The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Vardibidian:

Mostly, this just indicates to me that Russian intelligence had even more advance notice than I thought it did. Clearly, their tanks were ready; almost everything I've read about this indicates that the Russians knew the timing of the assault by the Georgian forces at least a day or two in advance, and this (along with some other logistical stuff) makes me think longer.

Now, this had been building for months, with raids by Russian-recruited and armed separatists getting pretty severe, I understand. And since Georgia had elected a president on the promise of regaining control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that president was unlikely to take it lying down. So it's quite correct to say that the events of 8 August weren't a reaction to the events of 7 August only, but it seems to me that the timing of those events was precipitated by Georgia.

If you think of it as a trap, which it seems to me is the best way, you can say that the spring going sproing is a reaction to the mouse stepping on the pad, or that it's a reaction to the person winding it. The winding happens first (if you're doing it right).

Thanks,
-V.

I received the ARC yesterday, and am presently in Chapter Six. I've started rambling about it in my Tohu Bohu already, though, and will continue over the next day or two (or maybe three, because you never know).

Thanks and many thanks,

-V.

Wasn't the context ("Praise is always welcome -- send me an email --
but I'll also take on your criticisms and disagreements if you're
inclined to try to get a response.") a promise to actually interact
with people? The snark (I thought) was about the marketing language
applied to a perfectly ordinary correspondence, albeit in email.

Thanks,

-V.

In 1992, when Bill Clinton came to the corner of 24th and Mission in San Francisco, there was no screening of any kind. I was in the front and shook his hand; I had a satchel over my shoulder that hadn't been checked by anybody. The woman next to me handed him an envelope (which he handed to his guard). I was aware of the lack of security, although I was also aware of the riflemen on the rooftops.

Also, that was Bill Clinton. Later, in 2001 or 2002, I was an employee at a location where he came to speak; the Secret Service had done their stuff and arranged a route. Some of the staff who weren't going to get in to the event had figured out that they could get a glimpse of him in the stairwell: the path that he was to follow brought him in and up, and the people gathered just down. The ex-president came in, saw the riffraff down a half-flight of stairs, and walked down instead of up, and made himself even later by shaking hands. The security guys let it happen; nobody had been searched.

I don't think the security theater is anything new, or anything uniquely disturbing, except to the extent that Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are unusually likely to make crazy people crazy.

Thanks,
-V.

Er, my #85 above is the beginning of Red Harvest. Or praps Blue-Green Harvest, if that's what comes out when you shoot those guys. We're at three of the five Dashiell Hammett novels, so far. I figure in The Dain Curse, it's just the same until it turns out that the killing mist is not an effect of drugs and lights, but an actual killing mist...

Thanks,
-V.

I first heard Alphaville called Awfulville by a red-headed starmucker called D’Kyy Hyu’eyeh in the Big Ship on Betelgeuse. He also called his v’hahl a l’hahv. I didn’t think anything of what he had done to the artificial asteroid’s name. Later, I heard other species, ones without mandibles, give it the same pronunciation. I still didn’t see anything in it but the sort of meaningless humor that used to make thalidomide the thieves’ word for dilithium. A few years later I went to Alphaville and learned better.

Tolerabimus quod tolerare debemus,
-Vardibidian.

Chad Orzel #57: The problem is that it's not just Republican politicians who are pushing that line, it's right-wing religious leaders. What's really missing is an active counter to that from moderate and liberal religious leaders.

Well, and I think the active counter is not Democrats don't really hate the Bible that much! or even Democrats really like the Bible, just like Republicans! but Republicans have been lying. I'd just as soon hear that from my Party as from other religious leaders, particularly those outside the party. If they are active in the party, as the Reverend Jesse Jackson was, then that's fine. I don't distinguish (in a case like this) between the elected officials of the Party and the unelected spokesmen and activists. But the focus of the response should not be on the Democrats, and what they actually believe, which is out there for everyone to see anyway, but on the Republicans, and their attempt to get away with these lies ... and all the other ones, too.

Thanks,
-V.

If we're talking about winning elections, then it's clear to me that the Republicans generally pick people who are uncomfortable talking about religion, such as Bob Dole and George H.W. Bush, and that's why they lose so many elections. The Democrats, on the other hand, generally are more comfortable talking about religion, and that's why our candidates, like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, were successful. That's pretty much why the Republicans are so bad at winning elections, in my view: their discomfort with religion.

What? I'm cherry-picking? I started from my conclusion? Sure! But I think it's just as plausible as the idea that Republicans have been successful because they are "comfortable talking about religion" and the Democrats are not. I mean, where's the evidence?

But we don't need evidence. Because the Democratic Party believes in separation of church and state, atheists, agnostics and seculars of all kinds are largely found in our Party, which must mean that our Party is a bunch of atheists, and that all cats are black. The fact that Republicans have been selling the line that Democrats hate the Bible for a generation must mean something more than that Republicans have been selling the line that Democrats hate the Bible. It must mean that Democrats really do hate the Bible. Right?

Thanks,
-V.

I think it's useful to distinguish three (at least) phases of the response. The first phase, where everybody snaps into action because there is something suspicious happening, was (I think) handled badly, not because the police overreacted, but because their reaction would not have been very helpful if there had been a dozen bombs in the city as was presumably suspected. If anything, they under-reacted. Mostly, though, they reacted badly.

The second phase was them figuring out that there was no threat, and then cleaning up. It seems to me that this took far too long, but then, I don't really know anything about bombs.

The third phase is where, afterward, they learn from what happened. No, wait, this is the bit where they refuse to learn from what happened, and instead start prosecuting people under an obviously inapplicable hoax-device law.

The Massachusetts hoax-device law, by the way, was pushed by a bomb-squad worker who had at one point dealt with a rash of bomb-threats called into schools, some of them with some moderately sophisticated hoax devices, with clocks attached and all that sort of thing. They found the people who had been doing it, and then the prosecutor told the bomb squad guy that there wasn't a law to deal with that sort of thing (which may well have been false, from my understanding, but, not a lawyer, not a MA resident anymore, etc, etc). So this guy convinced the legislature to pass a hoax device law, and now, when people do (as they do) make phony pipe bombs and call in bomb threats, there is a law! Hooray! Sadly, it's a very badly written law.

Around the same time as the Joe Previtera incident, Davis Square was cleared because of a Bomb Threat, which it turned out consisted of an empty cardboard box with some political slogans on it, left at the post office to be mailed to the Republican Campaign Headquarters (or perhaps the Bush/Cheney headquarters, I don't remember the details). The fellow was arrested, charged and brought to trial because the empty cardboard box was considered a hoax device.

Heck, at least the lite-brites had wires.

Thanks,
-V.

The President of the United States is a civilian. Most of our recent presidents were once in the military (Eisenhower, of course, but also Poppy Bush, Ford and Carter), and understood the important difference between military hierarchy and the civilian oversight. President Clinton, of course, was not in the military, and was (at least to some extent) aware of what that meant. President Reagan was ... sort of in the military. Our Only President was ... sort of in the military, but certainly appears to never have understood the difference between the military and the not-military, even when he was theoretically in uniform.

Thanks,
-V.

So, what I'm wondering about the whole split-fowl medical treatment is how they do the double-blind test. I mean, what constitutes a placebo in such a case?

Thanks,
-V.

(See, it's a set-up for a rubber-chicken joke. Don't say I never got you anything for solstice...)

You must be 45†or taller to ride this ride or with an adult.

(Text taken verbatim. Do not attempt to parse. May cause drowsiness. Not recommended for children. Keep cool. Don't put it in your mouth.)

Thanks,
-V.

I'm not sure I want my daughter to be a chick magnet. I may have to rethink the whole thing. Thanks for the recommendations, all. I'll look into the books, and see about maybe starting in this winter sometime.

Oh, and Ledasmom (#149), my mother cast on for me for years before I could do a reasonable job myself. I must remember to thank her the next time we chat.

Thanks,
-V.

Moderately off-topic: My daughter is five-and-a-half and has expressed interest in learning to knit. She's not terribly co-ordinated (runs in the family), but she is able to finger-knit braids with reasonable tension control. My question is whether I should just stall for another year or two (which I can do, easily, as it's just one of many things she would like to learn to do), or if five-and-a-half is a reasonable time for a child to learn to knit. If it's reasonable to start, I'll also need book recommendations, since she likes written instructions. When my mother taught me, it was by watching and showing, so I don't have an old favorite knitting for kids book.

Thanks,
-V.

Serge (#32): I wouldn't even knock Gummo.

Thanks,
-V.

Fragano Ledgister (#28): Well, my advice is to read Judith Shklar, who is wonderful, thoughtful and liberal. Mill tempered by Shklar seems like a good combination, not to knock Marx or Rouseau (or Rawls or Galbreath , but you have to stop reading sometime, if only to change stacks of unread books). As for the fear of the Other, well, I would say that nothing is going to drive the liberalism of fear more than having a lot of friends who are The Other (for varying definitions of Other) and realizing that the bastards in power are screwing the poor/black/queer/foreign/sick/athiest/Quaker saps again. Or, to quote Shklar from the actual essay "The Liberalism of Fear", "For this liberalism the basic units of political life are not discursive and reflecting persons, nor friends and enemies, nor patriotic soldier-citizens, nor energetic litigants, but the weak and the powerful."

Thanks,
-V.

Fragano Ledgister (#21): I don't think you are fair here to Judith Shklar's idea of the liberalism of fear. She says that (and I'm going to be unfair as well, by giving my synopsis) that the liberalism of fear is driven by a fear of tyranny, and that it therefore concentrates its resources on preventing, say, Abu Ghraib, or sexed-up intelligence reports, or warrantless wiretapping, rather than on creating oh, public schools. Except that she says that the liberalism of fear will drive people to create good public schools, out of fear that an uneducated populace will allow demagogues to erode liberty. Her liberalism of fear is long-sighted, far-reaching, and liberal.

Richard Cohen has plenty of fear, but it's fear of The Other, which isn't liberal at all.

All that said, whether that line should be Mr. Cohen's epitaph, it should certainly be his resignation letter.

Thanks,
-V.

On Sen. Lieberman--If there are fifty Democrats plus Lieberman in the Senate, it's just possible that Our Only President, faced with a Democratic Senate and House, would finally jettison Secretary Rumsfeld and offer the position to Lieberman. If he takes it, Governor Rell would be able to appoint a Republican, maybe Chris Shays, or possibly herself, to the Senate, giving the Rs fifty plus the VP, and thus the majority. I'm not saying this is all likely, but it's possible.

Actually, I think Joe Lieberman expects to be welcomed back into the party with open arms and committee chairs, having saved us all from the horrible extremists. The fact that 70% of Republicans voted for him and only 30% of Democrats did won't mean (to him) that he's a natural Republican, just that his appeal crosses party lines. Unless the Democrats tell him to piss off, which they cannot afford to do, he will stay in the Senate and caucus with the Democrats. And I suspect in six years he will run again, as a Democrat.

Thanks,
-V.

Nicholas Whyte: I hadn't read that text, so thank you for linking to it. I do think that the quotes from Nostra Aetate conspicuously make the point that the Church esteems Islam only insofar as it adheres to Church teachings, that is, insofar as they reverence Jesus, Mary and the Creator. It does not esteem anything "new" that Mohammed taught, and does not, as far as I can tell, conflict with "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Unless, and I haven't the context for this, the document is praising Islam for identifying itself strongly with Abraham, which the Church historically has not done. I'm neither a Christian nor a Moslem, myself, but as a Jew, I think it would be fairly easy for me to name things that Christianity came up with that were new (or at least new to Judaism), and neither vile nor inhuman. I imagine ten minutes' study would give me the same with Islam. Doesn't mean I agree with them, you understand, but there's a difference between "not my cup of tea" and "vile and inhuman".

As for the other point, the idea that "he hopes they [those who profess Islam] will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words" is not regret that he used the quote at all, in fact the statement clearly defends his use of the quote. It isn't even regret that his use of the quote was unclear. Such a statement would read something like this: The Holy Father regrets that, due to his failure to make his meaning clear, he gave the impression that the opinion he quoted was his own. Or, I suppose: The Holy Father regrets having repeated the opinion stated by Manuel II Paleologus. The argument could have been made without the offensive quote, and ought to have been made without the offensive quote. Either way, really.

Thanks,
-V.

So, if the Bishop of Rome does not agree with the line he quoted, it should be fairly simple for him to mention two or three things—or one—that he thinks Mohammed brought that are neither directly out of the Christian Scriptures nor are vile and inhuman. Right? Having done so, he puts paid to the idea that he agrees with the quote. If he can't, or won't do that, then I can see why people think he really does agree with the quote, however much he accurately claims that the words were not his.

Of course, if he wanted to, he could have at the time described the quote as something more than "forceful" or "brusque" (I'm using the Vatican's provisional translation, as my German is not good enough to pick up connotations—in English, neither forceful nor brusque imply disagreement with the content). He didn't want to, and didn't. Nor did he, in expressing regret for the hoo-hah, express regret that he did not in the speech make it clear that he disagreed with the quote.

Frankly, I don't see how this can be reasonably interpreted as anything other than deliberate offense. I would guess that, as David Luckett (#23) suggests, he is satisfied with the outcome, which was pretty much what he expected.

Thanks,
-V.

Comment statistics for Vardibidian on the Making Light blog

Total: 31 comments. View all these comments on a single page.