Hawks tell Bush how to win war on terror
By David Rennie in Washington
(Filed: 31/12/2003)
President George W Bush was sent a public manifesto yesterday by Washington's hawks, demanding regime change in Syria and Iran and a Cuba-style military blockade of North Korea backed by planning for a pre-emptive strike on its nuclear sites.
The manifesto, presented as a "manual for victory" in the war on terror, also calls for Saudi Arabia and France to be treated not as allies but as rivals and possibly enemies.
The manifesto is contained in a new book by Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser and "intellectual guru" of the hardline neo-conservative movement, and David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. They give warning of a faltering of the "will to win" in Washington.
................
The book demands that any talks with North Korea require the complete and immediate abandonment of its nuclear programme.
As North Korea will probably refuse such terms, the book urges a Cuba-style military blockade and overt preparations for war, including the rapid pullback of US forces from the inter-Korean border so that they move out of range of North Korean artillery.
Such steps, with luck, will prompt China to oust its nominal ally, Kim Jong-il, and install a saner regime in North Korea, the authors write.
The authoritarian rule of Syria's leader, Bashar Assad, should also be ended, encouraged by shutting oil supplies from Iraq, seizing arms he buys from Iran, and raids into Syria to hunt terrorists.
....................
The book calls for tough action against France and its dreams of offsetting US power. "We should force European governments to choose between Paris and Washington," it states. Britain's independence from Europe should be preserved, perhaps with open access for British arms to American defence markets
With what Army? Besides the fact that this book should be prima facie evidence of a need for a committment hearing for both Frum and Perle, we no longer have the forces to do that. The taint of magical thinking resounds here. When I saw this on Atrios, my mouth fell open, because this is crazy talk. It'sa not only not practical, but their last warmaking effort, in Iraq, is turing into a nightmare.
Perle needs to stop playing risk and go to a few funerals of dead Gi's.
The Army Times says, in running a picture of nearly every dead serviceman from Iraq and Afghanistan, that more men and women have been killed in combat in 2003 than at any time since 1972, our last year of involvement in Vietnam.
I saw two things which truly disturbed me today.
One was Weekly Standard columinst and war cultist Max Boot pontificating on how the war was going. I didn't have to look too hard to know that the war merely another political point for him and thus, I changed the channel.
Later on, I saw Joe Lieberman being pompous and stupid on CNBC, denigrating Howard Dean for claiming Americans are not safer because of the capture of Saddam Hussein. This isn't revealed wisdom, but a fact. Homeland Security is demanding foreign countries place armed marshals on their plans and that we all look out for almanac-carrying Muslims. So exactly how did the capture of Saddam Hussein make a single American safe? Because 10 families got a dead child for their Christmas gift. Others got wounded, some who may never be fully independent again.
While I was away, the local news did a piece on a reservist who was fluent in Modern Arabic. She'd joined the reserves with a friend to attend the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California, widely regarded as the best language school for adults in the world. Well, her friend chose Mandarin and thus was assigned somewhere safe. She chose Arabic, wound up with an intelligence billet, and off to Iraq.
Her future plans? Getting the hell out of the Army. Exactly the kind of soldier the Army needs to retain, hell, promote and commission and she's trying not to say on TV she made a big-assed mistake. If they can't keep her, think they're keeping the combat arms and MP's?
The security situation in Iraq isn't getting any better, either. There is this idea that we can "hand over" security to Iraqis in the next few weeks and that's delusional at best. The police, as 60 Minutes showed on Sunday, is riddled with guerrillas. There are still open ammo dumps and the police have neither weapons nor vehicles to patrol. More importantly, we still don't know who the guerrillas are and this is eight months into the war.
At some point soon, all these illusions will come crashing down. We haven't brought democracy to Iraa, but unleashed party rivalries, anarchy and blood feuds. We can't even fix the schools.
In 1946, the Irgun blew the King David Hotel to shit, killed dozens of people. At that moment, people realized what they were in for. We are fast reaching that moment in Iraq.
LOS ANGELES, Dec. 29 — Officials from the Nation of Islam, a separatist African-American Muslim group, have moved in with Michael Jackson and are asserting control over the singer's business affairs, friends, employees and business associates of Mr. Jackson said.
Initially invited to the Neverland Ranch several weeks ago to provide security for Mr. Jackson, members of the Nation of Islam are now restricting access to him and have begun making decisions for him related to the news media, his business affairs and even his legal strategy, some of Mr. Jackson's friends and associates said. Mr. Jackson faces charges of child molesting in Santa Barbara and recently moved into a rented house in Los Angeles, where Nation of Islam officials have accompanied him.
Efforts to reach Mr. Jackson through his spokesman were not sucessful, but his lawyer, Mark Geragos, and The Final Call, the Nation of Islam's newspaper, denied the claim.
Leonard Muhammad, chief of staff and son-in-law of the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, now works out of the Los Angeles office of Mr. Geragos, Mr. Jackson's lawyer, the Jackson associates said. Mr. Muhammad stood behind Mr. Geragos during a recent televised news conference and, according to two of Mr. Jackson's employees who spoke on condition of anonymity, he participates in phone calls involving media and legal strategy.
Mr. Jackson's official spokesman, Stuart Backerman, resigned on Monday to protest the Nation of Islam's presence, said a colleague of Mr. Backerman, who could not be reached for comment on Monday.
The employees said they spoke out because they are concerned about Mr. Jackson's welfare and because his multicultural message was at odds with the group's philosophy of black separatism. The Nation of Islam is a small group that advocates black self-empowerment and a separate African-American state, and some of its leaders have espoused anti-Semitic, anti-gay and racist rhetoric. Mr. Jackson is not Muslim nor a member of the Nation of Islam
OK, now, let me explain why they were called in. Jackson knows that he's in real trouble, you don't call in the NOI unless you're in real trouble. They are scary folks and they love to intimidate people when they have to.
Jackson is playing black politics to garner him the only kind of support he has left in the US. Unless he's seen as a victim of white injustice, he's going to have a very quick trial. The Michael Jackson people remember is not the one on trial. That is a 45 year old man looking to explain away sleepovers with teen boys and romancing them.
His claims of abuse also play into this. If he can convince people that the police are against him, humiliated him, then he's just another powerful black man the white media wanted to ruin. The fact that he may have been the most popular black recording artist in history is now supposed to go away. He's no naif, living in a fantasy world, but an adroit political player, using an image of weirdness to protect him. He's working all the angles of black politics like a pro.
The only problem is that he has to play down the NOI to the wider world, because of their reputation. It doesn't impress the media to have Louis Farrakhan running your business life and limiting access. Even Al Sharpton has learned to distance himself from the NOI over time. You can't have no relation with them, they have too much respect within the community to completely blow them off. They are serious people and you disrespect them at your peril. No one's ever accused them of murder in my memory, at least after the assassination of Malcolm X, but that was enough.
They're a tiny fraction of the Muslim community and most Sunni Imams in the US don't take them seriously, but because of their work in prisons, and in the community, they get listened to.
The problem for Jackson's political moves is this: if the kid is proven to be credible in any way, he's done. He can work the ropes all he wants, but facts are nasty things. If they turn against Jackson, all his manuvering will fail.
Some flights to the US could be grounded after the airline pilots' union called on its members not to fly with armed sky marshals on board.
Airline pilots should not take off with marshals on board, the British Airline Pilots' Association (Balpa) has said.
UK ministers say the move is a "responsible and prudent" response to the heightened terror alert in the US.
But the union wants assurances about the captain's powers, the training of marshals and the weapons used.
Balpa has also called for an emergency world summit of pilots to consider the plans by the US to demand marshals be used on some international flights to and from the country.
The UK's marshals were expected to begin working on some transatlantic routes on Monday or Tuesday.
Thanks for letting me know that the commenting system is acting up. I'm going to leave it alone for a couple of hours, in the hope that it will come back up. If it doesn't, I'll replace it by the end of the day.
It was a merry Christmas for Sharper Image and Neiman Marcus, which reported big sales increases over last year's holiday season. It was considerably less cheery at Wal-Mart and other low-priced chains. We don't know the final sales figures yet, but it's clear that high-end stores did very well, while stores catering to middle- and low-income families achieved only modest gains.
Based on these reports, you may be tempted to speculate that the economic recovery is an exclusive party, and most people weren't invited. You'd be right.
Commerce Department figures reveal a startling disconnect between overall economic growth, which has been impressive since last spring, and the incomes of a great majority of Americans. In the third quarter of 2003, as everyone knows, real G.D.P. rose at an annual rate of 8.2 percent. But wage and salary income, adjusted for inflation, rose at an annual rate of only 0.8 percent. More recent data don't change the picture: in the six months that ended in November, income from wages rose only 0.65 percent after inflation.
Why aren't workers sharing in the so-called boom? Start with jobs.
Payroll employment began rising in August, but the pace of job growth remains modest, averaging less than 90,000 per month. That's well short of the 225,000 jobs added per month during the Clinton years; it's even below the roughly 150,000 jobs needed to keep up with a growing working-age population.
But if the number of jobs isn't rising much, aren't workers at least earning more? You may have thought so. After all, companies have been able to increase output without hiring more workers, thanks to the rapidly rising output per worker. (Yes, that's a tautology.) Historically, higher productivity has translated into rising wages. But not this time: thanks to a weak labor market, employers have felt no pressure to share productivity gain
What the good professor is not saying, but you should be aware of is this: Wal-Mart was dumping things like indoor grills at $4.83, nearly at cost. Which means they didn't make a whole lot of money. People bought less and spent less. When the Kool Kids Klub gets on TV and talks about the economy getting better, it is for them. For most of us, the economy has stagnated. When you see strong economic messages from the Dems and their allies, they will resonate, because people still don't have work.
This is laying the ground for a strong democratic campaign, because of the time-tested theme "Are you better off now than you were four years ago." That basic message will have a resonance that the war on terror simply doesn't. So when you hear the latest idiocy from David Brooks, remember, he makes a lot more money than you.
Portuguese prosecutors have charged 10 people with the sexual abuse of disturbed children in state-run homes.
The former employment minister in the last Socialist government, Paulo Pedroso, and former ambassador to South Africa Jorge Ritto are among them.
Police have spent more than a year investigating allegations that children from the Casa Pia homes in the capital were abused by a paedophile ring.
Mr Pedroso says he is the victim of a smear campaign and denies the charges.
The case has outraged Portugal and shaken public trust in the authorities.
President Jorge Sampaio has described it as a "national disgrace".
The case is regarded as the first test of the country's legal system since it returned to democracy in 1974 following nearly five decades of dictatorship.
...............
Mr Silvino, 46, faces 35 charges of sexually molesting four children over a three-year period. His alleged victims include a boy with mental disabilities, and another who is deaf and mute.
This is the kind of story you see and it rips your heart out. Molesting kids in the care of the state? Of course the Portuguese people are going to flip out. The most vunerable kids, pretty much sold to the rich and everyone is claiming it's a smear. I'm surprised they didn't say the kids wanted money to keep quiet. Just another reminder of how the rich are different than you and me.
By Peter Spiegel in Baghdad and David Pilling in Tokyo
Published: December 28 2003 21:54 | Last Updated: December 28 2003 21:54
Kurdish members of Iraq's governing council are insisting the country's transitional law include wide-ranging sovereignty rights for the northern Kurdish areas - including control of their natural resources and veto powers over Iraqi military movements in the region.
The Kurdish demands are throwing up another hurdle to completing the statute by the proposed deadline of February 28 even though they appear highly unlikely to be adopted in full.
.............
Kurdish parties have proposed a semi-autonomous governing body, called the Council of Kurdish Ministers, which must approve all administrative actions from Baghdad, in a draft version of the transitional law submitted to the governing council earlier this month and obtained by the Financial Times.
................
Despite Kurdish insistence that the devolved powers be detailed in the transitional law, coalition officials said they believed the proposal was a non-starter. The Kurdish provisions are opposed by most Arab governing council members, and any decision on Iraq's federal structure is expected to be postponed until a constitutional convention in 2005.
Even so, Kurdish officials on Sunday were insisting special federal treatment for Kurdistan be included in the transitional law, warning that pressure for an independence referendum would grow if the governing council failed to grant concessions.
I would suggest the Kurds look to Cyprus as to how Turks deal with issues regarding nation sovregnity. I would expect the paratroopers to land at the main airports within hours of this announcement. They better mine the roads along the border. Juan Cole says, this isn't acceptable to the Arabs or Turkmen. Which may be true, but the Turks will roll south at the hint of an independent Kurdish state.
Saddam's trial is unlikely to be public, according to Iyad Alawi, member of the Interim Governing Council and head of the Iraqi National Accord (mainly ex-Baathist officers who cooperated in 1990s CIA plots against Saddam). Alawi made the remarks in an interview with the London-based al-Hayat newspaper. He said there would probably be no public trial because "it is possible that he will mention names of states or persons to whom he gave money . . ." Asked if Saddam had admitted to smuggling money abroad, Alawi replied, "He has begun to admit it. He has confessed to important things." [Saddam is thought to have squirreled $30 bn. or more away in secret accounts overseas.]
Alawi said of the trial of Saddam, "Naturally, it will be an Iraqi trial, before Iraqi judges. You published in al-Hayat that even 3 weeks before his capture, I had completed gathering evidence and confessions from Iraqi intelligence officers, and had forwarded that information to the judge in charge of the official inquiry in Iraq . . ." [including cases against persons who tried to kill Alawi himself] . . . "Now there is a file for his trial in Iraq for the crimes that he committed against the Iraqi people, in an Iraqi court, with Iraqi judges. If other countries have cases against him, they can lodge charges after the Iraqi trial has finished. But I expect the judgment to be clear, in the framework of the Iraqi criminal statutes, that is, he will be executed."
On the possibility of a public trial for Saddam: "I don't think so. That subject has not been discussed so far. I don't believe so. It will be like any other trial for any other criminal, except that Saddam's crimes have been bewildering, horrifying, and extensive. There is another thing, the possibility that he will mention the names of states and the names of persons to whom he has given bribes and wealth. We don't want him to mention all that on television. There are lots of existing documents, and we don't want to worsen Iraq's relations with others. And we don't want such matters to be interpreted in irrational or subjective ways." He said that since other countries, such as Kuwait or Lebanon, might file charges against Saddam, the issues were complex. But the important thing, he said, was that Saddam would be tried in Iraqi courts with full legitimacy and legality.
I woiuldn't worry about this. The security situatiuon is so bad that the rumor of a secret trail may start the civil war. Did they ask Sistani for his opinion? I think the Shia want a open trial so people know what he did to them. I don't worry much about a trial of Saddam in Iraq. Because there isn't enough security to have it.
I was watching CNN this morning when I saw Martin Sheen in a suit. Now, that's a site usually reserved for Wednesday, 9 PM, so I wondered what the deal was.
When I saw the name of the website www.fairelections.us, I had a feeling that this was a 527 dedicated to Diebold. And one hit later, I was rewarded with a subtle pitch for a fight against Diebold. I don't think they, or the GOP buddies thought someone would put money up to fuck with them. Well, 2004 isn't going to be like other elections. People have been bitching about Diebold for months. When I suggested people sue, people shook their heads. Now, there is an organization with money and muscle and support who can challenge Diebold and do nothing else. Think about how potent that is. Diebold is going to have to deal with these people, who are clearly working outside the campaign structure.
The use of 527's is going to change the way people campaign. Their ultimate effectiveness cannot be judged, yet, but the potential is very interesting.
The media in America lives in a dual world, one where they want to hold people accountable, yet flip out when people do the same to them.
Atrios's reporting on the AP's Nedra Pickler, led to a nasty letter from the AP's legal counsel about harassment to one of the people who wrote to complain about her reporting, which promptly got a sneering reply. Journalists have amazingly thin skins when they are criticized in any way, shape or form. Anyone who writes media criticism can make a bunch of enemies really quickly by writing about their peers. There are people at Salon who still hate the fact that I looked at the 10Q's (quarterly financial reports) and showed them to be woefully managed.
I think it would be a really, really good idea to track reporters, word for word, broadcast for broadcast, and print the results online. Not just for any one campaign or cause, but to track people's reporting the way we track other services. If someone had bothered to question the reporting om Wen Ho Lee, he might not have been accused of espionage falsely by the New York Times. If someone had actually checked Jayson Blair's work, the Times might have fired his ass years earlier.
Keeping score of who's right and wrong, how many times they repeat cannards like Al Gore invented the Internet and make obvious errors. Not accusations of ideology, but actual data and facts.
Internal ombudsmen seem like a good idea until you realize that they get their money from the same company that they are criticising.
The media is the most important organziation in American life with no accountability to the public. Libel suits don't work, not only because they are expensive, but the law is designed to protect free speech. So even if you have someone dead to rights, like Sid Blumenthal did with Matt Drudge, suing and winning is incredibly difficult. And there is nothing you can do if reporters repeat a theme like Howard Dean is pessimistic or farts after burritos.
The Dean Defense Force is a great idea, but it has one limit, it is the support network for one candidate. Which means some reporters will ignore it as partisan blathering, no matter how valid their points. It would be a very sound idea for a 527 to fund such an effort, independent of campaigns. Imagine an ad in the Sunday Times saying "Sue Schimdt wrote that Al Gore "invented" the Internet. Al Gore said no such thing and this has been public knowledge for years, so why is she repeating it."
The lawyers for the WaPo will be looking to sue before the end of the day. If you ran a campaign, naming individual reporters and their mistake of facts, along with correspondence with their editors, after they stopped freaking out and realize that they couldn't sue, they would ignore it. The only problem is that no one trust the media. Right, left, most people consider them abject liars. C-span would be amusing, however, as reporters would have their own work quoted back to them verbatim.
Let's face it, Washington journalism is corrupt. They screw each other, do favors for each other and frankly, understand very little about campaigns. This isn't received wisdom, but the things I learned first hand. Most reporters never learn how manipulated they are by campaigns. I've seen more than one campaign derailed over an issue, which if placed in perspective, would not have turned that campaign. But there is a frenzy to scoop each other and relive the days of Watergate, so oppo research and spin comes to define a race as a race and not about an election of the most powerful person on the planet, one hated by many around the world.
It's all inside baseball to them, who's up and who's down. The Kool Kids Klub is pissing away our democracy like drunks at strip club handing out $1's. It's all about style to them. No one is going to place Maureen Dowd on workfare if she loses her job. They all protect each other. Well, that's a luxury that we can no longer afford. If they will no longer do their job on their own, it's time to make them.
Saddam is being interrogated by the US, the right-wing media has forlorn hopes of the war ending soon, yet, according to CNN, the resistance made it a Christmas to remember with repeated shellings of the Green Zone. CENTCOM called it weak and ineffective, but if early reports are correct, someone fired an RPG into the Green Zone, and if that's true, everyone should be worried shitless.
We're talking a couple of hundred yards, and as these things go, taking RPG fire is bad. But to cap it off, there was a second shelling that night. As well as four dead GI's from the day's combat.
It's now to the place where every word the government says about Iraq is either wrong or a lie. Guerrillas never got within RPG range of MACV, or of Soviet HQ in Afghanistan. Yet, we're supposed to believe that the US has a handle on security issues in Iraq? They're flying Apache missions into central Baghdad. One day, either they're going to waste a bunch of civilians or come crashing down as a Strela hits them from close in.
This is the environment they expect to have elections and a trial of Saddam in? Who are they kidding? We know Bush wants to flee the occupation, but come on, without a better security situation, you're inviting a civil war to erupt. You can't even safeguard the police, much less leading Shia clerics, former Baathists or the Green Zone and you expect to secure elections? Fact is, US troops can't even monitor a polling place in most of Iraq without catching sniper fire. Without basic security, elections are a either a pipe dream or future fraud. If you can't do something as fundamental as protect the country's main pipeline, any talk of elections is a fantasy.
What the media misses is this: without security none of the US's plans are likely to happen. And we cannot provide security. With our plans for death squads and ignoring Ayatollah Sistani, we are laying the groundwork for a massive explosion of rage.
Iraq reminds me of Maximillian's failed conquest of Mexico. He tried to impose an imperial state and created the groundwork for his own defeat against the Germans in 1870. It was such a hairbrained plan, and so disastrous, that you have to wonder what the hell he was thinking. Hoping the US would be distracted by it's own civil war, that they could recolonize Mexico? It was falling apart as soon as it happened, but by 1865, the US Army was pressuring the French seriously and their battlehardened and trained army was able to force the French to see the light, that and covert help to the Juarez government.
A Newsweek columnist said that at every point along the way our expectations in Iraq have been dashed. They didn't leap at being liberated, they didn't rush to help us and they aren't turning on the resistance. Why? Because we invaded their country and killed their relatives. Things are so disorganized that we had to leave policy up to squad leaders. Which may speak well of them, but can only lead to further chaos. Units change, policy changes arbitrarily. Which leads to resentment and further violence.
I fear that 2003 was only prologue for the violence we'll see in 2004 in Iraq.
Ever since 1968, the Democratic Party has pushed the idea of a national gun control policy which, more than race, sex or abortion, has closed off millions of voters to the party. It is time to realize that a uniform gun control policy is probably silly.
I was watching Ted Nugent shoot off his guns and bows today and I realized that if I lived in rural Michigan, I'd own a bunch of guns as well. I certainly wouldn't wait 45 minutes for my rural sheriff to show up to protect me. Part of the cost of living deep in the woods is not having the cops 5 minutes away.
The fact is that if someone is stupid enough to rob a rural home, you're going to probably have to blow them away because they're all wacked out on hillbilly heroin or crank to begin with. The negotiation room is going to be small.
But there is a vast difference between that and life in New York or Washington. There, guns aren't usually needed. New York has had gun control since 1910. The murder rate now is at it's lowest levels in decades, all due to energetic law enforcement of gun codes. There, most people no more need handguns than they need tigers in their apartments. One bullet, fired in an apartment, can travel a block away and in a city, that's a different world. Numerous stories about kids being shot by idiots living blocks away are common. Cities and guns really don't mix, despite what you see in the movies.
One policy, two nations
The problem is that people have been pushing for one policy, which is insane. I would say that people living in Alabama have a very different understanding of their need for guns than New Yorkers. Nugent, an NRA board member, made a cogent point: there are no gun accidents, only people who mishandle guns. All guns are always loaded, never point a gun at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Which makes sense to me, because it was what they taught me at Scout Camp.
What needs to change is the way we sell and and handle guns. It wouldn't take me three days to put together an arsenal to rival any paramilitary unit around. It's a bit hard to get a .50 cal these days, but short of that, a .308 can be bought at any decent gun store in America. Even without conversion kits, you can get enough firepower to stop police cold.
The core of this problem, as explained so clearly in Richard Slotkin's Gunfighter Nation, is that Americans believe things about guns which simply aren't true. Even most SWAT teams never fire a shot. The idea is to contain, intimidate, and shoot when there are no other options. The image of the West is one created for financial gain, not based in reality. Gun control came to the West with the law. Police forces soon followed. The idea of a landowner walking around with a gun was one that was feared, not cherished. The reason that the Army was shoved out of law enforcement was because they took the side of the rich and powerful too often.
Most cowboys, who were really ranch hands who tended cattle, rarely, if ever fired their guns, except to control herds or target shoot. Nor did they fight with their hands. Given the high proportion of veterans in their ranks, one third were black, another third, immigrants, killing to solve disputes was nothing that they usually wanted any part of. Even shaking hands was not routine, The idea of the bar brawl as sporting event is a movie fiction. Of all the places possible to have a fight, a bar ranks just below a gun shop as a danger zone. Glass, a usually armed bartender, drunk people, all lead to the kind of potential that most sane, rational people want to avoid.
Yet, these myths are so ingrained in the way that we see the west and our rolls of Americans, they have led to hundreds of thousands of deaths since the 19th century. Shootouts, showdowns, quick draw contests, all have led people to get killed against people armed and ready to fire. With a gun, it is always better to be on the offensive than the defensive.
Guns are a very, very emotional topic with a lot of people, but mostly because they embrace their inner paranoid. They think that the gun will protect them, when in reality, most people can't handle a gun under stress and may well get killed doing so.
The Democrats made a critical mistake in the late 1970's and it created a wedge which the GOP exploited. They and the NRA played on the fear of people about city liberals placing their lives in danger. It came from a basic misunderstanding of the role of police in most places outside major cities, in most cities, there is a wary relationship with the police, a combination of fear and a feeling of a lack of protection. Racial hostility places the police in a bind between mistrust and demands for better service. Yet, most urban residents want a largely gun free society patrolled by the police. Urban gun culture, for the most part has led only to death and misery. States with lax gun laws make it far more difficult for these cities to remain safe.
At the same time, urban demands for gun control offend many people who use guns responsibly. If guns were controlled as the way many liberals would like, their lives would literally be in danger. It's not widely acknowledged, but in many places, people still hunt for food. Venison may upset the PETA crowd, but that's hundreds of dollars of meat on someone's table and in a lot of places, well, that's money they may not have.
Yes, one can live in a city and be a responsible gun owner, but for many people, guns are just too dangerous in these confined spaces, one bullet can travel hundreds of feet and kill the innocent. As they say, if you around a city block, there is no place you can be safe from a .50 round. Well, in some cases, you aren't safe from a .25
The NRA
There are guns, NRA members, and then there is the NRA. Hell, I've been a member of the NRA. I fish and do not own guns. Michael Moore is a member of the NRA, has been since childhood, so is Howard Dean and millions of other target shooters and hunters who do not subscribe to the organization's political goals.
The NRA's basic safety courses are sound and they do provide many benefits of membership. The problem comes in with the management of the organization that is an annex of the far right. Between taunting liberals and encouraging the shooting of federal officers, this is an organization which has betrayed the core of its membership over and over. So exactly why do I need teflon bullets to kill deer or protect my home? Unless the police are storming through with vests, there is no need for them. But the NRA spent time and capital to keep these bullets legal. The ideology of the NRA is driven by a far right agenda only a little less loopy than the John Birch society. They've moved way beyond 2nd Amendment advocates into the Republican protection association of Washington.
The breakpoint with rationality came with Ruby Ridge and Waco. By any rational standard, Randy Weaver and David Koresh were cop-killing criminals who deserved to be in jail for decades. Would anyone not cloaking themselves in the mantle of white-wing Jesus not be gunned down like wild dogs if they shot a US marshal, raped little girls and had an armory large enough to equip a Ranger battalion. Nor would anyone have ever questioned the agents about their actions if they had been Puerto Ricans holed up in the Poconos with an armory. No one would have lost a second of sleep if they were all blown to hell. But instead, we have the NRA sponsoring a dog and pony show for their supporters, which include some of the biggest freaks this country has ever produced.
Here's a hint: no one is coming to take white people's rights away, much less their guns. Unless there's a fire or fishing, most people are happy to think about Idaho only when ski season rolls around. These people face no threats to their way of life as long as they obey the law. There is no ZOG, no Turner Diaries conspiracy of the Jews, no need to live in compounds. Yet, by tone and deed, the NRA panders to these wackos. They convince the others that the liberals want to take their guns. And a lot of liberals play right into that.
The reality is that there will probably be no uniform law to cover guns across the US. More importantly, there shouldn't be. Urban residents have the right to live with far greater gun controls than rural residents. The idea of walking around Detroit with concealed weapons is insane. At the same time, telling some guy who lives 45 minutes away from a county sheriff that he doesn't need a gun is insulting. All the cops are going to do is find a crime scene by the time they get there. Yet, both sides play the game as if the other side doesn't matter.
Anyone who says guns actually protect people need to spend a week in an ER and see all the stupid ways people handle guns. There may be no gun accidents, but there is a hell of a lot of gun negligence. More importantly, every time the NRA pumps up the fear of their members, some idiot thinks the feds are his enemy. Look, cops make mistakes, sometimes bad ones, but we don't have the RUC in this country. The police don't collaborate with terrorists to repress you.
More importantly, the way we deal with guns in this country is a national security crisis in the making. Air France had to cancel six flights to LA because they feared another showy Al Qaeda attack. One day, AQ or their follow on group is going to figure out John Muhammad had the right idea to spread terror and will send out hunter killer teams and use car bombs. They won't be breaking any laws as they collect sniper rifles, assault rifles and the technology used by special forces teams today. They're not going to play around with sniping, either. They're going to run a full assault on a US target and it will be hell to dislodge them. They're still in their statement phase, but that's going to end one day and when they figure out John Muhammad shut down DC in a way 9/11 didn't shut down New York, all hell will break lose. In private sales and with conversion kits, some poor local swat team is going to run into a commando assault team with weapons as good as theirs and better training.
The Hollywood shootout a couple of years back indicates exactly what kind of risk this could be. Two guys with AK's robbed a bank and when the cops showed up, they were little better than targets. It took hundreds of cops and begging the owner of a local gun store for enough weapons to hold these guys off. They had Kevlar and weapons and the cops were going to die in place. This wasn't a street gang, or sophisticated robbers, but two nuts with a lot of weapons, body armor and no fear of cops. There wasn't any place to hide, or any cover, and they were using regular AK rounds. No special bullets, nothing you couldn't get from a store.
Now, place that scenario in oh, the National Theater or National Gallery of Art. No subtlety, no finesse, just 30 guys showing up, loaded for bear and ready to die. Toss in a couple of car bombs around DC and you have a recipe for pure panic. The cops will be running around like headless chickens, chasing bombs and the jihad commandos show up and kill people for sport all with American made and sold weapons. We assume 9/11 was the worst thing possible, and it wasn't and you don't need nearly impossible to procure nukes or difficult to make chemical or bioweapons. Just blow up ten cars in any city at rush hour and you'll have more panic than you can imagine. Toss in shooters and you have utter chaos.
And why and how will they be able to do this? Because we have a wide open market for guns, no licensing for ownership, no uniform rules for private sales, laws which vary from state to state and lax enforcement. All dedicated terrorists have to do is use these laws to their advantaged the way right-wing kooks have done so far. The right to bear arms is not a suicide pact.
What to do?
First, pass uniform standards to ensure that every state has the same basic procedures on gun purchasing and residency. New laws are less important than enforcing the laws we have, but that's not enough. Encouraging people to take a realistic assessment of their need for gun ownership would also help. A lot of people have fantasies of gunning down home burglers when it is far more likely that they will kill their spouse. I feel for any woman who thinks a handgun in her purse will save her from a larger, more determined man. He is as likely t o take her gun as she is to fire it. The same with home protection, the number one thing burglars steal are handguns. It is amazing that people sleep with loaded guns under their pillows. Who are they going to shoot from a dead sleep? Their kids? . A robber is awake and ready to shoot and probably cranked up out of his mind.
Guns can and do save lives, in the hands of trained users who practice frequently. The FBI's hostage rescue team shoots 10,000 rounds of ammo a year. Delta Force as much or more. If you made gun ownership contingent on regular training alone, accidents would drop dramatically and people would be safer.
The fact is that the NRA, which takes extremist positions, and is now creating a blacklist, needs to be attacked for what it is, a den of reactionaries. Not the membership, who need alternatives to protect their rights, but the GOP owned leadership of the NRA. You can be pro-gun and pro-gun rights and against the NRA. They are, in many ways, emblematic of the GOP. They talk about rights, and then they promote an agenda that harms many of the people that support them. The way that they exploited Ruby Ridge and Waco and remained nearly silent about Oklahoma City shows you exactly where their hearts and heads are. They denigrated police officers killed in the line of duty, something a black activist would have been excoriated for from every newspaper in the United States. Yet, the NRA leadership allies in Congress dragged the agents up and smacked them around for sport, while Randy Weaver, wackjob who placed his family in danger and is responsible for the death of a US marshal, was treated with utmost courtesy. When blacks tried that in Philadelphia, the black mayor burnt down a third of West Philly. You could see the fires from U Penn.
Their power is acquired by their vast membership who is fed a diatribe of propaganda about their "rights" and is abetted by well-meaning, but ultimately wrong headed gun control advocates. The constitution is clear that some gun ownership is a basic right. The issue is how we negotiate that ownership between the rights of the gun owner and the safety of the general public. We aren't going to make real changes by altering cosmetics on weapons. An M-1 Carbine is still a very effective killer, so is an M-1 rifle. They may not be flashy, but they'll stop a home invasion cold. Nor are we going to make changes by encouraging more gun ownership.
Given a choice, I'd suggest more people own Airsoft guns and allowing them to use them in ranges. Most target shooting can be accomplished with non-lethal weapons. As far as home protection goes, alter the insurance codes to demand homes with guns have trained gun owners and offer discounts for those who engage in regular training. Underwrite the costs of the training as well. Institute product liability laws for guns to prevent cheap, poorly made weapons from flooding the market. Enforce the gun laws when applicable and sue store owners who permit shadow purchases as well as the people who perform them. Avoid national policies on guns when local policies may ultimately be more effective and allow localities like DC to protect themselves from Virginia's gun laws. Finally, make it far more difficult to sell guns privately. Controlling private gun sales and things like sales outside gun show sales can be controlled.
We need to make sure that there is a balance between the rights of gun owners and the right not to be shot by some idiot with a weapon.
It's Christmastime, and Dawn Murphy of Long Beach, N.Y., is
pushing a cart loaded with presents, coats and her two
small daughters up and down the aisles of a Wal-Mart in
nearby Valley Stream, thinking about how she will pay for
everything she wants to give.
"We literally live by a budget, so we don't have any extra
spending money," she said, selecting an angel ornament from
a shelf. "Right now I'm taking money out of my food budget
to cover Christmas." That food budget is $100 a week ''and
a lot of coupons." She gravitates to Wal-Mart because of
the store's layaway plan, which requires 10 percent down
and grants 60 days to pay the rest before the purchases can
be taken home. Her husband's year-end bonus from his job as
an office manager will help with the other 90 percent.
"That's the only way I can do it," she said. "Other stores,
like Kohl's, don't have that, and it makes shopping that
much more difficult." Living from paycheck to paycheck is
the norm in the United States, economists say, and
Wal-Mart's cash registers offer some proof of that. For
more than a year, the retailer says, it has detected spikes
in sales twice a month, around the 1st and the 15th, which
is about the time that many people are paid. Visits to
Wal-Marts around the country last week, at the height of
the holiday shopping season, found many shoppers feeling
squeezed - the Murphys on Long Island, the Dukes family in
Georgia, the Lawrences and the Olsons near Seattle, and
others as well.
''For many Americans, especially those with children who
are living paycheck to paycheck, Christmas is seen as a
time of financial crisis," said Stephen Brobeck, executive
director of the Consumer Federation of America, an advocacy
and education organization in Washington. "The group has
grown as the result of rising unemployment and increasing
consumer debt."
Though there are some signs that the economy is healing -
in the form of bigger Wall Street bonuses, for example, and
increasing corporate profits - income has remained mostly
flat for many workers, leading to a discrepancy between
gift-giving ambitions and what people can actually afford
to give.
"Even though you can point to improving economic
indicators, one conspicuous omission from that list is wage
growth," said Jared Bernstein, senior economist for the
Economic Policy Institute, a research group in Washington.
"And that's where most working families meet the economy."
Mrs. Murphy said her husband used to work in Manhattan,
where the pay is better. His job was across from the World
Trade Center. On Sept. 11, 2001, Mrs. Murphy said, he saw
the first plane hit, walked out of his building and never
went back.
Mrs. Murphy dresses in hand-me-downs and uses her birthday
money from relatives to buy Christmas gifts. The Murphys'
lone credit card always has an outstanding balance. Life
has been that way since they married, five years ago, she
said, and there are no signs that it will change anytime
soon.
Kimsey Dukes, 44, a factory worker at the Southwire
Company, a cable maker in Carrollton, Ga., is paid every
Thursday. Even so, he said he often felt that he had "to
rob Peter to pay Paul" to keep his household, which
includes five children and his disabled wife, running
smoothly.
"I try to put in overtime whenever they let me," Mr. Dukes
said. Still, "some things you let go," he added. "I
sometimes have to put paying bills off until the next pay
period." For four years, ever since his wife, Sharon, had
to stop working because of a degenerative bone disease and
carpal tunnel syndrome, the family has lived on a tight
budget. Christmas lists from the children, who range in age
from 10 to 21, can mean difficult decisions. This year, the
youngest yearns for a PlayStation 2, while two of the girls
have asked for drawing paper for their art projects.
Dallas Sumbles, a 22-year-old Navy aircraft mechanic who
shops at a Wal-Mart in Jacksonville, Fla., is paid every
other week, and that can be hard, even with military
subsidies. "Three days after I get paid, the money is
gone," he said. "We live on the base, buy our food at the
Navy Exchange, pay for our cars and insurance and then do
nothing until two weeks later when the next paycheck
comes."
He and his wife, Nicki, used to have a Wal-Mart credit
card, but that did not turn out well, he said, and now they
owe more than $1,000. "We cannot pay anything on the
balance," he said. Nor can they afford to give each other
Christmas presents this year, Nicki Sumbles said, but their
children will get gifts and the couple may go out to
dinner.
Wal-Mart, which is based in Bentonville, Ark., began its
layaway plan in 1962 with its first store. This year it
began cashing payroll checks and government-issued checks
for a fee, in a program that has already spread to 20
states and is expected to be available nationwide by next
year. It began "as another form of convenience at the
register," said Melissa Berryhill, a Wal-Mart spokeswoman.
At the same time, she added, "we are aware that we have
some customers who don't have bank accounts."
But the economy is getting better, that's what Fox says.
Ok, I'm going to be posting intermittenly over the next few days, since there are games to play, books to read and movies to watch with children.
But before I take leave and relax a little, I want to post on the stories which I think mattered during 2003, but not in any order
1) Send my kid some water
Because of the inefficiencies of Halliburton, parents had to ship their kids cases of bottle water to Iraq.
2) Neil Bush and the mystery whores
Neil Bush, now a paid influence peddlee for the Chinese government, had women show up to his door ahd sleep with him.
3) Whitey made me lie
Jayson Blair proved that letting facts in the way of a good story wasn't a problem if you kissed enough ass.
4) Johnny who?
When Johnny Cash and John Ritter died on the same day, guess who got the notice? The guitarist or the comic actor?
5) Bad Santa
Proving how stupid the media is, they actually debated the merits of a movie where Billy Bob Thornton pisses himself and curses at kids. Santa isn't real, you know.
6) Capturing Saddam
Too bad he isn't running anything and that he cursed the US troops captured him.
7) Oh yeah, mutual funds are a crock
A massive scandal in the mutual funds business management has been obscured by the war
8) Jobs? What jobs.
The economy may be recovering slightly but those jobs are gone.
You'll hear that same note of skepticism -- minus the profanity -- from Clooney's father, Nick, a congenial Ohio Valley media star who's running for Congress as a Democrat in Kentucky's conservative 4th Congressional District.
"We sent 300,000 of our best and brightest on a snipe hunt," the elder Clooney says of the current situation in Iraq. "I seem to hear the people in our administration saying one thing and meaning something entirely different. When we say 'weapons of mass destruction and imminent danger,' what we really mean is 'not a sniff of weapons of mass destruction and apparently no imminent danger.' Saying something does not necessarily make it true, and simply saying it more often does not make it truer."
Like son, like father? Life and politics are definitely imitating art in this staunchly conservative swath of northern Kentucky. A Clooney is bashing a Bush -- only this time, it's for real. And though the election is still more than 10 months away, the congressional race here is already attracting national attention as a match-up of Hollywood star power vs. tough, homegrown conservative strength.
By all accounts, the Clooneys are aristocracy in this part of Kentucky. Nathan Smith, Democratic chairman of Kenton County, the largest county in the district, calls them "the Kennedys of Kentucky" (though that certainly isn't the compliment it once was). Nick's sister, Rosemary, was one of the iconic American singers and actresses of the post-World War II era; she starred with Bing Crosby in "White Christmas," and she remains a legend to older folks here. As a newspaper columnist and veteran television personality, Nick Clooney, now 69, has been a star in his own right. And young George is one of the globe's most eligible bachelors.
He'll almost certainly be back here in the months to come to help his dad campaign and raise money. But early indications are that President George W. Bush may visit the district to campaign on behalf of the Republican nominee to replace U.S. Rep. Ken Lucas, a conservative Blue Dog Democrat who's retiring after three terms in office
..............
That leaves the candidate and his handlers to develop a subtle campaign plan, one that exploits George's celebrity while keeping the campaign firmly on a moderate course and avoiding the risks that arise when George talks about politics. "He would be here every day if I asked him," Clooney said of his son. "He has his own life, but surely we'll try to set aside a moment when George can come back and do a [campaign] walk-through or fundraiser."
Taken together, the Clooneys are "a Republican nightmare," gushes Smith, the Kenton County Democratic chairman. "The older voters love Nick and the women love George. They don't care if he is a right-winger, a left-winger or a damn Russian. They just know he is the hottest single man in Hollywood, he's from Kentucky and his dad is running for Congress. As a party chairman, I'll take that any day."
The GOP is mighty freaking arrogant about this race, and they shouldn't be. The Clooneys have been living in that region for what, 150 years? Nick Clooney is the Regis Philbin of Cinnicinatti, he's been on TV and in the papers since before George Clooney was born. He also did a stint as AMC's host.
I think trying to tar him and his son as hollywood liberals isn't going to work. First of all, Clooney is fiercely loyal to his dad and I wouldn't want to be the GOP functionary who attacks him. This is a guy who has a reputation for picking and winning fights. Ask Bill O'Reilly. He still sputters at the mention of the name George Clooney. Second, Nick Clooney has worked with and helped lots of people over the years. His family, not just George, can attest to his character. There are a lot of people who can say Nick Clooney helped me. Third, these people are well-liked. Unlike a lot of people, Clooney has never been shy about his Kentucky roots or his family. It's not like he's dropping in and saying "hey, I used to live here." He still visits, still watches the Reds, still has friends there.
This race could easily boil down to who can help the region over who has the right politics. They won't ever be able to match Clooney's money, for one thing. I think when you make $15m a film, you can spend the GOP into the gutter. Yes. the region is conservative, but the GOP isn't going to find anyone who's better liked or better known. And I think that's important. These people know everyone, been to every dinky church. People know the uncles and the aunts and the cousins and the family. Sure, the GOP can talk politics, but come on, this is a guy who has a real connection to the people of the area.
Also, yes, they can talk about George Clooney's politics, which have been the same since he was a teenager, but considering the seat is in play, I don't think this is a straight politics race. As long as Nick Clooney makes it clear he'll represent the people of the region honestly, the GOP will have a tougher time than they think. George Clooney is not just amazingly charsimatic, and reasonably intelligent, he's got a solid reputation in Hollwyood. He's the anti-Arnie. People love the guy, actors and crew and that is rare.
The Salon article mentions Three Kings, but doesn't mention the key moment of the production. While they were filming in Utah,
the director, David O Russell was abusing the extras. Just flipping out on them. Clooney writes the guy a letter, tries to talk to him. He setltes down, for a while, but then, a few days later, flips out on a crew member. By pure coinicidence, Clooney had gone to high school with the guy and I think the school was small, like 200 people. So he knew him and was friendly with the family as well. Russell at some point either humiliates or puts his hands on the guy and Clooney flips. Not in the Hollywood, call my agent, way, but in the I will fucking kill you way. The next thing anyone knows, Clooney is choking the director with his bare hands. They pull him off Russell and calm things down, but people were stunned. Actors don't choke directors to make a point. This was an issue of basic human decency. Besides, if he didn't say anything, it's not like people wouldn't know at home.
So yeah, he's a liberal. And he also stands up for himself and others. I think trying to make Clooney an issue would be a very stupid thing. People, even in that district, pay good money to see him work. They like him and liked his dad. Attacking them on the issues might work, attacking them on their personalities is going to blow up on them.
This is going to be an issue of trust and if Nick Clooney can remind the voters that they know and trust him, he could well win, regardless of the region's politics.
So now that Libya has given up their moribund WMD program, against which they had no enemies to use against, and what do they get?
Oil, beautiful oil. Black and crude, bubbling up, modern bubbling oil. Oil.
See, they give up last year's status tool, the Porsche 911 Carerra of warfare, and now they get a nice new shiny Escalde of oil production help.
Make no mistake, Gaddafi isn't stupid. While the Marines weren't going to repeat the Shores of Tripoli, he looked around the world and realized that he could do more with oil money and modern production equipment than some canisters of mustard gas. He knew the American-equipped Egyptian Army would blow his collection of Soviet, Cold War relics which is now his army. And while everyone is patting themselves on the back and saying "oooh, Libya isn't a threat", they miss the great switch Gaddafi made. By playing the WMD card, Libya can expect to receive billions of investment from Big Oil.
That's right, there's no regime change, no call for democracy, just more profits for the Bushies and their friends. And you can bet that they're gonna use Libya to pacify those pissed at the deals Halliburton got in their new economic colony of Iraq. "Hey, sorry about Iraq, but we have Libya as a consolation prize. No war, no rebels, lots of that good Libyan crude."
Think about this: Libya's aggressive foreign policy failed. The Egyptians checked them in the 1970's, they were stalled in the Sudan for 20 years and the French kicked the crap out of them in Chad. Now, after years of failure, they come 'clean'.
SOCIALIST PEOPLE'S LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA
Head of state: Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi
Death penalty: retentionist
International Criminal Court: not signed
Approximately 65 political prisoners, including five prisoners of conscience detained since 1973, were released. Hundreds of others reportedly remained in prison. Families of dozens of prisoners were informed by the authorities that their relatives had died in prison, but were not told the date or cause of death. Several cases of "disappearance" were still not clarified. Two possible prisoners of conscience were sentenced to death. Reports of torture continued to be received; no investigations were known to have been carried out. Legislation remained in force criminalizing non-violent political activities and providing for unfair trials.
After the announced release of political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi declared on 1 September in his annual speech for the anniversary of the 1969 Revolution that "the existing Libyan prisons will be empty" with the exception of "a group of heretics who are believed to have links with what is known as al-Qa'ida and the Taleban". He stated that these would be treated in the same way the USA was treating people detained in Guantánamo Bay: "America said these people do not have the right to defend themselves, we will never provide them with lawyers, nor will their human rights be respected".
A climate of fear continued to prevail where victims of human rights violations or their relatives, in or outside the country, risk measures of retaliation when they communicate information to human rights organizations.
..................
Unfair trials
Unfair trials, particularly before People's Courts established in 1988, continued to be reported. In a statement commenting on Amnesty International Report 2002, the authorities reiterated that the People's Court is an "independent body" which "maintains all legal safeguards with regard to levels of litigation and the rights of the defence". Despite apparent positive developments in the case of the "HIV trial", concerns regarding the unfair administration of justice remained unchanged.
In February a People's Court in Tripoli dropped charges of conspiracy against the state in the case of one Palestinian and six Bulgarian health professionals who had been on trial since February 2000, accused of deliberately infecting nearly 400 children in hospital with the HIV virus. It referred the case back to state prosecutors. In June the prosecution pressed similar charges to those which had formed the basis of the original trial, but dropped the charge of conspiracy against the state. In August the Arraignment Chamber ordered a referral of the accused before a criminal court. According to reports, security officers who interrogated and allegedly tortured the accused following their arrest in 1999 were also referred to the criminal court.
................
Death penalty
Legislation remained in force that provides for the death penalty for activities which solely amount to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression and association. Death sentences continued to be imposed. No executions were reported. Since 1988, the authorities have continued to state their intention to work towards the abolition of the death penalty but there was no concrete move on this issue.
On 16 February, two possible prisoners of conscience, Abdullah Ahmed Izzedin and Salem Abu Hanak, were sentenced to death after an unfair trial before a People's Court in Tripoli. Scores of others in the same trial received sentences ranging from 10 years' to life imprisonment. They were among 152 professionals and students arrested in 1998 on suspicion of supporting or sympathizing with the banned Libyan Islamic Group, al-Jama'a al-Islamiya al-Libiya, which was not known to have used or advocated violence. No investigation into allegations of torture during detention raised by some of the defendants was known to have been carried out. Both the defendants and the prosecution lodged appeals against the verdict.
Torture and ill-treatment
Torture remained common in detention centres. According to AI's information, officials failed to take action to investigate allegations of torture or provide redress for the victims. Corporal punishments provided by law remained in force and were reportedly applied.
On 5 September Muhammad Mas'ud Zubaida went to the office of the Revolutionary Committee in Beni Walid to inquire if his son 'Abdullah Muhammad Mas'ud, detained since 1994, was to be included in the latest round of releases. Muhammad Mas'ud Zubaida was reportedly detained and died shortly after his release the following day. He had allegedly been tortured and ill-treated in detention.
According to Libyan media reports, four men convicted of robbery had their right hand and left leg amputated on 3 July, after the punishment was endorsed by the Supreme Court.
Deaths in custody
Allegations of numerous deaths in custody were not investigated. The authorities notified dozens of families that their relatives had died in custody, but apparently refused to provide any details of the date or cause of death. Some families were told that the body of their relative could not be returned because the prisoner had died years earlier. This led to speculation that the prisoners may have been among scores of prisoners allegedly killed unlawfully by the security forces in July 1996 in Abu Salim Prison in Tripoli.
'Disappearances'
The authorities came under increased pressure to clarify several cases of "disappearance", but had failed to open thorough, independent and impartial investigations into the cases by the end of the year.
In his annual speech on 1 September Colonel Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi gave an official acknowledgement that Imam Musa al-Sadr, a prominent Iranian-born Shi'a cleric living in Lebanon, "disappeared in Libya" during a visit in 1978.
The authorities failed to disclose information about Mansur Kikhiya, former Foreign Affairs Minister and prominent human rights defender, who was last seen in Cairo, Egypt, in December 1993, or about Jaballah Matar and Izzat Youssef al-Maqrif, both prominent Libyan opposition activists who "disappeared" in Cairo in March 1990.
Radio spokeswoman: Plea negotiations under way
From Susan Candiotti
CNN
Monday, December 22, 2003 Posted: 5:45 PM EST (2245 GMT)
WEST PALM BEACH, Florida (CNN) -- An attorney for Rush Limbaugh charged Monday that the conservative talk show host was being blackmailed by the Florida couple whose allegations triggered an ongoing investigation into his purchases of painkillers.
During a hearing over whether prosecutors should have access to Limbaugh's medical records, attorney Roy Black said Limbaugh paid "extreme amounts of money" to Wilma Cline, his former housekeeper, and her husband, first for pills and then for extortion. Black alleged that the Clines had threatened to go public with information about Limbaugh's drug use unless they received $4 million.
Black said Limbaugh wanted to contact the FBI, but was told by an unidentified friend that if he went to the authorities, they would target him, and his political enemies would use the information against him.
"That's exactly what happened," said Black, who also alleged that Cline's husband was a convicted drug trafficker.
The accusation by Limbaugh's attorney came on the day that a judge began hearing arguments over whether Limbaugh's medical records should be unsealed. Prosecutors are investigating whether Limbaugh obtained and used prescription painkillers illegally and want the records opened.
And she cooperated with the cops for a year?
Riddle me this: how did he maintain his addiction legally? He couldn't and we all know that. No doctor is going to give him the amount of OXyContin he needed to keep his dope habit going.
Blackmail? Yeah, right. Like he couldn't have given her $4m with his checkbook. Like he needed the cash withdrawals from his bank account? What about all those $9,900 withdrawals, the smurfing. Yeah, right. Blackmail.
I'm surprised that so many people have such a poor relationship between numbers and their meaning. Bush gets 59 percent popularlity in the latest polls and people say that's good. It isn't. If you compared it to oh, Clinton's numbers, they suck. Pollsters know that numbers have a floor and ceiling.
One widely acknowledged number is 50 percent. When you cannot crack 50 percent in a poll, you're losing. Why? Because with the advantage of incumbency, you should be between 52-55 percent and your opponent under 40. Now, take the bounce that Bush got with Saddam's capture. It still hovered around 59 percent, which is not good. It should be well into the 60's. Bush's numbers should be pushing well into the 50's normally, and get a bounce into the mid-60's. He's not getting that and that has to worry the White House.
Polling numbers are often tossed out without meaning or logic or comparisons.
REAL-LIFE FLYING SAUCERS MAY TAKE OFF http://www.defensetech.org/archives/000699.html
Citizens of Patuxent River, Maryland, do not be alarmed. When you see a flying saucer overhead sometime in 2007, it will not be a sign of alien attack.
Instead, the strange craft in the skies will mean that the Russians are finally here -- with a little help from the U.S. Navy.
For more than two decades, engineers at a former Soviet aerospace plant have been toiling on a drone aircraft that looks a whole lot like a prop from Plan 9 From Outer Space. But financial woes have frozen progress on the pita-bread-shaped, stubby-winged, wheel-less, unmanned ship, dubbed the Ekip (short for ecology and progress).
Momentum on the project may pick up again soon, however. After an introduction from an American congressman, the Ekip's designers at the Saratov Aviation Plant have a new partner: the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command, or NAVAIR, which has agreed to join in the
development of the unorthodox drone over the next several years. Test flights are tentatively scheduled for 2007 at Webster Field,
near Patuxent River.
They've tried to have flying disks for years. This would be interesting if it came off. Imagine the poor crabbers and fishermen seeing some Close Encounter's space ship. Well, it wouldn't be the first strange thing to fly from Pax River.
Juan Cole discusses the potential trial with his local newspaper
Q: What concerns do you have about the suggestions of putting Saddam Hussein on trial?
A: There are several. The Bush administration and Iraqi interim Governing Council both seem to think it's a good idea to try him in Iraq, and I understand why. But one wonders at what cost this will come. A lot of Sunni Muslims in Iraq fear the fall of the government because it will place them in the vast minority to Shiites who were persecuted by Saddam.
Any trial is going to cover his acts of genocide against the Kurds in the late 1980s and Shiites following the first Gulf War of the early '90s. Spending months on these kind of investigations has the potential for provoking ethnic violence.
Q: What are other potential consequences of putting Saddam on trial?
A: I believe giving Saddam Hussein a stage or platform in Iraq through a trial is a bad idea because he's going to be defiant and still has Fedayeen and a loyal base active in the country. There also is the potential that Saddam may find ways to underline U.S. complicity in the atrocities, which could make it difficult to maintain support for the occupation forces
I would only add that there is the problem of the Inigo Montoya factor. What is to stop Sadr and his buddies from overruning the Green Zone and saying, "I want Saddam, he killed my daddy". When you have 30,000 guys with AK's come to pay you a visit, well, that's when you have problems.
Also, the problem is that the people conducting the trial have no moral standing to do so. They're just exiles tainted as collaborators. A lot of Iraqis, many of whom would rip Saddam into bite-sized bits, might not like a US kangaroo court passing sentence. There needs to be a real, elected government able to conduct trials impartially.
"It's like Pavarotti with laryngitis. You can't reach your audience. You become invisible," said Bob Kerrey, a former Nebraska senator whose 1992 Democratic presidential bid was cut short after he ran out of money. "It's brutal if you don't have money, because your opposition has so much more capacity than you do."
Last week, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts lent $850,000 of his personal wealth to his campaign and prepared to take out a far larger loan against the value of his Boston home. Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut urged his staff to voluntarily delay one of their January paychecks for a month. And Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri asked his top aides to cut their salaries so he could keep running television ads.
`Close to lapping the field'
"Dean is outraising the Democratic field combined," a senior aide to one of Dean's leading rivals said with a sigh. "If this were a track race, you would have a pack running in a dead heat with Dean coming close to lapping the field."
Only Wesley Clark, the retired Army general who joined the race in September, is coming close to reaching Dean's fundraising prowess among Democrats. Aides said that in the three-month period ending Dec. 31, Clark is likely to raise at least $12 million.
It is Dean, though, who has caused the most frustration for rivals struggling to raise even a third as much money. He changed the race's dynamic last month when he became the first Democratic candidate to abandon the public financing system so he could outspend his Democratic challengers and prepare to take on President Bush, who is on his way to building a war chest of nearly $200 million.
These days, most everywhere he travels, Dean has a professional blue backdrop and stage lighting that transform such places as a school cafeteria into a picture-perfect political setting. By contrast, Gephardt has a fading, hand-painted sign hanging from the roof of his Iowa campaign headquarters.
Money matters in campaigns. Dean has so much of it, even Karl Rove will notice. And money means you can define your message. Unless there's some collapse, or horrific mistake on Dean's part, he's going to win and win early. And he's already setting the ground to run against Bush. No reliance on party organizations to cover your gaps or unions. Then comes the test after the primaries. It's going to be a long summer and a short campaign season.
his article is by William J. Broad, David Rohde and David E. Sanger.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 — A lengthy investigation of the father of Pakistan's atomic bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, by American and European intelligence agencies and international nuclear inspectors has forced Pakistani officials to question his aides and openly confront evidence that the country was the source of crucial technology to enrich uranium for Iran, North Korea and possibly other nations.
Until the past few weeks, Pakistani officials had denied evidence that the A. Q. Khan Research Laboratories, named for the man considered a national hero, had ever been a source of weapons technology to countries aspiring to acquire fissile material. Now they are backing away from those denials, while insisting that there has been no transfer of nuclear technology since President Pervez Musharraf took power four years ago.
Dr. Khan, a metallurgist who was charged with stealing European designs for enriching uranium a quarter century ago, has not yet been questioned. American and European officials say he is the centerpiece of their investigation, but that General Musharraf's government has been reluctant to take him on because of his status and deep ties to the country's military and intelligence services. A senior Pakistani official said in an interview that "any individual who is found associated with anything suspicious would be under investigation," and promised a sweeping inquiry.
Pakistan's role in providing centrifuge designs to Iran, and the possible involvement of Dr. Khan in such a transfer, was reported Sunday by The Washington Post. Other suspected nuclear links between Pakistan and Iran have been reported in previous weeks by other news organizations
These last few days have been truly frightening. The air in Baghdad feels charged in a way that scares me. Everyone can feel the tension and it has been a strain on the nerves. It's not so much what's been going on in the streets- riots, shootings, bombings and raids- but it's the possibility of what may lie ahead. We've been keeping the kids home from school, and my cousin's wife learned that many parents were doing the same- especially the parents who need to drive their kids to school.
We've been avoiding discussing the possibilities of this last week's developments… the rioting and violence. We don't often talk about the possibility of civil war because conferring about it somehow makes it more of a reality. When we do talk about it, it's usually done in hushed tones with an overhanging air of consternation. Is it possible? Will it happen?
Sunnis and Shi'a have always lived in harmony in Iraq and we still do, so far. I'm from a family that is about half Shi'a and half Sunni. We have never had problems as the majority of civilized people don't discriminate between the two. The thing that seems to be triggering a lot of antagonism on all sides is the counterinsurgency militia being cultivated by the CPA and GC which will include Chalabi's thugs, SCIRI extremists and some Kurdish Bayshmarga.
The popular and incorrect belief seems to be that if you are a Kurd or Shi'a, this step is a positive one. Actually, the majority of moderate Kurds and Shi'a are just as exasperated as Sunnis about this new group of soldiers/spies that is going to be let loose on the population. It's just going to mean more hostility and suspicion in all directions, and if the new Iraqi force intends to be as indiscriminate with the detentions and raids as the troops, there's going to be a lot of bloodshed too.
I once said that I hoped, and believed, Iraqis were above the horrors of civil war and the slaughter of innocents, and I'm clinging to that belief with the sheer strength of desperation these days. I remember hearing the stories about Lebanon from people who were actually living there during the fighting and a constant question arose when they talked about the grief and horrors- what led up to it? What were the signs? How did it happen? And most importantly… did anyone see it coming
God, this sucks. It just sucks. Incompetence and indifference leading to civil war.
There's a diary post on Kos about the fear many have about Howard Dean. That he's McGovern reborn and will lead the party to doom.
Hell, all he can do is lose a bunch of states, he can't do much more than that. He can't make things worse.
But he isn't going to.
Nor is Wes Clark.
I had my doubts about his record and to be honest, I think there are a lot of questions about the way he conducted himself while in command. But I also think he's one of those people who polarize people without even trying. He's not a good ol boy, he's an outsider in the culture of the infantry and that will always color the way some people, like Hugh Shelton, see him.
But I saw him on the Daily Show a while back and he impressed me. Not because of his resume, but because he's growing. He's seeing an America most people never get to see. A child who's father was injured in Iraq was being held at Ft. Drum and he asked Clark for help. That story stunned me, because it showed how Clark was learning about the country and how much compassion he had.
This was his response to people questioning his record
DERRY, N.H. -- Moments after praising his opponents in the Democratic presidential race as worthy running mates, Wesley Clark said, in no uncertain terms, how he would respond if they or anyone else criticized his patriotism or military record.
"I'll beat the s--- out of them," Clark told a questioner as he walked through the crowd after a town hall meeting Saturday. "I hope that's not on television," he added.
It was, live, on C-SPAN.
It's time we realized something. We've come to a fork in the road. Unless you fight for the presidency on your ground, you won't win it. I heard Tom Delay sneer at Clark today, and he isn't fit to wipe the man's ass.
I also saw John Edwards today, and afterwards, all I could see is a man who just doesn't get it. He wants the brass ring without the work. He wants to be president without a serious record. It was creepy, as if he thinks will can get him what he wants.
But my point is this: if the Dems want to win, they have to present a vision of their America. It's not just about beating Bush, although I'm all for that. It's about what kind of country this will be and who will run it. The DLC and their friends are where the left was in 1992. They are the past and they don't see it. Clinton did what he could for the times, but he made too many deals with people who were his enemies. In the end, they still came after him anyway.
We have to decide what kind of America we want. There is no way out of that. No compromise possible. There has to be a clear, distinct choice to be made. Anything less is doomed to fail.
Saddam Hussein was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.
Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.
So does he get the $25m? After all, he did catch the guy.
James Astill in Islamabad
Sunday December 21, 2003
The Observer
It was supposed to be a triumph, a Grand Council to usher in Afghanistan's first ever elections next year. But when Malalai Joya, a delegate from western Farah province, stepped up to speak last week, she was not celebrating.
With a steady hand, Joya pointed to the council leaders, or 'Loya Jirga', Afghanistan's new rulers since the Taliban's demise. 'These were the ones who destroyed our country,' she said. 'They should be tried in international and national courts. If our poor people forgive these criminals, history will never forgive them, their criminal activities have all been recorded.'
At Joya's outburst, there was uproar. Many of the council's 500 delegates screamed abuse at her, her microphone was switched off. A security guard bundled her away. None denied the truth of her words, not even the war crimes she spoke of, including the murder of six of her relatives in a rocket attack on Kabul.
'In order to make her secure, I told her to get out of the tent,' explained the council's chairman Sibghatullah Mojaddidi. 'As you know, our Mujahideen are a different kind of people. Once they get upset, it's difficult to control them.'
President Hamid Karzai knows that. The government he was bequeathed nearly two years ago is barely functioning, its members constantly squabbling for control. The 500 delegates of the Loya Jirga - politicians, businessmen and mullahs - are deadlocked over the new constitution. Nearly half the delegates are threatening sabotage if it is not rewritten. Most contentious is a last-minute revision scrapping a proposed Prime Ministership, to give Karzai almost unrivalled powers. The warlords, led by Burhanuddin Rabbani, want to install one of their own as Prime Minister
In another world, Tom DeLay would be committed to an insane asylum. They would hook him up, shock his brain, and pump him full of thorazine and lithium. He's depicting Dean as an extremist and that's going to come back to haunt them like Marley's ghost. Doctors, by their nature, are not extremists. And when people realize that Dean is talking about social justice and fiscal conservatism, this "Dean is Crazy" theme will hammer them.
If the great flaw of the Democratic Party is an unending appetite for infighting, the GOP's is blind followers. A rational party would take one look at Bush and worry. He's a weak canddiate who's reelection hangs on a successful conclusion to a war where the enemy teaches their children that zionists and Americans are still their enemies. His manner, which some people call folksy, turns smug and brittle when challenged. They rally around the president reflexsively and then demonize the opposition. But that isn't going to work.
When I say that I think Bush will lose by a landslide, I'm not talking about hope. Nor am I listening to the pundits. I'm looking at three things which haven't broken his way in over a year:
1) Unemployment
We're not just losing jobs, we're losing high wage, high value jobs, which are never coming back. What is being created is low wage work. Wal-Mart is the largest and one of the worst employers in America. I don't care how much propeganda they air. It's not that there are low wage jobs, but low wage jobs minus benefits. People are working and remaining poor. Increasingly, education is not the way up, but a way to a highly educated freelance life, where every job requires bidding and negotiation, with little security.
Bush has lost 3m jobs. That is a staggering number of jobs to lose in the economy. And they aren't coming back. Zippy the Pinhead could run on "are you better off than you were four years ago". Who could say yes? As Paul Krugman so adroitly points out, people are moving backwards and social mobility is stagnating. Underemployment is nearly as bad. Yet, the Bush solution is to rob Social Security and toss it into the marketplace. Until there is an incentive to make sure American employers keep jobs in the US when possible, and allow labor to actually protect workers, this won't change. The market is inefficient at best. Asking millions of Americans to invest their life savings in the market, money which they cannot lose, is desperately stupid at best and will provoke a bitter reaction from millions of people.
2) Iraq and Afghanistan
The war is not going well. US troops have no feeling or respect for Iraq or it's people. The CPA is simply unable to manage the country in any rational way and there is a head of steam building towards a nationalist rebellion. The lines are being dug deeper every day. You can see the harshness of the US reaction. The GOP tries to spin this as success, but we've already had 11,000 casualities from Iraq. That's not a number you see too often, but when you add up the illnesses on top of the combat injuries, we've lost 10 percent of the invasion force. That's a staggering number. Most military forces start to collapse when you reach those numbers. Another thing that is going to be clear over the next year is the inability to control Iraqi cities.
It is amazing that no one associates the daily shootings in Iraq with the utter and complete inability of the US Army to control Iraqi cities. In most places, you have standoffs. The ONLY thing saving the US Army is the wariness most Iraqis had approached the resistance. Although, privately, it has always had widespread support. The fact that the US is still chasing ghosts eight months later indicates Operational Security is a joke. We don't know who we're fighting and even our snitches can't tell us. I wonder why? Someone suggested that the list of agents Saddam was caught with was a plant and given the fact that he had no need to know who the spies were, nor any reason to carry the list of them, you have to wonder why he had it. The US will probably tear up CPA headquarters, interrogate a few unlucky souls and then purge the wrong people. I would estimate that most of the Iraqi CPA staff is loyal to some outside force, be it one of the parties, the resistance, or both. It's the perfect place to plant spies.
Afghanistan is back in the heroin business in a major way and it looks like Al Qaeda is using it to finance their war. The refusal of the US to allow garrisons outside Kabul to provide internal security, and not putting in enough force to deal with the Taliban is coming back to haunt the US. US troops are engaged in daily combat, the Taliban is resurgent in their old stomping grounds, and the dope trade has exploded. Of course, women have no rights and the country remains at war.
In short, most Americans have been told that they have been victorious in these wars and they are anything but. That cannot last. The resistance will score a major hit at some point and then we're going to have our very own Tet moment. And it seems the resitance has just begun their Operation Pointblank, the war on Iraqi oil pipelines and gasoline.
3) The rules have changed
2004 will be a drastically different campaign than has taken place in the past. Not only has the internet changed the rules, the introduction of 527 groups has as well. They will have millions to spend to go after Bush. I don't think Rove and his minions get that they won't be able to unload on Howard Dean as they have done so in the past. That they go into a real fight in terms of the available cash. David Brooks, on the News Hour, said that only 22 percent of voters hated Bush. He thought that was low. I thought that was high myself. A quarter of all voters hate the President? That's a lot of people. I mean most people wouldn't admit that to a pollster. I wouldn't answer yes to that question. So this "hate Bush" stuff won't work is the line.
I think that's dead wrong and here's why: at the height of the Clinton scandal, people who hated Clinton were widely regarded as crackpots with an agenda. The people alleged to hate Bush are across a far wider spectrum of people. Look at the support for Dean and Clark, millions of dollars coming from people who don't give to campaigns. That's a warning sign. Bush has not significantly broadened his base of support from 2001. The war boost ended a year ago. He's become far more polarizing over time. Yet, the pool of non-voters and new voters are gravitating towards the Dems. Also, Bush is frighteningly our of touch with the lives of average Americans. No scanners or questions about the price of milk for him. He usually appears before canned audiences as well.
No President since Harry Truman has faced going into an election with a bad economy and unpopular war and had a chance to win. Republicans are willfully ignorant of the chances of Bush because they still think Iraq will work. As it starts to fall apart and Iraqis reject US sponsored elections, the GOP will be left holding a bag o' crap. Bush's popularity isn't really climbing, the war bounce was a few points, and his opponents will have tons of money to play with.
I think, by the time of the debates, GOP congressional candidates will be looking for a way to save themselves.
I've just been going over my Amazon and Cafe Press orders and I have to say that I'm impressed by the orders generated so far. Just as a reminder, you can use the links to redeem gift certificates as well as place post-Christmas orders. Also, if anyone wants, please send me shots of you wearing my t-shirts, I'll hide your face, of course, if I post them.
For the curious, I'll probably set up a tip jar or begging cup when I migrate to the new site at the begining of the year, and yes, there will be a new site with a new domain, which, through a bizarre series of circumstance, has cost very little, so I don't need money for that. Instead of asking for bulk contributions, I'll probably ask for voluntary subscriptions, kind of like the museum. In exchange for money, I'll probably do something like send out a daily newsletter with all the day's columns or allow access to a private chat or forum. It won't affect the main blog, which will be ad supported, but it's a way of not just begging for money, which I dislike.
This way, you'll be able to send either an electronic payment or a check, whichever makes you more comfortable.
No, I won't be going to New Hampshire in winter, but be assured, your money will be used well. Super Bowl parties cost money:) Seriously, the more income the site generates, the more time I can devote to blogging and maybe one day, doing honest to god research. Unlike Andy Sullivan, I won't be buying sports cars with the money from this site. I'll spend some on ads and upkeep, some to pay for a professional redesign in the works, and some on the hardware which keeps the site up. And the occasional dinner date.:)
One proviso, at some point in the next year, I'll probably ask for contributions to a charity. Other than that, I will not ask for contibutions to any political campaign. If you're here, you can give the money to who you see fit without my prompting.
"What is so wrong with a small sales tax increase? There seems to be a disconnect with people that are unable to see that taxes keep enable our lives to be safer and more peaceful. When our government has the money to educate our children, to help with drug treatment, to pave roads, to hire police, to help young children get medical help ALL of our lives become better. "
Samarra lies in the heart of the Sunni triangle, the area of land west and north-west of Baghdad where resistance is fiercest. Cities such as Samarra, along with Tikrit, Bayji, Falluja and Ramadi, have become battle zones where US soldiers have died and hundreds more have been wounded. The Sunni tribes who live in the region benefited most from Saddam's reign. Now, stripped of the privileges and power that the Baathist regime brought them, they are fighting hard.
The reason, Al-Alawi said, was simple. 'If there is one thing worse than Saddam, it is being invaded by the foreigners. Especially American foreigners.'
Columns of tanks now prowl the 'liberated' city 24 hours a day, kicking up the dust, scattering children. Roads are randomly closed and rolls of barbed wire laid by the Fourth Infantry Division, the unit that captured Saddam. Local Iraqi police paramilitaries screen all cars, wearing balaclavas to hide their features. One local doctor, Aisar Al-Samarrai, complained that his clinic was regularly hit by gunfire.
According to Sheikh Adnan Thabit, who sits on the town's religious council, 'there is a now a full stand-off between the resistance and the Americans'.
Humvee-mounted patrols comb the sand-coloured residential areas street by street, house by house. Every dawn there are raids. Some 120 suspects were arrested last week. The resistance mounts daily attacks, gaining in sophistication. Once it was small-arms fire, now it is mines and bombs. Earlier this month a convoy delivering new 'Saddam-free' currency to a bank was ambushed. The Americans claim they killed between 40 and 58 resistance fighters. Locals say the dead were mostly innocent civilians and some Iranian pilgrims.
Graffiti all over the city make the sentiments clear. 'Spies: hide your faces now ... Tomorrow we will show who you are,' says one. Some slogans, 'American soldiers: Our armed struggle continues without end endlessly' are in English. Another, similar, message scrawled across a school wall, was promptly demolished by a tank.
The resistance in Samarra is not hard to find. In a side street is 'Hasni', with regulation leather jacket and machine gun. He told The Observer why he had taken up arms. 'This is not Tikrit. This is not a Baath Party city. We in Samarra are the oldest tribe of Iraq, and Saddam was afraid to come here. We are fighting a foreigner, not for Saddam, not for Islam, but for Samarra and Iraq.'
'Hasni' stressed it would be unfair to 'criticise the Americans for everything they do'. 'When they do good, we must say so. But they are making a big mistake to put back into power all the corrupt people and treat us as slaves and try to steal our economy. While they try this, we have lost our wealth and have many young men without work.'
Hasni's comrade, Mahmoud, adds: 'Each time they kill a civilian, they make a fighter in that person's family. Day after day, they are creating more resistance.'
Perfect conditions for free and fair elections. Hell, the US doesn't and can't control this town, after running a brigade through it.
It's easy to be negative, hell, it's actually fun most times, but with the "holiday" season about, it's time to share some of the things I like.
1) Digital cameras
I grew up on film. I logged hours developing black and white film. With access to digital cameras and especially SD disks, what was once cumbersome and time consuming is now as easy as click and load. The cameras are still too expensive for the high quality shots that you see in the local newspapers, but for daily use, they are simply miraculous. I own a camera smaller than a pack of Marlboros. I would still like to get a Leica, anyone who's ever worked in a newsroom at any point has an affection for the Leica. Digital cameras are just the most flexible machines I've used in years.
2) Well-written TV
People like to sneer at TV because it's fun. I have a taste line, but in reality, well-written TV isn't reserved for the Sopranos. There's 24, Gilmore Girls, Line of Fire, Law and Order, Bernie Mac, the Simpsons. People don't understand there's one thing about TV which isn't widely known, at least to people who don't write for a living, is that if it's not on the page on TV, it just sucks. No matter how talented you are, what a great actor you are, on TV, it's all driven by writing. When the writing works, you know it, when it doesn't it hits you across the head like a pipe. The difference between the carefully written Gilmore Girl episodes and the far less well written OC is clear. The same between the annoying Alias and the tight and thoughtful 24. You know when you watch these shows whether the writers are telling a truth or slapping together cliches. And if you can say, yeah, I get the point, it makes sense, then the writers are doing their jobs. When TV reflects the familiar, the recognizable, then the writers aren't insulting you.
Without question, Seinfeld was incredibly accurate about life on the Upper West Side. Not in the cross the t's kind of way, but the kind of attitudes Manhattanites had. The same for the King of Queens. It may be exagurated, but people live like that, at least in the broad strokes. No one lives like Friends. No one. That's LA transplanted to New York. It's too white, too sterile, too flat. It's funny, but it's not New York, it's not real in any sense.
The same is true in documentary TV as well. When a History Channel doc makes you think, then the writers and researchers have done their job, they're hitting their marks as well as can be. If you can feel compassion for the family of a U Boat crewman or get exactly how monstrous Stalin was, they're making effective TV.
3) A well-designed cookbook
There are thousands of cookbooks, but the best ones come in two categories, a collection of history/recipies, and photo books. The first need to explain the recipies and how they were fixed and the other needs to have lush, colorful photos on spare backgrounds. Which is why I love Delia Smith's How to Cook. It has stunning pictures and clear explainations. But there's something else: the recipies have to work. Surprising numbers of cookbooks fail that basic test, you know. A lot have flawed recipies, despite testing.
Nigella Larson may be well-endowed, but her recipes are flighty, unsound and even if they work, they're more about her and lifestyle than actually churning out a meal. A cookbook is, like a well-balanced hammer, a tool. If it doesn't fit the way you cook and eat, then it is of no use to you, no matter who recommends it or how much they like it. I'm not cooking squirrel for anyone, but I like my new cookbook because it has a ton of history to it and I may actually fix something from it one day. But it's more about history than food to me. But that is a perfectly valid purpose.
4) Wi-fi
If managed right, we'll all be using wi-fi one day. Wireless notebooks, wireless pda's, a world without wires and all publicly funded. Well, that's the dream. Wi-fi matters, and it could save communities bllions in trying to wire their people. It is a potential without limits and frankly a great idea.
5) DVD's
I love DVD's. I just do. Not for the extra features, or the compact size, but for the simple fact that they look killer on a computer screen. If you don't watch DVD's on a computer screen, do so. The picture comes in so clear, so sharp, you'll sit stunned the first time you watch it. Especially with widescreen. Fullscreen should be banned as a matter of good taste. Widescreen, like subtitles, are GOOD things, not bad. I like subtitles. I like hearing films in their original language. I cannot imagine there are people who wouldn't watch the Seven Samurai or Yojimbo because they are black and white and with subtitles. But I guess there are.
6) A well-made hamburger
It's real simple: get the best meat possible. That's it. Just get the best meat you can grind, grind it and cook away. In New York, Fairway's ground beef is of high quality. In most places, if you want good ground meat, there's a simple technique, ask the butcher to grind it for you the way he would for his family. Then you'll get that taste of fresh burger.
7) The BBC
When you can't trust American news any more, you can trust the always neutral Auntie Beeb. The right hates it, this week, but they eventually piss everyone off. But there's another reason. The Beeb has the most complete news and music website around. You can listen to their broadcasts, not just the World Service, but all their broadcasts online. Unlike the shallow and poorly designed American broadcast sites, the BBC is a fully realized website designed to support the entire network.
8) The Dean Defense Forces
I love the idea of flooding reporters with letters when they make mistakes. Every candidate should have emulated this. Their best days have not been seen yet, trust me. It's already protected Dean's flank more than once. I love the idea of keeping reporters on their toes. Unchecked power is reckless power.
9) Playboy
No, I don't read Playboy, but this month is the magazine's 50th anniversary. Simply put, it has been a vocal supporter of women's rights and free speech long before either was popular. It supported the unpopular and weak against the strong and said things which had never been said before. The Playboy interview is still one of American journalism's best inventions and it remains strong. I find the naked women plastic and boring, but I love what the company has done over time. It is truly an American institution.
10) VA volunteers
There are a host of people who give up their free time to work in VA and military hospitals. They are doing a needed service at a critical time with no one noticing or even caring. Even if we can't volunteer ourselves, we need to remember and assist these people any way we can. They are truly part of what is good and decent in this country, despite all the odious flagwaving and macho talk.
The latest New York Times/CBS News poll has found widespread support for an amendment to the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. It also found unease about homosexual relations in general, making the issue a potentially divisive one for the Democrats and an opportunity for the Republicans in the 2004 election.
Support for a constitutional amendment extends across a wide swath of the public and includes a majority of people traditionally viewed as supportive of gay rights, including Democrats, women and people who live on the East Coast.
Attitudes on the subject seem to be inextricably linked to how people view marriage itself. For a majority of Americans — 53 percent — marriage is largely a religious matter. Seventy-one percent of those people oppose gay marriage. Similarly, 33 percent of Americans say marriage is largely a legal matter and a majority of those people — 55 percent — say they support gay marriage.
The most positive feelings toward gay people were registered among respondents under 30, and among those who knew gay people.
The nationwide poll found that 55 percent of Americans favored an amendment to the constitution that would allow marriage only between a man and a woman, while 40 percent opposed the idea.
The findings come after the highest court in Massachusetts ruled 4 to 3 last month that same-sex marriage was permissible under the state's Constitution. That ruling followed a 6-to-3 decision in late June by the United States Supreme Court striking down antisodomy laws.
President Bush had been noncommittal about a constitutional amendment immediately after the Massachusetts ruling, with the administration worried that support for a ban on gay marriage would alienate moderate voters. But last week Mr. Bush for the first time voiced his support, saying, "I will support a constitutional amendment which would honor marriage between a man and a woman, codify that."
You're asking people to vote on rights and that always leads to bursts of homophobia and other ignorance. When you take the word marriage out, people are less likely to be homophobic. Also, it has to be cast as an issue of fairness and not religion. Once you do that, that plays into traditional American sense of fair play. Americans will do anything, anything to avoid being seen as unfair. They hated blacks a lot longer than gays and those laws fell in a matter of years.
This whole progrom is vunerable to the Dateline effect. Once you have some sympathetic people involved, and I guess some exposures of closeted GOP members, the lust to punish the queers will diminish greatly. Once they realize how many of the people they admire like to ride the pink bus, a lot of these attitudes will change. All you need is one really nasty custody case and opinions will change. Bull Connor did more to end segregation than Martin Luther King ever could. A lot of Americans, while they had no great love of blacks, didn't want to be seen as on the side of a man who would sic dogs on children. And all you need is one case and Bush will regret even raising this.
Administration officials are talking about giving unemployed workers personal re-employment accounts, which they could spend on training, child care, a car, a move to a place with more jobs, or whatever else they think would benefit them.
President Bush has a proposal to combine and simplify the confusing morass of government savings programs and give individuals greater control over how they want to spend their tax-sheltered savings. Administration officials hope, in a second term, to let individuals control part of their Social Security pensions and perhaps even their medical savings accounts.
The Ownership Society idea allows Bush to be centrist and conservative at the same time. It is centrist because it means actively using government to solve problems. In 2000, Bush declared: "I do not believe government is the enemy. But I do not believe government is always the answer. At its best, it can help people find the tools they need to build for themselves. At its best, it gives options, not orders." The Ownership Society platform is designed to update that message for 2004.
But the platform is culturally conservative. Talking with staff, Bush emphasizes that he wants to use these policies to move from an "anything-goes culture" to a "responsibility culture." By giving individuals control of their own retraining, their own savings and their own homes, he hopes to inculcate self-reliance, industriousness and responsibility.
With events like the State of the Union address, an incumbent president has the power to change the subject and reshape the domestic debate. The Bushies haven't done it yet, but they are about to.
Which is a stealth way to shift Social Security from an old age insurance program to a federally funded pension program, which it is not. Which means the government will control billions in the market. This won't work and they know it. Bush wouldn't know responsibility if it bit him on the ass, but the reality is that this program is too expensive and too prone to collapse.
The securities industry knows that most people cannot manage their own portfolio. This is widely acknowldged among professionals. What this would do is place even more of a person's safety net at the mercy of the marketplace, and will, eventually collapse the entire system. People don't need cars, they need to eat and pay their rent. American unemployment insurance is fine for the short term, but it's been three years of shaky underemployment for some people. This is the kind of plan that people who have never been unemployed would devise. It makes insane assumptions about people's debt load and personal savings. You will not save much working in an economy where missing two paychecks can lead to homelessness.
Of course, I hope he mentions social security in the SOTU. Because then, he will seal his fate with the eldery. It isn't called the third rail of American politics for no reason. This constant demand to change Social Security, to shift it from old age insurance to a federal pension plan, is based in greed and stupidity. It's too expensive and too politically risky, but then so was invading Iraq.
SPIES working for Saddam Hussein were yesterday reported to have infiltrated the United States command centre in Iraq in a move that might have seriously compromised security in the country.
US officials said documents in a briefcase found with Saddam when he was captured a week ago included a list of agents who had slipped through the tight vetting system. They apparently were working alongside coalition forces in post-war Iraq and passing information to insurgents.
A US official said the discovery of the list was a major victory in the fight against Iraqi rebels, but he admitted the infiltration was widespread.
Further evidence of the increasing strain on the US came as Paul Bremer, the senior US administrator in Iraq, yesterday said he had survived an attack early this month when the convoy he was travelling in was targeted by a roadside bomb, one of the most lethal weapons used against coalition forces in the country.
The revelations came on a day when bombers killed an Iraqi woman in an attack on the office of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution Party, the main Shiite political group in Iraq.
Meanwhile, a roadside bomb exploded near a military petrol tanker outside Baghdad, wounding two US soldiers and killing two Iraqi civilians.
The attacks are the latest incidents since the capture of Saddam on a farm near the town of Tikrit last Saturday.
The deposed leader is believed to be undergoing intense interrogation on the rebel insurgency aimed at coalition forces and Iraqis working alongside them.
The pro-Saddam staff have been working with the US, in the Iraqi security forces or the Coalition Provisional Authority, and are feeding information to the insurgents.
Ok, the Iraqis didn't surrender, they walked away. There is no real political leadership to rally around. Of course the various resistance groups flooded the CPA with "offers" of help. But the Americans, lacking Arabic-speaking allies, pretty much took the word of people running to help them. The Young Republicans Abroad thought the Iraqis were happy to be 'liberated' and they were, to be liberated from Saddam, not to have him replaced by Viceroy Jerry Bremer.
What people need to realize is that Saddam was only running one network. Every party, every resistance group has their own spies inside the CPA. We trusted that Iraqis would see us as having golden motives and they clearly aren't so disposed.
OK, I've spent part of the day reading a cookbook, Hoppin John's Low Country Cooking, which is as much history as cooking and I'm fascinated by it. Although I'm not eating any squirrel any time soon. It was an early Christmas gift from my friend, who appears in these posts from time to time.
I have a bunch of unread books around, a German history of Rommel in North Africa, a couple of fiction books from a woman I used to date, some birthday gifts which remain unread until I get a few days off around Christmas. I have plenty of things to read, on top of the stuff I read online.
I consider myself well-read, but I don't usually read magazines unless they're trade, random copies of Maxim or have have to do with computer games.
Well, I was in a CVS yesterday and I picked up a copy of US.
Oh my GOD. I mean Cosmo is one thing. You don't take it seriously, but the sex stories are cool. Maxim is an upscale spank magazine. But US? It's written for idiots. No, I'm serious, real fucking idiots. People who care about Trista and Ryan, Bob and Estella and the rest of the freaks on those reality dating shows. Like they were famous or something. OK, I can tolerate reading about Gwyneth Paltrow's quicky wedding and pregnancy, Jude Law's bitter divorce, Ben Affleck's protestations of love for Jennifer Lopez. These people are famous for work. No one is following Law around to see if he looks at his young girlfriend at dinner. No one cares how bored Lopez is at a Red Sox game. Hell, that makes Affleck human.
But there are people who care if some former cheerleader has a baby with her husband? Give me a break. It's scary. I can't imagine the America where these people matter. I can take Dr. Phil, Oprah, and Maury. I like Jerry Springer, but ok, that's TV and people need a kick in the ass once in a while. Oprah is amazingly generous with her money and causes. Springer talks to white trash without sneering. Ok, they all have a place in American life. Maybe not as high as oh, Cornell West or Howard Zinn, but yeah, they contribute.
Bob the Bachelor is a scumbag. Ok. There, I said it. All these guys are. They're screwing these women, who are all desperate to be with them and we're supposed to think they're in love? Come on, it's little different than 50 Cent singing P-I-M-P. If you put me in a contest where I got to seduce three different women, I'd do my damnest to sleep with all of them, at the same time even. Most men would. I just express amazement that there are people who think this is about love? Hugh Hefner's more ethical than some bachelor assclown.
But then I realized that there was this other America. One I'd only seen in dribs and drabs. One where people took this stuff seriously, thought these people were famous and not freaks. That listened to Jessica Simpson music seriously. The other America. Most of us only have a nodding aquitance with this America. We don't really take it too seriously. I'm listening to the New Pornographers and Fountain of Wayne, with a little Calixico mixed in. With the advent of digital music, I can listen to stuff which will never see a radio. I can't tell you who's hot on TRL nor do I want to. Even when I was a kid, I wouldn't have cared.
But there is this other America, where if you said "well, Outkast's last album was pretty good as well," you'd get a blank stare. Or mention that "yeah, I liked Enemy at the Gates, but you have to see Come and See to really understand how desperate the Russian Front was." Or "you haven't seen Amilie? Well, if you like that, Eric Rohmer's Boyfriends and Girlifriends would blow you away." Or "the director's cut of Das Boot in widescreen is awesome." People would look at you as if you had a horn growing out of your head.
The America where they like the music on the radio and take Pat Robertson seriously. An America which I have no clue about. I mean, it's not a regional thing, or a class thing. There are some really cool places in Austin, Houston, Kansas City, where people listen to music not on the radio, don't think McDonald's is a balanced meal and laugh at the 700 Club. But the scary part is that America coexists with the American which thinks that Jessica Simpson is truly talented and Snoop Dogg some kind of clown prince.
Just staring at that US magazine was scary. Thinking that working people not only read that tripe, but took it seriously, like those people mattered. I know, barring a business deal, or poker game, Ben Affleck's life is basically a comparative source of amusement to me. Worse than some friends, better than others. I'm not talking about the game of effete snobbery either as in "oh, I don't watch any Roger Moore Bonds" or "Please, Husker Du was about as good as that whole Midwestern scene got". No, I don't mean that crap. But a basic willingness to oh, watch TCM when there are no good movies on HBO are on, listen to music not vetted by coke-addled music directors sitting at computers to plan rotations or thinking Girls gone Wild is um, more than embarassing? Or that not all movies blow things up?
Americans have a vast, rich culture which lies between the college prof and his grad student girlfriend approved NPR and the crap they shove on the radio. You don't have to be some hipster to have some taste for God sakes. And the first step is to ignore any publication which tells about the post-TV lives of TV reality people and then announce their breakup like it mattered. They didn't matter. How could their seperation matter? It's a TV show, for God's sake. You have to be twisted to even be on that damn show, much less sleep with someone who's had sex with another woman the night before and will have much of what they do filmed.
Caring about it is little better than a freaking lobotomy.
I've been messing with blogging software all day and I can't get more than a 404 error from my server. It's making my head hurt and I have no idea what the hell is going wrong. I load everything into the directory and then it just stalls out on me. I've tried Moveable Type, Greymatter and Wordpress, all with the same ultimate result. Arrgh.
Well now, that was quick! My date started at 6:00 and ended by 7:30.
I had agreed to go to an office holiday party with a former playmate, someone I fucked a few times but really haven't seen for over a year. Software engineer, attractive, a few years older than I am. What he neglected to tell me was that he had gotten married in the interim and that things are not going well.
Oh, and that his wife works at the same company.
And, by the way, that his wife had no idea he was bringing a date.
I was very glad that I met him at the hotel where the party was being held and didn't have to get a cab home. I did, however, have to demand cash to cover the drycleaning bill for the wine that hit my jacket when his wife hurled the full glass at him. She and I actually had a couple minutes of calm conversation (after she called me a homewrecking cunt), and we are both fully in agreement about what a jackass she married.
Pardon me while I go make myself a drink.
See, I don't make things up. People do actually lose their minds at holiday parties. I won't comment on the mental competance of a man who brings a date to a Christmas party where his wife will be, but as long as there are humans and alcohol, fun will always ensue.
1. The Douglas DC-3, rolled out for American Airlines in 1935, wasn't really the first of anything, but it perfected the evolution of the all-metal passenger transport to become the first truly profitable and mass-produced airliner. So many thousands of DC-3s were built, in civilian and military versions, both in the U.S. and under license abroad, that nobody can cite a comprehensive count. As late as the 1960s more than 1,500 were still in airline service. Today several hundred remain flyable, and every airliner, from a 19-seater to the 777, bears a debt to this old piston twin.
I think we forget how rapidly the science of flight has moved. From the Wright Bros flight in 1903, the first flight of the DC-3 took 32 years.
Let's remember that television was invented in 1925 and by 1958 had remained basically the same, but with more programming and options. The picture was still black and white and most shows were still live.
The automobile was popularized by the late 19th century, but by 1920 were only marginally more reliable and still largely drove on dirt roads and largely exposed to the elements.
Only flight has grown so rapidly, so without restraint, that within 50 years, people could fly around the world.
But no plane, no vehicle, has changed the world more rapidly than the DC-3. When it flew in 1935, no one realized that it would be in the air 68 years later. There aren't too many places where the DC-3 hasn't flown since then. From the skies over Normandy to Alaska. There are still reengined DC-3's flying cargo and passengers. In fact, there are flight instructions available online and information on costs and upkeep. Which means people still use them.
The DC-3 has had an excellent safety record, with few structural failures, over its lifespan. The idea that any piece of machinery could last almost 70 years is amazing. The fact that it was in the air only 32 years after the first flight makes it more astounding. From fabric and wood to a metal monoplane is amazing in and of itself. The fact that one can climb upon a DC-3 today is even more amazing.
We don't realize how quickly flight exploded in our lives and changed our world. The DC-3 was everything from warbird to rescue craft and everything in between.
The DC-3 was the first great idea in flight. It would soon be followed by other planes like the P-51 and 707, but no plane has meant as much to as many people as the DC-3 and its many varients.
Dec. 19, 2003 | NEW YORK (AP) -- A court ruling has stopped hip-hop magazine The Source from distributing a CD of a previously unreleased recording by rapper Eminem that includes phrases such as "black girls are dumb."
Manhattan federal Judge Gerald Lynch granted Eminem's lawyers an injunction preventing the magazine from enclosing the CD in its February issue, which goes on sale in mid-January. The magazine had planned extensive coverage of the recording.
The Source said it exposed the Eminem track while investigating the forces corrupting hip-hop, including racism.
"The fact that our opinion regarding the prevalence of racism in the music industry is being censored is just another step in the effort to cover up the racial bias destroying hip-hop culture," The Source said in a statement Thursday.
In the less than sane world which is rap publishing, the Source has a hardon against Eminem. The owner hates the guy and wants to ruin his career.
I mean, it's not like a guy who wanted to murder and drown his wife on record can be said to take it easy on ex-partners. He takes these things hard. But to use this against him now, from when he was what 17-18, is a punk move. It's nothing but a vendetta done by people who can't play by the rules.
Look, if the guy was a racist, then, yeah, nailing him would be fair. But considering his entire career was guided by blacks, supported by blacks and puts money in black people's pockets, calling him a racist isn't exactly fair. He's like our own little Elvis, which is making money for Dr. Dre like Elvis did for Colonel Tom Parker. This hints at the motivation behind the "feud" now quashed by the Feds.
Benzino
Redemption (Buy It!)
Hip-hop's most transparent villain since Suge Knight, Benzino constantly uses his co-ownership of The Source to flog his moribund recording career. It hasn't worked, though it has succeeded in irrevocably damaging the substance-impaired magazine's credibility. With Redemption, Benzino resorts to a new, equally sleazy tactic to avoid the cut-out bin: picking a fight with Eminem. On "Pull Your Skirt Up," Benzino chastises Eminem for not being a gangsta, insists that the popular rapper and movie star owes his career to his appearance in The Source's "Unsigned Hype" column, and reaches out to 50 Cent, who shockingly chose to take Eminem's side in the squabble. Eminem has answered back with dis tracks, but by attacking the walking punchline, he's only feeding into the stubborn delusion that Benzino still has a career worth destroying.
As time goes on, I'm convinced that short of an intelligence coup de main, Osama, if he's still alive, will remain free.
Why?
Because he is being protected by the Pakistiani ISI (Inter Service Intelligence) . They funded the most hard core remembers of the Afghan resistance and they funded the Taliban. Unless they tire of him, slip up or make some kind of deal, Osama will remain footlose and fancy free. Unlike Saddam, Osama is being protected by someone.
The Bush Adminsitration cannot admit this, because if they did, the government of Musharraf would fall like a house of cards, especially after they tried to kill him last week. The Pakistani military cannot even enter the tribal regions in force and they won't let the US do more than run missions there. So the idea that Osama, barring some kind of political deal or break through, is going to appear is unlikely.
It's more likely that he'll die and we'll see the video than he'll ever see a trial, anywhere.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The American administrator of Iraq escaped unharmed from a rebel ambush in Baghdad earlier this month, senior U.S. officials say.
Paul Bremer was traveling in an armored civilian vehicle in west Baghdad on the same day Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld visited the Iraqi capital although he was not in the convoy.
Earlier, Bremer said media reports that he had survived an assassination attempt on December 6 were true. "Thankfully I am still alive, and here I am in front of you," Reuters quoted him as saying.
However, Pentagon officials later told CNN the attackers, who began the ambush by setting off a roadside bomb, probably did not know the convoy carried Bremer, saying the vehicles simply presented a target of opportunity.
Officials said they did not believe this was an assassination attempt.
Guerrillas followed the explosion by attacking with small arms fire. The convoy sped off and no one was hurt
Uh, doesn't Viceroy Jerry drive around in a special Blazer?
Look, this isn't the first time they've tried to kill him. The DeMello bombing was designed to get Bremer as well and they missed. Bremer cannot move around freely in Baghdad, period. Target of opportunity? Who are they kidding? It's not so much that they planned to kill him, although I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't a planning cell which does nothing but, but that the place is so violent and out of control no one makes a big deal out of it. The attackers escaped unharmed and Bremer is playing the macho role instead of admitting his management of Iraq is being mangled.
My bet is that the next time they try to kill Bremer, it won't be a target of opportunity.
For all these people who think Saddam's capture means Bush will win in a landslide, they best reconsider and think: Bremer or another high official will die in Iraq. Given the pace of attacks and their increasing violence, we're more than likely to see the flip side of the capture of Saddam, the death of a high ranking US official. No one will be talking about Bush's reelection chances then. They haven't brought the Strelas downtown...yet. If there is a chance to get Bremer, we'll see them. If they can randomly shoot at cars and nothing happens to them, we have a security situation which is about to implode.
For the slow of wit, security means the ability to drive without AK fire crossing your path.
All the shades are drawn in Raba's house on a wide residential street in one of Baghdad's more affluent neighborhoods. Small daughters and nieces streak through a well-appointed living room, leaving giggles and shrieks in their wake, as their young mothers and aunts sip Pepsi from cans and make wry comments in the darkened space. None of these women leave this home, even so many months after the war came to its so-called end. And Raba, a usually spunky twentysomething, is afraid even to stand in her own doorway. "Before the war we were out until 2 o'clock in the morning all the time," she says. "Now I don't even bother to put on my shoes."
Millions of women have found themselves living under such de facto house arrest since the coalition forces claimed Baghdad in April. They have been forced into this situation by a menacing triple threat that has emerged since the war: First, Saddam Hussein threw open the doors to his prisons in October 2002, releasing criminals onto Iraq's lightly policed streets. Then came the fall of the regime and the concomitant crumbling of law enforcement. And now, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is creating a growing human rights crisis for women as an extracurricular issue at best, leaving women at the mercy of thugs on the streets and the religious parties that have rushed into the political vacuum.
Upwards of 400 women have been kidnapped in this city alone, according to various women's groups, and each horror story ripples throughout each neighborhood. Raba's story is one of them. As she leans forward to fuss over a tiny niece, her auburn curls part to show a jagged line of black stitches that vertically bisect her scalp. "My wound from the war," she says with a sardonic laugh.
"What did I learn from all of this? That what's important here isn't a woman's life, but a nice car," she says, closing the subject.
This is the freedom George Bush has delivered to Iraqi women. The freedom to be raped and kidnapped by freelance criminals instead of the state. If the American Army can subcontract food service, Iraqis can subacontract state terror to private individuals.
At some point, Howard Dean will have to deal with matters of faith. While Bush wraps himself in the cross, something which plays less well with people than one would think, Dean will have to address how he views religion. This will definitely matter in the South, and he'll have to go against his natural instincts and upbringing to do so.
Because of three reasons: one, he's a New York WASP, and religion is best discussed on Sunday mornings before brunch. It simply isn't in his nature to discuss religion in public. Second, his wife is Jewish and his kids raised Jewish, so religion wasn't a make or break issue with him. Third, he's a doctor by training, and protestations of faith are declasse for people who deal in science.
It is simply not done in the culture he was raised in to have open protestations of faith. He's an Espiscopalian, which basically means you show up to church on occasion, know who Jesus was and go about the business of making money. More outre forms of religious worship are frowned upon. Baptist services, they are not.
What Dean should do is make it clear that he respects people's belief and he's not going to see everything in a religious light. Despite the image, a lot of Southerners don't like having Jesus tossed in their face and they resent religious hypocrisy. If you're that religious, you're not going to vote for anyone but Bush anyway.
The best way to cast his discussion of faith is to put it in the context of medicine. He's seen a few miracles in his day. A lot of people despise the way Bush uses religion, even in the South. As far as civil unions go, he has to stress that it's not about forcing churches to accept gay marriage, but about the law and that he wasn't given any choice in the matter. The courts said he had to pass a law, and he helped pass one. And then pull a Bob Riley. While Riley got hammered for his tax plan, he need to stress the idea that religion and faith are important, but so is education and health care. That an unreasonable burden is placed on churches to help families feed their kids and provide basic social services. That the government shouldn't leave churches to fend for the poor and injured without recourse. That a working education system and stable economy helps everyone, including the faithful, that people should have public schools which work.
Dean shouldn't dodge religious questions, but he should, instead compliment them for their social work and explain he wants to lift their burden with better, more effective programs so people don't have to beg them for food. Bush is great at faith in theory. He crosses all the fundie t's and dot's their i's. But soup kitchens have exploded under his watch, so have the need for church social services. Once you link that to faith in action, the day to day work in the church, people will listen. Religion isn't just waving the bible about and a nuanced understanding of how churches work will open doors for him with religious people.
SAN FRANCISCO -- At least five convicted felons secured management positions at a manufacturer of electronic voting machines, according to critics demanding more stringent background checks for people responsible for voting machine software.
Voter advocate Bev Harris alleged Tuesday that managers of a subsidiary of Diebold, one of the country's largest voting equipment vendors, included a cocaine trafficker, a man who conducted fraudulent stock transactions and a programmer jailed for falsifying computer records.
The programmer, Jeffrey Dean, wrote and maintained proprietary code used to count hundreds of thousands of votes as senior vice president of Global Election Systems, or GES. Diebold purchased GES in January 2002.
According to a public court document released before GES hired him, Dean served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."
"You can't tell me these people passed background tests," Harris, author of Black Box Voting: Ballot Tampering in the 21st Century, said in a phone interview.
Diebold spokesman Michael Jacobsen emphasized that the company performs background checks on all managers and programmers. He said many GES managers -- including Dean -- left at the time of the acquisition.
"We can't speak for the hiring process of a company before we acquired it," Jacobsen said. He would not provide further details, saying company policy bars discussion of current or past employees.
OK, now it's not uncommon to hire people who have broken computer laws. They're arcane and in the early days, they had people who crossed the line, did their time, but were brilliant. However, people who play games with stock fraud and falsifying records are cats of a different color. Because they're not just breaking security, but stealing money. Which means they're not curious, but freaking crooks who shouldn't be let within a mile of secure systems. Kevin Mitnick wasn't stealing people's money. As far as the coke dealing goes....
How did they get hired? They were friends of the then owners. That's the only way Diebold, a company with contracts with major financial institutions, could have these people on board. They could not walk off the street with security law violations and drug convictions and work in a company which does security work. We're not talking Electronic Arts here.
Harris is wrong. There were no serious background checks, or if there were, the bosses gave the nod to the hiring.
Why am I not surprised? Because that's how dotcoms hired. They hired friends first, regardless of qualifications. And Diebold, with it's record of insider sales and lousy performance, reeks of dotcomism of the first order. I don't think people get how shaky the management of this company is.
The only way to get them is to nail them in court. They have to defend this before a judge in open court. You can write pols and make a stink in the papers, but only the legal process can get these people to open up about their practices.
Nader 2004 Presidential Exploratory Committee, Inc.
PO Box 18002, Washington, DC 20036
info@naderexplore04.org
http://www.naderexplore04.org/
Tell the man to go back to his shakedown business and leave politics alone. His runs have ceased being cute and now distract from sending Bush back to the pig farm.
I think, this time, he might be on the end of some very sharp elbows. But hell, he's not the only person to get that politics is changing. Please remind him that they are and we have some business with the once and future pig farmer.
If Saddam's capture heralds a real change in Iraq, if the insurgency subsides, if the reconstruction effort picks up, Dean and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, too, may well pay a price for their antiwar stance. But the Bush administration has had good weeks before -- the fall of Baghdad in April, Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo op in May -- only to see events spiral out of control again. Dean has the advantage of consistency; he defended his antiwar views before it was fashionable, kept it up as others joined the bandwagon, and stayed on message this week even as the right -- and some fellow Democrats -- insisted Saddam's arrest would doom his candidacy. We won't know for months whether this week marked a lasting change either in Iraq or on the domestic political landscape, but we'll know where Dean stands regardless. No one can say the same about John Kerry.
In a bizarre, anti-Bush ruling, liberal jurists have denied the president the right to jail people at whim. This pro-Saddam ruling has stunned all patriotic Americans fighting the war on terror. It seems that there's these laws, called the constitution, which seemingly prevents the random jailing of no-goodniks.
Dec. 18 — By Gail Appleson
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The president of the United States does not have the power to detain an American citizen seized on U.S. soil as an enemy combatant, a federal appeals court ruled on Thursday, in a serious setback to the bush administration's war on terror.
The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling, said only the U.S. Congress can authorize such detentions and it ordered the government to release Jose Padilla from military custody within 30 days.
The court said that the government can transfer Padilla, a U.S. citizen who has been held incommunicado in a Navy prison, to a civilian authority that can bring criminal charges against him.
"Presidential authority does not exist in a vacuum and this case involves not whether those responsibilities should be aggressively pursued, but whether the President is obligated in the circumstances presented here to share them with Congress," the court said.
"Where, as here, the President's power as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and the domestic rule of law intersect, we conclude that clear congressional authorization is required for detentions of Americans on American soil...."
Even though Padilla is an American citizen, since he'd sold his soul to Osama, he has no rights a white an American are bound to respect. His guilty Puerto Rican ass should have been shipped to Gitmo, was the argument lodged by the justice department.
And in even more madness, those dastardly terrorists at Gitmo, even the super dangerous 13 year olds, have rights as well.
The court said their detention was contrary to US ideals.
It did not accept that the US Government had "unchecked authority".
The ruling relates to the case of a Libyan national captured in Afghanistan and currently being held at Guantanamo.
About 660 people are currently being held as "enemy combatants" at the base.
"Even in times of national emergency... it is the obligation of the judicial branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values and to prevent the executive branch from running roughshod over the rights of citizens and aliens alike," said the ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
It added it could not accept the position that anyone under the jurisdiction and control of the US could be held without "recourse of any kind to any judicial forum, or even access to counsel, regardless of the length or manner of their confinement".
Dammit, this isn't right. Paul Wolfowitz's abilty to be an impartial judge is being questioned here. What rights should these damned dirty apes terrorists have. How can we kill them in secret if they have competant defense counsel? This just isn't fair. It's judicial activism of the worst sort. Why these judges are following the Bill of Rights. How dare they? Damned liberal judges.
I'm sitting here, watching Maury as I go about my work day. Which is basically sitting in front of a computer and either working, looking for work, or writing to the blog, with an occasional bout of FIFA 2002. After all, I'm my own boss. :)
There seems to be a seeming endless supply of teenage girls who think that a baby will solve their problems. Of course, if you watch Maury, you'll see the flip side of this: endless numbers of men who deny the parentage of their kids.
Now, why do kids think that they can have babies without jobs, without a partner? Part of it is willful ignorance, part hope, but mostly we have a policy which is based on the art of the stupid. The Bush Administration has run the most anti-science administration in the last 100 years. Every Lysenkoist, ideologue, and wack job has more influence with the people who run this country than the scientists.
We have clear, effective means of preventing teenage pregnancy. We have clear, effective, time-tested ways of teaching about venereal disease. The propaganda posters on VD were common across military posts during WWII and after. There is a vast body of public health information on how to reach people about their sexuality. We have established degree programs which teach the subject. Yet, there has been a political effort to deny the basic realities of sexuality.
Teenage girls are so disconnected from the realities of child care that they think they can have children and buy the latest, most fashionable baby clothes. Well, in reality, that doesn't happen. My sister had two kids about 18 months apart. You do not buy Baby Phat for kids unless you're rich. Kids mess clothes up without pause. Two year olds and mud puddles are attracted to each other like magnets. While making the Simmons rich might be ok for adults, it doesn't work for kids. My cousin was overjoyed to find a cut rate kid's clothing store when she visited New York.
What we have is a case of ideology tripping over realities. There is an strong ideological need to pretend that people only have sex in committed relationships and that all pregnancies are wanted. Also, we're taught to enforce the idea that parents are the best possible sex educators. This, is, of course, insane. Parent are the worst educators and often block the effective sexual education of their children. After all, what parent is going to ask if their 13 year old daughter is giving blow jobs in the school bus or if their 16 year old son is having unprotected gay sex?
But there is a political emphasis on upholding these myths. We pretend that kids don't have sex and shove completely ineffective abstinance programs on school districts. This is one of the religious right's signal successes, forcing a knowingly ineffective education program on the public because it matches their political goals. The public policy implications of this are astounding. From forcing up the costs of day care to child abuse and murder cases, HIV infection rates, long-term illnesses, all of this flows from political decisions surrounding the teaching of sex and sex education.
One of the most ridiculous trends has been state-sponsored programs on "secondary virginity", which is, of course, pure Lysenkoist madness. Of course, this makes no sense. It's really religion in the guise of state policy.
But this just one example of how outmoded our education system is. Leave no child behind, with it's emphasis on testing, just hides the fact that we don't teach basic social skills to children. A far more realistic curriculum would teach what is generally called "life skills". Things like how to balance a checkbook, rent an apartment, use contraception. We teach these skills to selected groups, but not across the board.
Our teaching about sex mirrors our teaching on alcohol. We know, conclusively, that 90 percent of all Americans consume alcohol at some point in their lives, and that 10 percent will become alcoholics. Yet, instead of teaching responsible alcohol consumption, we have constantly told teenagers that they should not drink. We altered the laws to make drinking difficult for legal adults under 21. What has been the effect of this? A massive explosion of binge drinking on college campuses, an epidemic of crime, up to and including rape. In short, because there is a political need to pretend that teenagers do not drink, there has been a massive, unwelcome explosion of anti-social activities. Instead of teaching basic drinking ettiquette and the effects of alcohol in a non-judgmental way, we teach abstinance, which undermines the reality of modern life and sets up a series of negative patterns which can lead to any number of anti-social activities.
Not all of these decisions come from the right. The dogooder left has pushed many of these same ideas and they are just as flawed. There has a been a disconnect between the realities of American life and the idealism of teaching politically correct lessons which shields them from these realities.
The Bush Administration has not only embraced a series of politcally convient myths for political reasons, but have sought to reenforce them because of their skewed vision of the world. Does anyone believe that these myths hold water within the Bush family? Of course not. These lessons are for yokels and hicks. Considering the antics of the Bush daughters, no sane person could believe that they're engaged in abstinent behavior, of any kind. Of course, it's hypocrisy, on a grand scale. But as long as no one questions it, or challenges it, it will remain in force.
There's a possibility that by October-November 2004 the capture of Saddam Hussein, which today looks like such a valuable political 'prize' for the Bushies, may look like a difficult political liability. The central question of who is to control the process of trying and punishing him may have become so hotly contended by then that many in the administration might wish that rather than capturing him alive, the forces that stormed his bunker had somehow allowed him to "be shot while fleeing arrest".
Hey, they might even come to wish, rather wistfully, that they could simply have handed him over to the jurisdiction of an "International Criminal Court" which could take all the decisions around trying the guy--and all the associated political heat--quite out of their hands!
The "who gets to do it" question around the trying of Saddam Hussein is by no means as easy or straightforward as it looks...
As the occupying power inside Iraq, the US does have the formal right and responsibility to control the process (though in doing so, it certainly has obligations under the 4th Geneva Convention to give him decent treatment in custody, and a fair trial.) Meanwhile, the mainly puppets of the Iraqi Governing Council have been eager to strut their political stuff by establishing their own war-crimes court in Baghdad, a venture I wrote about here on December 10. Many IGC members, and their backers in Washington, can be expected to want this court to try Saddam-- in an attempt to boost their own domestic legitimacy inside Iraq at a time of, presumably, elections or caucuses or whatever political things are scheduled to take place inside the country throughout 2004.
For their part, the good-hearted folks of the international human-rights movement are eager to see at least a strong international "component" in the body that tries Saddam. Some are urging the establishment of a special, mixed, national-international court for the purpose of trying Saddam and his top henchfolk, like the one created for/in Sierra Leone.
This interesting suggestion raises problems in both aspects, however. The "international" component in such a court would, in the view of the big rights organizations, have to be provided through a resolution of the UN Security Council. Is the Bush administration likely to hand over any control of the trial of its "ace of spades", Saddam, to the UN at this point? And come to think of it, would the other members of the Security Council actually want to pursue this option? Every single one of the Permanent Five, after all-- not just the US-- is likely to be intensely embarrassed by facts that Saddam might bring up in the course of anything that looks at all like a fair trial: facts about the past collusion of their governments in many of his atrocious or otherwise potentially prosecutable actions...
And then, in any mixed court, the identity of the "local" component of course needs to be defined. At present the only contender for this role is the (mainly puppet) IGC. Do the non-US members of the Security Council want to strengthen the role of the IGC by according it this power? Again, unlikely.
Then, moving right along in the growing list of bodies that might want to control the trying of Saddam Hussein, we have the news that the government of Iran has announced its intention to seek his extradition so that he might stand trial there-- and so that they might expose all the dimensions, including the international dimesnions, of the massive and costy military assault he launched against their nation in September 1980.
The article goes into detail about the legal issues which will arise from a living Saddam in US custody, including Americans demanding a trial for him in the US.
But I'd like to express a far more simple concern. Every day, Tucker Carlson looks like he's about to take a dump he's so scared. How could you conduct a trial with witnesses and a jury or panel of judges. Sadr City, alone, is a massive security risk. What's to stop Sadr and his boys from picking up their AK's and saying they want Saddam's ass today? Or the Baathists and nationalists from killing the judges and witnesses? The security issues seem to be growing daily, nor receeding. Dragging Saddam downtown could turn a bad situation into a full-scale rebellion, with mobs trying to protect or kill Saddam. Unless the security situation improves drastically, a trial in Iraq is impossible.
Juan Cole points out the chants of Iraqi students in the days after Saddam's arrest. It's not that they want him back, they'd gut him alive if they got the chance, but they know it drives the Americans nuts. And remember, Saddam may have been a homicidal maniac, but he was an Iraqi homicidal maniac
For those interested in crowd behavior, I note from al-Hayat the chants of student protesters in Mosul below. They are really quite ugly, like something out of the Chinese cultural revolution, but what is clear is the nationalistic undertone to the protests. By now Saddam is just a symbol of defiance to occupation. He doesn't deserve to be such a symbol.
Ba`thiyyah, Ba`thiyyah
Wa la naqbal al-`ar
Baathists, Baathists,
and we do not accept humiliation!
Na`m, na`m
li'l-Qa'id Saddam
Yes, yes, to the Leader Saddam!
Ma natanazzal `an ithnayn:
al-`Iraq wa Saddam Husayn
We will not back down from two things:
Iraq and Saddam Hussein!
Bush, Bush, isma` zayn
kulluna nuhibb Saddam Husayn
Bush, Bush, listen well:
We all love Saddam Hussein!
Namut, numut
wa yahya al-watan
Fa'l-tasqut Amirika
We'll die, we'll die,
but the Nation will live!
And America will fall!
Majlis al-Hukm, Ya Jaban
Ya `Amil al-Amrikan!
Governing Council, you cowards!
Agents of the Americans!
Instead of doing a year end review, I want to mention 10 things which generally make life suck. We all know that I'll do things I like, but the suck part comes first.
10) SCO
These ass bandits have decided to make some money from Linux. How? By doing innovative applications? Being a market leader? Fuck no. They're suing the shit out of everyone involved with Linux and demanding money. This set the Slashdot crowd attwiter with rage and gave IBM's and Red Hat's lawyers more work. Greed is as American as cheese, but SCO is both greedy and stupid.
9) The Bachelor/Bacherlorette
OK, so they're cheezy and silly, but they're also racist as all hell. In a society where interracial dating is common, these shows hark back to a time where men liked their women needy and (usually) blonde. These shows are retro in a way Trent Lott would be quite familiar with. The world will not end if some TV show guy picks a woman who couldn't star in Aryan Nations monthly.
8) Defending Martha Stewart
Look, the woman was a horror. Ok. She's no Ken Lay, but she has a history of shady deals. I'm sorry, crap about her being a target because she gives money to Democratic candidates is just that. She was a stock broker, she knew the deal. Why people don't get her lies as part of the same web of CEO indulgence is beyond me. She dumped her stock because she, like most rich people, is cheap as sin.
7) Blaming the tabloids
Now, I like Ben Affleck as well as you can like someone you don't know. But his denying he didn't eat the stripper comes off as weak as his denial of a love for the gaming tables. The tabloids DO NOT make shit up. Sorry. They may report stories relatives of the famous tell them, but straight fiction...sorry, that's why they have libel laws. There is no National Enquirer exemption. If you want to do strippers and lose hundreds of thousands of dollars, either cop to it or don't gamble in public
6) Speaking of gambling
Bill Bennett was a sucker. High-value slots? Are you kidding me? That's like setting your money on fire and then telling your soon to be ex-wife about your Cayman Island bank accounts. Yet, he still claims to care about gay marriage? When has gay marriage cost $8m to a casino? These hypocrites amuse me. Oh, it's OK to lose millions but not have sex with another chick? Whatever.
5) Ralph Nader
Just quit and go back to blackmailing companies you've invested in. It's worked so well for Jesse Jackson.
4) Hysteria over Vice City
After three years in release, the Haitian community now realizes that Vice City depicts them as drug dealers. Here's a hint: so does the DEA. The whole game is sociopatic anyway, so what difference does it make. We're not talking honest Haitians here, but drug dealers. It's a game, an old game, and you just noticed this, goosed by local TV reports. In fact, this wave of censorship do gooders makes me ill. If you're going to object to something, waiting until it's a $30 remainder item is a bit late.
3) Liberal actors should shut their mouths
Really? So Alec Baldwin and Janeane Garofalo can't say shit, and Arnie can run the state of California into the Pacific. Look, in a democracy, people have things to say. Soldiers, kids, actors. It's their right and duty as citizens. Anyone who's against that is basically against America.
2) Abstinance-only programs
People fuck. Kids fuck. What are they supposed to do? Wait until they're 30? Try condoms and repeated showings of Maury Povich. Nothing says caution than having eight guys taking DNA tests to see if they fathered your baby's daddy and having NO matches. That will do more to encourage condom use than some lesson about staying pure.
1) Oppressed Christians
Yes, America is dedicated to mocking and oppressing religion. David Limbaugh and all the professional victims who think the word of the Lord is under attack live in a different country where 80 percent church attendence happens. What is under attack is their bizarre, Jesus was a republican form of religion. The same kind of random cruelty which lets Jeb Bush ignore the wishes of a husband to placate these freaks, Roy Moore to reach the cynical depths once plumbed by George Wallace, but using the Bible and a Cross instead of a rope and burning cross, and Jeb's brother to proclaim the fidelity of marriage in a family which has been racked by adultery. Yeah. Christians are oppressed. Too bad the people doing the oppressing is fellow Christians.
BAGHDAD, IRAQ—On almost every corner in Iraq's capital city, carolers are singing, trees are being trimmed, and shoppers are rushing home with their packages—all under the watchful eye of U.S. troops dedicated to bringing the magic of Christmas to Iraq by force.
"It's important that life in liberated Iraq get back to normal as soon as possible," said Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz at a press conference Monday. "That's why we're making sure that Iraqis have the best Christmas ever—something they certainly wouldn't have had under Saddam Hussein's regime."
To that end, 25,000 troops from the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment and 82nd Airborne Division have been deployed. Their missions include the distribution of cookies and eggnog at major Iraqi city centers, the conscription of bell-ringers from among the Iraqi citizenry, and the enforcement of a new policy in which every man, woman, and child in Baghdad pays at least one visit to 'Twas The Night... On Ice.
Immediately following the press conference, high-altitude bombers began to string Christmas lights throughout the greater-Baghdad area, and Wild Weasel electronic-warfare fighter jets initiated 24-hour air patrols to broadcast Bing Crosby's "White Christmas" over the nation. Armored columns struck out from all major allied firebases to erect a Christmas tree in the town square of every city, while foot soldiers placed fully lit, heavily guarded nativity scenes in front of every Iraqi mosque.
"Thus far, Operation Desert Santa has gone off without a hitch," said Gen. Stanley Kimmet, commander of U.S. armed reconnaissance-and-mistletoe operations in the volatile Tikrit region of central Iraq. "There has been sporadic house-to-house fighting during our door-to-door caroling, but that's to be expected in a Christmas season of this magnitude."
Well, it seems the US Army doesn't provide things like clean food, shampoo, gun oil, armored vests and other things which you thought were provided with your tax dollars.
Silly rabbits.
We all know that being an enlisted man in the US military can suck. Low pay, indifferent bosses, people trying to kill you. But until Dick Cheney, you could get food and soap. No more. Now, in a move which recalls the worst conscript armies, American families have to provide their kids and spouses with the basics. Imagine being a woman who can't wash her hair in Iraq. After a day of driving trucks, walking point or filing papers, a basic thing like washing your hair has been placed out of reach because Kellogg, Brown and Root's drivers are scared of a few IED's and snipers. Just because they blow and loot the trains. Hey, don't you know there's a war going on?
Anyway, you can ship goods to specific service members via Operation USO Cares
Obviously, you should send to people you know first. But if you don't know any service members, I'd suggest that you send stuff to infantry and MP unit members. They get the shit end of everything and anything you send them will be deeply appreciated. If you're sending goods to members in line units, include a bottle of gun oil. The military's version sucks ass and gets people killed. If you're saying to yourself "well, I don't feel all that comfortable about that", remember, these kids signed up to fight Osama Bin Laden, not Saddam. And they're facing an enemy which is trying to kill them. Every bottle of gun oil you send can save a life. You may not like the policy or the tactics, but the average infantryman is trapped between dunderhead bosses and people who hate them.
National Guard and Reserve combat units need these goods even more. They've been shortchanged and they're supporting families on Army pay. They may not have the cash for things which may save their lives. After all, their kids have to eat.
You can find out which units are deployed by going to this site, and then you can find their homepage. From there, you can ask the unit how you can send goods to members deployed with their units in Iraq .
Remember, you're sending stuff because Halliburton can't do their job. Remember that in 2004.
If you're interested in buying ads on the site, well, this is your chance. If you have anything you want to push, let me know and we'll work out a deal. The rates are dirt cheap and the audience fairly broad.
Before I conclude my series on where we're going in Iraq, I want to explain why I think we're losing the war in some detail. The first thing you need to do is look at what is happening and not what people are saying is happening.
I think it breaks down into three catagories: progress, awareness and support.
Progress: The US Army is still conducting combat operations against armed units. The US thinks there are 1500 guerrillas around Samarra alone. Let's think about that for a minute. In facing a suspected force of 1500 men, the US could only muster 2500. Which is about a 1.5 to one ratio. Which means if they had gotten into a protracted fight, they had half the number of men they needed to deal with the force they would be facing. As a rule, you need to have a 3-1 ratio of force to attack an enemy. Of course, the guerrillas didn't form up but the fact is that a significant portion of the 4 ID's combat power was used to deal with Samarra, to little effect.
They raid and leave and the resistance controls the town again. There is no permanent force to extend US control. The Iraqi collaborators can't even show their faces and the police are now openly working with the resistance. There is not one town the US can claim control over. Not one where US troops can walk without armor and weapons. In short, the security situation is getting worse, not better.
Awareness: The US CPA seems unable to deliver on even basic services, forget police services. Erratic electricity, poorly repaired schools, miles long gas lines. The average Iraqi knows that they are not getting the kind of services that they need or want. Then, given the politicization of policy decisions, many things Iraqis had taken for granted, are being ripped apart, illegally, by the CPA. Iraqis know that their occupation government is motivated by other than their needs.
Support: The US has no figure that average Iraqis can support as the head of the new government. The Iraqi parties are playing games for their own gain, the exlies are tainted as American puppets. Only Ayatollah Sistani has the moral authority to turn support to the US. And he is outraged that the US is trying to prevent free and fair elections at the local, provincial and national level, appointing leaders instead. Americans are basically saying Iraqis are incapable of managing their own affairs.
All of this paints a picture of looming failure. Without the support of the Iraqis, we will be evicted by force. The idea that we can actually hand over a government in June is as likely as a fair trial for Saddam in Basra. We haven't reached failure, yet. But it is fast approaching.
Frequent reader and blogger, Swopa pointed this article out to me. You should read what he wrote, but I have my own comments.
Locksmiths will make a lot of money these days," said a U.S. soldier, laughing as he sat atop a Bradley fighting vehicle in the city's industrial zone, where troops used sledgehammers, crowbars, explosives and even the Bradleys themselves to smash down doors of warehouses, workshops and junkyards.
................
"Samarra has been a little bit of a thorn in our side," said Col. Nate Sassaman. "It hasn't come along as quickly as other cities in the rebuilding of Iraq. This operation is designed to bring them up to speed."
"No one knows the town better than we do, we're gonna clean this place. They've made a mistake to attack U.S. forces. We will dominate Samarra," he said.
With Saddam in custody, the most wanted Iraqi fugitive is Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a high-ranking member of the former regime thought to be organizing anti-U.S. attacks. But it was unclear whether U.S. officials think al-Douri is in the Samarra area.
A core of about 1,500 fighters is thought to be in Samarra, said Sassaman's deputy, Capt. Matthew Cunningham. In Wednesday's sweep, soldiers used satellite global positioning devices to locate buildings pre-marked as targets.
As Apache helicopters flew overhead, troops downtown fanned out in squads of 14 to storm several walled residential compounds, using plastic explosives to break in. In one compound, the blast at the gate shattered windows in the house itself, and a one-year-old baby was cut by glass. U.S. medics treated the injury while other soldiers handcuffed four men, who were later released.
The loud blasts mixed with the sound of women and children screaming inside the houses. At one point, there was a short exchange of gunfire, but it was not immediately clear what happened.
At another home, an explosion ignited a small fire.
Elsewhere, a suspect was punched in the head and a soldier said: "You're dead. You're dead."
Troops later moved on to the industrial area, where they found little One military official said he suspected insurgents moved much of their equipment to farms outside town.
Lt. Jack Saville said suspects had been tipped off about the raid, either by Iraqis working on the U.S. base in Tikrit or by Samarra residents who saw the U.S. military vehicles massing in the region in recent days.
The idiocy of this policy cannot be overstated. This is the kind of dick swinging, macho, alienating policy, Marine MG James Conway decried to the New York Times. The residents of Samarra are no more intimidated by this than the residents of the Priprat Marshes were of the SS and German miliatry police. All it does is makes them hate us even more and make them more desperate. And make no mistake, these were desperate people to start with. They didn't back down from Saddam and they aren't going to back down from some US soldiers. They KNOW we're leaving. They know it and they will kill Americans until we leave.
The arrogance and foolhardiness of such a boast is the kind of thing to encourage even more savage attacks against American troops. Some poor truck driver is going to be gang raped and disembowled to make the point about who is tougher. You are going to see atrocities behind this, to make the point that there is no cost-free war. Yes, 2500 men can tramp around Samarra, but what about the convoys and the isolated patrols. They're going to walk into a place, and not only are they not going to come out, they're going to be killed slowly.
This is now a blood feud between the US and the people of the region and things will get uglier. God help the commanders of the 4ID if Sistani's man gets in power. As a sop to the Sunni, they could all be charged with war crimes.
After seeing Joe Lieberman's whiny little attacks on Howard Dean over the last few days, it reminded me of a lesson about so-called nice guys, the guys who can't get laid or find a partner.
In most cases, they're self-asorbed assholes. Sure, they say nice things, but in reality, they either lack a backbone, are whiny and needy, or are passive-aggressive freaks.
Lieberman is the perfect example of the so-called nice guy. He's Mr. morals and ethics until it's time for him to need something and then he turns into a rat. He'll tell everyone how to live and what they should do and then use that to their advantage for gain. People think he's a nice guy, until things turn tight and then all of a sudden, he has to "morally object" to your stand or " has to disagree with you." All under the guise of "doing the right thing." When in reality, he's an asshole looking out for himself over anyone or anything else.
I've heard so many guys whine about how they can't meet women, how women throw them over for other guys... Well, here's a clue: you're fucking boring. Or you won't stand up for them. Or you only talk about yourself. Or you have the emotional maturity of a four year old girl. No one wants to deal with that. Or you're so needy that you hang on to another person like a limpet mine.
People like independent adults. They really do. They also like exciting, interesting, thoughtful people. If you aren't any of those, why would someone spend time with you.
Men break down into the needy guy, the lovesick guy, the angry guy, stud boy, and Mr. Nebbish
Needy guy starts out Ok, but then he never lets you go. He calls five times a day, he always wonders where you are, he never backs down or backs away. If you fart, he's sucking down the fumes.
The lovesick guy just wants to be in love. He sees you in a white gown and having 2.3 kids without ever realizing that you like kittens more and just want to have casual dinner and sex. He's made you his before you've had a chance to think about who he is.
The angry guy comes in two modes. One is the moron who flips out all the time, the other is the passive-aggressive guy who undermines you and makes you say things you wouldn't. He never says he hates your cooking, he just praises your best friends as an awesome cook. He never says he doesn't like what you do in bed, he just leaves porno tapes around. He's angry, but he never confronts you. It's like a boat with a wake. You see the eddys, but not the boat.
Stud boy is the handsome guy who treats you nice, takes you to bed and then does the same to every woman you know. All are equal, none special. No matter how magical the moment, or how nice he is, there is a layer you can't get past. He never shares, he never breaks that veneer he's created. He's an emotional reflecting pool. As long as you don't challenge him, eveything is fine. Get sick, have problems, he's nowhere to be found. He just receeds.
Mr. Nebbish seems like the perfect, safe choice if you've been smacked around by relationships. He's greatful for the attention, he's willing to listen in bed, he's quiet and receptive to your ideas. Only problem is that either he's got no spine or is angrier than angry man. He's got a list of people who's done him wrong and you'll never hear the end of it. He keeps lists, checks them twice and then plots revenge. Either he's meek as a mouse or raging like a lunatic. You're what's owed to him after years of rejection. If you don't agree with him, something is wrong with you, not him.
There's a female counterpart I'll call vicitm girl.
They come in a variety of guises:" the sexual strumpet looking for her true love," "Ms. I have to get married", "attention whore" "ms golddigger" "Prozac lady".
Now if you read the blogs, and I know you do, ms strumpet pops out of the pages like a jack in the box. She's lonely, but fucking everything which comes her way. She's wondering why she can't meet anyone nice and if being submissive will lead to happiness. Honey, no one wants to buy into a freakshow. Healthy sexuality is fine. But if all you're about is sex, it drives people away.
Ms marry is the flip side of that. Sure, you'll get a relationship with her, but she wants you to be her Ken. It's not about growing together or realizing you can make a life together, but becoming an accessory to her fabulous life, like a tennis bracelet or a tattoo across the small of her back. It's not about you, but her, her needs and her longing for status.
Attention whore is the perfect partner in public. She's all over you, she says the nicest things, she cuts your meat. But the minute you want to do anything which doesn't include her, she flips out, accuses you of cheating, being gay, whatever, as long as the light is shining on her.
Her cousin is Ms. Golddigger, who has an inflated sense of self-worth. Sometimes it's about money, sometimes about always having her way. Either way, she's sucking the life out of you like a vampire.
Prozac lady is the woman who need chemicals to get through her day. Wildly irratic would be kind. One day she's nice, the next, the bunnies are boiling over. Her moods make PMS look calm. She'll start fights, say the worst thing and act in the worst ways and then beg for forgiveness.
Yet. all of these people would seem nice at first glance. You'd listen to their relationship problems until you realize that they're as twisted as a pretzel.
Being "nice" is as much an emotional tactic as anyone else. Just because someone says the right things, it doesn't mean their hearts are in the right place.
Here was the striking thing -- for me -- about the "got him!" news conference: It started with L. Paul Bremer, CPA head, striding through a portal, up to the podium, and leading off with that exuberant, quite euphoric exclamation about Saddam. After offering a few details on the capture, he added:
"Before Dr. Pachachi, who is the acting president of the Governing Council, and Lieutenant General Sanchez speak, I want to say a few words to the people of Iraq. This is a great day in Iraq's history… Now is the time for all Iraqis, Arabs and Kurds, Sunnis, Shiaa, Christian and Turkaman, to build a prosperous, democratic Iraq at peace with itself and with its neighbors."
The sort of words it might have been more appropriate for an Iraqi to speak. Only then did he turn to the aging exile Adnan Pachachi. "Dr. Pachachi?"
Pachachi offered a bare paragraph of comment. ("I am pleased to announce to you on behalf of the Governing Council that we are moving on the way with our efforts to achieve sovereignty and authority in the proper allotted time…") and then Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, allied military commander, took over the podium and gave a long statement punctuated by those dramatic film clips of Saddam. Questions followed with all three answering, but with General Sanchez controlling the process, and the event ended with the general pronouncing the last words, "And God bless America."
Pachachi in other words was sandwiched between the two exuberant Americans, between, that is, "Got him!" and "God bless America." An exceedingly thin slice of meat between meaty hunks of bread. And that pretty much reveals the face behind the mask (both of which turn out to be ours). Imagine if they had really wanted to put an "Iraqi face" on the event. Dr. Pachachi could, of course, have strode through that same portal, stepped to the same podium, and announced the capture of Saddam, showed the videos, called on the Americans for details and clarifications, and then taken the questions and doled them out. He could, in short, have run the news conference. But it would have cost in impact in the United States and in any case it was, I have no doubt, beyond what Gary Thatcher, L. Paul Bremer or the President could imagine. It's just not in their mental repertoire.
And that is the problem. Instead of an Iraqi announcing this seminal event in their history, the American viceroy did. Then they showed Saddam being manhandled like a bum. No wonder many Iraqis were pissed at what they saw. Remember, as bad as Saddam is, he's still an Iraqi and Viceroy Jerry is not.
Why anyone thinks that Iraqis won't continue to fight is beyond me. Although this choice comment amuses me:
"We are not fighting for Saddam," said Ahmed Jassim, a religious student in the flash-point city of Fallujah, as he cheered an attack on a U.S. convoy recently. "We are fighting for our country, for our honor, for Islam. We are not doing this for Saddam."
U.S. military officials said Hussein's capture would probably not spell an immediate end to the fighting and could result in a short-term increase in attacks, if Hussein loyalists lash back. "We do not expect at this point in time that we will have a complete elimination of those attacks," Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. military commander in Iraq, said at a news conference on Sunday.
But U.S. commanders across the country expressed confidence that over time, the capture would cripple resistance activity. Army officers said they think the seizure of Hussein also might convince many Iraqis who have so far not supported the occupation that history is on the side of the Americans and their allies.
"The capture of Saddam Hussein will have a tremendous negative impact on the Baathist insurgency, and it is all good news for us and the future of Iraq," Lt. Col. Henry Arnold, a battalion commander in the 101st Airborne Division who is based near the Syrian border, said Sunday. "The Wicked Witch is dead."
"I think this puts a nail in the coffin of hopes that the Baath Party could ever regain control of Iraq," another U.S. commander said. "There is no longer any central figure around whom such a movement could coalesce."
"Without Saddam," he added, "This is no longer a nationalist movement."
But then, there are a lot of people confused about the meaning of the word nationalism
As for the allegation that Iraqis are not nationalistic, it blew my mind. Maybe the word means something different here from my idea of it. But Iraqis seem to me to have a very developed imaginary of the nation, to which they are emotionally deeply attached. I also think the day when tribes were the key to anything has largely passed, with the growth of large urban centers.
Does anyone think people landed at Tarawa or on Omaha Beach because they loved FDR? So why does anyone think that Iraqis need Saddam as a reason to defend their country?
WASHINGTON - Several labor unions that endorsed Dick Gephardt donated $50,000 apiece to a group broadcasting commercials that question Democratic presidential rival Howard Dean's credentials, including one spot that features Osama bin Laden and two others that align the former Vermont governor with President Bush.
One of the unions, the International Association of Machinists, called Tuesday for the group, Americans for Jobs, Healthcare and Progressive Values, to pull the ad and release the names of its financial backers. Other labor unions that gave money to the group include the Laborers International Union of North America and the Ironworkers Union, both of which have endorsed Gephardt for president.
"The ads are despicable and we ought to ask for the refund," said Rick Sloan, a spokesman for the International Association of Machinists. "They've done more to damage Dick Gephardt than anything any of his opponents could have done or dreamed of doing."
I guess their members have started screaming and moanng about the ads. So when does John Sweeney come off the sidelines and throws the AFL-CIO behind Dean.
Has anyone installed Moveable Type? I've gotten my hands on free server space and I want to migrate the site for obvious reasons. I 'm kind of hopeless with this webserver stuff, but if someone could explain it, I could figure it out.
Also, does anyone have an unused domain name. I'd only need use of it for a month or so, but if you aren't using it, I'd like to borrow it so I can get the site up. I plan to get a permanent domain name, but I need one for testing and building. I doubt the name will become public, so relinquishing it wouldn't be hard.
While Washington and London were still congratulating themselves on the capture of Saddam Hussein, US troops have shot dead at least 18 Iraqis in the streets of three major cities in the country.
Dramatic videotape from the city of Ramadi 75 miles west of Baghdad showed unarmed supporters of Saddam Hussein being gunned down in semi-darkness as they fled from Americans troops. Eleven of the 18 dead were killed by the Americans in Samarra to the north of Baghdad.
All the killings came during demonstrations by Sunni Muslims against the American seizure of Saddam, protests that started near Samarra on Monday evening. The first demonstrators blocked roads north of Baghdad when armed men appeared alongside civilians who believed - initially - that US forces had arrested one of Saddam's doubles rather than the ex-dictator of Iraq. But their jubilation turned to fury when the Americans opened fire in Samarra a few hours later.
.............................
In Mosul, for example, a policeman working for the American-organised local Iraqi security forces was killed and another wounded during a pro-Saddam demonstration. Further south, near Saddam's home town of Tikrit, a roadside bomb wounded three American soldiers, two of them seriously. Occupation security documents - which were not publicly released - show there have been 30 attacks on US forces around Baghdad alone in the past 24 hours.
A disturbing new phenomenon in this environment of growing military violence has been the appearance of hooded and masked gunmen - working for the Americans - on road checkpoints north of Baghdad. Five of them now check cars on the Tigris river bridge outside Samarra, apparently fearing their identities will be discovered if their faces are not concealed. They wear militia uniforms and, although they say they are part of the new American-backed "Iraqi Civil Defence Corps", they have neither badges of rank nor unit markings. The same hooded men are now appearing on the streets of Baghdad.
So this is going to guarantee Bush's reelection?
Men serving the US so afraid of discovery they wear masks? The deaths of 18 people no one can find? This isn't getting any better.
Saddam remains at an undisclosed location, with the CIA now tasked with interrogation. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary, characterised his mood as "resigned". In the ABC interview, Mr Bush said it was too early too say whether the former Iraqi leader was behind the insurgents.
But two guerrillas told the Guardian in a rare encounter near Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, that they were not fighting on behalf of Saddam and were undaunted by his capture. "The operations that have happened here against the Americans are not by people outside Samarra," said the first man from the seat of a white BMW, where he sat with a Kalashnikov assault rifle on his lap and a hand grenade resting on a shelf by the gear lever. "We are the tribes of Samarra and we are responsible for the attacks. We are fighting a war against the Americans. We are fighting because they arrested a lot of people, because they attacked a lot of houses in the night; they humiliated our sisters."
The second guerrilla, the driver, said he had deserted from the Iraqi army 11 years earlier. But since the Americans had arrived in Samarra one of his brothers had been killed and four had been arrested and were still in detention. "How do they expect us not to take revenge for this and not to lead operations against them?" he said. "As long as [US forces] remain inside our city we will continue to seek revenge."
But Bremer said now that Saddam is gone, they need to lay down their arms. Why don't they listen?
By Humphrey Hawksley
BBC world affairs correspondent
Six months before the planned transfer of sovereignty in Iraq, new political forces have been filling the vacuum left by the fall of Saddam. But a brush with the new authorities can mean a familiar encounter over identity cards and threats.
.................
Questioning the future
We had arranged to meet a leader from the Daawa party, an Islamic movement banned under Saddam, but now re-emerging as one of the biggest forces in the new Iraq.
I was keen to find out what their policies were, not from religion, but on the practical things like health, like blood transfusions for Fatima, for example.
I left Fatima to sightsee for a bit while I went to check if it was all right for her to sit in on the interview.
Abu Mohamed was a short stocky man in an ill-fitting suit. He greeted me with a smile, but his was a face of hardship and suffering."Yes of course", he said, "there's no problem in bringing the little girl".
But he did not mean a word of it. As soon as he saw Fatima in the square he backed off and turned against us.
He took no interest in her, but poured plenty of invective at me, making Fatima grip her father's hand and recoil.
"Our agreement was to meet just you, not this woman and child", he said.
Stupidly I tried to deflect things by asking what the Daawas' policy was on healthcare, but it only made matters worse - there was no policy, only threats.
"I want you to know that I'm head of security for the Daawa party", he said. "You must show me your identification. The way you're acting makes me think you're a spy."
Threats
By now Zaid's own temper was frayed. "When does any leader of Iraq give help to the normal people?" he snapped.
The police came and stopped us leaving. "Why?" we asked.
The officer shrugged. "The Daawa party is very powerful", he said. "If they tell us to do something we have to do it."
I caught Zaid's eye as he wisely manoeuvred his wife and daughter into the crowd and out of sight.
He knew what Iraq could be like if you stepped over the line.
Eventually, we negotiated our release. Both Zaid and I had witnessed the face of the new leadership. It was about power, identity cards and threats - not about the healthcare of a sick little girl.
In fact, not that much different from the regime which had been deposed
Same as the old boss...and we're off to the civil war
I'm reading an article in Salon about how we all must eventually accept outsourcing, and I realized the utter flaw in this theory. You won't see it for a couple of years and it will take Democrats in the White House for this to happen, but eventually, two things will happen to make outsouring a political and economic problem:
Well, they're proposing protectionist measures to reward companies that get U.S. or local government contracts, for instance, if they keep their operations here, and punish those that don't.
I think that we've been down that road in a number of different industries, and I think that we've shown time and time again that overly protectionist policies don't make economic sense.
The question is: Are we an isolationist, protectionist economy, or is it a global economy where free trade prevails, as long as you abide by rules? You don't infringe on human rights, and you abide by certain environmental standards. So, as long as there is a playing field that people will adhere to, at the end of the day, we want to sell our products into foreign markets, and foreign companies want to sell their products here.
And all consumers benefit and all workers ultimately benefit, and the only question is what are the areas of specialization that we as skilled workers will be better at here in the United States, and what are the areas where other countries will do better?
But that smug analysis misses out on one thing: economic nationalism. At some point in the near future, American politicians, many democrats, will be elected to halt the job flood from the US. You'll see article after article depicting India and other outsourcing countries as corrupt exploiters of humans and the cause of misery in the US. As long as you look at this as an economic problem, outsourcing will always make sense. But it isn't and those who hope it remains so are blissfully unaware of American psychology.
In the end, American companies will be vilified for shipping jobs overseas. Dateline will run stories of workers who commit suicide when their job is shipped to India. Eventually, in a burst of populism, Americans will demand US jobs for US workers and the age of outsourcing will end. Because these are emotional issues, as well economic ones. Toss in some security violations and breech of privacy suits and the glory days of outsourcing will end.
Indian businessmen would do far better to develop their own internal industries and compete on the marketplace on their own terms. Being the dumping ground for American and European jobs leaves them vunerable to politicial pressures they have forgotten that exist. American companies will, in the next few years, come under intense political pressure to halt the loss of jobs to India and China. While Indian businessmen talk a good game about competition, what they really do is bottom feed. And they do it in a way which will eventually provoke a nasty, racially tinged backlash.
I mean, they don't seem to understand that if CALPERS (the California Pension Fund) is forced to invest in companies which do not outsource, their clients will yank those jobs quicker than their heads can spin. What a lot of these entrepeneurs don't get is the political influence of pension funds, unions and other political organizations in the economic process. Companies have been able to outsource because it's been in dribs and drabs, a few thousand jobs here and there. At some point, a company will get greedy and move operations overseas and then the political battle starts. Let's say Bank of America decides to move one of their units to Mumbai. Well, what happens when the state of California decides to pull their accounts from BofA because of this? Or unions start to demand the companies they do business with refuse to outsource at the risk of losing their business? What do you think gives? The hundreds of millions in investments or the outsourcing?
I'm all for Indian development. But if it's solely based on servicing US clients, these companies will rise and fall on the political demands of the US market. Outsourcing is going to run into a political wall within the next year or so. A jobless recovery will force people to look at employment and why high wage jobs are leaving the US. You can bet within two years, legal pressure to slow down outsourcing will explode. Companies can be casual about losing 100K jobs, but your local suburban school district won't be. Those jobs funnel money back into the economy and shrugs of "well, we have to compete in a global economy" won't cut it. No one cared about the call center jobs. But high wage, high skill jobs? Well, no matter the economic sense of it, a political reaction is coming and when they go casting about for scapegoats, all these slick Indian businessmen will be the first to be villified. It may not be fair or logical, but we invaded Iraq, didn't we?
Dick Gephardt's friend running an amazingly stupid anti-Dean ad did it again. Not only does it piss off the party regulars who don't like the infighting, it hands Dean yet another cudgel to hammer them with. He can, rightfully, claim that they're more interested in smearing him than supporting the party. A brain dead, silly move. It's like they're giving him weapons to beat them about the head with.
He's raising anothe $550K or so in the last few days fueled by this irresponsible ad. It's not going to shift voters or get them to back another candidate. As impressive as Wes Clark is, he's too late and the rest are increasingly irrelevant to the debate. Dick Gephardt's buddies never ran an add that nasty against either Bush and now they do it to Dean? Yeah. that will work. I would write it off as politics if Gephardt had stood up to Tom Delay and George Bush in the same way, but he hasn't. He only gains this moral courage against Howard Dean when he needed it against Bush.
What's the point of being a leader who can't lead. If they can't stand up to Bush, the worst president since Coolidge, how are they going to lead America. If we're facing tough times, men who can't defend their principles now, against things they know are wrong, how can they expect to lead the country? How can we trust them? If anyone has shown weakness, it's not Dean, but Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt. They were given challenges and backed away when their country needed them most.
If they can't stand up to George Bush, how can they stand up to Osama Bin Laden.
Democratic presidential hopeful Joe Lieberman sharpened his criticism of Howard Dean on Tuesday, saying the front-runner's foreign and domestic policies would erode national security and cost million of Americans their jobs.
"He seems to believe if you are just against everything, that's enough. Against removing Saddam Hussein, against middle-class tax cuts, against knocking down the walls of protection around the world so we can sell more products made in America," Lieberman said. "Dr. Dean has become Dr. No."
The Connecticut senator said former Vice President Al Gore's endorsement of Dean and the capture of Saddam Hussein have crystallized a stark choice voters face in the New Hampshire primary in six weeks.
"We have already had three years of economic tough times because of George Bush," he said. "We cannot replace that with another spat of backward policies that would only burden the middle class even further ... and we cannot replace the foreign policy that has antagonized our allies with one that would be weak and would isolate us in a growing economic world."
Lieberman said Dean's statement that America is not safer with Saddam Hussein in prison illustrates the former Vermont governor's shaky grasp on foreign policy
Is Lieberman on crack? No seriously, did he have a glass pipe in his hand before this came out of his mouth?
Because he's never been this critical of the President. Can he really believe Bush's policies have gained allies. More importantly, does he really think the impotent Saddam was going to pose a real, ongoing threat to the US when he couldn't shoot down a single US fighter in a decade?
The Bush foreign policy is a failure. Not a minor, disputable failure, but a clear, open failure. Sticking with this failure, hoping that people will act against their interests and embrace being an American colony? The most warlike, nationalistic people in the Middle East? Yeah, that will happen.
Lieberman will soon be gone from national politics, because he has failed to endorse a vision that Democrats can support. Bush-lite is not a workable policy, nor is supporting this war and it's godawful mismanagement. All of these attacks against Dean are desperate and weak. Of course, they will prepare Dean for the onslaught coming this spring. Too bad they can't execute them properly. No one who is for Dean is going to change their minds after seeing Joe Lieberman whine and cower before Bush.
Times have changed. Bush is a failure and people are looking for change, not the same policies under different management.
Diane Sawyer asked Bush if Saddam Hussein should be executed and he chortled.
I am rarely astounded by anything, but this was an especially frightening moment. Bush, seemingly unaware that if he lives to complete his term, he will be the first President to do so (se)elected on a 20th year to do so without someone trying to assasinate him, dying of illness or being assassinated. It is amazingly cavalier for him to rejoice in the prospect of anyone's death. Does he not understand such open rejoicing could lead to attempts on his life.
Just for his personal safety, he needs to never answer such a question. But then Bush seems to rejoice in death and execution. He seems to think other people may think he deserves the same fate as Saddam. It's as if he's ignorant of the risk involved when he comments on the execution of a political leader. By saying he wants Saddam dead, he increases the danger to everyone around him. Amazingly irresponsible.
Personally, I'd be more than willing to let Sistani and Sadr decide his fate. If they say jail, fine, if they say throw him into a crowd outside the Imam Ali mosque, fine. Saddam was a beastial monster and if a crowd ripped him apart, I would lose no sleep.
But then, I think that it's far better that he be kept alive and jailed so people could see him slowly withering away. You can only kill him once, but you can make him suffer daily.
In Miami, police unleashed unprecedented fury on demonstrators -- most of them seniors and union members. Is this how Bush's war on terror will be fought at home?
Editor's Note: This is the first installment of "Lost Liberties," a series of stories that will be published in the months ahead exploring the erosion of civil rights and personal freedom in the United States since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michelle Goldberg
Dec. 16, 2003 | On Saturday, Nov. 22, a few dozen police on bicycles rode by the warehouse that activists protesting Miami's Free Trade of the Americas summit were using as a welcome center. The big protest had taken place on Thursday, Nov. 20, and most demonstrators had already dispersed. Some were in jail, others were nursing their injuries. But the cops wanted to deliver a final message to those still around. "Bye! Don't come back here!" shouted one. A pudgy officer gave the finger to an activist with a video camera. "Put that on your Web site," he said. "Fuck you."
It was the end of two days of what many observers called unprecedented police vindictiveness and violence toward activists. Certainly, complaints about the police have become a standard ritual after each major globalization protest. But what happened in Miami, say protesters, lawyers, journalists and union leaders, was anything but routine.
Armed with millions of dollars of new equipment and inflamed by weeks of warnings about anarchists out to destroy their city, police in Miami donned riot gear, assembled by the thousand, put the city on lockdown and unleashed an arsenal of crowd control weaponry on overwhelmingly peaceful gatherings.
Videos taken at the scene show protesters being beaten with wooden clubs, shocked with Taser guns, shot in the back with rubber bullets and beanbags, and pepper-sprayed in the face. Retirees were held handcuffed and refused water for hours. Medics and legal observers, arrested in large numbers, say they were targeted. A female journalist, arrested during a mass roundup, was made to strip in front of a male policeman. A woman's entire breast turned purple-black after she was shot there, point-blank, with a rubber bullet.
Afterward, many observers said the same thing: "This is not America." Civil libertarians, though, worry that -- in an era when legitimate homeland security fears have begun to edge over into hysterical paranoia about "anarchists" -- it might offer a glimpse of where America's response to protest is headed.
"There is a pattern developing cross-country with regards to the interaction between police and protesters," says Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president of the Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). "That pattern sadly involves the police viewing protesters as terrorists and treating protest situations as crisis situations akin to war or combat
Oh, this sounds like America to me. The kind of America blacks and latinos get to see on a frequent basis. Of course, Miami screwed up and beat old people, meaning the city will lose millions in law suits.
If they try this in New York, people will get killed. Simple as that.
All of you who ordered stuff from the store have had their orders completed. So it should arrive in the next few days. Anyone who wants can send me a digital photo wearing the shirts (the thongs, well, that's up to you:)) Needless to say, I'm really pleased with the response, which has been surprising as hell to me.
There's also been good response to the Amazon links, less voluminous, but still good.
They're offering 2-Day shipping for the price of ground for the next few days if you're interested. Otherwise, we'll be rolling out a new design this week to round out my pre-Iowa shirt collection. I may also roll out a calendar of public domain art before the holidays. Just to do it, actually. There are some really cool National Archives photos which I think would look awesome as a calendar.
Not that I care, but I like the act of creation and money is a side benefit.
Some of you may have relatives and friends who are grasping to understand what is happening in Iraq. This simple guide will help them understand that they're being lied to by a lazy, ignorant media and the Bush Administration. So let's go over the myths used to explain the war and break them down one by one.
We won a great victory in April
Well, that is if you consider the war having ended in April. The Iraqi Army was neither defeated nor surrendered when US troops entered Baghdad. In fact, there has not been a day since March 21 where US troops have not been shot at. The Iraqi Army took their weapons and went home.
The looting was unpreventable
Well, no. What happened is that the US forces didn't have enough people to stop the waves of looters stealing everything nailed down. The choices were stark, ignore it or shoot civilians. The US ignored it. Which turns out to have been a major mistake in that it undermined Iraqi support for the US occupation
France and Germany betrayed us and supported Saddam
France has a Muslim population of 10 percent. Yet, up until January, it was willing to send troops to inspect Iraqi facilities and moved units to participate in the war. It was after a visit by the preternaturally offensive Donald Rumsfeld to Europe that French support evaporated. The Germans have taken the far more absolutist position on Iraq, bu much less political heat for it. Neither country supported Saddam or refused to support the US. They chose, instead, to demand that the UN take the lead role in dealing with Iraq, a position unacceptable to the White House.
We have plenty of allies who support us
In reality, the populations of our allies oppose the war. The governments which support the US do so against the wishes of their people and face defeat in their next elections. In the UK, Tony Blair awaits the outome of the inquest into the death of government scientist and biological weapons expert David Kelly. Once that report is released, Blair's political enemies may force him from office. Most of the "coalition of the willing" are small countries which need US money and support. Few have contributed troops of any note.
Only diehard Baathists oppose the occupation
While that sounds good on TV, the reality is that the opposition is more widespread than that. There are ex-military officers, Islamic fundamentalists, Sunni tribesmen and random, pissed off Iraqis. But what is more important is the lack of support the occupation has among ordinary Iraqis. While many are not openly joining the opposition, most keep their mouths shut when the resistance strikes. As US forces hunt for guerrillas, they kill innocent family members, police and have jailed thousands on spurrious reasons.
We have Iraqis who are supporting us
Well, yes, there are Iraqi exiles, who for their own, often craven reasons, support the US. But for the most part, Iraqis are not supporting our efforts. In fact, a third of the New Iraqi Army quit over low pay. Most of our support comes from exiles who have not liuved in Iraq for decades.
Much of the violence is exagurated
According to pres reports, kidnapping, rape and murder are quite common in Baghdad. What is clear is that muchof Iraq lacks an effective police force and has been flooded with criminal gangs. This is aparrt and distinct from the resistance. Iraqis feel the country is much more dangerous today than it was under Saddam. There is no effective police force or Army to control the country and the US are too outnumbered to do it.
We have enough troops in Iraq
The reality is that Iraq had a combined police force and Army of 600,000 people. There are 150,000 Coalition troops and about 60,000 police. Simple math would indicate that there is a shortage of men to control Iraq. It was estimated that we would need 300,000 troops to control Iraq. That is a number we will not reach under current plans
We need to bring in the UN
The idea that the UN could manage Iraq is unlikely at best. There is no support in the countries usually relied upon to provide large numbers of troops, Pakistan, India, Nigeria, Egypt, Canada to replace the US in Iraq. Part of this is due to the US's poor diplomacy, insults do not get people to support you, part of it due to the high levels of violence in Iraq. The US has made joining the occupation unappealing, especially when the argument is mainly to get Pakistanis killed instead of Americans
WMD may still be found
It is extremely unlikely that any stocks of WMD will be found. After eight months of occupation, a sloppy and poorly handled management of Iraqi munitions, to the point where there are still open dumps of weapons, and no evidence any Iraqi formation was trained in the use of these weapons past 1991, the idea that WMD exists in bulk is unlikely. It is also unlikely, given the poor quality of Iraqi chemicals, that they were transfered anywhere.
Foreign fighters have flooded Iraq
The best evidence is that most of the resistance is Iraqi. While there may be some adventurers in Iraq, the numbers are in the hundreds, not the thousands as previously estimated. These fighters may have set bombs and been suicide bombers, but the tactics of the resistance indicate a largely military-based resistance led by people with combat experience. Only Iran has more ex-soldiers than Iraq, and only Iraq has fought four wars in 20 years. So they hardly need to import guerrillas in a country where universal conscription was the norm until April.
Osama and Saddam were allies
Howard Dean is more supportive of George Bush than Osama Bin Laden was of Saddam. The two men have nothing in common, no clear links and are philosophically opposed to each other. There is no evidence that Saddam embraced Al Qaeda, and saw them as a potentially destabilizing force within Iraq. Saddam executed religious fundamentalists. Osama called for the destruction of Saddam and the creation of a fundamentalist state. Al Qaeda's operations in Iraq are clearly a post-Saddam affair and relatively small scale. However, Osama has said that he will redirect funding to fighting in Iraq.
Saddam posed a threat to his neighbors
The Iraqi Army had old, poorly maintained equipment and was under a US no-fly zone for a decade. Any large movement of Iraqi forces would have been instantly picked up by US surveilliance equipment. There was no evidence that Saddam was able to attack anyone when he couldn't prevent bombings from US planes in the no-fly zones.
In short, much of what people believe about Iraq is demonstrably false and can be disproved.
KUWAIT (Reuters) - Unidentified assailants fired twice on U.S. military convoys outside of Kuwait City on Sunday, and four soldiers were hurt by flying glass, a U.S. military spokesman said.
"There were two attacks by small arms fire," a spokesman for the U.S. army in Kuwait told Reuters by telephone, adding the soldiers were wounded in one of the attacks.
These were the latest in a string of attacks on U.S. forces and American targets in the Gulf Arab state which was used as the launch pad for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March.
The army spokesman said the first incident took place at 5:15 p.m. and the second attack occurred 30 minutes later. "The soldiers were slightly wounded, minor injuries, from glass that was broken from the gunshots that hit the trucks. The soldiers are okay now," he said.
State-run Kuwait Television, quoting Kuwaiti security sources, said the U.S. soldiers fired back on the attackers.
The assaults came a few hours after news that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been captured in Iraq, news welcomed by many Kuwaitis whose country was invaded by Saddam's forces in 1990.
The administration of a U.S. military camp north of Kuwait City advised Westerners working on the base to stay indoors on Sunday saying that military vehicles had come under fire.
The last anti-American attack in Kuwait before Sunday's incidents took place before the Iraq war. American contractor Michael Rene Pouliot died when his vehicle was peppered with automatic rifle fire near a U.S. base in Kuwait in January while his colleague David Caraway was wounded
So is it an Al Qaeda attack or an Iraqi resistance attack? I mean, isn't Kuwait an ally? Well, if it's AQ, it's just part of the risks of the region. But if it's the resistance, that's totally scary and means they're ramping up operations.
It's late, I'm clapped out from my friend's Christmas party and the eight drinks I had and I was reminded of an old Candace Bushnell story I read years ago after reading the following:
What's starts out at as fuck should usually stay as a fuck, whether it is a one night stand or a long term deal. I knew going into this that I wanted a fuck, and I'm learning that he's looking for monogamy and a relationship. Hmmm...
As he left this morning, he asked me to come up with a list of reasons why I like him outside of the "amazing sex" we have together. Unfortunately, his use of the term "amazing" sent my mind off on how to delicately tell him that there is a difference between amazing and satisfying.
While it is true that he can go for hours and I get an incredible thrill from the athletic intensity of our sessions, he has absolutely no idea how to get me off. He was going down on me while I was being DP'd by his digits when I moaned for him to lick my clit. He didn't know where to go.
Now, while that passage and the following story may not seem to have anything to do with each other, but follow along.
A few years ago, a group of friends were having Thanksgiving. It was one of those childless couples, pushing 40 things people do. I've been to those things and what people want to see is you with a serious person on your arm. These couples all get together for the holiday and they're drinking wine and eating, a Coupling kind of dinner. And in comes their friend with yet another model on his arm. Now, I've been around models and strippers and they're fun for a while, but when you're pushing 40 and everyone else you know is in a serious relationship, that gets old fast.
The guy shows up with this girl, and she is a girl, and they talk to her for a while and she's as pleasant as those girls usually are. The minute they get a drink or something, the women turn to their partners and say "how can he do this again. He brings these girls here and I'm sick of it." The guys nod and say "yeah, he's getting too old for this crap. We're tired of it." So the guys pull him aside and say "Look, Bob, we're tired of this. Every time you show up here, it's with a different girl. You're 40 years old, how longer are you going to do this." Bob is completely and utterly clueless as to the point they're making. They go on "Bob, we don't care who you date, but we don't think it's appropriate that you foist some new girl on us every time we get together. We think you need to start getting serious about someone, anyone." Bob still doesn't get it. Finally, the guys say "look, Bob, we don't think we can invite you to anything else if you're gonna bring the models around. It's not comfortable for us or our women."
He was still mystified as to what they meant.
It wasn't as you think, jealousy. No one was begruding him models. What they were begruding was the fact that he brought different models to what was basically family events. These weren't Super Bowl parties with coworkers, but family events with very close friends. So you had nine friends and a virtual stranger. Someone they couldn't even being to inculcate into the inside jokes of their friendship, share their frustrations and stories over time. They were disgusted by his lack of committment and his inability to respect the intimacy of their shared relationship. Just as you wouldn't bring over some one night stand to a family event, dragging the model du jour with to your close friend gatherings is just as problematic and disrespectful.
Well, the writer of the first story picked up a guy, slept with him, but never bothered to communicate what she needed sexually. If you go online and look at the sex blogs, which have a lot of good writing, and which is why I bring them up from time to time, you'll see a lot of them by 30-something women. Most center on their sexual adventures and the subtext is that many seem unhappy. They're pushing their mid-30's and their lives haven't really changed since they were 25. They go to the same clubs, date the same kinds of guys and then wonder why they're not in a committed relationship with a serious person.
Well, guys can't do that. When you hit 30, it dawns on you that you're going to eventually get married. Not today, not tomorrow, but that one day, you're going to have a wife. That you have to start dating women you can marry. Serious women, women who might fit into your life one day. Women who don't have 800 tats and piercings and doesn't make your mom faint when she shows up. You keep showing up with 22 year old temps, your friends will look at you like you're insane. It is so much easier to date being straight and single in your 30's than in your 20's. All that crap about pretty bad boys and older men sort of fades away and the good attributes you have, don't cheat, likes parents, seem to rise in stock.
Well, she notes, that the guy she hooked up with was looking for a girlfriend, not just sex. They're probably the same age, but he's realized that being single and available has its limits.
Why do women, at least to me, pick up on this more slowly than men? Because there isn't a natural break. If you're a woman, you either get married under 25 or over 25. Once you get past your 25th birthday single, you're going to be single for a while but except for occasional hectoring from your mother, life remains more or less the same. There is a significant difference for men, and I realized it when my father was seriously ill and I was running back and forth to the hospital. This was about the time I was seriously dating someone for the first time as well. I was 30-31 and I realized that I needed a woman in my life. Not for sex or cooking or any of those shallow reasons, but for emotional support.
I mean, I was basically the only one running to the hospital, my parents had split, and my sister had a new husband and baby. And the brutal reality was that I needed the emotional support from a woman that my male friends simply could not provide. Once you hit 30 you start to have real issues which guys cannot help you with. You need the advice and support of a woman in your life. I mean, it was an incredibly lonely time because there wasn't anyone to talk to about my feelings in a serious way. My family wasn't able to help, my friends were of limited help.
That's when it dawned on me. Women have support networks which last throughout their single years, but at some point, guys realize that the easy girlfirends and buddies are a poor substitute for a serious, concerned , dedicated female friend. Which is why the first writer seems a bit oblivious to the fact that her expectations were unrealistic. She slept with a guy who was unable to meet her emotional needs and was completely uninterested in being sensitive to her sexual needs. But if all she wanted was sex, that's all he was going to give her in the end, because she didn't set the bar any higher.
The reason poor Bob's friends turned on him was that they were tired of his emotional immaturity. His need for attention was driving a wedge between him and the rest of his friends. They wanted him to just grow up and get serious about someone, once, and not make them his audience.
Dec. 15, 2003 | COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- The late Sen. Strom Thurmond's family on Monday said it acknowledges a California woman's claim that she is his illegitimate mixed-race daughter. Her lawyer said the statement brought her "a sigh of relief."
"As J. Strom Thurmond has passed away and cannot speak for himself, the Thurmond family acknowledges Ms. Essie Mae Washington-Williams' claim to her heritage. We hope this acknowledgment will bring closure for Ms. Williams," the family's lawyer, J. Mark Taylor, said in a brief statement.
Contacted at his office, Taylor confirmed he was speaking for the Thurmond family but refused to give detail or answer any questions, including whether the family was in fact verifying the claims of Williams, a 78-year-old retired teacher who lives in Los Angeles.
Dec. 15, 2003 | NEW YORK -- With the presidential campaign of Howard Dean building strong momentum even before the primary elections, the idea has returned to fashion in Democratic political circles that retired Gen. Wesley Clark is in the race primarily to become Dean's running mate. As a hypothetical scenario, it makes good sense: Dean is a charismatic former governor from New England with strong progressive backing, but he lacks foreign policy experience; Clark is an accomplished warrior who has negotiated on behalf of America and its allies at the highest international levels, and he is expected to have strong appeal in more conservative Southern and Western states.
And so, the thinking goes, Howard Dean and Wes Clark would make a Democratic dream date in November 2004.
But just 48 hours before before the capture of Saddam Hussein outside of Tikrit, Clark made his strongest statement to date about why a Dean-Clark ticket is a bad idea. Clark, who says that he's uniquely qualified to go "toe-to-toe" with President Bush on security issues in 2004, said that whether he's on the ticket or not, the Democrats can't win with Dean as their presidential candidate.
"I don't think the Democratic Party can win without carrying a heavy experience in national security affairs into the campaign," he told Salon in a phone interview last week. "And that experience can't be in a vice president."
Asked if he was referring specifically to the much-discussed possibility of a Dean-Clark ticket, he said: "It's no substitute. It won't work, and it won't carry the election for this party."
Wow, an astonishingly stupid thing to say.
Howard Dean can say the following: the next president needs to have a clear domestic agenda, but having spent years abroad, and having no political experience, Wes Clark has absolutely no idea how the average American lives. While he knows how Europe works, when was the last time he went shopping for food? Not all of us had aides to take care of our basic needs.
It works both ways. Wes Clark would have to deal with Medicare, education, a lopsided tax base and a ton of issues where he has no experience. There are at least five other potential vice presidential candidates, from Anthony Zinni to Bill Richardson, who has his experience in foreign policy. Wes Clark doesn't have the money or the time or frankly, the experience to beat back Dean. All the increasingly shrill comments from the various campaigns indicate this. Lieberman's ridiculous arguments, Kerry's bitter dirty attacks, not only is none of that working, none of that will erode Dean's money advantage or strip away support.
Everyone is mistakenly focused on security issues for the next election, but by that time, either they be resolved in our favor or such a disaster than it will be clear that Bush's policy is an utter failure. The US foreign policy is being decided in Najaf and I think we're not going to like the outcome.
No democrat should be saying another democrat cannot beat Bush, mainly because it's a lie. Bush is under 49 against the top five, all are within striking distance and any one from John Edwards to Howard Dean is an odds on favorite to replace Bush. Wes Clark's ego is writing checks his ass cannot cash.
Howard Dean didn't get his money and lead by osmosis. He earned them. Acting like he's too weak to follow Bush is like saying you're too drunk to get a tattoo. It would be nearly impossible to find that state.
Negative campaining doesn't help Clark and it will force Lieberman out of the Senate in 2006. These guys don't get it. It's not about who can be better than Bush. That's a baseline any sane person can meet. It's about what comes next and if they think it's UN troops in Iraq, they're delusional. They have to cut this bullshit out, leaping on each other, only to have Dean rally the party against them like they have in the past, and then having his support even grow. Al Gore wasn't stupid or precient, he knows the math and the reasoning and it's why he endorsed Dean.
I think all of these candidates know that the "anti-Dean" strategy is about as viable as the anti-Clinton strategy was in 1992.
I've never seen so many candidates misjudge the temper of the times. There is going to be a massive, irreversable reaction to our policy in Iraq. Already people think the war is over and it is anything but. Howard Dean has already bet once on this and won big. Does anyone thing the Young Republicans Abroad are going to actually run Iraq? And that the Shia will agree to some kind of group voting designed to install Ahmed Chalabi in office? Or that the UN is going to get shot at in Samarra and Mosul? For some bizzare reason, they think Bush is still popular and has a hold over the American people. He sold that for $87B and it's not coming back. Here's a simple fact which will be proven over time: Howard Dean would not be leading the polls if people thought he was weak. They've seen weakness from Kerry, Lieberman and Gephardt.
What no one is saying and people better understand this is: come March, US troop quality is going to take a nosedive. With all the Guardsmen and reservists going into line infantry units, the potential for disaster increases. All the elite regular units are going home and taking their gear with them. The second line is coming on stage and that's going to leave us staring all over again. All the deals, all the negotiations will be ripped up and taken home when the new units take their place. And when Guardmen get killed, the ripple effect is tremendous. They're usually older, have families and responsible jobs and their losses are noticed. You blow away a guard unit, there's no hiding it.
Clark is still hoping for some kind of miracle, when in reality, he may have just talked himself into Bill Richardson's next job instead of the Vice Presidency.
It's odd to think back to the fall and winter of 1946. It was not an optimistic time. People expected a return to pre-war depression, veterans found themselves outsiders in a society vastly different than the one they had left, two, three, four years previously. The best Christmas story in the modern American lexicon was released to dismal reviews and moderate box office.
It's a Wonderful Life was not a hit, not a sentimental favorite, but an angry film made by two veterans, Jimmy Stewart and Frank Capra. Stewart had spent most of 1944 in the pilot's seat of a B-24, hauling it around central Germany and dodging fighters. Frank Capra's film unit followed the Allies from the Normandy beachhead to the concentration camps of Hitler's dying empire. The film, according to Roger Ebert, fell out of copyright, in the days before the Disney decided to create copyright in perpertuity, and became a TV staple. Like other Stewart classics, like Man from Laramie and Vertigo, they shine in TV rebroadcasts long after their original release.
It was a post-war film playing on the themes of community which had grown up during the war, and Stewart and Capra had only seen while in uniform. The world of Bedford Falls had been changed by war, not so much by loss, but by sacrifice. Stewart, as the town's Savings and Loan owner was the guy who helped people build homes and keep their stores open. He was the man they trusted with their lives, always a fragile thing.
If this movie had been made before the war, it would have been a comedy like Meet John Doe, or had the comic overtones of Mr. Smith goes to Washington, the most optimist political film ever made by an American. It would have been a positive film, reenforcing the basic beliefs in the decency of Americans. But war is not an enterprise for optimists. Seeing your friends fall 30,000 feet to their untimely deaths, walking over the remains dead GI's, it changes you, not just in terms of how you see people, but the good and bad you see in them.
It is the first film to deal with suicide seriously, not as a dramatic device, but as a reality. More than one young man blew his brains out instead of flying over Germany. Fear of failure can kill as well as actual failure. War shows real cowardice, real bravery, self-sacrifice beyond measure and the consequences of simple mistakes. Misplacing the money causes a real disaster, just as loading the wrong ammo or not clearing the guns in a bomber.
It's a Wonderful Life has grown sharper in our memory, become our Christmas film, not because it is dark, but because, in the end, the community remembers that George Bailey has always done the right thing by them. Unlike the banker, he didn't look for advantage in tragedy or misfortune. So they supported him when he needed their help.
What has to be remembered is that, ultimately, it is an optimistic film, one which stresses the need for community and trust. How decency and trust matter in business and life, and why embracing despair is rarely useful. Both men had seen dark times in dark places and chose to embrace decency instead.
In a time when self-interest is paramount, where our president can chortle over the execution of a hated dictator, that people can find their better nature. We live in a time where selfishness, in all aspects of our lives and politics, are treated as positives. We're coming to a place where we must decide what kind of people we are going to be. We find these tests every so often. We can embrace fear and violence as a solution or trust and community.
Avoid the rush. Join your fellow News Blog readers in wearing one of our custom designed shirts. If you want to give someone a political gift, or wear one, this is the time to order.
And in other news, if you're going to order Amazon, use the links on these pages and make me happy. Several of you have done so. Or you can wait until after Christmas, and use all those gift certificates. It doesn't matter to me. :)
By Patricia Wilson
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean, whose campaign successes have been fueled by anti-war sentiment, said on Monday Saddam Hussein's capture had neither changed his views on the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq nor made America safer.
The former Vermont governor, who is vying with eight other Democrats for the right to challenge President Bush in 2004, praised the arrest of the "frightful" former Iraqi leader, saying it offered the United States, Iraq and the international community "an opportunity to move ahead."
"But it is only an opportunity, not a guarantee," Dean told the Pacific Council. "Let me be clear: My position on the war has not changed."
He outlined what he called the "Dean doctrine," a "very clear prescription" for when the United States should use force unilaterally. Those occasions were: to defend the country, to stop an imminent threat and, in some instances, when world bodies failed to resolve problems like genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo.
"The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope will help keep our soldiers safer," he said. "But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer."
Under fire from rivals for lacking national security experience and atop the polls in the early voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, Dean hoped to plug gaps in his resume by laying out a broad foreign policy portfolio.
All I have to say is this: in six months Dean's position will be fully and completely vindicated, while Lieberman will be humiliated.
I kinda like Tucker Carlson. While I disagree with his views, I've always thought he's had his share of balls. Given the craven cowardice of many of his peers, that's no small thing. I'm surprised that he's in Baghdad this week, but if he can share the stage with Janeane Garofalo for a week, I guess he can dodge bullets.
And he IS dodging bullets.
He drove up from the Kuwaiti border with the usual hired guns/ government subcontractors without seeing a coalition soldier between the border and the Palestine Hotel. They're staying in one of the bureau houses the western news media hires out, far away from ground zero. er, the green zone. He heard gunfire the minute he entered the city.
What made me choke on my chips was his statement that his ex-SF bodyguard said that Baghdad was more dangerous than Mogudishu. Now, the Mog was a city controlled by various gangs and warlords where the usual mode of transport was a technical ( a pickup with a machine gun or 20 mm piece on the back). For that statement to be made indicates a security situation which is completely out of hand. Armed mobs controlled the Mog. Allegedly, US troops control Baghdad. So the comparison is one to cause pause.
Carlson said they had to toss on body armor to go from the house to the bureau. This in a week where a Time reporter lost his hand in a grenade attack. So their precautions are not for show. Night travel is especially scary.
Eight months after our occupation, the capital city of Iraq should not be this dangerous. It seems the security situation is getting worse, not better. The US is unable to get their act together and it shows.
Now, Wolf Blitzer is asking if we should negotiate with Saddam? For what? He doesn't run anything except his mouth. We won't talk to Sistani and we ignore his warnings, but we want to talk with Saddam? Knowing the Bushies, they'll make the deal to shut his mouth and he'll join Noriega as a POW in jail. I'm surprised the question is even being asked.
Bush's blood lust was showing today, when he could barely hide his smirk about executing Saddam. The only problem is that if the quisling government does kill him, he'll turn into instant martyr. Not that the security situation will allow a trial. If you can't drive downtown in Baghdad without a bodyguard and a flak vest, how in God's name can you bring back the hated dictator for a trial in the Green Zone. What if Sadr decides he wants to kill the man who killed his daddy? After all, Inigo Montoya isn't only for Bush. The shows up with 30K people looking to string him up like Mussolini. A trial is a security nightmare which may spiral into daily riots.
Just for security sakes, any trial needs to be held in The Hague. Taking the death penalty off the table would be smart as well. Pay the Dutch to feed him. The quislings running the IGC have their own reason for wanting Saddam dead, some of them less noble than others. How many of them cut their own deals with Saddam which he can reveal for maximum effect?
Saddam's capture will not ensure Bush's reelection. In fact, it may be the trigger to a landslide defeat. Because the war, according to CENTCOM and the CPA, is about to get worse. With Saddam cooling his heels in Qatar, Khandahar or Gitmo, he can no longer taunt the US via videotape. But that will do little to convince the mid-level Baathists, Army officers and Islamicist guerrillas to lay down their arms. Their opposition to the US occupation was not based in misguided loyalty to a great man, any more than people froze in Valley Forge for George Washington or blew up train tracks for Charles DeGaulle. There is a fundamental core to the resistance which is based in Iraqi history and psychology, and made worse by US actions. Baath is, by the war, not a synonym for Saddam worshiper, but a pan-Arab nationalist ideology. While the American media uses the term to mean Saddam supporter, it is more complex than that.
The problem for Bush and his Democratic lickspittles like Lieberman, is that this war isn't going to get better. The attacks on armored columns will not diminish, the dead will continue to return in transfer tubes, our lack of intel will still have roads lined with IED's and the airspace over Baghdad International Airport filled with Strelas. Saddam laid the groundwork for an ongoing resistance with billions of rounds of ammo, millions of AK's and hundred of thousands of RPG's. Now it may have been Saddam's plan to resist the Americans, but his Feyadeen were largely killed attacking American armor in March and April. The people who picked up the weapons in their caches had a very different agenda.
While Bremer was crowing, the fact remains that there has not been a day since March 21 where US troops have not come under fire. His Young Republican Abroad projects are faltering, leaving the vaunted schools worse off than before. The IGC is still regarded as quisilings by most Iraqis. And the power of the Ayatollah Sistani grows by the day. Even secularlists or lapsed Shia intellectuals have to regard his position as the morally and ethically correct one. Why can't they have one man, one vote elections? Because the Americans won't like the outcome? Iraqis are intelligent, crafty, people and they don't need the great white fathers from Young Republicans Abroad to run their country for them. Removing Saddam as a threat just makes opposition that much easier.
The Kerry and Lieberman campaigns have foolishly gone after Dean on the war. Foolish for two reasons, one, the capture of Saddam is a nice moment, but it is a moment which doesn't validate the war, and two, when the dead mount, people will ask if it's worth it. I think Bush may find it harder and harder to justify this war and it's outcome, now that Saddam is in US custody. This broke at just the right time for Dean, btw, so much so, you have to wonder if the Kurds and Shia didn't plan this. Why? As Americans wind up their yearly business, this is a minor distraction. Everyone feels good and it's then forgotten in the rush of holiday parties, family visits and sporting events.
When the Americans continue to die in Iraq next year, the American people will start to wonder why we're still there, after all, Saddam is gone. When they cast about for answers, all those sweetheart contracts will loom as the cynical answer. And on the other side of it will be Howard Dean and Wes Clark talking about the folly of empire. Like so many things with Bush, what appears to be a glorious success then turns into a bitter failure.
Think of the lives and money it cost to get Saddam, a haggard old man living in a cave with a box of money. Nearly 500 American families have lost young ones, most under 25, thousands more have sons and daughters injured in combat, starting life over minus a limb. Is Iraq safer, more democratic, more of a US ally? Yet, there has been a river of blood to get just this far. How much longer will the war continue? And in the end, will the ultimate outcome be an Islamic Republic run by a disciple of Sistani? Will thousands of Americans have died to ensure an Iraqi theocracy?
That, in the end, is why the capture of Saddam will be a historical footnote.
This bedraggled, pathetic man with his matted, dirty hair, living in a hole in the ground with three guns and cash as his cave-companions - this man was not leading the Iraqi insurgency against the Americans. Indeed, more and more Iraqis were saying before Saddam's capture that the one reason they would not join the resistance to US occupation was the fear that - if the Americans withdrew - Saddam would return to power. Now that fear has been taken away. So the nightmare is over - and the nightmare is about to begin. For both the Iraqis and for us.
People who know the region are saying this, as Americans think the war is ending.
It is not.
Why should an Iraqi now align themselves with a corrupt, ineffective occupier who disrespect their customs and homes? What do they gain? Why shouldn't they join the resistance and determine who runs Iraq on their own? Bush has offered them no reason to lay down their weapons, and instead, may encourage many of them to fight.
I guess there are some people in Iraq who feel bad Saddam was captured, but most would probably like to tear him limb from limb fore the misery he caused them.
The problem is that the ADD afflicted US media thinks the capture of Saddam will cause the resistance to lose heart. Saddam was caught in a hole with money and two rifles. I don't think he was running much of a resistance movement. I think, like most criminals, he was running for his life and relying on his family. No different than a skell drug dealer in the projects. I don't think Saddam was able to create a resistance movement.
Is his capture good news? Of course it is. All murderers and dictators should be in jail. But it's not the kind of good news which will matter much in the end. Even if he was involved in the resistance, he was more icon than planner. And this resistance has a strong military cast to it, complete with infantry-type attacks. So the people running it remain ghosts.
In 1957, the French captured Ahmed Ben Bella, the former French Army sergeant turned Algerian guerrilla leader. Tossed him in jail and thought his removal would end the war. They then built the Morice Line, a series of strong points along the Algerian-Tunisian frontier. Most of the NLF stayed in Tunisia, training and launching raids for six years and not getting anywhere. But the war continued. Units inside Algeria were hunted down and killed. But still the war continued. In fact, the French had numerous successes, but the war continued.
By 1962, the French Army had launched a coup, the war was bitterly opposed by French society and they had to negotiate with Ben Bella to end the war.
So the idea that capturing Saddam will end the war is specious at best. It may cause people to lose heart. For the sake of 100,000 American families, one can only hope so. But the reality is more likely to be more violence, by more actors, all seeking to rule Iraq. The prize is Iraq, not Saddam, and people need to get past their Saddam myopia and look at Iraq in a harsher light. There was and is a country behind the man.
As far as trials go, it's kind of hard to have a trial when the Shia may be massing in the streets demanding the right to vote. In the end, the only possible venue may well be the Hague. It may take years for there to be a stable enough Iraq to conduct any sort of trial. While the TV morons act as if this is a matter of indictments, it's vastly more complicated and the US may have to keep him in custody for years. The Hague may, in the end, may be the only forum for such a trial. After all, the Kuwaitis, Turks and Iranians have clear, legitimate claims to wanting to try him in a public forum.
No one, not Howard Dean, Al Sharpton or Dennis Kucinich wanted to see Saddam remain in power. But we have just begun to pay the cost for deposing him without substanial internal support. Over 400 dead, $150B in payments and an active military resistance. The costs we face may well climb to a cost we have yet to imagine. And this is all without the Shia declaring where they stand. If they come to oppose the US occupation in massive numbers, the joy of capturing Saddam will be as bitter a memory as the killing of his sons.
MITCH POTTER
MIDDLE EAST BUREAU
FALLUJA, Iraq— There is a new kind of resistance taking hold in this rebel stronghold of Iraq's seething Sunni triangle and its name is not Saddam Hussein.
Nor, in fact, is it composed of imported fighters serving the call of Al Qaeda.
Though Baath party loyalists and foreign jihadists are almost exclusively cited by American-led coalition authorities as the sources of the insurgency that continues to harass Iraq's stability, the streets of Falluja are filled with talk of a patriot uprising far more grassroots in nature.
On paper — and there is paper, in leaflet form, making the rounds in this city 60 kilometres west of Baghdad — at least one branch of the new resistance calls itself the Popular Iraqi Liberation Front.
Its avowed mission: ousting the occupation forces.
But not in the name of Saddam.
The group is calling for the United Nations, the Arab League and the Islamic Conference to take over the task of giving Iraq back to the Iraqis.
"The front claims its legal responsibility for all the armed actions against the American and British occupying forces and their allies," the pamphleteers said in a notice picked off a Falluja street this week.
"And it also announces its non-alliance with the oppressive Baath regime. There is no link between the current popular and national resistance and any oppressive Baath regime resistance."
.......................
There are indeed many Baath loyalists waging war, and indeed some foreign jihadists, although coalition sources privately admit their numbers may be far fewer than first believed.
And even those homegrown Iraqi mujahedeen warriors who denounce both Saddam and the occupation in the same breath appear to be fighting what they perceive as a horrifying threat to generations of Sunni privilege as much as an infidel occupation.
Fully eight months after the fall of Saddam, something appears to be happening in the Sunni Muslim heartland so favoured by his largesse. Pugnacious anti-Americanism remains as strong as ever, but the motivation behind it appears to be changing from an almost sullen longing for the way things were to a more survivalist and clearly sectarian view of what will come next.
"We confess Saddam was a bad man. And he was Sunni," said Falluja shopkeeper Omar Ali Jasm, 28, who described himself as "a sympathizer to the new Sunni political movement" represented by the pamphlets now papering the triangle.
"We in the resistance also hate him. Our struggle is not to get him back. It is about stopping the Shiites from taking power and destroying Iraq," he said.
"Iraq needs us. We are the only ones who can run this country. This is our history."
..............
"The Shiites are not the kind of people who can rule even themselves, let alone a country," Jasm said. "They can play a role, but not as leaders. They are influenced by Iran. And we believe they will try to run the country according to religion. It won't work."
Saddam who? These folks are playing for much bigger stakes and this won't become clear for awhile, until the attacks don't stop, the violence increases and the war continues. Sure, some people may lay down their arms, but the tone of this article suggests that many more may pick them up.
Americans ignore the reality that Iraqi nationalism is now the driving force. The praise of Saddam we hear for the cameras is to taunt and mislead the US, not some irridentist desire for Saddam resurgent. Iraqis are not idiots, they know any mention of Saddam turns Americans nuts. What will Sanchez say when that fully-loaded C-130 comes crashing out of the sky, or when a US-occupied position is blown to hell killing 20-30 Americans at once? That it's "bitter enders" who just won't quit?
Americans are incredibly naive when it comes to understanding the hostility our actions have engendered in Iraq. Many people were inclined to see us as helpful, but the US Army's tactics and the refusal to impose order made accepting the occupation impossible for many. Relegating the opposition to a few mercenaries and Baathists sounded fine on TV, but it's not the military reality. Saddam couldn't trust his own army, a point I make repeatedly, what makes you think that Army, unemployed and humiliated, is now fighting for him? Because it is fighting Americans and doing a decent job of it.
It would be nice to think our Iraqi adventure is over. My sneaking feeling is that not only is it not over, it has really just begun.
Saddam Hussein has been the subject of intensive search operations
Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been captured by US forces in Iraq, the coalition says.
He was found hiding in a cellar in his ancestral hometown of Tikrit, Iraqi official Ahmed Chalabi said.
British Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed the news, saying it "removes the shadow" hanging over Iraq.
Saddam Hussein is the most wanted man on the list issued by US authorities but has not been seen since Baghdad fell to US forces in April.
A lot of people are going to wish they found Saddam dead.
Besides the fact that his testimony stands to embarass the US Government in any proceeding, his capture will do little, if any, to halt the resistance to US occupation. Maybe if this had happened on April 10, it might have delayed the growth of the resistance, but to everyone but the neo-con ideologues mismanging Iraq, the resistance flows from the occupation and our actions, not any real desire to see Saddam come back and rule.
In reality, he'd already been turned into a martyr and his living, corporeal being is less relevant than Saddam myopic US planners would think. He wasn't running the resistance, he wasn't directing any operations and he wasn't any kind of military leader. What stands to be exposed, however, is the depth and breadth of resistance to US occupation which exists in Iraq.
While no one, including myself, is shedding the slightest tear for Saddam's internment, I think his capture, instead of causing people to support the occupation, will, instead liberate people to oppose it. They know if they oppose the Americans, they won't be working to return Saddam to power, even indirectly.
I wonder, when in the next month, when the shootings and car bombings continue, what the US will say then? That the dead-enders are still around? That the leaders of the resistance were looking to have Saddam return after he blew it? This removes the figh leaf of Saddam from the Iraqi resistance. The fact that Viceroy Jerry will not be able to blame him, that the generals won't be able to use him as an excuse, will turn Iraq from policy quagmire into policy nightmare.
Of course, we'll see Bush gloating, but that will not last long.
Why?
Because the resistance is a natural occurance of occupation and not some madness driven by loyalty to Saddam. Only a few ideologues ever bought into that. And while his capture may make Iraqis sleep easier, the Shia and Kurds seemed oddly unperturbed by his continued freedom. There were no demands by the Kurdish parties or Sistani that he be captured immediately. No offer of men to effect this. One would think if the spectre of Saddam hung over Iraq in a serious way, more would have been done to round him up earlier.
All this does is set the stage for the real battle of Iraq, and that's elections on who runs the country. Not fear of Saddam resurgent.
Of course, plans to have Iraqis try Saddam are a horrible mistake. It will reak of revenge and little else, if the trials actually come off. The logical thing to do is to send Saddam to the Hague and have him tried by the UN. But little logic has applied to this war so far.
Too many Americans, blind to the utter failure of the CPA, which should be called the Young Republicans Abroad, and the brutality of the US occupation, will be shocked when the dead and wounded continue to come home. We're not talking about party fantatics anymore, but a decentralized, organic resistance to a Western power mismanaging and occupying Iraq. Remember, there was no single leader in Iraq in 1920. So the fact that Saddam is now in jail somewhere is not going to make the islamicists or the former military stop killing Americans.
The right-wing hacks will be filled with glee for a day or so, maybe even less, considering the resistance doesn't have to do much more than they normally do, which is fire mortars and rockets and set IED's. We are now engaged in what is shaping up into a battle to control Iraq and the Baathists didn't need or want Saddam to play a role in that. So let the Americans feed him, they could care less.
Iraqis can now say, with clear logic: you got Saddam, hell, you made him, now go. We no longer need you here. Thanks for the work, now go home. I don't think Viceroy Jerry quite gets that yet. The majority of the people killing Americans, would, if given the opportunity, would kill Saddam with their bare hands. They weren't setting IED's for Saddam yesterday, and they won't set them for him tomorrow. We are way, way past Saddam here. We have started blood feuds with the Sunni tribes, after killing their children, jailing their men, humiliating their women. The trigger happy ways of the 82nd ABN and the West Bank tactics of the 4 ID have made few friends and many, many enemies. The idea that the people of Samarra and Fallujah, places where Saddam's hand was heavy, fight for his return, is ludicrous. They fight Americans because we occupy their country. That is a central truth which eludes the generals, the politicians and the White House.
Like with the last stand of Uday and Qusay, the Iraqis were happy at the outcome, but the resistance only grew exponentially afterwards.
The capture of Saddam may end the war, may cause people to cease resistance, but I doubt it. I hope I'm wrong, but given the fact that they found Saddam in a freaking hole, I think we can say he's spent the last few months on the run and not running anything. All of the problems Iraq had yesterday, they have today. The issue of who runs the country remains. The Americans are swearing that his capture means he can't come back. Which is good. But, does that bring back the dead killed by American bullets? If it doesn't, the people who resist Americans still have a reason to, no matter how much we'd pretend it doesn't.
And given his intimate dealing with the Reagan and Bush Administrations, any trial could come during the height of the American election campaign, raising all manner of nasty questions about the past, starting with any dealings with Al Qaeda.
This is not to say that Saddam's capture is a bad thing, it isn't. It's just not going to solve as much as people hope it will.
MILAN, Italy (Reuters) -- A dispute over aid to OPEC states clouded the last day of a U.N. conference on global warming on Friday with the Kyoto protocol hanging by a thread amid uncertainties over Russian ratification.
Kyoto backers reaffirmed their support for the 1997 pact despite scant progress at the 12-day Milan talks on ways to fight rising temperatures blamed for more droughts, storms and for melting glaciers that may raise sea levels.
Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov, whose country holds the key to whether Kyoto enters into force, told Japanese media in an interview published on Friday that Moscow was preparing a "special action plan" to ratify it but gave no deadline for signing the pact.
Kyoto aims to cut rich countries' emissions of carbon dioxide by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Those in favor of Kyoto at the 180-nation talks welcomed his remarks, which follow a string of apparently contradictory statements from Moscow about the deal to rein in emissions from factories, cars and power plants blamed for global warming.
"The Kyoto protocol is the only game in town," German Environment Minister Juergen Trittin told a news conference, expressing confidence that Russia would ratify. The United States has called Kyoto fatally flawed and pulled out in 2001.
Delegates said that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest oil exporter, wanted promises of aid if Kyoto spurs a shift to renewable energies like tidal, solar or wind energy at the expense of fossil fuels.
But Trittin said that the European Union only wanted to help the poorest states adapt to climate change. "If such a fund is misused for targets we don't share, because it is a voluntary fund we won't pay," he said
It's not our fault the Saud family paid their gambling debts and whorehouse bills with their money instead of developing industry. Now, they want money? What have the Saudis done with the money they've made so far? Establish a theocracy, fund terrorism, and help destabilize their neighbors? And still many Saudis live in poverty?
So what exactly do they need more money for? To oppress the Shia? Spread anti-semitic thought throughout the Muslim world? Keep their women from driving? Why should the West fund Saudi Arabia if they can't sell oil any more?
Wings. One can never go wrong with buffalo wings. No matter the party, unless it's at your vegan hippie commune, chicken wings are the perfect party food. Unless you're Jessica Simpson and think they come from buffaloes, they are dirt cheap. You can buy a frozen, five pound bag for around $5-6. The only question is how to fix them, and I'd say fried with a dipping sauce. Why? You can make some hot wings, but I think a choice of sauces is probably best. Nothing fancy, just some honey mustard, bbq, duck sauce and hot sauce and you have your perfect buffet food. It can also go well with any number of foods from fries to a more formal meal. They are versitile and easy to fix. I'd toss on some flour to get that crispy flavor, but you cannot, repeat, cannot go wrong with a big pot of wings.
Then, you can go with cold cuts or premade sandwiches, I'd go with the latter for ease of use.
What comes next depends on the crowd. A football crowd would be prone to hot, and slightly spicy food. Chilis, nachos, stews are all appropriate with small to medium crowds. Larger crowds are designed for lasagna, baked ziti and penne in vodka sauce. A bowl of parmesan cheese caps that off.
For a more upscale meal, grilled steak sliced thin or a roast beef would do well. Even though the meat may cost you $15 or so, thinly sliced, it's a great meal centerpiece.
Little hot dogs are also always a party favorite. Snag them as well. You can get a lot of them and they're cheap.
Sushi is better at cocktail parties and events where it will be consumed quickly. Instead, substitute smoked salmon for events which may drag on.
Your food choices should reflect your crowd. If the crowd is more into drinking than food, snacks are OK. Peanuts, chips, no one will care. But if you're dealing with a small crowd, and adults, don't skimp.
In the Atkins-mad world we live in, meat dishes and veggies are going to go over well.
The core of any good party, oddly, is bread. You need lots of it and it needs to be the kind which one could call fresh.Bread is the unitary factor of party food. Not just sliced loaves, but all kinds of bread. Your meal needs to have a very carefully chosen bread menu. Fresh, sliced, and neatly displayed will tie together the food you have. People try to overlook bread, but nothing makes party food rock harder than fresh bread.
I'd also stay away from shellfish, unless you get small quantities and design your platters to have them consumed quickly. One of my favorite hot appetizers is stuffed mushrooms. I think they perk up a table.
One neat trick is to have a bowl of noodles and different things to mix in them. Another is to have bread, cheese and Italian meats all displayed on a table. But the chinese noodle bowls with sauces is a NY trade show party classic and it works like a charm.
Another thing to do is to get dim sum dumplings from Chinese supermarkets. They sell them frozen and in bulk for under $10 per bag and they're easy to heat up. People love those dumplings and they will keep.
One thing people avoid doing and shouldn't is to buy prepared foods. Many supermarkets and gourmet stores have great prepared food. And while full catering may be too expensive, a pound of orzo or a few prepared chicken breasts sliced thin and placed on bread rounds can give your dinner a sophisticated feel and taste without tying you to the kitchen.
Speaking about catering, when you plan a meal, ask the caterer for their advice on what works and what people at similar events liked. They do this all the time and can provide expert help. You're not just hiring someone to cook food, but a professional with experience. Make sure that their offerings meet your tastes and expectations, but don't try to tell them how to do it. You're merely hiring them, not enslaving them.
One word on big sandwiches-don't. They get soggy fast. If you get a 3+ footer, you want them to slice it in handy pieces. And leave off the tomato, lettuce and any wet goods. Place them in a tray on the side and let people add them. With a good knife, you have two minutes of work, or buy a pre-cut salad. Why? Because the dryer the actual sandwich is, the longer it will last. If people want extras, let them add on after. We're talking a couple of dollars on your part, but a much better eating experience.
Dessert, go with individual servings over cakes and pies. If you want to serve them, pre-slice and plate them before placing them on your table. Obviously, this means a sheet cake in most instances. Don't let it turn into a free for all.
Make sure you only fix enough food for your guest to eat comfortably. A tray of each item will do in most cases. Have a variety of goods instead. A little of everything is a lot more festive than a lot of a little.
Also, leave the cute cookies and candies alone. They usually get ignored. Chocolate chip is better than some holiday mess.
When thinking of your meal, think of how you want people to eat it and your space. Renting or borrowing a table might not be such a bad idea if you're planning on a lot of food.
Overall, go for bulk to save money, cheap items like chicken wings can be served so many ways and will be eaten with glee. You know your crowd, fix what you'll think they'll like, but look for clever recipes to make them stand out or serve them with options .
Just a reminder: if you're thinking of ordering a shirt for Christmas, there are two days left for standard shipping for Cafe Press items. It takes about three days to process the orders, so anything ordered after Sunday may not make it under the tree by the 25th unless you pay extra, and there's no need for that.
In other commercial news, I appreciate you spending money through this site. I'm plugging books and DVD's, but if you're going to order anything through Amazon, you can use the links on the page to get there and I'll get the credit and kickback for it. So if you have hundreds of dollars of toys to order, doing it through this site won't cost you any more and they'll give me a kickback. And get your friends to do the same. If you're going to buy Amazon, do it through someone's site and they'll benefit without costing you a dime.
Simply put, an affiliate sale makes the affliate money and still allows you complete access to the site. I've already made enough to buy lunch;) So if you're thinking of Kitchen Aid or a PS 2 from Amazon, use the links here or on another favored site and make someone happy.:)
I'm watching 20/20 tonight, my fall Fridays are usually dull, and John Stossel came on with the most stunning story I've seen in some time. No, I was truly floored.
Did you know middle class teenage girls like to spend money on shoes? I grew up with two sisters and I did not know this. I was astounded. Did you know materialism was popular with teen girls? They spend money on jewlery and clothes and even work so they can do so?
John Stossel, besides being a right-wing hack, is an utter fucking idiot.
Boys like fancy street clothes and electronics. Girls like to look pretty. Didn't his producer tell him this was obvious. I mean, does he have MTV? Ever hear of a show called MTV Cribs? Where everyone wears tons of expensive jewlery and drives really fast, really expensive cars. Bling bling is a common catch phrase.
Watching this makes it clear why Dr. Phil is a very rich man.
Most American are losing their capacity for common sense. They don't seem to understand things one would think they would. Like if you give teenagers money, they spend it. Or if you don't supervise them, they'll fuck like little rabbits. How could anyone be shocked that women liked shoes? Does he think shoe lust occurs sponatenously at 21?
See, between the driving and the mortgage and the fear of losing your middle class lifestyle, most people have become amazingly selfish and self-centered. They have lost the capacity of common sense. So when Phil comes along and smacks them about. calls them idiots and tells them to get correct with a dose of psychobabble, they eat it up.
He doesn't need a degree to do this, hell his son does it with no degree, because it's just common sense. If you cheat on your wife, your kids may act out, which may include getting pregnant at 15. Bad things happen when you act like an idiot. Phil, for some reason, still in possesion of his common sense, says this to them. And they act as if its manna from heaven. It always amazes me.
My God, there's millions in making people do what sane people should do. I'll never get while people pay for the obvious. But if they don't know it's obvious, maybe they should pay.
As things go, I like Al Sharpton. This is not a popular opinion outside black New York, but I know that he's stood up for people the Post would demonize and the Daily News would ignore. Through providence, Rudy Giuliani made him the most powerful politician in New York and helped launch him on the national stage.
For some reason, whites claim he exploits racial tension. Yet, they were willfully blind when Rudy Giuliani did just that. Calling wounded teenagers criminals while vouching for the credibility of a TV actor later found guilty went unnoticed in the wider media, but not in black New York. So I take that and all the caterwalling about Tawana Brawley with a pound of salt. If race is the game everyone can play, and Governor Arnie just had it bite him in the ass today, Sharpton is no better or worse than a lot of people. Sharpton, in the lexicon of black politics, is a moderate. He believes in the system and works within it. There are people who are not so kindly disposed.
However, his attacks against Dean, and recent statements that he might sit out the election means he's lost some perspective. First off all, sitting out isn't an option, unless he wants Jackson Jr. to ask him why he's sitting out while black kids are dying in Iraq. Make no mistake, the war in Iraq is about as popular in black America as the clap. Playing with Dean, despite widespread mistrust in the black community, mostly from unfamiliarity, could turn out to be a rare mistake for Sharpton. There is nothing that a lot of black pols would like to see than someone force Sharpton to do something foolish and lessen his credibility.
Why is he credible with many working and middle class black Americans? Because he speaks to their concerns and feelings of being taken for granted. He stands up for their concerns when other politicians won't. He's clearly progressive and embraces other communities, shaking off a lot of the social conservatism inherent in black social life. He also doesn't take money like so many other pols or play the civic blackmail game. He's not on the city's or state's dime and has his expenses covered largely by a few rich backers. The fact that he doesn't have to keep government happy gives him a lot of freedom in his actions. This also frustrates a lot of black pols. In 2005, at least two and possibly three black politicians will run to unseat Mayor Bloomberg. The likely winner is Controller Bill Thompson, but it's basically who Sharpton annoints.
In 2001, he decidedly didn't endorse Mark Green, who lost significant support in both the black and latino communities. The lesson was learned.
My problem with Sharpton is that he is confusing his fight with Jesse Jackson with his campaign. He seems to think he should get the unalloyed support of black politicians and he's not getting it. And with good reason, he's not one of them. What can he do for them? So he's stomping around, pissed that he's not getting traction.
An article from the black commentator is disposed kindly to Sharpton and it's worth quoting:
Where does this leave Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich? Exactly as they are, preaching the same social democratic, anti-racist, pro-peace message as before, for as long as their energies can sustain them. Dean’s political leap would not have been possible in the absence of Sharpton’s energetic Black candidacy and Kucinich’s principled, progressive white voice from the Left. At this historic juncture they dare not go anywhere. Dean has picked up the torch that Sharpton and Kucinich have been carrying and they must stay in the race to make sure he doesn’t set it down. By persevering in pressing the Left edges of the Democratic envelope, the “Two Civilized Men” created the political space for Dean to make his historic break. Although we cannot expect either candidate to rejoice in the frontrunner’s actions, Dean’s leftward march is also their victory over the DLC, and they must defend it – against Dean himself and his newfound allies, if need be.
On the anti-war front, Dean continues to waffle on the nature and length of the Iraq occupation, which makes him an apologist for American Manifest Destiny. Kucinich and Sharpton are the only candidates who call for unequivocal withdrawal. Their job is by no means over.
Sharpton’s singular mission remains the same as when he first declared for the presidency: to present himself as the Black candidate. African Americans are sophisticated, and understand the value of a demonstration; many will vote for Sharpton as a way to make the weight of their electoral presence unmistakably felt. A substantial proportion of Black primary voters will choose Sharpton over any white man, including one with a progressive racial platform – a good result under present circumstances, and one we expect in South Carolina, February 3. (South Carolina Black Rep. James Clyburn has endorsed his congressional colleague, Dick Gephardt.)
Only two people can shut the window that Howard Dean threw open for the national Democratic Party, last Sunday: Dean and Al Sharpton. Dean’s Black advisors, especially Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr., must caution the former Vermont Governor that their presence in his camp does not convey Blackness to the candidate. He must respect and acclimate himself to Sharpton’s mission.
Sharpton must remember that he is not running for King of the Blacks, but is essentially acting as the lead Black organizer in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Dean’s December 7 statement would certainly not have been written without Sharpton in the race. That is a great victory of the Sharpton campaign, one that may shape the future of the nation
I think that Sharpton has to realize that baiting Dean, like over the Confederate flag flap, is self-defeating. The same with being pissed at Gore for endorsing him in Harlem. Instead, it's a sign of not only his personal power, but the resurgence of Harlem as a politically powerful community. It's something that wouldn't have happened in 1992. Bush and his cohorts are looking to exploit any split in Democratic ranks. Too many people's necks are on the line for such self-interested gamesmanship, on anyone's part.
I think if he runs his race, takes his beating, he's not going to pull out, and then works to help the nominee get elected, his national stature will be assured. If he listens to the people who have other agendas, then he's going to get screwed in the process. There is no question, that if he chose, he could be in Congress today. But he plays this game of inside-outside and there's a price to be paid for that.
We've gone over the naughty bits of the holiday business, the drunk boss, the horny married guy looking for a shag and the rest of the unpleasantness with holiday parties. But considering the next two months brings the Christmas Party, the New Year's Party and the Super Bowl Party, it's time to get out of the gutter of our minds and into real gutters, passed out from too much drinking.
It's time to talk about booze and your parties.
The first thing you need to do is realize who'll be coming to the party. If it's all business partners and clients, it's better to have the thing professionally catered, including trained, professional servers. That saves you on liability issues and while it isn't cheap, you can design the menu and walk away.
Then, for less formal occasions, you can go with catered food in a buffet.
Now, let's assume that it's you and your friends and their friends and you're all getting together for a drinkfest kind of thing. What should you do?
It depends on the crowd's tastes. If you all drink at wine bars and chat about new vintages, you need a lot of wine, and maybe a single malt scotch and some micrcobrews for people who aren't (like myself) wine fans. If you know whart CAMRA means and talk about your pen pal the Belgian trappist monk and your painting of the Amstel brewery dominates your den, you know only the finest imported beers and microbrews will cut it.
But for most people, their friends have a mix of tastes and there needs to be a balance of liquor available. What my bar owner friends do, and I pass along is this: well brands for mixed drinks and house brands when it counts. No one cares what brand the triple sec is, or the blue curacao is. People do care about the Tequila.
If you want to serve margaritas, making it with Cuervo is a waste of money. Use a well-brand for a mixed drink like that. Well brands are the cheap versions of gin, vodka and rum. I don't think cheap scotch is worth it. If you're making fancy cocktails, using expensive top-shelf brands is insane. There is no reason to use Tanqueray or Gray Goose in a pitcher of Gin and Tonics or Screwdrivers. There are other ways to spend your money. You want top shelf for drinks where people will notice. It also matters when the party is.
You can use Popov vodka for brunch drinks and no one will care. If you're having a late night party, people might mind that in the vodka and cranberry. The later the party, the better the booze should be. But when you're fixing a pitcher of bloody marys, so much is going in that, the vodka is not the issue. Better to spend the money on a good mix instead. .
What kind of parties will you have to deal with? Let's go over them in terms of booze consumption:
The brunch with family: very light drinking. A pitcher of mixed drinks, some wine, beer
Football sunday: maybe a bottle for shots, a couple for mixed drinks, heavy on the beer
Cocktail hour: full bar, moderate on the beer and wine
Socializing before or after event: heavy on the wine, a mulled rum punch, beer, light on the hard liquor
Holiday party: Full bar, some wine, moderate beer
Super bowl party: half bar, heavy on the beer, a bottle of wine
Each kind of social event has a different balance of booze, but as a rule, the earlier the event is, the more you want to control how much booze is served. You want to offer guests a choice, but limit those choices to a fairly narrow range when it's brunch. If it's an adult party, then you need to ramp up.
What kind of booze to serve? Well, you know your friends. My advice is to supply a lot of what you'll know they'll drink and leave the rest for show. If they like martinis, make martinis. Don't try out your new supply of Chimay on them to prove a point. It's not a taste testing party.
Beer and wine are tricky. Cheap may be appealing, but it doesn't work for a party. I'd do this: buy a house brand wine and concentrate on varieties over quality. Do some research, as the guy in the wine store and then buy a couple of bottles. With beer, you always need at least 12 of the new, hip beer. Micholob Ultra is the beer of the moment. But no matter how refined your taste, include a 12 pack of Coors Light. I hate the stuff, but women seem to love it. People will bring Bud. They always bring Bud. So you can stock up on other, better beers. Now, I drink Bud and Bud Light all the time. But I'm lazy and don't have the energy or cash to buy Sam Adams, Pete's Wicked and the other American microbrews. However, if you know your friends will drink it, American micros are a really good get. I wouldn't go out on a limb and get a case of Anchor Porter for my friends. That's for you and your buddies, not a party. But Sam, Pete's Winter, or Yuengling, which is making a New York resergence, is fine. A few ciders and stouts for mixed beer drinks are also a good idea.
Kegs are for tailgating and teenagers in the woods. Stick with bottles for adults. Kegs are messy and wet and stink like rancid beer the day after.
Mixers. OK, here's a bar trick. Go to Costco/Sam's Mart, Target or any local megalomart. Buy a couple of gallons of juices. Get plastic pourers. Buy six or seven, and fill them up. Hide the big bottles, toss them under the table, whatever. Use the pourers so that your guests don't see how cheap you are.:) What the hell, they're drinking for free anyway. No one cares what the brand is. As long as cranberry and OJ comes out, they'll be happy. Bars use prepackaged juices which come in large silver bags like Capri Sun.
You can cheap out on ginger ale and 7 UP type sodas, but people want Diet Coke and Pepsi. There is really no substitute. Just get the 2-liter bottles. The larger ones are unwieldly.
One thing you want to do is prevent a mess. Which can be done by three simple things: Stick the booze in one place Make sure that people aren't making drinks all over the place. Two, have two tall garbage cans available and empty them at least once during the party. If you're recycling, get a blue can and tell people "dump bottles here". Three, police up stray drinks when you can. Dump them in the sink before you go to bed. Having logged much time in a fraternity house, cleaning at night means breathing in the morning.
I'd also say that you have a firm, no driving drunks rule. Take keys, put them in the basement, call a cab and pay for it. Make sure your guests can get home safe or sleep it off in your place or at a friends.
Another issue is the drunken fighters. Warn them before hand if they can't hold their booze that you'll kick them out. Stick to it. It's your house, your rules. The same with underaged relatives. Tell them that you'll call the cops on them if they booze and you catch them. Make rules, stick to them and avoid the cops coming by.
Budget your booze before you shop. Decide how much you want and get it. Let people buy their own booze if they want more. Stick to what you like. If you like Bacardi O or Bacardi Limon, buy it. Guests are always free to bring their own.
Where to buy all this booze? I would look for a liquor wholesaler, since their prices are lower. But you have to know your state's liquor laws. It may be easier to cross the border of your state for lower prices and fewer restrictions. In New York, only beer is sold in stores seven days a week. Liquor stores are open six days a week. Whereas in New Jersey, liquor wholesalers are open seven days a week, but beer, wine and liquor are sold only in liquor stores. As a rule, sodas are cheaper in wholesalers than at the supermarket unless there is a sale.
Food at these parties is a range of choices and that's what we'll discuss next.
This is just simply amazing writing. I read it and was stunned. You have to read the whole thing and just enjoy it. This is what I try to do on my good days. Not every day is as good as this.
But for all my adventures, it was all rather cynical, I suppose. Pop psychology would surely call it "intimacy issues". The older I got the more I liked to spend time on my own. This whole love thing wasn't panning out the way I had hoped, and there seemed too many compromises. Not to mention that even the two or three times I had been in love, wildly in love, I couldn't imagine spending "forever" with any of them. I was beginning to believe that the whole "lid for every pot" thing was bullshit, but I was oddly comfortable with that. I wasn't afraid of spinsterism because I knew I could do it brilliantly. I could still have lovers and guy friends and the occasional absurdist fling, so who needs a soul-mate? I'd be good at this spinster thing.
But the one man I continually discussed these matters with, my one guy buddy who knew of my junior league tart days straight through to my days of being bound and flogged, the one man who knew of my desire to boldly reinvent spinsterhood, well, he turned out to be my luckiest break yet.
One night while playing Telephone True Confessions, we began spilling our deepest darkest secrets to each other. We shared a litany of shames and regrets and secret longings. I had always thought he was cute and sexy, but far too valuable to fuck and therefore, fuck things up with. Everything about him seemed to deserve my most careful consideration. But I must admit, after Telephone True Confessions, I began having uncontrollable urges regarding LushBoy, this most special of friends. Just as we were about to hang up, LushBoy seemed to stall. This led to intimations that he had another big secret to share. There was much hemming and hawing, but LushBoy was very reluctant and left his final confession for another day. I went to bed that night in a hell of curiosity, waking the next day to find an e-mail that explained it all.
LushBoy was, in fact, an innocent. A virgin. I was reeling. Do they even make those anymore? Is anyone even born a virgin these days, let alone a virgin at 30? LushBoy became even more exotic to me than before, and I felt even more amazed to know him. Imagine me, jaded little me, knowing an innocent! It was ludicrous and delicious and when I called him that day all delightfully a-twitter, he wondered aloud what I thought he was going to say. In perhaps my only unguarded moment since the beginning of time, I answered; "I was hoping you would say you liked me!"
As a soldier deployed in Iraq, I hear all the complaints from individuals who think they have it worse than the next guy. I’m lucky enough to be with soldiers who often complain amongst themselves, but all they expect are good leadership and three square meals a day.
As part of the main push during major combat, our battalion was scattered all over the battlefield. We supported other units and paved the way (and roads) that others would use to get to the front lines. Our D9 teams helped push units as famous as the 101st Airborne Division from Kuwait to as far as Mosul. We took mine blasts and got shot at as we breached obstacles and cleared roads. Again, all we asked for was leadership and three squares a day.
During the war, Meals, Ready to Eat were naturally the way to go. They were appreciated, even by the vegetarians who had only crackers and cheese after the veggie meals were gone. Now that we’re stationed at Baghdad International Airport almost 10 months later, my soldiers believe that several comforts have finally arrived for them, like the post exchange and dining facility. But imagine their dismay when they walked 15 minutes to the Bob Hope Dining Facility, only to find that they were turned away from their evening meal because they were in the wrong unit.
The one thing that they find a requirement was denied to them. They understand that President Bush ate there and that upgraded security was required. But why were only certain units turned away? Why wasn’t there a special meal for President Bush and that unit in the new dance hall adjoining the 1st Armored Division’s band building? And all of this happened on Thanksgiving, the best meal of the year when soldiers get a taste of home cooking.
Were the local national servers also kept out of the building because of security reasons? Regardless, my soldiers chose to complain amongst themselves and eat MREs, even after the chow hall was reopened for “usual business” at 9 p.m. As a leader myself, I’d guess that other measures could have been taken to allow for proper security and still let the soldiers have their meal.
Sgt. Loren Russell
Iraq
Paul Begala mentioned this story on Crossfire today, and of course, Bob Novak said the soldier in question was lying. It seems, however, that he was not. Imagine having MRE's for Thanksgiving. Yeah.
This is the explaination the Army gave for the delay in serving the troops:
For security reasons, only those pre-selected got into the facility during Bush’s visit. But not one was denied their meal that day, according to Lt. Col. Mark Olinger, deputy chief of staff for Logistics for the Army’s 1st Armored Division.
For six months, Army planners coordinated and prepped for the holiday, and picked the Bob Hope Dining Facility at the Baghdad International Airport because it would allow the maximum number of soldiers to participate, he said. Other locations could accommodate 100 soldiers at most.
“Over 600 soldiers attended the event, who cheered and jumped to their feet when he entered,” Olinger said.
The soldiers who dined while the president visited were selected by their chain of command, and were notified a short time before the visit, said Olinger and Capt. David Gercken, a 1st AD spokesman.
“The hours for the dining facilities were published and publicized well prior to Thanksgiving,” Gercken said. “In particular, the dining facility at the airport maintained the same hours it posted prior to the president’s visit. The meal for the president was an additional meal.”
Combine that with the delay that the takeoff of AF 1, complete with pissed off soldiers unable to leave, Bush's sneak thief trip was a lot less than it should have been. The problem wasn't the ones preselected, which is frightening on it's own, after all, a group of US soldiers shouldn't be considered a security threat, but the ones who weren't.
Here we go again, the Bushies plan, it looks ok at first blush and then blows up on them.
By Steve Liewer, Stars and Stripes
European edition, Friday, December 12, 2003
WÜRZBURG, Germany — Plagued with anxiety, driven by addiction to painkillers and yearning to see his newborn son, Spc. Marcus Lee couldn’t stand to spend another day in Iraq.
So on July 1, 3½ months into his tour at Sustainer Air Base in Balad, Lee grabbed his M-16 rifle from the weapons rack of the 3rd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, and walked outside behind the tent. He sat down on a water jug, chambered a round, aimed the rifle at his foot, and fired.
“I knew I wanted to get out of Iraq and be with my son,� he said. “I mentally quit. I gave up being a soldier because I wanted to be a father.�
The gunshot did earn Lee a trip back to his home base in Giebelstadt, Germany, for medical treatment and a court-martial. But the reunion with his wife, Susanne, 19, and his son, Anthony, came with a price.
Lee pleaded guilty Wednesday to charges of injuring himself to avoid duty, wrongful use of the prescription drug Percocet, and trying to bribe a medic to give him the drug. Lt. Col. Robin Hall, the military judge, sentenced him to two years in prison, reduction to the lowest enlisted rank and a bad-conduct discharge
Two businessmen instrumental in setting up New Bridge Strategies, a well-connected Washington firm designed to help clients win contracts in Iraq, have previously used an association with the younger brother of President George W. Bush to seek business in the Middle East, an FT investigation has found.
John Howland, the company president, and Jamal Daniel, a principal, have maintained an important business relationship with Neil Bush stretching back several years. In Mr Daniel's case, the relationship spans more than a decade, with his French office arranging a trip for Mr Bush's family to Disneyland Paris in 1992, while his father, George H.W.Bush, was president.
On several occasions, the two have attempted to exploit their association with the president's brother to help win business and investors.
Three people contacted by the FT have seen letters written by Neil Bush recommending business ventures promoted by Mr Howland, Mr Daniel and his family in the Middle East. Mr Daniel has also had his photograph taken with the elder Mr Bush. Such letters and photographs can be valuable props when doing business in the Middle East.
The reading list is up and running. The first thing you should note is that the books in the first column are my top choices, the reading list doesn't overlap. So if a book is there, it's a reading list book.
I've added some of the suggestions from you, which were really well thought out. There is only one fictional work, Christian Bauman's The Ice Beneath. If someone wants to build a relevant fiction list, I'll link to it, but I wanted to stick rigorously to non-fiction. I've read maybe half of the books I'm recommending and have gotten a couple as gifts over the years. The first book is William Slim's Defeat Into Victory. I think this is probably the best memoir from a general officer written in WWII and one of the finest books on leadership ever written. I didn't include a lot of others people may have liked, but I think I have a wide range of really good books. I will be adding more as time goes on.
In the politics section, I tried to include some of the classics of the genre, like Beard and Hofsteader and not just the rantings of reporters.
As far as the cooking books go, I didn't include any Food Network chefs or trendies. I like Nigella Lawson just fine. I like big breasted brunettes, as a rule. I do not, however, like her cooking. Nor do I like most celebrity chefs cooking, at the ones who become famous for their showmanship over their cooking. Instead, I've included people like Alice Waters, James Beard, the CIA's cooking at home guide (I wanted to include the Professional Chef, but how many people really need that. It is, however, a most impressive and detailed book). I also included the Robert Parker and Michael Jackson books. If you are unfamiliar with them, Parker, a former lawyer, is the leading expert on French wine. Even the vintners of Bordeaux respect his opinions. Jackson, a former British reporter, is the world's leading expert on beer and single malt scotch. Jackson, nearly singlehandedly save the fresh British beer industry and his reviews of microbrews caused them to explode in the US. I didn't want the easy books, but the ones I rely on when I need information.
If you're English, you're familiar with Delia Smith, who, more or less, is the Julia Child of the UK. When she retired from doing TV, it was a leading article in the Guardian and the BBC. Her guides on how to cook are lavishly illustrated and clearly written.
My goal in the cooking books was to get a collection of books by well regarded chefs, not people famous for being on TV. I don't have any Asian or American cook books, yet, but they'll be added.
Why did I avoid the Emerils and Jamie Olivers of the world? Well, mostly because their books are about them as much as they are about the food. And there are a lot of good cookbooks. I don't really care about Emeril's opinons on seafood or his fancy restaurants. I want people who are only talking about the food. Waters is a clear exception, so is Lidia Bastianich and Rick Bayless.
The one book I included and which I found surprisingly impressive, was Cooking for Dummies. Don't be fooled by the title. It's written by Bryan Miller, one of the Times better food reviewers. He's no Ruth Reichl, but this is a good book which people should not turn their noses up at. If you have someone learning to cook, this is far more accessable than the Joy of Cooking.
There were some non-starters, like Lukins and Russo and Martha Stewart, and for the same reason: their recipes don't work on too many occasions. Of course, the fact that both started out as caterers and turned on their partners is not surprising. I wanted books by people who actually cooked and knew about the food.
The odds and ends section includes some basic writing books and some DVD's of political films. On Writing Well is the best writing book I have ever read. I not only keep a copy, I gave it as a gift to my friend for her last birthday. That's how much I like that book.
I'll continue to add to the list and if you're looking for gift ideas, this is a good place to start.
In an article in today's New York Times, the commander of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, ripped into the Army's tactics in Iraq. The article went into detail about how badly the Army is mangling their mission without saying so.
The Army and the Marines have never agreed on how to fight wars. They have very different approaches to combat and it's clear nothing has changed. Two infantry forces, two very different philosophies on warfighting. Some, like David Hackworth, have called for a single ground combat force, but that's as likely as a single air force. The Marines have very different ideas on war, and the latest commandant has made that clear by authorizing a Marines-only camoflauge uniform.
What the commander, MG James Conway, said, by omission, was that the Army was out of their minds with their Central European heavy armor tactics. He especially eviscerated the command of the 4ID, without saying the command staff should be fired, which I think is his barely private opinion.
The Marines, General Conway says, will try to design their raids to be "laser precise," focused on the enemy with a maximum effort made to avoid endangering or humiliating Iraqi civilians.
After American forces invaded Iraq last spring, United States marines fought some of the fiercest battles of the war at Nasiriya and at a mosque in eastern Baghdad. After Saddam Hussein was ousted, the Marines assumed the responsibility for stabilizing south-central Iraq, where most of the inhabitants are Shiite Muslims who were persecuted under Mr. Hussein and were glad to see him gone. In contrast to the Army's experience, no marine was killed in action after mid-April.
The Marines insist their success also reflected their energetic efforts to work with the local population, an effort guided by their "Small Wars" manual, which derives from their 20th-century interventions in Central America.
There were several parallels between the Marine experience in southern Iraq and how the Army's 101st Airborne Division has approached northern Iraq — and many differences from the aggressive tactics of the Army's Fourth Infantry Division and other Army units in the Sunni triangle.
The Marines are no fans of the 101st, a hostility which goes back to the relief of Khe Sahn in 1968, but they see that at least the 101 is run by competent commanders. The barely concealed contempt for the command of the 4 ID has exploded out of his mouth. The Marines also have little hidden disdain for the 82nd ABN, the other ragingly trigger happy unit in central Iraq. In short, they are dismayed that the Army has taken such an aggressive stand with the Iraqi people. It's clear, while Conway can't say this, he has to be dismayed by the total lack of Army fire discipline.
Why can't he say it?
Well, this goes back 60 years to the battle of Saipan. Little remembered outside the History Channel set, it was one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific War. Saipan had been a Japanese colony and was the lynchpin of the Northern Mariana Islands approaching Japan. The US Army wanted the island as an anchorage and air base. It and it's neighboring island of Tinian would be the home for the US 20th Air Force in the last year of the war.
After two days of fighting, the division attack against the main Japanese defensive belt had stalled. The 2nd Marine Division was on the outskirts of Garapan and near the summit of Mount Tapotchau. The 27th Infantry Division had made very little progress against the stiff Japanese defense amongst the rugged terrain. The 4th Marine Division had overrun the majority of the Peninsula and was nearing the eastern side of the island. However, the main Japanese defense on Mount Tapotchau remained. The American forces were now bent into a U-shape, with the 27th Infantry Division at the center of the U with the two marine divisions at each end. This bend was over 1,500 yards deep and exposed the flanks of the marine divisions to attacks by the Japanese. During these two days of fighting the 2nd Marine Division lost 333 men, the 27th Infantry Division lost 277 men, and the 4th Marine Division lost 812 men. During this battle, the American artillery and tanks were generally useless in a jungle environment filled with broken terrain. The fighting was mainly man-to-man with mortars and machineguns providing the heavy firepower. Close air support was not overly present due to the Battle of the Philippine Sea and was of limited use against the Japanese infantry in any case. Only direct fire and small assaults could defeat the Japanese soldiers who were hiding in caves, ravines, and gullies.
On 25 June, H. Smith decided that the poor performance of the 27th Infantry Division was due to its lack of command and he decided to ask that R. Smith be relived of his command. After he talked this over with Turner the two of them approached Spruance. H. Smith stated that R. Smith had issued orders to units not under his command and contravened H. Smith's orders. H. Smith also stated that the 27th Infantry Division was late in conducting its attack on Mount Tapotchau and therefore it slowed the movement of its flanking marine divisions, causing them to suffer unnecessary losses.
The relief of R. Smith probably did not make any real difference in the aggressiveness of the 27th Infantry Division. However, it did stir up a Marine Corps / Army controversy. On Saipan itself, marines began to look down on the 27th Infantry Division soldiers and the army soldiers resented H. Smith for relieving their commander and the implications made on the fighting capability of the division. Off of the island the controversy grew much greater, with several Army generals going so far as to recommending to Lieutenant General Robert C. Richardson, commander of all Army forces in the Pacific, that H. Smith was extremely prejudiced against army forces and that no Army forces should ever be put under his command again!
Major General Sanderford Jarman, who was on Saipan to take charge of the garrison operation after the Japanese were defeated, assumed temporary command of the 27th Infantry Division from 24 to 28 June. On 28 June, Major General George W. Griner, Jr. assumed command of the 27th Infantry Division. However, when he assumed command of the division, he was surprised to find out that he only had control of four infantry battalions, the rest of the division was under Corps command. Griner was told by H. Smith that he would have to "earn" the rest of the division back. By 5 July, the 27th Infantry Division and the 4th Marine Division had captured Mount Tapotchau and had pushed northward up the narrowing island. Due to this narrowing of the front, the 2nd Marine Division was pulled into reserve. By 6 July, Griner regained the control of all of the 27th Infantry Division's units. On 7 July, three thousand Japanese soldiers conducted a bonzai charge against the 27th Infantry Division. The Japanese soldiers were armed with only grenades and bayonets, yet they broke through the 27th Infantry Division on the western flank near the coast. The Japanese soldiers destroyed two infantry battalions and were only stopped by marines of the 2nd Marine Division after the Japanese had passed through the 27th Infantry Division's sector. By this time, H. smith had had enough of the 27th infantry Division and various reports state that he ordered the entire division withdrawn from Saipan. In reality, only the decimated battalions were withdrawn from Saipan by destroyers. However, H. Smith did order the 27th Infantry Division into reserve and vowed that he would never use the division again.
The Army has never forgiven or forgotten the Marines relief of Smith on Saipan and have generally avoided placing soldiers under Marine command when possible. His relief of the commander of the 27th cost the Marine general Smith his career. The emnity he created with the Army hurt him more than the Army. The Marines own grievances against the Army start with the relief of Khe Sahn when the 1st Cavalry Division and the 101st ABN took credit for relieving the siege when the Marines had basically stood off the North Vietnamese attacks.
At it's core, the Marines and the Army have two very different philosophies about how to wage war. The Army believes in firepower. They think bullets do a better job than men whenever possible. If they can send artillery into a place over a patrol, out go the rounds. The Marines believe in precise ordinance delivery. Which is why all Marine pilots are trained as infantry. Their Air Ground liason teams can deliver anything from ship to shore to B-52 raids accurately. When the Marines call in the big guns, they want to know what will be hit on the other side of them.
The Army believes firepower saves lives. The Army doctrine is to use overwhelming force when possible. The idea is to scare the crap out any enemy and mow them down when they appear.
One outcome of that is the Marine obsession with marksmanship. They place an emphasis on accurate shooting and the idea that every Marine is a rifleman. That's not just a slogan, either. The Army tends to treat ground combat as a speciality. Army infantrymen, the 11B's (the Marines Infantry MOS is 300), are a breed a part. Other soldiers tend to look at the infantry the way one looks at rare animals, as if "oh my god, they really can do that". And I'm not talking about clerks either. My friend was a medic in an engineer battalion and an artillery officer and he was amazed when an infantry platoon appeared out of the dark one night.
Marines tend to look at being a Marine as being amazing and the job being less important. Since everyone has basic infantry skills, there is much less drooling over the infantrymen in the Marine Corps.
The big dispute is a simple one, and it's called movement to contact. The Marines believe that the closer you get to the enemy, the less options they have. In Vietnam, this meant higher Marine casualities than army casualities, because the Army wanted to pound the NVA in the open. The Marines have also been stepchildren when it comes to weapons systems compared to the Army. Marine units didn't get M-1's until after the Gulf War and still use Cobra attack helicopters. a 35 year old weapons system, replaced 10 years ago by the Apache in the Army. They also use the Huey which was replaced 15 years ago by the Blackhawk in Army service.
The Marine approach makes sense, but then the Marines were dealing with the Shia and not the Sunni heartland. If they face a Shia rebellion, they may well face the same decisions that the Army has faced. But what goes unsaid in the article is the Marines belief that Army discipline is lacking. Morale, fire discipline, a whole range of issues which they cannot raise for political reasons. They cannot say the 4 ID is run by ignorant cowboys, although Conway makes his disdain as clear as can be and has done so in the past. I cannot imagine a Marine commander happy to read about the trigger happy ways of the 82nd ABN or the vehivcle addicted patrols of the Army. What they would say, if they could, is that the Army is completely unable to do the basics of infantry work, to work with the locals without making them hate you.
The other great divide among the Marines and Army is among the use of Special Operations. The Marines have spread a lot of Special Ops training across their ground forces. Marine Recon is the highest level of Spec Ops, but there is a lot of quick reaction force training among deployed units. There is a much more stark division in the Army, where regular troops tend to hate the Special Forces, regarding them as arrogant pricks. The Army has a clear hierarchy of elites, starting with the 101st, then the 82nd, Rangers, Special Forces and then Delta Force. Delta is the elite of the elite, the rarified counter-terrorist/CIA allied force. At each level of elite, the disdain for the infantry yokel grows. In return, the average 11B hates the arrogant Special Forces trooper. Meanwhile the SF trooper regards his infantry collegue as barely trained and incompetant. This isn't just a feeling among enlisted ranks. This division is partly what cost Wes Clark his NATO command.
The fact is that over history, both approaches have been valid. In Vietnam, the Army was more right than wrong, in Iraq the Marines may well be right, but the sad fact is that time has passed for such common sense solutions. The Marines may well land in a bloody shooting war when they return to Iraq.
For many people who voted for Gore and were dismayed to see Bush placed in the White House, his endorsement of Howard Dean mattered. It put the seal of approval on him in a way only the Clintons could have trumped. A lot of people who had heard the name, but weren't paying attention, have suddenly decided to listen to Dean and his message.
The DC kool kids, inured to real life, don't really understand how pissed people are. They just don't see it. Clark, surprisingly, is awakening to that as well, as he hammers the Bushies on their foreign policy. I think if you aren't a pundit, you don't get what has happened to America under Bush. When Bush took office, people were just begining to get laid off and just feeling the effects of the dotcom bust. Now, three years later, they've lost their life savings and are happy to get part time work, their unemployment benefits a distant memory.
But that's par for their course. They never got Clinton and wondered why people weren't enraged over blowjobs. So why would they get Dean and a long hoped for (at least in Dem circles) grassroots movement. It's not just Dean, it's Clark as well, maybe even more Clark than Dean. People chide him for coming into the race late, but without those blogs and those sites, he wouldn't be in it at all. And he's just as clear a manifestation of the anger of people as Dean, but they're angry at the way Bush has treated our allies, the Internationalist crowd. The people who need to make their livings with Europe and Asia. Which ever candidate it is, there is a clear anger at Bush which the SCLM is missing, just like they missed the widespread support Clinton had among ordinary people and why his wife is my Senator. I knew she would win the minute Tim Russert asked her about her marriage. It was a fatal mistake. People who may not have liked her, knew that no one should have to be that humilitated.Then Rick Lazio started screaming at the petite Clinton and that was it. A legion of housewives were going to vote for her, no matter what they told their husbands. Two bullies attacking a petite woman did her a legion of good.
People trusted and liked Al Gore and knew he'd help make their lives better. So his endorsment had a disproportionate effect on the race, based on his stature.
Lieberman's whining is pathetic. His support of the war and big business is anathama to millions of Democrats. As Mike Tomasky pointed out on TAP, Lieberman had name recogition and the lead in the polls. How is it Gore's fault that he squandered them. And with Iowa turning towards Dean, the press is left gasping for a theme. This week, it's Gore's "betrayal", which is horseshit. Lieberman was running to endorse Bush's war, an idea Gore was distinctly unhappy with. So what was he supposed to do? Squander his endorsement on a man half the party detests for his rampant moralizing?
Gore used a force multiiplier. He endorsed the man who would most likely benefit from that endorsement. And that is called politics.
In our quest for capitalist success, we're now selling calendars. Someone sent me a link and I'm going to try it out. After all, we all need to keep track of the days. So, when you go calendar shopping, stick some money in my pocket. I won't get rich and obviously we won't be selling them after January 15, or some other not too obnoxious date in the near future.
The calendars along the side are my favorites, but once you click the link, you can order any one you want and I'll get a kickback.
Hey, each thing you buy puts money in my wallet. Hey, at least it's not the CPA :)
Marines Plan to Use Velvet Glove More Than Iron Fist in Iraq
By MICHAEL R. GORDON
Published: December 12, 2003
CAMP PENDLETON, Calif., Dec. 10 — No force has a tougher reputation than the United States Marines. But the marines who are headed to Iraq this spring say they intend to avoid the get-tough tactics that have been used in recent weeks by Army units.
Marine commanders say they do not plan to surround villages with barbed wire, demolish buildings used by insurgents or detain relatives of suspected guerrillas. The Marines do not plan to fire artillery at suspected guerrilla mortar positions, an Army tactic that risks harming civilians. Nor do the Marines want to risk civilian casualties by calling in bombing strikes on the insurgents, as has happened most recently in Afghanistan.
"I do not envision using that tactic," said Lt. Gen. James T. Conway, the commanding general of the First Marine Expeditionary Force, who led the Marine force that fought its way to Baghdad and will command the more than 20,000 marines who will return to Iraq in March. "It would have to be a rare incident that transcends anything that we have seen in the country to make that happen."
The short version: The Army has no fucking clue as how to do their job. Artillery? Bombing raids? Are they fucking kidding me? And they call US jarheads?
The problem for the Marines is that by the time they turn to Iraq, they may face the same situation the Army does. The Marines had it easy because the Shia weren't killing US troops. I don't care what the article says, this is an open condemnation of Army tactics, specifically the leadership of the 4ID. But the Marines may well face open armed opposition when they return, depending on where they're stationed, with even less Iraqi help.
I'm looking for suggestions for books for my reading list, which I'm compiling as you read this. So send me your best politics, history and cooking books. And thanks for the four readers who have purchased books through Amazon via this site. So if you feel the need to shop Amazon, do it through the site and let me get the kickback. :)
This is from a Canadian reporter just back from Iraq:
CD: In the past you have especially noted the poor morale of US soldiers on the ground. Is morale getting better or worse, in your opinion? And did Bush's much-hyped Thanksgiving visit raise spirits as much as the media said it did?
ST: Every American soldier would have known instantly that the Bush visit was a pile of stage-managed crap. At even the best protected US headquarters, the troops are required to take their weapons and webbing everywhere. You won't see them head to the toilet without a rifle. But at Bush's turkey slicing, there wasn't a weapon in sight. Obviously it would have sent a different message to the US public to see their soldiers hunkered down in fear as they are in reality. If Bush indeed was even really at the Baghdad airport, his plane must have departed a long time before they released the "live" footage of Bush's speech. (My Iraqi driver lives very near the airport).
For the average Iraqi citizen, the content of Bush's speech was very symbolic. "This means the US is now claiming to be still winning the war that it claimed to have won back in May" was how Lela Al Saadi (my driver's wife) summed it up.
CD: Did any soldiers comment specifically on Bush's visit?
ST: One comment that I got from a US soldier about Bush was in regards to the 21 November peace rally in London, England. "If I could have been there I would have helped pull down that (mock) statue myself," said Sergeant Nystrom, a 24 year-old serving with the 173rd Airborne Brigade in Kirkuk. It is interesting to note that every one of the dozens of US personnel I spoke with claimed they were going to get out of the Army as soon as possible. One female Military Policewoman even asked if Canada would accept AWOL US troops as "refugees" from the war.
Of all the cusines misunderstood by Americans, Mexican food is the one. It's not just burritos, tacos and enchiladas. The subtlely and complexity of Mexican food has only recently reached New York and we're getting the rustic, Puebla kind. Puebla is the home of most of New York's Mexican community. So we get tacos with soft flour tortillas, without cheese, the kind you fill with meat. Down the block from me is a little stand which sells the most amazing chili covered pork on a spit. Just delicious, enough to get my Puerto Rican and black neighbors to stand in line and eat the little tacos they sell.
They sell lengua, beef tongue, and chorizo as well as pork in a big, flat vat outdoors. When it's boiled up it's not a pretty site, but the smell is killer.
The thing about Mexican food, to be kind, is quality control. They still use lard and other ingrediants which may leave most anglos a little leery. Not that Mexican food can be so narrowly classified. If anyone is truly interested, pick one of Diana Kennedy's or Rick Bayless's cook books. It's among the most subtle cusines going. Americans like to emphasize the heat and meat aspects, but Mexican food is shockingly more sophisticated more than most of what Americans eat, the subtlety of mole and seafood lost to most people who don't eat it on a regular basis. But quality control is an issue. Even Mexicans admit this, and many shop in the US when they can.
But with the increasing options that Americans, now New Yorkers, have in getting fresh peppers, Mexican ingredients means we can fix our own food.
Taco Bell is Mexican-American food, not Mexican. So are most of the US-based chains. The flavors are moderated, the heat lessened, the ingredients changed.
Chorizo is the Spanish world's spicy sausage. You can buy it in little packages from Goya, fresh from butchers or pre-packaged. But the problem is that they don't exactly use cherce meats, well if you consider ligaments non-choice and it can be very, very spicy. While it has a wonderful flavor, the heat can overwhelm. But if you want something a little different, I have a suggestion for mock chorizo, which could go especially well with eggs or in chili.
Take ground meat, turkey or chicken over beef, after all, you can buy chorizo in a store ahd cook it in a frying pan, cast iron recommended. slather in hot sauce, chili powder, onion and garlic powder and some pepper. You can get good Mexican hot sauce in most supermarkets. Then cook the meat hard. You want it to be grainy and cooked brown. If you were fixing chorizo, you would get this consistancy, at least I have at Mexican taco stands. This grainy consistancy is packed with as much heat as you can stand.
Why do it like this? A lot less fat and you control the flavor. Not everyone likes a lot of heat or the porky fat in chorizo. It also allows you to add flavor to ground meat chilis and baked goods like empenadas. So you can have two flavors from one package of ground meat without the fat. It also kicks up nachos and other goods while allowing you to regulate the heat.
I think people need to get beyond the Mexican snack food cult of Taco Bell and the chains and experiement with more sophisticated flavors and different ingredients, now widely availble in most American supermarkets. Get some cookbooks, experienment with the grill and the more complex flavors from Mexico and see if you aren't impressed.
From today's press inquisition and torture session:
THE PRESIDENT: I'll answer a couple of questions -- that would be two questions. Terry.
Q Mr. President, what did the leaders of France, Russia and Germany say to you yesterday about being excluded from contracts, reconstruction contracts in Iraq? And can those countries be considered for the contract if they forgive debt that's owed by Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT: Let me make sure everybody understands that men and women from our country, who proudly wear our uniform, risked their life to free Iraq. Men and women from other countries, in a broad coalition, risked their lives to free Iraq. And the expenditure of U.S. dollars will reflect the fact that U.S. troops and other troops risked their life.
Now, we want to work with all countries. We have a common goal, and that is to see that Iraq is free and peaceful. It is in every nation's interest that Iraq be free and peaceful. And we welcome contributions, we welcome people's willingness to participate in this difficult, yet important job of rebuilding Iraq.
Holland.
Q Sir, Chancellor Schroeder says international law must apply in this case. What's you're understanding of the law?
THE PRESIDENT: International law? I better call my lawyer; he didn't bring that up to me. I asked President Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder and President Putin to see Jim Baker, to talk about debt restructuring. If these countries want to participate in helping the world become more secure by enabling Iraq to emerge as a free and peaceful country, one way to contribute is through debt restructuring. And so Jim Baker, with the consent of the Secretary of State, is going to go over and talk to these leaders about that. But I don't know what you're talking about, about international law. I've got to consult my lawyer.
Q Can I clarify one thing?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may clarify something.
Q Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Depends on what it is, though. (Laughter.)
Q Same issue.
THE PRESIDENT: Okay.
Q You seem to be saying that the boots on the ground are the only qualifications for -- but what about the forgiveness of debt? Isn't that a fairly substantial --
THE PRESIDENT: It is, it would be a significant contribution, for which we would be very grateful. What I'm saying is, in the expenditure of taxpayer's money -- and that's what we're talking about now -- the U.S. people, the taxpayers understand why it makes sense for countries that risk lives to participate in the contracts in Iraq. It's very simple. Our people risk their lives. Coalition -- friendly coalition folks risk their lives, and, therefore, the contracting is going to reflect that. And that's what the U.S. taxpayers expect
Is he kidding? Iraq owes the Russians a ton of money and Putin, the man who's soul Bush said he saw, looked as happy as Tony Soprano when he heard the news.
I think, translated from the Russian, the conversation went like this:
This motherfucker says we don't get none of the Iraq action, and then he sends his consigliare to buy up Iraq's markers?Look at the balls on this guy. He wants us to kick in so we can get a cut to recover our money. Well, fuck him. We're not giving him no capos, no soldiers, not a fucking thing. He's got a set of balls on him to ignore our advice, steal the business for himself and then act like our markers don't mean shit? And then, on top of that, ask us for a big fucking favor? Hey, to make it in life you gotta get along to go along. If Gazprom don't get no play, we wanna get paid. We didn't lend that money to that putz Saddam, but Iraq and it's Iraq that has to pay. We ain't forgiving shit. Let that asshole Baker come to a sitdown. I got message for him: where's my fucking pretzel money. I don't wanna hear his shit, I want the fucking money. And if he don't got the money and we know he don't, he better have a fucking cut on the table. Anything else means he's pulling our chain, capiche.
I don't think the French or Germans were any happier.
Bush can be snide all he wants, but the fact is that the US needs to share the burden with more than Guatemala. Look, even the Brits are shaking their heads at this moronic action. Bush may want to spend time becoming aquainted with international law, since he certainly deserves a trip to the Hague. But his smug, arrogant answer, like so many things, will come to bite him, and us in the ass. Anyone who thinks the Europeans are going to continue to die in Iraq need only remind themselves of Bush's smug, halfwit answer.
Does he think he can bully everyone?
The U.S. military has given hundreds of its troops electricity-spewing taser guns, rubber bullets, and other so-called "non-lethal" weapons to help keep order in Iraq. One of the reasons why, according to a report prepared for the Army: Saddam's thugs used such tactics, too.
"The previous regime used batons to beat the populace, and electrical torture devices on dissidents. Thus judicious use and control of the riot baton and introduction of the TASER has intimidated the former members of the regime, and saved soldiers and civilians lives," reads a personal report, circulating through the Defense Department, from recently retired Lt. Col. Wesley "Bo" Barbour, now a contract employee for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command.
Earlier this year, Barbour lead an Army team that trained 110 soldiers in the use of tasers and other weapons designed to hurt, not to kill. The idea is to give G.I.'s a way to quell resistance, control crowds and subdue prisoners of war - without causing unwanted Iraqi civilian casualties.
"These are tools to enable commanders to break the cycle of violence," Barbour said. "Instead of shooting them dead and promoting further violence, you modify their behavior."
The taser's value as a particularly ferocious behavior-modification tool became clear at a prisoner-of-war camp holding "high-value detainees currently depicted in the 'deck of cards'" -- the list of the 55 most wanted leaders of Saddam Hussein's government.
Members of the 800th Military Police Brigade had to use lethal force several times to quell prisoner uprisings, the report says. But such rebellions reportedly came to an end after a military police officer demonstrated the taser's power--more than 50,000 volts of electricity, enough to cause muscles to fail after a shock of a few seconds.
"Holy shit! That was the expression" when the prisoners saw the taser demonstration, said Sergeant Major Charles Slider, with the Military Police School based out of Ft. Leonard Wood, Missouri. He was part of Barbour's team in Iraq. "They moved away, they got it in line. It was a significant event for them."
When the history of the occupation of Iraq is written, there will be many factors to point to when explaining the post-conquest descent into chaos and disorder, from the melting away of Saddam's army to the Pentagon's failure to make adequate plans for the occupation. But historians will also consider the lack of experience and abundant political connections of the hundreds of American bureaucrats sent to Baghdad to run Iraq through the Coalition Provisional Authority.
It's not that Americans lack such experience. In the last decade particularly, many American officials acquired a great deal of expertise in post-conflict reconstruction in places like Bosnia, Kosovo, East Timor and in post-Communist countries in Eastern Europe and around the globe--expertise that could have been put to good use at the CPA. ...
In their place, the architects of the war chose card-carrying Republicans--operatives, flacks, policy-wonks and lobbyists--for almost every key assignment in the country. Some marquee examples include U.S. civil administrator Paul Bremer's senior advisor and liaison to Capitol Hill, Tom Korologos, one of the most powerful GOP lobbyists on Capitol Hill. Then there's the man in charge of privatizing Iraq's 200-odd state owned companies, Tom Foley, a venture capitalist and high-flying GOP fundraiser. Foley was one of the Bob Dole's top-ten career donors, Connecticut finance chair for Bush 2000 and a classmate of the president's from Harvard Business School.
The chief advisor to the Agriculture Ministry is Dan Amstutz, a Reagan administration veteran who until recently served as the president of the North American Export Grain Association. Oxfam's Director of Policy Kevin Watkins recently quipped that with his record of opening up developing economies to cheap American agricultural exports, "putting Dan Amstutz in charge of agricultural reconstruction in Iraq is like putting Saddam Hussein in the chair of a human rights commission." The presence of so many GOP lobbyists and fat-cats on the CPA roster has led many to suspect that the staffing was driven by the desire to award prized contracts to friendly companies and campaign donors. There is more than a little truth in those impressions. But a closer look paints a more complex picture.
.................
Who runs the Ministry of Education? The chief American advisor to the Minister of Education is Williamson Evers, a school voucher advocate and Libertarian activist from the Hoover Institution who was an education policy advisor on the Bush 2000 campaign. The first of Evers's two deputies is Leslye Arsht, a Republican education policy wonk who served as deputy press secretary under Ronald Reagan and then in the Department of Education under George H.W. Bush. Evers's second deputy was Jim Nelson, President George W. Bush's education commissioner from when he was governor of Texas. (Nelson recently returned stateside.)
CPA officials say that the older GOP functionaries do a reasonable job keeping their partisanship publicly under wraps. But the younger Republicans in Iraq spend much of their time plotting against the Democrats. "Everything is seen in the context of the election, and how they will screw the Democrats," said one CPA official. "It was really pretty shocking to hear them talk."
"They are all on the campaign trail," said another official. "They see this as a stepping stone to a better job in the next Bush administration." "I don't always know if they are Republicans," said yet another senior CPAer. "But what is clear is that they know nothing about development, and nothing about transitional economies." They're trying to do the right thing, this official adds, "but they do what they do without any knowledge of how the post-war world works in reality. They come up with hare-brained schemes that cause so many problems they take more time to fix than to create."
This is criminal. They've staffed the CPA with ideological soulmates and get nothing done. The Army is bearing the burden of reconstruction in Iraq. What does the CPA lack? Well, the Arabists and reconstruction experts that would make it a viable organization. Instead, they play hide the salami and partisan games while Iraqis live in sewage covered streets and get shot at daily. So many dead that they have to stop counting them. This isn't a joke or a cute story, Iraqis are dying because Bush staffed Iraq with an amen choir of neo-cons.
These people have ideas, but no experience in the Arab world, no understanding of Iraqi culture. Because they are so ineffective, this burden has been shifted to the Army and the Army shouldn't be doing reconstruction. The Army should be providing security. The CPA should be using Iraqis to rebuild schools and make Iraq work. There is no shortage of educated, intelligent Iraqis who could rebuild their country. Instead, they're unemployed or jumping into the black market. But because the CPA is such a venal, corrupt organization, this is to be expected. After all, who created it.
CIA Said to Be Enlisting Hussein Agents
By Dana Priest and Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, December 11, 2003; Page A41
The Bush administration has authorized creation of an Iraqi intelligence service to spy on groups and individuals inside Iraq that are targeting U.S. troops and civilians working to form a new government, according to U.S. government officials.
The new service will be trained, financed and equipped largely by the CIA with help from Jordan. Initially the agency will be headed by Iraqi Interior Minister Nouri Badran, a secular Shiite and activist in the Jordan-based Iraqi National Accord, a former exile group that includes former Baath Party military and intelligence officials.
Badran and Ayad Alawi, leader of the INA, are spending much of this week at CIA headquarters in Langley to work out the details of the new program. Both men have worked closely with the CIA over the past decade in unsuccessful efforts to incite coups against Saddam Hussein. The agency and the two men believe they can effectively screen former government officials to find agents for the service and weed out those who are unreliable or unsavory, officials said.
By contrast, some Pentagon officials and Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, vehemently oppose allowing former intelligence and military officials into the new organization for fear they cannot be trusted. Intelligence experts said Chalabi and his sponsors also fear some former government officials would use the new apparatus to undermine the influence of Chalabi, who wants to play a central role in a new Iraq.
Although no deadline has been set, officials hope to have the service running by mid-February. Congress had approved money for the effort in the classified annex of this year's budget. The service will focus largely on domestic intelligence and is seen by some administration officials as a critical step in the administration's effort to hand over the running of the country to Iraqis.
................................
"Intelligence services are the heart and soul of a new country," said one former CIA operative who helped several post-communist countries establish new services.
Hmmm, the same people who used to terrorize Iraqis will now protect them. Yeah, that will work.
I get the feeling Sistani is just biding his time, reading this stuff, and waiting to deliver his smackdown list. The Israelis, this, all of it is building up to a breaking point. The US is so tunnel visioned that they forget that they're only fighting half a war. The Shia watch and wait to see what we will do. Hiring Baathist spooks doesn't make them happy.
Sunnis blame Shiites for a mosque attack, illustrating the sectarian tensions that threaten the nation's future.
By Patrick J. McDonnell, Times Staff Writer
BAGHDAD — By Iraq's standards, it wasn't a huge attack: three dead, a mosque heavily damaged, a neighborhood shocked, mourning and recriminations all around.
But the blast early Tuesday at the Ahbab Mustafa Mosque in a working-class enclave illustrated the sectarian tensions that pose perhaps the greatest barrier to Iraq's halting march toward a peaceful future. The war in Iraq is not just about Iraqis versus Americans: Just as often it is about Iraqis against fellow Iraqis, each side acting on centuries of resentment and ill will.
Although officials question what happened, Sunni Muslims living here immediately pointed the finger at the Shiite Muslim militias and political groups long repressed under Saddam Hussein.
"It was the Shiites who did this," cried one distraught worshiper inside the grounds of the battered mosque, a Sunni house of worship in the midst of a largely Shiite district. "The Shiites are worse than the Jews!"
Al Gore's backing of Howard Dean gives Democrats back their voice
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday December 11, 2003
The Guardian
Since the trauma of the 2000 election, the Democrats have endured a history of loss and defeat, not only of office and programme, but identity, self-confidence and self-respect. As a congressional party that lost its majority in 2002, it has seemed to be in a nightmare that the party is incapable of escaping.
Republican bullying has been met almost inevitably by Democratic cowering, the ruthless will to power by timid retreat. Before this spectacle, Democratic voters have felt themselves unrepresented and voiceless. Until the presidential candidacy of Howard Dean, their burning sentiments lacked expression. Now, Al Gore's early endorsement of Dean dramatically amplifies them and partly explains them.
Above all, Democrats are consumed with a rising sense of injustice. They believe that democracy was undermined when the votes were not counted in Florida and the supreme court made George Bush president; that the social contract in place since the New Deal is being shredded; that internationalist alliances are being shattered; that the president lied about the reasons for war; that the Bush administration acts with authoritarian impunity (refusing, for example, to make public even the members of the vice-president's energy policy panel); and that the media is being overwhelmed by the din of a rightwing echo chamber that masks itself as journalism.
In the face of constant provocation, Democrats see their own party as hesitant, compromised, if not complicit, and cowardly. "You're either with us or the terrorists," Bush has repeated many times. The Democrats supported the war in Afghanistan. Most Democrats in the House and Senate backed the war resolution on Iraq. Yet none of this prevents Republicans from challenging their patriotism.
As recently as last week, after Senator Hillary Clinton, who voted for the Iraq war, returned from inspecting Afghanistan and Iraq as a member of the armed services committee, a Republican party flunky and Bush family retainer named Scott Reed was trotted out to smear the former first lady as "un-American" when she called for more troops and international support.
The Democrats' feelings for their congressional party are inextricably linked to their feelings for Bush. They saw Democratic legislators vote for regressive Bush tax cuts in the belief that it would insulate them from Republican assaults in the 2002 mid-term elections, only to see enough Democratic senators lose seats to tip the Senate. Time and again, even liberal lions such as Edward Kennedy have been bamboozled on education and Medicare.
It bears the utterly uninformative title of Veith et al vs Jubelirer (docket number 02-1580). But the case, which the US Supreme Court heard yesterday, deals with the explosive political issue of gerrymandering - and its ruling next year could literally reshape America's democracy.
Veith et al vs Jubelirer involves only Pennsylvania. The state's Democrats have challenged what they say is a rigged and unfair plan to redraw congressional districts, a move approved by Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature after the 2000 census.
But the case's implications are nationwide. At stake is not only control of the House of Representatives in Washington, but the very health of democracy. "This is hugely important," says Sam Hirsch, an attorney for the Pennsylvania Democrats. "Gerrymandering on this scale is corrupting US democracy. This was not what the framers of the US constitution intended."
Gerrymandering is an established American political tradition. Its name derives from Elbridge Gerry, a governor of Massachusetts who in 1811 endorsed an electoral district said to look like a salamander. "Call it a Gerry-mander," a wit said, and the term stuck.
Under the devolved US system, the map of a state's congressional districts is drawn by its legislature - not by a non- political body such as the Boundaries Commission in Britain. Changes are usually made after each 10-yearly national census
Reading all the commentary and whining about Gore's endorsement of Dean misses a central point: the other guys campaigns suck. They all have major problems which don't seem like they may be fixed any time soon. They aren't raising money, they aren't making headway. They aren't showing the popular support that they should be. This is not a horserace, Howard Dean has key endorsements, money and support that the other campaigns don't have.
And then, there's a cry and hue when Al Gore endorses him, as if he just annointed him. All Gore did was state the obvious, that Dean is acting like a winner. It is simply amazing that the other campaigns reacted as if hot pokers had been rammed up their asses. Which it hadn't been. In reality, they have been fumbling for months. They aren't raising money, they have staff problems which make the papers, they can't get attention. So, in the light of all that, Gore is supposed to back a loser?
Then, the machiavellian comments exploded. Reporters think they sound so smart when they say shit like "Oh Gore is positioning himself for 2008, after Dean loses." That only proves that most political reporters are raging incompetants who know nothing about elections.
Let me explain a reality of politics: most pols don't think six weeks ahead. It's a demanding job and free time is at a minimum. For Al Gore or Hillary Clinton, to be planning the defeat of the Dems in 2004 so they could run in 2008, they wouldn't be machiavellians, they would be Borgias. Look, Gore and Clinton have worked for years to support the party, including Howard Dean. No matter how personally ambitious they are, they know they have better prospects in a winning party than a losing one. No one wants to be a savior when they don't have to be. Why would they think they could sabotage the party now and then step in and run things. Time isn't waiting for them. That's not a theory serious people would discuss. Serious people know better. Gore didn't run, and he could have, because he didn't want it bad enough. He also knows Bush is going to lose unless things change rapidly. So why should he prolong a race where we all know the odds are good that Dean is going to win and win handily. These are people who have dedicated their entire adult lives to politics and are the least likely candidates to destroy what they have worked so hard on, which is a successful Democratic Party.
If I hadn't lived through 1992, I'd be surprised. The Washington party is scared that the outsider will blow the whole game for them and who can blame them. They ridiculed Clinton, and many were only too eager to turn their backs on him at the first sign of trouble in 1993. Sticking by Clinton was not on their agenda and when they lost Congress, they were shocked. But this is the way they act. They live in fear until they can be convinced that they've got the right guy.
Dean is a much better candidate than Clinton. No, not in style, but in everything else. His draft record is small beans compared to Clinton. His temper not much worse and his wife is no lightening rod, prone to piss people off when she opens her mouth. Dean has more money, more support and no mistresses to worry about (so far). The guy raises money and can get bodies, lots of bodies. Which is what matters in politics.
Meanwhile, Bushco is thinking they'll make Dean look like an elitist. Given the miscues of the Bushies so far, I'd be looking for a new job next year. Think about this, the campaign run for a Yale/Harvard grad who is a multimillionare through shady deals is going to call a doctor who's lived in rural Vermont for 25 years elitist? Dean walked away from the family business, Bush failed at his. I mean, if I, the Dean campaign, I'd get a bunch of farmers and school teachers to vouch for him, a Ben and Jerry's ad writ large.
I don't think Dr. Dean is someone to push on easily. I've held to one opinion based on my experiences, if the Dean camapign can get past the primaries with it's grassroots support, Bush is done. Things like that are juggernaughts, they tend to sweep things out of their way. If I was a GOP strategist, I wouldn't bet on the God, Guns and Abortion routine. Dean has been amazingly successful at political jujutsu. When he's been attacked, his supporters have called it an attack on party unity. I think Rove is going to face the same thing. He'll bring up the unborn, and Dean will say, what about 3m jobs. He's just not going to fight an election on GOP hotbuttons. Gay Marriage? Who cares? What about Medicare reform and the fact that the seniors hate it? Dean has a ton of credibility on health issues.
Dean is the worst candidate for Bush to deal with, despite the spin coming from their camp, because their plan to deal with him is doomed to fail. Bush is a weak leader. Once you toss Clark on the ticket and I can't imagine there not being insane pressure for him to be on it, Bushco faces a lack of credibility on domestic policy and foreign policy. Dean will also have the most money to play with. The Bush spin saying they want him will explode in the next few weeks. But they know he's not just a candidate, but a movement. They know he's going to appeal to people who they thought were safe votes in the past. Dean's message will be simple and blunt and Bushco will not be able to deal with it.
What has to be stressed over and over is the fragility of Bush's support. Wrong on the issues, the war in Iraq, Bush only has an aura of personal charm which keeps his presidency afloat. People mistake his obstinancy for plain spokenness. It isn't. Bush is really just that stubborn and simple. Someone said Bush has a glass jaw, I think that's kind. Bush is one real challenge from a complete collapse. That bubble they built around him isn't for laughs. The idea that a president doesn't read the news may sound cute to some, but it's frighteningly disconnected to me. Bush plays into the worst prejudices of American political life: a belief in authority over curiousity, a xenopohobia which is deeply personal. A man with his education doesn't not travel abroad unless he has a deep aversion to it. His inability to admit error, the excessive stage management, the fear-based war on terror. All are indicative of someone unable to face the world on its own terms.
Bush's reelection hinges on Iraq getting better. That's like having your sex life hinge on hitting the Daily Number. It's an insane position to be in. Bush, in an imperial quest for glory, refused to share the burden of Iraq. Now, isolated and stranded, he acts as if help is around the corner. It isn't even close. The Bush theory of management seems to be insult and demand for help as if help was guaranteed. All of the Hoover Institute apologists mean nothing compared to the holes in the DHL jetliner, which didn't crash in flames because of only the skill of the pilot. Iraq will be messy to leave, no matter how we do it. Bush may not pay a penatly for it, but that is unlikely. The debate over who lost Iraq will probably fill classrooms and Congressional hearing rooms for years to come.
Anyone who thinks Dean, or any serious Democratic candidate is going to lose to Bush is not looking at the reality of the situation. Bush is as weak as any incumbent could be. Only Rove's thuggishness has prevented a serious internal challenge to Bush. But that won't be enough to forestall defeat. Iraq is killing the US Army, day by day. The reports on the ground, despite denials, are getting worse, not better. I don't mean in some kind of airy fairy hippie way, but stories of a decrease of control on the ground. US troops do not control the airspace above Baghdad International Airport. They don't control major towns. Iraqi security forces are a joke, with one of the three companies of the new first Iraqi battalion quitting. The police now seen as totally penetrated by the resistance. I would imagine that morale issues are even worse than Stars and Stripes lets on , and their letters page is not happy reading.
Now, we're reaching back in to the black arts of assassination, oblivious to the fact that our defacto alliance with the Israelis undermines any attempt to keep the peace in Iraq, with Shia or Sunni. Just because Sistani hasn't gone to war yet, he cannot like reading about the coordination between US and Israeli troops.
Not that the reality of our looming defeat in Iraq has sunk in yet. It hasn't. But as it does, it will consume Bush. The resistance almost blew a C-17 out of the sky today. When will they finally get that big troop carrier with a hundred people aboard? When do we have another Khobar Towers or Beirut? When will that big sign that we are failing come to us? When it does, the American people will turn on Bush and his war, with no looking back. The fig leaf of 9/11 can only hold for so long to shield Bush from Iraq.
Dick Gephardt summed up not only Bush's presidency, but his life as a 'miserable failure". How can anyone expect that he'll break that pattern now?
WASHINGTON - Plans to deploy the first battalion of Iraq (news - web sites)'s new army are in doubt because a third of the soldiers trained by the U.S.-led occupation authority have quit, defense officials said Wednesday.
Touted as a key to Iraq's future, the 700-man battalion lost some 250 men over recent weeks as they were preparing to begin operations this month, Pentagon (news - web sites) officials said.
"We are aware that a third ... has apparently resigned and we are looking into that in order to ensure that we can recruit and retain high-quality people for a new Iraqi army," said Lt. Col. James Cassella, a Pentagon spokesman.
The battalion was highly celebrated when the newly retrained soldiers, marching to the beat of a U.S. Army band, completed a nine-week basic training course in early October. The graduates, including 65 officers, were to be the core "of an army that will defend its country and not oppress it," Iraq's American administrator, L. Paul Bremer, said at the ceremony.
It was uncertain exactly why a third abandoned their new jobs, though some had complained that the starting salary — $60 a month for privates — was too low, officials said. The Chicago Tribune, which first reported the resignations, quoted officials in Baghdad as saying soldiers were angry after comparing their pay with the salaries of other forces. Iraqi police are paid $60 a month and the Civil Defense Corps $50, officials have said.
Others may have feared threats from insurgents who have targeted Iraqis cooperating with occupation authorities, one Defense Department official said.
What? They didn't want to die for Pax Americana? Silly Iraqis.
Police sources said Forbes, 32, snapped after Denton, 34, balked at the idea of having a three-way, live-in relationship with a woman he met on the Internet.
During a predawn argument in the couple's Holland Ave. home, Forbes hacked his wife to death, nearly splitting her head in two with a samurai sword and chopping off one hand and four fingers on the other
