Friday, December 5, 2008
gone in 57 seconds
Apparently the aforementioned Paris jewelry robbers were quick on their feet. If this story is accurate, it means they were making approximately $2 million per second. Nice work, if you can get it.
nerves of steal
Robbers snatch $108 million from a diamond store in Paris.
Hopefully a screenplay, preferably starring Jason Statham, is already in the works.
Hopefully a screenplay, preferably starring Jason Statham, is already in the works.
Chris Matthews for Senate?
There's talk that he's going to run in Pennsylvania. I feel that there are just so many examples of Matthews being awkward or saying something stupid on his television show, however, that he will be easy fodder for negative campaigning.
On the other hand, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity.
On the other hand, maybe there's no such thing as bad publicity.
did Coldplay jack Viva la Vida from Joe Satriani?
Satriani sure thinks so, because he's taking Coldplay to court over it. And, yeah, they do sound pretty similar. It's kind of eerie, actually.
In the end, though, I'm kind of skeptical that it matters. The melody is pretty simple, as is the chord progression, and it's hard to copyright something like that. The Beatles didn't sue Beck because "Loser" stole the outro melody from "Hey Jude." Civilization is theft. It's either an excellent and unlikely homage or just a cool coincidence that Girl Talk should exploit someday. The only purpose of this suit is to increase the profile of both artists in the media, although even that is somewhat questionable because there's basically no crossover between Satriani's and Coldplay's fan bases. Few Coldplay fans are going to hear the Satriani track and say, "Hey, that sounds pretty good," and go snag If I Could Fly off iTunes. Likewise, no Satriani fans are going to hear Viva la Vida (if, indeed, they've somehow missed it to date) and say, "Hey, these Coldplay lads have some talent." Mostly, they're just going to think Coldplay are a bunch of tools while Satriani is even further deified on the pantheon of Guitar Gods. Maybe that's the point.
In the end, though, I'm kind of skeptical that it matters. The melody is pretty simple, as is the chord progression, and it's hard to copyright something like that. The Beatles didn't sue Beck because "Loser" stole the outro melody from "Hey Jude." Civilization is theft. It's either an excellent and unlikely homage or just a cool coincidence that Girl Talk should exploit someday. The only purpose of this suit is to increase the profile of both artists in the media, although even that is somewhat questionable because there's basically no crossover between Satriani's and Coldplay's fan bases. Few Coldplay fans are going to hear the Satriani track and say, "Hey, that sounds pretty good," and go snag If I Could Fly off iTunes. Likewise, no Satriani fans are going to hear Viva la Vida (if, indeed, they've somehow missed it to date) and say, "Hey, these Coldplay lads have some talent." Mostly, they're just going to think Coldplay are a bunch of tools while Satriani is even further deified on the pantheon of Guitar Gods. Maybe that's the point.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
not India's 9/11
A good piece on why the Mumbai attacks shouldn't be likened to 9/11. The short version is:
1. It's not apt because this is by no means the first terrorist attack in India, or even the first one this year. This is a country that has a long experience with this sort of thing. The attacking of foreign nationals and the organizational planning of the attack are the only things that make it unique.
More importantly,
2. Likening it to 9/11 pushes the Indian government to respond with overwhelming force, presumably at Pakistan, which is exactly the wrong thing to do, and incredibly dangerous.
I was uncomfortable with the 9/11 analogy almost as soon as I heard it the day the attack happened. This article helps explain why.
1. It's not apt because this is by no means the first terrorist attack in India, or even the first one this year. This is a country that has a long experience with this sort of thing. The attacking of foreign nationals and the organizational planning of the attack are the only things that make it unique.
More importantly,
2. Likening it to 9/11 pushes the Indian government to respond with overwhelming force, presumably at Pakistan, which is exactly the wrong thing to do, and incredibly dangerous.
I was uncomfortable with the 9/11 analogy almost as soon as I heard it the day the attack happened. This article helps explain why.
Week 14 NFL picks
Oh, did I want to pick the Lions this week. I think they have a chance, not least because no team goes 0-16 and this might be their last chance to win one. But their rush defense is too awful, so I have to feel that Daunte Culpepper won't be able to sting his old mates, not with Adrian Peterson running wild on the other side of the ball. I could see a couple of 50+ yard TD runs. But I have very little confidence in this pick. Don't say I didn't warn you...
Without further ado, my picks for week 14:
CHARGERS over raiders
BEARS over jaguars
vikings over LIONS
PACKERS over texans
TITANS over browns
COLTS over bengals
falcons over SAINTS
GIANTS over eagles
BRONCOS over chiefs
dolphins over BILLS
jets over 49ERS
patriots over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over rams
STEELERS over cowboys
RAVENS over redskins
PANTHERS over buccaneers
Last week: 11-5
Season: 127-65 66.1%
Without further ado, my picks for week 14:
CHARGERS over raiders
BEARS over jaguars
vikings over LIONS
PACKERS over texans
TITANS over browns
COLTS over bengals
falcons over SAINTS
GIANTS over eagles
BRONCOS over chiefs
dolphins over BILLS
jets over 49ERS
patriots over SEAHAWKS
CARDINALS over rams
STEELERS over cowboys
RAVENS over redskins
PANTHERS over buccaneers
Last week: 11-5
Season: 127-65 66.1%
Robert Kagan goes completely fucking bananas
I hope you had a happy Thanksgiving. I did, even after my plane was delayed in Chicago. And it remained happy until I read this amazingly delusional piece by Robert Kagan that was somehow published in the Washington Post.
Basically he argues that because the Zardari civilian government in Pakistan is too weak to stop terrorists from attacking India, a nebulous international force should invade Pakistan and secure its more lawless regions.
When I say this is quite literally the worst idea I've heard uttered in a major newspaper in my entire lifetime, know that there were many, many qualified candidates for the honor. But nothing holds a candle to this. The flaws in it are almost beyond description but I'll do my best.
1. Kagan proposes to invade a nuclear power. Let us not forget what we're talking about here. And not just a nuclear power, but the world's sixth most populous country, with no functional institutions besides the army, huge lawless regions, multiple active separatist/autonomy-seeking regions, a rash of ethnic and tribal allegiences, and extremists galore. If you loved Iraq and Afghanistan and thought invading Burma after Cyclone Nargis was a good idea, you'll love Pakistan, because it will be as bad as all three combined.
2. Kagan suggests that using a UN-authorized international force to basically conquer and pacify several lawless provinces of Pakistan -- a force most likely commanded by Americans and Europeans (for reasons I explain below) will make the Pakistani security forces more willing to receive it than an Indian invasion. It's almost as if Kagan has never read anything about Pakistan... specifically, how Pakistan's leadership has constantly been afraid of its neighbors and interested players (India, US, Afghanistan) ganging up against it and carving it up. Witness the furor over the infamous "neocon map" a couple weeks ago. And of course its outraged response to US drone attacks in the FATA. The odds Pakistan would accept an international force to traipse about its territory hunting for bad guys (many with ties to key people in the military)? Zero. This is quite literally the worst proposal one could take if one wanted to fight terrorism in Pakistan, akin to suggesting that throwing a several buckets of kerosene over a fire will snuff it out.
3. Kagan compounds the idiocy by proposing to use this as a test of China and Russia's loyalty in fighting terrorism. He does this by demanding they support Security Council action to authorize the multinational force. This shows a staggering ignorance about the UN. Not only would China and Russia not support such a measure, but neither would virtually anyone else (including many of our closest allies, who balked on Iraq and are wary of even keeping their forces in Afghanistan). Also, just because someone doesn't support your Council resolution doesn't mean they're your enemy. It could just be that they think it's an incredibly stupid idea and a dangerous precedent... like, I dunno, Iraq, for example. (Meanwhile, the one thing no one ever accused either China or Russia of is being "soft on terrorism." The Bush Administration's more hawkish elements can only dream of being able to take the kind of measures Russia has taken against its own self-labeled terrorists in Chechnya, or that China has taken against the Uighur separatists.)
There are many other flaws with using the UN, here. Like, the bulk of UN peacekeepers come from the Indian subcontinent, so who exactly would man this force? Indians? Bangladeshis? It could be African troops, but almost without exception they will be more ill-equipped than the people they're fighting against. So basically, this would be a UN-authorized force led by NATO members, like the first Gulf War. Why is this a terrible idea?
4. Because it fails to understand the nature of the problem. Since the primary motivation of the Mumbai terrorists was (we believe) a sovereignty dispute issue (in this case, Kashmir), what do we think will happen if we violate the sovereignty of Pakistan itself with an international force? Less terrorism? Or much, much, much more?
So basically, Kagan proposes an international force that has no chance of being authorized by the Security Council or being accepted by Pakistan, has no feasible way of being deployed, will actively make the problem worse rather than improving it, and then has the stones to suggest that we delegitimize the UN, China and Russia if the latter two block his stupid idea.
Or, we could try to solve the issue of Kashmir, over which way too many people have already been killed. The possibility of diplomatic progress towards a satisfactory outcome on this issue would be way, way, WAY more likely to draw a positive response from Pakistan in hunting down the militants responsible for the Mumbai attack. In the longer term, it will also drain support for terrorist groups who try to justify their existence with the Kashmir issue, and make it easier to hunt them down without any popular sentiment behind them. The issue here is not that sovereignty is being used as a crutch by Pakistan, but that sovereignty is in dispute in Kashmir. Solve this, and, magically, violence will decline. Quoth Lao Tsu: "Give evil nothing to oppose, and it will disappear by itself." He didn't mean do nothing when he said that.
Or we could pour tens of thousands of troops into a tenuous, fractious, nuclear-armed Pakistan and expect this to improve things.
Unless this piece was a stunt, a la "A Modest Proposal" for Pakistan, it shows only that Kagan has no understanding of international affairs or, more damningly, human nature. If this is responsibility to protect, let it die, quickly please. Good grief.
Basically he argues that because the Zardari civilian government in Pakistan is too weak to stop terrorists from attacking India, a nebulous international force should invade Pakistan and secure its more lawless regions.
When I say this is quite literally the worst idea I've heard uttered in a major newspaper in my entire lifetime, know that there were many, many qualified candidates for the honor. But nothing holds a candle to this. The flaws in it are almost beyond description but I'll do my best.
1. Kagan proposes to invade a nuclear power. Let us not forget what we're talking about here. And not just a nuclear power, but the world's sixth most populous country, with no functional institutions besides the army, huge lawless regions, multiple active separatist/autonomy-seeking regions, a rash of ethnic and tribal allegiences, and extremists galore. If you loved Iraq and Afghanistan and thought invading Burma after Cyclone Nargis was a good idea, you'll love Pakistan, because it will be as bad as all three combined.
2. Kagan suggests that using a UN-authorized international force to basically conquer and pacify several lawless provinces of Pakistan -- a force most likely commanded by Americans and Europeans (for reasons I explain below) will make the Pakistani security forces more willing to receive it than an Indian invasion. It's almost as if Kagan has never read anything about Pakistan... specifically, how Pakistan's leadership has constantly been afraid of its neighbors and interested players (India, US, Afghanistan) ganging up against it and carving it up. Witness the furor over the infamous "neocon map" a couple weeks ago. And of course its outraged response to US drone attacks in the FATA. The odds Pakistan would accept an international force to traipse about its territory hunting for bad guys (many with ties to key people in the military)? Zero. This is quite literally the worst proposal one could take if one wanted to fight terrorism in Pakistan, akin to suggesting that throwing a several buckets of kerosene over a fire will snuff it out.
3. Kagan compounds the idiocy by proposing to use this as a test of China and Russia's loyalty in fighting terrorism. He does this by demanding they support Security Council action to authorize the multinational force. This shows a staggering ignorance about the UN. Not only would China and Russia not support such a measure, but neither would virtually anyone else (including many of our closest allies, who balked on Iraq and are wary of even keeping their forces in Afghanistan). Also, just because someone doesn't support your Council resolution doesn't mean they're your enemy. It could just be that they think it's an incredibly stupid idea and a dangerous precedent... like, I dunno, Iraq, for example. (Meanwhile, the one thing no one ever accused either China or Russia of is being "soft on terrorism." The Bush Administration's more hawkish elements can only dream of being able to take the kind of measures Russia has taken against its own self-labeled terrorists in Chechnya, or that China has taken against the Uighur separatists.)
There are many other flaws with using the UN, here. Like, the bulk of UN peacekeepers come from the Indian subcontinent, so who exactly would man this force? Indians? Bangladeshis? It could be African troops, but almost without exception they will be more ill-equipped than the people they're fighting against. So basically, this would be a UN-authorized force led by NATO members, like the first Gulf War. Why is this a terrible idea?
4. Because it fails to understand the nature of the problem. Since the primary motivation of the Mumbai terrorists was (we believe) a sovereignty dispute issue (in this case, Kashmir), what do we think will happen if we violate the sovereignty of Pakistan itself with an international force? Less terrorism? Or much, much, much more?
So basically, Kagan proposes an international force that has no chance of being authorized by the Security Council or being accepted by Pakistan, has no feasible way of being deployed, will actively make the problem worse rather than improving it, and then has the stones to suggest that we delegitimize the UN, China and Russia if the latter two block his stupid idea.
Or, we could try to solve the issue of Kashmir, over which way too many people have already been killed. The possibility of diplomatic progress towards a satisfactory outcome on this issue would be way, way, WAY more likely to draw a positive response from Pakistan in hunting down the militants responsible for the Mumbai attack. In the longer term, it will also drain support for terrorist groups who try to justify their existence with the Kashmir issue, and make it easier to hunt them down without any popular sentiment behind them. The issue here is not that sovereignty is being used as a crutch by Pakistan, but that sovereignty is in dispute in Kashmir. Solve this, and, magically, violence will decline. Quoth Lao Tsu: "Give evil nothing to oppose, and it will disappear by itself." He didn't mean do nothing when he said that.
Or we could pour tens of thousands of troops into a tenuous, fractious, nuclear-armed Pakistan and expect this to improve things.
Unless this piece was a stunt, a la "A Modest Proposal" for Pakistan, it shows only that Kagan has no understanding of international affairs or, more damningly, human nature. If this is responsibility to protect, let it die, quickly please. Good grief.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)