Author: N.Z. Bear

(via The Corner).

Dan over at Effect wrote in with some additional info on the item I posted yesterday regarding al Qaeda making contact with Islamist Kurds:

“The Ansar al-Islam connection was discussed in some detail as a small part of the Jeffrey Goldberg article on the gas attacks in Halabja, which is probably where the CSM guy is working from: [link]

This isn’t really a *shocking* revelation, not if you’ve been keeping up with all the little nodes like Fred at Rantburg [link]. And frankly, just about every little “cell” of unemployed hookah-smokers has had *some* contact with *somebody* that you can parse as an al Qaeda connection.

This is really just another example of how they glom onto every little flowering of conflict, or each flowering gravitates toward the al Qaeda blob (see Tim Blair). And how Saddam will cynically ally with anyone in order to fuck with his enemies. As a casus belli it’s pretty weak.”

Well, I’m not suggesting it’s cause to immediately freak out: I agree with Dan that it is not surprising that al Qaeda is attempting to slime their way into any possible conflict area. But the Kurds strike me as a particularly dangerous group to allow to fall into the Islamist orbit. They’ve been fighting for their own homeland for ages, and have already been screwed over by the United States at least once in recent memory (when they rose up against Saddam in the early 90’s at end of the Gulf War, and got squashed, mistakenly assuming that we were actually going to help them).

Miraculously, though, my understanding is that the main groups of Iraqi Kurds still are pretty positive towards the United States (even if they will be somewhat more cautious trusting us the next time around). And so I think a group like Ansar al-Islam bears close scrutiny. If “Kurdistan” (i.e., Northern Iraq those pieces of Turkey, Iran & Syria that the Kurds claim) were to go Islamofascist (not likely, but certainly conceivable ), that would certainly give al Qaeda another very nice base of operations.

And I think we’d all agree that would, well, suck.

My Minnesotan friend tips me off that today’s edition of Tense from Minnesota Public Radio is about weblogs. They don’t have the audio up their site yet, but if you get the actual primitive old electromagnetic waves flowing over you, catch it on air. I’ll post a link when the web audio shows up.

Double Hmph. I noticed a few days back that Pundit has rather kindly given me a link on his blogroll (thanks!). But I’m ambivalent about my classification: I’m under “Comedies”, grouped with the likes of “The Onion”.

So I guess I’m funny sometimes. Or at least I try. But “Comedies”, you know; it’s a bit limiting. I do try to do some serious stuff around here. (And btw, I’m working on a major new piece, kinda similar to Back in the Day, which hasn’t got a funny word in it. Maybe you’ll see it soon).

But I shouldn’t whine unless I’m going to propose a solution (see, my management consulting background is good for something!). So let’s see what we can do here. Martin likes to go with the whole movie-genre thing on his links, but I really don’t think any of his existing ones fit. So let’s brainstorm.

Rock Opera?

Nah. I’m not deaf dumb or blind, and I sure don’t play a mean pinball.

Tear-Jerker ?

My blighted prose may make you cry, but I don’t want to brag about it.

Western ?

I am in California, but that’s probably beside the point.

Teen Sex Comedy ?

You must be thinking of someone else.

Now when I think about it, I’ve always thought the whole “fu” thing was kinda cool — the moniker you hear flung around Ain’t-It-Cool-News for martial arts flicks. You know, Kung Fu, which led to Wire Fu, which led to Matrix Fu. So why not … you guessed it…

Pundit Fu!

I like it. So what do I do here, start a write-in campaign to badger Martin? That probably wouldn’t be very nice. Is there a form to fill out? Some kind of test? Inquiring minds wanting to know and all that…

Hmph. The Force is strong in Jedi Reynolds tonight… Instamention is driving lots of folks my way. Who would have thought so many people would be interested in listening to the Left ?

Scott Peterson, a reporter and photographer for the Science Monitor, was on Fresh Air today discussing his reporting in the Middle East.

Peterson’s most interesting information is that apparently there is a splinter group of Iraqi Kurds called Ansar al-Islam in northern Iraq who have adopted a militant Islamic position and have made contact with Al Queda. Even more interesting is that Peterson reports that this group is being funded and supported in part by Saddam himself, in an effort to counterbalance the main Kurdish opposion groups and generally destablize the north. Of the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan — the group from which Ansar al-Islam evolved — he said the following:

“I did speak to sources in Northern Iraq during my recent visit in which they described how Al Qaeda members had worked very hard to try and recruit some people from this organization and try and bring them onto there ideological wavelength. They apparently were successful in doing that. And also, I spoke to people too who described that there had been a lot of support for this group from Saddam Hussein in Baghdad: his purpose was to find any means possible to help destabilize the situation in Northern Iraq, and he felt that this was a worthwhile tool for that.”

I unfortunately can’t seem to locate any particular piece on the CSM website corresponding to this story, so you’ll just have to listen to the RealAudio — the discussion of the Kurds is at the very beginning of the interview. If anyone finds a link, send it to me.

Hmmm. I’m being nice today, but I just don’t know what to make of WarBloggerWatch’s annotation of a Power post in which he extols the virtues of collaborative blogs.

They’ve annotated his quoted words with odd images, including this shot of Nazi swastikas.

Now I’m not in N.Z.Bear-The-Insult-Pundit mode today, so I’m going to remain polite here. But could someone please explain to me just how I’m supposed to interpret this charming little link? It’s been a while since I’ve actually seen Godwin’s Law in action — most folks have smartened up that stuff like that only makes you look foolish. So surely there’s some wise message buried in WBW’s annotation that I’m just missing…. right….?

anyone think I’m closed-minded, let me state it clearly: TTLB is a forum for all opinions.

All opinions, as used in that sentence, are defined as:

1) My opinions

2) Opinions of people I think are intelligent or are at least old friends of mine

A slight revision on the Webster’s standard definition of “all”, I grant you, but I make the rules around here, as I think I’ve mentioned.

With that firmly established, I present to you an opinion that falls in Category #2, from someone who wishes to remain anonymous — let’s just call her L.

L, who is both intelligent and an old friend, put up with me during my high school days and that should at least earn her one free soapbox here at TTLB. She is, in addition, a card-caryin’, tree-huggin’, Democratic-votin’ flaming-and-proud-of-it liberal. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Er, wait a minute, maybe there — well, nevermind.

Anyway, L chastised me severely for the original Creative Dream Team posts, pointing out (accurately) that it was a fairly impressive list of Old White Guys. Why no chicks? (Ok, she didn’t use the word “chicks”; I think she said “dames” or “broads”). All are welcome, I responded, but nobody nominated any. So I challenged her to throw her fave’s into the fray.

Well, weeks passed, and I finally goaded her into providing a brief blurb, at least, for her nomination for a wise lady we should pay attention to: Molly Ivins. L writes as follows:

“Looking for left-leaning comments? Then, please, read the latest from Molly Ivins, one of the best and most straightforward commentators from the left/centrist political spectrum. Her latest article about the Administration’s refusal to enact any reforms to diminish the effect of global warming are on target. At least the Bushies acknowledge that humans cause global warming.”

Well, there you have it! Commence link following, or at least commence standard blogospheric conservative Ivins bashing. As always, comments that sufficiently amuse will get posted… but be nice! L’s an old friend, as I said, and anyone caught being mean to her will anger the bear.

PS – With this, I think TTLB has now completed its ideological loop-de-loop round to the liberal side of the world. I better start linking to The Corner again quick before people start getting ideas…

Hmmm. I am attempting to put up a little poll widget (see left) but it doesn’t seem to be working. Anyone with suggestions, let me know…

-NZB

More linking to people who don’t need it

If you’re interested in the latest census data that came out yesterday, but can’t stomach slogging through a tedius Times or Post piece, go read assessment today. He gives you the goods, and although it doesn’t quite reach the time-saving level of a SeriesSkipper^TM, it’ll save you at least a few minutes of tedium.

Lefty Blog Roundup

I’ve received quite a few emails from folks suggesting lefty / liberal blogs that might be of interest. I have to confess that thus far, I’ve yet to find one that has struck me with complete clarity and brilliance that I feel comfortable annointing as The Chosen Leftie. But there sure is some interesting stuff out there, so rather than inflict my prejudices on you, I decided to at least do a roundup of everything I’ve received, and let readers browse as they wish. This list is pretty inclusive of what I received; I only dropped a few that I thought were really lame or were already popular enough to not need the attention. (And I’m not relisting those that I did full posts on; scroll down for those…)

I’m attempting to behave myself today, and maybe go 24 hours without insulting anybody, so I’m going to restrict my comments to honest-but-polite assessments. If you seek snarkiness, look not here.

The list:

Liberal – Another liberal warblogger, and a good one at that. Check out his takedown of a fellow critical of the SFSU blogburst effort, in particular.

Eschaton Sometimes heavy on the insult-tactics, but also sometimes pretty darned sharp.

Charlie Stross – Cthulhu plush toys and links to squirrel fishing photos. Not sure about his politics, but how bad could it be? And he’s a SF-writing Scot, so there’s two extra points. (Hey Charlie, go ask MacLeod why he hasn’t responded to my email, would ya? Thanks.)

Cogent Provocateur – Hmmm. Interesting, but here’s a quote: “Terrorism is not a strategic threat to the US. It wasn’t on September 10, it wasn’t on September 11, and it isn’t today. Terrorists can harass us, they hurt us, they can cost us lives and fortunes, but they can’t knock us over or turn us around.” Well, yes — sort of. There is one low-probability scenario that could lead to the actual destruction of the U.S., and that’s a well-executed bioterrorism attack, but in my view that’s pretty unlikely. And barring that possibility, I can’t see anything else the terrorists can throw at us that would lead to our “defeat” in any real sense of the word (no, not even a nuke attack). However, I’d quibble that just because they are highly unlikely to defeat us, that doesn’t mean that they aren’t a strategic threat. They can still do us great damage, and I think our “strategic interest” should clearly be defined to include preventing great damage, not just preventing total defeat. (Bottom line: blogged something I felt the urge to respond to, so that must be a good sign… see for yourself).

Demosthenes/Hegemon – Straightforward lefty commentary with a particular focus on refuting the CW of the libertarian/conservative blogosphere; insults light to nonexistent.

Dr. Menlo – Let’s put it this way: three of the images prominently displayed on his page are of Edgar Allen Poe, Lenny Bruce, and an automatic weapon that looks to my untrained eyes to be an M-16. I have no idea what that means, but go see for yourself.

Ethel the Blog – Quotes Harlan on the top of his page, so how bad could it be? Also, much linkage and quotage from interesting sources: check out Umberto Eco on Ur-Fascism

The Hauser Report – I think this one is a bit better known, but it wasn’t to me, so here it is. News media link & commentary from a “politically obsessed, self-righteous, fanatically liberal law student”

Jason Rylander – Sharp guy. And he points us to an absolute must-read essay by, of all people, E.B. White on New York City, which is simply chilling in its prophecy.

Public Nuisance – Pleasantly high intelligence/insults ratio (might even be dividing by zero, there). Most recent post is a critique of MWO-Watch, which makes it a weblog commentary on a weblog devoted to monitoring the activities of a weblog devoted to monitoring the activities of the mainstream media. It’s a meta, meta world.

The Serenity– A lot of well-intentioned stuff here that I don’t agree with, but zero on the obnoxious meter and high points for good intentions, so go judge for yourself.

The Stationmaster – I’ll just stick with the self-assessment he emailed me: “I’m a revolutionary communist. Maoist even. That hard enough for you?” Yipes. Uh, yeah.

The Poor Man – Just damned funny. A must read for the chuckles, at the very least.

WarBloggerWatch – – I approve of the concept here, really I do (not that I suspect they care). I mean, it would be a bit hypocritical of the warblogger community to object to someone attempting to fact-check their asses, right? (That “their” should probably be “our”, strictly speaking). As for the execution: well, a bit heavy on the insults and light on the well-reasoned analysis for my tastes, but they do hit some good points at times. Judge for yourself.

War Liberal – Smart stuff, but most folks know that. Almost didn’t make the list because I don’t think Mac qualifies as “small”, but oh well.

Welcome to the Sideshow – – Intelligent stuff, even if she (he?) does say some slightly mean things about my fave Christopher Hitchens (not entirely undeserved things, for the record). Most notable page factoid: the three “resources” listed on the right navbar are the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Bible.

Wisse Words – Gets points if for no other reason than drawing my attention to a Nation article on criminal charges being considered against a U.S. official in the 1973 Chilean coup — demonstrating that sometimes, the left is indeed right.

The Beeb has story on the Internet in China.

This is a bit of an “evergreen” piece — it seems like every year somebody does a story on how the Internet is changing China, but how the government is still cracking down on freedom of expression. But I mention it because it brought two questions to my mind:

1) Are there any bloggers in China? How about political ones?

2) If there are, would I be doing them a (potentially life-affecting) disservice if I actually did draw attention to them?

The second question is certainly not one I’m used to asking myself before linking to blogs… attention = life in the blogosphere, right? But in the light of China’s attitudes, it is one that I and anybody else thinking of mentioning such blogs must consider, in good conscience. And it’s not just China, of course: I’d love to hear from bloggers in other not-so-democratic states. (In particular, I would be very very interested in hearing from anybody in Iran — even if you’re not a blogger, and even if you just want to say ‘hi’ and don’t want any public attention).

Anyway, given that line of thought, I guess we have a new policy here at TTLB: I only link to bloggers in totalitarian states by request only. And no, the EU doesn’t count.

Given that a) I’ve been a bit obnoxious lately and b) I am still a new kid on the blogger block, I find this somewhat appropriate:

target=”_blank”>
:: how jedi are you? ::

There aren’t too many rules here at TTLB, but one I generally follow is this: Make me laugh out loud, and you get a link. So when I hit this:

ORRIN JUDD to think that my article talking about the greater danger posed by neuroscience relative to cloning means that I have something in common with Francis Fukuyama. Well, at an appropriate level of abstraction, I do. We’re both carbon-based bipeds.

it gets linked. Even if it’s Glenn, and he really doesn’t need it. Read the whole note; Glenn is proving yet again why he’s top of the heap: the man can cram more intelligent prose into a minor rebuttal to someone else’s foolish post than some essayists have in an entire collection of works. And I couldn’t care less if that makes me sound like a suck-up; rest assured I’ll be there to tweak Prof R’s tail next time he slips up, too…

You know, some people are plain mean.

Seriously, what’s gotten into them? I can’t understand it; their actions are incomprehensible.

To put it clearly: how could it possibly be that I haven’t said anything obnoxious enough to piss them off yet?

Clearly, I’ll have to try harder… maybe that piece I was toying with on the Ellen Ripley solution to Saudi Arabia might work out after all…

“I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. That’s the only way to be sure.”
-Ripley

Since I’m already at it…

Might as well go all the way. Has anybody else concluded that has delegated his blogging responsibilities to one of those mysterious interns he allegedly has?

I know he’s got the juice in him, but really: when was the last time you remember reading something really good on his page? (That he wrote, that is: quoting doesn’t count). And the whole publish-once-a-day thing is just so… old media.

I might feel slightly bad for being mean to a guy who’s obviously branching out and exploring new things and all (i.e., budding career as Shakespearean actor — see below), but heck, he can take it, and besides, I’m on record as saying I think he’s great when he wants to be. Come on, Andrew, show us the magic!

(Well, there goes my chances of ever getting a Sulliblast of linkage… ah well…)

Smack!

The sound you just heard was that of newest Prof on the block openin’ a can of whoop-ass on the latest offhand Sullivan remark o’ the day. Observe:

So I stopped by Andrew Sullivan’s weblog this morning to see what’s what, and was confronted with a short item which read, in its entirety:

SELF-PARODY WATCH: “Special Report: Zambian Copper,” – a headline from this week’s Economist.

.

.

.

Why, I wondered, does Andrew Sullivan consider this–interesting and important–story to be a big joke?

But then I began to imagine what the inside of Andrew Sullivan’s mind must be like…”What wonkish fools those writers and editors at the Economist are! Why are they writing about the failure of neoliberal development strategies in southern Africa when they could be writing about my career as a Shakespearean actor? “

Ouch! There’s more; read the whole thing for the complete effect. But hey: I thought slamming Sully for one-line attempts at pithiness was my beat. Back to the bloated Federal bureaucracy with you, Prof D, before I have to swing up north to Moscow on the Bay and give you a little what-for !

PS – I know, Prof D has been around for a while, but he’s new to me, and that’s all that matters on this page.

Speaking of which: how’s this for a “Duh!” headline of the day (from the AP wire):

House questions Arafat’s trustworthiness

In other news:

Pope May Be Catholic, Bush Concedes

Cheney: Yes, Bears Do Shit in the Woods

tanks are attacking Arafat’s compound.

Update: Lair, in a private email, casually tossed off the following assessment which bears reprinting (with his kind permission):

“I suppose I’ll just have to salute Arafat’s impending demise with a shot of tequila. Just as the Palestinians celebrated the World Trade Center deaths with candy, then I will acknowledge that one evil man’s death with giving treats to the cats and remembering all of the innocents on both sides lost to his bloody reign, and I shall pray for those who have yet to die for those tyrants who would take his place until those that would support them are either crushed by their own errors or made to see the light of reason.”

Amen, brother.

Major Whoops

In an earlier post today I referred to J. Bradford Delong’s weblog, and indicated he was the author of a rather hilarious Corner spoof. This is flat out wrong: Delong was simply quoting / linking it and the true author is Poor Man.

So now you have to go visit both of their sites.

Apologies for the error, and thanks to Jeff over at Protein Wisdom for pointing out my blunder.