“The measures you mention [by UK and Dutch authorities, to force Iceland's hand] were taken after your president refused to pay.”

That is simply incorrect: the president did not “refuse to pay”, he refused to ratify more onerous payment terms — and he did so last Monday Tuesday, whereas the measures mentioned took place over the previous months.

“In case you havent heard the UK is in hundreds of bilions of pounds in debt, we need the money as much as you do.”

Yes, the UK has problems as well. But the liability per person is on the order of £50 to the UK and £10,000 to Iceland; a nuisance to one and ruinous to the other. Such a difference in scale might normally be irrelevant, but when a nation’s economic survival is at stake, it is entirely relevant.

And still Iceland did agree to foot this gargantuan bill. That’s the deal the president ratified last September. What the Icelandic parliament had added to the deal were reasonable provisos to safeguard against complete economic ruin. Those safeguards were rejected by the UK and the Netherlands (even though Iceland’s ruin would clearly be against their interests as well), and the Icelandic government’s surrender to that hardline stance is what the president refused to ratify this week.

“The measures taken by Brown are not overstated, they are completely natural in response to getting back our loan.”

Here “getting back our loan” is inaccurate: Iceland never saw that money. The UK and Dutch authorities unilaterally paid it out directly to Icesave depositors, nationalizing their loss because Iceland’s depositors’ guarantee fund sadly was not good for it.

That fund operated in full compliance with the same (now seen to be flawed) framework and funding scheme as corresponding funds in the EU, and like them had no state guarantee. The UK and Dutch governments demanded, after the fact, that it be retrofitted with such a state guarantee. They made no mention of such requirements while their regulatory authorities (and Iceland’s) cheerily tolerated this accumulation of de facto uninsured deposits. If they had, the accumulation would certainly have been stopped and the fiasco averted, as Iceland would clearly never have taken on such a guarantee, let alone borrowed absurd amounts from other countries to fund it.

Thus the blame for this royal mess lies (in addition to the failed private bank) with regulatory authorities and frameworks on all sides. Iceland has already agreed to shoulder its part of the cost, a per-capita burden wildly disproportionate to its share of the blame (whose clarification in a neutral court was denied Iceland, presumably to avoid a blow to global confidence in deposit guarantee schemes. Should Iceland’s 160,000 taxpayers alone pay the price for that?). But the UK and Dutch governments demand the pound of flesh as well.

“If you want to blame someone, then for petes sake blame your own government”

Done. It fell in January a year ago. That doesn’t resolve the dispute though.

“This is natioanlistic pride…thats all”

Nope. In the current predicament Iceland is swallowing plenty of that. I think gvalg’s [a previous commenter's] use of the word “humiliated” was distracting: although humiliation does come with being flogged raw, it is the flogging that’s the problem.

While the UK and Dutch leadership may find it politically expedient to present all this as a matter of nationalistic pride and belligerence (a common enemy is useful, particularly when elections are near), Iceland is only trying to hold on to a minimal assurance of economic survival. Is that really so arrogant? I urge you to reconsider your position.

This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself — nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

— Roosevelt on the Great Depression, first inaugural address, March 4, 1933

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender…

— Churchill on World War II, speech in the House of Commons, June 4, 1940

If money isn’t loosened up, this sucker could go down.

— George W. Bush on the economy, according to NYT, Sep 25, 2008

(It’s Jeff Matthews’ juxtaposition, I just spiffed up the references.)

(And okay, FDR and Churchill were making speeches and Bush was not. Still.)

A random unrelated image

Respect for one’s opponent is a virtue most of us will acknowledge, but not all of us practice.

Clive Crook, in his column in the Financial Times, feels that the latter failing particularly afflicts Democrat-leaning commentators (or “liberals” as they are respectfully referred to in fair and balanced U.S. media).

Whatever the truth or falsity of that, I am using his article as a case study in rhetorical tactics. I have no credentials toward such a study; these are the casual observations of a layman.

So, here’s how to write an article designed to sway public opinion against an opponent. In the quotations, the bold-face emphasis is my doing (and the bald-faced original is Crook’s, of course).

—

First, project some appreciation of the opponent’s scant virtues, in order to boost the credibility of the attacks that are to follow:

Democrats speak up for the less prosperous; they have well-intentioned policies to help them; they are disturbed by inequality, and want to do something about it. Their concern is real and admirable.

Then levy a related blanket accusation against the opponent’s mindset that is sufficiently subjective to (a) stick easily without clear proof, and (b) lend itself poorly to clear disproof:

Their sympathy comes mixed with disdain, and even contempt.

Note an important feature of this accusation: it is closely tied with the initial praise, so as to neutralize it.

Next, develop that accusation further, taking care to appeal to the innate human frailties of resentment and defensiveness about suggested inferiority:

Democrats regard their policies as self-evidently in the interests of the US working and middle classes. Yet those wide segments of US society keep helping to elect Republican presidents. How is one to account for this? Are those people idiots? Frankly, yes – or so many liberals are driven to conclude. Either that or bigots, clinging to guns, God and white supremacy; or else pathetic dupes, ever at the disposal of Republican strategists. If they only had the brains to vote in their interests, Democrats think, the party would never be out of power. But again and again, the Republicans tell their lies, and those stupid damned voters buy it.

Feel free to lay it on thick here, whipping up the reader’s ire. It will not be directed at you.

Bring up the familiar “liberal media bias”, assuring the audience that said media also look down on them:

It is an attitude that a good part of the US media share. The country has conservative media (Fox News, talk radio) as well as liberal media (most of the rest). Curiously, whereas the conservative media know they are conservative, much of the liberal media believe themselves to be neutral.

Play the elitism theme some more, rub it in:

Their constant support for Democratic views has nothing to do with bias, in their minds, but reflects the fact that Democrats just happen to be right about everything. The result is the same: for much of the media, the fact that Republicans keep winning can only be due to the backwardness of much of the country.

Portray the opponent’s supporters with reckless exaggeration (go wild and cartoonlike here, nobody is going to demand any verisimilitude):

[Sarah Palin] represents a great slice of the country that the Democrats say they care about – yet her selection induced an apoplectic fit.

Allude to misogyny if at all possible. Ideally do so in an unverifiable and undisprovable way:

For days, the derision poured down from Democratic party talking heads and much of the media too. The idea that “this woman” might be vice-president or even president was literally incomprehensible.

Mine the most damning reactions among the opponent’s public supporters — even if you have to go to the edgy comedians, that works just fine — and depict them as being typical:

The popular liberal comedian Bill Maher, whose act is an endless sneer at the Republican party, noted that John McCain’s case for the presidency was that only he was capable of standing between the US and its enemies, but that should he die he had chosen “this stewardess” to take over.

Then deftly project this worst sneering you can find, onto the rest of his supporters, and by implication, your opponent himself. This is a combination of “they’re all the same” with a classic “let them deny it” manoeuvre:

I give Mr Maher credit for daring to say what many Democrats would only insinuate.

But here you have left yourself open to a very valid retort: Maher’s scorn was obviously no less targeted at the VP candidate’s complete and utter lack of experience in foreign affairs and defense, than at her refreshingly non-septuagenarian appearance. To parry that, preemptively deflect the point by half-conceding it — and immediately deliver an elitism riposte:

This joke was not – or not only – a complaint about lack of experience. It was also an expression of class disgust.

Do not get carried away with concessions, though — for example, certainly do not concede that the opposing side’s brisk reactions to Palin might have had to do with to-be-expected Democrat concerns such as the VP candidate supporting creationism in schools; being a hardliner on abortion; displaying an interest in banning books; and referring to the Iraq war as hopefully “a task that is from God”. Carefully portray all opposition as mere sexism and class snobbery.

There is still some risk that your target audience is not sufficiently aware of the disdain you claim they are constantly shown. So remind them again:

Voters in small towns and suburbs, forever mocked and condescended to by metropolitan liberals, are attuned to this disdain.

Sneak in a not-so-subtle suggestion as to what they should do about it, but do not let it sound as if you want to encourage them to do that — you are just casually making a general observation:

Every four years, many take their revenge.

—

But now, ease up a little. As in the beginning, enhance your credibility as a fair and balanced commentator by ending your article with a charm offensive. First, praise the opponent a bit. Do not make it phony. If possible, say something you might mean:

The irony in 2008 is that the Democratic candidate, despite Republican claims to the contrary, is not an elitist. Barack Obama is an intellectual, but he remembers his history. He can and does connect with ordinary people. His courteous reaction to the Palin nomination was telling.

Still, jab a little, but make sure to sound very nice about it:

Mr Obama made a bad mistake when he talked about clinging to God and guns, but I am inclined to make allowances…

To further deflect accusations of bias, imply that you genuinely wish the opposing side would overcome the weaknesses you have described:

If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide swathes of the US electorate, they might gain…

Still, lace that with another smidgeon of the air-of-superiority poison:

… the unshakeable grip on power they feel they deserve.

As a final coup de grâce, blithely slap your opponents with the commie AND the terrorist labels in one go. That’s simple. Just portray them as being against … wait for it …

They will have to develop some regard for the values that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican. Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or fail through one’s own efforts.

Yes, go ahead, use the “They Hate Our Freedom” line.

Now that is rhetoric.

—

Of course, throughout this process of decrying the disrespect of the opposing side, leave unspoken your implicit suggestion that your own side’s talking heads represent — by contrast — the very epitome of respectful discourse. They certainly haven’t been outed for equally contemptuous commentary, along with a generous helping of double standards. They are no liberals, after all.

—

Note: I took this article as an example because (a) I got the idea reading this article, and (b) I’m not too fond of the McCain-Palin ticket. (Could you tell?) I don’t doubt that a similar set of tactics pervades Democrat-leaning text — just like the article author presumably doesn’t doubt that disrespect and contempt are shown on his side as well. Excuse us both for exercising our bias just a tad.

Many people lose sleep over the idea that (great) wealth is increasingly unevenly distributed, that fewer people have amassed a larger share of the pie than ever before. This conviction seems to arise from observing the very richest and wrinkling one’s nose and scoffing and being indignant.

(Is anyone ever dignant?)

The New York Times today published a summary of the 30 richest Americans of all time, measuring their riches in today’s dollars using the relative share of GDP.

Two of them are alive today, Bill Gates (ranking fifth) and Warren Buffett. Sam Walton founder of WalMart died in 1992, all the others were dead by 1950.

The four richest were born in 1750, 1763, 1794, and 1839.

There’s more to it, of course, but in any case this hardly supports the notion that wealth is more unevenly distributed extreme wealth is accrued by fewer people now than it used to be.

Incidentally, these moguls have one notable thing in common: they all have a Y chromosome. It seems worth investigating the role of this genetic trait in the accumulation of wealth.

Tipex lead singer pushing the button

The eerie pipe-smoking accordionist

Okay, I’ve quit complaining about Eurovision songs being watered-out corny sugar clichés. First the Finns last year, and now — for those readers domiciled under a rock like me — the Israeli song this year (thank you, Eyþór).

Here are the lyrics, as far as I can tell, with an English translation of the Hebrew rap segment (cobbled together from here and there using this dictionary).

Yikes.

כפתור אדום	Push the Button
מילים, לחן והפקה מוסיקלית: קובי אוז	Lyrics and music: Kobi Oz

The world is full of terror
If someone makes an error
He’s gonna blow us up to biddy biddy kingdom come
There are some crazy rulers
they hide and try to fool us
With demonic, technologic willingness to harm

They’re gonna push the button
push the button
push the bu-
push the bu-
push the button

Il ya plein de souffrance
Dans les rues il y a trop de violence
Et on a beaucoup de chance d’être vivant même pas blessés.
Avancement tactique de régime fanatique
Situation tragique qui me met les larmes aux yeux

And I don’t want to die
I want to see the flowers bloom
Don’t want to go kaputt kaboom
And I don’t want to cry
I wanna have a lot of fun
Just sitting in the sun

But nevertheless …

He’s gonna push the button
push the button
push the bu-
push the bu-
push the button

מסרים מתפוצצים עלי טילים מתעופפים וגם נופלים עלי שוטרים וגנבים מתרוצצים עלי הם קופצים עלי מתקרצצים עלי אללי אללי תענה לי אלוהי הי	Messages are blowing up on me, Missiles are flying and falling on me, Cops and robbers running around on me, And they’re jumping on me, bothering me. My god, my god, answer me god?
הסיוט הזה ארוך מדי כשאני בקושי חי וכולם מכוונים אלי זה מוקדם לשיר אולי שנתתי לך חיי ווי ווי – המשטרה וויאוו וויאוו – צוות הצלה	This nightmare is too long, When I am barely alive and everybody is aiming at me it might be too soon to sing “I Gave My Life for Thee” Why, why – police patrol Wow, wow – paramedical
הנה זה בקדם שיר ללא סלאם אדום זה לא רק צבע זה יותר כמו דם שוב עוצר בלב את הנשימה שלא תפרח עכשיו הנשמה	Here it is in the Kdam (prelims), a song without Salam (peace in Arabic). Red is not just a color, it’s more like blood, Stopping my breath again, So my soul won’t pop out.
הנה מלחמה הנה הנשמה בום בום זה מה שקורה עכשיו בין רקטה למצ’טה בין צופה לכתב בין מחטף לנחטף בין גשום לשרב	Here is war, here is the soul [or: here is war, here is CPR] Boom boom this is what is happening now, Between rocket and machete, between viewer and reporter, Between underhanded opportunism and kidnapping,
הסלמה במדרגות עולה ותופסת קו כלום כלום זה מה שכולם עושים קיצונים מקצינים וקצינים מרצינים התמימים מתמתנים ממתינים לנתונים ועונים: שכולם חסרי אונים	Escalation rises up the stairs and takes a (front) line. Nothing is what everybody does. Extremists getting more extreme and officers acting serious, The naive turn to moderation and wait for information And answer that everyone is helpless.
עולם כולו דמונים שאנחנו סתם פיונים ושמפיונים עם ז’יטונים מחליטים מה שיהיה ניהול בעצלתיים, אוניה מלאה במים וכולם שותים לחיים וטובעים זה לצד זה	A world full of demons, and we are only pawns, And champions with poker chips decide what will be. Things are run slowly, a ship full of water, And everybody is drinking l’chaim, drowning next to each other.
אולי זה חד מדי צריך לשיר שירי דקלים שירי מדבר ללא דגלים אני עוד חי חי חי ואם ימשיך להיות מפחיד רק אז אני אגיד:	Maybe this is too blunt, maybe we should sing about palm trees, Sing about a desert without flags. I’m still alive alive alive, and if it continues to be frightening, Only then will I say:

I’m gonna push the button
push the button
push the bu-
push the bu-
push the button

Whatever happened to hupa hule hule hule?

Richard Dawkins is on tour promoting his new book, “The God Delusion,” in which he “asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.”

He is going to appear in … Lynchburg, Virginia!

This can’t be good.

Find cross-cultural romance today: scandirabia.com

It is not going to win the mullahs over (a featured profile says: “Don’t blow my embassy … Blow me.”) but it does have a whopping 15 people registered already, including six from primarily Muslim countries.

Join now!

Turmoil can cause bad taste.
But clearly bad taste can also cause turmoil.

“I can only imagine that this is what Hiroshima looked like 60 years ago.”

— Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, about the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina

Whooops. As disaster characterizations go, this one does not exactly lean on the tasteful side.

In Hiroshima, not counting later deaths (lots of them) from radiation sickness, about 78,150 people were killed.

… on purpose.

Louisiana and Mississippi are in pretty bad shape today, no denying that. Their misfortune is not denied or slighted by appreciating that at least they don’t have 78,150 corpses with no skin on, some of them staggering around crying for water before finally keeling over, and they don’t have the prospect of decades of radiation diseases and deformed babies to worry about. And Katrina wasn’t ordered by the president of any country.

To be fair, in terms of buildings and economic havoc, Hurricane Katrina may well have caused even more damage than the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I don’t know. But surely we all agree — even those who have the stomach to find the bombings justified — that this comparison was best left unraised. Probably Gov. Barbour agrees too; he probably let this out in an unsettled emotional state and is now bleeding profusely from biting his tongue afterwards. I sure hope so.

Political opponents are probably having a field day with his remark, as well as with that of Biloxi Mayor A.J. Holloway, comparing the disaster to the December tsunami in Asia (death toll: 237,000).

In a state of emotional turmoil, we are all prone to blurting out unfortunate, ill-thought-out remarks. I’ve done plenty of that, and will probably do plenty more in the future. Is that tendency a useful measure of a person? It is certainly a lazy one. My first reaction was “what a jackass,” and then I realized that I knew nothing else the man has ever said or done. He may well be a jackass, but at present my basis for concluding that is flimsy.

I hereby publicly challenge myself to be (a) less prone to letting my turmoil affect my taste, and (b) less quick to judge others for the same.

You stand challenged too: the next time you are seriously stirred up, conduct yourself in a manner you can be proud of afterwards. And the next time an opportunity for hasty judgment presents itself — hold your horses.

… og fjandinn hirði rest

Kjörorð UMFÍ er „Íslandi allt.“ Skógar hafa verið ræktaðir og íþróttaafrek unnin með þessari brýningu. Ég vissi það ekki fyrr en ég fór að leita á netinu að dæmum um notkun orðasambandsins, eftir að ég hafði séð það í lokin á nafnlausum textamolum á spjallsíðum á netinu.

Téður frasi fer nefnilega í taugarnar á mér.

Gott og vel, þetta er sennilega voða fögur tjáning á ættjarðarást … en líklega fer þá bara ættjarðarást í taugarnar á mér líka. Af því að ættjarðarástinni fylgir það yfirleitt að elska skuli aðrar jarðir síður (og þá er stutt í að líta aðrar þjóðir hornauga), og „Íslandi allt“ felur í sér að önnur lönd eigi helst að hljóta ekkert meira en dreggjarnar.

Auðvitað er þetta vitleysa í mér. „Íslandi allt “ er vitanlega hugsað sem hvatningarorð til að gera sitt besta, sisvona af greiðvikni við föðurlandið, „þú skalt vinna Íslandi allt,“ þ.e. allt þitt. Það er ekki átt við að öll heimsins gæði eigi Ísland skilið fremur en aðrir. Og ég leitaði í gegnum allar vísanir sem vefréttin Google gaf mér á notkun þessa orðasambands, og hvergi sá ég það notað í þessum ljóta anda sem ég túlkaði það í. Hí á mig.

Ég er kannski bara svona viðkvæmur fyrir allri „us-and-them“ hugsun. Ég er ofsalega lítið gefinn fyrir þann tendens mannfólks að draga sig í flokka, „þessa ætla ég að láta mér annt um,“ og í skásta falli skítt með hina. Þetta kjörorð UMFÍ, sem og ættjarðarástarhjal margra, minnir mig því miður á þann hugsunarhátt. Það er kannski bara eitthvað sem ég þarf að láta rjátlast af mér.

I came across an interesting quotation this morning:

The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.

— Harry S. Truman, in a speech from the White House, Aug 9, 1945.

Hiroshima, of course, was not a military base, and rather a lot of civilians were killed.

It seems completely pointless to attempt to lie to the nation and the world that Hiroshima was a military base. When politicians lie, they generally lie about something that’s not so easy to disprove. This was an untruth that was hardly going to stay hidden for long. So I find it hard to believe that Truman was lying.

Yet it is even harder to believe that he didn’t know, when he ordered the use of the bomb, what it was that they were going to drop it on. He couldn’t have really believed that Hiroshima was a military base and that this choice of target “avoided, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” Especially since the Nagasaki bomb had been dropped, too, by the time he gave this speech. And he couldn’t have ordered these bombings in an off-hand manner, as in “oh, drop’em wherever you want.” Not for the first use of the atomic bomb. No way.

So what the heck was that remark in his speech all about? Was it a lie, or a sign of monumental incompetence? Or something else?

I don’t know. But reportedly he kept on calling Hiroshima and Nagasaki military bases — and for the rest of his life he maintained that he had no regrets and would not hesitate to order the use of the A-bomb again.

I tend to see some sense in Leo Szilard’s victors-write-the-history-books comment:

Let me say only this much to the moral issue involved: Suppose Germany had developed two bombs before we had any bombs. And suppose Germany had dropped one bomb, say, on Rochester and the other on Buffalo, and then having run out of bombs she would have lost the war. Can anyone doubt that we would then have defined the dropping of atomic bombs on cities as a war crime, and that we would have sentenced the Germans who were guilty of this crime to death at Nuremberg and hanged them?

Kannski er það misskilningur minn, en mér finnst eins og hann sé að gefa til kynna að það sé rétt af Bandaríkjastjórn að banna slíkan innflutning, því að ef þeir afnema þessi innflutningshöft gerist þetta:

„Kanadabúar tapa vegna hærra lyfjaverðs, lyfjafyrirtækið tapar því það getur ekki stundað verðmismunun (sem leiðir til að þeir eru lengur að borga upp þróunarkostnað og þar með lengur þar til þeir lækka verð).“

Er ekki alveg jafngilt að orða þetta öfugt? Að vegna innflutningshaftanna gerist þetta:

„Kanadabúar græða [á kostnað Bandaríkjamanna ☺] vegna lægra lyfjaverðs, lyfjafyrirtækið græðir því það getur stundað verðmismunun (sem leiðir til að þeir eru fljótari að borga upp þróunarkostnað og þar með geta þeir fljótar lækkað verð).“

Ekki það að mér þyki slæmt að Kanadabúar og lyfjafyrirtækið græði — punkturinn minn er bara sá að það virðist vera mörkuðum Bandaríkjanna og Kanada náttúrulegt að renna saman, fyrst það þykir þurfa að grípa til stjórnvaldsaðgerða til að halda þeim aðskildum og gera þannig lyfjafyrirtækinu kleift að stunda verðmismunun. Án tillits til þess hvort verðmismunun er kölluð „góð“ eða „slæm“ (orðið „mismunun“ hefur nú aldrei verið vænlegt til vinsælda!) hefði ég haldið að það væri ekki sérstaklega í anda frjálsmarkaðshyggjunnar (sem ég hélt að Hjalti væri að hluta til að stúdera þarna úti :þ) að fagna svona inngripum stjórnvalda í hegðun markaða.

Þá kann einhver að segja „já en lyfjafyrirtækið er bandarískt, svo að ef maður lítur á Bandaríkin sem eitt risastórt fyrirtæki, þá var stjórn þess þarna að taka ákvörðun til að hámarka hagnað þess, og þannig á það að vera.“ Hm. Mætti ekki með sömu rökum halda uppi vörnum fyrir verndartolla á landbúnaðarafurðir og grunnvörur, t.d. stáltollana bandarísku? Þeir vernda innlendu framleiðendurna (sem losna við óþægilega samkeppni), á kostnað innlendu neytendanna (sem þurfa að borga hærra verð). Þeir sem skilgreina sig sem frjálshyggjumenn, hvort heldur sem er á hófsamari kantinum eða hinum, eru yfirleitt ekkert sérstaklega á þeim buxunum að hvetja til verndartolla eða innflutningsbanns. Það er þá líklega ekki „rétt“ (í huga frjálshyggjumanna) að líta á ríki sem fyrirtæki og stjórnvöld sem fyrirtækjastjórnir. Eða hvað?

Ég held að ég hljóti að hafa verið að misskilja í hvaða anda Hjalti fjallaði um þessi innflutningshöft.

Eða þá að misskilningurinn sé ofinn inn í þessar hraðprjónuðu útleggingar mínar um hagfræði — fag sem ég veit skrattann ekki neitt um. Það skyldi þó aldrei vera! Hjalti, feel free to put me in my place.

The vice-presidential debate last night seems to be generally regarded as a draw; each held his own pretty well, and it’s not expected to affect the polls much one way or the other.

But of course it’s the mistakes that are most interesting. Edwards made a couple of amusing gaffes, but I think Cheney must have won the whoops award with this one (pointed out by Lessig Blog, thanks):

“Well, the reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they’re trying to throw up a smoke screen. They know the charges are false. They know if you go, for example, to factcheck.com, an independent website sponsored by the University of Pennsylvania, you can get the specific details, with respect to Halliburton.”

(transcript)

First, the independent website is called factcheck.org (and seems to be overloaded at the moment!). That mistake would be no biggie, if it were the only one.

Second, in response to the debate and Cheney’s remark, they put up an article that Cheney probably did not want to point anyone to (e.g. “Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co.” … though Edwards gets slapped a bit as well).

Third, and funniest, factcheck.com redirects to George Soros’ website … which Cheney definitely did not want to point anyone to! Their current front-page headline: “A personal message from George Soros; President Bush is endangering our safety, hurting our vital interests, and undermining American values.”

Whoops-ee.

Like a lot of people, John Perry Barlow does not like Bush much. Calling him “convinced” would be putting it mildly.

But unlike a lot of the partisan election “blogaganda” around, he is pretty frank — and pretty amusing — about his opinions of Kerry in his blog entry Supporting Kerry Anyway… and if you read only the first half, it would be unclear which candidate is being supported. (The second half clears that up definitively.)

For some choice quotes, the pelvic region analogy:

Worse, Kerry’s transparently theatrical efforts to out-macho the Republicans make him seem, as a friend recently put it, all dick and no balls.

and the movie blurb analogy:

For the last month or so, the election seemed reminiscent to me of ads for the film “Alien vs. Predator, ” the tag line of which goes, “Whoever wins, we lose.” (Further, it has seemed right to me that one of these characters is an alien and the other a predator.)

That’s what bugs me too: “we lose.” I wanted (but did not really expect) to see a candidate about whom I could say “Oh yeah, this is the one,” regardless of who the opponent is. Hell, I want that in our own national politics as well (never mind the somewhat-smaller geopolitical impact of the Icelandic leadership). Where are those people? Where is somebody to be excited about voting for? Dripping with integrity, sound judgment, far-sightedness, deep knowledge and understanding of economics and history and current world affairs, respect for personal liberties, and enough charisma to get into office? And preferably mostly unencumbered by any particular type of belief in the paranormal, if that’s not too much to ask? Dammit, find me one o’those!

In the meantime, the question is: which candidate comes closer to that ideal? Barlow’s conclusion is unequivocal, and so is mine.

(Of course, Barlow gets to make one 106-millionth of the decision. I get 570 times that weight in deciding who runs Iceland. I am clearly far superior to Barlow in political influence. Yay me.)

Mukhtaran Bibi (photo: NYT)

World leaders occasionally sing the praises of “regime change” (generally in the months between deciding to do it, and doing it).

Strange; the history of such efforts doesn’t seem too encouraging: the Vietnam War, Pinochet in Chile, and a government said to be so nasty that Iranians were relieved to see it replaced by the ayatollahs (well, briefly relieved at least).

Granted, there may be (and probably are) instances of good, successful “regime changes” that I just haven’t heard about because news generally don’t cover stuff that works out ok. But there’s another change that strikes me as more challenging, more slowgoing, and thus ultimately more praiseworthy (and less newsworthy, which is why governments don’t attempt it much): how about culture change?

And, despite my respect for different cultures and a multifarious international scene and relativism and yada yada; despite all that, here’s what triggered this blog entry: an example of a culture that needs changing. (Note: nytimes.com requires you to sign up to read their stuff, but it’s free and they don’t send you junk mail for it; at least not so far).

My finger, whoever might pay any attention to it, is absolutely not pointing at Islam here. That would be like looking at Jimmy Swaggart and saying we need to abolish Christianity and TV.

No, I’m pointing the finger squarely at that dynamic duo: religious fervor (whether Islamic or Christian or otherwise) and ineducation, the muck in which brutal “cultures” thrive. Religious fervor suspends individual morality, enabling people to do just anything with the blind conviction that some higher authority sanctions or demands it. Ineducation enables them to have no idea what the rest of the world will think of it. And ineducation and religious fervor feed each other.

Change that, if you can.

[Update] A US university professor offers his balanced view on the matter. Now that’s the kind of common-sense, stand-up, good-Christian, “we will burn your mosques” approach we need in educating the young folks of the world for a brighter, more harmonious tomorrow. Yee-haa.