« November 15, 2003 | Main
| November 17, 2003 »

November 16, 2003

Iraqi blog news
: Zeyad lists 12 blogs from Iraq now. It's growing. It will soon explode.

: A few of us are trying to figure out how to help pay these bloggers' expenses. Obviously, it's not as easy to clicking on a PayPal or Amazon button. Does anyone have any experience with getting payment to such a corner of the world? Any suggestions on how to set up tip jars that will work for these pioneers? Their access can be quite expensive.

: Note that the proto Iraqi blogger, Salam is planning to demonstrate against Bush in London. Snort that irony: He's demonstrating against the guy who freed him from the guy who would have killed him if he demonstrated. That, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes democracy great.

LINK | Comments (10)

Pro-American
: There has been much discussion, many attacks, and many links and comments around the post below on my defense of Americans in the face of attacks.
And so I want to bring this up to the top of the heap, I want to be loud and I want to be clear, and so I will repeat what I say below:

Pardon me, but I'm going to take a very dangerous and contrarian and by some views shrill, right-wing, illiberal stance and I'll take your barbs and the Guardian's with pride:
I'm pro-American.
Let me say that again, because I am one and because I was attacked and damned near killed because I am one (and yes, that matters):
I am pro-American.

What a shocking statement, eh?
Well, I'll admit that I wouldn't have said that so readily 30 years ago. But when people attack my countrymen so readily, as if it is the accepted wisdom of the age, I have no choice but to defend myself, my countrymen, my country's ideals, and the only heritage I know.
I've had it with America-bashing and American-bashing.
So let me say it one more time just for the grandstanding shock value of it:
I'm pro-American.

: Let me add this: I don't make my point about September 11th lightly or for the sake of rhetorical oneupsmanship. I make the point because it needs to be made:
Anti-anybody is dangerous.
Anti-Semitism led to the Holocaust.
Muslims attacked us but we are not allowed to be anti-Muslim -- nor should we be. That would be a ridiculous, offensive, unproductive, dangerous generalization. Right?
Yet anti-American is suddenly OK. And to go after those who are anti-American is suddenly "right-wing" or "illiberal" or "shrill" or "extremist."
I've had my fill of that attitude. It is dangerous -- tangibly dangerous.
Let's be very clear: Just as anti-Semitism led directly to the Holocaust, anti-Americanism led directly to September 11th.
Demonizing the people of this country made it acceptable to some and a goal for some to see fanatics murder thousands of us, just as demonizing Jews made it acceptable for fanatics to murder millions of them.
I'm not making a politically correct argument. You can criticize any policy or action of this country or of Israel and you're not by any means anti-American or anti-Semitic.
But once you generalize -- as the two American writers in question did do -- and start calling all Americans stupid and ignorant -- Moore's charges -- and amoral -- the Newsweek guy's assertion -- you only play into the blind and finally murderous hatred of armed anti-Americans like the ones who came within a few hundred yards of killing me on September 11th.
This is a very serious point. It's not a troll for traffic. It's not a politically correct screed. It's not a pathetic pitch for sympathy. (I'll beat you to all your own punches.)
It is a warning:
Keep attacking America and Americans -- not just American policy -- and beware of the hands into which you play.
That is why I will defend us as a people against attacks such as the ones cited in this discussion. That is why I will, more positively, repeat:
I am pro-American.

: And beware what you are doing to the state of democracy and human rights in the world. Earlier today, Glenn Reynolds quoted David Aaronovitch's piece in the Observer (and yes, I do admire its sibling the Guardian greatly for printing both sides of an argument more than any other publication I know -- it is the closest thing to the blogosphere that exists anywhere in print). I will quote other parts about what happens when you attack Americans:

There is, I think, a widely shared fantasy which you might call the No-America Dream. In this happy place we have somehow done away with the economic and military superpower. We watch sophisticated French films or Ealing studio reruns, our thin citizens dine out on organic Brie, there is no Israel to over-excite the populations of the Middle East, and everyone signs up to stop climate change. If only the Yanks would go home. If only we could stop Bush.
The degree to which America is held uniquely responsible for the sins of the world is remarkable....
The slogan 'Yanks Go Home' has always had more potency than, say, 'Romanian murderer go home'. And the danger has always been the same - that the protesters might get the thing they asked for. The fact is that many in the States harbour the same dream; but for them it is the dream of isolation. In an election year, when the sitting President is involved in a costly foreign exercise, the cries of the opposition tend not to be for more involvement but for far less. And for higher steel tariffs....
[The 1990s] They started as the decade of failed intervention, and progressed as the decade of non-intervention. The retreat after Somalia in 1993 showed us that the dream of no-America was a nightmare: Bosnia, Rwanda, the failure of Oslo, Milosevic rampant, bin Laden gathering strength....
I don't want the Americans to go home. In fact I am terrified of what would happen if they did. Their going home in the past has often meant suffering for others....

Beware what you wish for and against when you attack Americans. Beware those who may join you in attacking us. Beware what happens to the rest of the world when we say, fine, we will retreat into our well-appointed shell. This isn't about sport and fun. This is about responsibility. If you attack me and my neighbors, you must take the full responsibility for it. And I will call you on that.
I am pro-American.

: UPDATE: Harry and I may be sparring over words but it's clear that we agree on substance. Here is his reaction to Aaronovitch's essay in anticipation of George Bush's visit to Britain:

The real enemy is this fascism, not George Bush. In fact, hard as it may be for some to stomach, Bush has been at the forefront of the fight against the fascism of our age.
Those who march against Bush next week should think what message their protests send to those in the frontline of the fight against modern fascism around the world. But they won't.
Let's stop kidding ourselves, these protestors who oppose Starbucks but not death squads, don't care about fascism anymore and they don't care about international solidarity.
And they have the cheek to accuse the pro-war left of abandoning our principles.

LINK | Comments (40)

Don't read the author, watch the show
: A new service called Pubbuzz (pub meaning publication, not pub) gives us videos of authors. I tried to watch Michael Moore, but he crashed the player. Good player.

LINK | Comments (1)

Online schooze association
: Lost Remote carries a complaint from a TV exec that the Online News Association is newspaper-dominated. I complained there that the blogging panel should have had bloggers outside of the business, not inside. And what's more appalling: None of the nominees for the awards banquet (which I skipped) was a blogger. Blinders on.

LINK | Comments (0)

He blogs with the fishes
: Jason Calacanis says the Nick Denton, Om Malik, and I are a gang.

LINK | Comments (2)

The Sorrow and the Pity
: Josh Marshall tells us that The Sorrow and the Pity, the landmark film about the Nazi occupation of France that has been impossible find, is finally out on DVD.

LINK | Comments (2)

The World Trade Center memorial
: I was so happy to see the report in the New York Times that the World Trade Center memorial jury wants all 5,200 entries displayed after they announce the eight finalists this week.
In some way, I think that display will be the most fitting and most touching memorial, for it will show the care, compassion, and love of those thousands devoting to remembering the thousands who died.
As I've said before, once the announcement is made, I will put up the text of my proposal here.

: I returned home last night to find an envelope with the return address "World Trade Center" and I recoiled as if this were some sort of sick snail spam.
Of couse, it wasn't; it was a letter from the World Trade Center Health Registry -- of which I'm a big supporter -- giving me some information about the program. (If you were there that day and haven't registered, do it here.)
I was surprised at my reaction. I had thought -- no, assumed -- that whatever is built at that site should, of course, be called the World Trade Center. But I realize that those words are so weighted down with emotion, sorrow, fear, and symbolism -- I look at my own response to seeing those words in a dignified font on an envelope -- that I now wonder what the name of that place should be. Opening that can of worms gives me another sense of dread -- the last thing I want to see is some jingoistic name. ("American Freedom Center") But I do wonder now about a change.

: UPDATE: Greg Allen points out that an exhibit of all the memorial entries would easily fit in Javits Convention Center.
So when will it be held?

LINK | Comments (0)

Defending the homeland
: The intermittently reasonable Harry Hatchet takes me, among others, to task for what he paints as right-wing grandstanding.
My sin? I defended my countrymen against grandstanding attacks from two turncoat Americans -- not surprisingly Michael Moore and surprisingly a Newsweek bureau chief who should at least be trying to act less biased -- who went to European media -- the Guardian and Die Zeit -- to attack their fellow Americans as everything from stupid to amoral.
What, I'm supposed to sit here and take it? I'm supposed to say, you're right, we're all a bunch of idiots and losers and we'd be so much better off if we'd never declared independence so we'd have Prince Chuck giving us an example of character and intelligence?
No, Harry, you're the one grandstanding. You lump anyone who disagrees with you or dares to defend himself against attacks with which you obviously agree under the "right-wing" umbrella. Well, Harry, the only reason I'm ever called right-wing is because I supported the same war you did. If I'm one, you are two, mate. I would say that what you're doing shows little consideration of the complexities of the relationship between Europe and America, an unwillingness to seriously engage in the arguments of critics or doubters. It's all grandstanding, point-scoring, playing to the gallery stuff. It is, on the whole, totally tedious.
Oh, right, that's precisely what you said about me.
Well, I'm sure we'll see the best of consideration of complexities of the European-American relationship from your side of the pond when our President shows up. I'm sure we won't see a moment of grandstanding from you and your media. Sure.

UPDATES: Well, I have arrived. I've been attacked by the Guardian. It's online. But it's a start.
Neil McIntosh says:

A morning of surfing through the rapidly expanding political weblog scene takes me to Harry's Place, where there's been some good stuff on the diminishing quality of debate on some US political weblogs. It's a thought that had been forming since reading Jeff Jarvis denounce American dissenters as "cultural traitors" a few days back, and Harry's does a nice job of articulating what's happened, and bringing together some supporting linkage....
That shrill, extremist voices are more likely to bring in the punters than moderate, reasoned ones is not a new notion for "old" media. But that, and the hard-nosed drive for pageviews which has always been "a-list" blogging's biggest dirty secret, will still likely disappoint the more idealistic bloggers who hoped their brave new world would nurture a different kind of debate.

Well, I would call both Moore and, these days, the Guardian "shrill and extremist." I'm just an middle-aged American liberal who got tired of seeing Americans attacked. I will remind you: A bunch of shrill, extremist people tried to kill me two years ago just because I am an American. Now I read Americans attacking Americans as a people and I defend my fellow citizens. Shrill? Fine, whatever you like. Extremist? Well, I suppose these days daring to defend America is extremist. So be it. Make up whatever shrill and extremist labels you like, Neil. Takes one to know one.
I didn't say what I said for traffic, boys. I said what I said because I believe it. Before I became an executive, I used to write for millions. Now I write for thousands. I don't do it for the traffic.

: And now we see Harry trying to backtrack -- skinback, as we call it in the trade -- in the comments:

I didn't call you "right-wing" and while I share the general feeling about Michael Moore I thought it was intolerent to describe the Newsweek writer as a "cultural traitor".
If a British conservative came to the USA and said he was embarassed to be British because of Tony Blair, the BBC's coverage of the war and the level of anti-Americanism in the country would that make him a "cultural traitor"?

Well, Harry, I thought it was intolerant of the Newsweek bloke to call all his fellow countrymen amoral. Read his piece again. Then defend it. Unfisk it: Take it line by line and tell me how he's right and I'm wrong. Yes, you bet, I'm intolerant of his intolerance. No apologies for that, my friend.
And as for your question: If a Brit of any stripe came to America and said he was -- your words -- "embarrassed to be British because of Tony Blair," I would say he was an idiot and a horse's rump. If he wants to come and say he disagrees with Blair and Blair's policy's and actions, dandy. If he wants to discard the value of his own people and heritage and tradition and nationality as a result, well, that's patently stupid and spiteful and, yes, it makes him a turncoat -- my word: traitor -- to his own people, his own culture, his own land. That is the "love-it-or-leave-it" level of thinking I rejected in my youth -- just the other side of the coin. That's precisely the point.

: UPDATE ON THE UPDATE: Harry comes back in the comments and calls me "illiberal" because I attacked Moore and the Newsweek guy.
Glad Harry is the keeper of the cloak of liberalism.
Let me ask you this, Harry: If a liberal -- by your definition -- came to America and said that because Blair supports Bush and because Britons elected him, Britons are then clearly ammoral and stupid and dangerous and ignorant, would you (a) agree with that fellow liberal or (b) defend the honor of your countrymen? That's what this is about, pure and simple.
Pardon me, but I'm going to take a very dangerous and contrarian and by some views shrill, right-wing, illiberal stance and I'll take your barbs and the Guardian's with pride:
I'm pro-American.
Let me say that again, because I am one and because I was attacked and damned near killed because I am one (and yes, that matters):
I am pro-American.

LINK | Comments (22)