Deafening Silence

Farrah Fawcett Has Died.

Some details here.

I had previously posted some thoughts on the subject of her illness here.

Her wikipedia page notes that there was another case of cancer in her family.

According to this report, although O'Neal had announced his intention to marry her, the two did not have a chance to wed before herdeath.

People magazine has an article here.

The wikipedia page on anal cancer is here.  The wiki entry connects anal cancer to HPV, but some articles detailing Fawcett's condition say that she had an intestinal tumor removed as a baby, which hints that she was predisposed.

This link from the American Cancer Society has detailed information on anal cancer.

Some bloggers have said that O'Neal and Fawcett were marketing her disease as one last chance for fame; others have drawn attention to her fading looks and his drug issues. 

All those things may or may not be accurate, but today is not the day to remark on them.

All of us, when the end comes, will want the world to forget our shortcomings and mistakes for just a moment.  We can't ask that for ourselves if we don't offer it to anyone else.

There will be plenty of time to snark about O'Neal and Fawcett in the weeks to come.  We'll still be here, after all. (God willing.)

In closing:

Though nothing can bring back the hour Of splendor in the grass, of glory in the flower; We will grieve not, rather find
Strength in what remains behind;
In the primal sympathy
Which having been must ever be;
In the soothing thoughts that spring
Out of human suffering; In the faith that looks through death, In years that bring the philosophic mind.

William Wordsworth

Events in Iran: Sources and Quotes

I have been following events in Iran like nearly everyone else.  I am old enough to have strong memories of the 1979 revolution and, like many people my age, see some superficial similarities now. 

I have not covered the Iranian conflict because my resources are completely inadequate and because there are already a number of more powerful blogs out there doing an excellent job.

So I will point you to a few.

Let's start with a few quotes from today's piece in Slate by Christopher Hitchens:

One of the signs of Iran's underdevelopment is the culture of rumor and paranoia that attributes all ills to the manipulation of various demons and satans. And, of course, the long and rich history of British imperial intervention in Persia does provide some support for the notion. But you have no idea how deep is the primitive belief that it is the Anglo-Saxons—more than the CIA, more even than the Jews—who are the puppet masters of everything that happens in Iran.

The best-known and best-selling satirical novel in the Persian language is My Uncle Napoleon, by Iraj Pezeshkzad, which describes the ridiculous and eventually hateful existence of a family member who subscribes to the "Brit Plot" theory of Iranian history. The novel was published in 1973 and later made into a fabulously popular Iranian TV series. Both the printed and televised versions were promptly banned by the ayatollahs after 1979 but survive in samizdat form. Since then, one of the leading clerics of the so-called Guardian Council, Ahmad Jannati, has announced in a nationwide broadcast that the bombings in London on July 7, 2005, were the "creation" of the British government itself. I strongly recommend that you get hold of the Modern Library paperback of Pezeshkzad's novel, produced in 2006, and read it from start to finish...

...............................

There is then the larger question of the Iranian theocracy and its continual, arrogant intervention in our affairs: its export of violence and cruelty and lies to Lebanon and Palestine and Iraq and its unashamed defiance of the United Nations, the European Union, and the International Atomic Energy Agency on the nontrivial matter of nuclear weapons. I am sure that I was as impressed as anybody by our president's decision to quote Martin Luther King—rather late in the week—on the arc of justice and the way in which it eventually bends. It was just that in a time of crisis and urgency he was citing the wrong King text (the right one is to be found in the "Letter From a Birmingham Jail"), and it was also as if he were speaking as the president of Iceland or Uruguay rather than as president of these United States. Coexistence with a nuclearized, fascistic theocracy in Iran is impossible even in the short run. The mullahs understand this with perfect clarity. Why can't we?

.....................................

If there is one name I would recommend you seek out while trying to keep up with events in Iran, it has to be Michael Totten.  Totten has travelled extensively in the Middle East and has been tireless in posting on recent events at his own blog and in Commentary:

I do not trust Iranian opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi. He is part of the Khomeinist establishment, although a crudely sidelined one at the moment. His record as former prime minister isn’t much more attractive than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s record as president.

The democracy movement is rallying around him, but the activists should be careful. Ruhollah Khomeini managed to convince Iranian liberals and leftists to forge an alliance with him to topple the Shah Reza Pahlavi in 1979, but he brutally smashed them once the revolution swept the old regime out of power. Alliances between liberals and Islamists is extraordinarily dangerous – for liberals.

....................................

This has been my own opinion for some days now.  I can't stop worrying that Mousavi is simply using these idealistic protesters as cannon fodder in his rise to power.  I can't help wondering if, beyond the street level, what is really going on is a kind of Soviet-style 'purge' to determine succession, using the protests as a convenient fig leaf for the cameras.  After all, if he is so dangerous to the status quo, why is Mousavi still walking around free?  There have been reports of many other arrests and beatings.  Why has Mousavi not been "disappeared?"

Here are some further thoughts on Mousavi, first from Raymond Tanter at the Daily Beast:

The loyal opposition leader celebrated in the West, Mir Hossein Mousavi, presided over Iranian terrorist activities, including the 1983 U.S. Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon and hostage taking of Western nationals. And according to other opposition sources, Mousavi implemented Ayatollah Khomeini’s policy of executions, beginning in the summer of 1981.

....................

The Belmont Club has further thoughts:

Mousavi is no more a “moderate” than Ahmadinejad according to a former Indian diplomat, M K Bhadrakumar. “Most likely, he had a hand in the creation of Hezbollah in Lebanon. Ali Akbar Mohtashami, Hezbollah’s patron saint, served as his interior minister.” That’s Mousavi, who Michael Ledeen called one the architects of the some of the most repressive features of the current Iranian regime.  So why, with the elections fundamentally rigged by the state and in fact a disguised process of appointment between two members of the Iranian establishment,  did the clerics choose Ahmadinejad over the man who so artfully depicted himself as a reformer and who captured the protest vote of the Iranian youth and intelligensia?

The probable answer is one word: money. Within Iranian ruling circles, Mousavi represented the economic enemies of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad according to Bhadrakumar. While Mousavi could package himself as a ‘reformer’ and to some extent genuinely capture the enthusiasm of the dissidents, the choice of between him and Ahmadinejad was really over who would get to control the economy. 

.......................................................

What has been happening in the U.S. blogosphere says more about Americans than it does about Iran.  Americans- and God bless this quality in our people- still believe in 'people power,' in the ability of the popular will to bring down unjust governments.  We also love the underdog.  The idea of a mass movement toppling the brutal Iranian government and creating a peaceful democracy in its place resonates with our most basic, cherished beliefs.  Many of us want to see this happen- and that's not wrong.  It looks as though this is what the protesters want, too.

But is that really Mousavi's aim?  And, as I said earlier, if it is, why isn't he in jail?  If it is his aim to tear down the mullahcrocy and install democracy, then he is openly threatening those he once collaborated with.  

I don't know the answer, but I this is worth thinking about.  

Power to the People!

Caution to the demagogues. 

And Now for Something Completely Different...

....extreme jump rope!

These kids are amazing.  Be sure to maximize the screen to get the full effect.

These are the Firecrackers:

The Firecrackers are a performance jump rope team made up of talented 4th-8th graders from the Kings Local School District in Ohio. Coached by Lynn Kelley, they perform at venues across the country. Some notable past performances have been at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade, a Presidential Inauguration and an appearance on The David Letterman Show.

This performance took place at the U.S. Naval Academy.

(Hat Tip: V's Spot.)

Post #255; In Which I Reveal My Complete Lack of Sophistication.

Ann Althouse linked this blog today with its photos of Paris.  The author calls these views of Paris "glorious":

 

 

Sorry, but this does not look "glorious" to me.  It looks dirty and overbuilt.

But then, I've got the flu.

Update. Classical Values and Deafening Silence Find Common Ground on "Incitement."

Classical Values has a post up that touches on aspects of two of my recent posts- Who's Inciting Who(m)? aand The Mensa Murderer and The Bigot in the Pulpit.

Here's a quote:

Why people don't focus on the individuals themselves, I don't know. It would be one thing if a killer were acting on behalf of (or with the approval of) someone else, or an actual identifiable organization. But when a murder is committed by a single individual, it makes about as much sense to blame "the right" or "the left" (much less a "climate" created by either) as it would to blame the Republican or Democratic Party if he happened to belong to one of them. (In that regard, it wouldn't matter if the sum total of the man's political views consisted of an exact laundry list ticking off every last item in the GOP platform; that still wouldn't make the Republicans in any way responsible for his outrageous crime.)

It makes even less sense to blame a man talking on the radio, but quite predictably, a climate allegedly created by Rush Limbaugh is being blamed for the actions of the suspect in the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting.

And also:

Sure, any nutcase can turn on the radio and plug what he hears into his schizophrenic stream of consciousness, but does that make Rush Limbaugh responsible?

..........

Anyway, I'm not impressed with her argument. This doesn't even rise to the level of guilt by association.

Go have a look!

Who's Inciting Who?

Regular readers of Deafening Silence will know already that I do not like Rush Limbaugh, do not watch Fox (or any network TV), have never listened to Sean Hannity, think Ann Coulter might just be out of her mind, am not a Republican, and will never register with any political party.

(For more on the above, see here.)

Regular readers will also know that I try to keep an eye on terrorism in all it's forms: jihad, animal rights terrorism, anti-abortion terrorism, bank bombings.  I refuse to tolerate or excuse terrorism in any form.

So I'm about to say something that will not be popular.

Paul Krugman today used his perch as a Nobel Laureate to command our attention and accuse Rush Limbaugh- and indeed, Republicans in general of "inciting" terrorism.  The Moderate Voice is also running an essay by a Cleveland writer saying the same thing.

If they think the Fox New people and the Republicans are actively soliciting terror, they are unfamiliar with what actual incitement looks like.

Allow me to demonstrate:

For example, in 2001 Brian Cass, Huntingdon Life Sciences' managing director in Great Britain, was savagely beaten by three men armed with baseball bats.  When told of the attack, Ronnie Lee, founder of Britain's ALF, expressed his approval:

"He has got off lightly.  I have no sympathy for him."

And also this:

 It's one-stop shopping for terrorist wannabes: the ELF website features manuals with such titles as Setting Fires with Electrical Timers: an Earth Liberation Guide and Arson Around with Auntie ALF; sympathetic websites offer instant gratification to terrorists who can post communiques and photos of their attacks.

And also this:

The NAALPO website is managed by Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a trauma surgeon living in the Los Angeles area.  When it comes to animal rights terrorism, the surgeon doesn't mince words; in a 2004 interview with the London Observer, he said:

"I don't think you'd have to kill too many [researchers].  I think 5 lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, 10 million nonhuman lives."

                                                      and later, in a web posting:

"The use of force saves lives in a way that can be readily documented.  It has saved the lives of humans and it has saved the lives of non-humans.  When it becomes dangerous to be a vivisector, vivisection will stop."

And also this:

"I told the folks in Eugene that I came from a long line of cop killers.  I told them that had it not been for my ancestor's willingness to kill their oppressors I might not be alive today."

                                            and this:

"Every time a protestor is beaten cop cars should burn.  Every time an activist is pepper sprayed tires should be slashed and windows of the offending agencies should be broken."

  These sentiments come from an essay called The High Price of Pacifism, written by Rodney Coronado, which appears on the NAALPO website run by Dr. Vlasak.

And this:

Mr. Coronado is not breaking new ground with these ideas.  In a BBC interview in 1987, Tim Daley, then a leader of the British Animal Liberation Front, said:

"In a war you have to take up arms and people will get killed, and I can support that kind of action by petrol bombing and bombs under cars, and probably at a later stage, the shooting of vivisectors on their doorsteps.  It's a war, and there's no other way you can stop vivisectors."

............................................

That is incitement, folks.  The open call for violence; the posting of instructions for committing arson on websites that praise violence.

Incitement is not being sarcastic, or vehement or even obnoxious.  It is not having a large and loyal fan base for your broadcasts.  It is not vilifying the political opposition.  If extreme and untrue claims are made about political opponents, there is another word or two for that: slander.  Libel.

As much as we all wish it were not so now and then, there is no law against being an asshole of any political type.

But attempting to criminalize political speech makes the law an ass.

If it is somehow discovered that elements of Fox News met with von Brunn and urged his attack, or that Rush Limbaugh sent letters to fans urging the murder of Doctor Tiller, fine.  Investigate.  Leave no stone unturned, and if anyone is guilty, toss the book at them.

But editorials that essentially say, "Well, you can't tell 'em all apart, so they all must be guilty of something," are a very big step down the wrong road.

Man up and learn to ignore the assholes and hold individuals accountable for their own behavior.

Word.

 

References

Here andhere.

The Mensa Murderer and the Bigot in the Pulpit.

Between the two of them, an elderly WWII vet who claims to be a member of MENSA and a bigoted preacher who had the President's ear for twenty years kicked over a rock yesterday.  And they seem to be the only ones who are comfortable with what came slithering out.

Let's start with a quick rehash of the facts:

Yesterday, Wednesday, June 10, an 88-year-old man named James W. von Brunn (allegedly) walked into the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and opened fire with a 22-caliber rifle.  He shot and killed security guard Stepen T. Johns before being gravely wounded himself by other security guards.  Von Brunn is now in the hospital.  His prognosis is uncertain.

Also on that day, the dailypress.com published an interview with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, former pastor to President Obama, in which the preacher said that the "Jewish vote and AIPAC vote"are controlling" the President. (The complete and correct quote can be heard in the video accompanying this article.)

Wright believes that "the Jews" are "controlling" the President.  In 1983 von Brunn believed that "the Jews" controlled the Federal Reserve.

Whenever people begin to speak of a nebulous group like "the Illuminati" or "the Opus Dei" or "the Jews" and claim they are "controlling" things like interest rates and Presidents, it is usually because the speaker has run out of facts and now has to begin dealing in fear and suspicion.  If he or she can create acute fear and suspicion of some group in the listener, than his/her own anger and bigotry will be justified.

Von Brunn's wife is on record saying that he never shut up about Jews and African Americans as the root of all evil.  There was no doubt in her mind that his hatred was consuming him.  Wright had a 2,000+ flock to preach to for over 20 years.  When YouTube snippets of his sermons began making the rounds, they were followed by a wave of excuse-making- everything from the evergreen "taken out of context" to "it's a black thing- you wouldn't understand."

Yet now, with his "them Jews" and "controlling" remarks, Wright makes himself clear.

Two weeks ago, when abortion provider Dr. George R. Tiller was shot to death in his church, some pundits tried to blame political commentators on Fox News for inciting his assassin.  Will those same pundits now cast aspersions on Wright for inspiring von Brunn?  After all, Wright is an influential figure and he was publicly stating that "the Jews" "control" the President.

Of course not.  Wright will not be held responsible- and indeed, should not- because, in addition to hating Jews, von Brunn apparently loathed African Americans as well.  He would not look to Wright for leadership.

But here is the rich irony:  the  "far-right" white man who apparently loathed African Americans shared a similar view of Jews with the "far-left" African American preacher.

I wonder how Wright feels about that, seeing as von Brunn murdered an African-American guard during his rampage at the museum.

I call this kind of phenomenon WrapAround Hate.  The world is a circle and if you go too far in one direction you will inevitably collide with someone coming from the opposite direction.

And each of you will still think yourself morally superior to the other.

So, how do recommend Americans respond to this terrible thing?  I'm not sure, but I think Laurence Simon is on the right track:

The train took me to Museum District.

I ran off and headed to the Houston Holocaust Museum.

When I arrived, I walked to the front desk and put down my credit card.

The volunteer was preparing to head out for the day.

They close at five, and it was pretty close to five.

"Not before you put a $100 on this," I said.

 

(Hat tips: Don Surber,Anne Althouse)

The official website of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum is here.

(Final thought: What does it say about the world that such a museum requires a staff of fully-armed, highly-trained guards?)

 

(photo courtesy of Museum website)

Tuesday Roundup

 

The flower in this picture by Rick Lee  came from the local supermarket.  Our Stargazer Lilies are just now starting to bud in the back yard, and hopefully will turn out as pretty.  I planted them 8 or 10 years ago because my sweetheart is oddly taken by them.  He's not much of a flower gardener, but now and then he surprises me with his enthusiasm for a particular plant.

Here's another photo by Mr. Lee that relates to my week:

 

We spent the past weekend digging our garden furniture out the basement and cleaning it up.  We're hoping to grill out this weekend, and kabobs with peppers are on the menu.

So much for my uninteresting personal life.  Let's stroll around the blogroll:

It appears Kelly Sedinger of Byzantium's Shores doesn't have much use for Twilight:

Twilight is awful. Avoid it.

...........

When I started the book, my initial impression was to think of it as My So-Called Life (with Vampires); I quipped on Facebook that I kept waiting for Bella to launch into another monologue about Jordan Catalano. However, I quickly disabused myself of this notion, because Twilight boasts none of the humor of My So-Called Life, nor does it have any of its compelling drama, its insight, and its memorable characters.

............

I've been thinking about the recent craze for- well, Vampire Apologetics.  I suppose the idea of creating sympathetic, bloodsucking undead creatures began with novelist Anne Rice, then really took hold with TV's long-running Buffy the Vampire Slayer series and it's spinoff, Angel.  Now we have a new HBO series called True Blood about Vampires Among Us (campaigning for equal rights, no less!) and of course the Twilight series and movie.

  In another decade or two this obsession with rehabilitating the undead will no doubt say something about the zeitgiest.  Of course, there are all kinds of interesting angles to explore in the undead meme and I suppose it's nice to "think outside the coffin"  and get beyond the Transylvanian Formal Wear stereotype.  For example, what if the U.S. had used vampires as spies during the Cold War?  Now there's an idea.  No Ricin Necessary.  Can you take a fake passport photo of someone who doesn't cast a reflection?

But for now I can only say- what the heck?  We've gone from "I vant to suck your blooood" to "I really have issues because my people owned slaves during the Civil War."

??????????

Personally, I think what the world needs right now is a rollicking good BigFoot movie.  Something to go see at the local drive-in this summer where you can howl and squeal and cover your eyes. Do us all good.

Yer a star kid, yer a star!

 

 

 

 

Defiance.

 

The next time you think you have spoken Truth to Power, remember those who really did.

Our Founding Fathers salute you, Tank Man.

Killing People Who Kill People to Show that Killing People is Wrong

They're at it again.

Those Who Know Better.

Those Who Serve the Cause.

Killing those who kill to stop the killing.

Dr. George Tiller, a man (in)famous for performing late-term abortions, was shot to death in a Lutheran Church this past Sunday during services.

He was murdered by Scott Roeder, 51, an anti-abortion activist.

The next day Pvt. William Long, 23, was murdered as he stood outside the Army-Navy Career Center in Little Rock, Arkansas.

He was murdered by Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), also 23.

From the Fox News article describing Pvt. Long's murder:

Interviews with police show that the suspect "probably had political and religious motives for the attack," Thomas said.

The same could be said of Dr. Tiller's murderer, word for word.

From the same Fox News article:

A prosecutor said Muhammad admitted shooting Long and another soldier "because of what they had done to Muslims in the past."

Roeder might well have said he murdered Dr. Tiller "because of what he had done to innocent infants in the past."

Many people are trying to say that Roeder was put up to this by anti-abortion rhetoric and Fox News commentators.

Many other people are trying to say that Muhammad was put up to this by extremist Muslim rhetoric and (mis)leaders like Osama bin Laden.

Anti-abortion groups are rejecting such statements.

Muslim groups will no doubt soon reject such statements.

Scott Roeder believed he was serving a higher cause by committing murder.

Abdullah Mujahid Muhammad believed he was serving a higher cause by committing murder.

Scott Roeder believed he was avenging the deaths of innocents and protecting more innocents from harm.

Abdullah Mujahid Muhammad believed he was avenging the deaths of innocents and protecting more innocents from harm.

Roeder believed his moral imperative to kill outweighed the rule of law.

Muhammad believed his moral imperative to kill outweighed the rule of law.

If these two incidents don't seem similar to you, then you're part of the brave and ugly new world these two men are trying to make.

And I'm not interested in accommodating you.