Did my matzos come?

Three sweet posts from Tony Woodlief.
 

Joseph Packer urges supporters of the free market to appeal to the public's emotions:

Imagery is effective, especially when combined with skillful storytelling. If you can honestly tell me that you watched Roger and Me without being overcome with deep grief and anguish, then you must have a heart of stone. . . . Although Michael Moore offers statistical representations of the economic downturn of Flint, Michigan, it’s the images of individuals evicted from their homes that haunt me. It is only by removing myself from the movie and viewing it in the larger context of the positive effects of outsourcing that I can see the flaws in Moore’s logic. . . . Libertarians can cry “unfair” and write all the scathing reviews they want, but both history and the relevant scientific data indicate that it will do little good.

Instead they need to take up the tactics long deployed by the statists. Although we have a late start, we also have the enormous advantage of having a much stronger position to advocate. . . . Libertarians must learn a lesson that the marketplace has taught the business community over and over again: having the best product is not enough. . . .

[A] comprehensive case is not always as valuable in swaying public opinion as having effective case studies that take visual form.
 

(Via Craig Newmark.)

Macleans:

Every evening for the past four months, a tall young man with soulful blue eyes has been stealing hearts across the Middle East, from the refugee camps of the Gaza Strip to the gated mansions of Riyadh.

But it's not just the striking good looks of Mohannad, hero of the hugely popular Turkish TV soap "Noor," that appeal to female viewers. He's romantic, attentive to his wife, Noor, supportive of her independence and ambitions as a fashion designer — in short, a rare gem for women in conservative, male-dominated surroundings.

"Noor" delivers an idealized portrayal of modern married life as equal partnership — clashing with the norms of traditional Middle Eastern societies where elders often have the final word on whom a woman should marry and many are still confined to the role of wife and mother. . . .

In Saudi Arabia, the only country with ratings, about three to four million people watch daily, out of a population of nearly 28 million, according to MBC, the Saudi-owned satellite channel that airs the show dubbed into Arabic for Middle East audiences.

In the West Bank and Gaza, streets are deserted during show time and socializing is timed around it. In Riyadh, the Saudi capital, and in Hebron, the West Bank's most conservative city, maternity wards report a rise in babies named Noor and Mohannad. A West Bank poster vendor has ditched Yasser Arafat and Saddam Hussein for Noor and Mohannad.
 

Arab News:

The grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Asheikh, has condemned Turkish soap operas, which have charmed millions of people across the Arab world, and prohibited people from watching them, Al-Watan daily reported yesterday.

“It is not permitted to look at these serials or watch them. They contain so much evil; they destroy people’s ethics and are against our values,” said the mufti during the closing ceremony of a forum, which took place in Riyadh on Friday. He added that these “malicious” Turkish soap operas corrupt individuals and spread vice in society.

“Any TV station that airs them is against God and His Messenger (peace be upon him). These are serials of immorality. They are prepared by people who are specialists in crime and error, people who invite men and women to the devil.”

(Via David Frum.)

David Pryce-Jones condemns the celebrations accompanying the release of Samir Kuntar:

Rationalizations or excuses of course can be found to cover this glorification of murder. Arabs feel shame at their impotence and failure, for instance, so pretend that their defeats are victories. Or these Lebanese and Palestinian dignitaries know that they have to whip up hate in order to stay in power. Or that lack of education makes it possible to mobilize Muslims to believe they have a duty to kill those of other faiths.

All of that is specious. . . . [H]ere are important and supposedly responsible men who find it in themselves to embrace, encourage, and hold up as a model a man as vile as any, as though there was no such thing as conscience, and never has been. By every human standard, this is degradation, this is depravity.
 

Very cute video. (Via Amanda Witt, via Tony Woodlief.)
 

Michael Ledeen:

They’ve been trying to kill us since 1979, and yet we still think we are one little clever move away from the Grand Bargain. We’re not. They don’t want a bargain, they want to destroy us. And they will keep at it until they have either won or lost.
 

Its murder rate is now second-highest in the world (behind El Salvador).

(Via NCPA.)

David Warren:

I am disturbed that with the general decline of public standards in education, morals, and reasoning, we have come to the point when a candidate like Obama can elude any serious cross-examination, and actually get himself elected President.
 

That was Dave Barry's reaction to "Hooty Sapperticker," a song I've wanted for years to hear. Today, thanks to YouTube, I finally did. Golly. Hypercritical he wasn't.

I prefer it to "I and I," though.
 

John Rentoul in the (UK) Independent on Sunday:

There was a moment last month – it was when Susan Sarandon, the actress, said she might emigrate to Italy or Canada if McCain won – when it seemed essential to the sanity of America that Obama should lose.

But, no, it is more important that the daydream should be broken. The idea that there is some kind of clean, different, painless, perfect alternative to politics as usual is a distraction from taking difficult, compromised decisions in an imperfect world. If Obama lost, too many people around the world could continue to believe that if only America got out of whatever it is in, everything would be better. . . .

In office, he would be forced to use his eloquence and his global popularity to make the case for what is left of the coalition to see its responsibilities to the Iraqis through. Many of his supporters, especially outside the US, would see it as a betrayal. I think it would be a necessary one, by which he could at last heal the suspicion of American power that provides so many around the world with easy excuses.

Via Oliver Kamm, who adds,

Obama will receive much adulation on his European trip. It will not be merited, if you consider merely what he has achieved and said. But it will be welcome on two grounds. First, there is the obvious symbolism - which is important and entirely justified - of an articulate black American vying for the leadership of the free world. Secondly, there are few conflicts, crises or social problems in the world that would not benefit from more rather than less American intervention.

The United States performs a unique and essential role in the international order. In the absence of world government, the US provides what the scholar Michael Mandelbaum describes as international public goods. . . . It's well past time that we progressive welfarist Europeans acknowledged the point. The pace of candidate Obama's "betrayals" suggests we might have to sooner rather than later, I'm pleased to say.
 

Stephen F. Hayes is no reflexive opponent of the Bush administration, so when he criticizes recent shifts in policy toward Iran and North Korea, we should pay attention:

It has been a dispiriting few weeks. Several conservative political appointees have said that they are embarrassed to be working in the Bush administration. One called the new policies "preemptive capitulation." Another suggested that whatever credit the Bush administration deserved for keeping Americans safe in the seven years after 9/11 would be offset by the blame the administration will have earned for emboldening America's enemies with its reflexive weakness. And a former adviser to Condoleezza Rice said: "This is stunningly shameful."
 

Writer Lou Aguilar supplies ten reasons.

It isn't David Lee Roth's fault that this sounds ridiculous unaccompanied. In context it's a great vocal.

He does look ridiculous.

(Via Philippe Gohier.)
 

Note: I've revised this post a couple of times (so far).
___________

I've never understood why so many people revere Bob Dylan's lyrics. I thought I'd try analyzing one of his most-admired songs, "Visions of Johanna," in search of enlightenment. Then Germaine Greer weighed in on it:

It's not verse, not even doggerel. Nor is it prose, because it doesn't make sense. Its combination of pretentiousness and illiteracy isn't surprising, which would be something; it's just annoying.

Norm Geras, the most intelligent Dylan fan of my (Web-only) acquaintance, responded:

I think Germaine Greer has bitten off more than she can chew. She doesn't rate Bob Dylan as a lyricist. I don't have what I'd need to establish that she's wrong about that, though I'm pretty sure she is wrong. . . .

[Y]ou can't show that his lyrics are no good by citing one example of (what you take to be) some poor lines. That there's a ginger cat living next door doesn't show that the street is full of ginger cats. Third and decisively, there are just those songs in their gathered assembly. Stacked up against Greer's little number here, they don't give her much of a chance.

I decided to analyze all the songs Norm listed. What happened, though, is that I got through only the first four, and only partway through each of those, because I liked none of them well enough to finish. If you're interested, click "More" to read what I ended up with.

StrategyPage:

The war is basically over in Iraq, but the peace brings with it a return to the corruption and inefficiency that has cursed this part of the world for centuries. There are other annoying habits, like demanding "compensation" for any real or imagined loss that might possibly be pinned on U.S. troops. It's also popular to demand, with a straight face, that U.S. troops fix utilities, schools and whatever else people want, but are unwilling to take care of themselves. Peace has not brought out the best in the Iraqi people.

The war is still going on, but now it's more of a police operation. U.S. and Iraqi forces are searching for several hundred known terrorists. Some of them are showing up outside the country, giving rise to the belief that al Qaeda has abandoned Iraq. This is apparently the case, but there are several other Sunni Arab terrorist organizations that will never give up. For these groups, tolerating Shia Arab rule of Iraq is a sin, and the sinners must be punished. Terror attacks are way down, but they can be expected to continue for years.

The U.S. is negotiating, with the Iraqi government, a renewal of its authority to operate in Iraq. This authority expires at the end of the year. As part of the negotiations, the Iraqis are asking for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. This is popular with many Iraqis, especially those in the government who are getting rich by stealing oil money. As long as the American troops are in the country, auditors have armed protection and can be very effective at revealing the thefts and getting the thieves punished. This makes thieving government officials very uncomfortable. Corruption in general remains a major problem (as it is in all Middle Eastern countries). While many Iraqis would like to see clean government, they are usually not the ones who get elected (elections involve a lot of bribery and trading of favors.)

The Iraqi Sunni Arabs (less than 15 percent of the population) and the Kurds (about 20 percent), want U.S. troops to stay. If the Americans leave, the Shia majority will likely resume revenge (for decades of abuse) attacks on the Sunni Arabs. The Kurds have been autonomous for over a decade, under U.S. protection, and are developing new oil fields in the north. Shia politicians have said that this oil belongs to "the Iraqi people" (or the Shia politicians running the government.)

The Shia majority is not monolithic either, and several large factions could form, attract part of the security forces and create new militias, and have a civil war. That would, in typical Middle Eastern fashion, lead to another dictatorship, this time run by a Shia tyrant. The Shia can do a Saddam, they just want a chance.

Iraqi politicians also want U.S. forces gone in order to halt improvements in the security forces. Iraqi troops and police are now strong enough to deal with the Sunni Arabs, but still a long way from Western standards of efficiency and honesty. The politicians do not want the troops and officers to be too effective, lest the generals be tempted to take over "for the sake of the country" and try to run a more efficient government.
 

Ralph Peters wrote a fierce column last week:

THE greatest lie intellectuals tell us is that "the pen is mightier than the sword." That's what cowards claim when they want to preen as heroes. . . .

"Brave" columnists wrote countless columns bemoaning the suffering of the Kurds and the Shia under Saddam Hussein. Their earnest paragraphs didn't save a single life.

Only when better men acted did the surviving victims of one of the world's worst dictatorships glimpse freedom - an imperfect freedom but better than a mass grave.

Nothing positive is going to happen in Sudan or Zimbabwe (or Tibet) until rule-of-law states take action. . . .

Please, educate me: In over 5,000 years of more or less recorded history, how many tyrannies have been overthrown by noble sentiments? How many genocides have been averted by reasonable discussions? How many wars have been prevented by Quakers? . . .

Pacifists mean well. But they're a dictator's best friends. The man who won't fight for justice abets the terrorist, the tyrant and the concentration-camp guard. . . .

The use of the pen is an indulgence we can afford only because better men and women grip the sword on our behalf.

He's right, but what empowers intellectuals who would appease can be summed up in one word: women. Remember what novelist Barbara Kingsolver wrote little more than a month after 9/11:

I feel like I'm standing on a playground where the little boys are all screaming at each other, "He started it!" and throwing rocks that keep taking out another eye, another tooth. I keep looking around for somebody's mother to come on the scene saying, "Boys! Boys! Who started it cannot possibly be the issue here. People are getting hurt."

I am somebody's mother, so I will say that now: The issue is, people are getting hurt.

Almost all the women I know think like Kingsolver. They consider men's aggressiveness primitive, childish, atavistic. They're suckers for the canard that diplomacy can end any conflict, or avert it, if only practiced by intelligent, articulate, well-meaning people. I too wish the world worked that way. It doesn't.

Of course, as I've noted before, some women recognize the nature of our enemies, the need to fight, and the danger of negotiation as a substitute for battle. But they're far outnumbered among their sex. And their peace-at-any-price sisters endanger the West in a time of war.
 

David Hazony:

As though Israel did not have enough to worry about, it now faces a major water crisis. For years experts have been warning that the increase in population and decrease in rainfall will combine to push water levels way down, and now it’s been announced that by year’s end, and maybe even by the end of the summer, the Sea of Galilee, Israel’s main source of usable water, will for the first time dip down to the “black line,” below which water can no longer be pumped without causing irreversible ecological damage. The other main source of water for the country, the underground aquifers, are in even worse shape. The head of the water authority called it “the worst crisis since records started being kept 80 years ago.”

There's a long list of problems that our leaders are similarly failing to address effectively: Social Security, Medicare, terrorism, illegal immigration, infrastructure, energy. . . . Here's another that deserves serious attention:

A top scientist today warned the House Armed Services Committee America remains vulnerable to a "catastrophe" from a nuclear electromagnetic pulse attack that could be launched with plausible deniability by hostile rogue nations or terrorists.

William R. Graham, chairman of the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States from Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Attack and the former national science adviser to President Reagan, testified before the committee while presenting a sobering new report on "one of a small number of threats that can hold our society at risk of catastrophic consequences."

. . . The scariest and most threatening kind of EMP attack is initiated by the detonation of a nuclear weapon at high altitude in the range of 25 to 250 miles above the Earth's surface. The immediate effects of EMP are disruption of, and damage to, electronic systems and electrical infrastructure. Such a detonation over the middle of the continental U.S. "has the capability to produce significant damage to critical infrastructures that support the fabric of U.S. society and the ability of the United States and Western nations to project influence and military power," said Graham.

Read it all. This danger alone is reason enough for us to end the mullahs' reign in Iran.
 

Why don't the DNC and the RNC equip their respective election workers with cheap digital camcorders? We might prevent, or at worst resolve afterward, the kinds of controversies that followed the 2004 vote.
 

StrategyPage:

Although al Qaeda has officially abandoned Iraq, not everyone got the memo, or bothered to pay attention to it. Over the last two months, Iraqi and American forces have gone after the remaining 1,200 al Qaeda members, who have fled to the northern city of Mosul. Over half of the al Qaeda members have been killed or captured.

The problem is that a lot of the money, and foreign volunteers, coming into Iraq was for the purpose of "defeating the Iranians". Many Sunni Arabs in the Persian Gulf region see Iran as their most dangerous foe, and believe letting the Shia majority in Iraq run the government [is] nothing but a front for actual Iranian control of Iraq. The result is that nearly all the remaining terrorists are Iraqi Sunni Arabs, and are determined to fight to the death (theirs, and as many others as they can take with them). They have the will, and they have the money (and plenty of venal Iraqis willing to supply them with what they want, for a fee.) Most of their fellow Sunni Arabs have turned on the terrorists, so a lot of the terrorist activity is against Sunni Arab leaders. The Sunni Arab leadership knew this would happen when nearly all of them openly agreed to renounce terrorism last year. . . .

The criminal gangs, who are a huge factor in the economy, and public safety (some neighborhoods are very safe simply because a powerful [gang] is headquartered there), are, separately from the Sunni Arab terrorism, trying to intimidate the security forces and judiciary from cracking down on all the stealing, kidnapping, smuggling, extortion, and so on (booze, prostitution, etc). Even during the Saddam period (and before, going back centuries), the criminal underground was powerful, and something everyone had to deal with. The exact terms of the deal in a democratic Iraq [are] still being worked out.
 

Victor Davis Hanson:

It is not hard to see why and how the middle classes, the poor, and the union members would like to see larger government programs and greater taxes on the wealthy, but why are so many in the upper-upper middle classes so vehemently pro-Obama?

. . . Many enjoying the good life worry that their own privilege in some sort of way comes at the expense of someone else, or they fret that their present lifestyle in ecological terms is hardly sustainable. That concern does not translate into much concrete action. . . . Obama offers a reassuring sense of self-image: one can still maintain all the current mechanisms one is accustomed to in ensuring privilege, but visible support for Obama offers a sense of atonement and alleviation of guilt at rather modest cost. . . .

Somehow an Obama sticker, sign on the lawn, or a lapel button has become the equivalent of a crucifix around the neck of a prosperous 16th-century burgher: easy fides of inner good and a valuable totem in reconciling the apparent irreconcilable.
 

A great story from Laura Lee Donoho:

Back when I was a teenager my parents didn’t allow me to date until I was sixteen, and then it was with a group. When I was seventeen I was allowed to go out on a date with a guy in a car. If a young man got me home one minute late, my father was at the door to meet us with his double barreled shotgun.

If I went on more than one date with a young man my dad put him through the trick glass quest. If he didn’t pass the sense of humor test he didn’t date me. And he went home with a wet shirt.

But quest number one? The young men I dated had to respect the gun.

My husband (back then just a cute guy who had completely caught my eye) got me home five minutes after my Dad’s curfew on our first date. I was a little nervous knowing my Dad’s proclivity to be at the door waiting with one of his guns.

A few times when I had gotten home on time Daddy was at the door with the gun and the young men turned pale and left as quickly as they could. I never heard from them again. It kind of hurt my pride but my Dad told me that they weren’t dating me for the right reasons if they couldn’t pass the gun test. If they were that sissy or afraid to face my father they just didn’t measure up. After a while (and I didn’t date that much really) I began to enjoy the idea and felt a sense of pride that my Dad was there waiting for me every time I went out.

But on the night that Bob got me home late I was nervous because I really liked him and I didn’t want Daddy to scare him off.

I needn’t have worried.

When we got home as we walked up to the house the front porch light went on. As we stepped on the porch the door opened and there was Daddy standing with his double barreled shotgun, looking serious. Bob took one look at him and grabbed the gun away from him and said, “Is that an LC Smith?” He took the gun apart, exclaiming over it and Daddy had found a kindred spirit. Before the night was over Daddy was showing Bob his barbwire collection. It got so late that I was sleepy and went to bed. Daddy and Bob were still talking.
 

"Dr. Barton Goldsmith, psychotherapist and author of Emotional Fitness for Couples," quoted here:

"Recession is good for relationships," he said. "People don't want to go out so they can cocoon, and sex can be fun for many couples.["]

(Via Kathryn Jean Lopez, I think, but I can't find the post here.)