The Smarmy Carny

The 2,996 Project

Here is a touching September 11 tribute project that I have been watching develop for the past month or so. Thousands of blogs across the blogosphere will each be posting one tribute for one victim of the September 11 attacks.

Rather than further regurgitate the information provided over at 2,996, here is how that site describes the project:

2,996 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11.
On September 11, 2006, 2,996 volunteer bloggers will join together for a tribute to the victims of 9/11. Each person will pay tribute to a single victim.
We will honor them by remembering their lives, and not by remembering their murderers.
. . .
Thank you,
D.Challener Roe

Head over to the 2,996 page or see the list of 2,996 names along with links to their tributes.

For a categorized list, see the list of September 11 victims. (If the webpage is too busy, just check out Google's cache of the 9-11 victim list.

Mark Seavey, an Army seargent infantry squad leader recently released due to an injury, stood up to speak at an Arlington, Virginia town hall meeting. Representatives Jim Moran (D-VA) and John Murtha (D-PA) were taking questions at the time.

Take a look at this video. Listen to Seavey's comments on the troops' morale and note Murtha and Moran's reactions to the questions. More importantly, note their responses (or utter lack of response, to be more accurate). The transcription below was first posted over at the Dawn Patrol/Mudville Gazette.

"Yes sir my name is Mark Seavey and I just want to thank you for coming up here. Until about a month ago I was Sgt Mark Seavey infantry squad leader, I returned from Afghanistan. My question to you, (applause)

"Like yourself I dropped out of college two years ago to volunteer to go to Afghanistan, and I went and I came back. If I didn't have a herniated disk now I would volunteer to go to Iraq in a second with my troops, three of which have already volunteered to go to Iraq. I keep hearing you say how you talk to the troops and the troops are demoralized, and I really resent that characterization. (applause) The morale of the troops that I talk to is phenomenal, which is why my troops are volunteering to go back, despite the hardships they had to endure in Afghanistan.

"And Congressman Moran, 200 of your constituents just returned from Afghanistan. We never got a letter from you; we never got a visit from you. You didn't come to our homecoming. The only thing we got from any of our elected officials was one letter from the governor of this state thanking us for our service in Iraq, when we were in Afghanistan. That's reprehensible. I don't know who you two are talking to but the morale of the troops is very high."

Moran - who is one of the few congressmen supporting Charlie Rangel's call to restore the draft - responded quickly: "That wasn't in the form of a question, it was in the form of a statement. But, uhh… let's go over here." And he took the next question.

Thanks to the Dawn Patrol/Mudville Gazette, Michelle Malkin, Tom Segel, and Rush Limbaugh for further propogating the story, else I might never have heard about it. God knows the mainstream media wouldn't latch onto a comment like this. Wait for Bush to mispronounce one word this week, however, and we'll hear all about it.

This story is coming a bit late, but the day after the Academy Awards, Ben Stein wrote a scathing yet well-deserved review of the Oscars this year and Hollywood in general.

The commentary appeared in The American Spectator on March 6, 2006:

. . . there was not one word of tribute, not one breath, to our fighting men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan or to their families or their widows or orphans. There were pitifully dishonest calls for peace — as if the people we are fighting were interested in any peace for us but the peace of the grave. But not one word for the hundreds of thousands who have served and are serving, not one prayer or moment of silence for the dead and maimed.
Basically, the sad truth is that Hollywood does not think of itself as part of America, and so, to Hollywood, the war to save freedom from Islamic terrorists is happening to someone else. It does not concern them except insofar as it offers occasion to mock or criticize George Bush. They live in dreamland and cannot be gracious enough to thank the men and women who pay with their lives for the stars' ability to live in dreamland. This is shameful.
The idea that it is brave to stand up for gays in Hollywood, to stand up against Joe McCarthy in Hollywood (fifty years after his death), to say that rich white people are bad, that oil companies are evil — this is nonsense. All of these are mainstream ideas in Hollywood, always have been, always will be. For the people who made movies denouncing Big Oil, worshiping gays, mocking the rich to think of themselves as brave — this is pathetic, childish narcissism.
. . .
Hollywood is above all about self: self-congratulation, self-promotion, and above all, self-protection. This is human and basic, but let's not kid ourselves. There is no greatness there in the Kodak theater. The greatness is on patrol in Kirkuk. The greatness lies unable to sleep worrying about her man in Mosul. The greatness sleeps at Arlington National Cemetery and lies waiting for death in VA Hospitals. God help us that we have sunk so low as to confuse foolish and petty boasting with the real courage that keeps this nation and the many fools in it alive and flourishing on national TV.

There's plenty more great commentary within, so head over and read the entire article.

For those who are unfamiliar with ::wikipedia("Ben Stein")::, he first achieved popularity for the monotone teacher in ::amazon("B00001MXXH", "Ferris Beuller´s Day Off"):: and a similar character in ::amazon("6305053987", "The Wonder Years")::. He later obtained his own game show, Win Ben Stein's Money. Before all that, however, he was a speechwriter for Nixon and Ford, and he received the 2003 Pro-Life Award.

John Hawkins over at Right Wing News posted an interesting review of the recent Natalie Portman movie V for Vendetta. V for Vendetta takes place in a totalitarian future-Great Britain and involves a masked vigilante (known only as "V") and Evey (known only as "Natalie Portman"), who conduct terrorism against the "Conservative" Party government.

Hawkins complains that the Conservative Party characters are "cartoonishly" evil. This is one point I really don't have a problem with, since the movie is based on Alan Moore's graphic novel ::wikipedia("V for Vendetta"):: (and originally a ten-issue comic book limited series). In fact, Moore very publicly dissociated himself from the film, calling it "imbecilic." Moore's original story used anarchy and fascism as the two forces at play for his stories. Heidi MacDonald interviewed Alan Moore in November, and he spoke to the political themes of his original work compared with the movie:

It seemed to me the two more absolute extremes were anarchy and fascism. This was one of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism. There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged.

Hawkins submits that this movie goes further than most Hollywood movies and is directly pointed at current American events, despite the changes in location:

The movie isn't subtle. It uses a jackhammer to thunder home its political points. At one point it shows a "Coalition of the Willing" poster with a swastika on it. It blames the current troubles in Britain on, "America's war." The whole movie is built over top of the lunatic vision that wild eyed liberals have of America.

Should this really come as any surprise? Hollywood continues to use their powers of entertainment to push their agenda and influence the impressionable youth of the country. It's going to be a long time before that changes in Hollywood.

Enhanced Orange?

Apparently, scientists are working overtime to enhance common colors that you and I are already familiar with.

That's how it seems, anyway, because The Homeland Security Advisory System has had some interesting twists to it due to the threats against the New York City subway system this weekend.

Now, in general, I don't have any problem with the Homeland Security Advisory System, despite many people's complaints. Let's face it — many people just don't read, listen to, or watch the news regularly, and I like the idea of a simple system for telling everyone if something is or might be going on. (In fact, this site perpetually displays the HSAS threat level in Muppet form. Just take a look at the sidebar.) More importantly, it lets the appropriate agencies know when to really buckle down and make sure they don't miss anything crucial.

Now that's not to say I don't have any problems with the system. Why in the world do we have a green level on there? We all know that no one with half a mind will use that threat level! Who's going to lower the advisory to the "Low" setting of Green? You just know that if we get attacked and the setting is Green, whoever is responsible for that is utterly screwed. So, we are currently on Yellow alert, right? Right . . . unless you're in New York City, where the status has been Orange all along. And unless you were using mass transit three months ago, when there was a raised status for mass transit only.

These, as odd as they are, are perfectly understandable. I have no issue swallowing these discrepancies, but let me mention the latest color change. Suppose a threat is made on New York's subway system, and you are riding San Francisco's BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit). What would you suppose the threat level would be? Yellow? Nope. Orange? Nope. Try this on for size:

"Enhanced Orange" That's right . . . it's certainly not Red, but it's more than Orange. It must be Enhanced Orange. BART spokesman Lynton Johnson was quoted as saying that this was not taken because of any specific threat to BART or even to San Francisco! I don't know about you, but in my book, that makes for Enhanced Yellow, at best. I guess that wasn't an option, because BART has been on Orange since the London subway bombings. Perhaps they should have gone with Enhanced Yellow back then, and then they could have bumped up to Orange now.

Bumping up your threat level because of a specific threat to a city 3,000 miles away? Maybe San Francisco just feels like they have been left out of the spotlight for a bit too long. Who knows?

I know there are only five levels because they didn't want to be changing it all the time, but when you take into account that no one is going to use the lowest one, and we seem to have been avoiding Blue as well, that leaves us with only three. Of course, Red is also observed for the "something is actually happening right now or has just happened, so start panicing" situations, which leaves us with two functional threat levels. With two functional threat levels, it's no wonder we have already started splitting these two colors up. Nonetheless, I would prefer the use of "Red-Orange" to "Enhanced Orange," since that's technically the correct term for the method. Honestly, I don't like Red-Orange, either because then you hear Red and start panicing before you even get to the "-Orange" part. I'm sure artistic folks could come up with a color that fits, though. Maybe "Tomato Soup."

Of course, I just want to hear Stone Phillips say "The terror alert level for San Francisco's BART has been raised to Tomato Soup today."

Here's a nice little satirical piece regarding Guantanamo Bay, a.k.a. G'itmo. (The "G'itmo" name is derived from the Guantanamo Bay abbreviation GTMO.) I can't believe that I hadn't come across this letter before today. Thanks to According to Jim for putting it where I could find it!

Here's the set-up: A person wrote a letter to the White House complaining about the treatment of a captive taken during the Afghanistan war. Attached is a copy of a letter they received back:

The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D.C., 20016

Dear Concerned Citizen:

Thank you for your recent letter roundly criticizing our treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda detainees currently being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Our administration takes these matters seriously, and your opinion was heard loud and clear here in Washington. You'll be pleased to learn that, thanks to the concerns of citizens like you, we are creating a new division of the Terrorist Retraining Program, to be called the "Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers" program, or LARK for short. In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to place one terrorist under your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence next Monday. Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of admonishment. It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommended in your letter.

Although Ahmed is sociopathic and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem" will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences. He will bite you, given the chance. We understand that you plan to offer counseling and home schooling. Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers. We do not suggest that you ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group. He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with your wife or daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property. This is a particularly sensitive subject for him, and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that Ahmed will recommend as more appropriate attire. I'm sure they will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the bhurka - over time. Just remind them that it is all part of "respecting his culture and his religious beliefs" - wasn't that how you put it?

Thanks again for your letter. We truly appreciate it when folks like you, who know so much, keep us informed of the proper way to do our job. You take good care of Ahmed - and remember…we'll be watching. Good luck!

Cordially . . .

Don Rumsfeld

Snopes points out a related sentiment from Jim Huber's "Politically Correct" strip.

And, of course, don't forget about your Club G'itmo t-shirt!

Flag courtesy of ayc

I was intending on saying something about the London blasts today, but Bull Moose had already summed it up perfectly: We Are All Brits Now!

Yet again, the terrorists failed to use any logic when planning their attack. This time, they failed to take into account that the UK has control of the EU for the next six months. Hopefully, Tony Blair will take full advantage of this to help promote the War on Terror.