This new egalitarian marriage was hailed by academics and relationship gurus as a recipe for a happier union. As wives went off to work and husbands took on new jobs at home, couples would supposedly have more in common and more to talk about. Husbands would do more "emotion work," as sociologists call it, and wives would be more fulfilled.
That was the theory tested by the Virginia sociologists, Bradford Wilcox and Steven Nock, who analyzed a survey of more than 5,000 couples. Sure enough, they found that husbands' "emotion work" was crucial to wives' happiness. Having an affectionate and understanding husband was by far the most important predictor of a woman's satisfaction with her marriage.
But it turns out that an equal division of labor didn't make husbands more affectionate or wives more fulfilled. The wives working outside the home reported less satisfaction with their husbands and their marriages than did the stay-at-home wives. And among those with outside jobs, the happiest wives, regardless of the family's overall income, were the ones whose husbands brought in at least two-thirds of the money.
These male providers-in-chief were regarded fondly by even the most feminist-minded women — the ones who said they believed in dividing duties equally. In theory these wives were egalitarians, but in their own lives they preferred more traditional arrangements.
"Women today expect more help around the home and more emotional engagement from their husbands," Wilcox says. "But they still want their husbands to be providers who give them financial security and freedom."
These results, of course, are just averages. Plenty of people are happy with different arrangements — including Nock, who makes less than his wife and does the cooking at home. He says that nontraditional marriages may be a strain on many women simply because they've been forced to be social pioneers. "As society adjusts to women's new roles," he says, "women may become happier in egalitarian marriages."
But I'd bet there's a limit to egalitarianism. Consider what's happened with housework, that perpetual sore point. From the 1960's through the 80's, wives cut back on housework as husbands did more. In the 1990's, though, the equalizing trend leveled off, leaving wives still doing nearly twice as much of the work at home.
That seems terribly unfair unless you look at how men and women behave when they're living by themselves: the women do twice as much housework as the men do. Single men do less cooking and cleaning, because those jobs don't seem as important to them. They can live with unmade beds and frozen dinners.
Similarly, there's a gender gap in enthusiasm for some outside jobs. Men are much more willing to take a job that pays a premium in exchange for long hours away from home or the risk of being killed. The extra money doesn't seem as important to women.
.......
"A woman wants equity," he says. "That's not necessarily the same as equality."
Jesus.
What is wrong with him and Brooks. They really like to think women as less than men.
By WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM Published: February 28, 2006
Bronx prosecutors investigating former Police Commissioner Bernard B. Kerik obtained a court order to tap his cellular telephone last summer and listened to his calls for two months, according to two people with knowledge of the case.
For more than a year, the prosecutors, along with lawyers from city's Department of Investigation, have been investigating who paid for several hundred thousand dollars in renovations on Mr. Kerik's apartment in the Riverdale section of the Bronx. The work on the apartment was done in late 1999 and early 2000.
Bronx prosecutors and Department of Investigation lawyers have been presenting evidence to a grand jury in the Bronx since earlier this month, and officials have said as many as 50 witnesses will testify as part of the inquiry. Grand jury proceedings are conducted in secret.
It is unclear whether the court-ordered eavesdropping developed evidence that will be presented to the panel. To get the wiretap, prosecutors would have been required to persuade a judge they had probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed.
As required by law, people who were called by Mr. Kerik on the cellphone were notified of the court-ordered eavesdropping, according to one of the people with knowledge of the case.
The offices of the Bronx district attorney, Robert Johnson, and the Department of Investigation commissioner, Rose Gill Hearn, would not comment yesterday on the eavesdropping. Both officials have also declined to discuss the investigation into the apartment and any other matters involving Mr. Kerik that have come under scrutiny.
But the authorities in New Jersey said last November that Mr. Kerik had accepted more than $200,000 in work on the apartment from a construction company accused of having ties to organized crime while he helped the company pursue business with New York City.
The New Jersey officials, lawyers for the state Division of Gaming Enforcement, have been trying to revoke a license that allows the construction company, Interstate Industrial Corporation, to work at casinos in Atlantic City.
Mr. Kerik has repeatedly denied wrongdoing. Yesterday, his lawyer, Joseph Tacopina, reiterated his denials and repeated Mr. Kerik's position that he welcomed "a full-blown and open investigation." He added, "I want Bernie's name cleared once and for all."
Bwaaah. It will be kinda hard to run for president when your boy is facing a federal indictment for corruption and being mobbed up.
I know the Bushbot and their GOP allies are now falling in line behind their president, eager to let the supremely undemocratic (and terrorist sympathizing) UAE have access to major gateways into our nation.
You see, while we're supposed to invade countries without cause, torture prisoners, surrender civil liberties, get spied on by our government -- all in the name of "national security", pesky things such as "national security" shouldn't get in the way of commerce. Especially with some of Bush's best Middle Eastern pals who are also big Osama Bin Laden pals. (Is that one or two degrees of separation?)
Yet a real counter-terrorism expert under this administration gives reasons why the deal is a bad, bad thing.
Joseph King, who headed the customs agency's anti-terrorism efforts under the Treasury Department and the new Department of Homeland Security, said national security fears are well grounded.
He said a company the size of Dubai Ports World would be able to get hundreds of visas to relocate managers and other employees to the United States. Using appeals to Muslim solidarity or threats of violence, al-Qaeda operatives could force low-level managers to provide some of those visas to al-Qaeda sympathizers, said King, who for years tracked similar efforts by organized crime to infiltrate ports in New York and New Jersey. Those sympathizers could obtain legitimate driver's licenses, work permits and mortgages that could then be used by terrorist operatives.
Dubai Ports World could also offer a simple conduit for wire transfers to terrorist operatives in the Middle East. Large wire transfers from individuals would quickly attract federal scrutiny, but such transfers, buried in the dozens of wire transfers a day from Dubai Ports World's operations in the United States to the Middle East would go undetected, King said.
But for Bush, business cronyism tops national security concerns.
When President Bush held a public meeting with troops by satellite last fall, they were miraculously upbeat. And all along, unrepentant hawks (most of whom have never been to Iraq) have insisted that journalists are misreporting Iraq and that most soldiers are gung-ho about their mission.
Hogwash! A new poll to be released today shows that U.S. soldiers overwhelmingly want out of Iraq — and soon.
The poll is the first of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq, according to John Zogby, the pollster. Conducted by Zogby International and LeMoyne College, it asked 944 service members, "How long should U.S. troops stay in Iraq?"
Only 23 percent backed Mr. Bush's position that they should stay as long as necessary. In contrast, 72 percent said that U.S. troops should be pulled out within one year. Of those, 29 percent said they should withdraw "immediately."
That's one more bit of evidence that our grim stay-the-course policy in Iraq has failed. Even the American troops on the ground don't buy into it — and having administration officials pontificate from the safety of Washington about the need for ordinary soldiers to stay the course further erodes military morale.
While the White House emphasizes the threat from non-Iraqi terrorists, only 26 percent of the U.S. troops say that the insurgency would end if those foreign fighters could be kept out. A plurality believes that the insurgency is made up overwhelmingly of discontented Iraqi Sunnis.
So what would it take to win in Iraq? Maybe that was the single most depressing finding in this poll.
By a two-to-one ratio, the troops said that "to control the insurgency we need to double the level of ground troops and bombing missions." And since there is zero chance of that happening, a majority of troops seemed to be saying that they believe this war to be unwinnable.
No shit. Soldiers say upbeat things to keep their families from worrying and to avoid hassles with command.
But from Kos diaries, letters to Stars and Stripes and the rest, they want to go home and end the war.
Buck O’Neil was not elected to the National Baseball Hall of Fame on this morning, preventing him from the same honor he helped so many others receive as the Negro Leagues’ greatest ambassador.
It was likely the last chance to be inducted into the Hall for the 94-year-old O’Neil, who was on the ballot with 38 other Negro Leagues players, managers and contributors. O’Neil needed to receive nine votes from a 12-person special committee that convened in Tampa, Fla., this weekend and announced its vote Monday afternoon.
Years of campaigning from friends and baseball luminaries were not enough to boost O’Neil’s career as a player, which was stellar but not Hall-worthy, according to critics of the Kansas City icon.
Supporters lauded O’Neil’s accomplishments beyond his playing days. As a player with the Kansas City Monarchs, O’Neil won two Negro Leagues batting titles. As a manager for the Monarchs, he piloted one of black baseball’s most storied franchises to five Negro Leagues pennants. As a scout for the Chicago Cubs, he discovered Lou Brock and Ernie Banks. As a coach for the Cubs, he became the first African-American on a Major League Baseball staff. .........................
From that point on, O’Neil dedicated himself to spreading the story of the Negro Leagues. He was affable and friendly, always smiling and willing to pose for pictures. O’Neil drew in an audience with his openness and enraptured it with his stories about everything from the ills of segregation to why Negro Leagues great Satchel Paige called him Nancy.
In 1990, the museum opened and gave O’Neil a new avenue and greater audience. He still travels the country speaking to adults and children alike, fanning himself out in hopes of bringing others in.
“Without Buck,” museum spokesman Bob Kendrick said, “we aren’t here.”
O’Neil championed the Negro Leagues player forgotten after the first special election that saw nine players inducted. After Hilton Smith gained entry in 2001, the number of Negro Leaguers in the Hall of Fame was 18.
“I don’t even want to think about making it,” O’Neil said in January. “It would take too much energy, and I need to save mine for better things.
They elected two white people and a convicted criminal, but not O'Neil. People should flood MLB with letters, but the odds are this will hardly be mentioned outside sports radio and Olbermann
(CBS) The latest CBS News poll finds President Bush's approval rating has fallen to an all-time low of 34 percent, while pessimism about the Iraq war has risen to a new high.
Americans are also overwhelmingly opposed to the Bush-backed deal giving a Dubai-owned company operational control over six major U.S. ports. Seven in 10 Americans, including 58 percent of Republicans, say they're opposed to the agreement.
CBS News senior White House correspondent Jim Axelrod reports that now it turns out the Coast Guard had concerns about the ports deal, a disclosure that is no doubt troubling to a president who assured Americans there was no security risk from the deal.
The troubling results for the Bush administration come amid reminders about the devastating impact of Hurricane Katrina and negative assessments of how the government and the president have handled it for six months.
In a separate poll, two out of three Americans said they do not think President Bush has responded adequately to the needs of Katrina victims. Only 32 percent approve of the way President Bush is responding to those needs, a drop of 12 points from last September’s poll, taken just two weeks after the storm made landfall.
Holden is one of the First Draft bloggers and an Atrios regular who predicted that Bush would go below 40 percent, and if he did, he would get a pony.
By ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press Writer 8 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - At least tens of thousands of veterans with non-critical medical issues could suffer delayed or even denied care in coming years to enable President Bush to meet his promise of cutting the deficit in half — if the White House is serious about its proposed budget.
After an increase for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing by leaps and bounds, White House budget documents assume a cutback in 2008 and further cuts thereafter.
In fact, the proposed cuts are so draconian that it seems to some that the White House is simply making them up to make its long-term deficit figures look better. More realistic numbers, however, would raise doubts as to whether Bush can keep his promise to wrestle the deficit under control by the time he leaves office.
"Either the administration is proposing gutting VA health care over the next five years or it is not serious about its own budget," said Rep. Chet Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of Texas, top Democrat on the panel overseeing the VA's budget. "If the proposals aren't serious, then that would undermine the administration's argument that they intend to reduce the deficit in half over the next several years."
In fact, the White House doesn't seem serious about the numbers. It says the long-term budget numbers don't represent actual administration policies. Similar cuts assumed in earlier budgets have been reversed. ....................
"Each year the budget numbers go up," said Jeff Schrade, spokesman for Senate Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Larry Craig, R-Idaho. "Speculation beyond 2007's budget is, at this point, just speculation."
But without the cuts, Bush's plan to halve the deficit would be far more difficult to achieve. For example, just freezing the budget for veterans' medical services below $27 billion understates the deficit for 2009 by perhaps $5 billion.
Event Date: February 25, 2006 Location: Houston, Texas Last Aired: February 27, 2006 Length: 4 hours, 50 minutes
Sponsors: Smiley Group
Appearances: Akbar, Na'im - Professor, University of Florida, Psychology Belafonte, Harry - Entertainer Blackwell, Angela Glover - Founder and CEO, PolicyLink Brown, Raymond - Representative, National Action Network Bryant, Jamal-Harrison - Minister, Empowerment Temple A.M.E. (Baltimore) Crenshaw, Kimberle Williams - President, African American Policy Forum Dziko, Trish Millines - Executive Director, Technology Access Foundation Farrakhan, Louis - Minister, Nation of Islam Harris, Kamala D. - District Attorney, San Francisco, CA Henderson, Wade - Executive Director, Leadership Conf. on Civil Rights Jackson, Harry R. - Founder and Chairman, High Impact Leadership Coalition Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D-TX) - U.S. Representative Lazu, Malia - National Field Director, Institute for Policy Studies, Cities for Progress Lowery, Joseph E. - Chairman Emeritus, Black Leadership Forum Lynch, Shola - Filmmaker Marsh, Victor - Graduate Student, Princeton University Ringo, Jerome C. - Chair, National Wildlife Federation, Board of Directors Seymore, Alvin - Survivor Sharpton, Al - Presidential Candidate, Democratic Party Shelton, Jim - Program Director, Gates (Bill and Melinda) Foundation, Education Division Siegal, Max - Vice President, Zomba Records Smiley, Tavis - Talk Show Host, PBS Smith, Ian - Physician Smith, Rochelle - Survivor Watt, Melvin (D-NC) - U.S. Representative West, Cornel - Professor, Princeton University, African-American Studies Winters, Jackie (R) - State Senator, Oregon Wright, Remus E. - Minister, Fountain of Praise (Houston, TX)
Summary: The afternoon session of State of the Black Union 2006 titled, "Defining the African American Agenda, Part II," focused on the State of the Black Union 2005 proposal for a covenant with black America. Panelists discussed the challenges facing the black community, ideas proposed in the book, The Covenant with Black America, and future leadership within the black community. They also talked about the impact of Hurricane Katrina on the Gulf Coast communities and the significance of poor federal response efforts to the disaster for future national policy. They also responded to questions submitted by members of the audience. The Covenant with Black America, published by Third World Press, was edited by Tavis Smiley who moderated the two panels. It outlines ten issues identified by the public: education, criminal justice system, police accountability, healthcare and well being, economic development and employment, housing and community development, participating in the democratic process, information technology, rural communities, and environmental justice. Angela Blackwell was misidentified on-screen. The event was held at St. Agnes Baptist Church, and concluded with a performance by Fred Hammond.
My mother was renting a summer house last year near a military base. She befriended several of the soldiers in a local restaurant. She became friends with one in particular who wanted to write to people "stateside" while in Iraq.
For obvious reasons, I will not identify where my mother was living at the time or the base this soldier was assigned to.
She told him I would love to be a pen pal so he and I have been exchanging emails for some time now. This is the first one I've received from him with any real information about what is going on in Iraq.
My reaction:
U.S. Military cannot provide our troops with drinking water?
U.S. Military cannot provide our troops with adequate plumbing facilities?
E coli in the drinking water?
How are our brave men and women of the armed forces supposed to fight the global war on terror living in these sub-standard conditions?
We know many soldiers do not have adequate body armor. Now we learn they don't have clean drinking water either.
Well Eve, My life here is verry different than I ever wxpected to be living that is for sure. I dont even know where to start. I also dont want you to feel bad for me when I tell you some of this stuff. First of all we hardly ever have hot water. That is when we still have water because they have to truck all of our water in from the local villages. Next the septic system here is set up for about half of the people that use it. That leads to the weak link which happens to be in the bathroom that is in my section of the berthing. You know what that means. That means that when she is full the overflow comes up our sinks and spreads poo all over the floor. Also with the water they test it and every time it comes up with ecoli. They had three kinds of bottled water here for us and two of the three kinds have bacteria in them. The last thing that bugs me about this place is there is all kinds of mold on the walls where we sleep. There is mold right next to my head throught the whole night.
The whole civil war thing is not affecting us yet except for the mail. We cannot go and get the mail because of that crap.
I am sorry that I am rambeling but I have to cut myself off right now I could go on all night long!!!!
Given the circumstances I think that we have pretty high spirits!!!
I will write later Your Friend in Iraq,
There's nothing I can add.
In spite of everything, he writes their spirits are high. Makes you want to weep.
Can you imagine George Bush living with shit all over the floor?
I am in shock. An article about blogging in which I don't have to make snarky remarks.
Blog Epitaphs? Get Me Rewrite! Rumors of Blogs' Demise Are Exaggerated, But a Lot Less Obsession Would Be Healthy February 27, 2006
Maybe you've heard: Blogs are a vanishing fad -- this year's digital Pet Rock. Or a business bubble about to pop. Or a sucker's bet for new-media fame seekers.
Recent weeks have seen the rise of a cottage industry in Whither Blogging? articles. New York magazine cast cold water on newly minted bloggers' dreams with an examination of the divide between a handful of A-list blogs and countless B-list and C-list blogs that can't get much traffic no matter how hard their creators work. Slate's Daniel Gross spotlighted signs that blogs may have peaked as a business. And a much-discussed poll from Gallup concluded that growth in U.S. blog readers was "somewhere between nil and negative." From there it was off to the races, with all manner of commentators weighing in, led by the Chicago Tribune, which smirked its way through an anti-blogging editorial that got Mr. Gross's name wrong while taking odd potshots at Al Gore and snowboarding.
Reports of blogging's demise are bosh, but if we're lucky, something else really is going away: the by-turns overheated and uninformed obsession with blogging. Which would be just fine, because it would let blogging become what it was always destined to be: just another digital technology and method of communication, one with plenty to offer but no particular claim to revolution.
My bet: Within a couple of years blogging will be a term thrown around loosely -- and sometimes inaccurately -- to describe a style and rhythm of writing, as well as the tools to publish that writing. This is already happening: One of the chief problems with some chronicles of blogging's demise is their confusion about definitions, a confusion that's mirrored in efforts to measure blogs' popularity or to say anything that can apply to bloggers as a group.
Take Gallup's poll. Beyond flat to declining blog traffic, it found just 9% of Internet users read blogs frequently, 11% do so occasionally, 13% rarely bother, and 66% never do. And "reading blogs" ranked last in a list of 13 common Internet activities, below things like emailing, checking news and weather, and shopping.
So, the real world things I do come before reading? No shit.
But I wonder if people realize what blogs are. I think a lot of people read them and have no idea that they have a specific name. Daily Candy and Wonkette and Gawker are no different than Page Six or Lucky and there isn't that segregation between the two.
My feeling that a lot of people read things which bloggers consider blogs and have no idea that they are specifically blogs.
Bah Hummer Indie rockers reject big money from the king of gas guzzlers By Otis Hart ASSOCIATED PRESS Tuesday, February 21, 2006
The Thermals, a rambunctious rock band from Portland, Ore., were en route between gigs last year when they got a phone call from their label, Sub Pop. Hummer wanted to pay them $50,000 for the right to use their song "It's Trivia" in a commercial.
Portland, Ore., trio The Thermals turned down a $50,000 licensing deal from Hummer.
Trans Am, an electronic rock band from Washington, spurned $180,000 in ad money from Hummer.
"We thought about it for about 15 seconds, maybe," lead singer Hutch Harris said.
They said no. ....................
The post-punk band LiLiPUT, who broke up more than 20 years ago, could have pocketed $50,000 for "Heidi's Head" after making close to nothing during their five-year existence. But they, too, said no.
"At least I can sleep without nightmares," Marlene Marder reasoned.
___
........................ Lyle Hysen runs Bank Robber Music, a licensing group that pitches songs to film, television and advertisement companies. He's gotten his clients featured in shows like "Six Feet Under" and "The L Word" and in car ads by Volkswagen and Jaguar.
Hummer, however, has been a nonstarter.
"My standard line is you guys will play a hundred million gigs before you see this amount of money," Hysen said. "Usually they come back with, 'We'll do anything BUT Hummer.'" .........................
"It's not about the money," Manley said. "It's the principle."
While multi-platinum artists like Talking Heads and Smashing Pumpkins have declined, more of the "thanks-but-no-thanks" crowd are musicians who would benefit greatly by the exposure that accompanies a national ad campaign, like electronic artists Caribou and Four Tet, or acid-bluesmen the Soledad Brothers.
"It had to be the worst product you could give a song to," Harris said. "It was a really easy decision. How could we go on after soundtracking Hummer? It's just so evil."
___ ...................
Lance Jensen, president of the advertising agency Modernista, is the creative mind behind the Hummer campaign, and has seen firsthand what prime-time, 30-second spots can do for unheard artists — six years ago, he used cult-folk hero Nick Drake's "Pink Moon" in a Volkswagen commercial, which single-handedly triggered a Drake renaissance and probably led to what we now call "yup-rock" (polite indie rock for the upwardly mobile).
..................
Jensen's Modernista has produced some of the most innovative car commercials ever. They avoid pitchmen — hell, they avoid people most of the time — and focus on visual spectacle. And a big part of attracting eyeballs is giving people a sound that will turn their heads.
Unfortunately for Hummer, many artists aren't listening.
Getting music into ads has been a lifesaver for established musicians like Sting and Paul McCartney. These people are doing more than passing up a fat paycheck by having integrity, but national exposure which could lead to much more money, maybe even a hit record.
Bode Miller was the perfect candidate for the packaged American Hero, a good-lucking lad who played the rebel to perfection for the image-makers, and ran with the hype and the credit card ads to the 2006 Olympics. Miller was a portable symbol of American lone rangers, the guy who did it his way and reached for the gold. Except he didn't reach. He turned up hollow and empty and unwilling to sacrifice. He skiied off the course, and he skiied off the story-line.
Just as the Bridge to Nowhere is the perfect metaphor for rudderless national leader of the Republican Party, so the ski bum Bode Miller and his devil-may-care attitude toward spectacular failure on the world stage makes a fine stand-in for the President of the United States.
Compare the scorecards. Downhill, Combined, Super-G, Giant Slalom, Slalom ... 5th, Disqualified, Did Not Finish, 6th, Did Not Finish. Spygate, Iraq, Katrina, Torture, Port Security. Or pick your own issues, any issues. No medals, folks - just ignominy and embarassment before the world. What Bode Miller is to Olympic triumph, George Bush is to Presidential history, flopping off the slick course of national politics like James Buchanan in Team USA spandex.
Of course, it's one thing to be an over-hyped, overweight slalom slacker hanging out till all hours in the bars of Turin, letting down your sponsors, your teammates, and your fans. To me, athletes never really let their countries down - that nationalistic stuff is just for T-shirt sales. The Olympic movement is about as idealistic as the Nike advertising budget. In the end, Bode Miller really disgraced no one but himself. His stupid little episode will fade, and his moment on the public stage is nearly at an end. George Bush's incredible failure will be with us for many, many years. Increasingly isolated (if that's possible) and with his dream team riddled by buckshot and scandal, our national ski bum has the country on the icy, dangerous downhill towards disaster.
George Bush in the flight suit on that carrier was Bode Miller in the Nike ads before the Olympics, all image and promise. No substance and sacrifice, no guts and inner fire. Here's what Mr. Miller told the (obviously angry) team at NBC Sports:
"The expectations were other people's. I'm comfortable with what I've accomplished, including at the Olympics ... I wanted to have fun here, to enjoy the Olympic experience, not be holed up in a closet and not ever leave your room. I got to party and socialize at an Olympic level ... I just did it my way. I'm not a martyr, and I'm not a do-gooder. I just want to go out and rock. And man, I rocked here."
Replace Olympics and Olympic with Presidency and Presidential, and how far are you really from the life and times of George W. Bush - who, after all, can always say he got to party and socialize on the Presidential level after a life partying and socializing on the silver spoon circuit.
Bode Miller is right. He is not a martyr. And he has absolutely nothing in common with the American men and women who are dying in our name in the streets of Iraqi cities as the Bush-triggered civil war rages. He has nothing in common with the 2,500 killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is nothing like the young Americans in military hospitals in Germany and Maryland and Texas and elsewhere, kids missing limbs and suffering paralysis and blindness, young people who time and time again tell the politicians and reporters who come around their beds: "I just want to get back to my unit."
Bode Miller is just another selfish American, another potent symbol of our self-satisfied society, but at least he doesn't ask more from others than he is willing to contribute himself. His failure is his own.
George Bush's failure is ours.
UPDATE: I have apparently offended Mr. Miller's "Bodelicious" fans by comparing him (favorably) to the President of the U.S. Here's a sample of the mail I'm getting: "I wanted to remind you - George W. Bush did not achieve anything, while Bode Miller has achieved a lot." I love this medium! (Oh, and for all you Bode defenders - nice how he treated his hometown newspaper columnist).
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, one the staunches defenders of the administration’s policy in Iraq, said the war in Iraq was not a “serious effort.”
Transcript:
BILL KRISTOL: There would not be civil war if Zarqawi had not spent the last 2 1/2 years – had ex-Saddamists with him, very skillfully going on the offensive slaughtering Shia in Karbala, now blowing up the mosque.
CHRIS WALLACE: They’re there. There are going to be more mosques to blow up. What do you do about the terrorists?
KRISTOL: Kill them. Defeat them.
CHRIS WALLACE: We’ve been trying.
KRISTOL: We’ve been trying, and our soldiers are doing terrifically, but we have not had a serious three-year effort to fight a war in Iraq as opposed to laying the preconditions for getting out.
CICI CONNELLY: I think that really begs the question then: what have we been doing over there for three-plus years? You say there hasn’t been a serious effort to rid that region of the terrorists. I just wonder what secretary Rumsfeld would say in response to that or all the U.S. soldiers who have been over there all this time.
KRISTOL: Secretary Rumsfeld’s plan was to draw town to 30,000 troops at the end of major activities.
Essentially, Kristol claims the Iraq war — which he was sure would be a smashing success — isn’t working out because Donald Rumsfeld is Michael Moore.
Another question: Mr. Kristol, if the administration’s policy in Iraq the last three years has not been a “serious effort” why have you spent the last three years defending it?
I agree completely .
The whole war has been halfassed from day one. From the way the CPA was hired to the misuse of the Guard and Reserve, to the reliance on exiles who had no real standing in Iraq
WASHINGTON, Feb. 26 — With Wal-Mart Stores under mounting pressure to spend more on employee health insurance, the company's chief executive on Sunday urged the nation's governors not to pass legislation that would burden the giant retailer, and pledged to work with the governors to move workers off state Medicaid rolls.
The executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., said that state bills aimed at improving Wal-Mart's benefits "may score short-term political points, but they won't solve America's health care challenges."
Mr. Scott said that Wal-Mart's health plans were "not perfect" but that the company was committed to improving the health care system by expanding its benefits and by opening low-cost medical clinics for workers and the public in its stores.
Trying to broaden a debate over employer health care plans that has focused heavily on Wal-Mart, Mr. Scott said: "At the end of the day, this is not about me. It is not about Wal-Mart. And it is not about you. It is about all of us and what we can do to keep this country great."
The speech, given at the annual meeting of the National Governors Association here, was directed at an increasingly important constituency for Wal-Mart: state leaders who have veto power over legislation aimed at forcing Wal-Mart to spend more on health care.
More than 20 states have introduced such legislation this year, and even though few of the bills have a serious chance of becoming law, according to state leaders, their very existence underscores how big a political problem health care has become for Wal-Mart.
In a bit of political theater, Mr. Scott pledged to travel to any governor's office to discuss health care, offering to lend the company's legendary technology expertise to help manage the cost of benefits.
"The only thing I ask," he said, in an apparent jab at various proposed health care bills, "is that we talk about real solutions to the health care challenges facing working families."
...................
Christine Gregoire, the Democratic governor of Washington, said that 20 percent of Wal-Mart workers in her state received public health care assistance. After Mr. Scott's speech, she said that this was "a problem that he has to solve."
Wal Mart is the largest modern American corporaton to not provide benefits to their workers. The Walton family are bilionaires. There is no excuse for this.
See, Bush recruit a volunteer. I heard he contributed some cash
Dear Steve,
Grassroots supporters like you are the strength of our Party. It was you who re-elected President Bush, and you who made possible our Republican majorities. The key to making history in these critical midterm elections is simple: volunteers like you going door-to-door, talking to your neighbors, and getting out the vote.
The election is still eight months away - but building on the lessons of 2002 and 2004, we are already establishing an aggressive and technologically superior grassroots effort to keep Republicans working for a safer America and put the Democrats on defense in the bluest of the blue states. Recruit five new people to join the GOP Team, and we'll make victory a reality.
The days of campaigns run from the top down from headquarters are over. By volunteering today at GOP.com, you'll get the tools you need to start building support in your neighborhood, from recruiting 5 of your friends, to correcting biased media through letters to the editor and blogs, to organizing your own parties and campaign events, to many more new volunteer tools we'll be unveiling throughout the year. As a GOP Volunteer, we'll connect you to volunteer opportunities at the local level, in elections that matter to you.
There is no one better to carry the Republican message to your community than you. As Republicans, we can't rely on the mainstream media to get out the truth and we don't have well-funded labor unions and outside groups pouring in millions to fund "grassroots" in the final days of an election. That's why we need you.
With so much at stake in 2006, will you help lay the groundwork for victory by recruiting 5 volunteers?
Sincerely,
Black folks better wake up.
This bullshit about having a foot in both camps is fantasy.
The reality is that we have one party which runs on white supremacy and one which doesn't. So trying to join the party which runs on the subjugation of black people is not the way to progress.
I believe Ken Mehlman is honest in his attempt to get black voters. The problem is that he's a man alone. Most of his party is still running against black people. You don't have to love the Dems to know the GOP is dedicated to vilifying blacks and latinos while reaching out for their votes.
Want to know if this is true?
See if they support bills to allow felons to vote in states where they can't.
You know, the kind of voters Rita Cosby thinks the Dems are hunting for. I guess being a cheap Nancy Grace imitator isn't enough. Dressing and looking cheap is extra.
You know, I never thought Nancy Grace could have virtues other than a relentenless pursuit of the "guilty". I guess not hating black people on the spot is another.
As long as middle class blacks pretend the GOP wants them, the longer the attacks on black people will continue. Look at who they run for them: cowards.
Tavis Smiley had his yearly forum yesterday and he invited the negro Republicans. Blackwell accepted and then cancelled, HUD secretary Alphonso Jackson cancelled, while staying in the same hotel as Smiley. Steele turned him down.
Why are they afraid to appear before a room full of black people?
How people with no other marketable skills made money before the Internet
Jen here. Over the past 48 hours or so, I received the following three emails in my InBox, and many others like them, which I thoughtfully shared with Gilly.
First I got this:
Tue. Feb. 28th: IP TV for BUSINESS NEXT WAVE TV IS ABOUT MORE THAN ENTERTAINMENT Tue. Feb. 28, 7:30-10:00 am Marriott Marquis, Wilder Room, 46th B'way Wayne Reuvers, CEO, LiveTechnology Michael Elling, Principal, Information Velocity Partners Michael Christian Shimbo,CEO, Concert Shen Tong, CEO, VFinity
IP TV is a broad term for the next wave of TV Internet convergence. What does it mean if TV has the same interactivity as the Internet or that it uses the same pipes? The answer is a lot more than entertainment or interactive TV. It is a whole new way of doing business for everything from Advertising - think of AdSense for all mediums but with streamed and visual ads - to music and business tracking of TV assets and appearances. And more..... As IP TV ripples through the business world, it has the power to transform it in surprising ways. Advertising, communications, management, medicine, small business and end users will all experience a shift in their landscape. This event opens up a new world of possiblities for the next Internet Revolution. Networking Breakfast 7:30-8:30am Presentations: 8:30-10:00am
REGISTER: no link for you! $50 members - $60 non-members in advance NOTE NEW ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP PRICE Individual $155 (6 Free Credits) Corporate $350 (12 FREE assignable credits)
Special Offer to Attend Collaborative Communications Summit CCS 2006 Mon-Tue. Feb. 27-28 SAVE $100: SPECIAL OFFER FOR IBREAKFAST $349 You can't afford to miss this event if your company is involved in Visual Communications, Web Conferencing, VOIP, Instant Messaging, Real Time Presence-aware Collaboration Tools and Services, Knowledge Management Team Collaboration Tools, and Mobile Collaboration Tools. Network with decision makers and leaders in the industry. We will feature many social gatherings during the show where you can build revenue and customers, develop leads, and meet potential strategic partners. February 27-28, 2006 Marriot Marquis Times Square Register Now ENTER IBREAKFAST IN THE COMMENTS SECTION WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR ORDER NO ONSITE REGISTRATION PERMITTED
That very same day, I got this:
Dear Friends of Location One:
the talk scheduled for tonight, Wednesday February 22nd at 7pm has been P O S T P O N E D to
Wednesday MARCH 22nd at 7pm
Please mark your calendars
CLAY SHIRKY ** Folksonomies and the Mental Habits of Classification **
Clay Shirky writes about Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source and teaches at New York University's Interactive Telecommunications Program. Join his mailing list at (link deleted)
******************** L O C A T I O N O N E 26 Greene Street New York NY 10013 212.334.3347 http://location1.org
******************** L O C A T I O N O N E is a not-for-profit organization devoted to convergence between visual, performing and digital arts in a time of rapidly changing technology. We invite artists from different disciplines and from different countries to work in our studios. We ask them to experiment with the new technologies of artistic creation, interaction and delivery. We urge them to collaborate in creating new works and give them virtual Internet spaces and physical gallery space to exhibit the results. Our goals are to foster the creation of new work, new forms of expression, and new capabilities in artists, and to advance new awareness in all those we reach.
Now, I really have nothing against Clay. Gilly has more to say on that particular subject, so I'll let him chop in his comments when he gets a chance. However, suffice it to say that I don't have a particularly high opinion of ITP or similar programs. Their mantra really does seem to be "you too can get a programmer's salary and throw around bullshit technical terms without ever having to learn any of that icky programming math or other scary things." I'll say more on that later. In the interim, let me share one other email that I got:
PC Forum 2006 March 12 to 14 La Costa Resort and Spa Carlsbad, CA
Dear Jen:
If you still want to meet the executives, technologists and venture capitalists that are changing the way our lives are lived and our businesses are managed - register today for PC Forum 2006, March 12 to 14
They're your peers - the thinkers and doers - and they're packing their bags for the La Costa Resort and Spa in Carlsbad, California. In this inspirational setting, they'll be exploring this year's conference theme,
Erosion of Power: Users in Charge.
Industry thought leader Esther Dyson moderates all the sessions, guiding a headline cast of speakers. With unrivaled breadth and depth, the discussions will focus on topics such as search and online marketing, today's security threats and the user's role in ensuring security online and offline, the role of IT and of employers in bringing informed consumer choice to health care, and the business models of a variety of start-ups that hope to empower users. Our high-level audience will be asking questions all along: Will individuals rise to the opportunities and take the control offered them? Do users really want choice, or just good advice? Can "spyware" (or behavioral targeting if you prefer) help in this regard?
So, join the conversation, meet the players and add your voice to this year's PC Forum (it's our 29th!) by registering today. We hope to see you in a few short weeks for the industry's most provocative and useful conference.
Daphne Kis Executive Producer
Leaders from companies large and small will be in attendance; among them are:
Accel Partners Accenture Adobe Ask Jeeves Amazon.com America Online Benchmark Capital BBN Technologies Brightcove Cisco Systems US Dept of Homeland Security Earthlink eBay Facebook Google Healthline Network IBM Intuit Intel Kalinda Software Kleiner Perkins Caufield Byers LG Electronics Oak Technology Partners Pearson Pando Networks Primavera Systems Real Networks Ricoh Innovations Scripps Network Sony TRUSTe Visual Information Technologies Vulcan Capital Whitepages.com WPP Group WhenU Yahoo!
(I dropped this note to Gilly along with this email) FWIW: La Costa Spa is one of THE MOST EXPENSIVE SPAS ON EARTH. Literally Rock Star stuff. You would literally start having to look at stuff in private resorts in Thailand or Hawaii to get pricier. ... . I priced out a week there, and BEFORE services, it would run about 3K for the MINIMUM setup. Without treatments. Just a nice room and food.
So much for the whole "power to the people" thing--like I would spend that kind of money to listen to John Perry Barlow (old hippie) [ED NOTE: not that I have anything agains old hippies but he doesn't know shit about real technology] bloviate anyway.
--Jen
Gilly replied for me to post:
We get e-mail.
If you ever wondered why there is a digital divide, look no further.
You have an industry run by people with the common sense of .......small children trying to influence a business which has largely moved past them. In an era of consildation, these folks are still selling the same bullshit that they were 10 years ago. They claim to be trend makers, but come on, they are more isolated than ever.
Back then, people told me writers simply didn't matter. Well, blogs are the revenge of the writer. We dominate the online world because we can create interesting content without any roadblocks. People still can't figure out what's going on. We're moving so fast no one can figure out what will be next. Yet these people will take the money of the clueless and try to prove they're still hip.
After all that Gilly and I have seen in the past 15 years or so in the new media industry, we are both astonished that there are still people who can sell the idea that ideas alone will sell. I have met hundreds of people who got conned into leaving potentially lucrative degrees in real industries to go pursue expensive degrees in "user interface design" (without any art, psychology, or industrial design instruction), "community forecasting" (without any background again in psychology, statistics, or similar hard fields) or (perhaps most damaging of all) "business model prediction" (without any background in economics, statistics, or business management).
An acquaintance of mine had an arts background, and suddenly finding herself approaching middle age without a firm career, she enrolled in ITP. The result? Yes, she can bullshit her way into consulting gigs. I have chains of emails that she forwards to friends asking for tips on how to ace the interview on whatever gig she's up for next. At the end of the day though, she almost always gets cut eventually--because she ADAMANTLY refuses to look in the mirror, inhale, and say to herself: I am not a programmer. We have stopped talking over this in the past. She waves around some 18-month ITP certificate like it means something, when I know she she doesn't even have basic CSS or Java skills.
In the meantime, self-proclaimed "experts in online culture" keep acting like Pied Pipers and leading the desperate, the unqualified, and those grasping at straws down various primrose paths and get others to invest in the results of their ideas. In other words, they get one group of folks to build castles in the air, and con others to rent space in them.
Let me note that for almost 10 years I was an online project manager, and I watched the title and the industry slide downhill. I know enough about programming to know that I am not one. I have friends and exes who are in fact very high quality programmers; they get paid big bucks for cleaning up the mountains of bullshit left behind by folks who think are.
Let me also note that the hucksters are never around when the shit really hits the fan. I have helped run the WWWAC List for over ten years now, on and off. Over the years it has become a sort of group therapy/safehouse/advice column/emergency tech help desk for people building online content. You never see the Idea Peddlers on our board, because like faith healers on TV, they never have any real answers about things like what to do when your company folds without paying you, or what to do when you have a medical emergency and no health insurance because you got conned into an equity-only gig. The hucksters NEVER put forth plans for anything resembling a freelancers union, basic negotiating skills, or anything like that. And, as a result, they look down on any grassroots reality-based discussion group that does.
I remember the days when I got moronic business cards from people with titles like "Chief Marketing Mantis" and "Interactive Code Ninja." Our Medicine Show Preachers still can be seen sharing the travelling show bill with folks like this, while people like my friend who has run his own online design and identity branding company since 1985 (he did CD-ROMS back then) get looked down upon for not going public, operating past their expenses, or pretending to be rock stars.
Sorry, had to get that out.
Gilly, feel free to add what you want. Everyone else, comment away.
First, let me say up front, I have nothing but disdain for Clay Shirky and here's why. He was telling me how poor his Hunter College students were, and I told them many of them just chose to spend their money in different ways. And he sneered at me with a line like "I don't trust you". From that day on, I realized he was an asshole. And conescending as all hell. A pure bullshit artist.
He didn't know those people and they were my neighbors.
I consider ITP an embarassment to my alma mater, NYU. The school has excellent programs in journalism, graphic arts, math, even computer science. ITP is a horrid joke. It teaches buzzword bullshit.
My point about writers is this: back in the 90's, people thought it would be all about video. Well, with some exceptions like Crooks and Liars, it's not. It's a written medium and needs to be seen in those terms.
The problem with people like Dyson and Barlow is that they have no useful information on how the day to day internet works. They sell dreams and bullshit.
How do you think that they all missed blogging? Because they didn't see any potential in it.
These people say people power like the communists say people's republic. They're corporate hucksters and their goal is to make money for the people who pay them.
But the most important thing to understand is that the internet has passed them by. They're hunting for new ideas after pushing a sea of bad ones in the past. They are largely responsible for creating an image of dillitants and ass clowns.
Jen and I were discussing eBay today. Now, a lot of people rely on it, but I find it way too risky for most things. And this was one of the companies these people pushed while Google swam under the radar.
The fact is that most everything these people backed failed and failed badly. But people see what they want to and hear what they want to, even if it's bullshit.
There is nothing, it seems, that European women would rather spend a great deal of money on than getting away from it all at a spa or health farm and as correspondent Caroline Wyatt discovers, the bill is often as painful as the rather intrusive treatments.
The brochure had a photo of a luxurious hotel, and all the buzzwords: revitalising, rejuvenating.
A detox. Well, I was not sure about a detox.
I like to tox, and I think my liver and kidneys do an admirable job, considering the challenges.
Apparently, the Maharishi Ayurveda spa offered daily full-body massages, with hot oil dribbled over the entire body, rubbed in by two people simultaneously.
I booked straightaway.
The name Maharishi rang a vague bell, but I could not think why.
The brochure had a picture of the man himself - the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi - an Indian with a serene other-worldly expression and a long white beard.
I began to suspect all might not be quite what I expected when the health check questionnaire arrived from the spa a few days later.
It seemed utterly fixated on matters of a deeply personal nature. Namely my digestion.
More specifically, the exit.
How often? What did it look like? Colour? Consistency?
The questions were all of an equally personal nature.
I discovered that many Germans were rather obsessed with these matters when I worked as a geriatric nurse in Munich in my early 20s, and to my horror found out why German toilets had ledges.
So that each production could be examined in detail.
Spas have caused me some trouble in my life.
Jen asked me, a long time ago, about going to a day spa.
My reply was simple: I'm a guy. Which means no.
It didn't go over well. But then, neither did my devotion to sports.
Of course, my soon to be nine year old niece likes spas as well. When I asked her about spas, she detailed the treatments they did, like mud baths and cucumbers on the eyes. And of course, since she and Jen are both quite girly, she plans on going to a spa one day.
When I mentioned that I saw a spa for kids on TV, my niece thought she was coming to New York to go for a spa treatment. When her mother said no, being that's she's not nine yet, she sulked around the house. So I had to explain that the spa was in Illinois, which she understood.
So spas have been a source of discomfort in my life.
By Sally Jenkins Sunday, February 26, 2006; Page E01
SESTRIERE, Italy For weeks now Nike has advised us to "Join Bode." Join him where? At the bar? That's one place you might find Bode Miller after the Turin Games, unless he's in his motor home, finding new ways to duck all that pressure he put on himself.
Miller is the biggest disappointment in the Winter Olympics, not because of the way he skied the mountain, but the way he acted at the bottom of it. The fact that he didn't win a medal at these Games, going 0 for 5 in the Alpine events, is beside the point. It's not the winning, it's the trying. The point is that he acted like he didn't try, and didn't care. Failing is forgivable. Getting fatter on beer while you're here is not.
If there has been a weaker performance by an American athlete on the international stage than that of Miller, I'm hard-pressed to think of one. To hear Miller tell it, he spent more time in Sestriere's nightclubs than he did in actual competition, which amounted to less than eight minutes. Miller's final Olympic event, the slalom, lasted all of 16 seconds. He bulled out of the start house, did a couple of quick scrimshaw turns, and promptly straddled a gate.
Sestriere, Italy -- Bode Miller got it right a long time ago. He said he might not come to these Olympics, and he never really did.
The phrases Miller heard most in the Turin Games were "Did Not Finish'' and whatever means "last call'' in Italian.
He skidded to the side of the slalom course Saturday after straddling an early gate in his first run, and his Alpine misadventure was over. Miller completed just two of his five races here, taking a fifth place and a sixth.
The messy snow on the slalom course upended a lot of good skiers, but Miller looked sloppy and uncertain on the first inch out of the starting gate. He followed a route off the hill that allowed him to avoid reporters at the bottom, but an Associated Press reporter eventually found him and then filed an account loaded with obnoxious, defensive bunk.
"I just did it my way. I'm not a martyr, and I'm not a do-gooder. I just want to go out and rock. And man, I rocked here,'' Miller was quoted by Jim Litke as saying. "... It's been an awesome two weeks. I got to party and socialize at an Olympic level."
Yeah, I got to hang out in Turin.
Maybe he should have caught a Juventus game. It would have required more effort than he showed on the slopes.
I love the naivety of these reporters.
Why did he go along with the hype?
MONEY.
So what does he do whne it gets too much? Revert to being a ski bum.
What did he think came with money? Privacy? You think Lance Johnson Armstrong wanted people in his marriage? Well, that's what he got. You want to be a famous athlete, you got to deal with the outcome of fame. And with hype comes expectations. You don't want the hype, don't feed the expectations.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 25 — American officials have been repeatedly stunned and frequently thwarted in the past three years by the extraordinary power of Muslim clerics over Iraqi society. But in the sectarian violence of the past few days, that power has taken an ominous turn, as rival hard-line Shiite clerical factions have pushed each other toward more militant and anti-American stances, Iraqi and Western officials say.
Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the paramount Shiite cleric to whom the Americans have often looked for moderation, appears to have been outflanked by younger and more aggressive figures.
After a bomb exploded in Samarra at one of Iraq's most sacred Shiite shrines on Wednesday, many young Shiites ignored his pleas for calm, instead heeding more extreme calls and attacking Sunni mosques and killing Sunni civilians, even imams, in a crisis that has threatened to provoke open civil war.
On Saturday, Iraqi political leaders from across the spectrum joined with Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari in a televised show of unity to try to quell the violence. President Bush telephoned several leaders to urge them to return to talks. [Page 10.]
Earlier, as the critical moment of Friday Prayer approached, American officials and their allies were left almost helpless, hoping that Iraq's imams would step up to calm the crisis. But that hope gave way to the realization that the clerics could do as much harm as good, and for the first time since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi authorities imposed a daytime curfew to keep people from attending the sermons.
"Sectarian divisions are not new, and sectarian violence is not new," said a Western diplomat in Baghdad who spoke on condition of anonymity because he did not want to be seen as interfering. "What is different this time is that the Shiites, in a sign that their patience is limited, reacted violently in a number of places."
The violence and new militancy has come in part from a competition among Shiite factions to be seen as the protectors of the Shiite masses. The main struggle has been between the leading factions, both backed by Iran, and their spiritual leaders.
Many of the retaliatory attacks after the bombing were led by Mahdi Army militiamen loyal to Moktada al-Sadr, the Shiite cleric whose anti-American crusades have turned him into a rising political power.
His main rival, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, a cleric and the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or Sciri, defended the right of Shiites to respond to the bombing. He has shown a new willingness to publicly attack the American role in Iraq, once the preserve of Mr. Sadr, and he also commands a powerful militia, the Badr Organization.
"There are clerics who are very moderate and who understand what the current situation demands, and there are clerics who have political agendas and who marshal forces for their own gain," said Joost Hiltermann, the Middle East director of the International Crisis Group. "Those are the dangerous ones."
......................................... But the Americans seemed unaware of the complex and deadly rivalries among Iraq's religious factions. After being brought back to Iraq by the Americans in 2003, Mr. Khoei was stabbed to death in the Shiite holy city of Najaf by followers of Mr. Sadr. That killing led the American occupation authority to issue an arrest warrant for Mr. Sadr, which was dropped after he led two bloody uprisings in 2004 and became one of Iraq's most powerful figures.
Mr. Sadr's family has long been engaged in a rivalry with the Shiite religious establishment in Iraq, known as the Hawza. Under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Sadr's revered father, Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, was one of the few clerics to openly defy the dictator. He also expressed contempt for Ayatollah Sistani and other senior clerics, calling them the "Silent Hawza" for their complacent attitude in the face of tyranny. The young Sadr claimed his father's mantle after Mr. Hussein had the elder Sadr and his two eldest sons killed in 1999
Which is why he will run Iraq. He is the one person who didn't go into exile, who's family always opposed Saddam and can talk with the authority of a survivor.
He's the one man who can prevent civil war, but the price might be a national uprising against the Americans.
Just to give some sense of how the GOP is imploding, the following is from a good friend who is career military (officer corps), and a life-long Republican. I won't ID him for obvious reasons, but this is from two recent emails (nothing edited for effect). The first is from a couple of days ago:
On the war, when we went into Iraq, I simply couldn't understand it. Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, or nearby, and he was the only enemy who mattered. I could see no reason to take on Iraq, at least no reason that arose from 9/11. As I told British friends at the time (I was in the UK), the invasion was certainly legal, but as for whether it was advisable, well, history would tell us that.
I think that verdict is already in. For a long time, I felt simply awful that we had done this thing, created this chaos, and that it still wasn't put right. We made that mess, and we ought to clean it up. I still feel that way in large part, but I'm beginning to think--with Iraqi Shi'ites fighting Iraqi Sunnis over the Golden Mosque bombing--that we may finally just have to throw up our hands and leave them to their civil war. I thought privately in 2003 that going into Iraq was dodgy, inasmuch as it departed significantly from the Weinberger Doctrine (Caspar Weinberger was Reagan's SecDef). Now, I view Weinberger (and Powell, his most recent exponent) as wholly vindicated. If we leave Iraq now, we must accept full responsibility for the chaos and death that will ensue; and we must never, ever do anything like that again.
If we go now, though, the whole country could easily implode. It could become a giant Somalia, with regional warlords and no central rule. If before the war Iraq was not really a terrorist training state--and I think it's clear now that it never was--certainly, after we leave, it could easily become one.
What a mess--and we made it.
And this from this morning:
It says a lot about our country that Clinton was impeached and Bush has not been. The idea that a sexual indiscretion is more significant that entering a war under false pretenses, flagrantly breaking the law on domestic surveillance, and presiding over an immense squandering of national treasure is, frankly, ludicrous. I had a rather unhealthy personal hatred of Clinton in the 1990s, primarily because he was a draft dodger who had become Commander in Chief. Every US military death in Haiti, in Somalia, in Bosnia was a moral outrage. Now, though, I'm faced with a C-in-C who also evaded meaningful service and has ordered thousands to die in a war based on a lie. Clinton balanced the budget; Bush broke i
t.
Pretty much says it all, eh? These are the folks we need to convince to take the next step, and vote their conscience, now that they see the light of reason. I'm doing my part, and I'm reasonably sure that my friend will be voting for Dems come November. Maybe he'll persuade some others.
Quicksand by georgia10 Sat Feb 25, 2006 at 04:27:41 PM PDT
At his speech to the American Legion yesterday, President Bush reflected on his "forward strategy for freedom." His speech, carbon-copied from every other War on Terror speech in his collection, presents the stubborn and ill-conceived core of his National Plan For Victory In Iraq: stay the course. "Stay the course" has been the President's mantra for years now, with the slight revision that now he's admitting the course is more like a rocky road than a coasting freeway. The entire notion of "staying the course" presumes that there is some forward movement, some progress being made, a "forward strategy," as Bush puts it. But as we've been pointing out for months now, and as the American public is finally starting to realize, progress in Iraq is merely an illusion concocted by this administration. Rather than being on the course to victory (however one defines it), we've found ourselves standing still, sinking deeper and deeper into a cavity of defeat.
----------------- Democrats, on the other hand, realize that we have a moral responsibility not just to the Iraqis, but to future generations of Americans to ensure that Iraq is stabilized. We refuse to remain paralyzed as the walls close in around us. We choose change. We choose victory. We chose to lift ourselves up from this quagmire. And just how do we propose to do so? As was reported earlier this week, Democrats are rallying behind a plan for phased redeployment. The plan, which you can read here (pdf), is exactly the type of branch we can cling to as we pull ourselves out of this situation we have been bogged under for three years now. Phased redeployment and an invigorated international effort to stabilize Iraq may be just the action needed now at our own "moment of choosing."
It is time we unclench our fists and reach out our hands. Nations of the world must unite to save Iraq. And we must lead the call, for it is only in saving it that we ensure our soldiers, our reputation, and our own safety won't sink away in the deserts of Iraq.
You know, when you don't know what you're discussing, maybe you should shut up and listen.
And this is a prime example.
Paternalism in a liberal guise is no better than it's neocon alternative.
I would ask the author the following questions:
Are you willing to serve in Iraq to help stablize it? No? Well, the US Army has been there three years and as what you're proposing will take up to a decade, are you going to join the effort?
If not, it is unfair to ask anyone else to.
What countries would volunteer to help us? Nigeria is having a nasty bout of secterian violence over cartoons. India has millions of Muslims and the war is unpopular, France and Germany can barely meet their commitments in Afghanistan.
We cannot send a force to Darfur which is effective.
So who helps us in Iraq?
You don't seem to understand. The world is invested in a US defeat in Iraq. Because that will curb our idea that we can forcibly change governments to our liking. There is no drive to save us form our own folly.
Phased redeployment?
Sure, if you mean like the retreat from Korea in 1951. But the time to walk away is long over. We will run. The quicker, the better.
The problem with this well meaning article is that it assumes we can avoid defeat in Iraq.
We cannot. No one is going to save us either. The Iraqis will kill soldiers in blue helmets just as they do in tan helmets. Too many people want to avoid the inevitable by calling for someone else to make a sacrifice they won't and see no reason to.
Nick Kristoff joins the "it's Arabs" crowd, which proves one thing, he's allergic to research. The Arabs Are Coming!
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: February 26, 2006
Let's be blunt: this fuss about ports is really about Arabs.
Port terminals have been managed, without alarm, by companies from Britain, China, Japan, Singapore and Taiwan. So let's look at the arguments of those who believe we should discriminate against Arabs. ...
Look, Kristof, if this is discrimination against Arabs, that's because it was Arabs who attacked us on 9/11 and still threaten us today. If Singaporeans were plotting to set off nuclear explosions in American cities, then we'd scrutinize them, too.
Even if you believe in racial profiling, you have to look beyond the profile. Senators talk about Dubai in dark tones that suggest they've never been there. Dubai is the Disneyland of the Arab world — it's the place people go to relax, to shop, to drink. It is staunchly pro-American and pro-business, and its vision of the Arab future is absolutely the opposite of Osama bin Laden's. If we want to encourage Arab modernization, we should be approving this deal — not engaging in quasi-racist scaremongering.
Critics of the deal seem to suggest that swarthy men in black turbans are going to be arriving to provide port "security" in Newark. But Dubai Ports World is run mostly by Western executives, under an American chief operating officer. Nothing is going to change on the ground in Newark.
The only problem is that the more you dig, the more you find and none of it is good.
"But the year-old mystery of the truck-bomb assassination of Hariri also has wound its way through the UAE’s port facilities. United Nations investigators tracked the assassins’ white Mitsubishi Canter Van from Japan, where it had been stolen, to the UAE, according to a Dec. 10, 2005, U.N. report.
At that time, UAE officials had been unable to track what happened to the van after its arrival in Dubai. Presumably the van was loaded onto another freighter and shipped by sea through the Suez Canal to Lebanon, but the trail had gone cold in the UAE.
Security Skills
While not spelling out the precise status of the investigation in the UAE, the Dec. 10 report said U.N. investigators had sought help from “UAE authorities to trace the movements of this vehicle, including reviewing shipping documents from the UAE and, with the assistance of the UAE authorities, attempting to locate and interview the consignees of the container in which the vehicle or its parts is believed to have been shipped.”
The UAE’s competence – or lack of it – in identifying the “consignees” or the freighter used to transport the van to Lebanon could be the key to solving the Hariri murder. This tracking ability also might demonstrate whether UAE port supervisors have the requisite skills for protecting U.S. ports from terrorist penetration."
By TED BRIDIS, Associated Press Writer Sat Feb 25, 6:12 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.
The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.
On Saturday, congressional leaders, the company and Bush administration officials appeared to move closer to a compromise intended to derail plans by Republicans and Democrats for legislation next week that would force a new investigation of security issues relating to the deal. Discussions underway Saturday were to continue through the weekend.
The company's surprise decision Thursday to indefinitely postpone its takeover of U.S. port operations did little to quell a political furor or appease skeptical members of Congress that the deal does not pose any increased risks to the U.S. from terrorism.
Among the proposals being discussed is a new, intensive 45-day review of the deal by the government — something the White House had refused to consider as recently as Friday.
Rep. Peter King (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said discussions among some congressional leaders centered on that issue. "It's my understanding that they are trying to build support for a deal involving a new 45-day investigation," he said.
I guess they hate Arabs, too.
Look, if a Taiwanese company was as problem-ridden as this, people would object as well. Dubai has real security issues that DHS noticed and objected to. This bigotry shit has to stop. It endangers people, like New Yorkers, who plan to break the lease if it comes to that.
GLEN COVE, N.Y., Feb. 25 — Thomas R. Suozzi, the Nassau county executive and a self-styled renegade Democrat, announced Saturday that he was challenging Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for his party's nomination for governor, running as an underdog who will rely to an unusual degree on businesses leaders who have been sued by Mr. Spitzer and New Yorkers who dislike his tactics.
Mr. Suozzi's bid, declared at a boisterous rally in his Long Island hometown here, stands as a direct affront to the New York Democratic Party, which is behind Mr. Spitzer with rare unanimity in the hope of electing the first Democrat as governor since Mario M. Cuomo was defeated in 1994.
"This will be a tough fight: My opponent will have the vote of almost every single Democratic Party boss," Mr. Suozzi told a crowd of more than 1,000 supporters, after taking the stage to the music of U2's "Beautiful Day."
...........................
Yet it is Mr. Suozzi's support from Mr. Spitzer's enemies that could make for an especially fractious and unpredictable season up to the Democratic primary in September.
Mr. Suozzi's aides say he has amassed more than $10 million in donations and pledges so far, twice the amount of cash on hand that he announced last month, though that fund-raising estimate could not be independently verified.
Of his $5 million on hand, more than $1 million has come with the help of business leaders like Kenneth G. Langone, the co-founder of Home Depot, who have been sued by the attorney general's office, according to several donors and campaign finance records. Mr. Langone is part of a suit alleging mishandling of New York Stock Exchange compensation.
Mr. Spitzer announced $19 million in cash on hand last month. Mr. Suozzi is aiming to raise $20 million to be competitive in advertising. His camp is assuming that Mr. Spitzer will ultimately have $30 million or more.
Allies of Mr. Suozzi predict that the anti-Spitzer faction will contribute millions more toward his $20 million goal. But they also said they expected to win votes from other New Yorkers who believe Mr. Spitzer has been overzealous in his prosecutions and heavy-handed in his tactics.
...............................
Political suicide, step right up and watch Tom Suozzi kill his political future.
And these New Yorkers pissed at Spitzer would be?
I cannot imagine why he would take money from GOP sources and expect to beat back Spitzer, especially people he's gone after. The local netroots will be all over him, as will the Spitzer campaign. If Lierberman is getting hammered for his actions, being in the pay of the GOP and claiming you want to clean up Albany isn't going to work in the year of the collapse. I know Schumer has been whispering in his ear, but Suozzi is literally charging a machine gun. Spitzer has a national profile and only Wall Street is pissed at him.
Those people who lost half their 401K's see him as a hero for putting those people on trial. Now here comes Tom Suozzi to talk about corruption when he's taking money from the people who stole their money.
The Republicans are infamous for saying one thng after doing another.
The whole attack on the port deal is designed to place liberals on the defensive by using race, to make them confront their own idealism
Well, having been called racist by Republicans, the best defense is a strong mind. Which is to say, call them on their eons of racism. They had no problem with Muslims being raped, tortured and kidnappned. Now, they defend them because Bush says so?
Don't bite. The deeper you look, the worse the deal is.
Armed members of the militia of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr guarded trucks filled with protesters on Thursday after demonstrations in Baghdad against the attack on a Shiite shrine in Samarra the day before.
By EDWARD WONG and SABRINA TAVERNISE Published: February 25, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 24 — The sectarian violence that has shaken Iraq this week has demonstrated the power that the many militias here have to draw the country into a full-scale civil war, and how difficult it would be for the state to stop it, Iraqi and American officials say.
The militias pose a double threat to the future of Iraq: they exist both as marauding gangs, as the violence on Wednesday showed, and as sanctioned members of the Iraqi Army and the police.
The insurgent bombing of a major Shiite shrine on Wednesday, followed by the wave of killings of Sunni Arabs, has left political parties on all sides clinging to their private armies harder than ever, complicating American efforts to persuade Iraqis to disband them.
The attacks, mostly by Shiite militiamen, were troubling not only because they resulted in at least 170 deaths across Iraq, but also because they showed how deeply the militias have spread inside government forces. The Iraqi police, commanded by a Shiite political party, stood by as the rampage spread.
Now, after watching helplessly as their mosques and homes burned, many Sunni Arabs say they should have the right to form their own militias.
For their part, Shiite political leaders and clerics say they are justified in keeping — and even strengthening — their armies, including those units in the government security forces, to prevent insurgent attacks like the one that destroyed the golden dome of the Askariya Shrine in Samarra on Wednesday.
That stance threatens to derail recent American efforts, especially those of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, to persuade Shiite leaders to dissolve their militias and weed out police officers and soldiers whose allegiances lie with their own sect and not with the state. That is essential for the process of forming a government that would be credible to all of Iraq's religious and ethnic groups.
Shiite leaders' denunciations of Mr. Khalilzad, who hinted Monday that Americans might not pay for security forces run by sectarian interests, made it clear that positions had hardened. "We have decided to incorporate militias into the Iraqi security forces, and we are serious about this decision," Hadi al-Amari, the head of the Badr Organization, a thousands-strong Shiite militia, said in a telephone interview. Since the Shiites took control of the Interior Ministry last spring, Badr members have swelled the ranks of the police.
Mr. Khalilzad was trying "to prevent the Shiites from getting the security portfolio," he added. "The security portfolio is a red line, and we will never relinquish it."
Since the toppling of Saddam Hussein, American officials tried unsuccessfully to disband Iraq's myriad private armies, from Kurdish pesh merga in the mountainous north to the black-clad Mahdi Army patrolling poor Shiite enclaves in Baghdad and Basra. The Coalition Provisional Authority had plans to force Iraqi leaders to dissolve their militias, but never followed through. Nor did the Americans press the case even after putting down two uprisings by the Mahdi Army in 2004.
The persistence of the Mahdi Army, the militia of Moktada al-Sadr, the firebrand Shiite cleric, illustrates the challenge facing the Americans in Iraq. A grass-roots organization, it operates both openly in the streets, as it did this week, when young men with Kalashnikov rifles attacked Sunni mosques, and inside the system, where members serve as police officers wearing uniforms and cruising around in patrol cars.
Though many Shiite leaders denounced the anti-Sunni reprisals this week, none of them chastised the Mahdi Army or called for disbanding it. That itself was a clear indication of how the politicians were looking to the militia as a protector of Shiite interests in the wake of the shrine attack.
Those political leaders who have no militias, particularly Sunni Arabs, say they feel more helpless than ever in this shifting landscape of private armies.
"Anybody who has a militia now has power," said Adnan Pachachi, a former foreign minister and member of the newly elected Parliament. "The Mahdi Army, Badr, the insurgents, these are the ones who wield power. They have weapons, they can move around and they are determined. It's not a question of political personalities, but of arms and weapons."
I'm totally surprised this happened.
No seriously. I am.
Not like I predicted this tree years ago or anything
Gov. Mike Rounds said yesterday that he was inclined to sign a bill that would ban nearly all abortions in South Dakota, the broadest measure to outlaw abortion anywhere in the country.
Gov. Mike Rounds answered questions on Friday about a bill to ban abortions in South Dakota.
"I've indicated I'm pro-life, and I do believe abortion is wrong and that we should do everything we can to save lives," Governor Rounds, a Republican, said in a news conference from the Capitol in Pierre, where the measure that would make performing an abortion a felony passed the state House and Senate this week. "If this bill accomplishes that, then I am inclined to sign the bill into law."
Mr. Rounds said he believed that a more gradual approach, with measures like parental and spousal notification laws and waiting periods, would probably be more successful at preventing abortions. But he said that he also understood that there were others in the "pro-life camp" who believe that a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that made abortion legal, was the wisest strategy.
"Many people will never believe that this will not work unless it is tried," he said.
If the governor signs the bill in the coming 15 days, it will be scheduled to take effect on July 1. But leaders at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, which operates the only abortion clinic in the state, serving about 800 women a year, have pledged to file suit immediately. They said they would seek an injunction to block the law from coming into effect until the court battle, which could last years, is over.
Some opponents of abortion rights praised the governor and pointed to South Dakota as a pioneer in a crucial battle; it is the first state in at least 14 years to pass such a blanket ban. Abortion rights advocates said they were disappointed though not surprised by Mr. Rounds's indication of support for the measure, which allows exceptions only for cases in which a pregnant woman's life is in jeopardy.
"Part of the antichoice movement wanted this always to be below the radar screen, to basically eviscerate and piece by piece erode the protections of Roe," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America. "Now you have a political climate where people feel emboldened."
The problem here is the five years in jail for performing abortions which comes with the bill.
The odds are high that this never becomes law and actually backfires on the pro-life movement, because most people assume abortion is safe. Once it isn't, it becomes like prohibtion and people turn against the moralists. In 10 years, pro-life as a movement wil be spent because of how close they will come to banning abortion, forcing the majority to finally act.
(AP) The Army has charged seven paratroopers from the celebrated 82nd Airborne Division with engaging in sex acts in video shown on a Web site, authorities said Friday.
Three of the soldiers face courts-martial on charges of sodomy, pandering and engaging in sex acts for money, according to a statement released Friday by the military.
Four other soldiers, whose names were not released, received nonjudicial punishments.
The Army has recommended that all be discharged.
The charges do not mention the name of the site, but the division has said previously it was investigating allegations that soldiers appeared on a gay pornography Web site. A spokesman for the division said Friday the charges are a result of that investigation.
The military-themed Web site on which the Army has said soldiers appeared does not make any direct reference to the division or Fort Bragg, a sprawling post about 70 miles south of Raleigh.
"As far as we're concerned, it's isolated to the unit, and our investigation determined that these seven individuals were the only ones" involved, said 82nd Airborne spokesman Maj. Thomas Earnhardt. .................
Gee, why would soldiers do this?
Maybe money.
And if they are gay, they were certainly tough enough for jump school, Iraq and Afghanistan, and there were no issues of unit cohesion.
Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 8:29 p.m. EST (01:29 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The only Iraqi battalion capable of fighting without U.S. support has been downgraded to a level requiring them to fight with American troops backing them up, the Pentagon said Friday.
The battalion, made up of 700 to 800 Iraqi Army soldiers, has repeatedly been offered by the U.S. as an example of the growing independence of the Iraqi military.
The competence of the Iraqi military has been cited as a key factor in when U.S. troops will be able to return home.
"As we see more of these Iraqi forces in the lead, we will be able to continue with our stated strategy that says as Iraqi forces stand up, we will stand down," President Bush said last month. (Full story)
The battalion, according to the Pentagon, was downgraded from "level one" to "level two" after a recent quarterly assessment of its capabilities.
"Level one" means the battalion is able to fight on its own; "level two" means it requires support from U.S. troops; and "level three" means it must fight alongside U.S. troops.
Though officials would not cite a specific reason for downgrading the unit, its readiness level has dropped in the wake of a new commander and numerous changes in the combat and support units, officials said.
Maybe it had something to do with death squad activity, since the unit was really SCIRI in Army drag
WHO could have imagined that, in the post-9/11 world, the United States government would approve a deal giving control over six major American ports to a country with ties to terrorism? But this is exactly what the secretive Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States has done.
Since 1999, the ports of New York, Baltimore, Philadelphia and other cities have been operated by a British concern, P & O Ports, which has now been bought by Dubai Ports World, a company controlled by the government of the United Arab Emirates. Defenders of the deal are claiming that critics, including the Republican and Democratic leaderships in Congress, are acting reflexively out of some bias against Arabs.
This is simply not true. While the United Arab Emirates is deemed by the Bush administration to be an ally in the war on terrorism, we should all have deep concerns about its links to terrorists. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were citizens of the emirates, and some of the money for the attacks came from there. It was one of only three countries in the world that recognized the Taliban regime. And Dubai was an important transshipment point for the smuggling network of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani scientist who supplied Libya, Iran and North Korea with equipment for making nuclear weapons.
Most terrorism experts agree that the likeliest way for a weapon of mass destruction to be smuggled into our country would be through a port. After all, some 95 percent of all goods from abroad arrive in the United States by sea, and yet only about 6 percent of incoming cargo containers are inspected for security threats.
It is true that at the ports run by the Dubai company, Customs officers would continue to do any inspection of cargo containers and the Coast Guard would remain "in charge" of port security. But, again, very few cargo inspections are conducted. And the Coast Guard merely sets standards that ports are to follow and reviews their security plans. Meeting those standards each day is the job of the port operators: they are responsible for hiring security officers, guarding the cargo and overseeing its unloading.
........................ Clark Kent Ervin, the inspector general of the Homeland Security Department from 2003 to 2004, is the author of the forthcoming "Open Target: Where America is Vulnerable to Attack."
Ervin was forced from his job because he actually did it.
The more that this deal is looked at,the dirtier it seems.
Bush really fucked up by playing the race card. There are real, substantial issues with DPW taking over most of the US's ports, none to do with them being Arabs or Muslims, at least not out of the LGF world. Dubai is a smuggler's paradise and the folks running DPW have major ties with the Bin Laden empire. What people forget is that Osama is like a DuPont, a child of extreme wealth and privlege, and his family is second after the Sauds in terms of influence in the region.
The Bush Administration, once again, chose image over the nation's security. The only problem is that people are so pissed that the race card is only being used by the uniformed and racists.
It's the GOP Jedi Mind Trick, but it ain't working.
Frankly I'm tired of liberals saying "what difference does it make"
Um, national security may be a mystery to you, but not to all of us. One central fact of the Gulf is that rich people paid for the Taliban, pay for AQ and pay for the Iraqi resistance. The problem with DPW is that their government bosses have been friendly to all manner of revivalist Islamic groups for decades.
One of the things which drove FBI and MI6 nuts was the level of support the IRA got from law enforcement. If you go to 2nd Ave and 124th St, you'll see a mural dedicated to Bobby Sands and the Long Kesh hunger strikers outside a police station.
The fact was that the NYPD was often more help to Provos on the run than the SIS.
So, are we supposed to assume all of DPW's managers are honest brokers when that could not be said of the Boston and New York police forces when it came to the IRA?
The problem is that Bush is taking the word of people who have a vested interest in pulling this deal off. And by a large margin, the American people don't want to hear it.
(AP) Weeks before one of its companies sought U.S. approval for its ports deal, the United Arab Emirates contributed $100 million to help victims of Hurricane Katrina, officials confirmed Thursday. The Bush administration said the money it received from the United Arab Emirates was nearly four times as much as it received from all other countries combined. Other countries, including some in the Middle East, also pledged large contributions but have not yet sent the money.
The White House said the $100 million for storm victims demonstrates the close relationship between the two governments now caught in a firestorm over the potential security risks of state-owned Dubai Ports World running operations at six major U.S. ports.
The money from the United Arab Emirates was previously described by the State Department only as a "very large" contribution. The White House said so far it has received $126 million in international donations, including the UAE money.
.......................
The United Arab Emirates sent its $100 million Katrina donation on Sept. 21 using an electronic transfer to an account at the State Department, the White House said. Two-thirds of the money was given to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to help coordinate aid to 100,000 families. The rest was sent to the Education Department to help rebuild schools and universities near New Orleans that were damaged by the storm.
The United Arab Emirates has long-standing ties to the Bush family. Records show the UAE and one of its sheikhs contributed at least $1 million before 1995 to the Bush Library Foundation, which established the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. The executive chairman of Dubai Ports World, Ahmed bin Sulayem, is not listed among donors.
You know, it's easy to jump on rappers like Stanley Crouch does, but it seems the Bush Administration works on the same moral compass.
Cash Rules Everything Around Me.
It's easy to jump on poor kids for lacking a moral compass and placing money above all else. What is Bush's excuse?
Because that $100m sure looks hinky.
When we catch poor kids who only care about making their pockets fat, we toss their greedy asses in jail.
So what do we do when the President is willing to veto a bill to protect American ports to protect his family's pockets?
If Dubai Ports World (DPW) does as nifty a job of running our ports as it has done running the freeport in Dubai then we are screwed. This is not about the fact that police and security officials from the United Arab Emirates have been helping us track down Al Qaeda operatives and other ornery jihadists. The issue here is the fact that the port in Dubai is one of the major ports in the world involved with smuggling of counterfeit and contraband product. A few years ago, for example, I was alerted to a shipment of several containers of cigarettes from Panama's port of Colon to Dubai. The addressee on the invoice? Al Rabea Spare Car Parts. Now, last time I checked, cigarettes are not and never have been an automobile spare car part.
Other items, including consumer electronics, liquor, HP print cartridges, make their way to Dubai and are then smuggled into tough areas like Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. And what is Dubai Ports World doing to crackdown on this activity? Nothing.
The inability or refusal to deal with the use of ports under the control of Dubai Ports World that are involved with smuggling is reason enough to stop this deal dead in its tracks. The owners of DPW are not the ones cooperating closely with the United States in tracking down the terrorists who attacked us. Instead, they have close ties to a host of shipping companies, including those owned by the Bin Laden family.
The challenge of smuggling a dirty nuke is comparable to smuggling containers of cigarettes, liquor, and shoes. If DPW will not stop the latter how can we be confident they will prevent the former? That's a security bet we should not take or make.
I guess Larry Johnson, who once worked for State, is a real racist. I bet he's moving to Idaho and shaving his head.
The fact that's he's an ex-spook who knows a wee bit about corruption and smuggling should mean nothing. Dear Leader has spoken
Seriously. Bill O'Reilly wants NBC-Universal to fire Keith Olbermann and replace him with Phil Donahue who hosted the 8pm show prior to Olbermann's hiring. http://www.billoreilly.com/...
Here's the text of his petition:
February 22, 2006 Chairman Robert Wright National Broadcasting Company 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112
Dear Chairman Wright:
We, the undersigned, are becoming increasingly concerned about the well-being of MSNBC and, in particular, note the continuing ratings failure of the program currently airing weeknights on that network at 8:00 PM EST.
It is now apparent to everyone that a grave injustice has been done to the previous host for that time slot, Phil Donahue, whose ratings, at the time of his show's cancellation three years ago, were demonstrably stronger than those of the current host.
Therefore, in an effort to rescue MSNBC from the ratings basement and to restore the honor and dignity of Mr. Donahue, who was ignobly removed as host three years ago, we ask that you immediately bring Phil Donahue's show back at 8:00 PM EST before any more damage is done.
Before any more damage has been done? Quite frankly, nothing short of the abolishment of the entire Fox News network could restore the damage done to journalism by their mere existence.
Who the hell is Bill O'Reilly to call for Olbermann's firing? What has Olbermann done so dreadful? Called Bill O'Reilly and Fox on their bullshit?
Repeatedly asked tough questions of the GOP and the BUsh Administration on their bullshit?
Covered stories no one else would?
Wait, that explains it. Olbermann's a real journalist. And in this day and age in America, that's akin to being a crime in and of itself.
What's next?
Dear Oscar voters
We ask that you not vote for George Clooney for any of the three catagories he's nominated in because he makes fun of me being a sexual harrasser, a position which has cost my employer millions.
He is an evil man, and we suggest you award stuff to one of those movies about queers instead. That Heath Ledger sure is pretty. And Phil Hoffman is hunky in an ex-jock sort of way.
But why give an award to that meany Clooney? Because he's already a liberal bastard who has gotten way more pussy than me. He's Irish, his dick can't be that big. Oh, he is a hillbilly, though. All that inbreeding makes for large genitals. No wonder he doesn't have any kids, his sister is already married.
So let's stop Clooney from getting another award.
If O'Reilly had the brains of a gopher, he'd know that Olbermann is a mean bastard who will never quit going after him. Like with Clooney.
Just because he's a bully doesn't mean anyone outside of Fox will give a shit about his opinions. And he's so good at making enemies, real, serious enemies, that he's being driven nuts by them.
Let's see, he called Clooney a loser with failed movies, now says Olbermann's ratings are sinking.
Hmmm, three Oscar nominations and 21% increase in ratings, utter failure.
Oh, btw, I'm watching Olbermann sign the petition to fire him. Then, he's running a tape of the entire MSNBC staff signing it.
By Matthew Mosk Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, February 24, 2006; Page B05
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said yesterday it is looking increasingly unlikely that he will try to block a United Arab Emirates company from taking over port operations in Baltimore.
Ehrlich (R) said he is continuing to review the security concerns raised by the proposed purchase by Dubai Ports World of the British company that oversees the movement of cargo containers at the Baltimore port.
But when asked yesterday if he now agrees with President Bush and supports the sale, Ehrlich said, "Clearly, the facts are moving in that direction."
The governor's view appears to be heading opposite that of Maryland Democrats, including leading state lawmakers and Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, who yesterday were voicing stern opposition to any agreement that put a company owned by the United Arab Emirates in charge of stevedoring operations.
"You don't let foreign countries have access to your borders, which is exactly what this is doing," said Maryland Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. (D-Calvert).
The fact is that this issue is like radoactive waste. You want to get the fuck away from it as fast as possible. Does he think that kissing Bush's ass will save him This issue is gutting the GOP. People are genuinely outraged by this and Ehrlich is a fool to stick with this line. As John Podhoretz said:
Rasmussen has a new poll up in which -- hold on now -- Democrats in Congress are outpolling President Bush on national security. By a margin of 43 to 41 percent, Americans say they trust Congressional Democrats more than Bush when it comes to protecting our national security. And by a margin of 64-17 percent, they oppose the sale of the ports to Dubai.
The deal is dead. It won't survive after a 45-day extension or a 450-day extension. Congressional Republicans have no choice but to be extremely aggressive and nasty toward the president and the White House, because they will be properly terrified of looking like Bush's lapdogs on a hugely unpopular matter that goes to the heart of the Republican party's political advantage in the United States.
If the White House doesn't handle this well in the next three days, the political consequences could be catastrophic.
Friday, February 24, 2006; Posted: 11:55 a.m. EST (16:55 GMT)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- President Bush said Friday that Iraq faces a "moment of choosing" in the aftermath of the bombing of a major Shiite Muslim shrine and urged Iraqis to stay on the path of democracy.
In a speech to an American Legion gathering, Bush hailed Iraq's revered Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani for working to urge restraint and calm after the bombing Wednesday raised fears of outright civil war.
"This is a moment of choosing for the Iraqi people," said Bush, who spoke after attending a National Security Council meeting at the White House devoted to Iraq. ......................
"We can expect the coming days will be intense. Iraq remains a serious situation, but I'm optimistic, because the Iraqi people have spoken" their desire for democracy through elections, he said.
Have we ever haa a president less willing to face the reality of the mess he's created? From shooting people in the face to Katrina, Bush is all slogans and greed and no action.
Iraq is about to explode and Bush talks about elections?
We're days from seeing Iraq collapse into civil war and he wants to talk about a vote? Voting created this mess. It isn't going to solve this.
Tom Friedmansays skeptics of the UAE port deal are "borderline racist." David Ignatiusdisagrees, saying we're straight-up "racist." I say bullshit. The argument being mounted is plainly contradictory. On the one hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate to worry about this because we can't discriminate between countries. On the other hand, it's supposed to be illegitimate because the UAE is a loyal ally in the war on terror. But if the second is the reason we shouldn’t worry, then we can discriminate between countries after all. And of course we can discriminate between countries when it comes to matters of national security. That's how national security is done.
And, look, ally or not, the UAE isn't a strategic partner of the United States in the way that the UK is. The number of countries who have British-style security relationships with the United States can be counted on one hand, if not one finger. We share intelligence with the British that we wouldn't share with Portugal, much less Dubai. An ally as close as Israel has been known to screw us over in defense and intelligence matters because, hey, countries have different interests. A private British firm operates in the context of the rule of law; a state-owned enterprise in Dubai . . . not so much. These are different countries in a thousand ways that have nothing to do with skin color. Pretending not to see the difference is childish and absurd. That a country hosts American military bases proves almost nothing -- we have bases in all kinds of places.
--Matthew Yglesias
Actually, five fingers, Australia, the UK, Japan, Canada and Germany. But that's a minor point. Why should Americans be cautious of any security deal with the Gulf Emirates?
Saudi security forces have foiled an apparent suicide car bomb attack on a major oil production facility in the eastern town of Abqaiq.
Guards opened fire on at least two cars carrying explosives as they tried to ram the gates, Saudi officials said.
BBC security correspondent Frank Gardner says the attack is the first direct assault on Saudi oil production.
The al-Qaeda network on the Arabian Peninsula has long called for attacks on Saudi oil installations.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Nuaimi said output at the facility, which handles about two-thirds of the country's oil production, was unaffected by the attack.
If the Saudis can barely protect their oil fields, how can we trust the UAE to protect our ports.
But this deal is dead if the individual states have to sue in court to end this. In New York, the last time anyone agreed on anything like this was, well, 9/11. The only debate in New York is how to stop this deal and why Bush is selling us out. My mother woke me up to say that it's because of the $100m the Arabs kicked in for Katrina relief which isn't accounted for. Other people think this is because the Bush family has deep ties to the Gulf States.
No one, and I mean from the Post to Newsday, thinks this is in our national interest.
The goal here is to prevent another scene like above.
They put a funeral a day in the paper for a year. A full fucking year. They buried the last man last year.
So if Tom Friedman and David Ignatius, who have been so wrong, about so many things, wants to call New York City racist, well, fine by me.
The actor Damon Wayans has been engaged in a 14-month fight to trademark the term "Nigga" for a clothing line and retail store, a search of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's online database reveals.
Wayans wants to dress customers in 14 kinds of attire from tops to bottoms, and use the controversial mark on "clothing, books, music and general merchandise," as well as movies, TV and the internet, according to his applications.
But, so far, his applications have been unsuccessful. Trademark examiner Kelly Boulton rejected the registration dated Dec. 22, citing a law that prohibits marks that are "immoral or scandalous." A previous attempt by Wayans was turned down on identical grounds six months earlier.
"While debate exists about in-group uses of the term, 'nigga' is almost universally understood to be derogatory," Boulton wrote to Wayans' attorney, William H. Cox, according to the application.
............................
If Wayans succeeds in persuading the Trademark Office to permit the mark, he may have to deal with Keon Rhodan, a 29-year-old entrepreneur in Charleston, South Carolina, who has been using "Nigga" on a line of T-shirts, hoodies and other attire for six years in a part-time, trunk-of-his-car business. ...............................
Though attempts to commercialize "Nigga" coincide with a generational shift in how the word is perceived, the clothing is still likely to test some boundaries, as Rhodan demonstrated in a phone interview.
"You couldn't wear it," he said.
Yeah, it will go great with my Stop Snitching t-shirt and my copy of F.E.D.S.
Jesus, are people going backwards in intelligence.
David Newert is having a slight problem with Nazis. I've kicked in $50. I hate to ask so soon after our last drive, but even if you have $5 ,send it his way
Wednesday, February 22, 2006 Following the recent outbreak of neo-Nazism in my own neighborhood, I've become even more acutely aware of the silent tide of white supremacism that's creeping back into our lives, if that's possible.
It's one thing when it happens elsewhere, as I usually find myself documenting. But having it in your own back yard drives home the reality in a particularly pungent fashion.
And it does continue to manifest elsewhere too, in nearly identical fashion: Until they unfurl their flags and don their costumes, today's white supremacists dress, talk, and comport themselves like normal people. They present their ideas as though they were simply normative, rather than the hateful aberrations they've been widely considered to be over the past half-century.
They see the current political environment as ripe for their return. So they constantly stress the need for movement followers to blend in and appear normal. They often call themselves "ghost skins" because their skinhead beliefs are often invisible. As Margaret Kimberley at the Black Commentator explained:
The ghost skins eschew goose stepping and rioting, and proclaim their intention to blend in with their neighbors. They are skinheads, but kinder and gentler in their approach, hence the ghostly aspect of their movement. The ghost skin who distributed the most flyers denouncing "the Oregon cesspool of Niggers, Spics, Kikes, Faggots, Ragheads, Chinks, Gooks, Roaches & leftist communist swine," received among other prizes, 1,000 white power songs as a bonus for work well done.
I met Jarred Hensley, a Ku Klux Klan member, six months ago while working on a story about racial tensions in Ohio. I remember being struck by his age: At 23, he was -- and remains -- the second most powerful Klansman in the state.
Hensley told me the Klan was growing younger and larger, information we later verified with the Southern Poverty Law Center. I asked Hensley if we could attend one of his Klan meetings. He told me non-members are not allowed. But he eventually agreed to videotape the meeting for us. His tape arrived a few months later.
After reviewing the tape (only portions of the meeting were filmed), I went to Ohio to interview Hensley. He told me there was an increase in Klan membership after 9/11. He also said the Internet is the Klan's number one recruiting tool.
Skins, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis will often talk openly to white reporters like myself, but it can be very difficult for anyone of color to work on these stories. As Cho explains:
Personally, this has been a hard story for me to report. As an Asian-American journalist, I found it difficult at times to listen to his views objectively. At one point in the interview, he told me I should leave the country.
Some people have asked me why we are giving the Ku Klux Klan a platform. I respond by saying there is clear evidence the white supremacist movement is on the rise in this country and around the world. This story cannot be ignored.
Neo-Nazis often express these ideas -- particularly their repugnance of minorities -- to white reporters as if they should be naturally understood. The leader of a group of white supremacist skinheads in Pennsylvania, described in a recent piece in News of Delaware County, talked exactly this way:
However, according to a member of the Pennsylvania skinhead movement, the organization is not what people perceive it to be.
"It's about love of your people and love of your country," said Ron, a self-proclaimed white nationalist and a college student who grew up in Chester County, Pennsylvania.
Ron -- who did not want his last name released -- has been an active member of the skinhead movement for about one-and-a-half years and believes that white nationalists have received a bad rap.
"Everyone to a certain extent prejudges people," Ron said. "White nationalists are just more open about it.
"It's not about blind hatred, just wanting the best for myself and my country. There are people in our country that are hurting it," Ron said.
The new resurgence of skinheads can be attributed to the fall of other hate groups and the skinhead music industry, according the head of ADL's Philadelphia Office, Barry Morrison.
The skinhead music industry creates passion for young people to gravitate to, according to Morrison. Teardown, a Pennsylvania-based group on the label Final Stand Records is a favorite among white nationalists, according to Ron.
While the old skinheads' cachet used to be with rebellious young thugs, selling themselves as "normal" is a big part of their schtick now:
Many of the new skinheads are young, impressionable, undisciplined and violent, according to Morrison.
"To be a skinhead is to be violent," Morrison said. "They have a great tendency to engage in criminal activity."
Ron, who is not a member of KSS but insists he does frequent their functions, agreed that many of the new members are in their 20s, but added that violence and crime are not characteristics of the skinheads.
"We're definitely not violent ... these people just care seriously about protecting their family," Ron said. "If one of us goes to jail, we're useless to the movement."
He added that the notion that members of the skinhead movement are uneducated is far from the truth.
"These people [skinheads] are very well educated," said Ron -- who is a junior and college and said he intends to go to medical school, or work as a financial analyst.
Public image makeover notwithstanding, it doesn't take long for these skinheads to start peddling the same old hate that's always been their raison d'etre:
Although skinheads are misunderstood, according to Ron, he echoes ideas of complete racial separation that have been championed by other "hate groups."
"This country was meant for white Christians," Ron said. Adding that members of the movement advocate for non-whites and non-Christians to return to their homes of origin and begin a government like white Christians did in America.
"Black people should be given the opportunity to return to their homeland and do the same thing," Ron said. "There wouldn't be anymore interracial crime.
"Asians ... I don't have any problem with them," Ron said. "I [just] think it would be better if they stayed in their land and we stayed in ours."
Got that, Alina Cho? Oh, and you too, Michelle Malkin.
Fortunately, there aren't many indications that this tactic is succeeding any more than previous mainstreaming efforts. Certainly, as the Stranger reported, there weren't exactly a lot of eager recruits to be had at the Fremont rally.
Still, what they represent is so poisonous, and their dark intent so undying, that is warrants eternal vigilance. So you can count on this blog and others to continue to monitor and report on their activities.
In that spirit, please welcome to my blogroll Olympia United Against Hate, which is doing a marvelous job of tracking this local band of neo-Nazis.
Both of us were recently named "race traitors" at the Website of the regional National Socialist Movement outfit (sorry, I won't link to it). There is an innate threat in such a listing, of course, but it's one I'm accustomed to, not to mention well prepared to deal with.
Still, it underscores the potential problems that lie in wait for anyone publishing a blog like this. In addition to the harassment that comes with these things (the NSM folks kindly urged their followers to dump hate material in my comments, which I've been very easily deleting), there's always the potential for these things to trickle over into your private life. The NSM is a tiny contingent, really, but all of these groups attract unstable and violent followers, and they are an actual threat.
I recently wrapped up my regular fund-raiser (I raised over $2,000, and will report in a separate post on that). But I've decided to run a supplemental fund-raiser, based on a campaign of refutation for this kind of intimidation.
What I want is to be able to turn their campaign against them: For every post and threat they make, people can donate to the cause of keeping Orcinus afloat.
I'm asking folks to toss a fiver (or whatever amount you like) in the PayPal kitty at the upper corner (or write me at P.O. Box 17872, Seattle WA 99107), and designate it with the phrase, "Say No to Nazis". I'll report on the fund's progress in the coming weeks.
Here's hoping we can hoist them on their own petard.
Michael Howard in Irbil Friday February 24, 2006 The Guardian
Iraqi authorities struggled to contain a convulsion of sectarian violence yesterday in which more than 150 people died in massacres, armed clashes, suicide bombs and reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques.
A day after the destruction of the gold-domed mosque in Samarra, one of the holiest Shia shrines, Sunni religious authorities said 128 Sunni mosques had been attacked and three clerics killed.
The fallout from the attack also hit home on the political front as Sunni leaders suspended participation in talks to form the new government and senior Sunni religious figures made unprecedented criticisms of their Shia counterparts for "encouraging protests".
The government also ordered a daytime curfew in Baghdad and three neighbouring provinces today in response to the violence.
Shias, including members of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi army, took to the streets yesterday vowing revenge for the attack on the shrine.
In the deadliest single incident, 47 people were dragged from their cars in the province of Diyala, north-east of Baghdad, and shot dead. Their bodies were dumped in a ditch. Officials said the gunmen, suspected of being Sunni insurgents, had planned to kill people returning from a demonstration against the bombing of the mosque. In Baquba, also north-east of Baghdad, at least 16 people were killed in a suicide bomb attack at a market.
.................
To say we told you so would be crass. Too many lives are at stake. But we predicted a civil war would be the ultimate outcome of this back in April 2003, about three months before we formed this blog. The time table might have been off, maybe some of the specifics, but at the end of the day, the road ends in the same place.
Thursday | April 10, 2003
How Iraq could devolve into Civil War
Iraq is clearly suffering a period of disorder, the question is will it shift into civil war?
I am not predicitng a civil war. What I am saying is that there will be signs of a country slipping into civil war which should be clear. I don't know what will happen. Maybe the exiles and the US can build peace. I certainly hope so, because the alternative could be a catastrophy for both Americans and Iraqis.
* A lack of respect for civil institutions
The looting of hospitals is a bad sign. Taking things from a hospital, which is designed to help people, is not only mere greed. It is the suggestion that there is no respect for civil authority. Most people will loot a store or a government office, but a hospital? That's more than just greed. It means the people doing the robbing are either criminals looking to add to their loot, crazed teenagers, or people looking to create dependency on another source of power. Which is scary beyond belief.
The US military's easy going attitude towards the looting was amazing and amazingly self-destructive. It sends a message that they will not oppose groups of Iraqis breaking the law. This will not be seen as tolerance, but weakness.
* Rape and home robberies
There are reports of both according to the BBC in Basra and I can expect the same in Baghdad. That's the trigger to building home arsenals and then developing local militias. People will protect their families from harm. And this is where charsimatic leadership starts. The former Iran-Iraq War vet who beats a looter with his bare hands then becomes the local hero, starts gathering men around, and acquires a base of power.
Sound familiar? That's how the Taliban started in Afghanistan. The local warlords were pulling out teenagers and raping them and robbing the truck drivers. The locals, not into seeing their boys raped, formed a band of guerrillas. The rest, as they say, is history.
* The US Authority is slow to get off the ground
Iraq had a state-run economy. Most Iraqis depended on the state for food and work. Without a viable state, they will be able to get neither. That means illness and starvation. Starving, ill people will look to leadership from any quarter. The only way to prevent this is the timely delivery of security and food, water and healthcare.
*Factionalism starts to grow
We already have the indications of factionalism. The murder of an exile Shia cleric is a hint that the locals are not eager for their brethern to return home and start running things. Many of these exiles have been gone for decades. But the thing which could be worrysome is when the exiles start to gather local gunmen.
What could be a real problem is when the INC meets and Ahmed Chalebi starts to take a major role. The SCIRI, the largest and best armed of the exile groups, is clearly not interested in any role in an American-led occupation government. Its leader, Ayatollah Hakim Al-Bakir, has told anyone who asks that he would resist a US occupation. The murder of two Shia clerics, while not tied to him, could be a hint of what is to come.
The Kurds have two parties, the KDP and PUK. each who occasionally fight with each other. Both now occupy Kirkuk. Only one has agreed to leave. The US is promising to get them both to leave. There is no guarantee the US can make that happen. If the PUK leaves and the KDP doesn't, that's going to make one group look like a sucker.
Meanwhile, the Turks are watching and will invade if they have to. This is the key national security issue for Turkey. They will not tolerate a Kurdish state and if Iraq is slipping, they may feel obliged to move.
* Anti-Americanism coaleses into a coherent movement
It's one thing to have individuals come up to Marines saying go home. It's another to have a crowd marching saying that. Once you start to have groups come together over a central theme-opposing American power-you will be creating the circumstances for various groups to start funding these efforts. The Arab world is desperately unhappy about the US invasion. It would take very little for money to flow from one bank account to another.
The first signs of real trouble and things could get ugly quickly from here is if Shia clerics, remember Shias are 60 percent of the country, declare that their people must oppose the US. Once that moral and religious grounding is established, opposition will explode because it will be justified to the majority of people.
Money means power. It means you can get and keep an army functioning. The disappearence of the Iraqi Army means there are hundreds of thousands of trained, led men who could appear to bolster an anti-American movement clandestinely. The US intelligence would be slow to pick this up and could only realize it exists after a massive street march, where the kids march first and the hard men come behind, with AK's and RPG's in their hands. A naked challenge to US power could result in a bloody embarassement. The lack of social order and a police force would place crowd control in US hands. And with the widespread distribution of gasmasks and chemical suits, tear gas would simply be pointless.
Remember, both Syria and Iran need the US to fail. They could be ready sources of revenue for anti-Americans ready to act. Keep in mind, the Iraqi Army is in hiding. Even if they went home, they didn't just disappear. Their commanders can find them if they need to.
* The factionalism turns to violence
It will start small. Assassinations, maybe a shoot out or two in a distant province away from direct US control. Maybe a US official or an exile. Then the killings move to mob-style violence, car bombs, gunfights, kidnappings, murders. As the pace of the killings grow, you start to see organized formations. Maybe 1000 men, maybe 1500. They start to use heavier weapons, rockets, mortars, machine guns in their internecine battles. Neighborhoods, then towns, start to fall into disorder. Local militas now control the area. These areas start to spread. Instead of the looting and raping you see now, you see nothing but order. You don't steal a loaf of bread in these areas. People who do, get killed, publicly.
This means that there are now local groups who can provide a coherent oppsition to the US.
* There are moves to consolidate power
The groups grow, they bump up against each other, they keep killing. And then they choose sides. A group of Shia decide to openly challenge the occupation government and declare their own rule, the Kurdish parties start in against each other, the INC collapses and the wild card, Saddam supporters decide to throw their lot in with the Shia and reveal where their weapons are. The Army splits along ethnic lines and you have the Sunni divisions and Republican Guard against the Shia units and the generals decide to join one group or the other.
Now, some of these signs may blend together, but briefly put, the signs of civil war are when disorganized opposition becomes organized around a central theme and players with money and weapons join the cause. A civil war is organized killing, not just looting. I don't think Iraq is close to it, yet. But things can go either way. The INC can be accepted. Or it can be rejected violently. It depends on how and if the US can organize and feed the people.
If they can't, then these other factors can come into play. There are too many guns and too many players and unless the US can pay them off and bring order, people will create order and not in a way we would prefer.
Steve Gilliard
Well, the resistance grew up before we reached the possiblity of civil war, and it took years to create the conditions for civil war, but we created them.
It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi Army collapses and takes sides.
The storm of protest over the planned takeover of some U.S. port operations by Dubai Ports World doesn't make sense viewed in isolation. The Bush administration clearly made no serious effort to ensure that the deal didn't endanger national security. But that's nothing new — the administration has spent the past four and a half years refusing to do anything serious about protecting the nation's ports.
So why did this latest case of sloppiness and indifference finally catch the public's attention? Because this time the administration has become a victim of its own campaign of fearmongering and insinuation.
.........................
So it literally began on Day 1. When terrorists attacked the United States, the Bush administration immediately looked for ways it could exploit the atrocity to pursue unrelated goals — especially, but not exclusively, a war with Iraq.
But to exploit the atrocity, President Bush had to do two things. First, he had to create a climate of fear: Al Qaeda, a real but limited threat, metamorphosed into a vast, imaginary axis of evil threatening America. Second, he had to blur the distinctions between nasty people who actually attacked us and nasty people who didn't.
.................... Finally, the ports affair plays in a subliminal way into the public's awareness — vague but widespread — that Mr. Bush, the self-proclaimed deliverer of democracy to the Middle East, and his family have close personal and financial ties to Middle Eastern rulers. Mr. Bush was photographed holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (now King Abdullah), not the emir of Dubai. But an administration that has spent years ridiculing people who try to make such distinctions isn't going to have an easy time explaining the difference.
Mr. Bush shouldn't really be losing his credibility as a terrorism fighter over the ports deal, which, after careful examination (which hasn't happened yet), may turn out to be O.K. Instead, Mr. Bush should have lost his credibility long ago over his diversion of U.S. resources away from the pursuit of Al Qaeda and into an unnecessary war in Iraq, his bungling of that war, and his adoption of a wrongful imprisonment and torture policy that has blackened America's reputation.
But there is, nonetheless, a kind of rough justice in Mr. Bush's current predicament. After 9/11, the American people granted him a degree of trust rarely, if ever, bestowed on our leaders. He abused that trust, and now he is facing a storm of skepticism about his actions — a storm that sweeps up everything, things related and not.
I think I got more emails abut this one particular show than any other one he's had either
President Bush has put forth a challenge tonight that I simply can't ignore. The president yesterday said he wanted those who are critical and questioning of this port deal to "step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company."
Well, first of all, Mr. President, to equate any country to your principal partner in the coalition ignores that special relationship this country's enjoyed with the United Kingdom for decades and decades. This also is not just a British company and an Arab company, as I think you well know.
Peninsula and Oriental Steam Navigation is a British privately owned company. Dubai Ports World is a UAE government controlled and owned company. You see the difference, of course.
And furthermore, the money used to fund the 9/11 attacks, most of it, in fact, was sent to the hijackers through the UAE banking system. In fact, two of the hijackers were originally from the UAE.
The UAE stonewalled U.S. efforts to track al Qaeda bank accounts after 9/11. In addition, the Emirates does not recognize Israel as a sovereign state. And the UAE was a transfer point for shipments of nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and Libya.
And if those aren't good enough reasons, I would just suggest I'm at a complete loss to offer what might be considered good reasons.
Still ahead here, do you wonder why President Bush is insisting on pushing this port deal through? Well, we do, too, and we've taken a look into it. We'll have a special report -- a special report on what appears to be the Bush administration's special relationship with Dubai.
And Dubai's friends in high places on K Street. K Street lobbyists don't see anything wrong with helping push this $7 billion port deal through, even if it raises serious questions about national security.
By EDWARD WONG and ROBERT F. WORTH Published: February 23, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 23 — At least 95 people, some of them prominent Sunni Arab clerics, were killed in revenge in Baghdad and the surrounding areas in the chaotic 24 hours following the bombing Wednesday morning of one of Shiite Islam's holiest shrines, in the town of Samarra, an Interior Ministry official said today. More bodies were being discovered throughout the day across Iraq.
Sunni Arab politicians broke off talks with Shiite and Kurdish leaders over the formation of a new government, saying they would not engage in discussions until those responsible for the attacks on Sunnis had been brought to justice.
In addition, at least 19 other deaths from attacks outside of the Baghdad area were reported today. At least 16 Iraqis were killed, half of them soldiers, and at least 20 people were injured when a powerful bomb exploded by an Iraqi Army patrol this morning northeast of the capital, in the volatile provincial capital of Baquba, an Interior Ministry official said.
Three journalists working for the Al Arabiya network were ambushed and killed by gunmen on the outskirts of Samarra on Wednesday as they were reporting on the shrine bombing, the network said today.
Thousands of Shiites took to the streets across Iraq in a second day of protests against the insurgent attack in Samarra, which destroyed the golden dome of the Al Askariya shrine, the burial place of two revered Shiite imams. The protests today were largely peaceful, though the crowds expressed unbridled fury. In Baghdad, militiamen loyal to firebrand Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr helped organize some of the most vocal demonstrations.
The attack on the shrine has sparked the worst sectarian conflict in Iraq since the American invasion, with Iraqi leaders and clerics calling for restraint and trying to steer the country away from exploding into full-fledged civil war. The top American military commanders and the American ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, have been talking with Iraqi leaders to try to defuse the groundswell of anger among Sunni and Shiite Arabs.
Of the 95 bodies discovered since the bombing, 48 were in Baghdad, believed to be Sunnis living in or near Shiite enclaves, the interior ministry official said. The other 47 were found in a farming area south of Baghdad called Nahrawan, where Shiite militiamen and Sunni fighters clashed last fall in a battle that left dozens dead.
The violence began on Wednesday morning, when a powerful bomb shattered the golden dome of the Al Askariya shrine and set off a day of sectarian fury in which mobs formed across Iraq to chant for revenge and attacked dozens of Sunni mosques.
The bombing, 60 miles north of Baghdad, wounded no one but left the famous golden dome at the site in ruins. The shrine is central to one of the most dearly held beliefs of Shiite Islam, and the bombing, coming after two days of bloody attacks that have left dozens of Shiite civilians dead, ignited a nationwide outpouring of rage and panic that seemed to bring Iraq closer than ever to outright civil war.
Shiite militia members flooded the streets of Baghdad, firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at Sunni mosques while Iraqi Army soldiers who had been called out to stop the violence stood helpless nearby. By the day's end, mobs had struck or destroyed 27 Sunni mosques in the capital, killing three imams and kidnapping a fourth, Interior Ministry officials said.
I've got my clipboard, text books Lead me to the station Yeah, I'm off to the civil war I've got my kit bag, my heavy boots I'm runnin' in the rain Gonna run till my feet are raw
Slip kid, slip kid, second generation And I'm a soldier at thirteen Slip kid, slip kid, realization There's no easy way to be free No easy way to be free
It's a hard, hard world
I left my doctor's prescription bungalow behind me I left the door ajar I left my vacuum flask Full of hot tea and sugar Left the keys right in my car
Slip kid, slip kid, second generation Only half way up the tree Slip kid, slip kid, I'm a relation I'm a soldier at sixty-three No easy way to be free
Slip kid, slip kid
Keep away old man, you won't fool me You and your history won't rule me You might have been a fighter, but admit you failed I'm not affected by your blackmail You won't blackmail me
I've got my clipboard, text books Lead me to the station Yeah, I'm off to the civil war I've got my kit bag, my heavy boots I'm runnin' in the rain Gonna run till my feet are raw
Slip kid, slip kid, slip out of trouble Slip over here and set me free Slip kid, slip kid, second generation You're slidin down the hill like me No easy way to be free No easy way to be free No easy way to be free
Ken Blackwell, the Republican candidate for Governor in Ohio, is in a tough primary fight. Ken is a cultural and fiscal conservative -- a true heir of Ronald Reagan. He has spent thirty years championing lower taxes, less government, and family values. As a black Republican, Ken is Jesse Jackson's worst nightmare. Democrats say defeating Ken Blackwell is one of their top priorities in 2006. Ohio was crucial to President Bush in 2004 and it will be for the GOP again in 2008. Please read the below urgent letter from Ken Blackwell and Ohioans for Blackwell, our sponsor today. Ken deserves your support!
Thank you.
NewsMax.com
Dear Friend,
I am involved in the fight of my political life. Although the latest polls show me ahead of my primary opponent, he has already spent $1.6 million on the TV and we expect him to spend almost $2million more. He has gone and will continue to go negative.
We must set the record straight. Can I count on your help right now? We must raise $125,000 in the next two weeks to respond. Can I count on you to click here and contribute as much as you can?
Only with help like yours can we win this campaign. Pundits have called this "the most important race in the country, with serious 2008 Presidential consequences" and I couldn't agree more. Not only am I the best hope of defeating the Democrats in November, I am the only candidate who offers real change to the people of Ohio.
You and I have the same conservative beliefs. We hold life sacred, we agree that marriage is a union between a man and a woman, we believe in lower taxes and less government.
Help me with my campaign today. Please click here, go to my web site and contribute now.
Thank you in advance for your support. I am honored to have friends like you.
Sincerely,
Ken Blackwell and Ohioans for Blackwell
Bwaaaah.
If you want to toss your money away in Ohio, send him some money.
But my bet is that he falls short. The GOP isn't great at online fundraising to begin with, and well, Newsmax's audience isn't all that inclined to stick up for black folks, noate how craven they are.
A few hours ago I got back from a breakfast meeting with Sherrod Brown in Dayton, held at Panera Bread near the University of Dayton. This meeting was meant to be a mini-forum for Brown to address concerns raised by Paul Hackett's withdrawal from the Senate race. There were roughly 20 people in the restaurant's compact community room including Brown himself, Ben Wikler (Brown's press manager) and Dennis Lieberman, the Montgomery county Democratic party chairman.
I had intended to record the whole thing and then either transcribe a few quotes or at least summarize high points of the 90-minute meeting, but about halfway through the tape recorder became a minor issue. I wasn't aware that this was supposed to be an "off the record" kind of thing; it was never brought up. Since it would have been utterly counterproductive (and more than a little churlish) to make a stink about it, I just turned the thing off. At the end of the meeting I voluntarily handed the tape to Brown himself (no request was made), to forestall any questions of my propriety in handling the recording. I mention this not as a complaint, but to explain that I was relying on the recorder rather than on taking notes. Since I'm posting from memory only, I won't be able to post any direct quotes or cover everything that was touched on in this wide-ranging (and somewhat scattershot) meeting. Cést la vie. Brown did say that he would be perfectly willing to answer questions "on the record" at a later time and I plan to take him up on that.
I make no pretense of being a Brown fan, or a hardcore Democratic partisan. In fact, I've been pretty damned harsh on Brown and the Dems over this whole fiasco. However, to paraphrase Rummy for a moment, you have to go to the elections with the candidate you have, not the candidate you want. That's of course what primary elections are supposed to be for, but I digress. For better or for worse, Brown is the candidate we have so further recriminations — at this time, about this issue — seem pointless. It's been a week and lots of people are still pretty incensed about the whole mess. I'm more or less over my initial anger, but I still have a very hard time picturing how Brown wins against DeWine and today's forum hasn't changed that.
Be that as it may, I'll try and be basic and factual about what was actually discussed at the meeting for the benefit of those who were unable to attend. I think it's pretty clear where my opinion comes into it, but if not, that's what the "Comments" link is for. Just a note on how the mechanics of this thing went: everyone was perfectly civil and friendly, but freely interjected what they had to say more or less at random. There was a lot of crosstalk, sometimes with three or more simultaneous speakers, and it got hard to follow at times. One thing I learned is that I apparently need to be a bit more assertive in settings like that, as I kept getting steamrolled and couldn't manage to get any of my own questions in edgewise. In any event, my basic points (not on Hackett or policy, but on the dynamics of the race) can be seen in the last few paragraphs of this post.
Saturday's Rasmussen poll was one of the first points brought up and Brown was dismissive, saying that according to other polling, Hackett was 30 points down (no link; I'm unsure where that figure comes from). The Mother Jones article was cited several times by attendees regarding Reid's and Schumer's involvement, as well as the fundraising calls. Brown explicitly made no apologies for anything he or his campaign have done, stating that Reid, Schumer and the DSCC had offered him no help whatsoever prior to Hackett's withdrawal.
Brown said that Hackett's main fundraising sources were 'New York gays and Hollywood elites' (I think that was the phrase), and that "of course" his campaign contacted these groups and tried to convince them to give money to him rather than Hackett. A later question addressed whether he would be willing to sit down with Hackett and try to work out some kind of rapprochement; Brown paused for a moment, but to his credit he did voice his willingness.
I hope Brown didn't say that, for two reasons:
One, it's dumb as a post and bigotted.
Two, it isn't true. He had massive support from vets as well.
Well, here's a chance for his people to clear this up.
I want this to be clear, because my description seems to have been interpreted as Sherrod Brown's having said something malicious or callous when that wasn't really the case.
Yes, the phrases "New York gays" and "Hollywood elites" were indeed spoken by Brown in reference to major out-of-state donation sources for Paul Hackett. They were contained within the same thought, in response to the same question about Reid, Schumer and the DSCC. However, they may not necessarily have been uttered in the same breath:
…I was relying on the recorder rather than on taking notes. Since I'm posting from memory only, I won't be able to post any direct quotes…
and
(I think that was the phrase)
I had thought I made it clear right up front that I was going from memory, and this is why I wanted to record the damn thing in the first place. You see, he did indeed say those things, but he may have said "New York gays" in sentence 1 of his answer and "Hollywood elites" in sentence 2. Having them strung together inside one set of single quotes was apparently a lousy way to write it out, and I'm going to edit that for clarity.
As a gay man, I also want to reiterate that Brown's remarks absolutely did not come across as derogatory in any way. It was more along the lines of 'those groups should be on my side, because I've been on their side longer than Hackett has.' Oh, and that isn't a quote either, although it does convey Brown's meaning and intent.
I don't need to make shit up to bash politicians with; they provide more than enough material on their own. My admittedly poor use of punctuation and any resulting miscommunication can be laid at my feet, not Brown's. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused.
. Which is why I posted this. Because stories like this can spin around the net and take on a life of their own.
This way, it's all in the open early and resolved before all kinds of shit starts.
Ports Redux by Soj [Subscribe] Thu Feb 23, 2006 at 03:17:23 AM PDT
My goodness, this whole issue about the ports has really metastasized. It is blowing up the blogosphere and traditional media both.
Since everyone and their brother has already discussed it in extensive detail, I should probably leave this alone. But I know people read what I wrote and are curious how I would respond to all these new facts and reports coming out.
First let's get rid of the dead weight or irrelevant or wrong "facts":
* Dubai Ports World (DPW) will be controlling our ports! - Wrong. That was and always will be the job of the (American) Department of Homeland Security, not just at the ports DPW would operate but at ALL ports nationwide.
* DPW is buying our ports! - No, they are just the port/terminal managers. The ownership remains in the hands of the American government.
* Bush is handing over our critical infrastructure to DPW! - No, being the manager of a port doesn't make you in charge of "critical infrastructure". The people in charge of the ports have ALWAYS been and will always be American law enforcement
* DPW will bring in a bunch of foreigners to take American jobs! - No, the majority of work at ports is conducted by American unionized longshoremen. This will not change if DPW is given the contract.
* I saw a picture of Bush holding hands with the Dubai royal family! - No, actually most of the photos I've seen on the blogosphere in connection with this story were of the Saudi royal family and Bush.
* Two of the 9/11 hijackers were from the UAE! - Yes and even assuming that's accurate, so what? Show me the ties between the Dubai royal family and the 2 UAE hijackers and then I'll get concerned.
Ok so those are the silly or irrelevant issues. Let's get down to the meatier issues:
Bush secretly nominated UAE executive before the ports deal - Here's a link to the basic elements of this story. It's true that Bush nominated a DPW executive to the position of Maritime Administrator, a top post inside the Department of Transportation. The man he nominated is Dave Sanborn.
He is an American citizen and has been one all his life. He is the director of DPW's operations in Europe and Latin America so he clearly has plenty of experience in the field (unlike many other of Bush's appointees). Sanborn graduated from the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, was a former exec at a host of other (non-Arab/UAE) shipping companies and served in the Naval Reserve. And his nomination wasn't "secret" but done in the normal, public way. I haven't seen a scintilla of evidence that this guy is unfit for the job and in fact seems to be extremely qualified for it. ...................................
Another Dubai company (owned by the Dubai royal family) is also the third largest stockholder in Daimler-Chrysler. Various other Dubai corporations also own several Holiday Inn hotel and parts of the Royal Bank of Scotland, not to mention the Helmsley Building on New York's Park Avenue. And on and on, the point being that some Dubai corporations are quite wealthy and they own a lot of property and other companies (either in part or outright).
So either Dubai companies are allowed to do business in the United States or not but there is no difference between them operating a port in Baltimore and having a stake in building cars in South Carolina because neither of those transactions involves controlling American security. Dubai Ports World manages ports across the globe including in places like Romania, Germany and Australia. None of those countries wants to increase their vulnerability to terrorists and/or Al-Qaeda and they have not had any problem with Dubai Ports World whatsoever.
Do I think that Dubai, its royal family and Dubai Ports World are some kind of angelic creation capable of doing no wrong? Absolutely not. But I've yet to see one iota of proof that having Dubai Ports World manage terminals around the world has caused any harm whatsoever to those countries' security. If you want to use their previous actions/associations against them to prevent them from doing any business in the USA, then just stand up and say so but don't make out like the management of some ports is somehow radically different than owning a major share of Daimler-Chrysler.
Now it's time for a post-script:
* In my last diary there was the appearance that I was saying that anyone who disagreed with the sale was doing so for racist or bigoted reasons. I apologize that this came across that way. I saw many xenophobic and bigoted statements coming from some who opposed the sale but by no means is this true for everyone who opposes the sale. I have great respect and admiration for many fellow members of this website who opposed and still oppose this sale.
* Some people jumped on me saying this is a golden opportunity to knock Bush down, especially since both the Republican leadership and the wingnut blogs are also opposed to the sale. That's fine and true and I don't disagree with that. I am not a political analyst and I'll leave that to others. What I write is based solely on my own opinions and research and definitely is not related to what's the "hot button" to push in politics.
Peace
What if you're wrong?
You can argue this bullshit all day long, call it xenophobia, but the fact is that the UAE DID participate in 9/11 and two of their citizens help kill nearly 4,000 Americans. And the money did come from there.
All it takes is access to the plans to the harbor. No more. Just because a bunch of Americans want to hire themselves out to the UAE goverment doesn't make them trustworthy. Their bosses have a right to access information on the ports, right?
It only takes one time for them to not be trustworthy. No one thought teaching Saudis to fly, but not land 747's, was a problem. Until it was.
I don't care what Dubai Ports World did in Germany or Australia. Anyone attack Australia or Germany?
There's a certain sort of thickheadedness here. Of course port operators are going to defend their potential future bosses. But no one else is.
I can't even begin to explain the difference between buiding cars and managing a port. If you think they are the same, well, they're not. One point is that Dubai owns stock in Daimler-Chrysler, they don't run the factories. Here, they would run the port.
This is about security, not only port security, but the management of the ports and their connection to the Dubai royal family and what kind of control they can exert in the US. You can say it's not a big deal, but then, when it is, it will be too late, won't it.
It's like there are people binhg willfully stupid, Kevin Drum, for interest, who want to chalk this up as another business deal, while this is scaring the shit out of New Yorkers because it isn't just another business deal if the harbor blows up, is it?
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 22 — A powerful bomb shattered the golden dome at one of Iraq's most revered Shiite shrines on Wednesday morning, setting off a day of sectarian fury in which mobs formed across Iraq to chant for revenge and attacked dozens of Sunni mosques.
The bombing, at the Askariya Shrine in Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, wounded no one but left the famous golden dome at the site in ruins. The shrine is central to one of the most dearly held beliefs of Shiite Islam, and the bombing, coming after two days of bloody attacks that have left dozens of Shiite civilians dead, ignited a nationwide outpouring of rage and panic that seemed to bring Iraq closer than ever to outright civil war.
Shiite militia members flooded the streets of Baghdad, firing rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns at Sunni mosques while Iraqi Army soldiers who had been called out to stop the violence stood helpless nearby. By the day's end, mobs had struck or destroyed 27 Sunni mosques in the capital, killing three imams and kidnapping a fourth, Interior Ministry officials said. In all, at least 15 people were killed in related violence across the country.
Thousands of grief-stricken people in Samarra crowded into the shrine's courtyard after the bombing, some weeping and kissing the fallen stones, others angrily chanting, "Our blood and souls we sacrifice for you, imams!"
Iraq's major political and religious leaders issued urgent appeals for restraint, and Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari called for a three-day mourning period in a televised address. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, Iraq's most senior Shiite cleric, released an unusually strong statement in which he said, "If the government's security forces cannot provide the necessary protection, the believers will do it."
Most Iraqi leaders attributed the attack to terrorists bent on exploiting sectarian rifts, but some also blamed the United States for failing to prevent it. Even the leader of Iraq's main Shiite political alliance said he thought Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Iraq, bore some responsibility. The Shiite leader, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, said Mr. Khalilzad's veiled threat on Monday to withdraw American support if Iraqis could not form a nonsectarian government helped provoke the bombing. "This declaration gave a green light for these groups to do their operation, so he is responsible for a part of that," Mr. Hakim said at a news conference.
It's come to my attention that many of the foreign goods we import into our country are made by foreigners who speak foreign languages and are foreign. It's come to my attention that many varieties of hummus and other vital bread schmears are made by Arabs, the group responsible for 9/11. Furthermore, it's come to my attention that the Chinese have a menacing death grip on America's pacifier, blankie, bunny and rattle supplies, and have thus established crushing domination of the entire non-pharmaceutical child sedative industry.
It's therefore time for Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton, Bill Frist and Peter King to work together to write the National Security Ethnic Profiling Save Our Children Act, which would prevent Muslims from buying port management firms, the Chinese from buying oil and mouth-toy companies, and the Norwegians from using their secret control of U.S fluoridation levels to sap our precious bodily fluids at the Winter Olympics.
In other words, what we need to protect our security and way of life is a broad-based, xenophobic Know Nothing campaign of dressed-up photo-op nativism to show foreigners we will no longer submit to their wily ways.
Never mind — the nativist, isolationist mass hysteria is already here.
Let him say this shit in a New York City fiehouse and see how fast he can run.
If people connected to the IRA wanted to run our ports,we might say no as well.
But I guess dear leader says OK, so does Subcommandante Brooks
Targeting the patriot demographic Serving in the vanguard of the Glorious Conservative Christian Revolution isn't easy. It's very hard work. I think that's why it attracts a certain kind of man. We're all conservative and Christian of course, but we also have other qualities that some might perceive as weaknesses.
You see we're a frightened bunch. We're scared of nearly everything. That's why we own so many guns and are so gung ho about sending poor people out to shoot, bomb, torture, and imprison those who scare us. That fear might seem like a negative quality at first glance, but it, along with impotence and feelings of powerlessness, is what drives us to achieve so much.
This probably isn't a major revelation to most of you. It's pretty damned obvious to anyone who's thought about how advertisers target us. Switch Rush, Hannity, or O'Reilly on and you'll hear wall-to-wall ads for male enhancement products and wealth building seminars. You don't have to be a student of Freud to see that they're targeting our fears of powerlessness and impotence.
Newsmax.com is an even better place to see this kind of marketing in action, As I write this, Newsmax's home page is playing host to at least 4 "get rich quick," 1 "how to pick up women," and 2 "how to beat the crap out of someone" ads. Such marketing is so transparent, I'm beginning to blush.
Regular readers might remember that I've written about some of these advertisers before. Who can forget Matt Furey's promise to teach us how to break a man's arm in a street fight. Now that's a talent you can use every day.
But there's an even better ad up now,"Quick-Learn Impaling Tricks." With one click, we are taken to a page where a patriot tells us:
Here's one hell of a brutal "fight-solution" for you.
If your life is ever threatened by an attacker... no matter how big, mean, and ugly he is... I want you to throw a standard paper clip -- just like the one pictured here -- and embed it deep into his forehead from 16-feet away. I assure you...
No... I haven't been drinking. Give me a chance to explain.
I've just got my hands on some very exclusive info on the lost art of "power throwing"... and I want to share it all with you. It's the real thing and this may be the last time you hear about this! So please... read on.
Here's what this is about: I call this power throwing... a "lost art" because there's just FIVE masters who understand this - and four of them are either dead... in prison... or just won't talk. So you simply can't find this anywhere for any price. I'm not kidding one bit when I say this is info is teetering on becoming a lost art.
But now I've arranged your one chance to know these secrets.
And that's just one of the many courses available through this company. They have over fifty instructors ready to teach you everything you need to know about kicking a guys ass in a street fight. And these teachers aren't poseurs either. They all have credentials like these:
Jim Arvanitis ... "Sir" to every fighter who's ever come up against him, in the street or in the ring... is so FEARED in the martial arts world that whenever he shows up at a fight convention 6th degree black belts will leave the room rather than cross his path.
He's that scary.
[...]
Mr. Arvanitis is the ONLY Grand Master in the style he teaches. It's called "Pankration" -- which is Greek for "kick some serious ass".
Yeah, that's a smoke in his hand. He's so bad, he'll beat you to a pulp while he's having a cigarette break.
I want to be like that. No one will dare call me tiny boy then, god dammit.
So why aren't these guys joining the Army again.
If they're so eager to learn this, Airborne School and RIP would be a breeze, forget the Q course.
I don't give shit about the nuances here, nor do most New Yorkers.
To let the UAE run American ports is simply unacceptable.
Why?
Because Bush fucked up airport security on 9/11. His promises to protect the ports are useless.
We'll just get some more excuses when an LNG tanker takes out Baltimore. Ooops my bad isn't really an explanation.
Most New Yorkers don't dwell on 9/11, but when I heard this deal, I said I just don't want to take a chance.
On 9/11, I woke up and was listening to Howard Stern when the first plane hit. I saw the second plane hit live on TV and instantly knew it was Bin Laden.
When I went out later that day, I saw an F-15 flying over Central Park at 2000 feet, armed.
Jen woke up to ashes flooding her then Brooklyn Heights apartment.
So forgive me when I don't take Bush at his word on this. If he's wrong, his cowardly ass is going to fly on Air Force One and Cheney is going to a bunker. We're the ones who live with the mistake.
The UAE has too many links with terror, and I don't give a flying fuck how many white men in suits they send to cover for them. Because these people got the Bin Laden family out of the US when no one else could fly, asking a question about Uncle Osama was too much for them to bear.
If this pisses off Arabs, well, yeah, I guess they're pissed, although I think they have far more compelling reasons to be pissed at us.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration secretly required a company in the United Arab Emirates to cooperate with future U.S. investigations before approving its takeover of operations at six American ports, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. It chose not to impose other, routine restrictions.
As part of the $6.8 billion purchase, state-owned Dubai Ports World agreed to reveal records on demand about "foreign operational direction" of its business at U.S. ports, the documents said. Those records broadly include details about the design, maintenance or operation of ports and equipment.
The administration did not require Dubai Ports to keep copies of business records on U.S. soil, where they would be subject to court orders. It also did not require the company to designate an American citizen to accommodate U.S. government requests. Outside legal experts said such obligations are routinely attached to U.S. approvals of foreign sales in other industries.
"They're not lax but they're not draconian," said James Lewis, a former U.S. official who worked on such agreements. If officials had predicted the firestorm of criticism over the deal, Lewis said, "they might have made them sound harder."
Advertisement
The conditions involving the sale of London-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co. were detailed in U.S. documents marked "confidential." Such records are regularly guarded as trade secrets, and it is highly unusual for them to be made public.
The concessions - described previously by the Homeland Security Department as unprecedented among maritime companies - reflect the close relationship between the United States and the United Arab Emirates.
The revelations about the negotiated conditions came as the White House acknowledged President Bush was unaware of the pending sale until the deal had already been approved by his administration.
Bush on Tuesday brushed aside objections by leaders in the Senate and House. He pledged to veto any bill Congress might approve to block the agreement, but some lawmakers said they still were determined to capsize it.
Edward Bilkey, chief operating officer, Dubai Ports World, in A-P interview: Bilkey says Dubai Ports has to comply with U-S security rules. Buy AP Photo Reprints
Dubai Port's top American executive, chief operating officer Edward H. Bilkey, said the company will do whatever the Bush administration asks to enhance shipping security and ensure the sale goes through. Bilkey said Wednesday he will work in Washington to persuade skeptical lawmakers they should endorse the deal; Senate oversight hearings already are scheduled.
"We're disappointed," Bilkey told the AP in an interview. "We're going to do our best to persuade them that they jumped the gun. The UAE is a very solid friend, as President Bush has said."
Under the deal, the government asked Dubai Ports to operate American seaports with existing U.S. managers "to the extent possible." It promised to take "all reasonable steps" to assist the Homeland Security Department, and it pledged to continue participating in security programs to stop smuggling and detect illegal shipments of nuclear materials.
The administration required Dubai Ports to designate an executive to handle requests from the U.S. government, but it did not specify this person's citizenship.
It said Dubai Ports must retain paperwork "in the normal course of business" but did not specify a time period or require corporate records to be housed in the United States. Outside experts familiar with such agreements said such provisions are routine in other cases.
Bush faces a potential rebellion from leaders of his own party, as well as a fight from Democrats, over the sale. It puts Dubai Ports in charge of major terminal operations in New York, New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia
Roll over Ronald Reagan. Your disciples are speaking ill of fellow Republicans.
Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell proved that this week when he attacked his gubernatorial primary election opponent, Attorney General Jim Petro, with radio and television ads that stunned Ohio’s political establishment.
Blackwell, who has climbed to the top of GOP polls with his creativity and audacity, signaled early that the campaign for the party’s nomination May 2 will be messy and he left pundits debating the wisdom of his strategy.
"With any kind of negative campaigning, there’s a risk that the mud splatters on yourself, so Blackwell must feel that’s a risk he can take," said Bob Clegg, senior vice president of Midwest Communications and Media, a Columbus-based political media consulting firm.
In what Petro’s campaign labeled a "vile attack," Blackwell unveiled ads that accuse Petro of demanding "campaign kickbacks" from outside lawyers that his office hires, prompting an "FBI probe." And in a bid to tie Petro to scandals that have tainted the GOP and its leader, Gov. Bob Taft, the spots accuse Petro of having "ethics worse than Taft’s."
Asked about the ads yesterday, Taft said, "It’s disappointing that instead of addressing the issues, the Blackwell campaign has started out by throwing mud. I would encourage both candidates to address the real issues."
The ads also drew a harsh rebuke from Ohio GOP Chairman Robert T. Bennett. And state Sen. Joy Padgett, of Coshocton, Petro’s running mate, predicted yesterday that they will backfire on Blackwell.
"I believe the message of negativity is not the one that’s going to prevail," she said. "Ronald Reagan was right. Ken Blackwell is wrong."
Political observers aren’t so sure. In an election-year headlined by scandals, when even 65 percent of registered Republicans say Ohio is on the wrong track, some observers say Blackwell is positioning himself astutely as a reformer.
............................
William C. Binning, chairman of the political-science department at Youngstown State University and a former Mahoning County Republican chairman, said the major risk for Republicans is that Petro will respond in kind, bloodying both candidates and making it easier for the Democrats in the fall.
"It’s doing the work of the Democrats," he said.
That negro's crazy.
Does he really think they will let him attack Petro like he was one of them?. That's mighty uppity of him. My bet is that he's gonna get hammered by his "friends" in the GOP. A lot of white people are saying they will vote for him that will certainly do no such thing. Making Petro into a victim is just creating an excuse for them to vote for him.
One of the uglier attacks on Joe Lieberman is that he has "divided loyalties" because he's Jewish. Apparently, that means he puts Israel's interests above America's.
But today we have definitive proof that Lieberman's divided loyalties aren't to Israel, but to George W. Bush.
One of the few legislators to come close to defending the transaction was Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, who is considered a security hawk among Democrats.
He told ABC News that he was "not yet" prepared to try to block the sale. He noted that many port terminals in the United States are foreign-owned.
As FDL notes, the United Arab Emirates does not recognize Israel and have a history of anti-semitic behavior. And Lieberman's allegiance to Bush trumps the fact that nothing in the past four years should give any of us confidence that Bush or his national security apparatus can provide the necessary safeguards to protect our nation's ports from being used as transit points for terrorists seeking to strike the nation.
Congressional Republicans are abandoning the administration en masse. It's quite telling that if the matter where put to a vote today, the likely 99-1 tally would see just one Senator standing tall and proud with the administration. And that's our old friend Joe Lieberman. Bush's truest friend.
Lieberman is crazy. Every other Senator from this region is screaming bloody murder. Menendez, Schumer, Clinton, they're all pissed about this deal. Joementum just says "I love George".
Well, Ned Lamont is running against him and Joe just handed him a hammer, Security Hawk my ass.
Jet lag sucks, and I’ve got it bad. So my serious posts about the West Coast Blogger Gathering will have to wait a bit. But I had a conversation with a black friend tonight, and I have to point this out, however painful it may be to hear: the Blogosphere is pretty white. Out of perhaps 100 people I saw this weekend who were connected or constructive in the Blogosphere, 90% seemed white to me. I couldn’t talk to everyone and there was plenty of candlelight and wine, so my estimate could be off, but that was my impression. There are so many important moments of analysis in this observation, I’ll let you all run with them. But it’s important to remember as we discuss issues and policies that have an impact on a much more diverse population.
Do what you can to invite a person of color to the lefty blogosphere today. Our lack of diversity is one of a very few real flaws in our community, but it’s not that hard to change.
And, unfortuantely, the first comment in the thread was, in my opinion, pretty racist:
Blacks seem very apathetic about it all. I’ve noticed that for a number of years, now.
Why is it that people who comprise the groups which work for many progressive causes are whiter than Casper the Friendly Ghost?
Maybe a better question for a white progressive to ask is if you can go upto a random black person on the street, explain to them that you're helping them, and then see if you get laughed at, get a dirty look, receive a positive reponse, or if you just receive silence.
I remember back when I was an active member of the RI Green Party, and at our 2001 state convention, Elizabeth Horton Sheff gave the key note speech. She is a black woman, Green Party member, and elected the the Hartford (CT) City Council. Besides Sheff and those who accompanied her, the rest of the room was filled with a bunch of white faces. For a political party who made battling racism one of the key tenets of its platform, why were the Greens so white?
Basically, Sheff told us, it's a lack of communication. The Greens were a bunch of college educated progressives who simply talk amongst themselves in the language that hardcore political junkies understood -- but nobody else could understand.
The Green Party was hardcore for the hardcore. It was where political junkies -- who lived and breathed politics -- went because they weren't satisfied with their other options. The Democrats sold out too much, so the Greens fled and started their own party because they just couldn't stand talking to anybody else.
There are many similarities to the problem of the Greens and the problem that the blogosphere faces. Let's face it, political blogs are for political junkies; it's hardcore for the hardcore.
You try telling a friend of yours who isn't as much of a political junkie as you are -- black, white, asian, hispanic, polkadotted, it doesn't matter -- try telling them to read your blog. They'll probably be like.. Yeah, sure, uh huh. Right. They might hit up your blog, or other popular blogs, a time or two, but that's it. Blogs don't speak to people who aren't political junkies.
Saying that blacks are "apathetic" is a racist cop out that shouldn't be tolerated. If bloggers expect our little universe to become more diverse, we're going to have to learn how to talk to people other than ourselves. Otherwise, "netroots" and the Green Party will share a common fate.
It is absolutely condescending to assume black people don't read or write blogs. When you want to see liberal racism in action, it is this kind of low expectation bullshit you constantly have to face.
Blogs are a tool. The same kind of people who read Harpers are going to gravitate to blogs. The same people who read Cargo and Maxim are going to gravitate to blogs.
They just won't be the same kinds of blogs. I bet some people read sites and don't even realize that they are blogs.
Black people are apathetic?
How the fuck do you answer that?
This is how: if I don't leave the house before 1 PM on a Sunday, I can't get newspaper. When I rode the train daily, it was the blacks and latinos reading the Daily News or Post. Did the person who posted that actually deign to talk to a negro?
The problem is that the same people who think the Nation is a bastion of progressive thought with a pausity of non-white staff, tend to have the loudest voices.
The fact that women-run blogs have been expanding, that we have no idea who blogs or how many of those people happen to be black also never seems to come up.
Black people will use blogs like everyone else. We don't need to be escorted in by patronizing white people.
I mean, how many times do you go to any social function and 90 percent of the people are white? Happens to me a lot.
Stop talking to and about black people like they are children. That would be a first start.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 22 - Insurgents dressed as police commandos detonated powerful explosives on Wednesday morning inside one of Shiite Islam’s most sacred shrines, destroying most of the building, located in the volatile town of Samarra, and prompting thousands of Shiites to flood into streets across the country in protest.
The golden-domed shrine housed the tombs of two revered leaders of Shiite Islam and symbolized the place where the Imam Mahdi, a mythical, messianic figure, disappeared from this earth. Believers in the imam say he will return when the apocalypse is near, to cleanse the world of its evils.
The blast took place at about 7 a.m. and shook the city of Samarra, a Sunni-dominated area that is nevertheless sacred to Shiites. The gunmen entered the shrine and handcuffed guards in the building, then set about planting the explosives, an official of the provincial governorate said. There were no immediate reports of casualties, but the golden dome was entirely destroyed, as well as three-quarters of the structure.
Samarra has long been one of the most violent cities in Iraq, and American forces there have struggled to contain a virulent Sunni-led insurgency. The American military has tried various offensives, only to have insurgents regroup and carry out further strikes. The Americans have also had little success in propping up Iraqi security forces in the town.
Shiites protestors took to the streets shortly after the explosion. In Baghdad, militiamen loyal to radical cleric Moktada al-Sadr, who is a fervent believer in the prophecy of the Imam Mahdi, drove through the streets of Sadr City with Kalashnikovs, many accusing the Americans of carrying out the attack
David has a different slant on the port controversy (did you hear that Our Fearless Leader is planning to whip out his veto for the first time ever to defend the right of a company controlled by a foreign government to provide security for our busiest ports?)
In other port takeover news, Kos points out that Rumsfeld, one of the board who signed off on this deal, claims not to know any of the details, and Steve makes the interesting connection that the head of the board that signed off on this deal is the former Chairman of CSX, a company that sold out to the putative takeover target for $1.15 billion in 2004.
According to Mr. Snow's most recent financial disclosure form (available here) Mr. Snow "received CSX-related income of $72.2 million last year, with $33.2 million of that in a special retirement pension."
He also received this from CSX
CSX OMNIBUS INCENTIVE PLAN Notice of Non-Qualified Stock Option Grant John W. Snow Grant Date: July 16, 2001 Options Granted: 800,000 Option Price: $38.775 Expiration Date: July 16, 2011
CSX Corporation ("CSX") has granted to you non-qualified stock options ("Options") to purchase CSX common stock. Your grant has been made pursuant to CSX's Omnibus Incentive Plan (the "Plan"), which, together with the terms contained in this Notice, sets forth terms and conditions of your grant and is incorporated herein by reference. A copy of the Plan is available on the CSX intranet (http://csxnet) under "Incentive Plans." You should review the terms of this Notice and the Plan carefully. The capitalized terms used in this Notice are defined in the Plan, except where it is indicated that such terms have the meaning given in the Employment and Consulting Agreement dated as of July 11, 2001 between you and CSX (the "Service Agreement"). Unless you notify the CSX Corporate Secretary in writing that you do not accept the Option, you will be deemed to have agreed to the terms of this Notice and the terms of the Plan. CSX reserves the right to terminate, change or amend the Plan at any time. Receipt of this grant does not obligate CSX to make any additional grants to you.
Vesting and Exercisability: The Options may be exercised only when vested. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the provisions below, all of the Options will become vested on the date of 2004 Annual Meeting (as defined in the Service Agreement) and will expire on July 16, 2011.
In addition, the Options will become fully vested immediately upon a Change in Control.
Any termination of your employment, other than a termination by CSX for Cause, will be treated as a Retirement (including without limitation a termination because of your death or Disability), with the results that (i) the Options will continue to vest as set forth above (if they have not previously vested) and (ii) you (or your estate) will have until the expiration date to exercise any vested Options.
Any termination of your employment, other than a termination by CSX for Cause, will be treated as a Retirement (including without limitation a termination because of your death or Disability), with the results that (i) the Options will continue to vest as set forth above (if they have not previously vested) and (ii) you (or your estate) will have until the expiration date to exercise any vested Options.
Well, control changed.
And the options are all vested now.
OK, show of hands: who is very, very sure that John Snow's only interest here is the good of the United States?
OK, what if I tell you that not only did CSX under Mr. Snow's leadership not pay any taxes to the United States Government in three out of the last four years he ran it (while making a profit of close to a billion dollars), they were awarded $164 million in tax rebates during that period?
OK, another show of hands: who is very, very sure that John Snow's only interest here is the good of the United States?
Think about this: we are so afraid of terrorists, that we have to kidnap people and jail them in secret prisons, keep innocent people in Gitmo, listen to people's calls without wiretaps, and buy bulletproof vests for dogs.
Yet, when the UAE, a country which defines the word shady, wants to run US ports, we're bigots for opposing this? I have no problem with Arabs. I have a problem with people who enable terrorists. Why doesn't President Bush.
Hell, just because 9/11 was planned in Dubai, they couldn't mean us any harm, right? Maybe the North Koreans could run the West Coast ports.
This is the beginning of the end for Bush. Never before has his stupidity been on such open display. Bush and Cheney are so used to getting their way that they think questions are impertinent.
They have pimped the fear of the brown other for so long they think they can hand off a part to their brown friends and not cause a shitstorm?
Bush thinks his personal ties are good enough for diplomacy.
They aren't. Too many people have died to let this slide.
Tuesday, February 21, 2006; Posted: 7:55 a.m. EST (12:55 GMT)
FORT CAMPBELL, Kentucky (AP) -- Wearing vests covered in military patches, a band of motorcyclists rolls around the country from one soldier's funeral to another, cheering respectfully to overshadow jeers from church protesters.
They call themselves the Patriot Guard Riders, and they are more than 5,000 strong, forming to counter anti-gay protests held by the Rev. Fred Phelps at military funerals.
Phelps believes American deaths in Iraq are divine punishment for a country that he says harbors homosexuals. His protesters carry signs thanking God for so-called IEDs -- explosives that are a major killer of soldiers in Iraq.
The bikers shield the families of dead soldiers from the protesters, and overshadow the jeers with patriotic chants and a sea of red, white and blue flags.
"The most important thing we can do is let families know that the nation cares," said Don Woodrick, the group's Kentucky captain. "When a total stranger gets on a motorcycle in the middle of winter and drives 300 miles to hold a flag, that makes a powerful statement."
At least 14 states are considering laws aimed at the funeral protesters, who at a recent memorial service at Fort Campbell wrapped themselves in upside-down American flags. They danced and sang impromptu songs peppered with vulgarities that condemned homosexuals and soldiers.
The Patriot Guard was also there, waving up a ruckus of support for the families across the street. Community members came in the freezing rain to chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" alongside them. ....................
Shirley Phelps-Roper, a daughter of Fred Phelps and an attorney for the Topeka, Kansas-based church, said neither state laws nor the Patriot Guard can silence their message that God killed the soldiers because they fought for a country that embraces homosexuals.
"The scriptures are crystal clear that when God sets out to punish a nation, it is with the sword. An IED is just a broken-up sword," Phelps-Roper said. "Since that is his weapon of choice, our forum of choice has got to be a dead soldier's funeral."
..............................
Richard Wilbur, a retired police detective, said his Indiana Patriot Guard group only comes to funerals if invited by family. He said he has no problem with protests against the war but sees no place for objectors at a family's final goodbye to a soldier.
"No one deserves this," he said.
Jen
This is AWESOME. I want to see these guys pound the crap out of Phelps and his idiots. I'm not normally a flag-waver but I'd buy these guys a fresh pack of the Stars and Stripes any day.
Another day, another person flees the Steele camapign
The Steele campaign in action
Steele campaign official resigns Communications chief is 2nd top aide to leave By Jennifer Skalka Sun reporter Originally published February 18, 2006
Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele lost his communications director this week, marking the second top-level staffer to leave his U.S. Senate campaign since the beginning of the year.
Leonardo Alcivar, who served since October as Steele's spokesman, resigned Wednesday.
A veteran of New York politics who worked for Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, Alcivar was a much-heralded addition to Steele's team, helping launch the lieutenant governor's campaign.
The latest departure comes just a week after Steele, a Republican, offended an audience of Baltimore Jewish leaders when he compared embryonic stem cell research to the experiments of Nazi doctors, a statement that made national news and prompted a swift apology from Steele.
"This is not evidence of a sinking ship or disarray," said Dan Ronayne, press secretary for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. "This is February in a campaign. There's going to be some changes made at the staff level. This is common."
..........................
Before joining the Steele campaign, Shafer was hired by Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman, a Maryland native, to be Northeast regional political director. Alcivar was a spokesman for the 2004 Republican National Convention. ..............................
"It looks like it's time for Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman to go to Plan B," said Oren Shur, a spokesman for Democrat Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin's Senate campaign.
Democrats, among others, have criticized Steele, saying he is not running a substantive campaign.
They say he has dodged questions about his position on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito Jr. to the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as a range of state matters from a minimum-wage increase to gay marriage.
"It's hard being the communications guy when there's nothing to talk about," said Derek Walker, executive director of the Maryland Democratic Party. "Lenny was asked to leave for making the radical suggestion that Steele take a position on the issues."
.................................. "There's probably some re- assessment going on," Gimpel said. "It looks like it's still a competitive election and one that he could win, but only if the right team is in place."
Bwaaaah. Good. The bastard lied about me, so I'm not upset he's gone.
But Steele doesn't get it yet. There are people who desperately want him to lose. He's a polarizing figure and if he thinks he can sneak by, he's crazy. They are waiting to jump all in his shit. But then given his general level of idiocy, I'd keep his mouth shut as well.
Comparing stem-cell research to the Holocaust in a room full of survivors. Jesus, I couldn't make that up. Wait until he insults black people. People are waiting for that. And he'll do it. He needs to convince people he can do the job and he's far away from doing that.
FEBRUARY 17--This country, as you know, is filled with the deranged. And then there's Travis Frey, a 33-year-old Iowa man who is facing charges that he tried to kidnap his own wife (not to mention a separate child pornography rap). Frey, prosecutors contend, apparently is a rather demanding guy. In fact, he actually drew up a bizarre four-page marriage document--a "Contract of Wifely Expectations"--that sought to establish guidelines for his spouse in terms of hygiene, clothing, and sexual activities. In return for fulfilling certain requirements, Frey (pictured right) offered "Good Behavior Days," or GBDs. Each GBD, Frey wrote, could be redeemed by his wife to "get out of doing the things" he requested daily. A copy of the proposed contract, which Frey's wife never signed and later provided to cops, can be found below. While we normally point out the highlights of most documents, there are so many in this demented, and very graphic, contract, we really can't do it justice. So set aside ten minutes--and prepare to be repulsed. (4 pages)
Dr. Phil revisits the topic of what makes a good wife. Grant and Kelly first appeared on the show because Grant expected his wife to live up to his demanding standards. He wanted a cleaner house, better meals and a sexier spouse. After seven years, his constant criticism and disappointment had her ready to throw in the towel on trying to become the "perfect wife." Dr. Phil’s first talk with Grant and Kelly caused quite a stir as thousands of viewers wrote in choosing sides. How are Grant and Kelly now? Has Grant abandoned his critical ways and his expectation of having a Stepford wife? And why is he no longer wearing his wedding ring?
It turns out that he's still the raging asshole he was before, actually, but you can see the clips. I specifically watched this show because of the idiot in the Smoking Gun.
He's an electrical engineer and he wants to fix his wife like a circuit board. The guy had seven cards of things she needed to do. Seven.
Divorce Court is also good for lists from spouses.
In short, if some asshole doesn't crawl across my TV screen with a list for their spouse to follow I must be watching the History Channel or HGTV.
Because the guy on Dr. Phil deserved to see his wife fucking Clive Owen while he was having his testicles shocked. His wife was crying on TV as she spoke and he was pissed that she wasn't perfect.
I mean, the guy makes Dick Cheney look sympathetic. He wanted the broom handles at 90 degrees, not 45. They didn't do that shit to my father at MCRD Parris Island in the 50's and recruits died there. He would rate her meals, A, B, or C. Sometimes, he would eat out and then come home after she cooked and he knew she was cooking. He stopped wearing his wedding ring because she wasn't perfect.
The shitty part is that she couldn't see that his behavior was cruel in the Giuliani sense, just above a wild animal. Making a woman cry is bad as is, but on TV?
So that list by the nut in Iowa is as common as a TV show.
There will be anti-War protests in the coming month, as the 3-year anniversary of the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq approaches.
I think it is time to demand a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq. I suspect a majority of Iraqi parliamentarians want that. The Sunni Arabs demand it. The Sadrists demand it. It is time. Saying that the guerrillas would take advantage of a timetable, given the carnage we saw on Monday (see below) is frankly silly. They are taking advantage of the current situation. We have to create a new situation, with which they might be happier so that they stop blowing things up. Staying this course is untenable.
But that step will not necessarily resolve the crisis.
I think the peace movement has a real opportunity here to make a push for much heavier United Nations involvement in Iraq. I say, let's make up placards calling on Kofi Annan to get involved, and calling on Bush to let the UN come in in a big way, with proper protection.
Here are the advantages:
1. The United Nations has political legitimacy in the Middle East. American unilateralism does not. The guerrillas would be humiliated to deal with Bush, who crushed them and marginalized them. They would be more likely to treat with the UN.
2. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has demanded greater UN involvement, and he has enormous authority with the Shiite majority.
3. No country is going to send troops to Iraq under a United States military command. There has to be a United Nations peace-enforcing command. Once that exists, it might become an umbrella for Arab League troops, e.g. Cheney was told as much when he was in Cairo, according to the Arabic press.
I.e., by keeping out the UN, the Bush administration is guaranteeing that it is mainly American (and British) blood and treasure that is spilt in Iraq for years to come.
4. If the United Nations could be mobilized to help Iraq through the coming years of instability and help shepherd it to independence from the US and UK, it would help to strengthen international, multilateral organizations generally and contribute to an institutionalization of international law.
5. The permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as all UN member states, have a keen interest in the fate of Iraq and the Gulf. They should be encouraged to deploy some of their treasure (and probably some blood) for the common benefit of Iraqis and the world.
6. The peace movement will be more credible if it has a program other than simple US withdrawal from Iraq. The US public is aware that an Iraq in flames at the head of the oil-rich Gulf could have a horrible impact on the US itself. A demand that the Iraq situation be internationalized is a responsible way of getting the US out, getting Iraq out of Bush's incompetent hands, and helping Iraqis move forward.
7. Bush invaded Iraq in part in order to destroy the United Nations. Forcing him to bring it in to Iraq would be a blow against American unilateralism and rightwing American aggression for decades to come.
Zarqawi stared his war by blowing up UN headquarters.
The problem is that any move to go to Iraq will result in riots in places like Nigeria, and the resistance will kill them if they get there. The Muslim street would go insane over this.
Tan helmet, blue helmet, they will be blown away by an IED.
Why? Because it all stinks of occupation.
Why would Sadr sit still for this? He wants an unoccupied Iraq, not a UN occupied Iraq. Especially one filled with Sunni troops.
A kindler, gentler occupation is still an occupation.
It is three years too late for this.
There will only be the violent ejection of the US by the Shia.
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC LIPTON Published: February 21, 2006
WASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — President Bush said this afternoon that he would veto any legislation seeking to block the administration's decision to allow a state-owned company from Dubai to assume control of port terminals in New York and other cities.
Mr. Bush's rare veto threat came as Republican leaders and many of their Democratic counterparts called up today for the port takeover to be put on hold. They demanded that the Bush administration conduct a further investigation of the Dubai company's acquisition of the British operator of the six American ports.
"After careful review by our government, I believe the transaction ought to go forward," Mr. Bush told reporters who were traveling with him on Air Force One to Washington, according to news agencies. "I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British company. I am trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to the people of the world, 'We'll treat you fairly." '
The confrontation between Mr. Bush and his own supporters escalated rapidly after the Senate Republican leader, Bill Frist, and the House speaker, J. Dennis Hastert, joined Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Gov. George E. Pataki and a host of other Republicans in insisting that the transaction must be extensively reviewed, if not killed. That put them on essentially the same side of the issue as a chorus of Democrats, who have seized on the issue to argue that Mr. Bush was ignoring a potential security threat.
By Peter Grier | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor WASHINGTON – Energy is a strategic commodity - and thus China's purchase of a US oil company would irreparably damage US national security.
That's the hard line taken by some key members of Congress as debate intensifies in Washington over a Chinese bid to buy California-based Unocal and its petroleum and pipeline assets.
Some deal opponents - such as former CIA chief R. James Woolsey - say it's "naive" to think that the proposed takeover is just a commercial matter, unrelated to a Beijing strategy for domination of energy markets and the Western Pacific.
Other experts retort that Congress is experiencing one of its periodic China scares, and that there is little danger in selling a relatively small oil firm to foreigners - even one with close ties to the Chinese government.
"The question you have to ask is whether there is risk to US security from this. I don't see that there is," says James Andrew Lewis, director of the Technology and Public Policy program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).
Whatever its outcome, the $18.5 billion bid for Unocal by the Chinese National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC Ltd.) appears to have intensified feelings of ill-will that were already rising on both sides of the Pacific.
Last month the House, by a vote of 398 to 15, passed a resolution declaring that the deal would threaten national security. Last Wednesday Rep. Duncan Hunter (R), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he might introduce a bill that would prevent the purchase. Congress enjoys the support of the public, 74 percent of whom oppose the deal, according to a Wall Street Journal poll.
Beijing, on the other hand, has complained that US lawmakers should stop interfering with a matter of business.
In Washington, opponents see the move as directed, not by market concerns, but by the desires of the Chinese government. CNOOC has lined up cut-rate financing for the deal from state-owned banks, they point out. In addition, CNOOC chairman Fu Chengyu doubles as a high-ranking Communist party official.
..................
How many Chinese have crashed planes into American buildings?
None.
That's three less than the UAE can boast of
Yet, the Chinese was prevented from buying Unocal over national security issues.
WASHINGTON - The Dubai firm that won Bush administration backing to run six U.S. ports has at least two ties to the White House.
One is Treasury Secretary John Snow, whose agency heads the federal panel that signed off on the $6.8 billion sale of an English company to government-owned Dubai Ports World - giving it control of Manhattan's cruise ship terminal and Newark's container port.
Snow was chairman of the CSX rail firm that sold its own international port operations to DP World for $1.15 billion in 2004, the year after Snow left for President Bush's cabinet.
The other connection is David Sanborn, who runs DP World's European and Latin American operations and was tapped by Bush last month to head the U.S. Maritime Administration.
The ties raised more concerns about the decision to give port control to a company owned by a nation linked to the 9/11 hijackers.
.............
Look, you don't have to a xenophobe to not want to sell industries to other governments on national security concerns. This deal stinks of the usual "our friends the Saudis" kind of push. Then we forget how many Saudis have attacked Americans to keep them happy.
Look, we may well hurt Dubai's feelings. So fucking what. If any of their managers are tied to AQ, well, you saw how Bush handled Katrina You want to move that to Red Hook, Brooklyn?
This is not random fear of Arabs, but a specific national security concern. New Jersey is already suing, and they won't be alone.
If you were a Democrat watching Coretta Scott King's funeral, you could congratulate yourself on the party's role in past civil rights struggles. But if you saw what's been on television in Milwaukee in the past month, you'd wonder what's become of your party.
Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, looks like public enemy No. 1 for African-American schoolchildren. "He's throwing away my dream," one Milwaukee student says in a TV commercial supporting the city's school voucher program for low-income families. Another commercial shows a black father on the verge of tears saying: "School choice is good enough for the governor's family. I ought to be able to have it, too."
....................
But it still leaves the party in Wisconsin and elsewhere with long-term problems. How long will blacks vote for a party that opposes the voucher programs they strongly favor? And how can Democratic leaders keep preaching their devotion to public schools while sending their own children to private schools, as Governor Doyle does? He's what I call a Lypsy, an acronym for Let Your People Stay.
Doyle told me that he wasn't bothered by the personal attacks, and that he had compromised only to avoid disrupting students' education. He said he was still philosophically opposed to vouchers and didn't fear reprisals from black voters. "I don't think this is an issue that moves voters," he said, arguing that blacks distrust Republicans on too many other issues.
He may be right — for now. Howard Fuller, a prominent advocate for vouchers as well as a former superintendent of Milwaukee's public schools, told me he hadn't seen the popularity of the voucher program translate into much affection for Republicans among his fellow African-Americans, especially his civil rights comrades.
"Those people you saw at Coretta Scott King's funeral are not going to change," he said. "My generation pushed for social change through government solutions, but younger blacks are much more interested in private initiatives. They understand that the public school system cannot by itself be the solution to educating low-income children."
One of those younger blacks is Jason Fields, a first-term state legislator who has defied his fellow Democrats by supporting vouchers. "If the Democratic Party is supposed to be the party of the little guy, where do we get off opposing a chance to help those with the least of all?" he asked. The answer he's heard from his party is that supporting vouchers can end your career if the teachers' union supports a candidate against you in the Democratic primary.
But Fields, who represents a predominantly black district in Milwaukee, is that rare Democrat who will stand up for his constituents against the union. "If they run someone against me, so be it," Fields said. "I'm willing to leave it up to the voters to decide who really cares about African-Americans, and who's just spitting out rhetoric."
Fields should enjoy his single term in office. Because he forgets the teachers union has lots of black members.
I'm not surprised Tierney, no friend of black people, likes this idea. But people like Fields should have short political careers because they's dumber than posts. Vouchers start with black kids, but then will move so white folks can send their kids to private schools, leaving black kids behind.
I don't know why Fields doesn't get that. But he will. The fact is that vouchers sound great, but only a few kids get them.
Come on, when people like John Tierney and the GOP want to push this, you know the welfare of black people is nowhere in the room.
Willful stupidity is a crime.
Look, there is no alternative to a functioning public school system. 90 percent of all Americans who attend high school attend a public high school. Even homeschoolers rely on the resources of the public school system for some functions. There is no subsititute for the public schools. Not only are they vital for an informed population, but a shared sense of civic duty.
The GOP want to destroy public schools or leave them as a rump system so they can funnel cash into seg academies and Christian schools. Anyone foolish enough to assist in that deserves to be defeated at the polls.
UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has urged Iraqi leaders to put aside sectarian interests and form a government of national unity.
December's election results show "no party, no ethnic or religious grouping can dominate" the Iraqi government, Mr Straw said on a surprise visit.
He is in Baghdad for talks with top politicians about the slow progress in forming a new coalition government.
Talks have faltered over splits within and between Shias, Sunnis and Kurds.
Shia leaders say they have the right to control key posts after winning 130 of the 275 seats in parliament.
But Sunni Arab leaders want to ensure they are represented at a senior level, and are seeking to break the control of Shia militias on the interior ministry.
The US has warned that aid to Iraq will be cut if the new government includes politicians with a strong sectarian bias.
The Iraqi prime minister dismissed the US warning.
Ibrahim Jaafari said he did not want a sectarian government, but would not accept interference in what was an "internal Iraqi affair".
"We do not need anybody to remind us, thank you."
I guess when our "loyal" Iraqi units turn on us afcter we cut their pay, we can then leave.
By JOJI SAKURAI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 17 minutes ago
OULX, Italy - Silvio Faure is a lonely man in a lonely bar. He sits on a stool in a room empty but for four men playing cards. On TV, Italy is beating Canada in Olympic curling.
Around the corner at the Roxy Bar, 100 fanatics are gathered around another TV. This one sits in a corner like an altar. There is constant yelling and cheering. It's for Juventus, the storied soccer team from nearby Turin.
Even in this valley, where Olympic events are being staged seemingly on every hill, all that matters is "calcio" (KAHL-choe) — Italian for soccer.
"The Olympics are a passing fancy that will be extinguished along with the Olympic flame," Claudio Zanbernardi, 29, said during halftime at the Roxy.
"In Italy, soccer is a true passion."
Last week, Italians celebrated their first gold medal of the games, the luge triumph of veteran Armin Zoeggeler. But the news wasn't as big as the matchup between first-place Juventus and second-place Internazionale, even though the title is all but decided. ....................
The next morning, the front page of sports newspaper Gazzetta dello Sport showed where the nation's sporting priorities are: A huge headline trumpeted Juventus' 2-1 victory, while Zoeggeler's gold got silver-medal treatment — a picture of the luger with a small caption.
..............................
Vittorio Manfredi, who was watching the Juventus match at the Roxy, had another way to explain the place soccer holds in the hearts of Italian men.
"After women, there is soccer," he said. "Then comes culture, and then politics. That is the scale of values."
And where do the Olympics rank?
Manfredi merely shrugged, as if he didn't understand the question.
I doubt it is any different in the rest of Europe's major leagues. Most Italians could care less about the Winter Olympics. I don't think the Spaniards are any more fascinated by luge than the Italians, and the UK was paralyzed by the Africa Cup.
The Olympics is an American obsession during soccer league play. Another reason the summer games are more popular
To win in the 2006 elections, Democrats will have to develop a coherent national defense policy. The problem is that too many still accept Republicans memes and framing to debate the issue.
With some study, Democrats could easily frame a foward looking defense policy. But to do that, they have to stop looking at defense issues in a Republican frame. Too many Dems think being tough on national security means backing an invasion of Iran.
Peter Beinhart is the perfect example of the gullable. He's signed on to some PNAC nonsense, earning the sobriquet PNAC's bitch.
But the fact is, that anyone who's read conservative critics of the neo-cons, knows that their main argument of US force projection is based on fantasy, not reality. We don't have the Army for that now and never did, nor the stomach for neo-colonial warfare.
We need to understand, as liberals, that we MUST have a coherent, forward looking defense and security policy which embraces everything from proper veteran care to proper use of US forces.
Three mistakes the Dems made in discussing defense issues:
1) You can be pro-defense and anti-Iraq, many conservatives are
One of the great mistakes of the Dems last year, was not to rise en masse to defend Cindy Sheehan. Too many people stood by and let her be tarnished by cruel, cowardly Republicans. Sheehan was a Gold Star mother and never before has one been treated as shamefully as she has. The treatment of Jack Murtha followed her shameful treatment.
The point should have been made over and over that Sheehan's sons friends and unit members supported her, including his former CO and roommate. That her opposition to Bush's war was honorable and she needed to be respected for her loss. Not doing so was a sign of weakness
2) Accepting Republican memes
The US cannot invade Iran. As Joe Galloway points out in a recent column, the US Army is disintergrating in Iraq. Vehicle losses are climbing, including the loss of 20 Abrams. The idea that we can bring Iran to heel is a Republican meme with no basis for reality. Yet, too many Dems accept this as a viable option.
Which is why Shia leaders are now starting to demand we leave their areas and refusing to cooperate. They can pressure us and we cannot respond in kind.
We cannot continue to debate defense on the basis of GOP ideas.
3) Allowing Republicans to define our stands on the issues
It is not and never has been a debate of allowing Saddam to stay in power. It is a debate on the wisdom of removing him by force, and then never having a plan to run the country after he left.
Any time that's tossed in the air, it needs to be swatted down. It is clear that the US didn't understand Iraqi politics and bit into the fairy tales of Iraqi support from exiles. Which did not materialize.
We need to debate how badly we misread the situation and figure out a way to negotiate an exit. Bush has been allowed to define this as a matter of resolve, and it is not, since the Iraqis have more resolve than we ever will.
Over the next few days, we'll discuss various issues around defense, including how to properly understand the issues involved.
by Matt Stoller, Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 10:50:05 PM EST
There's this pernicious attitude among reporters I know that 'both sides give them grief'; it is an ardent desire to be seen as an umpire calling 'balls and strikes' within the political system. I'm glad Beutler came onto this blog, and had a dialogue with all of us. He was extremely frustrated earlier and declaimed my intolerance and my constant use of the word 'right-wing talking point' when describing those who parrot conventional wisdom.
It's striking to me, though, that neutral journalists like some of Beutler's colleagues at the Hotline who pride themselves as clear-eyed hard-boiled realists can't see what's right in front of their eyes. Unlike the progressive blogosphere, which pushes journalists to do a better job, the right-wing has contempt for them and everything they do. For instance, there's this, from Redstate, on Cheney shooting a man in the face by accident.
This is part of the human condition. We all make mistakes, and every once in a while one of the mistakes causes something really, seriously, bad to happen. To beat somebody up over one of those things, as Democrats who work for media companies have been doing to the Vice President for two weeks now, is positively inhumane. No wonder the public shows growing disdain for the "media." The media deserve it.
The worst part is, we all know why they're doing it. They hate the Vice President's guts. They hate the entire Administration. They are extremely partisan Democrats, and they think that their role is to use their platform in journalism to throw every spear they can, at every Republican they see, every time they get a chance. They refer to this as "informing the public." When this behavior is about politics, we pretty much blow it off, figuring that political figures have voluntarily placed themselves in the public arena and should therefore be prepared to take whatever spears come their way. It is annoying to Republicans that virtually everyone hired by media companies is a partisan Democrat, but that's a different issue.
I'm not trying to prove this Republican, Nick Danger, wrong. He is self-evidently lying when he says that 'virtually everyone hired by media companies is a partisan Democrat'. I am trying to say that these people mean what they say. They hate reporters, blindly. You as reporters can't do a good enough job to satisfy them, because they are after obediance and not truth. They hate you. They hate what you stand for. They will rejoice in your downfall. They will lie to you because you don't matter to them. You have no legitimacy.
I'm not making this up. Just read Redstate. And you should start to figure out a better way to defend yourself from their dripping hatred, because the 'I'm neutral' line sure isn't working.
The Republicans use fairness as a weapon.
Which is why we toss trolls here. You can not have an argument with a dishonest person, and you have to keep in mind that while they play on your decency, they will not follow the same rules.
All the asskissing with Powerline and the Ass Clown Media folks is pointless. They hate the media, because there is no compromise which is good enough for them.
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: February 21, 2006
President Bush now has a public approval rating that is 33 percentage points lower than President Clinton's was at the time he was impeached.
But wait! Mr. Bush's presidency may be caught in a profound malaise, but he can still rehabilitate himself to some degree — if he acts quickly and decisively to reshuffle his administration and approach to governing. ..........................
But Mr. Bush today is not retooling; he's hunkering down in the bunker. Instead of the Reagan approach of 1987, it's the Nixon approach of 1973. It just increases the national polarization and doesn't help Mr. Bush.
So he should start over. For starters, here are four suggestions:
• It's time for Dick Cheney to announce that he must resign because of poor health. His approval rating is only 29 percent, and his replacement could presumably be somebody far more popular, like Condoleezza Rice.
• Don Rumsfeld should also step down. And just as President Clinton appointed a Republican as secretary of defense, Mr. Bush should appoint a Democrat, like Sam Nunn.
• Mr. Bush should publicly admit mistakes and reach out more to Democrats, and even his critics. Mr. Bush has taken a few steps in this direction in his second term, but not enough.
• Mr. Bush should emphasize policy goals that can generate bipartisan support. Mr. Bush's recent push for alternative energy sources was a fine example of that, as are his efforts to organize a U.N. peacekeeping force to stop genocide in Darfur. A trip to Africa to meet Darfur refugees and see how U.S. programs are fighting AIDS and poverty would help build bridges to critics at home and abroad. .....................
Frustrated by the lack of television coverage of the genocide in Darfur, I used a recent column to announce a pledge drive to sponsor a trip by Bill O'Reilly to Darfur. I was deluged by 6,675 pledges, averaging a bit more than $100. The grand total was $727,568, so Mr. O'Reilly will be able to fly first class with the very best satellite phones and fill his water bottles with San Pelegrino.
.......................
And Jenna Bush should walk into the nearest Marine recruiting station with her sister and five of her friends and sign up for MP duty and request Iraq.
Nick, where the fuck have you been since 2001?
Bill O'Reilly isn't going to Darfur and George Bush is going to ride his doom train of an administration to humiliation.
Rice? Come on, Republicans don't even like black wingnuts, there is no way Rice could be a successful VP.
Get rid of Rummy? Yeah, he should.
Nick, here's the deal: these people think they run the world. Dick Cheney shot a man and all we have is bullshit. Despite the fact that out of 1.1 million hunting licenses issued in Texas in 2005, only 30 hunting accidents resulted. It does not happen all the time, but that's what they told us.
They will not save themselves. Bush will be chased from office like a fox in a hound hunt, because he has zero survival instincts. His daddy has saved him from himself since he was a junior boozehound. He no longer listens to his daddy.
Dick Cheney thinks he's Prime Minister. And like all American pretenders to the PM's throne, he will sooner rather than later, find out that is not the case. I mean, he didn't even tell Bush that he shot a mutual friend. The dumbest OG wouldn't have done that.
Oh, and most Dems with a brain no longer trust Bush to pee in a toilet. He's screwed them too many times to be trustworthy.
See any dragons lately? I hear they're as real as anything you've proposed.
With A Little Help From His Friends Exclusive: An investigation into the private and public finances of Rick Santorum suggests that the Senate GOP might want to reconsider making him its ethics czar.
By Will Bunch Issue Date: 03.10.06
“In far too many families with young children, both parents are working, when, if they really took an honest look at the budget, they might find they don’t both need to.”
-- U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, in his 2005 book, It Takes a Family: Conservatism and the Common Good
* * *
The estates at Shenstone Farm sprawl over 500 acres of steeply rolling, barren hillside, at the point where northern Virginia’s traffic-clogged suburbs finally surrender to the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. On an unseasonably warm January day, this former horse farm is shrouded in fog so dense that a visitor could imagine a band of gray-clad rebel soldiers emerging from these hilltops in the heart of Civil War country.
Instead, what slowly takes shape from the gloaming are well over 100 McMansions, with more on the way -- massive brick structures jutting out like solitary fortresses, each surrounded by roughly four acres of treeless, lunar-like landscape, with three-car garages and sconce-topped brick monument pillars at the foot of each long driveway. Most sport pricey wood playsets in the backyard.
It is here, some 43 miles by car and a world away from Capitol Hill, that Pennsylvania’s junior U.S. senator, Rick Santorum, and his wife, Karen, bought a home on November 14, 2001, for $643,361 (now assessed by Loudoun County at $757,000). It is here that the most outspoken social conservative in the Senate is raising his six children in the manner he described in his book last year, which caused so much controversy back in the state where he is seeking a third term this fall. And it is here that Santorum departs most mornings for his newest mission: crafting a package of Senate ethics reforms aimed at removing the stain of the Jack Abramoff lobbying scandal.
The Santorums bought their oversized Shenstone “estate” even though his financial disclosure forms since 2001 have shown little family income beyond his Senate salary, now $162,100, and he admits that life hasn’t been financially easy. The senator made a startling remark to The New York Times Magazine last spring: “We live paycheck to paycheck, absolutely.” But he explained that his parents help out. “They’re by no means wealthy -- they’re two retired VA [Veterans Administration] employees -- but they’ll send a check every now and then,” he said.
The Prospect decided to heed Santorum’s advice by taking “an honest look at the family budget” -- his family budget. What we found is that Santorum’s exurban lifestyle is financed in ways that aren’t available to the average voter back home in Pennsylvania -- namely a political action committee that lists payments for such unorthodox items as dozens of trips to the Starbucks in Leesburg, a number of stops at fast-food joints, and purchases at Target, Wal-Mart, and a Giant supermarket in northern Virginia. Although a Santorum aide defends those charges as legitimate political costs, good-government experts say the expenditures are at best unconventional, and at worst a possible violation of Senate rules, and the purchases appear to be unorthodox when compared with other senators’ filings. Santorum’s PAC -- a “leadership PAC,” whose purpose is to dispense money to other Republican candidates -- used just 18.1 percent of its money to that end over a recent five-year period, a lower number than other leadership PACs of top senators from both parties.
These facts may well raise questions in Pennsylvanians’ minds about how the senator is conducting their business in Washington. But it is Santorum’s Virginia home that raises the hardest questions for the third-ranking Senate Republican.
If Bob Casey doesn't end this, a US Attorney will, maybe with Casino Jack's help.
By SCOTT BARKER, barkers@knews.com February 19, 2006
"The past isn't over; it isn't even past." - William Faulkner
Self-made businessman and brutal slave trader.
War hero and war criminal.
Civic leader and Klan boss.
Nathan Bedford Forrest has been called all these and more, a man whose complex and sometimes contradictory legend has grown to almost mythic proportions. The Confederate cavalry general and leader of the original Ku Klux Klan, to a greater extent than other Rebel figures such as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, stirs debate to this day.
Born in the backwoods, enriched near Big Muddy, glorified in war and vilified in peace, Forrest is one of the most praised and pilloried of Tennesseans.
His statue towers over a park in Memphis; his bust glares down at legislators in the state Capitol building; children attend Forrest School in Chapel Hill and families vacation at Nathan Bedford Forrest State Park near Eva.
But the Memphis statue has been the target of graffiti artists, the capitol bust of protests. The state parks system also manages the remains of Fort Pillow, site of the massacre that stained Forrest's reputation forever.
According to one count, noted by University of Tennessee journalism professors Paul Ashdown and Ed Caudill in their 2005 book, "The Myth of Nathan Bedford Forrest," there are 32 statues of Forrest in Tennessee - more than the number of Lincoln statues in Illinois or George Washington statues in Virginia.
Some, however, think Tennesseans would be better served by ignoring an ignoble warrior. Just last year, black leaders in Memphis tried to remove the statue and his name from a city park.
The various versions of Forrest are hard to reconcile.
"We have a hard time with ambiguity," Ashdown said.
That ambiguity, for some, fuels fascination with Forrest.
"It doesn't matter if you love him, hate him or don't know much about him," Caudill said, "he's a great story. And we love great stories."
.........................
The war years .................
The battle at Brice's Cross Roads, in Mississippi, was his masterpiece. He divided his troops in the face of a much larger Union force, and, using the terrain to his advantage, attacked from multiple angles to achieve an overwhelming victory.
If Brice's Cross Roads was his most glorious moment, the assault on Fort Pillow was his most shameful.
Fort Pillow stood on the Chickasaw Bluffs overlooking the Mississippi River north of Memphis. Though it was supposed to have been abandoned, the fort was manned by 605 Union troops, including loyal Tennessee cavalry troopers and two artillery units composed of 284 black soldiers, plus their white officers.
On April 12, 1864, Forrest sent a note demanding surrender, and then unleashed his troops.
Estimates of the Union dead were as high as 297, roughly half the garrison. Though blacks made up about half the Union troops, they died at twice the rate of their white comrades.
"The massacre took place, there's no doubt about it," Ashdown said.
But to this day there is debate over whether Forrest ordered the massacre, allowed it to happen, ordered a halt to the killing or didn't know about it at all until later.
To Caudill and Ashdown, it doesn't matter.
"Any way you cut it, he was responsible," Caudill said. "He was the commander."
.....................
Klan years
After the war, Forrest set about trying to rebuild his fortune. He'd sold off part of his land, but quickly set up a sawmill on his Mississippi plantation. He tried his hand at insurance and paving, but filed for bankruptcy within three years.
Ashdown and Caudill point out that Tennessee, like the rest of the defeated South, was a society that had collapsed into lawlessness. In many places, returning Confederate soldiers formed vigilante committees to keep the peace.
One such group banded together in 1866 in Pulaski, Tenn. The original Ku Klux Klan was formed to fight outlaws, carpetbaggers and what its founders deemed the excesses of Reconstruction. Loosely organized dens spread quickly throughout the South.
Forrest wasn't a founder of the Klan, but he was recruited into its leadership. His exact role in the secret society remains murky, Caudill said.
Unlike the groups that resurrected the name in the early 20th century, the original Klan didn't have racism as its reason for existence.
"They were really vigilantes," Caudill said of the first Klan. "You don't want to defend the Klan, but the Klan of the 1860s was not the Klan of the 1920s."
As the Klan expanded, however, it became increasingly violent, prompting Gov. William G. "Parson" Brownlow to call out the militia to extinguish the group. In 1869, because of the rising tide of violence, Forrest ordered the Klan to disband.
Conciliatory years
During the last few years of his life, Forrest tried to build a railroad, but failed. As his fortunes dwindled, though, his outlook on race became more progressive.
He frequently said that freed blacks would drive the region's recovery from the ravages of war.
On July 5, 1875, at a barbecue near Memphis, Forrest accepted a bouquet of flowers from a black woman named Lou Lewis and, according to a newspaper account reprinted by Forrest biographer Jack Hurst, told the primarily black audience that he wanted to strengthen race relations.
"I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms and wherever you are capable of going," he said.
Later in his brief address, he said, "We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment." .......................
Remembering Forrest
Today, state Rep. Johnny Shaw, D-Bolivar, walks beneath a bust of Forrest whenever he enters the House of Representatives chamber of the state Capitol building. Like the Memphis statue, the bust has been the object of protest over the years. Shaw, the chairman of the Legislature's Black Caucus, said it's time to stop honoring Forrest.
"While I think it's important that we commemorate history, I don't think we need to highlight people like Nathan Bedford Forrest," Shaw said. "That doesn't speak well for us. We've got to become race-neutral to overcome (inequality), and I don't think we can become race-neutral if our parks are named after him." .........................
He was a traitor and a war criminal who joined the Klan.
In short, he devoted the bulk of his life to murdering and terrorizing black people. From Slave trader to Klansman, he was dedicated to the repression of black people.
They should take every statue and plaque dedicated to him and melt them for scrap.
(Anybody else want to change their campaign donations?)
I was waiting for Harry Whittington, the dude Cheney shot, to die before I posted this. But he seems to be the gulliest 78 year-old in the world because he walked out of the hospital today and promised the G.O.P. not to die before November 8th.
All I wanted to say was that if you are connected enough to be on a private hunting trip with Dick Cheney you are probably a crooked-ass white Republican who deserves to be shot.
And I say that because Dick Cheney is quite possibly the shadiest mother fucker in existence.
* He is the only government official whose estate is blocked out on Google Earth. There are uncensored detailed satellite images of The White House, The Pentagon, George Bush's Ranch and Bill Gates crib up on there, but Cheney's estate is blurred out.
What the hell is he doing in there?
* Back in the 80's he called Nelson Mandela a terrorist and voted against his release from prison.
* He ordered the identity of an undercover CIA agent leaked because her husband spoke out against the War in Iraq.
* And the Fox News interview with Cheney edited out the part where he admitted drinking before going hunting.
* Not to mention the fact that the White House tried to initially blame the dude who got shot, saying "...the protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington when it came to notifying the others that he was there" and referred to his subsequent heart attack as "an inflammatory response to a metallic foreign BB."
Why can't he just say, "I'm Dick Cheney, I got twisted on Grey Goose and heart pills, took my rifle and started shooting."
No one doubts Dick Cheney has killed people before. I know I don't.
If the Bush administration hasn't gotten in trouble for anything thus far, I doubt this would be what does them in.
I know we make jokes about Cheney's shady nature, but this parallels with the Busta Rhymes shooting. It seems to be the same kind of gangsta mentality to the point you start wondering when Cheney really does pop out with a stop snitching t-shirt.
BY JESS WISLOSKI and ROBERT F. MOORE DAILY NEWS WRITERS
Fed-up police and prosecutors are threatening to haul rapper Busta Rhymes before a grand jury to force him to start talking about the murder of his bodyguard.
The investigation into the shooting death of Israel Ramirez at a Brooklyn video shoot has been stymied by the silence of witnesses, including the hip-hop star.
"Nobody has come forward," a frustrated Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly said yesterday.
"No one has volunteered any information, even though there were possibly 50 people at the scene of this homicide."
The NYPD had already contacted Rhymes' attorney, seeking information from the rapper, who reportedly was only a few feet from Ramirez, 29, when he was gunned down Feb. 5.
But he has refused to cooperate, so now police are plotting a much more aggressive move.
They plan to sit down with Brooklyn prosecutors this week to explore the possibility of impaneling an investigative grand jury, Kelly said.
.....................................
Ramirez's friends and family have urged Rhymes to assist the NYPD with the probe into the death of the father of three, to no avail.
"There's an incredible stigma associated with cooperating with the police," said Chuck (Jigsaw) Creekmur, co-founder of allhiphop.com.
Creekmur said the taboo has its roots in the "mob mentality" and has been cemented by the hip-hop community's distrust of law enforcement.
"It has grown into an outright code of silence," he said. And if Rhymes were to break it, "a certain segment of the population would see him as a snitch." ....................................
"We encourage Busta Rhymes to come forward," said the Rev. Ken Bogan, a member of the anti-violence group. "This code of silence has to be broken."
These guys are not criminals, they're supposed to be musicians. The whole hip hop culture is degnerating into exploitation and corruption, and no matter how many times you see Scarface, it is no way to live.
Mr. Rhymes seems to worry about his personal safety despite the fact that this man died for him. Personal honor would demand he stand up for the family and end this bullshit of stop snitching.
The rich are always insulated from their acts until they face the reality of what is done in their name. How fuckintg stupid can you be to shoot at a video shoot.And how cowardly can you be not to stick up for a man who died to save you.
I was flipping through the morning paper, and saw something rather interesting in the local version of "Dear Abby" (in Chicago, it's "Ask Amy"). The full question, along with Amy's slap-in-the-face response, is below the fold, but let me just say "bravo" to Amy Dickinson for her response.
This column appeared in the Tempo section of Monday's Chicago Tribune
Apology might help ease tension in neighborhood
Dear Amy: My husband and I have lived in our quiet suburban Denver neighborhood for six years.
About two years ago two young gay men moved in across the street. They've taken the ugliest, most run-down property in the neighborhood and remodeled and transformed it into the pride of the street.
When it snows, they shovel out my car and are friendly, yet they mostly keep to themselves.
Last month I went out to retrieve my newspaper and watched them kiss each other goodbye and embrace as they each left for work.
I was appalled that they would do something like that in plain view of everyone.
I was so disturbed that I spoke to my pastor. He encouraged me to draft a letter telling them how much we appreciate their help but asking them to refrain from that behavior in our neighborhood.
I did so and asked a few of our neighbors to sign it.
Since I delivered it, I've not been able to get them to even engage me in conversation.
I offer greetings but they've chosen to ignore me.
They have made it so uncomfortable for the other neighbors and me by not even acknowledging our presence.
How would you suggest we open communications with them and explain to them that we value their contributions to the neighborhood but will not tolerate watching unnatural and disturbing behavior.
-- Wondering
(emphasis added)
So, Wondering sent her neighbors a note accusing them of "unnatural behavior" (God forbid that a couple kiss each other before leaving for work), and now can't quite understand why they aren't as friendly as before.
Amy's reply:
Dear Wondering: You're lucky that these gentlemen merely choose to ignore you.
Your neighbors could respond to your hospitality by hosting weekly outdoor "gay pride" barbecues and inviting all of their friends to enjoy life on your quiet suburban street.
I can hold out hope that they will choose to do this, but I'm spiteful in that way. Your neighbors sound much more kind.
In your original petition to these men, you basically stated that while you value them when they are raising the standard on your street and shoveling your driveway, you loathe them for being who they are.
The only way to open communication with your neighbors would be to start by apologizing to them for engaging your other neighbors in your campaign. Because you don't sound likely to apologize, you are just going to have to tolerate being ignored.
Basically, either grovel or deal with being shunned. The only thing that I would add to this advice is to switch pastors. It sounds like Wondering's pastor is at least as intolerant as she is.
It is nice to see, however, that there was no hesitation or ambivalence in the advice given.
-dms
I wonder if she would have said the same if it was a straight biracial couple.
It must have been horrible to think your neighbors liked you, then to get a letter like that. Here you are, assuming they were tolerant, then comes the written equivilent of a burning cross.
When a video clip goes "viral," spreading across the Web at lightning speed, it can help rocket its creators to stardom. Alas, the clip can also generate work for corporate lawyers.
As anyone with an Internet connection and a love of cupcakes can tell you, "Lazy Sunday" is a tongue-in-cheek rap video starring Chris Parnell and Andy Samberg of "Saturday Night Live." NBC first broadcast the video, a two-and-a-half-minute paean to New York's Magnolia Bakery, Google Maps and C. S. Lewis, on Dec. 17.
Fans immediately began putting copies of the video online. On one free video-sharing site, YouTube (www.youtube.com), it was watched a total of five million times . NBC soon made the video available as a free download from the Apple iTunes Music Store.
Julie Supan, senior director of marketing for YouTube, said she contacted NBC Universal about working out a deal to feature NBC clips, including "Lazy Sunday," on the site. NBC Universal responded early this month with a notice asking YouTube to remove about 500 clips of NBC material from its site or face legal action under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. YouTube complied last week. "Lazy Sunday" is still available for free viewing on NBC's Web site, and costs $1.99 on iTunes.
Next time, they won't ask.
Once a clip goes online, it's done. It will spread regardless of legal threats.
How much money would the record companies have made if they took Napster's billion dollar offer?
Now, there is no money on the table and they can't get Apple to raise their prices.
When someone comes to you with money where there was none, take it. Because once it's free it's going to remain that way.
Silly bloggers, let me explain this politics thing to you
William Beutler deigned to lecture us on how we don't understand anything about politics.
As for my referencing the term "Vichy Democrats," Thersites2 is correct in his suspicion that my column was partially inspired by his blog. But I'm not the first Beltway writer to notice its use on the left -- Howard Fineman picked up on it last fall, and Michael Crowley associated it with Howard Dean's approach in 2004. In fact, it didn't even originate with the blogosphere -- the late Mary McGrory attributed it to a "disillusioned liberal" in 1995 after a number of House Democrats voted with the Republicans to buy more Stealth bombers.
Now, I believe Markos when he says he despises the term -- it does drift too far into Godwin territory (I'm not sure why Steve Gilliard assumes I don't know what "Vichy" means) -- but nevertheless both "Vichy Democrats" and "Vichy Dems" are meta tags in use by contributors to dKos. The phrase was timely, punchy, and summed up the anger I saw directed against moderate and conservative Democrats.
Kos may not like the term, but then he deals with pols. I tend to avoid them at all costs.
I assumed his ignorance because of the assumptions he made in using the term. Republicans tend to be allergic to history.
But the reason I used the term and the reason he just brushes it off with conflating it with Godwin's Law, is because it would ruin his thesis of "moderate" Dems being successful, when they are just appeasing power for personal gain. The Vichyites claimed to be saving France, just in the same way that Lieberman claims to be bi- partisan, while freely stabbing Dems in the back.
They refused to oppose Bush because they didn't have the moral courage to actually develop ideas in opposition to la moda Beltway. So they chipped at the edges and accepted their arguments. That is why the term Vichy is appropriate. Because it is accurate.
Breutler also needs to remember something which also applies to Yankee fans: the only people who like the Beltway live in the Beltway. Everyone else hates the Beltway.
A lot of Beltway Dems need to get over themselves and listen to people living in the real America. Because all this calculation and grovelling doesn't work. People like our esteemed columnist need to realize that.
Oh and this:
First of all, I would like to separate the op-ed from my day job, writing Hotline's Blogometer. Matt advised you to take the Blogometer with a "massive grain of salt" from here on, but I think that's unfair. My op-ed took a clear position and gave advice; the Blogometer's purpose is to give an overview of the political blogging scene. When I do make arguments there, they're generally descriptive rather than prescriptive. So I just ask that you judge the Blogometer based on the Blogometer itself.
Oh, bullshit. Does he think we're idiots?
If I was a reporter for the Wall Street Journal and a steady freelancer for Mother Jones, how long would my reporting not be an issue. Weeks?
His argument, trust me in my day job, but when I freelance for my right wing buddies, don't hold that against me, requires idiocy to make sense.
Sorry, but your biases are clear. If you're a wingnut on your own time, we're supposed to trust you in your day job? If your editors want to taint their section by allowing you to freelance for wingnuts, fine. But that doesn't mean we have to trust you.
Of all of the partisan attack dogs from the Swiftboat smear of 2004, few were as thoroughly discredited as Jerome Corsi. The man was not only caught lying about John Kerry's heroic military service, Corsi was also exposed as a bigot, having condemned Islam and Roman Catholicism, among others. As Corsi once put it, "boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press."
And what's Corsi up to now? He's publishing a book with Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate J. Kenneth Blackwell called "Rebuilding America."
According to the publisher, Blackwell and Corsi have teamed up to write "a blueprint for a new War on Poverty," which calls for an "ownership society." (It appears to be a fairly predictable, unoriginal right-wing attack on government programs that benefit families in poverty.) The publisher adds that the book "is meant to be a blueprint for John Kenneth Blackwell's campaign for governor of Ohio."
The Ohio Democratic Catholic Caucus believes the Blackwell/Corsi partnership should be a far bigger deal.
Mr. Blackwell has apparently decided to cast aside "Catholic" families and "Catholic" working people as well as his Catholic roots from his days at Xavier University. Like the chameleon he is, Blackwell has set a new course for promotion of the one he cares for most — himself.
In doing so Blackwell has chosen a well known anti-Catholic to co-author his new book. Well known for his role with the notorious "Swift Boat Veterans," Jerome Corsi has a well known reputation for being a basher of the Catholic Church. With disparaging remarks that referred to John Paul II as "senile" and "boy buggering" as common practice for Catholics, Corsi has made his personal dislike of the Catholic Church clear.
By any reasonable standard, Corsi should be politically radioactive. Maybe Blackwell has forgotten, but one in five Ohioans is Catholic. Why on earth would a Republican gubernatorial candidate get within five feet of Corsi, worse yet write a book with the guy?
Shouldn't a leading Republican gubernatorial candidate who crafts a blueprint for government with a discredited bigot face at least some consequences?
Blackwell thinks he can do what white candidates can do. He will find out the difference. He will be hammered for this, and that "owenrship society" nonsense? Just because you act like a member of the club, don't expect to be treated like one.
This will be amusing.
What's next? A book claiming the South should have won the Civil War?
NEW YORK: The U.S. television network NBC Universal may be forced to give advertisers free or discounted air time to make up for low viewership after its Olympic coverage twice failed to gain top ratings this week, according to some media buyers.
NBC sold about $900 million of ads for the games in Turin, aiming to dominate ratings as it had during the previous seven Winter Games. The company, a unit of General Electric, promised advertisers it would make up for low ratings with television time at other events - and media buyers, like Andy Pappalardo, said NBC's performance put it at risk of triggering the agreements.
The games drew 16.1 million viewers in the 8 p.m. time slot on Tuesday, compared with 26.3 million for the "American Idol" talent search series, on News Corp.'s Fox network. A day earlier, the Olympics lost to "Desperate Housewives," on Disney's ABC network. Fox will run five hours of "Idol" next week to compete against Olympic figure skating, one of the biggest ratings draws during the games.
"Primetime is underperforming," said Pappalardo, senior partner and media buyer for Mediaedge:cia, a communications company based in New York. "It's going to be tough for NBC next week."
The Turin games drew an average of 12.4 percent of U.S. households with televisions in the first seven days of the games, according to Nielsen Media Research. That's down from the 19.5 percent who watched during the same period at the 2002 event in Salt Lake City, Utah. The opening seven days at the Olympics in Nagano, Japan, in 1998 had a 16.4 rating.
Buyers like Pappalardo said NBC promised advertisers average ratings of 12 to 14 percent during this year's games. Pappalardo bought spots for the Olympics. He declined to say which advertisers he represented.
An absence of high-profile U.S. victories has pressured ratings. Michelle Kwan, a nine-time U.S. figure skating champion and five-time world title winner, quit the Games last week because of a severe groin strain. Bode Miller, last year's overall World Cup winner and a top U.S. skier, hasn't medaled in three of his five competitions.
The Olympics may still represent a bright spot for NBC. Ratings during the event have been on average about double what the network posts during regular-season prime-time hours.
Which means their ratings suck.
Atrios blames the human interest stories, but considering that NBC is running the games 24 hours a day across their networks, I think they're doing a good job of showing the events. The problem is that the 2002 World Cup US semifinal game got 7m viewers being shown in the daytime. The Olympics doubles that in prime time. Remember soccer is the fifth sport in the US, and the game aired at 7 AM live from Japan and was repeated later in the day.
Now, someone had posted that in comments to knock the World Cup, but that's backwards. The US team, which had some hype in 1998, failed badly, embarassingly so. The 2002 team labored in obscurity, until they won, and people realized that the US was the eight best team in the world, now 7th.
The NBC could only double that audience, and is beaten by high rated shows doesn't say much for the Olympics or the way they're shown. The fact is that there was little drama attached to these Olympics and stories like Shani Davis only came to light in a negative way. Bode Miller was more famous for his comments on booze than his skills on the slopes.
In short, there wasn't the weeks of competitions which ABC used to run before the Olympics, which also comes during sweeps month, which built interest and created heroes. Now, it's just, as an NBC profile said " a bunch of wammabe suburban gangstas", which isn't all that interesting to sell.
Here's a question: how did Chad Hedrick become the "golden boy" of the US Speedskating team while Shani Davis is the "angry loner"? You think that narrative plays well with many viewers?
And there is still considerable interest in the Olympics in the US. If you look at the BBC Sport page, you have the Olympic takeout, then cricket scores. The UK press was spending thousands of words on the effect the Africa Cup would have on Premiership sides. It wasn't talking about the curling team.
It's not a competition between the IOC and FIFA. FIFA is clearly the dominant non-political NGO on the planet. Their yearly meetings are treated like UN summits. Only in the US does this escape notice. Only because of US support has the Olympics been more than just an international ski meet. It is US ad money and the US networks which gave the Olympics the status of an international event, as the World Cup was banished to Spanish-language TV.
How bad was it?
In 1990, the year the Italian team blew away everyone to win the cup in Italy, the US sent a collegiate team to play.
Which is about the same as sending a Texas high school team to play in the Rose Bowl.
In 1986, I remember watching the hand of God game on UHF in Spanish.
But interest in soccer grew after the US held the World Cup in 1994. Everyone thought that the MSL would fold soon after, but has only grown and provides the bulk of the US internationals.
The turning point was 1998. A US team with high hopes embarassed themselves in three straigh games. People then began to take soccer seriously because the US team would be competative and would have to do better.
But remember, at the same time, the Olympics was hit with both the 1996 Olympics, which both expensive and plagued with a terrorism attack, and the scandal surrounding the 2002 Winter Olympics as interest in soccer in the US exploded.
But I think staggering the Olympics didn't help matters either. Before they staggered the games, you had Olympic years and World Cup years. The summer Olympics built on the Winter Olympics and people could spend a year rooting for their country in a range of sports and then their football heroes two years later.
Now, the Winter Olympics share a year with the World Cup and are the worse for it. Even in Italy, news of their internation side can blow the Olympics away.
I think to some degree that the IOC thought they were top dog and now general indifference is greeting the Winter Games as people are waiting for June and the World Cup.
Now, I know this seems counterinutative to most Americans, raised on the idea of the Olympics being the penultimate sporting event, but to most of the world, the World Cup is the greatest thing on the planet, where victories can shut whole countries down for a day.
Part of the problem is that because of that lack of narrative interest, people are not going to watch anonymous athletes over Idol or Desperate Housewives or any show they like. It is no longer event viewing.
OK, first let us thank everyone for the various non-monetary gifts we got during the last drive. They mean so much it's hard to say how much. Jen hasn't seen them all yet, so I can't be specific, but we both deeply appreciate the time and effort involved. We can only offer our work here as repayment
As far as the frying pan goes, it's Jen who needs a cast-iron pan, I've owned one for years. It does everything from bake (I cook my beer can chicken in it) to fry.
I am looking for upper end frying pans, one with a non stick (non-telfon) surface for eggs and other on the stove cooking and a pan to cook on the stove and then the oven.
So the suggestions of All Clad and Calphalon make a whole lot of sense. Both are high quality pans and I can order them online.
While I have your attention, I bought my sister a set of silicon bakeware. She bakes nearly every week so the kids can take cake, brownies or cookies to school instead of twinkies. She loves it and it seems to hold up.
OK, I bought a Calaphalon 10" pan and a 12" everyday pan and an All- Clad Stainless Steel frying pan, with the Le Creuset grill above.
Oh yeah, I had shrimp scampi last night. Very fast meal.
When you use the Internet today, your browser glides from one Web site to another, accessing all destinations with equal ease. That could change dramatically, however, if Internet service providers are allowed to tilt the playing field, giving preference to sites that pay them extra and penalizing those that don't.
The Senate held hearings last week on "network neutrality," the principle that I.S.P.'s — the businesses like Verizon or Roadrunner that deliver the Internet to your computer — should not be able to stack the deck in this way. If the Internet is to remain free, and freely evolving, it is important that neutrality legislation be passed.
In its current form, Internet service operates in the same nondiscriminatory way as phone service. When someone calls your home, the telephone company puts through the call without regard to who is calling. In the same way, Internet service providers let Web sites operated by eBay, CNN or any other company send information to you on an equal footing. But perhaps not for long. It has occurred to the service providers that the Web sites their users visit could be a rich new revenue source. Why not charge eBay a fee for using the Internet connection to conduct its commerce, or ask Google to pay when customers download a video? A Verizon Communications executive recently sent a scare through cyberspace when he said at a telecommunications conference, as The Washington Post reported, that Google "is enjoying a free lunch" that ought to be going to providers like Verizon.
The solution, as far as the I.S.P.'s are concerned, could be what some critics are calling "access tiering," different levels of access for different sites, based on ability and willingness to pay. Giants like Walmart.com could get very fast connections, while little-guy sites might have to settle for the information superhighway equivalent of a one-lane, pothole-strewn road. Since many companies that own I.S.P.'s, like Time Warner, are also in the business of selling online content, they could give themselves an unfair advantage over their competition.
Like many serious amateur photographers, Chad Marek has a sense of brand loyalty that rivals the attachment of many sports fans to their home teams.
But the reasons for his commitment have as much to do with practical matters as emotional pull. The 10 Konica Minolta digital and film cameras owned by Mr. Marek, a 35-year-old quality-control engineer who is also the president of a Chicago camera club, work only with lenses designed for that brand. Similarly, Mr. Marek's collection of about 33 Minolta lenses — he's lost count — will not fit any other make of camera.
So Mr. Marek was more than a little concerned when Konica Minolta said last month that it was abandoning the photo business — both digital and film — and selling some of its camera technology to Sony.
"Minolta had a great name in photography — they were No. 3 in the market when I bought my first camera," Mr. Marek said. "I can't imagine being without it now."
Not all of the traditional leading camera makers have taken Konica Minolta's drastic step. Faced with brutal competition in the consumer market for compact digital cameras, several have turned to high-margin, digital single-lens reflex, or S.L.R., cameras, which feature interchangeable lenses, to maintain their profits.
Those high margins have not escaped the notice of relative newcomers like Sony, Panasonic and Samsung. At the annual Photo Marketing Association International show next week in Orlando, Fla., all three are expected to further outline their plans to move into photography's top tier. When that occurs, the challenge for some of photography's most venerable brands may be simply to survive.
"Life used to be stable in the camera business," said Ned Bunnell, director of marketing at Pentax Imaging. "But if you look at what happened to the personal computer industry, I think it's logical to think that the same sort of consolidation would take place in the camera industry."
Sony has already risen to the No. 3 spot in digital camera sales in the United States, with 15.8 percent of the market, just behind Canon, at 17.2 percent, and Kodak, at 16.9 percent, according to Current Analysis, a research firm in Sterling, Va.
And as the competition gets keener, life becomes fundamentally different for camera companies, which used to operate at a stately pace with new product cycles measured in years. Nikon's top-of-the-line F-series of cameras, for example, has been revamped only six times over nearly five decades.
Fuilm photography is only used at the highest end these day, even news photographers use digital cameras and Macs with Photoshop for their assignments.The days of buying film for cameras is fast coming to an end for normal people.
I used to develop film when I was in high school. Now, I just work with Photoshop like everyone else. I do miss the chemicals......not.
A founder of a black police organization said yesterday that he was facing departmental charges for publicly criticizing the city's handling of a terror alert last fall. ...............................
If the disciplinary action were to result in dismissal, Captain Adams, a 22-year veteran scheduled to retire on March 17, could lose his pension. Mr. Siegel said that the captain was planning to run in Brooklyn for a seat in the State Senate.
Mr. Siegel said the issue was one of free speech, adding that the move to dismiss the captain, a frequent critic of the department, was "an example of thin-skinned managerial decision-making" and a simple matter of retaliation.
"This case is extremely important for all New Yorkers," Mr. Siegel said. "We cannot allow any government entity to punish or possibly silence needed critics on the issues of public concern," he said, adding that "even the filing of the charges potentially chills government employees from speaking out."
Mr. Siegel said that Captain Adams, in his role as a spokesman for an outside organization, had a right to criticize the department.
According to the charges, Captain Adams, who works at the Sixth Precinct, in Greenwich Village, "did wrongfully divulge or discuss department business without authority and permission to do so."
He was also accused of conduct "prejudicial to the good order, efficiency or discipline of the department by disseminating misinformation to the public regarding this N.Y.P.D. operation."
...............
Captain Adams said he had no regrets about his televised comments, adding that had the terror threat been correct, the city's delay in announcing it could have jeopardized the safety of New Yorkers.
"I made the right decision," he said. "I did the right thing."
He's made a LOT of enemies within the department. Which is why he's a captain, the highest civil service rank, and not an inspector or chief. But to fuck with his pension would be a miscalculation on the scale of the mishandling of the transit strike.
Adams is extremely popular with the media and the black community, especially Al Sharpton and many elected officials. The group, 100 Blacks in Law Enforcement Who Care, has long been a thorn in the NYPD's side. But to take the man's pension for being on TV would end all of the good will that Kelly and Bloomberg have worked for. It would be seen as not only retaliation, but trying to silence the leading black police officer in the city. It was Adams who did community outreach while higher ranked officers never showed their faces.
Stupid doesn't even begin to describe this bit of payback.
Because this hasn't hit the papers until now. It will be all over the media tomorrow and then the outrage will follow. My bet is that Kelly backs down by the end of the week or this goes all the way into federal court and ties up Bloomberg for the next two years.
Adams is owed a LOT of favors and he may be in a position to collect.
Well, $500 million in new "faith based" anti-gay federal funding
OK, that's the BAD news. I've laid out the picture here at Talk To Action ( read it - you really need to know what's going on with the porkslush fund called "faith based" ), and the bad news is really bad, but I've got a few ideas on what can be done.
Here's the short version of the story :
President George W. Bush quietly signed legislation adding even further - by half a billion dollars, to be spent over 5 years - to the growing rivers of federal cash flowing to "Faith Based" initiatives that are both allowed to practice religious discrimination in hiring and also, by mandate of federal law, enjoined - claims the Bush Administration - from using federal "faith based" money targeted at strengthening marriages to help gay couples who are married or have domestic partnerships and civil unions.
First of all, consider this : George W. Bush just signed off on 1/2 billion dollars of "faith based" federal spending that specifically discriminates against gay couples....
The gay rights movement has long had to fend for itself, but this really shocked me :
5 minor news sources covered this story - the new federal "faith based" pro-marriage spending. Two Christian right organizations, two pro gay news services, and the Online Journal
Mainstream eyes were - it seems - far, far away, and this fact was almost certainly noticed by many on the Christian right and the gay activist community. These dual messages seemed quite clear : One, that the Christian right was free, via its partisans in the White and the Congress, to advance its program of supplanting secular federal social programs with "faith based" efforts that can be discriminatory and even bigoted. Two, that the gay community, in its battles against anti-gay forces on the Christian right, was more or less alone.
However, Americans opposed to Christian theocratic government might do well to consider the implications of this statement from a Buzzflash interview with author and Talk To Action contributor Esther Kaplan :
Bush's faith-based initiative also privileges Christianity above all other religions. After sifting through every grant announcement I could get my hands on from Bush's faith-based offices, I couldn't find a single grant issued to a religious charity that wasn't Christian -- no Jewish charities, no Muslim charities, nothing. And when I spoke with Jim Towey, director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, he confirmed that no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group. This kind of religious favoritism is exactly what the Constitution's establishment clause was put in place to prevent.
As I wrote last February, 2005, the pot of federal funds that in theory was open for applications from "faith based" agencies was in fact quite enormous - possibly up to $100 billion dollars - and puts Kaplan's confirmation from Jim Towey in a rather stark light : the actual scope of burgeoning "faith based" government is in all likelihood far outstripping the ability of reporters, writers, independent researchers, and the media overall to even get a general bearing on the situation.
To compound the situation, "faith based" programs seem to be accompanied by "faith based" accounting. Daniel Zwerdling, producer of two 2003 programs on the faith-based initiative, for Bill Moyers TV show, is quoted as saying :
"administration spokesmen say they can't break down how much money has gone so far to religious groups .. they claim they don't keep that information."
No. Accounting.
Oh my.
OK.....
What to do ? Well, look at it this way :
Existing "faith based" spending is solely going to Christian groups ( or was as of when Esther Kaplan interviewed "Faith Based" office head Jim Towey ) but - in theory - any faith organizations can apply. What's necessary is the documentation of pervasive disrimination in the allocation of "Faith Based" contracts. There's a need to establish a clear pattern of biased "faith based" funding allocation.
That shouldn't be very hard, but real faith groups - Christian left, Buddhist, Muslim, Jewish, B'ahai - whatever and whoever, there's a vast spctrum of religious diversity in the US - need to apply for "faith based" funding. AND, those groups need to document their experiences of the process.
Then, if a pattern of obvious discrimination surfaces, well.....
That's anti-American, and that 's news
Further, I see no reason why such faith based organizations can't hire gay couples and pay them to promote straight marriage.
In Massachusetts, Texas, wherever.
We're working with a weak hand - we need to get creative, and fast.
After all, the current ruling is that religious groups receiving federal funds can hire whoever they damn well please, on basically whatever criteria they care to choose. So : gay, straight, bi. trans.....
In other words, I'm suggesting this :
The Bush Administration may be around for a bit yet. But, who's aggressively promoting - or trying to do that - progressive interests under the "faith based" cash giveaway ?
Hey folks, the money's being SHOVELLED out.
Apply !
If you're turned down, share stories, then sue.
As far as I can tell, a few lawsuits might help insure a more equitable distribution of these funds. Or at least expose the travest
In the end, politics is about money and they're collecting their payoff.
We've only scratched the surface, but the more we learn about the Armstrong Ranch, site of the Cheney shooting, the more it feels like the GOP equivalent of Tony Soprano's joint, the Bada Bing.
CNN described the remote 50,000-acre Armstrong ranch as "a private getaway." It's the kind of place the goodfellas of the Republican crew can go to kick back, put their feet up, have a beer (or two) with lunch, talk a little business, raise a little money, make a few deals, maybe meet a girl.
Of course, at the Bada Bing the girls are strippers; at Armstrong they're the ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein. But both hot spots feature quite a bit of gunplay.
According to Austin American-Statesman reporter Robert Elder, the Armstrong is "a favored destination spot for this type of Republican with social connections, a fair amount of wealth... Certainly if you have access to the vice president or other high level administration officials, corporate officials, it gives you really a unique opportunity to kind of relax, talk, and who knows what happens from there."
Well, Dick Cheney knows. He's been kicking back at Armstrong for over 30 years. Also in the know: President Bush and Laura, Bush 41 and Barbara, Karl Rove, and James Baker, all of whom have been frequent guests at the ranch.
The rest of us can get an idea of "what happens from there" by piecing together some of the very cozy connections between the Armstrong Ranch Mafia.
Take ranch proprietress, shooting eyewitness, and in-a-pinch vice-presidential press secretary Katharine Armstrong, who has parlayed her hunting relationships into a number of well-paying gigs.
For instance, in 1999, back when he was Governor, ranch regular George W. Bush appointed her to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission. Two years later, she became the Commission's chairman.
In a 2003 interview, the Dallas Morning News asked Armstrong what had she done to "gain an appointment to the TP&W Commission, which is considered one of the plums of gubernatorial appointments?" Replied Armstrong: "I didn't do anything. In fact, I was shocked when Governor Bush's office called me... What Governor Bush told me is that my name just came to him in a 'eureka' moment."
Give her points for honesty: "I didn't do anything." Except hanging out with W, polishing their shotguns, flushing coveys of quail, and bagging their limit. Eureka!
Her bird-hunting bud James Baker has also flushed some lucrative lobbying deals her way. According to NBC News (via Attytood), Baker's law firm Baker Botts paid Armstrong $160,000 in 2004 to lobby the White House. When asked what she did in return for the money, Armstrong told NBC she'd set up a meeting at the White House for a Baker Botts client. She also said that she'd gotten fellow dove-killing enthusiast Karl Rove to speak at a Baker Botts function. Hmm, 160 Gs for setting up a meeting and a Karl Rove speech? Nice work if you can get it.
Of course, Katharine learned how to leverage a shared love of blasting small animals for political advancement the old-fashioned way -- at her mother's cocked elbow. Anne Armstrong first met Dick Cheney when they both worked in the Nixon White House. Soon after, he began visiting the family ranch. In 2000, Anne's late husband Tobin described the idyllic Cheney/Armstrong outings to the AP: "We go out when the dew is still on the grass and then hunt until we shoot our limit. Then we pick a fine spot and have a wild game picnic lunch." Unless we accidentally shoot one of our hunting party in the face. Then we put off the wild game picnic until dinner.
Anne and Dick seem to have developed a mutual admiration while tromping around the Armstrong ranch, shooting their limit. While Dick was Gerald Ford's White House chief of staff, Anne was appointed ambassador to Great Britain. Anne later returned the favor: she was a member of the Halliburton board when Dick was hired as the company's CEO.
Put it all together and I think I'm starting to get a better picture of why Dick Cheney was "so confident that Katharine [Armstrong] was the right one" and "an excellent choice" to put the shooting story out.
Is the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, which hit newsstands yesterday, welcome in your home? What about the Victoria’s Secret catalog? What about strip clubs for bachelor parties? Where do you draw the line?
The SI swimsuit issue has been in our house before, and I’m sure it will be again. I’m not threatened by those skinny-Minnies, and I don’t think it qualifies as porn. (Although, hubbies can see many of the SI photos online so they don’t really have to bring it home anymore.)
Esquire magazines with half-naked bottoms prancing across the covers routinely can be found on our bathroom floor. I don’t really care if my husband sees that either – but I did worry for the first time the other day about the kids noticing it. I placed the issue up higher where the kids would be less likely to see it.
About 10 years ago when our friends were all getting married, the “boys” routinely went to strip clubs in Atlanta for bachelor parties. I would never encourage him to go, but I could live with it. However, I drew the line when they decided to go to a strip club just for the heck of it after a Falcon’s game one night.
Where is your line? What’s OK for your husband to see? What do you worry about the kids seeing?
Uh, is she insane? The reason I posted the photos was to show how tame they were compared to any fashion magazine spread. They aren't naked, and the pictures, while of women in swimsuits hardly compared to a lesbian three way or a double penetration.
Has healthy heterosexual interest in attractive women become criminalized? I've looked at the SI issue since I was 10. It wasn't a big deal.
And there is a vast difference between a place where men tip women to sit on their laps and a magazine.
Jen here, avoiding my other chores today and catching up on E-mail. Let me say that I don't consider this a gratutous use of cheesecake here.
Also, let me say that this "controversy" over SI's Swimsuit isse is yet another example why you should never, EVER give in to fundies of ANY stripe, because it shows that time and again, you can NEVER give them enough. Nothing satisfies their hunger to control every aspect of everyone else's lives; their "malignant narcissism" that drives them to try to force everyone around them into their little bubble of shame and guilt over anything sexual, tasty, or fun.
It would never be enough for the fundie morons to "put the issue behind the counter" or black out the cover on the wrap or whatever.
Let me also add that as Gilly points out, there is a world of difference between having the hubby get men-mags that have some cheesecake versus having him go to strip clubs and get lap dances. I don't think the two are related, btw, and one does not "lead" to another.
I just sort of feel bad for the fundie women who think that if they demonize SI, and by extension strippers/lap dancers, and make them "dirty" and "bad," that their husbands will somehow loose interest in said subjects. It's pathetic. The other side of that coin is that these same women will never, ever explore their own sexuality or make any demands in that department. And, by remaining asexual and demanding it of other "nice women" (and don't get me started on their mandatory link between sex and procreation) they do their own part to reinforce the idea that the ONLY sexy women out there are a) for hire b) rail thin and b) under 30, which is of course complete and utter bullshit.
On that note, I need to go figure out what further chores I can avoid today. Happy posting!
OK I need some new frying pans. I have a cast iron one, but I need some new ones because my old ones are worn.
All ideas accepted, except that I buy a Mac:)
Jen here, got up VERY late today as I was up till 3 AM watching HGTV and playing Deer Hunter. Anyway, let me chime in here--I, too, need a new SMALL frypan--like 6" or 7" max--just for whipping up ONE egg or a toasting garlic/sesame seeds for Indian or Chinese food. My old "small" frypan is an old nonstick that is so, so smoldery (it was a hand me down) that I can no longer use it without DISCONNECTING my smoke detector (for years, just covering it over did OK).
I am thinking of replacing it with a small cast-iron item. If anyone has links to preferred vendor, please tag up in comments and/or email to me at the Gmail account. I like the idea of a tiny cast-iron one because at the end of the day it's easier to care for, and I'm not eating Nasty Carcinogenic Teflon. Yes, I already have a HUGE (14" I think) Le Creuset nonstick cast-iron enameled and not-Tefloned-but-something-else frypan, but it's overkill for a fast breakfast or crisping up a slab of seitan.
Thanks!
UPDATE: Public shouts and props to commenter CK for recommending Lodge Manufacturing. I will soon be the proud owner of two smallish (6" and 8") cast iron skillets for around $25 with shipping. Can't wait...thanks for the seasoning links also. I think I have bacon fat in the freezer somewhere, if not, good ol' veggie oil is what's getting baked on...
Okay, thank you Gay Vet for recommending a more multiethnic bend to our multimedia artistic Opus Magnus, the Man with a Ham Series! While I was unable to find a reasonable shot of a gentleman of color with dreads for the Ham Treatment, I was able to find this smiling young fellow, seen here working the nice hair/nice bod/nice breakfast options look.
Look to the left for my G-mail email addy, and feel free to send me any pix of men whom you, our readers, would like to see with a nice HAM-on. Needed: Reasonable frontal shot of a blonde Germanic type, preferrably in a uniform cap/leather for coverage with some nice shots of Westphalian ham that I found. I have a few candidates, but they're all a bit on the twink side as opposed to the more Blonde Tom of Finland look *grin*
PS--man, gay porn sites are such a pain in the ass! Do ALL the free sites out there refer back to the same fucking 8 pop-ups? Also, what's with all the morons who tag their het sites with "gay" tags? If I wanted to Google for emaciated crank-addict chicks getting Various Things in Various Holes, I would fucking google them myself!
............. He flew around on corporate jets; aides and retainers attended to his whims. His political ties were to True Believer conservatives—especially his wife, Lynne, a feisty ideologue and, by most reports, a bit of a diva, though an engaging one.
The VIP world inhabited by Cheney is perfectly symbolized by the Armstrong Ranch, where the hunting accident occurred. More than 50,000 acres of rolling country, the ranch is "Gosford Park" with a twang—not quite as gilded or as pampered as an English country house on a shooting weekend between the wars, but just as private and entitled in an understated, elegant way. Quail hunting is an elaborate ritual on the great Texas ranches, performed with outriding guides to find the birds and trained dogs to flush and point and fetch. There are servants and cocktails and barbecues and not a reporter for miles around. The ranch is as insular, in its own way, as the vice president's official bubble.
Cheney's shooting party was a cozy group of rich Republicans and Texas "squirearchy." The owner of the ranch is Anne Armstrong, a grande dame of the GOP, onetime ambassador to the Court of St. James and a former member of the Halliburton board that picked Cheney to be CEO. (She was also mentioned as a possible vice president for Gerald Ford.) Armstrong's daughter Katharine, strong-willed and lively (Laura Bush chose her to sit beside Prince Charles at a recent White House dinner), accompanied Cheney on the shoot and described the scene to NEWSWEEK:
.............................
I watching Oprah on Friday, and she was doing a show on people in serious debt. This one family had 5 cars and paid $1100 a month in car payments. The woman, who was tossing bills and ignoring debt collectors, said "appearances are important". She was on the verge of losing her home, her cars and being forced into bankruptcy, as well as ending her marriage.
Why did she do such a reckless, seemingly insane thing?
Because she felt entitled.
America got a short, sharp lesson on the difference between wealth and riches in the last week.
The Armstrongs don't exist to most Americans, but in the county where they live, a land of cowboys and compliant sheriffs, they run their world with the efficency of George III.
These people feel entitled to run their world, their way, to the point where an old lawyer has to speak in code to make his point. To most of the world, it seemed Orwellian and did Cheney no credit whatsoever. To people from the area, he was calling him an asshole in a polite way.
The Armstrongs are wealthy. Which is to say their money buys power. It certainly keeps local law enforcement in check, maybe even the Texas Rangers. I wonder how many times has Whittington blunted nasty questions coming their way, only to fall victim to the system he took part in.
We're used to seeing vulgar displays of riches, rappers with more jewlery than Cartier, driving the newest cars. As we've seen above, ordinary people fall into that brainless kind of thinking. But none of them are wealthy. At any point, they can be dragged in to the PD for a talk.
No one drags Katharine Armstrong in anywhere if she doesn't want to go.
Long a coutier to the powerful, unlike Armstrong or Cheney, his medical care seemed to have been a matter of debate before he got help: the debate? How to limit the damage to Cheney. It certainly wasn't how to get him the best care possible.
And after the shooting, they sat down to dinner.
With some drinks.
Why hasn't this gone away? Well, partly because people dislike Cheney, but partly, most Americans aren't usually faced with the arrogance of power in such a naked way. Most people realize that if they shot someone in the face, they wouldn't receive an Orwellian apology, but instead a series of questions from the local DA.
But not in the land of the ranches. Cheney was a friend, and a friend of the Armstrongs is protected by their largess. Even if another friend is shot in the face.
Cheney's problem is that what is acceptable in the land of the ranches is not acceptable in the rest of the US. And hiding behind Brit Hume isn't going to cut it. The story lingers because the "official" version is about as much bullshit as the kind of lies a cheating husband does to explain why he's home late and drunk.
People assume Cheney was a few sheets to the wind, maybe he's been banging someone on the side, that he's a shitty hunter, which to many Americans is a bad thing. What they don't assume is that he handled this in a competent manner.
The right did him no favors in offering up insane defenses for Cheney's acts. To most people, it seems counterintuative that getting a facefull of birdshot was no big deal. They were the only ones buying that.
But the real issue for Cheney is accountability. Nothing says unaccountability like shooting a man and not dealing with the police when they come, and that was not what Cheney needed.
By JAMES DAO and ADAM NAGOURNEY Published: February 19, 2006
FOR Democrats struggling to win back Congress, it seemed like the most obvious of election strategies: erase the Republican advantage on national security by running real-life combat veterans as candidates.
In theory, at least, a candidate with a uniform, rank and military résumé should be redoubtable: a symbol of strength, patriotism and resolve, and at least somewhat inoculated from the debilitating personal attacks that have come to represent American politics.
So it is in the 2006 Congressional elections, soldier-candidates are marching across the campaign field in numbers not seen in a half-century, many veterans of the Iraq, Afghan, Vietnam, Balkan and first gulf wars — nearly 100 candidates in all, not including a single incumbent.
Most are Democrats, but Republicans have come up with their own veterans as well. Many were recruited by their parties, but others decided to run on their own or were encouraged by left-leaning bloggers who think these candidates can help Democrats win back Congress. Some candidates are motivated by opposition to the Iraq war, but others are talking about health care, job creation or energy.
Many Democratic candidates present themselves as the saviors of the party, saying they had been united both by opposition to Republican policies and by attacks on them or other veteran candidates.
"There has been a fundamental change in the paradigm of politics today," said Eric Massa, a retired Navy officer who is running for Congress in upstate New York. "I don't think Republicans even realize this." Yet, for all the country's reverence of military service and military heroes — from George Washington to Ulysses S. Grant to Dwight Eisenhower to John F. Kennedy — does the soldier-politician still sell well in American politics?
In truth, despite all the Democratic emphasis on recruiting candidates with military experience, veterans may not be nearly the invincible candidates they once seemed to be. After all, attacking war heroes has been fair game: John Kerry's Vietnam record was attacked when he ran for president, and Max Cleland, a triple-amputee and Vietnam veteran, lost his Senate seat in Georgia in 2002 after Republicans accused him of being soft on national security. John McCain, when he ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, was accused of abandoning veterans. Many of the newest candidates are discovering that the political battlefield may be as challenging as the military one.
"It might actually put a bull's eye on our back," said Jeff Latas, a Democrat and gulf war veteran running in Arizona, when asked if it helped to be a veteran in running for office these days.
Here's the difference: swiftboating has its limits. When they tried it with Murtha, it failed badly.
I think the attacks won't be nearly as effective this go round, because these folks are actully networking and supporting each other as their campaigns start.Not all will win, but this hasn't happened since the end of WWII.
And the sheer numbers mean that some will win and if they do, they will be on the Bushies back.
But let's toss the question in the air, does it make a difference?
TURIN, Italy (AP) -- The stories coming out of the Olympic speedskating oval Saturday night were about as feel-good as they get.
There was Shani Davis winning the first individual gold medal by a black athlete in Winter Olympics history by racing to victory in the men's 1,000.
And there was Joey Cheek finishing just behind, then donating his $15,000 reward from the U.S. Olympic Committee to give impoverished kids a place to play.
When Bud Greenspan produces his latest Olympic film, these will be the tearjerkers, the stories that make you want to believe that the Olympics are really what the snobby elite who run them want you to believe. These are real athletes with real Olympic dreams that don't need to be manufactured by NBC.
Davis spent 17 years as an outcast in a primarily white sport, hoping the whole time that someday he would be able to hold an Olympic gold medal. He did, and was joined on the podium by a guy whose idea of glory is being able to help kids who can't help themselves.
....................
Hedrick, if you haven't heard, doesn't think much of Davis. Thinks even less of him now because Davis declined an invitation to skate in the team pursuit earlier this week and may have cost Hedrick -- who already has one gold medal of his own -- another medal by doing so.
So while Davis and Cheek were still celebrating, Hedrick was beneath the stands griping. Not about his own sixth-place finish, because the 1,000 wasn't his best race, anyway. He was griping about people who don't do everything they can to be a part of a team and help the United States win more medals.
...................
He wasn't approached until a week ago about even being in the team pursuit, and he didn't want to hurt his chances for gold in his best race by throwing off his carefully planned schedule. He didn't apologize for it because he felt he didn't need to. Still doesn't.
But when he should have been enjoying his Olympic moment, Davis had to explain how he was not somehow un-American.
"A lot of people might think I'm unpatriotic or not a team player," he said. "But if the shoe was on the other foot, would he have skated the team pursuit if the team pursuit was a day before the 5,000? We will never know."
Davis was never going to win a medal for being best teammate, even before he came to Turin. He and his mother have long had disputes with U.S. Speedskating, down to refusing to allow his biography to be displayed on the group's Web site. Once in Turin, he stayed to himself, avoiding both the media and the rest of his team.
There was even talk he might blow off the official press conference if he won. Clearly, this is a guy who worries only about himself.
Athletes, though, come with different needs, different motivations and vastly different personalities.
....................
Davis couldn't top that, but he did have his gold. And he had some support from outside his team.
"What the U.S. thinks about Shani Davis doesn't matter," said bronze medalist Erben Wennemars of the Netherlands. "He got the Olympic gold medal, so he's right. He made the right decision."
Hard to argue with that.
Unless you're Chad Hedrick, that is.
See, you don't know what is going on here. He could be a selfish asshole, he could have sucked down years of abuse and infighting in the sport.
We don't know what made him so hostile to the Speedskating association or how many roadblocks were tossed in his way. When he showed up to skate, how much crap did he have to deal with.
This reminds me of French ice skater Surya Bonaly. Often booed, no matter how good she was on the ice, she never seemed to finish first.
How bad can it be? Debi Thomas, the first black ice skater to reach the Olympics simply cracked under the pressure and didn't win the expected gold.
He could just be a jerk, or he could have built a barrier to avoid dealing with a sea of shit. I can't say which is which at this point.
I'm George Bush's Rent Boy and All I got was this Lousy Flag
Jen here. I may go out late later tonight to see a band at The Creek and the Cave later tonight, but being as my area is going to get record cold temperatures tonight (-8 degrees F with the wind), I may just stay home and play either Deer Hunter or 25 to Life . I will probably do this while drinking either crappy box wine or (on the other end of the spectrum) pricey single-malt whiskey that I got for Xmas.
Having said that...Gilly knows the drill. He posts too much cheesecake, up goes the guys sporting HAM over their privates. In keeping with our "freedom of speech" theme, though, I though I would post this patriotic teaser article while I fire up Photoshop.
Yes, we here at the News Blog are equal opportunity assholes editors, I thought that I would post this up for the ladies and the boys who like boys. Note that for those who are bothered by the butt cheeks: Ladies have shown this much moon and more in prior posts *grin*
Happy Friday! Watch this space and comment away...
William Buetler, who works for Hotline, claims the blogs are not supporting the "moderates" who could win. Matt Stoller discusses this.
However, I am the person who came up with the phrase and it obviously has some resonance with fellow liberals. But read his words and I will comment
See how easy it is to create Beltway wisdom?
Beutler continues: A few weeks after the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the unsuccessful filibuster attempt led by John Kerry is already ancient history in Washington. But for the left-wing bloggers who had strongly urged Democrats to support the filibuster, it remains a singular moment. Many of these Internet grassroots activists -- the "netroots," as they call themselves -- had already supported primary challenges to the Democratic establishment's favored candidates. But in the wake of that loss, there is a renewed determination to oust party moderates, known to many of these bloggers as "Vichy Democrats.
.....................................
Unsurprisingly, this anti-establishment project is one no national Democratic group has endorsed. Even for a governing party, trying to pick off your own members is a risky strategy. Republicans have seats to lose, albeit fewer than in the past -- and the Club just might help liberal Sen. Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I., lose his. But if Democrats want to regain control of Congress, there is little margin for error. And if it's the Republicans who pick up seats in November, the Internet battle against the "Vichy Democrats" will share some of the blame.
It's nice to see someone who has no access to history.
Vichy France, or the Vichy regime was the de factoFrench government of 1940-1944 during the Nazi Germany occupation of World War II. Now known in French as the Régime de Vichy or Vichy, during its existence it referred to itself as L'État Français (The French State).
Vichy France was established after France surrendered to Germany in 1940, and took its name from the government's capital in Vichy, southeast of Paris near Clermont-Ferrand. While officially neutral in the war, it was essentially a Nazipuppet state that collaborated with the Nazis, including on the Nazis' racial policies. Initially it ruled an unoccupied zone in Southern France and some French colonies, but Nazi Germany invaded the zone under its control on November 11, 1942, in operation Case Anton.
The Vichy government's claim to be the de jure French government was challenged by the Free French Forces of Charles de Gaulle, based first in London and later in Algiers, and French governments ever since have held that the Vichy regime was an illegal government run by traitors. At the time, the Vichy regime was acknowledged as the official government of France by the United States, though other nations often varied in their choice.
To some extent, for France, the Second World War and the Vichy Regime were, in addition to a foreign war, also an internal civil war, which opposed on the one hand the Communist and Republican elements of society, and on the other hand, the reactionary elements supporting a fascist or similar regime in the mould of that of Francisco Franco's. This civil war can be seen as the continuation of a fracture that divided French society since the 19th century or even the French Revolution, illustrated by events such as the Dreyfus Affair and the riots in the 1930s (see Action Française).
Now that we have that out of the way
The reason I chose that term was simple: to describe Democrats who routinely embraced GOP ideas and positions to attack other Democrats. Remember, Vichy not only rounded up the Jews, they hunted down resistants and sent troops to fight for Hitler.
Oh, and I've used the term for over a year, in fact I didn't use it at all concerning Alito.
My point in using the term was to highlight how these Dems pledged fidelity to the party, but by their actions, provide support to the GOP. People like the DLC, who not a day, a day after the election, went after the Dems and listed their flaws. Or Democrats who kept pushing " values" as code for abandoning abortion rights and gays.
These people, by their actions, weakened the party and people's support for it. Exactly how Vichy operated, trying to curry favor with their new rulers, even at the cost of their own country.
But of course, this article is nonsense. The so-called "moderates" often stand with Bush against the party, they badmouth other Dems, even attack the party chairman, unaware of how weak it makes them look, providing near constant fodder for Jon Stewart's jokes.
So that's where the term came from.
Of course, if he was actually interested in the facts, he might have interviewed some people first.
Sorry for the spam but I'm reaching out to every blogger I've got an email address for.
Since last summer my referral spam has been increasing exponentially. Actual site traffic for xxxxxxxx has been consistently ten times what is recorded by Sitemeter, or approx. 5,000 unique sites a day (actual) to 500 (Sitemeter). Actual visits, however, have consistently lagged behind sites due to some of the referral spam using code that forces my server's CPU to go through gyrations to cut off any actual bandwidth usage by the spammer. IP banning is of little use since nearly all of the attacks come from different servers (zombies, whatever...).
My question is this: who else has had this problem, and how did you resolve it? I'm just a teeny blog compared to most of you, so it makes no sense to me that I'm getting attacked in some unique way. Either some of you have already dealt with this successfully, or I'm under some kind of special attack (probably by one of the dozens of assholes I've referenced as having "tiny penises").
The latter is entirely possible as I have googlebombed a number of nimrods over the past several years, ranging from professional online con men to the jackass who launched a jihad against Bitch Ph.D. last year. (The conman, btw, was googlebombed by my business site which is totally unscathed by this attack. Going after my blog would not help remove the googlebomb page afflicting him, so I don't think this is related to anything nonpolitical.)
Any input would be appreciated. I wish I could be more clear on what is happening, but even after an ISP switch and several server moves we're still unable to figure out just what exactly is happening or how to block it. FWIW, the bandwidth hasn't been an issue at all, although half a gig a day is a lot for a blog that gets no more than 2,000 legit readers a day, tops.
The problem is referral spam designed to confound the server CPU. Any input or information would be deeply appreciated. Additional contact information below. xxxxxxxx
PS you absolutely have my permission to ask your readers about this if you like. And it's possible this isn't targeted but is the product of certain unique circumstances. I've been using a "wild card" domain for email since the mid-90s, and as a result my spam filters block out literally 8-9,000 spam every day, with at least another hundred or so getting through three layers of spam protection.
Because of my resume business, I also know that various email addresses I use are stored on literally thousands of client and lurker computers, mostly PCs, many infected by viruses. But there is nothing unusual about that spam other than the quantity. The referral spam is also typical: mostly porn and pharma products.
Sorry for all the detail but this could be a precursor to a concerted attack on major blogs later in the year when the election cycle is in full swing. Or it could just be some weirdness. Thanks for your time and any feedback.
By CALVIN WOODWARD and NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writers Sat Feb 18, 3:52 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Vice President
Dick Cheney said he didn't immediately disclose his hunting accident because he wanted the confusing details to come out right. Instead, authorized accounts came out slowly — and often still wrong.
The result: a week of shifting blame, belatedly acknowledged beer consumption (not "zero" drinking after all) and evolving discrepancies in how the shooting happened, its aftermath and the way it was told to the nation.
"There's a reason they call this crisis management," said corporate damage-control specialist Eric Dezenhall, "and that's because it's a mess."
___
BLAME
In the first days after the vice president wounded attorney Harry Whittington while shooting at quail last Saturday in Texas, blame was placed on the victim for not announcing his presence to fellow hunter Cheney.
"The vice president did everything right," Katharine Armstrong, the ranch owner approved by Cheney to disclose the accident, said Monday. Whittington, 78, should have shouted that he was rejoining the hunting group after drifting off to retrieve a downed bird. "The mistake exposed him to getting shot," she said. "It's incumbent on him. He did not do that."
The White House picked up on that theme the same day in attempting to deflect any responsibility from the vice president. "If I recall," Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said of Armstrong, "she pointed out that the protocol was not followed by Mr. Whittington, when it came to notifying the others that he was there."
The about-face came Wednesday when Cheney made his first public comment on the accident.
"It was not Harry's fault," he said. "You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend."
___
DRINKING
Although there is no evidence that beer impaired Cheney's judgment, initial denials that he had consumed alcohol were wrong.
"No one was drinking," Armstrong said at the outset. "No, zero, zippo." She said the hunters washed down lunch with Dr Pepper. Later, she qualified her comments and said beer might have been in the cooler but she did not think anyone drank any.
The investigating officer from the Kenedy County sheriff's department, after interviewing Whittington in the hospital, reported that the victim "explained foremost there was no alcohol during the hunt."
Authorities did not investigate the accident until the next day. The Texas Parks and Wildlife accident report, dated two days after the shooting, checked "No" on the question of whether Cheney appeared under the influence of intoxicants. It did not address whether the hunters had been drinking at all. (The report also included a diagram depicting Whittington's wounds on the wrong side of his body.)
Cheney acknowledged Wednesday, "I had a beer at lunch" several hours before the group's afternoon hunt, asserting "nobody was under the influence."
Look, among the rich of South Texas and their lackies, if the boss lady wants something to go away, it goes away. Pregnant Mexican teenager, wild son, overly familiar drifter. They all hit the road, get paid off.
Only problem is that doesn't work in Washington.
Which is why a week later, this is still an issue.
Cheney handled this as poorly as one could and keep his job. Now the questions center on his drinking and if he's got a girlfriend. And if the latter comes out, notice Lynne Cheney was with him yesterday, well, it could be a problem.
News Report, Monica Lewis, Black America Web.com, Feb 11, 2006 When the opening ceremonies of the 2006 Winter Olympics air on NBC tonight from Turin, Italy, people may be shocked to see the most racially and ethnically diverse U.S. team in the history of the Winter Games.
While black athletes have long dominated competitions in the Summer Games, blacks are making their presence felt on the international stage when it comes to competition on ice and snow.
Although the U.S. Olympic Committee does not officially keep records on the race of its athletes, there will be six people of African descent competing in such sports as long track speed skating, bobsled and figure skating, among them Vonetta Flowers, the sister from Alabama who made history in the 2002 games when she became the first African-American to ever win a medal during a Winter Olympic competition. She will attempt to defend the gold medal she captured during the last Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Another likely medalist, long track speedskater Shani Davis, hails from the south side of Chicago and is expected to prove that a young man from the inner-city can excel at more than hoops and football. Flowers, Davis and other black athletes will be a major asset to the U.S. team, former Olympic bobsledder Chris Coleman, told BlackAmericaWeb.com.
“Our chances are very strong,” said Coleman, himself one of the few blacks to ever participate in the sport at the Olympic level. “As an organization, the U.S. Olympic team is hoping that we can certainly duplicate the performance of 2002, when we scored 34 medals, and to have people of color helping us equal or surpass that number would be a significant feat.”
NBC, which paid $1.5 billion to broadcast the Torino Games, as well as the 2008 Summer Games in Beijing, is banking on the success of a more ethnically diverse team. The Washington Post reports that the network will expand its coverage to include several cable channels, hoping that a younger and more diverse audience will generate a ratings coup.
“The Winter Olympics used to present a promotional challenge. Now there’s speed, danger and an Olympic team that is more identifiable to a more diverse cross-section of America,” Mike McCarley, vice president of communications and marketing for NBC Universal Sports & Olympics, told the Washington Post.
Great, right?
Well, not so fast. THis came in the e-mail
I was reading some stuff on ESPN and stumbled across this Page 2 quote of the day by Bryant Gumbel:
"Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention." -- Bryant Gumbel on HBO's "Real Sports
Cue the outrage of the racist right. Here's a sample of the reaction on the HBO forum page:
LETS SEE SOME BLACK HOCKEY PLAYERS!!! Too bad this will never happen since African American hip-hop culture promotes only football and bask
Just a note on how the mechanics of this thing went: everyone was perfectly civil and friendly, but freely interjected what they had to say more or less at random. There was a lot of crosstalk, sometimes with three or more simultaneous speakers, and it got hard to follow at times. One thing I learned is that I apparently need to be a bit more assertive in settings like that, as I kept getting steamrolled and couldn't manage to get any of my own questions in edgewise. In any event, my basic points (not on Hackett or policy, but on the dynamics of the race) can be seen in the last few paragraphs of this post.
Jim Arvanitis ... "Sir" to every fighter who's ever come up against him, in the street or in the ring... is so FEARED in the martial arts world that whenever he shows up at a fight convention 6th degree black belts will leave the room rather than cross his path.
