Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

That day — Part 1

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 11, 2008

This five-post article was originally posted on Dean’s World.

I work in New York City. That morning I was late on the way into the office. I had to stop off at what was then called the “AT & T Phone Store” to replace my cell phone. I chose the one just off Sixth Avenue in Midtown, near the subway stop before the one I usually got off at. This was around 53rd Street — a good two and a half miles north of the financial district, if you don’t know New York.

It was a very bright, pretty day — I remember noticing this as I got out of the subway. I went into the store and found a clerk, and he was showing me the different models. And then his own cell phone, clipped onto his belt at the hip, rang. He asked me to pardon him, and took the call. Then he hung up and came back to the counter.

“My wife. A plane crashed into the World Trade Center!”

“Oh, gosh,” I said. I thought of the time during World War II when a bomber returning from Europe slammed into the Empire State Building. “What a disaster.” I had taken my family to the observatory at the Twin Towers just a couple of weeks earlier, to look at the whole world from the top of a building. The salesman and I shared a “tsk” and chose a phone, and completed our transaction.

I decided to walk over the Fifth Avenue, where my office was at the time. Two “avenue” blocks, about ten minutes of a walk, into the Rolex Building on 53rd and Fifth.

I went into the entrance on 53rd, through the cool marble lobby, up to the 12th floor, where my office was at the time. The elevator opened into our library, and the receptionist looked up.

“Did you hear?” she asked?

“About the accident at the World Trade Center?” I asked.

“Both buildings — another plane!”

Both buildings?

Another plane?

This was not an accident.

I walked past her to my office overlooking 53rd Street and switched on the radio.

This was something altogether different.

Posted in Americana | Leave a Comment »

What the Jewish-controlled media won’t tell you about 9/11

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 11, 2008

I first published this a few days before September 11th last year. It is still one of my biggest traffic-magnets via search engines, but not for the reason I might have hoped it would be…

Instapundit points to this extraordinary article in the Weekly Standard about the Nazi roots of Al Qaeda, by a German analyst:

What ideas propelled [9/11 plotter Mohammed] Atta and the others to act? . . . . One participant in the Koran circle meetings, Shahid Nickels, said Atta’s Weltanschauung was based on a “National Socialist way of thinking.” Atta was convinced that the Jews were striving for world domination and considered New York City the center of world Jewry, which was, in his opinion, Enemy No. 1. Fellow students who lived in Motassedeq’s dormitory testified that he shared these views and waxed enthusiastic about a forthcoming “big action.” One student quoted Motassedeq as saying, “The Jews will burn and in the end we will dance on their graves.”. . .

Amazingly, neither the American media nor the international press took much notice of this testimony, largely refusing to report on Atta’s and Motassedeq’s explicit Jew-hatred. [I]n this case, involving attackers of Arab background, journalists apparently found the issue irrelevant. . . .

[Similarly,] the 9/11 Commission Report is a case in point. Instead of discussing the fact that Jew-hatred had reached epidemic proportions in the Islamic world well before September 11, the report gives the impression that Islamism originally arose in response to recent American and Western policies. . . .

A struggle against Islamism waged in ignorance of Islamist ideology weakens the West. The attribution of guilt to Israel and the United States adds fuel to the flames of Islamist propaganda and drives the wedge deeper into the Western camp rather than where it belongs–in the Muslim world.

Such blindness is especially hazardous in the case of the Iranian nuclear program, whose danger arises from the unique ideological stew surrounding it: the mish-mash of Jew-hatred, Holocaust denial, and Shiite death-cult messianism that is the context for Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and advanced missiles.

What’s the explanation for this? I would posit a few possible ones:

  • A completely misplaced desire to avoid offending Muslims, who of course should not be offended, if they are indeed moderate, by accurate descriptions of their extremist brethren
  • A similarly misplaced, though relatively benign, desire to avoid, ironically, “blaming” the Jews for “bringing” this attack “on” America — as if to report this twisted, and objectively preposterous rationale would be to vindicate it
  • A left-wing desire to urge as “root causes” of extremist violence Western policies that are conveniently the opposite of their preferred policy prescriptions, coupled with the fact that describing deep-seated Arab antisemitism as a motivation would undermine those very preferred policies (e.g., more pressure to produce Israeli “concessions” from their friendly neighbors who supposedly desire only to live in peace with the their Jew neighbors)

Mix and match, or suggest your own. But don’t expect to read about this in the New York Times.

UPDATE: Meanwhile, across the Pond…

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

The City

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 11, 2008

Manhattan has been compelled to expand skyward because of the absence of any other direction in which to grow. This, more than any other thing, is responsible for its physical majesty. It is to the nation what the white church spire is to the village–the visible symbol of aspiration and faith, the white plume saying that the way is up. The summer traveler swings in … and as [his car] glides above the pigeon lofts and back yards of Queens looks southwest to where the morning light first strikes the steel peaks of midtown, and he sees its upward thrust unmistakable: the great wall of sand towers rising, the smoke rising, the heat not yet rising, the hopes and ferments of so many awakening millions rising–this vigorous spear that presses heaven hard….

The subtlest change in New York is something people don’t speak much about but that is in everyone’s mind. The city, for the first time in its long history, is destructible. A single flight of planes no bigger that a wedge of geese can quickly end this island fantasy, burn the towers, crumble the bridges, turn the underground passages into lethal chambers, cremate the millions. The intimidation of mortality is part of New York now: in the sound of jets overhead, in the black headlines of the latest edition. All dwellers in cities must live with the stubborn fact of annihilation; in New York the fact is somewhat more concentrated because of the concentration of the city itself, and because, of all targets, New York has a certain clear priority. In the mind of whatever perverted dreamer who might loose the lightning, New York must hold a steady, irresistible charm.

It used to be that the Statue of Liberty was the signpost that proclaimed New York and translated it for all the world. Today Liberty shares the role with Death. Along the East River, from the razed laughterhouses of Turtle Bay, as though in a race with the spectral flight of planes, men are carving out the permanent headquarters of the United Nations–the greatest housing project of them all. In its stride, New York takes on one more interior city, to shelter, this time, all governments, and to clear the slum called war. New York is not a capital city–it is not a national capital or a stage capital. But it is by way of becoming the capital of the world. The buildings, as conceived by architects, will be cigar boxes set on end. Traffic will flow in a new tunnel under First Avenue. Forty-seventh Street will be widened (and if my guess is any good, trucks will appear late at night to plant tall trees surreptitiously, their roots to mingle with the intestines of the town). Once again the city will absorb, almost without showing any sign of it, a congress of visitors. . . .

The city at last perfectly illustrates both the universal dilemma and the general solution, this riddle in steel and stone is at once the perfect target and the perfect demonstration of nonviolence, of racial brotherhood, this lofty target scraping the skies and meeting the destroying planes halfway, home of all people and all nations, capital of everything, housing the deliberations by which the planes are to be stayed and their errand forestalled.

A block or two west of the new City of Man in Turtle Bay there is an old willow tree that presides over an interior garden. It is a battered tree, long-suffering and much-climbed, held together by strands of wire but beloved of those who know it. In a way it symbolizes the city: life under difficulties, growth against odds, sap-rise in the midst of concrete, and the steady reaching for the sun. Whenever I look at it nowadays, and feel the cold shadow of the planes, I thing: “This must be saved, this particular thing, this very tree.” If it were to go, all would go–the city, this mischievous and marvelous monument which not to look upon would be like death.

E. B. White, Here is New York (1949) .

Posted in Americana, Heart and spirit, Homo sapiens, Metropolis, Past is prologue, Sisyphus | Leave a Comment »

Iggy piggy

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 10, 2008

The “lipstick on a pig” thing?  Let’s get it straight, here:

Obama uttered the phrase in the midst of ridiculing the Republican nominee’s commitment to change. “John McCain says he’s about change, too,” Obama said in an appearance here, leading into a string of ways he contends McCain represents more of the same — on economic policy, taxes, education, foreign policy, campaign tactics.

“That’s not change. That’s just calling something that’s the same thing something different. You can put lipstick on a pig. It’s still a pig,” Obama went on, and the crowd erupted in cheers. “You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper and call it change. It’s still going to stink, after eight years. We’ve had enough of the same old thing.”

I completely don’t get it.  I don’t see how any reasonable person can identify this comment as having been directed at a person, in the sense of describing that person as a pig.

Stop it.  Barack Obama has enough serious questions to answer.  This shouldn’t be one of them.

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 4 Comments »

Mobius and I debate what’s good for the Jews in American politics… and then some

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 9, 2008

My friend Mobius drew me into a discussion on Facebook of what an awful thing for Israel a McCain victory would be, and I posted a link to this post, where I addressed certain aspects of that issue a little while ago.  He weighed in big time in the comments, and while this is mostly inside baseball if you’re not Jewish, I am putting so much work into responding that I thought it would be worthwhile to elevate this into a post.

As to the first, it wasn’t that long ago that, when the Iraq War was widely “recognized” by smart opinion as a dumb, losing proposition, it was Israel’s fault that it happened in the first place — the “neocons” were handmaidens for the Zionists. Now winning it was dumb, because it’s bad for Israel! Not quite blame the Jews, but an interesting variation.

This is not an argument. This is playing games. I can point to plenty of sources, such as the CATO Institute, that in the run up to the war identified the invasion of Iraq as bad policy, stam, not bad policy because it was “a war for Israel.”

So what? Libertarians don’t prove (or do) anything. Ever.  This trope can, however, be found in virtually every camp that is hostile to “neocons.” As Dore Gold writes:

On the liberal side, Chris Matthews, who hosts MSNBC’s Hardball, echoed Buchanan when he spoke about “conservative people out there, some of them Jewish…who believe that if we don’t fight Iraq, Israel will be in danger.” Likewise, former Democratic presidential candidate Gary Hart warned of “ideologues” who were not able to distinguish between their loyalty “to their original homelands” and loyalty “to America and its national interests. . . Another variation on the Israel theme is the assertion made by Nicholas Kristof, the New York Times columnist, that General Zinni heard from administration officials that the Iraq War would advance the Israeli-Palestinian peace process because “the road to Jerusalem leads through Baghdad.” According to this thesis, the Iraq War would chiefly help Israel’s drive to obtain peace on reasonable terms – still a benefit to Israel. “

How about this:

The notion that we could just waltz in and inject democracy into an extremely complicated, devout and ancient culture smacked–still smacks–of neocolonialist legerdemain. The fact that a great many Jewish neoconservatives–people like Joe Lieberman and the crowd over at Commentary–plumped for this war, and now for an even more foolish assault on Iran, raised the question of divided loyalties: using U.S. military power, U.S. lives and money, to make the world safe for Israel.

Wow, who said that? Some black-hearted neoconservative? Yeah, sure — that’s one way you could describe Joe Klein, I guess.

Now, it’s possible that Barack Obama does not share this view — but how many members of his administration, based on the hard-left crowd around him now as well as the militant black cadre that is part of his base, would disagree with these assertions?

(Mind you, the first person to fire that salvo was Pat Buchanan, who is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Lefty, let alone a Democrat.) Furthermore, you will find few on the Left or on the Paleoconservative Right who are worried about Israel’s security prospects.

I agree, and Barack Obama is on the Left. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Faith and Works, Heart and spirit, Politics and Poker, Sisyphus | 5 Comments »

Times Square, Eleventh Hour

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 8, 2008



Times Square, Eleventh Hour

Originally uploaded by Ron Coleman

Pretty good shots with the new Blackberry 8120’s camera, which is 2 megapixels. Sharper, no? Nothing not to like.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Greene with envy

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 6, 2008

The Master of Charisma

The Master of Charisma

Don’t feel too bad if you don’t know that Richard Greene has a radio show called “Clout.” It’s on Air America which means, of course, that the title is pretty ironic, even if it isn’t meant that way.  Greene is one of those lefties who cannot fathom any reasoned basis for disagreement with his political faith, and therefore writes tired, cliched and barely readable pieces such as “The Psychopathology of The Republican” to demonstrate to himself and his vast audience that the half of the country that doesn’t see things his way is mentally ill.  Yeah, mentally ill — and this coming from no less than a “9-11 Truther” and assassination conspiracy loon.  So far, nothing newsworthy here.

In fact, though, Greene, a former lawyer, is a professional “communications coach,” and his website tells you — twice in the first 65 words — that he was crowned by the Times of London “the Master of Charisma.”  (That’s gotta hurt someone!)  Indeed he does have a nice smile, and a book.  Now that I’ve suffered my first adverse jury verdict, it’s clear I should have gotten a free consultation in exchange for this ultra-valuable plug!

The Master of Charisma also has a nice publicist, the charming and straightforward Leslie Grant.  And what is interesting is that the same Greene — who is, after all, an expert at speechifying  — has circulated, via

Psychopath and Family

Greene's "Psychopath" and Family

Leslie, a pretty interesting, and arguably objective, “report card” of “psychopath” (per Greene) Sarah Palin’s speech at the convention, and it goes like this:

The Sarah Palin Speech Report Card

As Greene predicted, Gov. Sarah Palin did, indeed, “rock the house” with her address.  She instantly became a “celebrity”/”rock star” much like Sen. Obama (due to HIS speech at the 2004 convention) and has changed the game for the 2008 general election.

Greene says that the speech accomplished 4 things:

1.      Solidified and energized the Republican base

2.      Ratified John McCain’s suspect judgment in picking her

3.      Made the Republican ticket attractive to small town residents and women across the country who would not otherwise have participated in the election in any way

4.      Made a huge step forward in establishing her as ready to step into the Oval Office, if that were necessary.  There is still more work to be done on that front, however.

Quality:

Poise:  A+
Humor:  A-
Connection to the crowd:  A
Voice Tone:  C-
Toughness:  A
Gravitas:  B-
Warmth:   B+
Modulation and variation of voice to achieve effect:  A

Substance:
a)      When talking about John McCain:   C+
b)      When talking about her life and family:  A
c)      When attacking Obama and Biden:  A
d)      When discussing national and international policies:  C-

Likability:  A

Ready to be “Commander in Chief”:  C (up from a D before the speech)

Overall Grade:  A

An A — that’s good!

There are two possibilities here.  One is that Richard Greene makes believe he’s deranged, bona fide radical-left hatemonger, because from such things people can sometimes make a living.  Note that this is a guy with a syndicated radio show and a blog on something akin, at least conceptually, to a national platform — and he’s circulating a press release to conservative bloggers instead of publishing the item himself.  Acknowledging Sarah Palin’s merits could be bad for business.

The other possibility is that the political Richard Greene is for real, but the speechmaking and consulting hustler within him cries out, Truther-like, that Sarah Palin is …. that good.

Cross-posted on Right Wing News.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | Leave a Comment »

Oprah: “I’ll decide, you shut up and watch”

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 6, 2008

The great question of the week has been, will Sarah Palin be able to crack the Democratic Party’s grip on women voters?  Well, what better laboratory to test that question than Oprahworld?  “Content of his character” notwithstanding, Oprah, having already thrown Hillary Clinton overboard and pledged her troth to Obama, made it clear that skin trumps sex in identity politics — she won’t consider having Palin on her show (or would she?)

If I were Sarah Palin I would consider this a gift, frankly.  She may get all the benefit of this backlash without having to sink to an Oprah appearance!  Instapundit rounds up the growing backlash.

Posted in Americana, Medialites, Politics and Poker | 3 Comments »

Palin comparison

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 5, 2008

Kaus to fellow “conspirators”:

Forget Palin. Stop writing about her. If we make the election about Palin, we will lose. She’ll probably win her debate and will almost certainly handle the interviews well enough (to the satisfaction of the voters, at least, if not the experts). The election’s not about Palin. It’s about McCain. We can beat McCain.

Maybe, maybe not.  But his advice sounds right.  The more they flail on about Governor Palin, the worser it gets for ’em.

Posted in Medialites, Politics and Poker | 5 Comments »

“No longer strictly operative”

Posted by Ron Coleman on September 3, 2008

My friend Aziz Poonawala posted the following at Dean’s World:

I found this to be a very interesting essay, which argues that Obama sees Iraq through a lens of sectarian conflict which is no longer strictly operative.

I couldn’t help myself.  Here was my comment:

You have to consider the proposition that it was never really operative, but rather that it was a meme that sounded like an incisive, profound insight but really put a thoughtful looking face on just plain opportunistic opposition to the war.

Well, I can’t make you consider it, Aziz, so you don’t really “have to.”  But “Obama sees Iraq through a lens of sectarian conflict which is no longer strictly operative” sounds like a very euphemistic way of saying, “Turns out Obama was dead wrong, but on the bright side it’s possible that he never really believed what he was saying in the first place.”

UPDATE:  Dream on!

Posted in Politics and Poker, Stragety | 2 Comments »