The Bookworm Beat 4-17-15 — the “green hair day” edition and open thread
I went to get my hair done today, which is usually a relaxed and peaceful time. Today, as usual, my hairdresser and I were talking about our respective children, when he suddenly stopped and said, “Have you been swimming?”
That question sure came out of left field. “No,” I responded. “Why?” The answer was a surprise: “Because all your gray hair is green.”
What?!!!! I hadn’t noticed that because I seldom look at myself that closely in the mirror. No one in my family had noticed it because they seldom look at me at all. But there it was: a bilious shade of green in place of my normal skunk stripe, as well as all the other swathes and patches of gray decorating my hair. I have no idea why this happened, but it did.
Gray hair doesn’t bother me; green hair does. I do not like having green hair. Its presence explains why my face had looked peculiarly flushed lately — the green highlighted the red tones in my usually pale face. Just as green is not a good hair shade for me, parboiled isn’t a good color for my face.
After much debate with his colleagues about the best way to handle this unusual problem, my hairdresser decided to go darker, because a tint would cover the green without turning my hair into over-processed straw. The result is that I have sort of reddish-brown hair that’s too dark for my tastes but that I have been assured will fade rather rapidly while at the same time (everyone hopes) still hiding the green.
The whole thing took way too long, although the haircut, as always, is perfection. This matters, because I have hair that can prove challenging to hair stylists. Finding one who is a really nice person and a superb stylist means putting up with an unexpectedly long time in the chair.
My plan today was to get home around midday, call a client, work on several legal projects, and blog. That didn’t happen. After the endless hair appointment, I had to rendezvous with the kids to take care of all sorts of unexpected “we must do it today” chores. It’s 4:15 and I’ve only just walked in. Still, I have much that I want to share with you, so you’ll get a good Friday evening, instead of a good Friday midday, read.
We can kill our way to victory against Islamists
This is an older Daniel Greenfield post, but one that I think still deserves reading. Greenfield’s point is a simple one, which is that it is possible to defeat an enemy by killing so many of his troops that there is no one left to fight, or no one left who is willing to fight (which probably means the same). Anybody, of course, can state a simple principle. Daniel Greenfield’s gift is that he can expand upon it with facts and analysis in a completely compelling way.
Slate Magazine (!) has article saying ISIS is Obama’s fault
Someone in the Slate Magazine editing room must have fallen asleep, because Slate published an article blaming the rise of ISIS on . . . Obama!
“Was it inevitable that Iraq would disintegrate?” I asked Rafi. No, it was not, he assured me. Iraq had been moving in a positive direction after the surge. This downward trajectory began in 2010 when the United States had not upheld the right of Iraqiya to have first chance at trying to form the government after it won the elections. “We might not have succeeded,” he admitted, “but the process itself would have been important in building trust in Iraq’s young institutions.”
Bad decisions taken by Americans in 2010 destroyed the country, he believed. Since then, Obama had regularly cited ending the war in Iraq as one of his greatest foreign policy successes. On Nov. 1, 2013, with Maliki by his side in the White House, Obama stated: “We honor the lives that were lost, both American and Iraqi, to bring about a functioning democracy in a country that previously had been ruled by a vicious dictator. And we appreciate Prime Minister Maliki’s commitment to honoring that sacrifice by ensuring a strong, prosperous, inclusive and democratic Iraq.” He appeared to be paying scant attention to Maliki’s growing authoritarianism and the deteriorating situation in the country.
[snip]
The Iraq war—and the way in which the United States departed—tilted the regional balance of power in Iran’s favor. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other states in the region all sought to project their influence by supporting sectarian actors in different countries—with devastating consequences.
We here have been saying that all along but, as I said, there must have been some error at Slate for them to have finally published the truth.
American Jews must resist yielding to Obama on Iran
Obama has been doing a charm offensive with the Jewish community regarding Iran. Caroline Glick explains that hard Left Jews are completely on board with Obama’s “give Iran everything it asks for” plan, while merely Left Jews (which means most American Jews) have been silenced because they fear appearing disloyal to Obama more than they fear seeing Israel get annihilated by the Iranians.
Lee Smith explains just how bad the lies are that Obama told to these “moderate” Jews:
Of course Iran is irrational. It is irrational in its very essence, for anti-Semitism is the form that unreason takes in modern political life. Disregarding the regime’s anti-Semitism is not a way of politely papering-over stray rhetoric or a barely relevant superstition that is not of any conceivable relevance to grand matters of state. It is to willfully ignore the nature of the regime. Seen from this perspective, the White House’s key foreign policy initiative—to strike a deal with such a regime—is willfully perverse, and doomed to failure.
[snip]
The problem, however, is that the administration is not striking a deal with Iranian moderates or the good people of Iran who we are frequently told love America and have no issue with Israel, in spite of the massive “Death to America, Death to Israel” rallies. Rather, the White House is coming to an accommodation with a sick regime.
And insofar as the White House is providing billions in sanctions relief, and partnering with the regime in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon while providing it with a pathway toward attaining a nuclear bomb, it is effectively rewarding Iran for its behavior and its rhetoric. Instead of walking away from the negotiating table or telling Khamenei to go to hell when he threatened to obliterate Israel, Obama doubled down in his efforts to get a deal. After all, say the experts, the exterminationist anti-Semitism isn’t nice, but it shouldn’t really be taken seriously.
[snip]
Roosevelt never lifted a finger to save European Jews, but he did defeat the Nazis. Obama writes letters to the man who threatens to exterminate Jews and promises him peace. American Jewish leaders have plenty to worry about. The cost to American political life of legitimizing exterminationist anti-Semitism may turn out to be one of the worst parts of a bad deal.
Let me repeat what this Iran debacle has revealed: Obama is not an empty suit whose dismal school career and frequent uninformed statements indicate a significant lack of intelligence. He may not be book smart, but this is a wily man and a terrifically successful manipulator who has bent these skills to the service of true evil. He is everything his followers claimed except for the ultimate thing: He is not a good man, he is a bad one.
Iran has always wanted the bomb
One of the lies Obama keeps telling is that Israel and other nations in Iran’s cross hairs (including America) need not worry about Iran going nuclear, because some cleric issued a fatwa against this. As MEMRI has repeatedly pointed out, this is a lie, one of those that Obama is working hard to make sure goes completely around the world before the truth gets a chance to put its pants on.
Just to put to rest any lingering questions about the fundamental dishonest of this lie, the Council on Foreign Relations has dug up a copy of a letter from Ayatollah Khomeni rhapsodizing about Iran’s nuclear destiny.
Daniel Greenfield on the Leftist corpse, rising again and again
Apparently today is Daniel Greenfield day at my site. The other one of his articles that I wanted to bring to your attention is the one in which he explains that Leftism is like a perverse and disgusting Phoenix that kills itself, only to rise from the ashes bent again on its suicidal mission. It’s victories always presage its death, along with the death of everyone else unfortunate enough to get caught in its endless cycle of death and dismal rebirth:
The left is winning, but for the left winning is indistinguishable from dying. The West didn’t defeat Communism; it held it at bay long enough for it to defeat itself. The Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China crushed Communism more decisively than Goldwater could have ever dreamed of.
A WWII Battle for Algiers
Most Americans would be very surprised to learn that America’s first land battle in North Africa wasn’t against the Germans, but was instead against the Vichy French. This article tells of the amazing Jewish underground in Algiers that made an Allied victory possible.
Madeleine L’Engle’s fiercely anti-government writing
I’m going to assume that, if you came of age in the late-1940s or after, you’ve read Madeleine L’Engle’s brilliant A Wrinkle in Time
What we just learned today, though, is that L’Engle didn’t set out to create just an anti-Soviet parable. Instead, she understood that America could also become that kind of nation if it allowed its desire for security to strengthen our government beyond that contemplated by the fiercely independent Founders. Her granddaughter has just published three typewritten pages from the original manuscript (pages that, sadly, did not make it into the final book) in which L’Engle has the father of Megan, the main character, explain to her that America is at just as much risk of totalitarianism as Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, if citizens rely too much on government for security:
In it [the newly released passage], Meg has just made a narrow escape from Camazotz [a completely totalitarian, conformist planet, kind of like an American college campus]. As Meg’s father massages her limbs, which are frozen from a jarring trip through space and time, she asks: “But Father, how did the Black Thing—how did it capture Camazotz?” Her father proceeds to lay out the political philosophy behind the book in much starker terms than are apparent in the final version.
He says that yes, totalitarianism can lead to this kind of evil. (The author calls out examples by name, including Hitler, Mussolini and Khrushchev.) But it can also happen in a democracy that places too much value on security, Mr. Murry says. “Security is a most seductive thing,” he tells his daughter. “I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s the greatest evil there is.”
Ms. Voiklis [L’Engle’s granddaughter, who manages L’Engle’s estate] said she wanted readers to know the book wasn’t a simple allegory of communism. Instead, it’s about the risk of any country—including a democracy—placing too much value on security. The tension between safety and personal freedom is an idea that resonates in today’s politics.
And finally, the unexpected beauty of a Biden speech
I didn’t know that AutoTune in the hands of someone talented could do this. Color me incredibly impressed:
OMG THIS IS AMAZING.
Posted by Chaos311Clarity on Wednesday, April 15, 2015
[If the video doesn’t appear, you can see it here.]
