a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Thursday, November 28, 2002 More RushdieMy review of Haroun and the Sea of Stories at the Berkeley Rep is here. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 12:21 AMWednesday, November 27, 2002 Sure enough,someone has tried to lay a Rushdie-style fatwa on the head of the Nigerian journalist, Isioma Daniel, who made a crack about Muhammed wanting to marry one of those Miss World contestants. (Her remark in a newspaper set off the riots.) And now everyone is blaming her, Daniel, rather than Islamic fanatacism. Via Bookslut. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 1:36 AMTuesday, November 26, 2002 Outdone by the Dutch, the British, the Danes, and (for God's sake) the Canadians?I find this embarrassing. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 11:21 PMSaturday, November 23, 2002 The Saudi ConnectionThe New York Times and everyone else is saying today that money support for the World Trade Center attacks may have been funneled through an account held by the Saudi ambassador's wife. I have a strong hunch that this Saudi connection is part of the reason we haven't heard more about state sponsorship. Yes, Iraq may have been involved, but the Saudis may have been in it up to their beards, which is very awkward for the Bush family. So the White House has gone looking for a host of other reasons to remove Saddam.When Iraq does come up in the context of September 11, we usually hear something like this (also from the NY Times): "American intelligence officials say there is no evidence that Iraq has become involved in Qaeda terrorist operations, and the Bush administration has never found hard evidence that Iraq played any role in the Sept. 11 attacks." And yet Donald Rumsfeld was assuming, minutes after the plane hit the Pentagon, that Iraq was responsible. So the White House is either controlling new information about Saddam and al Qaeda -- for whatever reason -- or steering the War on Terrorism down a long and tortuous by-road. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:08 PM Friday, November 22, 2002 Down With Beauty!The Washington Post reports that some Nigerian rioters against the Miss World contest were chanting, "Down with beauty" — which would almost be funny if up to a hundred people hadn't already died. "Down with beauty" is at least one doctrine the Islamists have managed to instigate in that wretched town. A pungent remark in a newspaper about Muhammed choosing a wife from the Miss World contestants apparently set things off. The pageant spokeswoman, who I suppose couldn't say anything else, gave an official comment: "We regret these incidents, but this is not the fault of Miss World. It is the result of irresponsible journalism."No, no, no! It's the result of fanaticism! When Rushdie made a joke about Muhammed and his wives in The Satanic Verses, was he being an irresponsible novelist? Good God. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 10:56 PM Tuesday, November 19, 2002 Salman RushdieLast night's "evening with Salman Rushdie" at the Berkeley Rep was a zoo, naturally, because admission was free and because everyone in the Bay Area seems to love Salman Rushdie. When they ran out of seats, the organizers let a bunch of Berkeley students sit around Rushdie's chair onstage, and an overflow crowd crammed the lobby to watch him on closed-circuit TV. He talked about Haroun and the Sea of Stories, which the Rep is west-coast premiering on Wednesday. (Haroun was his first published book after The Satanic Verses, and the only novel of his I can read; it's been turned into a play in several languages as well as an opera, which has yet to premiere in New York). Rushdie is always a good conversationalist. He mentioned that his son, Zafar, gave him the "best piece of literary criticism in his life," after reading a draft of Haroun. Zafar said, "Well, some people might be bored.""What do you mean?" Salman asked. "...It needs more jump." Which is the problem with most of his novels. To me Midnight's Children, in particular, has no jump. Anyway, he said an interesting thing about the war in Iraq. He thinks it's inevitable, but he pointed out that "the people you would loosely call the bad guys" in the U.S. administration, meaning "Cheney, Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld" (this got a raucous cheer), "are the ones who advocate democracy after Saddam." (Total silence.) "The Republicans are in favor of a democracy, and the Democrats, in effect, are for dictatorship." For Rushdie the only good reason to invade Iraq is to set up a democracy and end Saddam's dictatorship; but the Democrats have relinquished that side of the rhetorical battle. This confuses and unsettles Rushdie, because he doesn't trust the Bush administration to wage a proper war. Exactly my feelings. And that's why the lack of leadership among the Democrats is such a low and miserable tragedy. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 11:15 PM Monday, November 18, 2002 Skirmishing... of the kind this blog has followed in Iraq since last August is now a pretext for war, according to canada.com. The interesting thing is that although U.S. planes have been radar-painted and fired at, we're not -- yet -- using it as a reason to pull the inspectors and pummel Baghdad. Good. I still think inspections are a charade, but the White House, right now, is showing patience.At the White House, spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday the Iraqi anti-aircraft fire "appears to be a violation" of the UN resolution that sent the inspectors back to Iraq, but declined to say if Washington would seek Security Council action as allowed under the guidelines. UPDATE: Now I see this is a top story in the New York Times. So the White-House-showing-patience is probably what the White House wants everyone to hear. Which makes me think that we might, in the near future, go to war over this no-fly-zone technicality. Clever. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:07 PM Friday, November 15, 2002 Mir Aimal KasiThe Pakistani executed in Virginia today for shooting two CIA officers in 1993 said the murder was the right thing to do because he objected to the bombing of Iraq, according to ABC News. But he apparently had no connections to terrorist groups. Still, this web site has a good article about Kasi's arrest and quotes a letter from him bragging that "if I am executed, I will be received in my country Pakistan, and as well as in Afghanistan, as a martyr, a hero." posted by Michael Scott Moore | 12:59 AMWednesday, November 13, 2002 Good GodI spoke too soon. Saddam's letting in the inspectors. Well, we can hope for disarmament. In the meantime, here's a good passage from an October New Yorker, on the target for a proper War on Terror(ism). The idea is that Syria's Beka'a Valley is the real breeding-and-training ground for international terrorists, including those from al Qaeda and Hezbollah:The chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, Bob Graham, of Florida, says he wants the Administration's war on terrorism to focus not on Iraq but on Hezbollah, its Beka'a Valley camps, and its state sponsors in Iran and Syria. "We should tell the Syrians that we expect them to shut down the Beka'a Valley camps within x number of days, and, if they don't, we are reserving the right to shut them down ourselves," Graham said last month. Sure we should. But war in Iraq is an easier sell. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 11:50 PM Monday, November 11, 2002 War?It sounds like Iraq will reject the UN resolution, and the Hindustan Times predicts all-out war as early as December 8. Debkafile, in the meantime, reports on a battle for control of the Tigris and Euphrates in southern Iraq, and on an American leaflet bombardment over some of Saddam's military bases. The second piece mentions American & British soldiers fighting next to Iranian Special Forces. Remember, the Debkafile people are the same ace reporters who brought us those (apparently fictional) "waves of fighter planes buzzing Baghdad" in August, along with real news of combat in Iraq; so read it with skepticism. But I think peace has almost no chance. Saddam is cornered, and I imagine he's now looking forward to his own Götterdämmerung. His days are numbered; but it will be a vicious war. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:59 PMThursday, November 07, 2002 Trading heroin for weapons... is nothing new in the Middle East. Instapundit links to a Fox News piece about al Qaeda's heroin-for-weapons ring in San Diego, and also raps our attorney general for trying to braid the war on terror in with the war on drugs. Drugs and terror are of course related. But the war on drugs not just a massive failure but also a front for the easy flow of narcotics around the world. This book review points out, in the last long paragraph, that the CIA's point man in Pakistan during the 1980s, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar -- who supported the Afghan mujahideen against the Soviets -- was running opium from the Helmand Valley. A chapter in Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair's book Whiteout tells the same story. Drug money is how covert operations stay alive. A sane drug policy in the U.S. would therefore dry up a lot of terrorist funding; but after this week's big Republican sweep we aren't likely to get any sane talk about drugs. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:18 PMTuesday, November 05, 2002 Regime change?Salman Rushdie makes "a liberal argument for regime change" in Baghdad, and CounterRevolutionary treats it as some kind of anomaly.I have my agreements and disagreements with both Rushdie and CounterRevolutionary, but just to clarify: A liberal argument for toppling Saddam is what you get at Radio Free Mike. We're not "conservative" around here. We're liberal in the classical sense, and just because we think toppling Saddam is a good idea doesn't mean we trust President Bush and his people to do it well. They might, but we're skeptical. Republicans have a laughable track record with wars in the American Interest, from Nixon (who made a Democratic disaster in Vietnam even worse) to Reagan in Nicaragua and Afghanistan, to Bush Sr. in Panama, right up to the nasty contradictions of the first Gulf War. From September 11 on we took it for granted at Radio Free Mike that American liberals could support action against Saddam while being clear-headed about their own leadership, and we didn't need to wait all this time for Mr. Rushdie to clue us in. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 9:11 PM Saturday, November 02, 2002 It's Official, part 2Serge Schmemann has a decent piece in today's Times about oil politics and Iraq. I agree with the gist: Oil is not the White House's main motivation for war -- too costly -- but it's still a subterranean element that for most of this year has been a rather impolite topic of conversation, even for warbloggers. Radio Free Mike dealt with the same issue in this post over a month ago. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:30 PMIt's OfficialThe New York Times reports today -- almost three months late -- that allied patrols over Iraq's no-fly zones "have grown into a low-grade war." posted by Michael Scott Moore | 8:01 PM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
