Good grief

File under “nobody would believe you if you made it up”: Oslo Girl: “I saw on TV2 news last night that there was a march in the center of Oslo yesterday to commemorate the 60th anniversary of Kristallnacht. Jews, apparently, were forbidden to participate. Technically, they could join the demonstration as long as they refrained from showing any Jewish symbols, like the Star of David. The rule was enforced in order to “avoid any conflicts.””

(Via Heretic’s Almanac. And Sully has also got it now.)

UPDATE/CORRECTION (from Sully’s Letters page): “There were Jews present in the demonstration. The arrangers, SOS Rasisme, makes it very clear that not only will they never exclude Jews from their activities, but they have always invited Jewish organisations to participate.
SOS Rasisme had specifically asked participants to refrain from displays of partisanship for either side in the Middle East conflict and unite behind the common message of the demonstration. This was their decision, not one of the authorities.
The “Jews and their friends” who tried to hijack the demonstration were in large part right-wing extremists, among them members of Forum Mot Islamisering (Forum Against Islamisation, FOMI), an organisation with neo-nazi roots. Along with them were at least one Jew, Erez Uriely, from a pro-Israel organisation called Norsk Israelsenter (Norwegian Israel Center, NIS). His choice of racist and right-wing extremist companions enraged Oslo’s Jewish community and Uriely and his wife were subsequently excluded from Det Mosaiske Trossamfund (The Mosaic Religious Body, DMT) of Oslo.
A statement from Norsk Forening Mot Antisemitism (Norwegian Society Against Anti-Semitism, NFMA) also condemned the action as historyless and unworthy.”

Google censored?

Search Google images for abu ghraib, and you get 136 hits, with no explicit scenes of torture or humiliation.

Search Yahoo! Images for abu ghraib, and you get 4,035 hits, including the most notorious shots of abuse, torture, and dead prisoners.

What’s going on here? Perhaps we should abandon Google if we can’t trust it any more….

(Via Slashdot, where it was reported that google.co.uk doesn’t have these problems. Well, I just checked, and it does now.)

UPDATE: It now appears that the explanation is quite simple: Google is incompetent at indexing images. Even more reason to dump them.

Sullivan on Maher

I just watched the season finale of Bill Maher‘s Real Time on HBO. Normally I forget to watch it, and have to catch up via video-on-demand, but since Andrew Sullivan had blogged that he was flying out to take part I wanted to see if he’d say the same stuff on TV that he’s been blogging.
It was a weird show in some respects – Bill Maher was obviously still pretty angry underneath his bravado – but I was particularly struck by three things that Andrew Sullivan said.
(1) He attacked Bill Maher for losing the election for the Democrats by making jokes about people of religious faith that demeaned them. “If you demean them, how do you expect them to vote for you?” Say what? Look, I’m perfectly willing to concede that there are religious folk in the red states (and elsewhere) who are turned off by what they see as ungodly attitudes and actions from people in the blue states. But it’s been that way for years, just as there are secular people in the blue states (and elsewhere) who are turned off by Bible-based thinking and homophobia. For some people on both sides, these attitudes are deeply ingrained, and cleaning up Bill Maher’s jokes or Pat Robertson’s sermons isn’t going to have any effect. Each group offends the other simply by existing, by being themselves, and to argue that they should change seems to contradict Sullivan’s pleas for a return to tolerance through federalism.
(2) Why does Sullivan (and many others) froth at the mouth when anyone mentions “America” and “war crimes” in the same sentence? And why do they always argue how much better America’s actions are than those of Saddam? Is that the standard by which America should judge itself? From someone like Sullivan who argued so eloquently just a few days ago about the collective amnesia concerning Abu Ghraib, such jingoism seems inapposite.
(3) It is possible that Sullivan’s excitability was occasioned by the appearance on the program of Noam Chomsky, whom Sullivan accused of “making millions running around the world denigrating the United States”. (I may have got the exact words wrong: he certainly said “millions”, which caused a few eyebrows to be raised.) But why the outrage? Numerous legal bodies, including the International Commission of Jurists, have declared that the invasion of Iraq and many of the consequent actions of the USA and its allies violate international law. Logically Sullivan would seem to have only three options: refute the charges, accept them and agree that the USA should take responsibility for its actions, or declare that the USA is somehow above the law. Lashing out at an academic for exercising his freedom of speech, and saying that his views don’t deserve to be heard, does Sullivan no credit. (Whatever happened to Evelyn Beatrice Hall’s immortal dictum “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?)
Of the other speakers on the show, ex-Senator Alan Simpson seemed determined to take offence, especially at the antics of Maher’s unruly audience. (They should fix that – it’s actually an embarrassment.) Susan Sarandon was frustrated and exhausted after all her campaigning in Ohio and Pennysylvania, and was a bit too paranoid about voter fraud (though I can sympathize with her). Comedian D. L. Hughley was OK but forgettable, and Pat Schroeder was as forthright as ever.
Despite Sullivan’s plaintive “God help me” about tonight’s show, he appeared to enjoy himself. His reactions to Bill Maher’s New Rules segment seemed to attract the camera like a magnet. I wonder how he’ll blog about his perspective?

Follow the bouncing ball

dollar.jpgDollar at record low against euro: “It seems now that the longer-term investors like pension funds and perhaps monetary authorities are either hedging their dollar risk or moving assets out of the United States. It looks like the dollar has further to fall…”

You can check out the historical data using Oanda’s FXGraph applet: choose “from USD“, “to EUR“, “since 6 Nov 1996“. Note the trend over the last four years, and extrapolate….

What will this mean for the US economy? Unless the budget and current account deficits are slashed, the probable consequences are rising interest rates, rising inflation, a depressed housing market, and recession. We’ve seen this before: it’s called stagflation. Welcome to the 1970s. Even the oil prices look familiar….

(Via the BBC.)

"Talk more, shoot less"? What a quaint idea….

Iraqis Say U.S. Should Talk More, Shoot Less: Iraq’s Deputy Foreign Minister Hamid al-Bayati said the insurgency was partly due to mistakes Bush made earlier. Using force that kills civilians on a large scale is a mistake. The logic of occupation must end. Bush’s main mistake was not to let an Iraqi provisional government take power after Saddam was toppled,” he said. “The resistance operations were seen coming as soon as the United States kept acting as an occupier.”

(Via Yahoo!.)

Monday morning quarterbacking

Masood has been pointing people at an interesting piece in Counterpunch by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair, criticizing Kerry’s campaign strategy and tactics for the loss. While the brute facts of the argument are incontrovertible – the role of religion and homosexuality, and Kerry’s difficulty in establishing a clear distinction between him and Bush on Iraq, outsourcing, and so forth – I’m not sure that those factors were decisive. Look at it another way: in spite of all of those handicaps, Kerry came extremely close to unseating an incumbent president who should have been a shoo-in. What could he have done differently? (No, he couldn’t have tacked left.)
As Cockburn and St.Clair point out, the choice of VP was probably decisive:
Edwards added absolutely nothing to the ticket. At least Dan Quayle held Indiana back in 1988 and 2002. No one state in the south went into Kerry’s column. Gore did better in Florida and West Virginia. Dick Gephardt would certainly have brought the Democratic ticket Missouri and probably Iowa and hence the White House.
Gephardt could have worked, but he has a lot of baggage. I actually think that the best choice might have been Wes Clark, in order to hammer Bush on the issue of military incompetence. Unlike Kerry or Edwards, Clark could have invoked Abu Ghraib as a moral catastrophe for which heads ought to roll, and done so without being accused of betraying the troops.

Convenient fictions

Baghdad Burning: “Everyone here knows Abu Mussab Al-Zarqawi isn’t in Falloojeh. He isn’t anywhere, as far as anyone can tell. He’s like the WMD: surrender your weapons or else we’ll attack. Now that the damage is done, it is discovered that there were no weapons. It will be the same with Zarqawi. We laugh here when we hear one of our new politicians discuss him. He’s even better than the WMD- he has legs. As soon as the debacle in Falloojeh is over, Zarqawi will just move conveniently to Iran, Syria or even North Korea.”

At this point, I don’t know if Allawi is using Bush or if Bush is using Allawi. And the truly depressing thing is that I don’t think it matters. The dead, the maimed, and the orphans won’t discriminate. Meanwhile, please read River’s blog and spare a thought for the people of Falloojeh.