at the University of Florida is fantastic but . . . we have more than enough of those around the country. We desperately need an outpost at a black university zeroed in on business, domestically and internationally.

I’m not going to hold my breath waiting on that, however.

 

LIES AND THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM

I’m beginning to think there is a sick, coordinated campaign to not only sensationalize but racialize the news in modern America. Here’s the latest entry that gives me pause; it’s from Tim Blair, observing things from way down yonder in Australia:

The New Orleans Times-Picayune reports:

Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn’t remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies.

"I’ve got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome,” Beron recalls the doctor saying.

The real total was six, Beron said.

Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another jumped to his death in an apparent suicide …

Four weeks after the storm, few of the widely reported atrocities have been backed with evidence. The piles of bodies never materialized, and soldiers, police officers and rescue personnel on the front lines say that although anarchy reigned at times and people suffered unimaginable indignities, most of the worst crimes reported at the time never happened.

I blame George W. Bush.

UPDATE. Mike G in comments: “BUSH-HATERS LIED! PEOPLE UN-DIED!”

In many ways, this is outrageous.

It also occurs to me that it’s a bit too convenient to rely on the excuse of the initial confusion associated with a developing story. There is some purposeful lying going on here, I’m sure of it.

 

STUCK ON STUPID

U.S. Army General Russell Honore, a black Cajun from Louisiana, has introduced a black folks phrase into the national discourse (of course, black folks phrasing is often a white Southern thang, too) but I think Hugh Hewitt is right, September 2005 will be remembered years from now far differently from this kind of spin currently emanating from the liberal media:

The Washington Post today runs another "low point of the presidency" piece, that argues the president "finds himself struggling to reclaim his swagger."

The reporters start with their premise and then seek out folks who will agree with it, which is about par for reporting these days, and the approval rating is cited as the key bit of data.

But, as Hugh said:

The Post focuses on the fact that social security reform stalled in the face of the Senate Democrats refusal to engage in the policy discussion. From early this year I have been arguing that the debate was a win-win for the president. Either he got reform, or the country got a clear picture that its most serious domestic problems cannot be solved unless an obstructionist Democratic Party is punished at the polls in '06, especially in Senate races in Florida, West Virginia, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota and Washington State. Realignments aren't quick, and the framers set up a system that allowed for "last stands" by obstructionist factions. The Democrats are "stuck on stupid," to use the phrase that defined September as well as any other, and the wags who are burying the president refuse to deal with the realities of the political trends over the past six years.

The presidents' opponents have been declaring him down and out since the fall of '00. Keep the clippings handy for election night '06.

More “stuck on stupid” is reported by Just One Minute.

I just love the fact that the committed left-wingers, the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party, believe they’ve turned the corner.

 

FINAL PIECE IN THE AUGUST WILSON COLLECTION

The L. A. Times did a recent report on the last play in a remarkable line of plays for a notable American playwright:

August Wilson’s spirit looms large in all of his works, but never more so than in this production at the Mark Taper Forum in Los Angeles. “Radio Golf,” which examines the price of success for blacks in the ‘90s, is the long-awaited finale of his 10-part dramatic cycle about African American life. The project, which took nearly a quarter-century to complete, is seen as both a masterwork of the theater and a treasure of American social history. Celebration of the cycle’s completion has been tempered by last month’s announcement that the 60-year-old writer is battling liver cancer.”

Will this “treasure of American social history” stand the test of time and if it does, will it be remembered in later years for the same reasons this ten-part production of plays was initially noteworthy? Probably not. Thanks to the September 18, 2005 Arts Journal / Theatre for the link.

 

STRYKER BRIGADE COMBAT TEAM HEADED “BACK TO THE WORLD”

Michael Yon has helped to familiarize America with Deuce Four, but the entire Stryker Brigade Combat Team – the 1^st Brigade, 25^th Infantry Division – has performed magnificently in and around Mosul and are headed home to Fort Lewis, Washington. Back in the day, I did a quick tour of duty in Germany during 1979-80 and one of the interesting things that (I’m sure) was a carryover from Vietnam and perhaps earlier, was the fixation by most soldiers with all of the things going on “back in the world.”

I’ve since made friends with more than a few folks not born and raised in the United States who thoroughly live among us but never quite understand this country. The War for Freedom, especially our activities in Afghanistan and Iraq, has really brought this home.

I’m certain this phrase, “back to the world,” is probably insulting to some non-Americans. It shouldn’t be. We mean no disrespect when we use that type of phrase; we’re just more honest and up-front than most folks when it comes to that kind of language. “The world,” to most folks, is that which they know and understand and see on a regular basis around their local village, town or region. Americans aren’t pissing on the rest of “the world” when we use that phrase. We’re just utilizing the human penchant for shorthand. It would never occur to most Americans to