Another Ornery Essay: The fine folks at Ornery, commies though they are, have put up another good "War Watch" piece, this one entitled, "Two Dangerous Fantasies about the War--or--Why Joe Lieberman Is the Only Choice for Democrats."

An excerpt:

It was in the campaign to win over the U.N., and only then, that the WMD situation became the main plank in the pro-war platform, and that was only because this was the only violation of U.N. resolutions that the Security Council veto-holders and the largest NATO powers seemed even remotely interested in considering.

In other words, it was not us, but France, Germany, Russia, and China that decided that the only place worth focusing our efforts was the question of WMDs.

But, as I wrote at the time and repeat now, even if not a single WMD is ever found, the campaign in Iraq was morally and legally justified by any rational standard of international law and fundamental national rights.

Personally, I think Iraq was a bad strategic choice on military grounds, but nobody could have predicted how quickly the Leftist Elite throughout the western world would insist that it had suddenly become morally wrong for a nation to defend itself without getting the permission of the U.N.

But if you give it even a moment's thought, the behavior of the U.N. is not an argument against the legitimacy of the American war against terrorism, it's an argument against the legitimacy of the United Nations as the arbiter of which wars are permissible.

I can promise you right now that if China ever invades Taiwan, the Security Council, in which China holds a veto, will not sanction American military intervention to save our ally from being swallowed up by imperialist China as ruthlessly as they swallowed Tibet.

Would that make it "wrong" for us to take military action against naked aggression by the Chinese dictatorship against a people who have made it clear they do not wish to be a part of the Chinese Communist empire?

No. This myth that we need U.N. approval or a war is "illegal" is only a temporary club designed to beat the Bush administration with.

It is certainly true that in trying to persuade the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese to vote with us on a resolution supporting military action in Iraq, the Bush administration pulled out all the evidence they could find to support the only argument that seemed to have a hope of working with that hostile, anti-American audience: WMDs.

But it did not work with them, and we Americans, even those who hate Bush worse than the devil, should have the honesty to remember that WMDs were never the only or even the most important reason for the U.S. to topple Saddam's government.

They Might Be Documentary Fodder: Well, I finally got around to seeing "Gigantic: A Tale of Two Johns" the documentary about uber-indie band They Might Be Giants.

Overall, a pretty good film. How good? Well, it's not as insightful as, say, a New Yorker piece, nor as funny as a post "I Love the 80's" VH1 special, but more insightful than, say, an Access Hollywood piece, and funnier than a post "I Love the 80's" E! network special.

Definitely worth watching. And the DVD is worth the price of admission, with lots of bonus features with concert footage and early videos and even a couple of Easter eggs, one of which explains who the bald headed guy from all their early stage shows was.

Some disappointments made the film obviously less than all-encompassing--there's no mention at all of the Tiny Toons appearances, and no mention made of September 11th, even though their album was released that day. They even cheat, by showing the line outside before the release and saying it's "September 10th," as if they really, really wanted to avoid bringing it up.

It was a big deal to me, because I didn't get the album that day because after work I just sat around watching the news, and then my wife went into the hospital two days later for a heart problem, and then my baby was born by Saturday. I bought the album the next Monday, along with a Sesame Street album for my new daughter. I took her home that night, while my wife stayed in the hospital. We listened to both all the way through a couple of times that night.

I still like to sing "It's So Loud In Here" when I'm trying to put her to sleep.

But enough weird anecdotal asides. They made that choice for an obvious reason--they were trying to keep the piece fun. And it is fun. And so are the extras. If you're a fan, check it out.

Or better yet, buy it here and make me money.

Bert Would Be Glad to Know: That his pigeons used Sesame Street to navigate.

Hitchhiker's Guide Casting: In case you missed it, a bit ago the Daily Haggis posted info on the casting for the movie of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. With pictures.

Just Where Have You Been, Young Man?: Tim shows us the "What states have you visited" doohickie, and laments that he's never been to, among other states, Kansas.

Having been to Kansas, I can say you've missed nothing. Kansas is known for one thing and one thing only. A little girl who left and found someplace better.

Here's mine:



I used the same criteria Tim did, not counting Airports as having been "in a state." However, this only would have added Florida and Georgia, on my way to and from Brazil.

I can't remember whether I've ever been to Wyoming or not, which is sad, because my sister lives there.

More Depressed the Easier Life Gets: So I'm listening to John and Ken on KFI radio, a couple of fellas I find obnoxious but usually agree with, while I'm waiting for the news to come on.

And John starts talking about a book he's reading that sounds great. It's called The Progress Paradox, and it's about the way that, despite the fact that we're far better off as a people than we were fifty or even a hundred years ago, we're less satisfied with life, and, in general, less happy.

John, the "tirader" of the pair, launched into a tirade about how lame everybody is for wanting to get free health care, to the point that grocery workers are losing their homes and letting their children go hungry because they don't want to pay an extra five bucks somewhere or other in their health plan. They'll pay hundreds of dollars for vacations, scores of dollars to get cable each month, but to keep themselves healthy, they won't shell out a dime.

I didn't stick around to hear John's explanation of why, (it was probably something really insightful like, "People are just stupid) nor do I know the author of the book's.

But I know mine, and I will be more than happy to share it with the four of you who, according to sitemeter, read this blog.

The answer is, the more technology and progress allow us to control our environment, the less people want to feel responsible for anything they weren't able to control. A farmer seventy-five years ago would have felt more personal responsibility if say, a fire burned up all of his crops. Today, a farmer on the same property would want someone else to pay for it. Since it was not his own action that led to the event, he is not responsible for the event, ergo, he should not have to pay it.

This is why people don't want to pay for their health care. The vacation to Hawaii, the cable, all of those were choices the person made, and so they're willing to shell out money for them. But an illness? A natural disaster? Why should they have to take responsibility for those things? It wasn't their fault!

In other words, people believe they have the right to be protected from any damage they did not cause themselves.

I even have to qualify that, by revising the last sentence to be that they didn't intentionally cause themselves. In other words, if they slip and fall and break their arm, they shouldn't have to pay for it. I didn't mean to!

They only apply this logic to themselves. Since somebody has to be responsible, the people who owned the sidewalk they were walking on in the rain must be at fault. Never mind that they didn't mean to. It's somebody's fault and it's not mine, therefore it's yours.

So why does this make them unhappy?

Because their desire to cast responsibility on others progresses into the sphere of happiness. They feel they are unhappy about something, and the thing they're unhappy about isn't their fault, ergo they are no more responsible for trying to make themselves happy than they are to pay for their broken arm. Somebody, their boss, the government, their spouse, needs to stop doing all the things that are making them unhappy. Or do more stuff to make them happy. Or something, because whatever the world is doing isn't making them happy.

This causes lots of people to pursue political or other agendas designed to force the government, or employers, or others to provide more happiness. Which, of course, is impossible.

Not to sound like Dr. Phil, but the only person who can make you happy is you.

And the government, your employer, me, none of us caused the flood or the fire or the broken arm either. And if you come to me, one on one, and let me know you need help, I'll probably be more than happy to do it. But don't transfer responsibility to us, because you don't think it ever belonged to you.

Good Eats and Legolas: Because of his latest rant, a lot of Alton Brown fans are doing searches for Orlando Bloom and Alton Brown and finding me. So I thought I'd help y'all find what you're looking for.

Here's an explanation of what he's talking about.

Thunderbird Crash: Awesome pic here. More info on it here.

Democrats Make It Simple: Oh, now I understand.

Rejection Letters: Children's book author Ellen Jackson had a contest for the worst rejection letter and the worst submission. The winner in the latter category is a poem that was written in anchovies on a pizza.

I honestly don't see why that was a bad idea.

I am going to submit my novella "Beautiful Hands" to Realms of Fantasy using Alpha Bits cereal.