Cred and Circuses

If I had a hammer, I'd probably hit my thumb

Lileks has had a go at Salaam Pax. And Daniel Drezner has had a go at Lileks in response. Overall it isn't exactly the most import arguement that needs to be made, but I couldn't help but add my $.02 worth.

Here is what I posted in Daniels comments section:

What makes me laugh about Pax and agree with Lileks is also an important question that hasn't been asked outright. Why the hell is Pax not working to help straighten out his own country? Does he have a job helping coalition forces hunt down Ba'athists? No, but he probably isn't too qualified to do that. Does he work for a construction company building new schools and hospitals to benefit his countrymen? No. Has he made an effort to join the new Iraqi police forces to help bring law and order to the streets? Not that I have seen. Is he working to help stabalize the economy, start new business ventures, or provide a good industrial base for the future of Iraq? Probably not. If Iraq is going to move forward and become a full part of the world economy there are things that Iraqis are going to have to do for themselves. America and her allies can help rebuild the infrastructure, but we can't be responisble for every single aspect of their society. Don't get me wrong, I am well aware that there are many many Iraqis doing exactly that. They are helping build a future for Iraq. They are the giving their all (and some their lives) to make Iraq a country that they can call their own again. They give their blood, sweat, and tears for a brighter future. And in the end I think Pax is disrespecting their efforts by whining about how America and Bush isn't doing enough.

Hey Pax!! Use your pen to write about the future you want for Iraq instead of complaining about the present you are doing nothing to fix.

Now I don't expect Pax to be constantly gushing about America and Bush. I think more than anyone else, Iraqi's know that America getting involved in Iraq was not completely altruistic. In fact Bush has come out and said so many times. Iraq is a large part of a plan to democratize the Middle East. And a prosperous and democratic Middle East makes for a safer and happier America.
But what I do expect from Pax is to be a cheerleader for his own country's future, and I have seen precious little of that. Then again he has a nice job at the Guardian and attacking Bush and America is the time tested modus operandi of that institution. So Pax pays his bills and maintains a certain celebrity working for anti-American news-people while his countrymen get to do the real work alongside Americans.

Take away the EU's credit card

The Telegraph is reporting that for the 9th year in a row, the European Court of Auditors is refusing to certify the EU's accounts.

The European Union is failing to keep track of huge annual subsidies, and 91 per cent of its budget is riddled with errors or cannot be verified, a financial watchdog said yesterday.

and

Budget controls in Brussels itself are criticised. The report says the European Commission has still not switched to the sort of modern accounting system used by the British Government and World Bank, making it impossible to know if transactions have been "fully and correctly recorded".

They are probably still looking for a place to plug in the abacus.
So an government that wishes to run an entire continent has less control and oversite of it's own budgets and expenditures than the oft ridiculed Enron or Arthur Anderson. When do the heads start to roll in the EU leadership that allows this to continue? Or to be more accurate, are complicit in this mismanagement. How come the many European watchdog groups aren't getting more press coverage? The EU is such a large and ambitious undertaking that you'd think that everyone would be paying more attention to it. Is everyone over there just distracted by the constant attacks on American "internationalism" (read "unilateralism" for those lefties who think that Australia, the UK, Italy, and many others don't count as part of a multilateral coalition since France and Germany don't approve).
But don't worry. All those people who complain about how Bush supposedly started a war to give money to his "military arms industry" friends will surely have another target of irrational spite.

EU foreign ministers agreed yesterday to create an arms procurement agency in Brussels to boost European industry and co-ordinate efforts to plug the gaps in European defence. It will be headed by Javier Solana, the EU's foreign policy chief.

Does anyone know if Halliburton opened up some new French subsidiary (L'Alliburton perhaps)? Then the forces of dumbness don't even have to change their protest signs, because it will be obvious that Bush forced the EU to buy from his "good buddies" in the defense industry. Because with the accounting practices of the current EU leadership and government, I can't see any chance that defense spending contracts will be above the board and completely fraud-free.

Do it all night, baby, across the floor...

So the Senate Republicans have decidied to hold a marathon 30 hour session to hi-light the refusal of the Democrats to allow confirming votes to go forward on minority candidates for the federal bench. They have rolled in cots and C-SPAN is laying on the heavy supplies of No-Doze and Mountain Dew. Senate Democrats, not wanting to miss out on their chance to FINALY participate in one of these "raves" the kids have been talking about, have printed up T-shirts and one unconfirmed source reported Ted Kennedy was seen with a water bottle of GHB and a Cat-In-The-Hat hat. That's about how seriously they are taking the session, and, unfortunately, with good reason.

The session amounts another half-measure by the Senate leadership that recalls the tepid days of Trent Lott. For thirty hours of "shifts" wherin members will most likely be giving speeches to an almost empty chamber, the Republicans will recite the same sound clips that have done them no good for the last 3 years in getting these judges any closer to the vote they deserve. "We'll work well into the night on Thursday night, and we will do what is best for this country and what is best for the Constitution to try to restore the tradition and precedent of the Senate to get up or down votes on judicial nominations for the sake of this country and for the sake of the independence of the judiciary," said Rick Santorum, perhapse thinking that he was agin providing a cameo for HBO's K Street.

What work, Rick?

How is this going to restore the precedent of an up or down vote? The press will not be covering the substance of your words, only the spectacle of an around the clock chance for a U.S. Senator to start snoring in his or her seat. History has shown that when the press gets the chance to focus on spectacle, Republicans come off looking at least a little silly or, at worst, inept. They are handing the Democrats a stick to thwack them with.

When you are being out manuvered by this particular group of Senate Democrats, in the midst of a presidential primary that has served to seriously weaken at least three strong senators (Kerry, Liberman, and Grahm), there is something very wrong with your planning. The Democrats have been delaying a vote on these justices through filibuster because they know that they can't afford to vote against them. These four justices represent proof that Republicans are not racists, as is constantly insinuated with winks and nods, and, more importantly, all members of minority groups are not required to think and vote the same. The fear over Justice Janice Brown, a California Supreme Court Judge, and Miguel Estrada have nothing to do with their qualifications. As the Democrats are so quick to point out, they have already confirmed ONE HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT judges, and I would love to see them defend the idea that these are the least qualified judges that they have reviewed. The fear is that President Bush will be able to appoint yet another non-liberal minority to the U.S. Supreme Court and further undermine the tired and untrue saw that the Republican Party is anti-minority.

The Democratic Party's very continued existance now depends upon keeping minorities in fear of Republicans. Without the overwhelming percentages that seem to automatically go to Democrats from these groups, they would not win a single national or executive election. Their problem is even more difficult, though, because as minorities become more successful and affluent, they are tending to vote Republican. So now they must not only keep them in fear, they also have to keep them struggling. They have to cement a painful co-dependancy with these minorities, because they have no benefit in seeing minorities, especially the black community, doing well FOR THEMSELVES. The result is policies that begin to appear designed to prolong the difficulties of minorities in America, rather than cure them. But they only get to obscure this truth as long as the Republicans allow them to do so.

In light of the Democrats recent willingness to sabotage American, not Republican, but American foreign policy for political gain, it has become apparent that attempts to undermine the President must just be taken as a foregone conclusion. The point that is being illustrated here is that they are perfectly willing to sacrafice strong potential role modles and social networks for minorities in order to accomplish their narrow partisian goals. "But you did it first, you did it to President Clinton," the Democrats will whine. Maybe that's true. But where does the vendetta cycle stop and genuine concern for state of country begin? They called these type of attacks shameful when they were directed at President Clinton, and they should be asked to stand by those convictions. Instead, the Senate Republicans are right now engaging in a thirty hour bark-a-thon that carries no consequences. Make them stick to their fillibuster. Restore the import of the title United States Senator. Roll out the freakin' cots, stock up on that NO-Doze (if anybody still uses that crap) and call for a vote.

Headline? Don't they have editors at the Wash Times?

Girl Scouts hunt beavers and fur flies

No reports on what the Boy Scouts are up to.

Master and Commander

Russell Crowe has been involved in some interesting movies in the past (The Insider, Gladiator, and my personal favorite: LA Confidential) but it has been a while since I have had any interest in his films. Proof of Life and A Beautiful Mind just didn't seem to appeal to me, though Jennifer Connelly certainly did.

His current movie hitting the theatres is Master and Commander, and I actually find myself intrigued by this film. In the film, the Royal Navy sets sail to track down and sink a French frigate that has been preying on British trading vessels. As seen from the trailer, all of this takes place against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars. Not having read much of Patrick O'Brian's novels (or any to be completely accurate), I will take at face value some peoples criticism of the movie for changing the object of the hunt from an American frigate in the book to a French frigate in the movie.

I have always found movies that contain bits of Naval history and sea battles interesting. And I am curious about how the movie will portray the Napoleonic Wars from a sailors viewpoint. Will the way it is portrayed be an apt analogy of today's struggle against the EU-ification of Europe (speficically Britain's uncertain future in the EU)? I don't know. I am sure someone else will explore the subject more at some point. I fear I can't delve into it too deeply without having at least seeing the movie first. Needless to say, I would like to come back to this at some later point.

Until then, I am just looking forward to cannons, sails, and the high seas.

If you'd like to buy the book this movie is based upon, you can find Master and Commander here.