Review - Anti-Americanism
I picked up Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel expecting a book I'd agree with. A book about how Europeans project their own fears across the Atlantic, about their inability to deal with the US in a rational way. A book about ignorance, arrogance, and hypocrisy.
I was right. That is the basic message of this book, and I fully agree. Anyone who's been reading my blog knows as much.
What I didn't expect was how much my own views would offend me when I heard them repeated in Revel's voice. Revel overstates his case so hard, so sloppily, and with such anger towards a vaguely defined enemy camp that, while agreeing in essence with most of what he says, I was more annoyed by this book than anything else. At times it even repulsed me. We may have reached many of the same conclusions, but Revel is no ally of mine.
The whole book balances on the edge between sanity and cold anger. Revel does a good job, for instance, explaining why George W. Bush did not, as some would have it, singlehandedly kill the Kyoto protocol. Then he continues:
Whatever reproaches American environmental policy may (or may not) deserve, it's clear that the crux of the debate is situated elsewhere. The environmentalists' agenda is to set up the United States, which is to say capitalism, as the supreme culprit, indeed the sole cuprit, behind worldwide pollution and the supposed warming of the atmosphere. For our Western environmentalists are hardly objective scientists: They are leftists. They are interested in the environment only insofar as they can exploit it as an issue to attack liberal societies.
This tone is typical of the book. Do I need to point out that environmentalists actually care about the environment? That they, too, have scientists in their ranks? It's not enough to disagree with the environmentalists, and call their beliefs irrational, we have to deny them even the right to good intentions? Has it come to that?
Revel gives anti-globalization protesters the same treatment:
The youthful antiglobalists are actually superannuated ideologues, revenants from a past of ruin and bloodshed. In Genoa we saw the reappearance of red flags adorned with hammer and sickle (which even the Italian ex-Communists had gotten rid of), effigies of Che Guevara and the acronym for the Red Brigades. America is the object of their loathing because, for a half-century or more, she has been the most prosperous and creative capitalist society on earth. Ultimately it is liberal democracy - or quite simply liberty itself - that they are eager to destroy, even though they are among its foremost beneficiaries. If their diktats were carried out, if frontier barriers were reestablished, with passports and visas even for tourists, there could have been no Seattle, and no Göteborg.
It's a striking image: the anti-globalization movement as a Communist revival at war with liberty itself. Hypocritical and perverse to the core, it is the destruction of prosperity and creativity they seek, not social justice and fair trade. But again: Only a minority of anti-globalists are Communists, and although most are to the left, many are not against capitalism in the whole, but aspects of it: Multinational corporations more powerful than states, imposing, in their view, unfair conditions on Third World countries and workers. Currency speculation on a level that can ruin entire economies. This is the intended target of anti-globalists. They're not "eager to destroy" liberal democracy, liberty, creativity or prosperity. Even if this would be the consequence of their most extreme beliefs, it is not fair to say that they seek it, or are motivated by it. Some, certainly - Revel often exaggerates, but he never invents - but not enough to justify his condemnations.
Nor is it fair to mock the protestors for having globalized their struggle against globalization. Revel makes a big point out of this: The protestors are against globalization .. but only for other people. Hypocrites! But "globalization" in this context has a specific meaning. Not "anything which is done on a global level", but simply global capitalism in the form it has today. I believe, like Revel, that global capitalism is a force for good. But to say that to be against certain aspects of the global economy is synonymous with wanting restrictions on travel, or that it is meaningless to make such views known globally, is very strange. It's a seductive but meaningless line of reasoning - like saying that an Arab can't be an anti-semite because Arabs are semites. A play on words.
If you think I'm selectively quoting the worst parts of the book, I am, but they're only worse by a bit, and the excesses are many. Revel finds it difficult to make even his most rational arguments in a rational way. A sane section on the responsibility of African despots for African poverty ends with this insanity:
Such disquisitions, alas, have been to no effect, since the Third World's false friends have no intention of seeing that the world's poor have enough to eat, their enthusiasm being focused rather on blaming capitalism for the impoverishment that is socialism's off-spring.
Again the total condemnation, the refusal to grant political enemies even a shred of dignity. We could defend this (and I suppose many will) by arguing that these false friends really exist. People who claim to care about third world poverty, who even march on the streets in sympathy with it, but secretly don't care. There must be some of them, somewhere. Perhaps it is of them Revel is thinking, and not anti-globalists and leftists in general, which would be absurd. I wouldn't know - I have no idea who Revel is thinking of most of the time. He rarely bothers to specify who his targets are. There are names, plenty of names, (inbetween even more plentiful "they"'s and "them"'s), but no attempts are made to place them in a larger left-wing context, to distinguish between different kinds of leftists. Revel jumps from qoute to quote with no attempts to persuade us that the people he quotes are representative of anything in particular. They're there not as individuals, but as stand-ins for a vagueish left-wing corruption.
Does this matter? Aren't all leftists, anti-globalists and anti-Americans the same? It may seem that way from far off, just like America may seem like a homogenous mass to Europeans. From the other side of an ocean, cultural and political variation is difficult to spot, and it's easy to see things that aren't there. Revel knows this from personal experience: It took a visit to the US for him to abandon his own anti-American myths. I see a parallel between Europe's lack of interest in the nuances of American society and Revel's own lack of interest in the nuances of anti-American beliefs. I can only recommend that he repeats his journey, this time into the ideological land of the left. Not to replace his worldview, but simply in order to draw a more accurate map. That is, after all, what you'd expect from a book called "anti-Americanism". You expect it to draw an accurate map of the anti-American landscape. Revel not only fails at this, he doesn't even try. His general stamp of disapproval is all he wishes to share with us.
Revel does calm down a bit towards the end of the book. His rage wears off, leaving him more insightful, and more sympathetic. He is readable when he tackles specific myths about American society with counterexamples from Europe, and France in particular: Poor education, ethnic conflict, crime, at levels as bad as or worse than in the US. And his chapter on cultural protectionism is flawless. It's a well written defense of open cultural borders, and I agree with every word of it.
But as a whole this book is a failure. It fails in providing a map of anti-Americanism, and it fails as an attack on it. Most readers will fall into two groups: Those who already agree with Revel and everyone else. Those who agree with him will gain nothing, and they will risk finishing this book with their minds less open than before. Those who do not already agree with Revel, are likely to be so offended by his sloppiness and frightened by his anger that they won't appreciate the genuinely good ideas hidden beneath.
Jean-Francois Revel may be a brave, original thinker by French standards, but I believe we can aim a little higher than that.
Tobias Schwarz, Germany | 2004-12-09 22:41 | Link
interesting, yesterday I wrote something on fistfulofeuros.net about another, apparently more academic, book about European Anti-Americanism by an American professor of German and European affairs (so far published only in German, but there's a Harvard working paper explaining his main points (link in my afoe post). Seems like there's a growing market of people in Europe as well as in the US who are trying to put this into context... excesses notwithstanding, that is a good thing.
dick, nyc, usa | 2004-12-10 05:08 | Link
Interesting you mention the bit about the Communist symbols. As an American I see a lot of this at almost every protest of anything here. A protest against the war? - out come the Communist booksellers and apologist and the Che Guevara tee shirts. A protest against global economy? - ditto. When the protestors ally themselves with the Communists and their apologists, how do you divine whether the other protestors agree or disagree. This is particularly a problem with organizations like ANSWER which were created by ex-members of the Communist party and which still ally themselves closely with their former comrades in arms. I think your complaint on this one, while intellectually probably you are correct, is not valid given the alliances in question. It sort of brings up the "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-10 05:43 | Link
dick: It sort of brings up the "if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck."
Some are ducks. But if there are ducks and geese, it's inaccurate (and unfair) to say that there are only ducks.
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-12-10 14:19 | Link
Some are ducks. But if there are ducks and geese, it's inaccurate (and unfair) to say that there are only ducks.
It seems to me like you're being too nuanced. IMO, You aren't balancing "attention to details" versus "essentials". I'm imagining a conversation between us:
Gunnar: Good morning Bjørn!
There's such a thing as too much precision. You're overly concerned about offending the people caught up in a movement that may be naively ignorant of the organizations true purpose.
Do I need to point out that environmentalists actually care about the environment? That they, too, have scientists in their ranks? It's not enough to disagree with the environmentalists, and call their beliefs irrational, we have to deny them even the right to good intentions?
Of course, the average person who recycles and mildly supports the environmentalists cares about the environment. However, the leaders don't have any good intentions, and you are naive if you think they do. There is no scientific basis for any environmentalist claim that I've looked into.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-10 17:01 | Link
Gunnar: It seems to me like you're being too nuanced. IMO, You aren't balancing "attention to details" versus "essentials". I'm imagining a conversation between us:
It's easy to win an imaginary argument. ;) Here's mine, with Revel:
Revel: The weather is awful today.
I think I win. But enough about my imagination.
There's such a thing as too much precision. You're overly concerned about offending the people caught up in a movement that may be naively ignorant of the organizations true purpose.
Offense is not a concern here, just accuracy. A meaningful level of it, of course. Is it nitpicking to say that anti-globalists in general aren't "eager to destroy" liberty itself, as if they were the henchmen of a super villain? Not only is Revel inaccurate, he doesn't try to be accurate. I don't think he cares about the actual landscape of anti-American ideas, only that a vagueish "they" are wrong and dangerous. A person who writes an entire book about anti-American ideas shouldn't get away with that.
And he's not doing anyone a service by being so sloppy. You can't fight or defend against what you don't understand.
Of course, the average person who recycles and mildly supports the environmentalists cares about the environment. However, the leaders don't have any good intentions, and you are naive if you think they do.
You mean the leaders of environmentalist groups? All of them? And do you mean "don't have any good intentions" in the literal sense, that they their conscious motivation for being environmentalists is not to protect the environment, but (for instance) to destroy capitalism? I would like to see you argue for that. (I'd ask for evidence if I thought there was a remote chance of you providing it.)
There is no scientific basis for any environmentalist claim that I've looked into.
That depends on what you mean by "scientific basis". It could mean "wrong", "possible, but not sufficiently backed by hard evidence", or "no rational person could possibly believe this". Revel implies the third meaning, and that is wrong. There are many environmentalist ideas which would be both rational and moral if the real world looked slightly different. Getting a few facts wrong, or believing in a wrong theory, does not mean you're not a rational person, and it does not disqualify you from the ranks of objective scientists. If you think that, you've missed the entire point of the scientific method, which is to compensate for such flaws in even the most brilliant minds.
And you should not simply disqualify all environmentalism as quackery. It is solid science that many things are dangerous to our health, and it thus makes sense to protect ourselves against them. Radiation is an obvious example. It would be a bad idea to sell highly radioactive food, for instance, and so that is illegal. This, too, is environmentalism. Under the right circumstances, it's the only rational and moral thing to do. I'm an environmentalist in the same way that I'm a feminist - I think the core ideas are extremely important. It's the modern form activists have given those ideas I don't like.
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-12-10 20:16 | Link
>> I think I win. But enough about my imagination.
ROFL. Yes, you do!
I'm starting a new software job as well, so I can't deal with the environmentalism issues right now.
AlanC | 2004-12-10 21:00 | Link
The problem with environmentalists is that the leadership of the movement is, in general, dishonest. The folks who are sincere can be looked at in the same way as the Western Communists were by the USSR; useful idiots.
The actions of the environmentalists speak loudly of their motives. That is they are pushing an anti-capitalist agenda. They ain't called water melons for nothing. There are, of course, scientists that spout sincere drivel in the same way that there are scientists that spout sincere theories about UFOs and aliens.
Scientifically though there is little that hasn't been thoroughly debunked; from the population and food crises of Paul Ehrlich, to the global cooling fear of the 70's, to the running out of copper, tin, gold and oil (think that was 70's too), to todays hot button Global Warming and the Ozone layer.
For the last two the "science" just doesn't hold up any better than any of the others. Honest scientists don't spout things as fact when there is no proof, only theories. Unless of course they are trying to cadge some more bucks from the government or have some other agenda. After all, you remember the Skeptical Environmentalist, don't you?
dick | 2004-12-10 21:18 | Link
How do you separate the ducks and geese? If the geese are supporting the ducks, what happens to the geese when the ducks take over the country? What you are supporting is what Lenin called "useful idiots." The sayings are everywhere. "Birds of a feather flock together." "You are known by the friends you keep." etc. That is all I am saying. You may be involved in the protests for very beneficial reasons. However, if the result of the protest is that the communists take over, may I be the first to say that I told you so. Better to have your own protest with more congenial company.
I am not saying, before anyone points this out, that there should be no protests. What I am saying is that the people protesting should be fully aware of who is sponsoring the protest and what the program of that sponsor is. Then if they are in agreement with that program, protest away. If they are not in agreement with that program, protest in another way instead.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-10 21:51 | Link
AlanC: The problem with environmentalists is that the leadership of the movement is, in general, dishonest.
I would say more fanatical than consciously dishonest, although many are that too. They have a cause, and fighting for that cause is more important than being honest in the particulars. Focus is put on how to spin for the greater cause, instead of searching for truth on a daily basis.
This would be true mostly for the activists. There are other kinds of environmentalists: Politicians who implement environmental laws, scientists who form theories about threats to the environment, the average guy who recycles because it seems like the right thing, the more informed person who thinks consciously about doing their bit not to harm the environment. All this is environmentalism. You can't write about environmentalism without acknowledging all these categories of people, even if you happen to despise all of them.
And even for the most dishonest activists it is untrue that they don't care about the environment. Revel is thinking perhaps of people who use environmentalist rhetoric superficially, to further a cause they believe is more important - but that's yet another category of people. You won't hear about any of them from Revel. He talks about "the environmentalists", and that's all.
dick: How do you separate the ducks and geese? If the geese are supporting the ducks, what happens to the geese when the ducks take over the country? What you are supporting is what Lenin called "useful idiots."
That's another discussion. My point is, to continue the metaphor, that you can't understand the flock of birds in front of you if you deny that some of them are geese, and claim that all are ducks. That's just make believe. Even if you believe that the geese aren't that important because the ducks make the decisions, that too is a relationship you have to mention when you describe the flock.
I'm not "supporting" anyone. I'm just saying that if you want to understand anti-Americanism, you have to begin by looking at what anti-Americanism really is.
Gunnar, Maryland | 2004-12-10 22:47 | Link
>> All this is environmentalism. You can't write about environmentalism without acknowledging all these categories of people
I think you're expanding the definition beyond usefulness, since it's beginning to expand to all people. I would claim that the normal usage in the US is better, since it refers to people who believe that in order to save/protect the environment, normal human life needs to be dramatically changed or elimiated. The solution is always violations of human rights to property and liberty.
When one adds "ism" unto a concept, one implies a whole philosophy built around that concept.
These other people are just normal common sense people. I tell my children not to litter, but I am not an environmentalist.
AlanC | 2004-12-10 23:21 | Link
Gunnar has it right. You have to be careful in your use of the term environmentalist cause if you expand it to include people that just re-cycle than the term becomes meaningless.
There is a whole group called "crunchy conservatives" that are basically Bush supporting right wingers (my son is one and I'm close). Basically the philosophy is pollution is bad, waste is bad, conservation is good. But that's as far as it goes and is fairly libertarian in nature. These folks are not "environmentalists" of the Kyoto supporting type or the ELF type or the Global warming type.
Mark Twain pegged the lies of these "scientists" long ago....lies, damn lies and statistics.
Franko | 2004-12-10 23:32 | Link
I understand your reactions to this book Bjorn, although I have not read it so I can't comment on it specifically. I too am often embarrassed and uneasy around folks who actually share many of my views. The unhappy occasion when I see an Ann Coulter interview comes to mind. Here is a woman who is apparently intelligent (but maybe not) and shares many of the same political opinions as I do. Unfortunately she is so shrill, insluting and cartoonish in her arguments that listening to her makes me want to join the Green party.
Best to ignore the screechers I guess.
Jack, Madison | 2004-12-11 00:35 | Link
So if you don’t support the Kyoto agreement you’re by definition not an environmentalist?
No I think Bjorn is right, it’s the same about saying you’re a feminist. You don’t have to burn bras to fit in that category.
Øyvind, Bergen | 2004-12-11 01:07 | Link
It's easy to disprove Revel.
When I first got interested in politics it was as an environmentalist. It was because I wanted cheaper buses and better trains, not because I have an agenda to set up the United States as "the sole culprit behind worldwide pollution". I do not.
In all my years in the environmentalist movement I've met many weirdos and an extremist or five.
I have also met many people that regard the States as a culprit, a major culprit and even the major culprit. But... I have not met a single one that has even dared mentioning the States as the only culprit!
We're Norwegians. We live of oil.
If you believe in the 'supposed' warming of the athmosphere (which isn't supposed) and in the most common theories on why this warming is happening, you will believe that oil's got something to do with it.
They are leftists. They are interested in the environment only insofar as they can exploit it as an issue to attack liberal societies.
That claim is just laughable. Maybe Revel should take it easy with the wine for that cheese of his.
Kai Carver | 2004-12-11 10:02 | Link
Bjorn, that dialogue over weather was beautiful!
Revel: There were polar bears roaming in the streets!
I'll note, however, that for sheer entertainment value, "Revel" has "Bjørn" beaten hands down.
Seriously, since the US elections, and until the next major catastrophe (may it be far far away) it seems possible for everyone to take a chill pill, and leave the ranting to comedians. Yay! Let's have cool rational discussions that advance knowledge and progress!
Revel: .. Polar bears! Polar bears, I tell you!
I would like to know more about these bears. When can I expect to see them on the streets of Paris?
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-11 10:18 | Link
AlanC: Gunnar has it right. You have to be careful in your use of the term environmentalist cause if you expand it to include people that just re-cycle than the term becomes meaningless.
I don't think it does. You see, I believe the core idea of environmentalism is important, so important than we need to keep it clear in our heads and protect it against those who want to redefine it. That idea is essentially a reply to the tragedy of the commons: If our combined actions cause us significant damage, it may be right to discourage those actions on a collective level. Nobody needs to tell me not to pour dangerous chemicals into a glass of water I just poured for myself. But if fifty factories pour dangerous chemicals into a drinking water supply, adding up to clearly dangerous levels, we need a law. That's environmentalism.
Banning a substance because preliminary research indicates that it might possibly be slightly dangerous is not environmentalism, or at least not the good kind. The problem with defining environmentalism as junk science is that this robs us of a powerful tool to make society better. It's like allowing Randians to take and define "liberty". That makes the rest of us enemies of liberty, and in desperate need of a new term of our own. But why give the word over to them in the first place? Why give "environmentalism" over to hyperbolic activists, or "feminism" over to narrow-minded academics? We should claim these terms as core parts of our own world view, a sound way to deal with tragedies of the commons, not abandon them to the first stranger who wants them.
AlanC | 2004-12-11 23:50 | Link
I understand and can sympathise with what you are saying. However, I do feel that there is a problem there. Back in the 50's and 60's the word communism came to mean anything from Stalin to anyone slightly left of Atilla. Hence the label ceased to have meaning.
Organized environmentalism needs a term all to itself which does not allow the extremists to hide in the crowd of normal folk that don't like pollution. Since they have termed themselves Environmentalist, I suggest we leave them that name and reuse the good old term Conservationist for ourselves.
Markku Nordstrom, New York/Helsinki | 2004-12-12 15:30 | Link
Bjorn: keep in mind that Revel speaks the way he does because that is the way French intellectuals always do. If you delve into that body of work you'll notice that the stridency comes from having to defend their positions from vicious attacks from within their own ranks.
From Camus to Sartre to Baudrillard, Derrida, Foucault, etc. etc. - all are marked by the same, strident pomposity. The problem with the French is that they assume they have set the tone for all intellectual discussions; hence, they don't see that their tone doesn't really translate very well.
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:24 | Link
How about "America's Oldest Enemy?"
I think that's the title, it's on my list to read.
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:27 | Link
Oh, and "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton.
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:30 | Link
--If you believe in the 'supposed' warming of the athmosphere (which isn't supposed) and in the most common theories on why this warming is happening, you will believe that oil's got something to do with it. --
So, why were there palm trees in Britain and how did they make good wine about 1000 years ago??
And when will the environazis start beating up on the Chicoms and India?
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:35 | Link
Ohh, a blogger posted this today, can't remember which one, was catching up from the weekend, might have been covered here already:
ACK! Forgot the link, it's in the Forbes.com archives.
Here we go:
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:44 | Link
-- It's not enough to disagree with the environmentalists, and call their beliefs irrational, we have to deny them even the right to good intentions? Has it come to that? ---
The road to Hell....
Oh, sorry, some Europeans don't believe in that concept.
Some of their good intentions have been proven wrong over the past few years. But that doesn't stop them or modify their plans.
One reason the environazis are powerful here is because they have the unlimited US taxpayer pocketbook. They can file lawsuits to stop things (see the Klamath Falls brouhaha) because they're using my money, not the money from their members.
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:45 | Link
junkscience.com is an interesting site, along w/envirotruth.org.
Should start some very lively conversations.
Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:47 | Link
Revel had a couple of bloopers which could have been fact-checked, Nixon and the mid-60s, but coming from this side, I don't get the impression he was screaming.
I was just looking for ammo.
norvegia | 2004-12-13 11:44 | Link
De fleste kjenner vel igjen den antagonismen det piskes opp til her, med "anti-franske" og "anti-amerikanske" ytringer og betegnelser. Det mer reelle hatet, muslimhetsen, er mindre moro. Du trenger ikke doktorgrad (eller gymnas) for å skjønne at muslimhets er jødehets, bare at "jøde" er byttet ut med "muslim".
David Elson | 2004-12-13 13:39 | Link
And 10,000 yrs ago Scotland and England were permanently covered by heavy mantle of ice and snow. (Daily Telegraph), so what's your point?
Obviously the Earths global climate changes over time, and there is significant evidence that the world is getting consistenly warmer. The question is, is this caused via natural or human means?
The increase in possible green house gases in the atmosphere, seems to correspond with this. However global temp is determined by many things other than human behavior. For instance, intensity of radiation from the sun, and the orbit of the earth.
AlanC | 2004-12-13 15:42 | Link
The problem is that you are wrong when you say
There is a correspondence only if you fudge the numbers, i.e. the infamous hockey stick.
The truth is that all the talk about ice-ages and wine growing in England are very relevant. The fact is that the climate is a never ending cycle of increasing and decreasing temps. and NO ONE knows how it all works. The current movement may, not is, be up. But there is absolutely not one scintilla of reliable evidence that human activity has anything to do with it. Therefore, to base human behavior on this theory is premature to say the very least.
20 years ago there was much talk about fighting Global Cooling. There were even some scientists that were actively promoting the seeding of the oceans with red-algae to produce a warming effect.
There are three things you have to prove.
1) That there is ABNORMAL global warming going on.
Then and only then, should we discuss what to do about it.
You did know, BTW, that the Swiss have shown that the Sun is working over time at heating things up, and that Mars is getting a trifle warmer, didn't you?
Maybe we just need a space based umbrella?
Sandy P | 2004-12-13 18:04 | Link
David, Mars is also heating up. How are you going to control sunspots?
You should read thru this recent post/responses at DailyPundit:
Now Oyvind and SDB - formerly of USS Clueless, that would be a rumble.
Sandy P | 2004-12-13 18:08 | Link
And you've just answered it. How about global warming is delaying the next global cooling?
Chuck, one of the dirty little secrets that the global warming freaks don't want you to know is that the earth was warmer overall about a thousand years ago than it is now. That was the last peak of solar output. The sun's cycle is on the order of about 1200 years, and the current warm phase will end in about a hundred years. Then it will cool for about 900, and reach bottom about the year 3000.
SDB then corrected himself, 1500 years.
What a waste of money, all that money which could go to feed the world instead wasted on junk science.
Herbie NY, NY | 2004-12-13 19:15 | Link
This Sunday the NY Times book review section had a fairly good essay on this subject on pro and anti:
The Anti-Anti-Americans By JONATHAN TEPPERMAN
Sandy P | 2004-12-13 19:17 | Link
Long time no see.
How are you??
Herbie NY | 2004-12-13 20:06 | Link
Sandi: I have been in the middle of trying cases back to back: in one case I sue a big corporation and in the other I defend one. Other than being exhausted and needing a rest for a few days, I am fine :-) Thank you for asking
TM Lutas | 2004-12-13 20:08 | Link
I'm currently working my way through this book and what struck me (and explains much of Revel's stridency) was his prior work, Without Marx or Jesus done around 30 years ago and covering much of the same ground. He is often making reference back to his earlier book and I put down his stridency to the fact that he was ticked off that the anti-americans hadn't changed much in the past three decades. They just sit there, impervious to argumentation and evidence. When that happens, we all tend to bring out bigger, blunter instruments to carry our points.
Revel sounds very much like an old man who has little patience for the repetition of basic error, especially when it is so damaging.
kjell | 2004-12-13 20:10 | Link
Since when has it been a surprise that french intellectuals have a slight tendencity towards pomposity?
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-14 01:10 | Link
Once again your crappy french hatred, get a life...
Revel is an old prick de l'Académie Française that generalize from what he see on our crappy hertzian TV and get a touch with his biaised reality thru the very limited point of view from some cafés and salons of the middle of Paris.
Sandy P | 2004-12-14 04:02 | Link
Ahh, yes, Sensi, who knew Louis was such a lover of democracy?
Maybe if he had tried it at home?????? After all, you had your Revolution and all you got was the Reign of Terror, didn't you? On your 5th Republic and you guys still haven't grasped the concept.
BTW, we enshrined in our Constitution that we pay all debts, which we did, how about you starting a movement to pay frogistan's portion of The Marshall Plan? I think Germany repaid US.
Maybe if Europe got more of a life and stopped paying so much attention to ours?????? After all, I think my and my countrymens' lives is partially why Europe has been so pissy over the centuries. After all, American living standards did surpass our betters' around 1900.
The only reason frogistan didn't get more involved in our Civil War was because Britain didn't let them. Kind of odd they both were on the side of the slave-owners, hoping the war would tear US apart and bring US down, even in the mid-1800s.
How's about another for the reading list, folks, found at John Ray's Dissecting Leftism blog:
a Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. He links to the summary and is it a corker!
Sand y P | 2004-12-14 04:05 | Link
Ohh, you leech, you, Herbie, at least you'll pay part of your fair share!
I keed, I keed. (Sorry-- own Triumph the Insult Comic Dog DVD, the one that got Canuckistan into such a tizzy.)
Pete, Paris | 2004-12-14 16:07 | Link
«How about "America's Oldest Enemy?"
I just got back from a great weekend with friends way out in deepest France - Tours to be exact. Not an angry word was spoken, there was laughter, song, and much friendly conversation. We had a wonderful time - not because they were French, mind you - in fact as well as French people, I spoke with a Bulgarian woman, a woman from Cap Verde, several Germans, Englishmen, a Moroccan, Belgians, Italians, Americans, Spaniards, and Lebanese. I chatted with doctors, lawyers, translators, pharmaceutical executives, painters, musicians, graphic designers, speech therapists, osteopaths, people without jobs and a lot of people with whom I never discussed work at all. It was great, Sandy P, because we were all human beings gathered for the purpose of sharing a few days of festivities, meeting old friends and discovering new ones. If any bloody idiot had taken it upon himself to start cracking wise about "dumb Americans" or the "USSA", he'd have been shown the door in quick time, I can guarantee it.
I've been lucky enough to enjoy similar experiences in England, Belgium, Germany and even in the US of A, where I remember spending several musical evenings with friends and a great Thanksgiving dinner in NYC with my girlfriend's extended family and friends. No shitty racist vibes there either - I have long since concluded that we human beings are all basically capable of being equally decent, respectful, and benevolent, and also, with minimal effort, capable of quickly rising above the sort of low-grade nationalist rabble-rousing that you seem to be promoting or at least channeling.
Maybe you should get out more, meet some people.
America and Europe share the same common enemy - the absent mind.
Pete, Paris | 2004-12-14 16:28 | Link
kjell | 2004-12-13 20:10 | Link
Kjell - I tend to agree with you on that - although I'm not an intellectual, I've often been bothered by what seems verbiage when reading certain French texts. However, let's not fall into unreasonable traps and draw undue conclusions. I'm certain that in most cases, it's due to differences in the construction of the French and English languages - English is a much more brass-tacks language, it's easier to state your case quickly and simply, whereas French often requires constructions which can seem complicated to Anglo-Saxon ears. In my experience French thinkers are just as smart as any other thinkers - the apparently aristocratic form of their language may give the false impression that they look down upon their audience. It's almost always just that - a false impression - though there are pompous pricks in France, just like everywhere else.
I'm assuming you're talking about texts you've read in translation. I have long experience with translating, and can testify also that there are two levels to it - you can put together a faithful translation without getting beyond the uncomfortable effect I've just mentioned, by being too faithful to translating the words. The more effective translation renders the meaning of the text and pays a little less attention to literal translation of the words. This usually avoids an atmosphere of pomposity.
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-15 18:31 | Link
By the way the pomposity of french has to do with the perception of anglophones rather than the intrinsic semantics of the language. English vocabulary is very rich and draws from a gajillion languages due to its colonial experience in the past...so you even have , amok and orang utan from the malay ( hamok dan orang hutan ). If not for the normand concquest in part ,..english would probably sound a bit like dutch or frisian ( frisian probably the closest living language to english ). There is some kind of schizophreny in english when you render a sentence into its pure teutonic heritage versus another sentence with latin derivatives ( french being a romance language !) hence.....
....YOU HAVE A KINGLY FACE
( Sie haben ein königliches Gesicht- german
u hebt een koninklijk gezicht - Dutch )
.....YOU POSSESS A ROYAL COUNTENANCE/VISAGE
você tem uma cara real - portuguese )
while we are talking about France, please read this link about the islamicization of good old France ...something which Sensi in the other thread refuses to acknowledge...ah mais c'est la vie ...n'est-ce-pas?
Angel of Truth
p.s. by the way some languages reflect the general psyche of their speakers...arabic is kind of weird...you can write pages of something about nothing...and japanese is notoriously vague and overly polite...try writing a collection letter in japanese without trying to insult the client but yet wanting to extract a payment LOL...i hate those languages that have several levels of saying yes and several levels of no...i guess good old english No means No right? like which part of no do you not understand right ..ha ha ha ha...but not so with some languages..kind of neat linguistic way to give you wiggle room right ? LOL LOL LOL....
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-15 20:04 | Link
reminder...now be a good boy and go read those links i gave you . I might reward you with several jars of very hot/piquant/picante
KIM CHEE - SPICY PICKLED KOREAN CABBAGE
김 카이---매운 한국 양배추
The super hot spices might joggle you back to reality regarding the danger of islamicization of france, spain and indeed the rest of europe....welcome to EURABIA. The islamists want to reclaim europe...they dream of a world caliphate...they want to recreat the experiment( i think) of el andaloos / andalucia of Grenada, Cordoba ,Sevilla, Malaga etc.....
¡Señoras y caballeros.....bienvenidos al califato islámico del eurabia!!!! Si usted no es un musulman, por favor pague el impuesto obligatorio de $50 (euros) en la ventanilla 666. Recuérdese por favor que la ley de la blasfemia es muy cruel. Quienquiera que insulta al profeta Mahome o la religión hermosa del Islam será empedrado a la muerte o decapitado en la plaza mayor. De nuevo... bienvenida y goce otra vez de su estancia ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
Ladies and gentlemen .....welcome to the islamic caliphate of eurabia !!!!
Si vous n'êtes pas un musulman, n'oubliez pas de payer vos impôts spéciaux. Si vous oubliez de payer vous serez durement puni ! ! ! !
!!! Eurabia مرحبا بكم في
!!! يدفع كافرون ضرائبك الآن.
!!!euro-dollars $$$ نقبل دفعا في
( welcome to Eurabia !!!. Pay your special dhimmi/non-muslim taxes now ! We accept euro dollars ha ha ha )
歡迎到 eurabia 您是回教宗教的所有新奴隸!!!
Sensi, paris | 2004-12-15 23:40 | Link
@ Sandy P
Read pete post, i wont lose time to answer your nonsense.
@ Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-15 18:31
that's your link?
here is one of your previous sentence in the other thread:
Lol, no i have never see that, that's pretty fun and false (but who take care of the validity of what he say? huh, not you).
«(...) Many Muslims came to France only to benefit from the state welfare system, get free social housing, free school, free Medicare, and family allocations but with no desire to adapt to French rule of law»
This article is a complete piece of disinformation, a crappy racist propaganda that mix a few true facts (UOIF ballots, btw this is "l'Union des organisations islamiques de France", another one 'mistake') and almost everywhere outrageous lies (numbers, facts...) and fallacious sentences (argumentation, deductions, conclusions...), please refer, for your incredible desire of knowledge on the islamic-islamist-jihadist-MuslimsThatAreBarbarians&DirtyArabs in France, to serious works (something with real facts and numbers: factual, objective, rational, in short honest).
I hope that this sort of biaised racist propaganda objectively fit your own already set point of view (the 'author' have written this 'article' in this only purpose).
n.b. : Oh que oui! C'est la vie.
Sensi, paris | 2004-12-16 00:04 | Link
huh, new post while i was writing: Kim Sook-Im needs for a psychiatrist. Please also avoid online translators, they are actually still beta.
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-16 03:08 | Link
@ Sandy P | 2004-12-12 21:45
«junkscience.com is an interesting site, along w/envirotruth.org.
After Staline's USSR, some U.S. of A.'s officials give them the right to label science as bad or good accordingly to their (short-time) interests or (current) ideology. :p
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-16 07:52 | Link
how is our islamophile doing today...i see all the truths are beginning to make you hot and uncomfortable under the collar LOL. You are apparently an inveterate revisionist and leftist apologist that steadfastly refuse to see the truth even though the truth is hanging right in front you.
You sly dog ..you.... trying to equate ISLAM WITH RACE....that was a cheap shot ! Islam is an ideology and is not synonymous with race... you can have a white, black, brown, and all shades of muslims all professing the cult of Islam...just like marxism and leninism comes in all shades , you can have a cambodian versus a norwegian or french marxist leninist. This is the kind of sly leftist distorsion and propaganda trying to appeal to our /american sense of justice, honor and compassion ( all of which are sorely missing in all islamist country.....and France too, in the foreseeable future.
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-16 09:04 | Link
@ Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-16 07:52
how is our islamophile doing today...i see all the truths are beginning to make you hot and uncomfortable under the collar LOL. You are apparently an inveterate revisionist and leftist apologist that steadfastly refuse to see the truth even though the truth is hanging right in front you.»
Apparently, sure... lol (omg)
«You sly dog ..you.... trying to equate ISLAM WITH RACE....that was a cheap shot ! Islam is an ideology and is not synonymous with race... you can have a white, black, brown, and all shades of muslims all professing the cult of Islam...just like marxism and leninism comes in all shades , you can have a cambodian versus a norwegian or french marxist leninist. This is the kind of sly leftist distorsion and propaganda trying to appeal to our /american sense of justice, honor and compassion ( all of which are sorely missing in all islamist country.....and France too, in the foreseeable future.»
Pete, Paris | 2004-12-16 11:00 | Link
Yes, I am presently looking at the URL's you suggested - the Islam and Terror article is very interesting, I'll be back to you on that shortly. The faithorfreedom site is less easy to deal with as it's basically a collection of links to other sites - I'll just have to try the lucky dip technique - but I'm on it. I'll get back to you.
I noticed you recently incurred the wrath of Chief Strong Bear and came perilously close to banishment. For once, I find myself in complete agreement with certain members of the village council with whom I disagree on almost everything else - I am glad that you still enjoy access to the daily pow-wow, I would have missed you. But see where your missionary ardours can lead if uncontrolled, o impetuous maiden - perhaps you should limit your own ingestion of Kim Chee.
Sandy P | 2004-12-16 17:43 | Link
I see France finally allowed Bjorn Lomborg's The Skeptical Environmentalist to be published after, what, about 5 years, Sensi?
Via an Econopundit reader:
My favorite Climatologist was on Tech Central last month. George Taylor is the Oregon State climatologist and the person that first got me to the"Still Waiting for Greenhouse" site... Here is a link to George's article on the Artic from Tech Central last month.
And this is the Still Waiting link:
If some want an option to leave in the future...maybe it should be considered.
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-16 18:16 | Link
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 04:32 | Link
More coral- the progress of the ocean:
Via Tim Blair:
New Australian research claims the world's coral reefs could expand in size by as much as a third as oceans heat up.
The study has contradicted the standing view that increased ocean warming, a result of climate change, is killing coral reefs around the world.
The newly published research, by a team led by oceanographer from the University of NSW Dr Ben McNeil, suggests ocean warming will foster reef growth.
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 05:02 | Link
Via steveverdon.com (I think he's an economist):
But now a shock: Canadian scientists Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick have uncovered a fundamental mathematical flaw in the computer program that was used to produce the hockey stick. In his original publications of the stick, Mann purported to use a standard method known as principal component analysis, or PCA, to find the dominant features in a set of more than 70 different climate records.
Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called “Monte Carlo” analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!
That discovery hit me like a bombshell, and I suspect it is having the same effect on many others. Suddenly the hockey stick, the poster-child of the global warming community, turns out to be an artifact of poor mathematics. How could it happen? What is going on? Let me digress into a short technical discussion of how this incredible error took place.
This is kind of old news, tho.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-17 08:04 | Link
Sensi: Kim Sook-Im needs for a psychiatrist.
I'd advise you to reread the comment rules.
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-17 14:28 | Link
you have something there. I'll look into it...meantime if you can transmit more url's regarding this anomalous finding ..will appreciate same. Thanks
Kim Sook Im
Pete, Paris | 2004-12-17 15:38 | Link
Various hockey stick stuff
Kim Sook-Im,US | 2004-12-17 18:42 | Link
shukran wa afkharisto sas Pete. Thanks for the hockey stick sacred codes. I shall speak the sacred words into the magic mirror.....and see what ills modern man has brought mother earth.
you are so sweet....i shall drink the moonshine after my ablutions LOL.
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 21:34 | Link
Via Instapundit, we can only hope:
REPORTING FROM BUENOS AIRES, Ron Bailey says that the Kyoto Protocol is dead.
(He writes for Reason Mag.)
Think of all the wells that could have been dug and the poor fed instead of pouring it into this junk science.
As I said before, the computation info was released earlier this year, but for some reason, the MSM really didn't push it heavily, did it?
And the Russian scientist pegged it a long time ago, one reason Mr. KGB signed it was to get concessions out of Europe.
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 22:50 | Link
Pete - low-grade rabble-rousing? Well, considering that America has been seen as rabble for a couple of centuries now, and I've always taken pride in rabble-rousing, I'm insulted it's only low-grade. We Americans only strive to do our best, I'll have to work harder, I see. Let's see, for starters, how about all your vine stalks belong to US?
Get out more?
I'm talking w/someone in Paris via a blogger in Norway. Just who do you think I've been talking to via this invention of Al Gore's?
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 23:07 | Link
And, Pete, at least we're not taught anti-french in our history books.
Dissident Frogman has a posting in his archives with a paragraph from his high school history book in the 80s/90s.
Sandy P | 2004-12-17 23:39 | Link
Via Bros. Judd:
We see where a curator at France's Pompidou Center says his museum is opening a branch in Hong Kong, because "U.S. culture is too strong" there, and "we need to have a presence in Asia to counterbalance the American influence." With the Pompidou Center?
"American influence" is the great white whale of the 21st century, and Jacques Chirac is the Ahab chasing her with a three-masted schooner. Along for the ride is a crew that includes Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Vladimir Putin, North Korea's Kim Jong-Il, Kofi Annan, the Saudi royal family, Robert Mugabe, the state committee of Communist China and various others who have ordained themselves leaders for life. At night, seated around the rum keg, they talk about how they have to stop American political power, the Marines or Hollywood.
Sandy P | 2004-12-18 08:19 | Link
Well, this isn't good.
They want to recast Sheridan, Delenn & Lochley w/20-30-somethings and Woodward's doing something w/Sir Richard so he's not available and he's a main character. I want Woodward in his leather pants!!!!!
The Great Maker is going to the mat for Bruce, Mira and Elizabeth, but it could be a no-go.
Here's the plot:
I'm just beginning to watch it again. It's not the fans' fault the brains at Warner thought The Incredibles wouldn't make any money so The Polar Express would clean up.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-18 14:01 | Link
Sandy P: They want to recast Sheridan, Delenn & Lochley w/20-30-somethings and Woodward's doing something w/Sir Richard so he's not available and he's a main character. I want Woodward in his leather pants!!!!!
Just an uncomfirmed rumour among jittery fans as far as I know, but yeah that's ridiculous. God, I hate 20-somethings on film. Most of the major characters would seem to be new ones, but then why bother recasting the less important ones? And I want Galen back as he is, and at the center of it. Not so excited about bring back main characters from B5 for main roles, they're pretty much explored.
Anyway, what isn't uncomfirmed is what WB did to the JMS commentary on the Crusade DVD's. Hear about that? JMS talked about the problems he'd had making those few episodes, with all the interference from TNT, and had specifically set as a condition for doing a commentary that he would be allowed to say this. And then WB just silently edits it away. Ugly business.
Sandy P | 2004-12-19 02:06 | Link
Well, Bjorn, there's more than enough blow-by-blow out there from that time.
This WB crap has been likened to the TNT crap. TNT was wrong, just plain wrong. At one time The Great Maker posted eps 14 and 21/22, IIRC out there. I knew I should have saved them. 14 encountered Bester on the run and 22, the season-ender:
Gideon has decided to expose the whole ShadowTech research projects and has gone to Mars Dome. Galen is also there lurking in the background.
As Gideon prepares to meet with the other crew members of the Excalibur on Mars, there is a sniper shot….and the scene fades to black.
Crusade backround w/JMS' memos:
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-19 14:40 | Link
Sandy P: This WB crap has been likened to the TNT crap. TNT was wrong, just plain wrong.
I think I'm detecting a pattern here. The first B5 project came off successfully, the second (Crusade) was sabotaged, and the third (Legend of the Rangers) exploded in a mysterious ratings accident. Now all we need is for The Memory of Shadows to be somehow transported back in time 1000 years to aid our ancestors in an important battle, and then the next project after that to fail, and all we have to worry about is a minor change in order, (either that or an unexplained continuity break when we restore the proper order).
But if Galen is the station commander of B4, and WB are the Shadow ships on their way to destroy it, who is Sinclair/Valen?
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-19 18:15 | Link
@Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-17 08:04
yep, i have been a little impolite here ;) or excessive as in numerous sentences (cf. Kim, in previous ESAG thread my sentence concerning all islamists terrorisms and Israel/palestine conflict) which have gone above what i have really in mind.
@ Sandy P | 2004-12-16 17:43
I do not understand what you want to say... allowing a publication? Do you think that in France you have to be "allowed by someone" to publish something? sound strange lol. Guess that if he doesn't have a publisher in france or that he doesn't take the time to translate from danish, his publication was only available in english... dunno that case.
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-19 18:42 | Link
@ Sandy P | 2004-12-17 23:39 | Link
We see where a curator at France's Pompidou Center says his museum is opening a branch in Hong Kong, because "U.S. culture is too strong" there, and "we need to have a presence in Asia to counterbalance the American influence." With the Pompidou Center?»
lol, once again i don't know that "story", at least the thing true is that we (i hope all) don't want a (impoverishes) mono-cultural world. for the remainder: no comment.
Sandy P | 2004-12-20 19:55 | Link
Crusade had real possibilities.
Unfortunately, The Great Maker was burned out and the Legend movie was just....adequate, along w/parts of Crusade. I'm still buying the DVDs tho. And I STILL like Evan Chen's Crusade music. I thought it was very fitting.
Well, we're lucky we have the B5 DVDs, it was all based on the selling response of The Gathering and In the Beginning. Reportedly a WB exec said who'd buy B5? Seems they sold $100m worth overall. I never thought I'd be geeky enough to enjoy something the the boys at NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab would like and work on.
Who was that TNG writer who left Voyager Rick???
Rumor has it via Aintitcoolnews that the Firefly movie rocks.
Maybe Joss would like a change of pace? He's staying home w/the new baby, but he's also probably depressed Cabana Boy lost.
Sandy P | 2004-12-20 19:57 | Link
Define the culture, Sensi, then we'll talk.
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-22 11:41 | Link
@ Sandy P
Gill Doyle, California | 2004-12-25 20:01 | Link
I was reminded of Bruce Bawer today when David Brooks, in his New York Times column, listed what, to his mind, were some of the year's best American essays. A Bruce Bawer essay appeared on that list. Bruce Bawer is an American who lives in Norway. Bruce has written about anti-Americanism is Norway and in Europe in general. Here is a link to a Bruce Bawer essay on anti-Americanism in Europe:
Sandy P | 2004-12-29 20:34 | Link
Sorry I was too nuanced for you, Sensi, I asked you to define THE culture, not culture.
BTW, would you or would your ancestors have had a problem w/one culture when the world lingua was franca?
Why is frogistan so enthralled w/communism/social ism/fascism and believes the world would be better under one of them? Why so allergic to self-determination and/or liberty?
Sandy P | 2004-12-29 20:36 | Link
This is the 2nd time I've tried to post social
and thinks it's a questionable word. Hence the breaks.
Sandy P | 2004-12-29 20:40 | Link
And what's up w/that well-heeled Western Liberal Norweigan UN leech's comment on stingyness? He even got Powell testy.
Via the blogfather, Instapundit:
AMAZON TSUNAMI DONATIONS have now broken $2 million. Ave donation's about $50.
That's above and beyond what the US is sending as the gov't contribution AND what our other charities are doing.
Totoro, U.S. | 2004-12-29 22:06 | Link
That Norwegian guy, Jan Somebody, sure put his foot in his mouth. His snotty whine is making its way around the blogosphere, along with discussions and charts about how much the U.S.--people and government--are REALLY spending (lots and lots and lots).
Yet another UN official isn't looking too good. In fact, the UN itself isn't looking too good these days. Expect it to go into terminal decline over the next few years, now that so many Americans have had their eyes opened to the essential fascistic nature of this bureaucratic money pit.
Another story making the rounds of the blogosphere is the one about how the Vatican chastized Israel for not sending aid to Sri Lanka--this after the Sri Lankan government REFUSED to accept a large amount of aid from Israel. As we say in America--what the f**k?
Another story for today--radical chic mistress of language perversion Susan Sontag died yesterday, so the world has one less "intellectual" to declare that up is down, right is left, good is bad, bad is good. Of course, some new future propagandist spinmeister was probably born at the same time, so maybe civilization hasn't advanced an inch since her death. Oh well.
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-30 11:56 | Link
Sandy: This is the 2nd time I've tried to post social ism the program reads cia lis.
Well of course you can't write socialism - this is a right-wing weblog! I'm disappointed in you for finding socialism such a fascinating topic to discuss.
But very well, I've fixed it. The blacklist should now only block cialis as a whole word. (If this comment was posted, it didn't work.)
Bjørn Stærk | 2004-12-30 12:01 | Link
Second attempt: Buy ci*lis here. Please. I've got so much ci*lis I don't know what to do with it. All the ci*lis you can get, at bargain prices. Why do I do this, you ask? Because I'm a capitalist, not a socialist. So hurry up and buy your ci*lis - there isn't enough ci*lis for everyone!
(Okay, now it works. You can now discuss your ci*lis free socialism as much as you like.)
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-30 13:13 | Link
@ Sandy P | 2004-12-29 20:34
Lol @ Sandy (was this your purpose?)
Sandy P | 2004-12-30 18:57 | Link
Nice dodge, Sensi - have a Happy New Year.
Sandy P | 2004-12-30 19:02 | Link
Found via Econopundit:
OECD data from today's OpinionJournal.
And that's why the rabble is restless. SPOILER - I'm going to mention religion, some had better cover their eyes and send the children from the room:
Idle hands are the devil's playthings.
You're sitting on a powderkeg, and the fuse has been lit.
If someone wants to tear the numbers apart, I'd read, I'm no good at that kind of stuff.
Sensi, Paris | 2004-12-31 08:13 | Link
@ Sandy P | 2004-12-30 18:57
Nice dodge? not really, you say only sh/!\t and i prefer to leave you in your delirium rather than to waste my time to argue or restore some truth in the vacuum.
p.s: your forgot †mas
Trackback URL: /cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1508
Post a comment
Comments on posts from the old Movable Type blog has been disabled.