just a comment. i will be heading down to the Daily Planet in a few minutes to enjoy a last call with the bartender. the Daily Planet is a place we all could go to and enjoy the art deco decorations, the stockholm martinis and, for me, the lack of interesting beers residing in its coolers. i am getting drunk as i write, because that is a promise i made when i first started this blog (but have not kept to). and i will continue the drunkenage at the Planet.
It is closing its doors tonight. The owner died last year or early this and the children have decided to put the entire block up for sale (the Planet, the Tower Theater, the place formerly known as Butterfield's, etc). i don't know what is going to happen, but i will definately tip my glass to the end of another era. the Planet is on a par with the Oly and the Wild Blue Yonder as iconic locations in the Tower District. if you read this in time, join me and marcel and randy and raise a toast. if not, just hoist that glass from wherever you are.
Saturday, May 21, 2005
First We Shoot the Mules
i highlighted the passages that give me pause. this reads (to me) as an attempt to wrest ever more control from those branches of government not titled "executive". but what happens when the Dems win the presidency back and the courts can't rule on anything involving God or foreign legal agreements and the filibuster has been blown to bits? are the Republicans thinking that far ahead? or are the neo-cons counting on removing all legal restaints on the office of the president in time to ensure that a Democrat can't get elected legally ever again? or that any democrat that can will be hamstrung from the start and coerced into following the established doctrine of the far right extremists (which include mule-fuckers and closet homos who claim homos should be locked up...not that a Democrat has never engaged in barnyard hijinks or homosexual acts; the Dems just normally don't go after those whom they can connect with)?
Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God
WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.
According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over “any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. “Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups,” he noted.
If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved “any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.”
Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.
Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from “our hard-won secular history and international norms.” The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on “the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land.”
Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, “We have the votes for passage."
Congress moves to restrict court rulings on God
WASHINGTON — Conservatives balk at accusations that the current Congress and the Bush administration are intent on turning the United States into a theocracy. Yet, a bill sponsored by 28 members of the U.S. House and Senate looks like a move in that direction.
According to the text of the bill, the proposed Constitution Restoration Act of 2005 would remove the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction over “any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity’s, officer’s, or agent’s acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government.”
Commenting on the general trend, Bill Moyers noted in a March article for the New York Review of Books that the religious right backs nearly half the members of Congress. “Forty-five senators and 186 members of the 108th Congress earned 80 to 100 percent approval ratings from the most influential Christian Right advocacy groups,” he noted.
If passed, the bill also would limit the ability of judges to interpret the Constitution if it involved “any constitution, law, administrative rule, Executive order, directive, policy, judicial decision, or any other action of any foreign state or international organization or agency, other than English constitutional and common law up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States.”
Judges who fail to comply could be impeached or prosecuted.
Project Censored award-winning journalist W. David Kubiak charges that the bill would divorce U.S. jurisprudence from “our hard-won secular history and international norms.” The Conservative Caucus has called it an important step that would prevent the U.S. Supreme Court from weighing in on “the acknowledgement of God (as in the Roy Moore 10 Commandments issue); and it also restricts federal courts from recognizing the laws of foreign countries and international law [e.g., against torture, global warming, unjust wars, etc.] as the supreme law of our land.”
Thus far, the mainstream media has ignored the legislation. A May 16 search of Google News turned up no coverage, despite the fact that the office of lead sponsor Sen. Richard Shelby, R-AL, told Kubiak last week, “We have the votes for passage."
Booty and the Bush
...um...I have no words for this. It speaks for itself.
Mary Carey Comes to Washington
Porn Star to Dine with Bush
By JOSHUA FRANK
Oh my. This Bush administration is something else. On one hand they are all about "family values" and Jesus. On the other they are all about raising mad loot so they can maintain control of Washington. It's not their conservative principles that really matter; it's all about the loot and the power it buys. And Bush's new dining partners have very deep pockets.
Former California gubernatorial candidate and popular porn star Mary Carey, whose real name is Mary Cook, will be joining her boss Mark Kulkis in attending a dinner with President Bush on June 14.
Not kidding. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is hosting the swank fundraising event, where hundreds of well-heeled Republicans will be corralled in DC to hobnob with President Bush. Over the course of the two-day event, conservative interest groups will be talking with Bush administration officials about real "important" issues. As usual, money buys access: An individual ticket to the dinner festivities alone costs $2,500. And no, Laura won't be sharing any new jokes with the crowd.
Of course, Carey, Kulkis, and the porn industry have valid reasons for lobbying Washington, such as worker rights and protection. But Carey and Kulkis hardly represent those interests. Carey's run for the governor of California, which was marketed by Kulkis, was nothing more than a flaunted publicity stunt. Her platform included, among other things: Taxing boob jobs. Making lap dances tax deductible. Recruiting porn stars to be "ambassadors of good will." And putting web cams up in every room of the Governor's mansion (okay, that one is intriguing).
"I'm hoping to run as Lieutenant Governor of California next year," said Carey, who was arrested in Tacoma, Washington for touching herself in a sexual manner this past week. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."
"I'm honored to be invited to this event," Kulkis said. "Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won't find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year." She's got a point I suppose.
Kulkis' company, Kick Ass Pictures, guarantees that "no fake boobs and no condoms" will ever be seen, even though Mary Carey, who appears in many of Kulkis' productions, has said in several interviews that her own boobs are fake. Kulkis is currently an Honorary Chairman on the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire business entrepreneurs who advocate for a robust "pro-business agenda."
Isn't it funny how the Bush administration could really give two-shits about the Christian Right? The bible thumpers are good for votes, and the porn industry is good for money.
"I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove," Carey said about her forthcoming visit to DC. "Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he's against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn't so bad!"
I wish.
Joshua Frank is the author of the highly anticipated new book, Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which has just been released by Common Courage Press. You can order a copy or two for a discounted rate at www.brickburner.org
Mary Carey Comes to Washington
Porn Star to Dine with Bush
By JOSHUA FRANK
Oh my. This Bush administration is something else. On one hand they are all about "family values" and Jesus. On the other they are all about raising mad loot so they can maintain control of Washington. It's not their conservative principles that really matter; it's all about the loot and the power it buys. And Bush's new dining partners have very deep pockets.
Former California gubernatorial candidate and popular porn star Mary Carey, whose real name is Mary Cook, will be joining her boss Mark Kulkis in attending a dinner with President Bush on June 14.
Not kidding. The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is hosting the swank fundraising event, where hundreds of well-heeled Republicans will be corralled in DC to hobnob with President Bush. Over the course of the two-day event, conservative interest groups will be talking with Bush administration officials about real "important" issues. As usual, money buys access: An individual ticket to the dinner festivities alone costs $2,500. And no, Laura won't be sharing any new jokes with the crowd.
Of course, Carey, Kulkis, and the porn industry have valid reasons for lobbying Washington, such as worker rights and protection. But Carey and Kulkis hardly represent those interests. Carey's run for the governor of California, which was marketed by Kulkis, was nothing more than a flaunted publicity stunt. Her platform included, among other things: Taxing boob jobs. Making lap dances tax deductible. Recruiting porn stars to be "ambassadors of good will." And putting web cams up in every room of the Governor's mansion (okay, that one is intriguing).
"I'm hoping to run as Lieutenant Governor of California next year," said Carey, who was arrested in Tacoma, Washington for touching herself in a sexual manner this past week. "Since Arnold [Schwarzenegger] is a Republican, I thought this dinner would be a great networking opportunity for me."
"I'm honored to be invited to this event," Kulkis said. "Republicans bill themselves as the pro-business party. Well, you won't find a group of people more pro-business than pornographers. We contributed over $10 billion to the national economy last year." She's got a point I suppose.
Kulkis' company, Kick Ass Pictures, guarantees that "no fake boobs and no condoms" will ever be seen, even though Mary Carey, who appears in many of Kulkis' productions, has said in several interviews that her own boobs are fake. Kulkis is currently an Honorary Chairman on the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire business entrepreneurs who advocate for a robust "pro-business agenda."
Isn't it funny how the Bush administration could really give two-shits about the Christian Right? The bible thumpers are good for votes, and the porn industry is good for money.
"I'm especially looking forward to meeting Karl Rove," Carey said about her forthcoming visit to DC. "Smart men like him are so sexy. I know that he's against gay marriage, but I think I can convince him that a little girl-on-girl action now and then isn't so bad!"
I wish.
Joshua Frank is the author of the highly anticipated new book, Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush, which has just been released by Common Courage Press. You can order a copy or two for a discounted rate at www.brickburner.org
Friday, May 20, 2005
Comment That Must Be Posted (because my ego will swallow you all)
you will always be able to "afford" something in the tower. but you will have to know people. my deal is really good only because the owner is a towerite and isn't too concerned about making a big profit. he owns enough other places that he can afford to help a Rogue creator stay in the neighborhood. but i am seeing so amny apartments staying on the market for longer now than i ever have and i know it's because the owners are trying to up the price just because the out of towners (who are buying up properties) are asking Bay area rent. Plus, the owners are trying to play off the "the tower is the only place to live" bullshit.what can we as a community do? i don't know. buy up property and refuse to let it go? i know i can't. petition the owners and play on their sentimentality? won't work. graffiti up the area and make it look like it did in the 70's and 80's? stage guerrilla drive-bys and throw rocks through windows with notes attached that read "rich coastie go home"? chance of jail time.it's funny. i've lived in the tower for a large chunk of my adult life. and it seems like no matter what might happen here, no matter what the national or state housing situation might look like, the prices hold in the tower and then go up.i live on the corner of white trash row and i'm only two blocks from livingstone's. my neighborhood is east of van ness and north of olive. the area is very diverse ethnically and affluently. i enjoy it, but most of the tower (read: affluent homeowners)don't. but they come in and swoop up any lot and home that's on the market. fix it up and put it back on the market. and tout the ethnic diversity of the neighborhood. the tower has become very hypocritical and very money-conscious. a house on van ness near brown is selling for $609,000. beautiful houses there, but how much?! we live in fresno for crying out loud. we have the worst air pollution in the nation. we are a homicide capital. my block just had a small child taken from his front yard tonight and the cops are everywhere. this is a city with a severe identity crisis, almost no awareness of its cultural richness and an inability to acknowledge the fact that it's repressed in every way imaginable.why would anyone want to spend unimaginable amount of money to not even live here? you have to love fresno and the tower. and, to be honest, it's really only natives and converts that see us for what we truly are.
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
Quote of the Day
Ah, fuck it. Quote of the Year so far. Finally, someone stood up to these sanctimonious Senators and lit into them with the truth. And it had to be a Brit, of course, because no true American will dare to point out the hypocricy and lies inherent in our administration's obsession with figuring out why our oil is underneath Iraq's sand.
Evidently, when Americans are called to testify before or be inquisitioned by Senate committees they tend to be very obsequious and staid. Not so Galloping Galloway. He turned the questioning on its ear and ripped us a new one. The following is only a quote. The entire text is quite enjoyable.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives, 1600 of them American soldiers, sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies. If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens, you are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth..." -- George Galloway, 5/17/05
Evidently, when Americans are called to testify before or be inquisitioned by Senate committees they tend to be very obsequious and staid. Not so Galloping Galloway. He turned the questioning on its ear and ripped us a new one. The following is only a quote. The entire text is quite enjoyable.
"Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right, and you turned out to be wrong. And 100,000 people have paid with their lives, 1600 of them American soldiers, sent to their deaths on a pack of lies, 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies. If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac, who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens, you are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth..." -- George Galloway, 5/17/05
Tuesday, May 17, 2005
Oh, What The Hey! Dem Leftists Cain't Be All Bad
Published on Monday, May 16, 2005 by CommonDreams.org
Buy Your Gas at Citgo: Join the BUY-cott!
by Jeff Cohen
Looking for an easy way to protest Bush foreign policy week after week? And an easy way to help alleviate global poverty? Buy your gasoline at Citgo stations.
And tell your friends.
Of the top oil producing countries in the world, only one is a democracy with a president who was elected on a platform of using his nation's oil revenue to benefit the poor. The country is Venezuela. The President is Hugo Chavez. Call him "the Anti-Bush."
Citgo is a U.S. refining and marketing firm that is a wholly owned subsidiary of Venezuela's state-owned oil company. Money you pay to Citgo goes primarily to Venezuela -- not Saudi Arabia or the Middle East. There are 14,000 Citgo gas stations in the US. (Click here http://www.citgo.com/CITGOLocator/StoreLocator.jsp to find one near you.) By buying your gasoline at Citgo, you are contributing to the billions of dollars that Venezuela's democratic government is using to provide health care, literacy and education, and subsidized food for the majority of Venezuelans.
Instead of using government to help the rich and the corporate, as Bush does, Chavez is using the resources and oil revenue of his government to help the poor in Venezuela. A country with so much oil wealth shouldn't have 60 percent of its people living in poverty, earning less than $2 per day. With a mass movement behind him, Chavez is confronting poverty in Venezuela. That's why large majorities have consistently backed him in democratic elections. And why the Bush administration supported an attempted military coup in 2002 that sought to overthrow Chavez.
So this is the opposite of a boycott. Call it a BUYcott. Spread the word.
Of course, if you can take mass transit or bike or walk to your job, you should do so. And we should all work for political changes that move our country toward a cleaner environment based on renewable energy. The BUYcott is for those of us who don't have a practical alternative to filling up our cars.
So get your gas at Citgo. And help fuel a democratic revolution in Venezuela.
Jeff Cohen is an author and media critic (www.jeffcohen.org)
The Tower Is For Sale; Bids Now Accepted
Well, kiddies, the end may just be near. Last- what?- summer the empty lot across the street from my humble (and I do mean humble) abode suddenly became a swarm of activity as the new buyers (or the old owners) began construction on a two-story fourplex. In the end they did a pretty good job of making it blend into the natural architectural style of the Tower District. Each balcony and porch was made up in the Craftsman style, the roof was done in a faux Spanish style (not in tile, but the asphalt shingles in the same color), the front stairs to the upper floor were hidden, the lawns are gorgeous, the offstreet parking isn't pukey at all. It really does look nice as these things go.
My landlord, who is an insurance agent and multiple property owner, researched and found out that the owner was going to ask for $750,000 for the whole shebang. 5 years ago, we would have hooted and asked if we could have the name of his dealer, 'cuz the shit must be primo. Not any more. We gaped at the asking price, but we never once thought it was not going to be met. We knew someone would jump at the bait. Probably a Bay area person. My landlord, also, informed us that the current owner was planning on calling the units "3 bedroom". That's when I began to gag. My studio apartment on Vassar Ave was as big. Granted, these units were very likely better made and laid out, but it didn't dismiss the fact that they were all about 700-800 square feet at best. And the owner was planning asking for over $1000 in rent.
Well, the 'for sale' sign went up last Saturday. The realty agent came out, took a mess of pictures of the exterior, interior, shots of the views and houses across the streets (though I think she skipped my place because of the delapidated fence situation) and left. So, that was Saturday. Saturday was the first official day of saleability. Today is Tuesday. Today there is a 'sold' sign on the realty sign. That's 4 days at most. The place sold in four days. Four freaking days. It ain't even renting yet. Four days. 3/4 of a million bucks. Snap. Gone. Gobbled. Didn't even see the shark's fin.
Now, the burning question is: local buyer or Bay area buyer? Evidently, the rule of thumb for rental building buyers is that the sum of monthly rent must be at least 1% of the sale price. 1% of $750,000 is $7500. $7500 divided by four equals $1875. Following this code, each '3 bedroom' unit needs to rent for $1875. That comes to (in my estimate) somewhere in the $2.50 per square foot range. A Bay area buyer would not think twice about charging what he or she considers fair market value based on the Bay area. That's how I was forced out of my last apartment. A Santa Cruz realtor bought the place and immediately kicked everyone for renovations with the notice that rent would increase by 50%. The locals who bought it before her and renovated the outside and landscaped it raised the rent by $50 (15%). Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the new owners will keep the same description or make it more sensible and what they will charge for rent.
Until then, I will continue to enjoy watching people stop and look in as I try and assess their probability of being able to afford living there. So far, the stats are running in the negative in terms of viable renters.
My landlord, who is an insurance agent and multiple property owner, researched and found out that the owner was going to ask for $750,000 for the whole shebang. 5 years ago, we would have hooted and asked if we could have the name of his dealer, 'cuz the shit must be primo. Not any more. We gaped at the asking price, but we never once thought it was not going to be met. We knew someone would jump at the bait. Probably a Bay area person. My landlord, also, informed us that the current owner was planning on calling the units "3 bedroom". That's when I began to gag. My studio apartment on Vassar Ave was as big. Granted, these units were very likely better made and laid out, but it didn't dismiss the fact that they were all about 700-800 square feet at best. And the owner was planning asking for over $1000 in rent.
Well, the 'for sale' sign went up last Saturday. The realty agent came out, took a mess of pictures of the exterior, interior, shots of the views and houses across the streets (though I think she skipped my place because of the delapidated fence situation) and left. So, that was Saturday. Saturday was the first official day of saleability. Today is Tuesday. Today there is a 'sold' sign on the realty sign. That's 4 days at most. The place sold in four days. Four freaking days. It ain't even renting yet. Four days. 3/4 of a million bucks. Snap. Gone. Gobbled. Didn't even see the shark's fin.
Now, the burning question is: local buyer or Bay area buyer? Evidently, the rule of thumb for rental building buyers is that the sum of monthly rent must be at least 1% of the sale price. 1% of $750,000 is $7500. $7500 divided by four equals $1875. Following this code, each '3 bedroom' unit needs to rent for $1875. That comes to (in my estimate) somewhere in the $2.50 per square foot range. A Bay area buyer would not think twice about charging what he or she considers fair market value based on the Bay area. That's how I was forced out of my last apartment. A Santa Cruz realtor bought the place and immediately kicked everyone for renovations with the notice that rent would increase by 50%. The locals who bought it before her and renovated the outside and landscaped it raised the rent by $50 (15%). Anyway, it will be interesting to see if the new owners will keep the same description or make it more sensible and what they will charge for rent.
Until then, I will continue to enjoy watching people stop and look in as I try and assess their probability of being able to afford living there. So far, the stats are running in the negative in terms of viable renters.
Monday, May 16, 2005
This Headache Is Good Enough For Jehova! Ouch!
So much for $5 miracles.
Sittin' there minding my own business, enjoying the pain and along comes Little Rabbit Foo Foo who bops me on the head. Pain goes away. I'm cured. Whoo hoo, etc.
Now I'm dancing and prancing through the forest, sharing love and wet noodles. Now I'm dancing naked with nymphs and goats and sheepherders and wise men and all manner of happy, snappy folk.
I'm Singing in the Rain. I'm a Funny Face. I'm gorgeously Indiscreet. I am Love, Actually. It feels as if my whole body has been Born Free just as the Butterflies Are Free. I am a man in Possession of The Unbearable Lightness of Being. I am...Keanu Reeves.
And just like that, poof. Out go the twinkly lights. Away blows the magic dust. Down goes the house of twigs. Beauty leaves the Beast. The Dwarfs trunch off to their jobs.
All that was ept is now in-. All that was in whack is now out. Gruntle has been dissed, Hansel dismissed.
Yesterday's recovery was but a respite from the storm. A mere lull between cloudbursts. The gentle lufting that announces the eye of the hurricane is watching you. A stall, if you will.
Der kopfschmertz ist returned. Der Third Eyeache hast arisen! No Big Smile, though. Only a grimace and a grunt.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
Alms For An Ex-Leper
I know now the feeling one gets upon waking to a new day. I never understood that phrase before. My cynical mind scoffed at the notion that nothing is so bad it can't be seen in a better light merely by closing one's eyes and letting the bliss of slumber wash away some of the evil coating one's soul. It was something a mother tells her child when the child is upset, unhappy, frightened. It is something a lover tells one when the job is lost, the parent is dead, the bombs are falling. It is not something I would ever want to hear while in the midst of a 6 day tension headache that had worsened with each proceeding day. It is not something I would believe as my neck began to slowly cramp on the 5th day and night and I wandered aimlessly through a period of 30 hours with no sleep. But that's what happened.
Yesterday, after the aforementioned lack of conkout, I did get a nap and then drove out to my birth house to help my parents pack their things prior to moving them to Spokane. I needed the contact, I needed the activity (I'd missed 4 days of work while lying on the couch) and I needed to get the hell out of the house. When I came home it began to appear as if last night would be a repeat of the one before with no sleep and a cramping neck, pulsing temples, invisible vise around the head, no relief in sight. Somehow, I fell asleep early this morning.
When I awoke 5 hours later (on the couch, of course with the TV still on and muted) I encountered an immediate sense of something wrong, something amiss...something missing. It took me a moment to gather my bearings before I jumped and ran to the bathroom to start a shower. There was no way I was going back to sleep. No way I was giving this a chance to become a thieving dream. I had no pain whatsoever. It was gone, gone, gone.
I felt cleansed and energized. I felt new. The scales had been lifted from eyes. The crippled was healed.
I went to my local coffee joint and met friends and chatted and laughed until snot blew out my nose and I was asked to leave. I shopped. I cleaved branch from tree for my buddy Marcel. I came home and ate an entire meal. I gardened. It was truly a new day.
And now I look forward to returning to work tomorrow with a smile on my lips, a song in my heart, a hearty well-met for every brother and sister I meet...
Oh fuck I need an aspirin.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Bush Creating Jobs In Iraq
Pleasure marriages' regain popularity in Iraq
Outlawed for years, muta'a a means of income for widows
By Rick JervisUSA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife.
Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or “pleasure marriage,” with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife.
The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a — “ecstasy” in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.
Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and women's rights activists are complaining that the contracts have become less a mechanism for taking care of widows than an outlet for male sexual desires.
The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.
“Under Saddam, we were very scared,” says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. “They would punish people. Now, all my friends are doing it.”
A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are “special reasons.” The cleric, Sayid Kareem As-Sayid Abdullah Al-Mousawi, says he grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.
“Clerics who blessed them were hounded by security during the previous regime,” he says. “I can assure you, these (muta'a) marriages are flourishing in (Shiite cities) Najaf, Karbala and Kadhamiya in an amazing way. There are a lot of hotels (patronized) by Shiites who approve of such marriages.”
Shiites and Sunnis both permit men to take more than one permanent wife, but the rival branches of Islam are deeply split over pleasure marriages.
Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his website. (“A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him …”)
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want Iraq's new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give muta'a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni, oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.
Sunni scholars fear that giving official sanction to pleasure marriages — many of which are only verbal agreements between the couple — are little more than legalized prostitution that could lead to a collapse of moral values, especially among young people.
“We have reports about one-hour pleasure marriages that are flourishing among students,” says Sheik Ali Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni imam at the Ibn Taimiya mosque in Baghdad. “I'm advising parents to watch their sons very carefully, particularly those who are in the colleges and universities.”
Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddam's ruling Baath Party in the 1970s and '80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association. Muta'a were punishable by fines or prison, he says. Couples took the practice underground, meeting in out-of-the-way apartments and hotels — and rarely telling even family members.
Pleasure marriages began to resurface after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. One reason is that Shiites, 60% of Iraq's population, have a greater ability to shape social mores than they did under Saddam, a Sunni Arab whose top aides were also Sunnis.
A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta'a that runs longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can depend on whether she has children.
Zeinab Ahmed, 31, lost her husband in a car accident five years ago. She says she has considered entering into a muta'a contract with a man, but the stigma attached has kept her from doing so.
“All my friends who have done this have told me they got married in this way just to meet their sexual desires,” Ahmed says, “but later on they started to love that man, and he does not accept to get married permanently. … Most of the men, at the end of the contract, they feel contempt towards the woman.”
Contracts for pleasure marriage strongly favor men.
Married women can't enter a muta'a, although a married man can. Men can void the contract at any time; women don't have that option unless it's negotiated at the outset. The couple agrees not to have children. A woman who unintentionally gets pregnant can have an abortion but must then pay a fine to a cleric.
Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an “unhealthy phenomenon.”
With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns.
“A woman who practices muta'a does not usually feel comfortable about it,” Al-Khafaji says. “People these days are creating excuses to practice these acts.”
Al-Mousawi, the Shiite cleric, says the practice of pleasure marriages is open to abuse and misinterpretation. He says he is particularly troubled by kiss-and-tell men. “After they've finished with the woman, they've told their friends about her beauty and given a description of her body, which is something absolutely unacceptable in Islam,” he says.
Al-Zaidi, the Sadr City lawyer, says his motivations are spiritual. In 2002, he says he persuaded a Sunni widow to enter into a one-year muta'a with him, even though at first she refused.
To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in God's eyes. They bring responsibility and formality to what would otherwise be squalid and sinful, he says. “There is a noble goal in this kind of marriage,” says Al-Zaidi, still married to his first wife and has five children. “It's to eradicate moral corruption.”
In the past, some muta'a contracts have been struck when permanent, legal marriages were not possible.
Ayad Muhammed Ali fell in love eight years ago with a woman who walked into his Baghdad tailor shop. She was a widow with two young sons whose husband, a member of an underground group outlawed by Saddam, had been executed by Saddam's men. The woman also was richer than Ali, so her family would never have consented to a legal marriage.
The lovers agreed to a yearlong muta'a in 1993 and have renewed their contract every year since, he says. In the decade after their muta'a, the couple never dared meet in the open. In April 2003, the month U.S. forces swept into the capital, they began meeting in public places for the first time, he says.
“I was always so afraid someone would find out and I'd go to prison,” says Ali, 29. “Now, I'm not afraid. My only fear is her family.”
Outlawed for years, muta'a a means of income for widows
By Rick JervisUSA TODAY
BAGHDAD — In the days when it could land him in jail, Rahim Al-Zaidi would whisper details of his muta'a only to his closest confidants and the occasional cousin. Never his wife.
Al-Zaidi hopes to soon finalize his third muta'a, or “pleasure marriage,” with a green-eyed neighbor. This time, he talks about it openly and with obvious relish. Even so, he says, he probably still won't tell his wife.
The 1,400-year-old practice of muta'a — “ecstasy” in Arabic — is as old as Islam itself. It was permitted by the prophet Mohammed as a way to ensure a respectable means of income for widowed women.
Pleasure marriages were outlawed under Saddam Hussein but have begun to flourish again. The contracts, lasting anywhere from one hour to 10 years, generally stipulate that the man will pay the woman in exchange for sexual intimacy. Now some Iraqi clerics and women's rights activists are complaining that the contracts have become less a mechanism for taking care of widows than an outlet for male sexual desires.
The renaissance of the pleasure marriage coincides with a revival of other Shiite traditions long suppressed by the former regime. Interest in Shiite customs has accelerated since Shiite parties swept Jan. 30 elections to become the biggest bloc in the new National Assembly.
“Under Saddam, we were very scared,” says Al-Zaidi, 39, a lawyer from Sadr City, a sprawling Shiite neighborhood in eastern Baghdad. “They would punish people. Now, all my friends are doing it.”
A turbaned Shiite cleric who issues wedding permits from a street-side counter in Sadr City says he encourages permanent marriages but gives the OK for pleasure marriages when there are “special reasons.” The cleric, Sayid Kareem As-Sayid Abdullah Al-Mousawi, says he grants licenses for muta'a in cases where the woman is widowed or divorced, or for single women who have approval from their fathers.
“Clerics who blessed them were hounded by security during the previous regime,” he says. “I can assure you, these (muta'a) marriages are flourishing in (Shiite cities) Najaf, Karbala and Kadhamiya in an amazing way. There are a lot of hotels (patronized) by Shiites who approve of such marriages.”
Shiites and Sunnis both permit men to take more than one permanent wife, but the rival branches of Islam are deeply split over pleasure marriages.
Most Shiite scholars today consider it halal, or religiously legal. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the highest religious authority in Shiite Islam, sets conditions and obligations for muta'a on his website. (“A woman with whom temporary marriage is contracted is not entitled to share the conjugal bed of her husband and does not inherit from him …”)
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari and other Shiite lawmakers have said they want Iraq's new constitution to use the sharia, or Islamic law, as its basis. That could give muta'a formal legal protection. Sunni Arabs and Kurds, who are mainly Sunni, oppose the idea. But the practice is growing among Sunnis and Shiites alike.
Sunni scholars fear that giving official sanction to pleasure marriages — many of which are only verbal agreements between the couple — are little more than legalized prostitution that could lead to a collapse of moral values, especially among young people.
“We have reports about one-hour pleasure marriages that are flourishing among students,” says Sheik Ali Al-Mashhadani, a Sunni imam at the Ibn Taimiya mosque in Baghdad. “I'm advising parents to watch their sons very carefully, particularly those who are in the colleges and universities.”
Short-term marriages were considered idolatry by Saddam's ruling Baath Party in the 1970s and '80s, says Kamal Hamdul, president of the Iraqi Bar Association. Muta'a were punishable by fines or prison, he says. Couples took the practice underground, meeting in out-of-the-way apartments and hotels — and rarely telling even family members.
Pleasure marriages began to resurface after the fall of Baghdad in 2003. One reason is that Shiites, 60% of Iraq's population, have a greater ability to shape social mores than they did under Saddam, a Sunni Arab whose top aides were also Sunnis.
A woman agreeing to a pleasure marriage that involves a one-time encounter might be able to count on about $100. For a muta'a that runs longer, she might be paid $200 a month, though the amounts vary widely and can depend on whether she has children.
Zeinab Ahmed, 31, lost her husband in a car accident five years ago. She says she has considered entering into a muta'a contract with a man, but the stigma attached has kept her from doing so.
“All my friends who have done this have told me they got married in this way just to meet their sexual desires,” Ahmed says, “but later on they started to love that man, and he does not accept to get married permanently. … Most of the men, at the end of the contract, they feel contempt towards the woman.”
Contracts for pleasure marriage strongly favor men.
Married women can't enter a muta'a, although a married man can. Men can void the contract at any time; women don't have that option unless it's negotiated at the outset. The couple agrees not to have children. A woman who unintentionally gets pregnant can have an abortion but must then pay a fine to a cleric.
Women's rights activists are concerned. Salama Al-Khafaji, a Shiite lawmaker who supports the concept of sharia law but advocates for women's rights, calls the re-emergence of muta'a an “unhealthy phenomenon.”
With the right intentions, she says, muta'a can serve the noble purpose of helping divorced and widowed women. But too many men are using temporary marriages to exploit women for sex, she says. Her solution is to reinforce the importance of permanent marriages with work programs for newlywed couples and education campaigns.
“A woman who practices muta'a does not usually feel comfortable about it,” Al-Khafaji says. “People these days are creating excuses to practice these acts.”
Al-Mousawi, the Shiite cleric, says the practice of pleasure marriages is open to abuse and misinterpretation. He says he is particularly troubled by kiss-and-tell men. “After they've finished with the woman, they've told their friends about her beauty and given a description of her body, which is something absolutely unacceptable in Islam,” he says.
Al-Zaidi, the Sadr City lawyer, says his motivations are spiritual. In 2002, he says he persuaded a Sunni widow to enter into a one-year muta'a with him, even though at first she refused.
To him, pleasure marriages are legitimate in God's eyes. They bring responsibility and formality to what would otherwise be squalid and sinful, he says. “There is a noble goal in this kind of marriage,” says Al-Zaidi, still married to his first wife and has five children. “It's to eradicate moral corruption.”
In the past, some muta'a contracts have been struck when permanent, legal marriages were not possible.
Ayad Muhammed Ali fell in love eight years ago with a woman who walked into his Baghdad tailor shop. She was a widow with two young sons whose husband, a member of an underground group outlawed by Saddam, had been executed by Saddam's men. The woman also was richer than Ali, so her family would never have consented to a legal marriage.
The lovers agreed to a yearlong muta'a in 1993 and have renewed their contract every year since, he says. In the decade after their muta'a, the couple never dared meet in the open. In April 2003, the month U.S. forces swept into the capital, they began meeting in public places for the first time, he says.
“I was always so afraid someone would find out and I'd go to prison,” says Ali, 29. “Now, I'm not afraid. My only fear is her family.”
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Stupid Stupid Stupid
just when I thought the government couldn't get any stupider. okay, i know that it can always get stupider. i know that stupid ISN'T as stupid does. stupid is a disease that grows exponentially. if it wasn't for stupid, we'd have no government.
but today i received a letter from the Child Protective Services. to wit:
we have sent a letter to your employer to make sure that your insurance covers your child. if it doesn't we will make it so.
now, i have spent much time in the past arguing with this state agency about back child support that wasn't supposed to exist. i have sent polite and nasty letters telling them to look through their files and correct multiple mistakes concerning my son's case. i have called them and complained about the lack of effort made on their part to provide me with information. when, finally, they informed me of the little box that my son's mother didn't check as she closed out her account, i thought we had a done deal. i knew how much to pay in order to get out from under the financial cloud the agency had fraudulently placed over me. and they promised to never bother me again unless my son's mother reopened the account (which she hasn't).
But today i get this letter. during all of the years of my son's life (almost 18) i was never once approached by the state to ask if i was covering him with my insurance. but when i had insurance i always covered him anyway. now, one month before his 18th birthday, this STUPID agency has decided to enforce something they never had before. and they do so when i am in my intial probationary period with my new company. and they are sending a letter to my new employer, which i find entirely invasive. do these people look at their records? do these people think for themselves? or do they blindly follow instructions and waste tax money, because it's easier to obey than to research their CLOSED cases?
i tried calling the number given in the letter and the phone rang and rang and rang. no answer, no voicemail, no operator to tell me the office is closed for the day. nothing.
this ain't over by a long shot. these people are going to get a lashing. this case closed in 1999. let's get ready to ruuuuuuuumble.
but today i received a letter from the Child Protective Services. to wit:
we have sent a letter to your employer to make sure that your insurance covers your child. if it doesn't we will make it so.
now, i have spent much time in the past arguing with this state agency about back child support that wasn't supposed to exist. i have sent polite and nasty letters telling them to look through their files and correct multiple mistakes concerning my son's case. i have called them and complained about the lack of effort made on their part to provide me with information. when, finally, they informed me of the little box that my son's mother didn't check as she closed out her account, i thought we had a done deal. i knew how much to pay in order to get out from under the financial cloud the agency had fraudulently placed over me. and they promised to never bother me again unless my son's mother reopened the account (which she hasn't).
But today i get this letter. during all of the years of my son's life (almost 18) i was never once approached by the state to ask if i was covering him with my insurance. but when i had insurance i always covered him anyway. now, one month before his 18th birthday, this STUPID agency has decided to enforce something they never had before. and they do so when i am in my intial probationary period with my new company. and they are sending a letter to my new employer, which i find entirely invasive. do these people look at their records? do these people think for themselves? or do they blindly follow instructions and waste tax money, because it's easier to obey than to research their CLOSED cases?
i tried calling the number given in the letter and the phone rang and rang and rang. no answer, no voicemail, no operator to tell me the office is closed for the day. nothing.
this ain't over by a long shot. these people are going to get a lashing. this case closed in 1999. let's get ready to ruuuuuuuumble.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Making Candles...Oh Yes, I Am A Sensitive Guy
Yeah, I've made 'em.
Anybody got a problem with that?
I met a chick. In Seattle. She made 'em. i wanted to be with her.
So, I learned to make 'em.
And make 'em I did. I got pretty damn good at 'em. I even got a job at the place that made and sold all of the equipment.
(The first time I worked in the retail shop. I worked the cash register, answered questions, sold customers on much more than they needed, restocked and got to test any new substance that came in. I spent most of my time answering questions and making test candles in the back. I was fired after a year.
2 years later, I worked in their metal mold shop and sautered (can't remember the sp.) the molds together. I had a benchmate who was congenially insane. But very ept. We became friends and proceeded to make a mockery of any tissue that moved.)
After a while we fell in love. We couldn't be apart for a day. We needed the touch.
It became a physical ache whenever situations separated us. It may be the most intense relationship I've ever had.
Sometimes I wonder what became of whatshername. But I always thank her for the wax.
Especially now as I undertake to make them again.
Anybody got a problem with that?
I met a chick. In Seattle. She made 'em. i wanted to be with her.
So, I learned to make 'em.
And make 'em I did. I got pretty damn good at 'em. I even got a job at the place that made and sold all of the equipment.
(The first time I worked in the retail shop. I worked the cash register, answered questions, sold customers on much more than they needed, restocked and got to test any new substance that came in. I spent most of my time answering questions and making test candles in the back. I was fired after a year.
2 years later, I worked in their metal mold shop and sautered (can't remember the sp.) the molds together. I had a benchmate who was congenially insane. But very ept. We became friends and proceeded to make a mockery of any tissue that moved.)
After a while we fell in love. We couldn't be apart for a day. We needed the touch.
It became a physical ache whenever situations separated us. It may be the most intense relationship I've ever had.
Sometimes I wonder what became of whatshername. But I always thank her for the wax.
Especially now as I undertake to make them again.
A Riddle
Below is a secret (no more) memo describing the inevitability of war in Iraq. It discusses the reasons and justifications put forth by the Bush cartel and the Blair sect. See if you can suss the moments within this missive that cement our president as an actual criminal.
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005 The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
NI_MPU('middle');
DAVID MANNING From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 01, 2005 The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
NI_MPU('middle');
DAVID MANNING From: Matthew RycroftDate: 23 July 2002S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
Tuesday, May 03, 2005
Huh?
Does any of this strike you as odd? The defense in this case is saying that she was handicapped from birth, but was accepted into the military and deemed okay for active combat. But, while in the military, was sufficiently below the other soldiers in intelligence quotient to go along with activities that she knew to be wrong. Granting her the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't she be on a short list to sue the government for the very abuses she has been convicted of participating in?
Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth
By T.A. BADGER
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read. West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne - the first defense witness - said England's learning disabilities were identified when she was a kindergartner - and though she made progress in school, she continued needing special help. ``I knew I was going to know Lynndie England for the rest of my life,'' West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne said. A military jury of five men and one woman was seated earlier Tuesday to make a sentencing recommendation for England, 22, who pleaded guilty Monday to seven counts of mistreating prisoners. She said she let her comrades talk her into going along with the abuse.
England, from Fort Ashby, W.Va., accepted responsibility for the smiling, thumbs-up poses she struck for photographs taken at Abu Ghraib that made her the face of the prisoner abuse scandal.
In one of the photos, England held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips.
The charges carry up to 11 years in prison. Prosecutors and the defense reached an agreement that caps the sentence at a lesser punishment; the length was not released. She will get the lesser of the military jury's sentence or the term agreed on in the plea bargain.
Prosecutor Capt. Chris Graveline told jurors in opening statements that England and a half-dozen other soldiers in the 372nd Military Police Company took great pleasure in humiliating the prisoners. The prosecution rested its sentencing case without calling any witnesses.
Graveline said England and Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. - the abuse ringleader and the father of England's child - knew it was wrong to mistreat the detainees and take the photos, ``but they did it anyway for their own amusement.''
Graner is scheduled to testify for the defense Wednesday. He handed out a written statement Tuesday saying that he was unhappy that England opted for a plea deal rather than fight the charges she faced.
``Knowing what happened in Iraq, it was very upsetting to see Lynn plead guilty to her charges,'' wrote Graner. ``I would hope that by doing so she will have a better chance at a good sentence.''
When asked by judge Col. James Pohl whether England knew right from wrong, Denne said she had a compliant personality and tended to listen to authority figures.
On Monday, England told Pohl that she initially resisted taking part in the abuse at the Baghdad prison, but that she succumbed to peer pressure.
``I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to,'' she said.
Rick Hernandez, a defense lawyer, said the pscychologist's testimony helped England by establishing that her ability to reason was lower than that of her comrades.
``She is clearly in a different mental capacity ... than any of the others accused,'' he said.
Graner was convicted in January on abuse charges and is serving a 10-year prison sentence. Four other Abu Ghraib guards and two low-level military intelligence officers have entered guilty pleas in connection with the scandal, with sentences ranging from no time to 8 1/2 years. Spc. Sabrina Harman, a former Abu Ghraib guard, is scheduled to go to trial at Fort Hood next week.
05/03/05 21:39
Defense: England Oxygen-Deprived at Birth
By T.A. BADGER
FORT HOOD, Texas (AP) - Defense lawyers sought leniency for Pfc. Lynndie England at a hearing Tuesday to determine her punishment in the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, with a psychologist testifying that the reservist was oxygen-deprived at birth, speech impaired and had trouble learning to read. West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne - the first defense witness - said England's learning disabilities were identified when she was a kindergartner - and though she made progress in school, she continued needing special help. ``I knew I was going to know Lynndie England for the rest of my life,'' West Virginia school psychologist Dr. Thomas Denne said. A military jury of five men and one woman was seated earlier Tuesday to make a sentencing recommendation for England, 22, who pleaded guilty Monday to seven counts of mistreating prisoners. She said she let her comrades talk her into going along with the abuse.
England, from Fort Ashby, W.Va., accepted responsibility for the smiling, thumbs-up poses she struck for photographs taken at Abu Ghraib that made her the face of the prisoner abuse scandal.
In one of the photos, England held a leash looped around the neck of a hooded, naked prisoner. Another showed her next to nude prisoners stacked in a pyramid, while a third depicted England pointing at a prisoner's genitals as a cigarette dangled from her lips.
The charges carry up to 11 years in prison. Prosecutors and the defense reached an agreement that caps the sentence at a lesser punishment; the length was not released. She will get the lesser of the military jury's sentence or the term agreed on in the plea bargain.
Prosecutor Capt. Chris Graveline told jurors in opening statements that England and a half-dozen other soldiers in the 372nd Military Police Company took great pleasure in humiliating the prisoners. The prosecution rested its sentencing case without calling any witnesses.
Graveline said England and Pvt. Charles Graner Jr. - the abuse ringleader and the father of England's child - knew it was wrong to mistreat the detainees and take the photos, ``but they did it anyway for their own amusement.''
Graner is scheduled to testify for the defense Wednesday. He handed out a written statement Tuesday saying that he was unhappy that England opted for a plea deal rather than fight the charges she faced.
``Knowing what happened in Iraq, it was very upsetting to see Lynn plead guilty to her charges,'' wrote Graner. ``I would hope that by doing so she will have a better chance at a good sentence.''
When asked by judge Col. James Pohl whether England knew right from wrong, Denne said she had a compliant personality and tended to listen to authority figures.
On Monday, England told Pohl that she initially resisted taking part in the abuse at the Baghdad prison, but that she succumbed to peer pressure.
``I had a choice, but I chose to do what my friends wanted me to,'' she said.
Rick Hernandez, a defense lawyer, said the pscychologist's testimony helped England by establishing that her ability to reason was lower than that of her comrades.
``She is clearly in a different mental capacity ... than any of the others accused,'' he said.
Graner was convicted in January on abuse charges and is serving a 10-year prison sentence. Four other Abu Ghraib guards and two low-level military intelligence officers have entered guilty pleas in connection with the scandal, with sentences ranging from no time to 8 1/2 years. Spc. Sabrina Harman, a former Abu Ghraib guard, is scheduled to go to trial at Fort Hood next week.
05/03/05 21:39
Monday, May 02, 2005
A Good Weekend All Around
Well, folks, the saga of the overheated pussy is at an end.
This past week started out as an emergency of medical proportions when my cat went into heat. I had been hoping for over a year that she was fixed before I found her and had been rewarded with that much time in which she appeared to be. It seems she was a late bloomer and when she bloomed...ohmygod.
I think that at one point she would have let me do her kitty-style.
She is never much of a talker except when I close the door to the bathroom (she hates being shut out of wherever I am), but last week she became a Supreme chirper. She began rolling all around on the floor and moving her tail out of the way of the servant's door. I couldn't pet her for fear that she would construe it as being, well, petted.
So, Tuesday morning it was to the vet's and in for tubal litigation...or whatever it is that they do. I'll tell you one thing: I never needed to know that I was being charged for bio-waste removal. Can you just picture the poor sanitation worker down in the vet's sewer cleaning that stuff out? Eww...
The upside of it was that I had a week's worth of entertainment as she wore her Elizabethan collar and auditioned for all sorts of Shakespearean characters.
"Romeo, oh Romeo, wherefor art thou- aack!"
"Oh, that this too, too solid flesh- aack!"
"By thee I foreswear- aack!"
"All the world's a stage and all the- aack!- merely players."
So, all in all, I got mine out of it. But the fact remained that I'd had to pay a hefty vet's bill with money I didn't really have. Yes, you guessed it. I paid with fake money. Well, more precisely I paid with theoretical money. To put even a finer point on it, I paid with money never to be printed, but which nevertheless seemed to satisfy the butcher.
And, so, I was caught in a conundrum. I had bequeathed what was essentially a promissory note and was not entirely sure I had the wherewithal to make good on it. What to do? What to do?
And so I had me a yard sale...
Not any yard sale, mind you, where used knickers are up for grabs (so to speak). Where one can find a scis or a betamax. No.
No no. To prove my love to my pussy and my credit report, I placed upon the tables (provided by none other than Lecram) half of my DVD collection, all of my VHS and all of my vinyl records.
Does this not move you to tears? Does this not make you want to reach out and touch me over and over and over and over and over and over and, if you're really good at it, under?
It makes me want to. In fact, hang on a second...thanks for your patience. Now, where was I?
Ah yes. And so I had me a yard sale. And sale I did. It seems that not very many of you have access to quality movies at 50 cents to $2 a pop. it seems that vinyl has not gone out of style at $1 per. It seems that I'm an idiot who could have gotten a lot more than I asked. BUT...not only did I more than recoup for the kitty's cut, I got rid of a lot of things that were hiding a lot of dust bunnies that were multiplying like...Mormons.
So, there you have it. My pussy got hot when I wasn't in the mood. I had her whacked. And I ended up paying for it in the end. A moral play if ever I've heard one.
And now I call her Eunis for obvious reasons.
This past week started out as an emergency of medical proportions when my cat went into heat. I had been hoping for over a year that she was fixed before I found her and had been rewarded with that much time in which she appeared to be. It seems she was a late bloomer and when she bloomed...ohmygod.
I think that at one point she would have let me do her kitty-style.
She is never much of a talker except when I close the door to the bathroom (she hates being shut out of wherever I am), but last week she became a Supreme chirper. She began rolling all around on the floor and moving her tail out of the way of the servant's door. I couldn't pet her for fear that she would construe it as being, well, petted.
So, Tuesday morning it was to the vet's and in for tubal litigation...or whatever it is that they do. I'll tell you one thing: I never needed to know that I was being charged for bio-waste removal. Can you just picture the poor sanitation worker down in the vet's sewer cleaning that stuff out? Eww...
The upside of it was that I had a week's worth of entertainment as she wore her Elizabethan collar and auditioned for all sorts of Shakespearean characters.
"Romeo, oh Romeo, wherefor art thou- aack!"
"Oh, that this too, too solid flesh- aack!"
"By thee I foreswear- aack!"
"All the world's a stage and all the- aack!- merely players."
So, all in all, I got mine out of it. But the fact remained that I'd had to pay a hefty vet's bill with money I didn't really have. Yes, you guessed it. I paid with fake money. Well, more precisely I paid with theoretical money. To put even a finer point on it, I paid with money never to be printed, but which nevertheless seemed to satisfy the butcher.
And, so, I was caught in a conundrum. I had bequeathed what was essentially a promissory note and was not entirely sure I had the wherewithal to make good on it. What to do? What to do?
And so I had me a yard sale...
Not any yard sale, mind you, where used knickers are up for grabs (so to speak). Where one can find a scis or a betamax. No.
No no. To prove my love to my pussy and my credit report, I placed upon the tables (provided by none other than Lecram) half of my DVD collection, all of my VHS and all of my vinyl records.
Does this not move you to tears? Does this not make you want to reach out and touch me over and over and over and over and over and over and, if you're really good at it, under?
It makes me want to. In fact, hang on a second...thanks for your patience. Now, where was I?
Ah yes. And so I had me a yard sale. And sale I did. It seems that not very many of you have access to quality movies at 50 cents to $2 a pop. it seems that vinyl has not gone out of style at $1 per. It seems that I'm an idiot who could have gotten a lot more than I asked. BUT...not only did I more than recoup for the kitty's cut, I got rid of a lot of things that were hiding a lot of dust bunnies that were multiplying like...Mormons.
So, there you have it. My pussy got hot when I wasn't in the mood. I had her whacked. And I ended up paying for it in the end. A moral play if ever I've heard one.
And now I call her Eunis for obvious reasons.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
( i just love writing to the fresno bee. and they just love writing back to me and telling me that i must write a letter that's under 200 words. so, this time i think i managed to keep it under the limit. my problem with 200 words is that the letter must be so simplistic as to ward off any substantiation i feel might be needed in order to make it a comprehensive message. heck, some people can't even say thank you in under 200 words. most can't get past spellcheck anyway, so why am i complaining, right? well, because i can. and my community needs to stop accepting everything our so-called officials call perks on the job. that's our money and they work for us, dammit.)
anyway, the following is my letter to the local paper:
I have to say that I am not in favor of Alan Autry or any elected official using taxpayer money to pad his/her waistline at a gourmet restaurant. Autry's comment about "working my ass off sitting there" falls on tired ears. i work my ass off NOT sitting down to make sure the infrastructure of anything being built will be safe for the public to walk or work or play or drive on, yet I don't have my meals paid for. Autry comes off sounding like everything he does is of such importance compared to my professional endeavors that I owe him that filet mignon and extra comfy hotel suite. Tell you what, Alan, if you'd be willing to sleep in a hotel bed that offers "Magic Fingers" I'd be willing to comp you the quarters so that your "ass" can get some quality relaxation. Remember that you, Bubba, are our public servant and we don't necessarily like having our teats pulled without our permission.
anyway, the following is my letter to the local paper:
I have to say that I am not in favor of Alan Autry or any elected official using taxpayer money to pad his/her waistline at a gourmet restaurant. Autry's comment about "working my ass off sitting there" falls on tired ears. i work my ass off NOT sitting down to make sure the infrastructure of anything being built will be safe for the public to walk or work or play or drive on, yet I don't have my meals paid for. Autry comes off sounding like everything he does is of such importance compared to my professional endeavors that I owe him that filet mignon and extra comfy hotel suite. Tell you what, Alan, if you'd be willing to sleep in a hotel bed that offers "Magic Fingers" I'd be willing to comp you the quarters so that your "ass" can get some quality relaxation. Remember that you, Bubba, are our public servant and we don't necessarily like having our teats pulled without our permission.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
DeSanitized News For Your Veiwing Pleasure
Official: Zarqawi Eluded U.S. in Feb. Raid
1 hour, 44 minutes ago
Top Stories - AP
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq believe they just missed capturing most-wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a February raid that netted two of his associates, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday.
AFP/US ARMY-HO Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq
The official, who discussed the operation on the condition of anonymity, could provide no details on how Zarqawi escaped. U.S. forces recovered a computer belonging to Zarqawi, the official said, although he did not say how it was obtained.
[Later, the official was heard to scream out in frustration, "AND IT WAS STILL WARM!"]
Iraqi officials announced the Feb. 20 raid at the time but did not say Zarqawi was the target.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would only say, "we were close," but declined to elaborate, citing concerns about disclosing operational details.
[Operational details like "We were close, but no cigar, no cigarette, no hookah, no opiates...but some cool rugs that ought to fetch a great price on eBay"]
"I think in general the intelligence is getting better. Having said that, we still don't have Zarqawi," Myers said.
['Zarqawi' being the code name the military has allocated for dog feces. Intelligence getting better meaning Rumsfeld left the country again.]
Questioned about the level of insurgency in Iraq compared to last year, Myers said, "In terms of incidents, it's right about where it was a year ago."
[Reporters immediately jumped to their feet and asked if anyone remembered it sucking so bad for reporters fatality-wise last year, but everyone complained of a fog-like dimming of memory and headed for the hosted bar that is present at every briefing.]
Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head, is believed to have orchestrated a relentless wave of car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and beheadings across the country.
[President Bush was reported to have said "With that much weight on him, you'd think it's be easy to find the sonofabitch. I mean, $25 million has got to be pretty heavy, right? I mean, I think I'd see him if he was peramputating down Lincoln sidewalk."]
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of Zarqawi, that "in terms of lethality, I would rank him quite high," but added, "I think he is on the run. Life for a terrorist, extremist is hard."
[After questioning Rumsfeld extensively about the word 'lethality' and whether he thought he should get credit for it the next time Webster's revised its dictionary, reporters then proceeded to wipe the tear from Rummie's eye, because they appreciate just how much he knows about how hard it is being an extremist]
Troops with a covert military unit were reportedly in place to arrest him as he was on his way to Ramadi, but he caught wind of them, ABC News reported late Monday, citing an unidentified senior military official.
[New shower stalls are being rushed to the battlefront to negate this heretofor unknown disadvantage]
The official said that just before the meeting was scheduled, a car was pulled over as it approached a checkpoint. A pickup truck trailing the car then turned and headed in the opposite direction.
[The pickup truck leaving is a classic Iraqi insurgent move known locally as "How did a checkpoint get put here in the middle of Iraq?" ]
Officials believe Zarqawi was in the fleeing truck, but when U.S. teams pulled the vehicle over several miles later, he was not inside, ABC reported. The official told the network that Zarqawi apparently jumped out of the vehicle when it passed beneath an overpass and hid there before escaping.
[Anonymous officials in Washington are said to have asked "Iraq has underpasses?"]
Inside the truck, the official told ABC, U.S. troops found Zarqawi's computer and about $104,000.
NBC, quoting U.S. military sources, reported Tuesday that among the items seized with the laptop were several small plug-in hard drives. Numerous pictures of Zarqawi were found in the computer's "My Pictures" file, the network said.
[Reporters questioned Bill Gates as to how Zarqawi could have come into possession of something as sensitive as "My Pictures". Gates is quoted as saying "As long as a user is not gay we see no legal problem funding any foundation."]
Captured in the Feb. 20 operation was Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah, an Iraqi government announcement said at the time.
[President Bush was quick to point out the dishonesty inherent in somebody who uses aliases. "Why, I remember back in the day when I'd be talking with Kenny-Boy and Big Dick..."he began right before he was shuttled off to a completely aboveboard Town Council meeting. ]
Qutaybah "filled the role of key lieutenant for the Zarqawi network, arranging safe houses and transportation as well as passing packages and funds" to Zarqawi, the government said.
It said Qutaybah was a known associate of other Zarqawi lieutenants already held by coalition forces, including Abu Ahmed, an al-Qaida-linked insurgent leader in the northern city of Mosul, who was detained Dec. 22.
During the same raid, Iraqi forces captured another Zarqawi aide who "occasionally acted as his driver," the government said. He was identified as Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi, who also helped arrange meetings for al-Zarqawi. He also is known as Abu Uthman.
[Translated into English, Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi loosely means The One Who Drives The Bad Man To The Bath House and Gets Him His Towel Thereby Making Himself A Bad Man's Bad Cabana Boy].
1 hour, 44 minutes ago
Top Stories - AP
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - U.S. forces in Iraq believe they just missed capturing most-wanted terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a February raid that netted two of his associates, a senior U.S. military official said Tuesday.
AFP/US ARMY-HO Photo
AP Photo
Slideshow: Iraq
The official, who discussed the operation on the condition of anonymity, could provide no details on how Zarqawi escaped. U.S. forces recovered a computer belonging to Zarqawi, the official said, although he did not say how it was obtained.
[Later, the official was heard to scream out in frustration, "AND IT WAS STILL WARM!"]
Iraqi officials announced the Feb. 20 raid at the time but did not say Zarqawi was the target.
At a Pentagon news conference, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would only say, "we were close," but declined to elaborate, citing concerns about disclosing operational details.
[Operational details like "We were close, but no cigar, no cigarette, no hookah, no opiates...but some cool rugs that ought to fetch a great price on eBay"]
"I think in general the intelligence is getting better. Having said that, we still don't have Zarqawi," Myers said.
['Zarqawi' being the code name the military has allocated for dog feces. Intelligence getting better meaning Rumsfeld left the country again.]
Questioned about the level of insurgency in Iraq compared to last year, Myers said, "In terms of incidents, it's right about where it was a year ago."
[Reporters immediately jumped to their feet and asked if anyone remembered it sucking so bad for reporters fatality-wise last year, but everyone complained of a fog-like dimming of memory and headed for the hosted bar that is present at every briefing.]
Zarqawi, who has a $25 million bounty on his head, is believed to have orchestrated a relentless wave of car bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and beheadings across the country.
[President Bush was reported to have said "With that much weight on him, you'd think it's be easy to find the sonofabitch. I mean, $25 million has got to be pretty heavy, right? I mean, I think I'd see him if he was peramputating down Lincoln sidewalk."]
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said of Zarqawi, that "in terms of lethality, I would rank him quite high," but added, "I think he is on the run. Life for a terrorist, extremist is hard."
[After questioning Rumsfeld extensively about the word 'lethality' and whether he thought he should get credit for it the next time Webster's revised its dictionary, reporters then proceeded to wipe the tear from Rummie's eye, because they appreciate just how much he knows about how hard it is being an extremist]
Troops with a covert military unit were reportedly in place to arrest him as he was on his way to Ramadi, but he caught wind of them, ABC News reported late Monday, citing an unidentified senior military official.
[New shower stalls are being rushed to the battlefront to negate this heretofor unknown disadvantage]
The official said that just before the meeting was scheduled, a car was pulled over as it approached a checkpoint. A pickup truck trailing the car then turned and headed in the opposite direction.
[The pickup truck leaving is a classic Iraqi insurgent move known locally as "How did a checkpoint get put here in the middle of Iraq?" ]
Officials believe Zarqawi was in the fleeing truck, but when U.S. teams pulled the vehicle over several miles later, he was not inside, ABC reported. The official told the network that Zarqawi apparently jumped out of the vehicle when it passed beneath an overpass and hid there before escaping.
[Anonymous officials in Washington are said to have asked "Iraq has underpasses?"]
Inside the truck, the official told ABC, U.S. troops found Zarqawi's computer and about $104,000.
NBC, quoting U.S. military sources, reported Tuesday that among the items seized with the laptop were several small plug-in hard drives. Numerous pictures of Zarqawi were found in the computer's "My Pictures" file, the network said.
[Reporters questioned Bill Gates as to how Zarqawi could have come into possession of something as sensitive as "My Pictures". Gates is quoted as saying "As long as a user is not gay we see no legal problem funding any foundation."]
Captured in the Feb. 20 operation was Talib Mikhlif Arsan Walman al-Dulaymi, also known as Abu Qutaybah, an Iraqi government announcement said at the time.
[President Bush was quick to point out the dishonesty inherent in somebody who uses aliases. "Why, I remember back in the day when I'd be talking with Kenny-Boy and Big Dick..."he began right before he was shuttled off to a completely aboveboard Town Council meeting. ]
Qutaybah "filled the role of key lieutenant for the Zarqawi network, arranging safe houses and transportation as well as passing packages and funds" to Zarqawi, the government said.
It said Qutaybah was a known associate of other Zarqawi lieutenants already held by coalition forces, including Abu Ahmed, an al-Qaida-linked insurgent leader in the northern city of Mosul, who was detained Dec. 22.
During the same raid, Iraqi forces captured another Zarqawi aide who "occasionally acted as his driver," the government said. He was identified as Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi, who also helped arrange meetings for al-Zarqawi. He also is known as Abu Uthman.
[Translated into English, Ahmad Khalid Marad Ismail al-Rawi loosely means The One Who Drives The Bad Man To The Bath House and Gets Him His Towel Thereby Making Himself A Bad Man's Bad Cabana Boy].
Thursday, April 21, 2005
I Hate Gamecocks...But Now They're Mine
Wow. Makes you wonder what would happen if this state took up the question of stomping slugs on a dare. Death penalty?
While I can't speak to the problems of legal and technical language, I can speak to the true-to-his-toothpick-of-a-family-tree problem of Rep. Altman.
My brother lives in South Carolina and doesn't have a hell of a lot to say in defense of the normal resident. He says they are very nice and community-minded, but don't have the sense to come in out of the rain when their officials are backtracking them into the 19th century
...or, in many cases, just keeping them there.
But how much can you really say for a state (in general, that is) that blames liberals for the Supreme Conservative Court's repeated decisions to uphold Roe v. Wade, but says it's God's Will when a hurricane slams into them and flattens everything in sight (while running to the feds immediately for a handout so that they can continue living there)? If Terri Schiavo were a gamecock would she still be at the SPCA on life support?
Women are beaten around this "great" nation of ours always, every day, in every state, in every way. Do many of them return to their partners despite that? Yes, they do. One thing the article doesn't touch on as a reason for their returning is that many of these women believe they love the men who beat them. For whatever reason. Plus, they tend to blame themselves for the violence inflicted upon them. All it takes is a suppressed or abusive upbringing and the fear of losing any and all "stability" they feel they need in Society's eyes or their own and we have a recurring theme. Add to that almost non-existent counseling with any muscle in most states and you have the recipe for blamchowder.
Any person who claims that any woman who goes back to the man who beat them is dumb or "not bright" is a moron, pure and simple. This person is a person who most likely doesn't think twice when a friend grabs a woman-not-his-wife at a party, probably thinks 'well, that's what she gets for dressing like that". Don't like it? Then leave or change to suit your husband's needs.
Hey, I have a bill for everyone: all state representatives who think gamecocking is more egregious than domestic abuse should be forced to spend one month in a women's prison with a sign around their neck that reads "I Hate Gamecocks, But I Loooooove Any Other Kind".
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?s=3233130
While I can't speak to the problems of legal and technical language, I can speak to the true-to-his-toothpick-of-a-family-tree problem of Rep. Altman.
My brother lives in South Carolina and doesn't have a hell of a lot to say in defense of the normal resident. He says they are very nice and community-minded, but don't have the sense to come in out of the rain when their officials are backtracking them into the 19th century
...or, in many cases, just keeping them there.
But how much can you really say for a state (in general, that is) that blames liberals for the Supreme Conservative Court's repeated decisions to uphold Roe v. Wade, but says it's God's Will when a hurricane slams into them and flattens everything in sight (while running to the feds immediately for a handout so that they can continue living there)? If Terri Schiavo were a gamecock would she still be at the SPCA on life support?
Women are beaten around this "great" nation of ours always, every day, in every state, in every way. Do many of them return to their partners despite that? Yes, they do. One thing the article doesn't touch on as a reason for their returning is that many of these women believe they love the men who beat them. For whatever reason. Plus, they tend to blame themselves for the violence inflicted upon them. All it takes is a suppressed or abusive upbringing and the fear of losing any and all "stability" they feel they need in Society's eyes or their own and we have a recurring theme. Add to that almost non-existent counseling with any muscle in most states and you have the recipe for blamchowder.
Any person who claims that any woman who goes back to the man who beat them is dumb or "not bright" is a moron, pure and simple. This person is a person who most likely doesn't think twice when a friend grabs a woman-not-his-wife at a party, probably thinks 'well, that's what she gets for dressing like that". Don't like it? Then leave or change to suit your husband's needs.
Hey, I have a bill for everyone: all state representatives who think gamecocking is more egregious than domestic abuse should be forced to spend one month in a women's prison with a sign around their neck that reads "I Hate Gamecocks, But I Loooooove Any Other Kind".
http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?s=3233130
Sunday, April 17, 2005
I was just talking with my mother about this today at lunch. This article presents the truely disturbing possibility I foresee, that a small town pharmacist could actually enforce his/her narrow moral agenda on an entire community and be within his/her legal rights. And the community would then have to travel many miles in order to buy birth control or give up sex without condoms...which is as likely as Keanu Reeves winning an Oscar for Best Actor. Sex will happen, pregnancies will occur more often and teens will not learn anything from a pharmacist (since that is the age category most likely to be affected by this).
http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=13363
And why do some of us think that our morals are righter than others? Everyone has morals or ethics. No one person's ever match up completely with another's. So, why do we insist on pushing ours on others? If a pharmacist is uncomfortable dispensing certain legal drugs...get another type of job. We will defend our friends to the death even though they might be as guilty as sin of a crime (i.e. "he is not that kind of person, she was under a lot of stress, it was a random act that i know will never happen again"), but we will condemn strangers without ever getting to know them. These pharmacists are merely an example of the unthinking cruelty we mete out on a daily basis to people we will never try to know.
p.s. A recent blog about Walmart has a link that evidently does not work. In it is an article describing Walmart's reaction to a Canadian branch that voted to unionize. Walmart shut the store down with no warning within a couple of days. This store was a lifeline for that town.
Also, when a Canadian Walmart meat department decided to unionize, Walmart stopped selling meat from that location.
So, here's my idea: all Walmart employees in North America should now make it their goal to unionize. All of them. At once. Then let's see what the Walton family does. Shut every store down and go under rather than treat humans like humans? Outsource all of it to the sweatshops of the Third World (they do buy from many of them)? I think the opposite would occur. Walmart would be forced to open negotiations with the employees who are simply trying to gain some form of protection in their professional life.
And what a slap in the face it would be to all employers who think they can treat the rest of us like dogshit they just stepped in. I'm personally not a big fan of unions, because my one experience with the Carpenters Local up in Seattle left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth. It seems that the big dawgs of the Trade Show component were making any kind of deal with the Carpenters they could in order to grab a golden parachute. And the big dawgs of the Carpenters had no time for Trade Show builders, because we weren't actual carpenters.
That aside, though, I know many people who swear that without union representation they would not be employed or they would not be able to feed and clothe their families at the pay rates their employers would still be paying them.
Nuff said. I encourage all Walmart employees everywhere to unionize and force the Walton family into a position whereby they cannot squirm away with only minimal damage to their poersonal fortunes. We all deserve a living wage and the chance to enjoy life.
http://columbiamissourian.com/news/story.php?ID=13363
And why do some of us think that our morals are righter than others? Everyone has morals or ethics. No one person's ever match up completely with another's. So, why do we insist on pushing ours on others? If a pharmacist is uncomfortable dispensing certain legal drugs...get another type of job. We will defend our friends to the death even though they might be as guilty as sin of a crime (i.e. "he is not that kind of person, she was under a lot of stress, it was a random act that i know will never happen again"), but we will condemn strangers without ever getting to know them. These pharmacists are merely an example of the unthinking cruelty we mete out on a daily basis to people we will never try to know.
p.s. A recent blog about Walmart has a link that evidently does not work. In it is an article describing Walmart's reaction to a Canadian branch that voted to unionize. Walmart shut the store down with no warning within a couple of days. This store was a lifeline for that town.
Also, when a Canadian Walmart meat department decided to unionize, Walmart stopped selling meat from that location.
So, here's my idea: all Walmart employees in North America should now make it their goal to unionize. All of them. At once. Then let's see what the Walton family does. Shut every store down and go under rather than treat humans like humans? Outsource all of it to the sweatshops of the Third World (they do buy from many of them)? I think the opposite would occur. Walmart would be forced to open negotiations with the employees who are simply trying to gain some form of protection in their professional life.
And what a slap in the face it would be to all employers who think they can treat the rest of us like dogshit they just stepped in. I'm personally not a big fan of unions, because my one experience with the Carpenters Local up in Seattle left me with a very bitter taste in my mouth. It seems that the big dawgs of the Trade Show component were making any kind of deal with the Carpenters they could in order to grab a golden parachute. And the big dawgs of the Carpenters had no time for Trade Show builders, because we weren't actual carpenters.
That aside, though, I know many people who swear that without union representation they would not be employed or they would not be able to feed and clothe their families at the pay rates their employers would still be paying them.
Nuff said. I encourage all Walmart employees everywhere to unionize and force the Walton family into a position whereby they cannot squirm away with only minimal damage to their poersonal fortunes. We all deserve a living wage and the chance to enjoy life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
