A man dies and goes to Hell. The devil greets him
"You may choose which room you wish to enter. Whichever you choose, the person in that room will switch with you. They'll go to heaven and you'll take over until somebody switches with you. So go on, pick a room."
The devil leads him to the first room where someone is tied to a wall and is being whipped. The second room has someone being burned by a torch. The third has a man getting blown by a naked woman.
"I choose this room!" the man says.
"Very well," the devil says. He walks up to the woman and taps her on the shoulder.
"You can go now. I've found you're replacement."
Friday, March 31, 2006
www.victorhanson.com/
March 31, 2006When Cynicism Meets FanaticismCritiquing the critique of the war in Iraq.by Victor Davis HansonNational Review Online
"Opponents of the war in Iraq, both original critics and the mea culpa recent converts, have made eight assumptions. The first six are wrong, the last two still unsettled.
1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.
2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.
4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.
5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.
6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.
7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.
8. We cannot win.
First, notice how the old criticism that Saddam was not connected to al Qaeda has now morphed into a fallback position that “Saddam was not connected to September 11” — even though the latter argument was never officially advanced as a casus belli.
Opponents have retreated to this position because we know that al Qaeda cadres were in Kurdistan, and that al Zarqawi fled to Baghdad, as did a mastermind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin.
The Clinton administration in 1998 officially cited Iraqi agents as involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That is part of the reason why the U.S. Senate, not the Bush administration, authorized a war against Saddam in October 2002: “ Whereas members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
Full article below-
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson033106.html
"Opponents of the war in Iraq, both original critics and the mea culpa recent converts, have made eight assumptions. The first six are wrong, the last two still unsettled.
1. Saddam was never connected to al Qaeda, the perpetrators of 9/11.
2. There was no real threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
3. The United Nations and our allies were justifiably opposed on principle to the invasion.
4. A small cabal of neoconservative (and mostly Jewish) intellectuals bullied the administration into a war that served Israel’s interest more than our own.
5. Saddam could not be easily deposed, or at least he could not be successfully replaced with a democratic government.
6. The architects of this war and the subsequent occupation are mostly inept (“dangerously incompetent”) — and are exposed daily as clueless by a professional cadre of disinterested journalists.
7. In realist terms, the benefits to be gained from the war will never justify the costs incurred.
8. We cannot win.
First, notice how the old criticism that Saddam was not connected to al Qaeda has now morphed into a fallback position that “Saddam was not connected to September 11” — even though the latter argument was never officially advanced as a casus belli.
Opponents have retreated to this position because we know that al Qaeda cadres were in Kurdistan, and that al Zarqawi fled to Baghdad, as did a mastermind of the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Abdul Rahman Yasin.
The Clinton administration in 1998 officially cited Iraqi agents as involved in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. That is part of the reason why the U.S. Senate, not the Bush administration, authorized a war against Saddam in October 2002: “ Whereas members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq."
Full article below-
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson033106.html
Charlie Fucking Sheen!
Here’s an advertisement now appearing at several popular leftist ranters’ blogs, including Crooks and Liars. (Blogads, by the way, are explicitly approved by the site owner.)
Something to Worry About
Font Size:
By Nick Schulz : BIO 31 Mar 2006
Discuss This Story! (11) Email Print Bookmark Save
The alarm bells are ringing louder than ever in global warming circles. An impressive amount of ink has been spilled to scare you in to thinking that the planet is doomed if we don't do something about climate change, and soon.
As alarmists flood the media with scare stories, however, they are distracting the public from the economic and practical realities that will determine planetary health. And they are doing so just as some less heralded news reports demonstrate that the alarmists' prescription for our ailing planet is failing badly.
But first, the alarm bells. Consider:
This week Time magazine has a "special report" on global warming with the cover blaring "Be Worried. Be Very Worried."
Australian alarmist Tim Flannery has a new doomsday book out "The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What I t Means for Life on Earth."
The Washington Post recently featured a front page article about melting ice in Antarctica.
ABCNews recently attacked skeptic scientists such as the University of Virginia's Pat Michaels.
A cover story in the New Republic this month attacked the popular writer Michael Crichton for his skeptical views on catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert recently published a book with the telling title "Field Notes From a Catastrophe."
And the Advertising Council and Environmental Defense have just launched the first "public awareness" campaign on global warming.
Phew. That's considerable output in just a few weeks. And later this year Al Gore has an alarmist documentary he has produced coming out called An Inconvenient Truth so expect the bells to keep tolling.
According to Time, "the global climate seems to be crashing around us," and that "this is precisely what [scientists] have been warning would happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping the heat that flows from the sun and raising global temperatures." Time points to heat waves, floods, storms fires and glacial melts as evidence that we've reached a "tipping point" and says "scientists have been calling this shot for decades."
Time is right about scientists issuing warnings for decades. It just hasn't always been about global warming. Three decades ago, as Rich Karlgaard of Forbes reminds us this week, Newsweek magazine was warning not about global warming, but about global cooling. And the rhetoric was just as alarmist then. According to Newsweek at the time, "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically...with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."
But just because scientists and their acolytes in the media were badly wrong a mere thirty years ago, doesn't mean they are wrong today. It doesn't mean they are right, but let's stipulate that the planet is warming and greenhouse gases due to man's activities have some effect. What then should we do?
Alarmists have called for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and pushed for a global treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, to enforce reductions in emissions. All along, skeptics have pointed out that mandating curbs on greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely to work -- the technologies to do so don't yet exist so reducing emissions means a costly reduction in energy use, one that would place considerable burdens on the poorest in society. Evidence is beginning to come in that bolsters the skeptics' arguments.
The countries of Europe have been the most enthusiastic proponents of the Kyoto Protocol. And in recent years they have been trying to meet their targets under the treaty. Trying, but failing.
According to a recent report compiling statistics from the European Environment Agency:
"Total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-15 decreased by a mere 1.7% between 1990 and 2003 with CO2 alone growing by 3.4%... Under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the EU has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% compared to 1990 levels."
Even Britain, whose Tony Blair has frequently been one of the chief boosters of Kyoto-like reductions, will not make its targets, according to a report just out this week.
Keep in mind that the overall effect of Kyoto, while costly, would be insignificant -- no bang for a lot of bucks. As Bjorn Lomborg and many others have pointed out, using the assumptions of alarmists, Kyoto would delay the warming of the planet for a mere six years. In other words, the earth's temperature in, say, 2100 without Kyoto in effect will be reached in 2106 instead if Kyoto is widely adopted.
To achieve the ultimate goals of the alarmists, it would require several Kyotos to meet their demands. And if Europe, the most enthusiastic backer of Kyoto can't meet its emissions targets under Kyoto, what hope is there that many more draconian Kyoto-like initiatives are possible?
It is curious that the alarmists are largely silent on the failures of Kyoto in Europe. Skeptics have been pointing out the economic and technological realities of mandatory emissions reductions for years now. Skeptics have also raised alternative ways of tackling problems associated with climate change and extreme climate scenarios -- problems that exist whether or not we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
But so blinded are the alarmists that they are largely ignoring potentially beneficial initiatives. One such effort is the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate Change (AP6) which is backed by the governments of the United States, India, China, South Korea, Japan and Australia. The AP6 is designed to permit the robust economic growth that the developing world so badly needs while beginning to address concerns over pollution, energy efficiency and emissions. To get a sense of how out of touch the alarmists are on practical realities, in its nine(!) articles on global warming in its latest special issue, Time didn't devote a single one to AP6.
Amazingly, one article Time suggests "maybe we can begin by living more like the average Chinese or Indian – before they start living like us." According to the CIA World Factbook, the per capita GDP on India is $3,400 a year, and $6,200 a year in China. In the United States it's $41,800. So yes, Time is indeed advocating cutting living standards by as much as ten times. If you want something to "be worried" about, as Time asserts on its cover, well there you have it.
Font Size:
By Nick Schulz : BIO 31 Mar 2006
Discuss This Story! (11) Email Print Bookmark Save
The alarm bells are ringing louder than ever in global warming circles. An impressive amount of ink has been spilled to scare you in to thinking that the planet is doomed if we don't do something about climate change, and soon.
As alarmists flood the media with scare stories, however, they are distracting the public from the economic and practical realities that will determine planetary health. And they are doing so just as some less heralded news reports demonstrate that the alarmists' prescription for our ailing planet is failing badly.
But first, the alarm bells. Consider:
This week Time magazine has a "special report" on global warming with the cover blaring "Be Worried. Be Very Worried."
Australian alarmist Tim Flannery has a new doomsday book out "The Weather Makers: How Man Is Changing the Climate and What I t Means for Life on Earth."
The Washington Post recently featured a front page article about melting ice in Antarctica.
ABCNews recently attacked skeptic scientists such as the University of Virginia's Pat Michaels.
A cover story in the New Republic this month attacked the popular writer Michael Crichton for his skeptical views on catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert recently published a book with the telling title "Field Notes From a Catastrophe."
And the Advertising Council and Environmental Defense have just launched the first "public awareness" campaign on global warming.
Phew. That's considerable output in just a few weeks. And later this year Al Gore has an alarmist documentary he has produced coming out called An Inconvenient Truth so expect the bells to keep tolling.
According to Time, "the global climate seems to be crashing around us," and that "this is precisely what [scientists] have been warning would happen if we continued pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, trapping the heat that flows from the sun and raising global temperatures." Time points to heat waves, floods, storms fires and glacial melts as evidence that we've reached a "tipping point" and says "scientists have been calling this shot for decades."
Time is right about scientists issuing warnings for decades. It just hasn't always been about global warming. Three decades ago, as Rich Karlgaard of Forbes reminds us this week, Newsweek magazine was warning not about global warming, but about global cooling. And the rhetoric was just as alarmist then. According to Newsweek at the time, "There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically...with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth."
But just because scientists and their acolytes in the media were badly wrong a mere thirty years ago, doesn't mean they are wrong today. It doesn't mean they are right, but let's stipulate that the planet is warming and greenhouse gases due to man's activities have some effect. What then should we do?
Alarmists have called for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and pushed for a global treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, to enforce reductions in emissions. All along, skeptics have pointed out that mandating curbs on greenhouse gas emissions is unlikely to work -- the technologies to do so don't yet exist so reducing emissions means a costly reduction in energy use, one that would place considerable burdens on the poorest in society. Evidence is beginning to come in that bolsters the skeptics' arguments.
The countries of Europe have been the most enthusiastic proponents of the Kyoto Protocol. And in recent years they have been trying to meet their targets under the treaty. Trying, but failing.
According to a recent report compiling statistics from the European Environment Agency:
"Total greenhouse gas emissions in the EU-15 decreased by a mere 1.7% between 1990 and 2003 with CO2 alone growing by 3.4%... Under the Kyoto Protocol on climate change, the EU has committed to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% compared to 1990 levels."
Even Britain, whose Tony Blair has frequently been one of the chief boosters of Kyoto-like reductions, will not make its targets, according to a report just out this week.
Keep in mind that the overall effect of Kyoto, while costly, would be insignificant -- no bang for a lot of bucks. As Bjorn Lomborg and many others have pointed out, using the assumptions of alarmists, Kyoto would delay the warming of the planet for a mere six years. In other words, the earth's temperature in, say, 2100 without Kyoto in effect will be reached in 2106 instead if Kyoto is widely adopted.
To achieve the ultimate goals of the alarmists, it would require several Kyotos to meet their demands. And if Europe, the most enthusiastic backer of Kyoto can't meet its emissions targets under Kyoto, what hope is there that many more draconian Kyoto-like initiatives are possible?
It is curious that the alarmists are largely silent on the failures of Kyoto in Europe. Skeptics have been pointing out the economic and technological realities of mandatory emissions reductions for years now. Skeptics have also raised alternative ways of tackling problems associated with climate change and extreme climate scenarios -- problems that exist whether or not we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
But so blinded are the alarmists that they are largely ignoring potentially beneficial initiatives. One such effort is the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate Change (AP6) which is backed by the governments of the United States, India, China, South Korea, Japan and Australia. The AP6 is designed to permit the robust economic growth that the developing world so badly needs while beginning to address concerns over pollution, energy efficiency and emissions. To get a sense of how out of touch the alarmists are on practical realities, in its nine(!) articles on global warming in its latest special issue, Time didn't devote a single one to AP6.
Amazingly, one article Time suggests "maybe we can begin by living more like the average Chinese or Indian – before they start living like us." According to the CIA World Factbook, the per capita GDP on India is $3,400 a year, and $6,200 a year in China. In the United States it's $41,800. So yes, Time is indeed advocating cutting living standards by as much as ten times. If you want something to "be worried" about, as Time asserts on its cover, well there you have it.
Thursday, March 30, 2006
It’s taken mainstream media an incredible amount of time to reach this point (and the New York Times never will), but an Investor’s Business Daily editorial is finally asking some of the right questions: Religion Of Peace?
"What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?
Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists’ ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:
Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?
Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever” and to “smite above their necks” (8:12)?
Is the “test” of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?
And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?
Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give “asylum and aid” to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?
Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?
Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?
There are other questions, but these should do for a start."
"What better time for CAIR and other Muslim leaders to step up, cut through the politically correct fog and provide factual answers to the questions that give so many non-Muslims pause?
Generally speaking, those questions focus on whether the Quran does indeed promote violence against non-Muslims, and how many of the terrorists’ ideas — about the violent jihad, the self-immolation, the kidnappings, even the beheadings — come right out of the text? But even more specifically:
Is Islam the only religion with a doctrine, theology and legal system that mandates warfare against unbelievers?
Is it true that 26 chapters of the Quran deal with jihad, a fight able-bodied believers are obligated to join (Surah 2:216), and that the text orders Muslims to “instill terror into the hearts of the unbeliever” and to “smite above their necks” (8:12)?
Is the “test” of loyalty to Allah not good acts or faith in general, but martyrdom that results from fighting unbelievers (47:4) — the only assurance of salvation in Islam (4:74; 9:111)?
Are the sins of any Muslim who becomes a martyr forgiven by the very act of being slain while slaying the unbelievers (4:96)?
And is it really true that martyrs are rewarded with virgins, among other carnal delights, in Paradise (38:51, 55:56; 55:76; 56:22)?
Are those unable to do jihad — such as women or the elderly — required to give “asylum and aid” to those who do fight unbelievers in the cause of Allah (8:74)?
Does Islam advocate expansion by force? And is the final command of jihad, as revealed to Muhammad in the Quran, to conquer the world in the name of Islam (9:29)?
Is Islam the only religion that does not teach the Golden Rule (48:29)? Does the Quran instead teach violence and hatred against non-Muslims, specifically Jews and Christians (5:50)?
There are other questions, but these should do for a start."
The Onion
Two Hipsters Angrily Call Each Other 'Hipster'
March 29, 2006 Issue 42•13 AUSTIN, TX—An argument between local hipsters Dan Walters and Brian Guterman has devolved to the point where each is angrily calling the other "hipster," those close to the pair reported Monday. "Hey, hipster! Here's 12 bucks—why don't you go get yourself a bucket of PBRs at the Gold Mine?" Walters, 22, is said to have told Guterman, 22, invoking the name of a local bar known for its "poseur" clientele. "Whatever you say, scenester," Guterman allegedly replied. "Don't you have a Death Cab For Cutie show to be at right now?" Acquaintances of Guterman and Walters trace the long-running conflict back to high school, when they reportedly threw pencils at each other and argued about who was more "emo."
March 29, 2006 Issue 42•13 AUSTIN, TX—An argument between local hipsters Dan Walters and Brian Guterman has devolved to the point where each is angrily calling the other "hipster," those close to the pair reported Monday. "Hey, hipster! Here's 12 bucks—why don't you go get yourself a bucket of PBRs at the Gold Mine?" Walters, 22, is said to have told Guterman, 22, invoking the name of a local bar known for its "poseur" clientele. "Whatever you say, scenester," Guterman allegedly replied. "Don't you have a Death Cab For Cutie show to be at right now?" Acquaintances of Guterman and Walters trace the long-running conflict back to high school, when they reportedly threw pencils at each other and argued about who was more "emo."
Wednesday, March 29, 2006
www.opinionjournal.com
Leftist Questions Liberals' Patriotism http://www.yaledailynews.com/article.asp?AID=32374
Todd Gitlin, a Columbia professor of journalism and sociology, showed up at Yale yesterday where he offered some advice to his fellow lefties, the Yale Daily News reports:
"He elaborated on his feeling of frustration concerning what he views as liberals' voluntary estrangement from the rest of the nation, citing their alleged rejection of patriotism as an example of this alienation."I think that the upshot is that patriotism is experienced by many people on the left as something of an embarrassment," Gitlin said. Gitlin said he thinks left-leaning individuals are now rejecting patriotism because they believe it forces them to identify with a larger group of Americans with whom they disagree and contradicts the spirit of cosmopolitanism that they espouse."The left sees itself as standing outside a country that does bad," Gitlin said. "However, it is strategically disastrous to take this position as outsiders, since it is a concession to people who are not entitled to be the spokespersons of patriotism. It is a move against public life, public domain, public virtue and public-mindedness."
It strikes us that Gitlin's critique of the left actually goes deeper than he acknowledges. He is not merely criticizing liberals' strategy; he is questioning their patriotism. He is claiming that they do not love their country. As a man of the left, he frames the argument in strategic terms because he knows liberals want power, and he correctly ascertains that the path to power would be much easier if they were correctly perceived as patriotic. The question is whether such an instrumental approach can produce a sincere patriotism.
Todd Gitlin, a Columbia professor of journalism and sociology, showed up at Yale yesterday where he offered some advice to his fellow lefties, the Yale Daily News reports:
"He elaborated on his feeling of frustration concerning what he views as liberals' voluntary estrangement from the rest of the nation, citing their alleged rejection of patriotism as an example of this alienation."I think that the upshot is that patriotism is experienced by many people on the left as something of an embarrassment," Gitlin said. Gitlin said he thinks left-leaning individuals are now rejecting patriotism because they believe it forces them to identify with a larger group of Americans with whom they disagree and contradicts the spirit of cosmopolitanism that they espouse."The left sees itself as standing outside a country that does bad," Gitlin said. "However, it is strategically disastrous to take this position as outsiders, since it is a concession to people who are not entitled to be the spokespersons of patriotism. It is a move against public life, public domain, public virtue and public-mindedness."
It strikes us that Gitlin's critique of the left actually goes deeper than he acknowledges. He is not merely criticizing liberals' strategy; he is questioning their patriotism. He is claiming that they do not love their country. As a man of the left, he frames the argument in strategic terms because he knows liberals want power, and he correctly ascertains that the path to power would be much easier if they were correctly perceived as patriotic. The question is whether such an instrumental approach can produce a sincere patriotism.
Singer Tom Jones is knighted
LONDON (AP) — Welsh singer Tom Jones is getting used to meeting Queen Elizabeth II — but Wednesday was something special as she dubbed him, "Sir Tom."
"I love seeing the queen and I have always been a royalist," Jones said. "She is lovely and she still is lovely."
The 65-year-old singer, a coal miner's son from the Welsh town of Pontypridd, received the honor from the queen at Buckingham Palace.
Jones said he had met the British monarch "six or seven times, maybe more," starting with a royal charity performance in 1966.
"I love seeing the queen and I have always been a royalist," Jones said after the investiture. "She is lovely and she still is lovely."
The big-voiced belter, who was accompanied by his son, daughter and granddaughter, said receiving the knighthood was "just tremendous."
"When you first come into show business and you get a hit record, it is the start of something," he said.
"As time goes on, it just gets better. This is the best thing that I have had. It is a wonderful feeling, a heady feeling. Sometimes you just can't believe it, you think you have been dreaming."
Born Thomas Jones Woodward, Jones began his singing career at age 3. His string of hits started with It's Not Unusual in 1965, and includes What's New, Pussycat?,Green, Green Grass of Home,Help Yourself,She's a Lady, and Never Fall in Love Again,
LONDON (AP) — Welsh singer Tom Jones is getting used to meeting Queen Elizabeth II — but Wednesday was something special as she dubbed him, "Sir Tom."
"I love seeing the queen and I have always been a royalist," Jones said. "She is lovely and she still is lovely."
The 65-year-old singer, a coal miner's son from the Welsh town of Pontypridd, received the honor from the queen at Buckingham Palace.
Jones said he had met the British monarch "six or seven times, maybe more," starting with a royal charity performance in 1966.
"I love seeing the queen and I have always been a royalist," Jones said after the investiture. "She is lovely and she still is lovely."
The big-voiced belter, who was accompanied by his son, daughter and granddaughter, said receiving the knighthood was "just tremendous."
"When you first come into show business and you get a hit record, it is the start of something," he said.
"As time goes on, it just gets better. This is the best thing that I have had. It is a wonderful feeling, a heady feeling. Sometimes you just can't believe it, you think you have been dreaming."
Born Thomas Jones Woodward, Jones began his singing career at age 3. His string of hits started with It's Not Unusual in 1965, and includes What's New, Pussycat?,Green, Green Grass of Home,Help Yourself,She's a Lady, and Never Fall in Love Again,
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
Speech given by US Navy Captain Dan Ouimette, to the Pensacola Civitan Club Feb 19, 2003. Captain Ouimette is the Executive Officer of NAS, Pensacola, FL.
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
Captain Dan Ouimette
"That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001-AD (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years. America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued...
-In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
-Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
-Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
-The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept. Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe.
-In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
-Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
-Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
-The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America.
-In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
-The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
-Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
-A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
-They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
-The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
-And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001.
Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from very high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. Only sense he has made, lately. I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever..
We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world."
-In ut Victoria! (On to victory!)
AMERICA NEEDS TO WAKE UP!
Captain Dan Ouimette
"That's what we think we heard on the 11th of September 2001-AD (When more than 3,000 Americans were killed) and maybe it was, but I think it should have been "Get Out of Bed!" In fact, I think the alarm clock has been buzzing since 1979 and we have continued to hit the snooze button and roll over for a few more minutes of peaceful sleep since then. It was a cool fall day in November 1979 in a country going through a religious and political upheaval when a group of Iranian students attacked and seized the American Embassy in Tehran. This seizure was an outright attack on American soil; it was an attack that held the world's most powerful country hostage and paralyzed a Presidency. The attack on this sovereign U. S. embassy set the stage for events to follow for the next 25 years. America was still reeling from the aftermath of the Vietnam experience and had a serious threat from the Soviet Union when then, President Carter, had to do something. He chose to conduct a clandestine raid in the desert. The ill-fated mission ended in ruin, but stood as a symbol of America's inability to deal with terrorism. America's military had been decimated and down sized/right sized since the end of the Vietnam War. A poorly trained, poorly equipped and poorly organized military was called on to execute a complex mission that was doomed from the start.
Shortly after the Tehran experience, Americans began to be kidnapped and killed throughout the Middle East. America could do little to protect her citizens living and working abroad. The attacks against US soil continued...
-In April of 1983 a large vehicle packed with high explosives was driven into the US Embassy compound in Beirut When it explodes, it kills 63 people. The alarm went off again and America hit the Snooze Button once more.
-Then just six short months later in 1983 a large truck heavily laden down with over 2500 pounds of TNT smashed through the main gate of the US Marine Corps headquarters in Beirut and 241 US servicemen are killed. America mourns her dead and hit the Snooze Button once more.
-Two months later in December 1983, another truck loaded with explosives is driven into the US Embassy in Kuwait, and America continues her slumber.
-The following year, in September 1984, another van was driven into the gate of the US Embassy in Beirut and America slept. Soon the terrorism spreads to Europe.
-In April 1985 a bomb explodes in a restaurant frequented by US soldiers in Madrid.
-Then in August 1985 a Volkswagen loaded with explosives is driven into the main gate of the US Air Force Base at Rhein-Main, 22 are killed and the snooze alarm is buzzing louder and louder as US interests are continually attacked.
-Fifty-nine days later in 1985 a cruise ship, the Achille Lauro is hijacked and we watched as an American in a wheelchair is singled out of the passenger list and executed.
-The terrorists then shift their tactics to bombing civilian airliners when they bomb TWA Flight 840 in April of 1986 that killed 4 and the most tragic bombing, Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 259. Clinton treated these terrorist acts as crimes; in fact we are still trying to bring these people to trial. These are acts of war. The wake up alarm is getting louder and louder.
The terrorists decide to bring the fight to America.
-In January 1993, two CIA agents are shot and killed as they enter CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia.
-The following month, February 1993, a group of terrorists are arrested after a rented van packed with explosives is driven into the underground parking garage of the World Trade Center in New York City. Six people are killed and over 1000 are injured. Still this is a crime and not an act of war? The Snooze alarm is depressed again.
-Then in November 1995 a car bomb explodes at a US military complex in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia killing seven service men and women.
-A few months later in June of 1996, another truck bomb explodes only 35 yards from the US military compound in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. It destroys the Khobar Towers, a US Air Force barracks, killing 19 and injuring over 500. The terrorists are getting braver and smarter as they see that America does not respond decisively.
-They move to coordinate their attacks in a simultaneous attack on two US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.. These attacks were planned with precision. They kill 224. America responds with cruise missile attacks and goes back to sleep.
-The USS Cole was docked in the port of Aden, Yemen for refueling on 12 October 2000, when a small craft pulled along side the ship and exploded killing 17 US Navy Sailors. Attacking a US War Ship is an act of war, but we sent the FBI to investigate the crime and went back to sleep.
-And of course you know the events of 11 September 2001.
Most Americans think this was the first attack against US soil or in America. How wrong they are. America has been under a constant attack since 1979 and we chose to hit the snooze alarm and roll over and go back to sleep. In the news lately we have seen lots of finger pointing from very high officials in government over what they knew and what they didn't know. But if you've read the papers and paid a little attention I think you can see exactly what they knew. You don't have to be in the FBI or CIA or on the National Security Council to see the pattern that has been developing since 1979.
The President is right on when he says we are engaged in a war. Only sense he has made, lately. I think we have been in a war for the past 25 years and it will continue until we as a people decide enough is enough. America needs to "Get out of Bed" and act decisively now. America has been changed forever..
We have to be ready to pay the price and make the sacrifice to ensure our way of life continues. We cannot afford to keep hitting the snooze button again and again and roll over and go back to sleep. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, Admiral Yamamoto said "... it seems all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant." This is the message we need to disseminate to terrorists around the world."
-In ut Victoria! (On to victory!)
Monday, March 27, 2006
From the Christian Science Monitor: Conversion a thorny issue in Muslim world.
How thorny? Well...
"Most mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence call for converts to be executed. Though the Koran promises only hellfire for apostates and also says “there should be no compunction in religion,” Islamic jurists have typically argued that execution is mandated, citing stories of comments made by the prophet Muhammad.
“The prophet Muhammad said that anyone who rejects Islam for another religion should be executed,” said Mr. Mawlavezada, the judge."
How thorny? Well...
"Most mainstream schools of Islamic jurisprudence call for converts to be executed. Though the Koran promises only hellfire for apostates and also says “there should be no compunction in religion,” Islamic jurists have typically argued that execution is mandated, citing stories of comments made by the prophet Muhammad.
“The prophet Muhammad said that anyone who rejects Islam for another religion should be executed,” said Mr. Mawlavezada, the judge."
Friday, March 24, 2006
Johnny's Friday Funny
A husband and wife love to golf together, but neither of them is playing as well as they want to, so they decide to take private lessons. The husband has his lesson first. After the pro sees his swing, he says, "No, no, no, You are gripping the club way too hard!"
"Well, what should I do?" Asks the man.
"Hold the club gently," the pro replies, "just like you'd hold your wife's breast."
The man takes the advice, takes a swing, and POW! He hits the ball 250 yards straight down the fairway. The next day the wife goes for her lesson. After the pro watches her swing, he says, "No, no, no, You're gripping the club way too hard."
"What can I do?" asks the wife.
"Hold the club gently, just like you'd hold your husband's penis."
The wife listens carefully to the pro's advice, takes a swing, and THUMP. The ball goes straight down the fairway, about 35 feet.
"That was great," the pro says, "Nice and gentle. Now take the club out of your mouth and swing it like you're supposed to."
"Well, what should I do?" Asks the man.
"Hold the club gently," the pro replies, "just like you'd hold your wife's breast."
The man takes the advice, takes a swing, and POW! He hits the ball 250 yards straight down the fairway. The next day the wife goes for her lesson. After the pro watches her swing, he says, "No, no, no, You're gripping the club way too hard."
"What can I do?" asks the wife.
"Hold the club gently, just like you'd hold your husband's penis."
The wife listens carefully to the pro's advice, takes a swing, and THUMP. The ball goes straight down the fairway, about 35 feet.
"That was great," the pro says, "Nice and gentle. Now take the club out of your mouth and swing it like you're supposed to."
Pedophile Less Interested The More He Views 13-Year-Old's MySpace Profile
March 17, 2006
LONGVIEW, TX—Area pedophile Dwight Sanderson said Monday that his interest in getting to know and eventually meeting MySpace.com member "Courtneee" has significantly declined after a closer read of the "lame" hobbies and "self-involved" blog entries on the 13-year-old's profile. Pedophile Dwight Sanderson plods through the tedious details of 13-year-old Courtneee's profile. According to Sanderson, 47, Courtneee's picture caught his eye while he was searching the Judson Middle School MySpace community and found her "Gemini_diva" page. "At first, she seemed like my type of girl—innocent-looking, single, and, best of all, she lives right nearby," he said. Sanderson continued: "Her profile seemed very enticing at first. She plays softball in the same park that I always hang around in. But right before I was going to leave her a private message, I decided to check out her latest blog post."
He said the 1,500-word entry "droned on and on" about everything from dealing with her great-grandmother's death last year to hopes for her new job as class treasurer.
"I'm looking for a cell-phone number and a home address, not your life story," he said.
Though admittedly discouraged, Sanderson, who classifies himself as "not very picky," said he still hoped that Courtneee could play a small, fleeting part in his future.
"I'm an optimist, even though I've been burned by girls like Courtneee in the past. You think you know everything about them—their dark secrets, their heroes, their class schedule—but they end up betraying your confidence and talking about your relationship behind your back to any authority figure who'll listen," Sanderson said.
Sanderson pointed out several other "red flags" in Courtneee's profile, including "pathetic, almost obsessive" blog entries about her ex-crush, the fact that her "Interests and Personality" section mentions that she might want to have children someday, and her terrible taste in movies. "I'm used to getting involved with younger, less mature women, but she's got the sense of humor of an 8-year-old," Sanderson said. "I can't bring myself to pretend to like 50 First Dates, even to establish a base of shared interests, build rapport, and eventually earn her complete trust." "Also, one of her friends left a recent comment accusing her of being a 'big-mouth who likes to spread rumors,'" Sanderson added. "I can't tell you how big a turnoff that is for me." According to Sanderson, the most discouraging revelation came when he viewed Courtneee's "More Pics" section, in which she reportedly looks "way older" than she does in her featured front-page photo. "When I saw the other pictures, I was like, 'How old is this girl, 15?'" Sanderson said. "In these pictures, she had braces, acne, noticeable breasts—nothing like the baby-faced little girl she appeared to be on her main page. She probably hasn't updated that picture in a year and a half." Though he made a legally binding promise to himself and law-enforcement officials that he would never pursue another relationship like this, Sanderson says he nonetheless plans to "give it a shot." "Internet dating can be risky," he said, "but at my age, and their age, it's really the only way."
March 17, 2006
LONGVIEW, TX—Area pedophile Dwight Sanderson said Monday that his interest in getting to know and eventually meeting MySpace.com member "Courtneee" has significantly declined after a closer read of the "lame" hobbies and "self-involved" blog entries on the 13-year-old's profile. Pedophile Dwight Sanderson plods through the tedious details of 13-year-old Courtneee's profile. According to Sanderson, 47, Courtneee's picture caught his eye while he was searching the Judson Middle School MySpace community and found her "Gemini_diva" page. "At first, she seemed like my type of girl—innocent-looking, single, and, best of all, she lives right nearby," he said. Sanderson continued: "Her profile seemed very enticing at first. She plays softball in the same park that I always hang around in. But right before I was going to leave her a private message, I decided to check out her latest blog post."
He said the 1,500-word entry "droned on and on" about everything from dealing with her great-grandmother's death last year to hopes for her new job as class treasurer.
"I'm looking for a cell-phone number and a home address, not your life story," he said.
Though admittedly discouraged, Sanderson, who classifies himself as "not very picky," said he still hoped that Courtneee could play a small, fleeting part in his future.
"I'm an optimist, even though I've been burned by girls like Courtneee in the past. You think you know everything about them—their dark secrets, their heroes, their class schedule—but they end up betraying your confidence and talking about your relationship behind your back to any authority figure who'll listen," Sanderson said.
Sanderson pointed out several other "red flags" in Courtneee's profile, including "pathetic, almost obsessive" blog entries about her ex-crush, the fact that her "Interests and Personality" section mentions that she might want to have children someday, and her terrible taste in movies. "I'm used to getting involved with younger, less mature women, but she's got the sense of humor of an 8-year-old," Sanderson said. "I can't bring myself to pretend to like 50 First Dates, even to establish a base of shared interests, build rapport, and eventually earn her complete trust." "Also, one of her friends left a recent comment accusing her of being a 'big-mouth who likes to spread rumors,'" Sanderson added. "I can't tell you how big a turnoff that is for me." According to Sanderson, the most discouraging revelation came when he viewed Courtneee's "More Pics" section, in which she reportedly looks "way older" than she does in her featured front-page photo. "When I saw the other pictures, I was like, 'How old is this girl, 15?'" Sanderson said. "In these pictures, she had braces, acne, noticeable breasts—nothing like the baby-faced little girl she appeared to be on her main page. She probably hasn't updated that picture in a year and a half." Though he made a legally binding promise to himself and law-enforcement officials that he would never pursue another relationship like this, Sanderson says he nonetheless plans to "give it a shot." "Internet dating can be risky," he said, "but at my age, and their age, it's really the only way."
ABC NEWS EXEC: 'BUSH MAKES ME SICK'; E-MAIL REVEALED
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.
A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT. "If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained. The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Man's Toddler Son Wanders Into Strip Club
I fail to see the issue here, it is not like it was hot out or anything. And it is never to early to instill the dangers of the monsters.
A Kansas man was arrested at a Tulsa strip club after police say his toddler son wandered from an unlocked car into the club over the weekend.
Christopher Greg Killion, 31, was arrested Saturday on a complaint of "encouraging a minor child to be in need of supervision." He posted $500 bond and was released from the Tulsa Jail.
The toddler told police that his father told him to stay in the car, and that if he left it, "monsters would eat him," reports indicate.
A manager at the club had called police to report that about 30 minutes after Killion entered the club, a 3- to 4-year-old boy came inside looking for his father.
Officers determined that the boy had been left alone in a car in the strip club's parking lot. The car was unlocked and parked about 20 feet from a four-lane street. It was raining and 45 degrees outside at the time, an officer noted in the police report.
2006 mathematics prize announced
Swedish mathematician Lennart Carleson has been named as the winner of the 2006 Abel Prize for outstanding work in the field of mathematics.
The prize is worth about £520,000, and credits a discipline overlooked by the Nobel Prizes.
The honour recognises Professor Carleson's work in harmonic analysis, particularly for his proof of the Fourier series.
The prize is awarded by the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters.
Professor Carleson told the BBC News website that he felt grateful and humble on receiving the news, announced on Thursday in Oslo.
"There are so many good people that could have been chosen, so I feel very lucky," he said.
He will be presented with his prize by the King of Norway at an award ceremony on 23 May.
The international Abel Committee, which decided on the winner, said: "Carleson is always far ahead of the crowd. He concentrates on only the most difficult and deep problems.
"Once these are solved, he lets others invade the kingdom he has discovered, and he moves on to even wilder and more remote domains of science."
From the Alamo to "Brokeback"...how the West was lost
Texas busting drunks ... in bars
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) -- Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday.
The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.
Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.
The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.
"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.
"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."
She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.
SAN ANTONIO, Texas (Reuters) -- Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said Wednesday.
The first sting operation was conducted recently in a Dallas suburb where agents infiltrated 36 bars and arrested 30 people for public intoxication, said the commission's Carolyn Beck.
Being in a bar does not exempt one from the state laws against public drunkenness, Beck said.
The goal, she said, was to detain drunks before they leave a bar and go do something dangerous like drive a car.
"We feel that the only way we're going to get at the drunk driving problem and the problem of people hurting each other while drunk is by crackdowns like this," she said.
"There are a lot of dangerous and stupid things people do when they're intoxicated, other than get behind the wheel of a car," Beck said. "People walk out into traffic and get run over, people jump off of balconies trying to reach a swimming pool and miss."
She said the sting operations would continue throughout the state.
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
John Frum
The last cargo cult
by Mike Jay
It's shortly after dawn on February 15th on the remote island of Tanna in the South Pacific. The oppressive humidity and heat of the rainy season is already building, the pigs and chickens are slowly stirring, and - as on every February 15th for the last 45 years - one of the world's strangest religious ceremonies is about to take place.
The village of Sulphur Bay is waking up, as it does every morning, directly under an active volcano. The cone of Mount Yasur steeples up above it, thumping periodically as blisters of magma burst inside its crater, and scattering ash onto the dead plains around its base like a carbon snowfall. On the coastal side of the village is a black sand beach running with steaming rivulets of scalding spring water, too hot to touch but ideal for washing clothes and dishes. Between the devil and the deep, the palm and thatch huts are arranged quite untypically for a Melanesian village: not around a central clan hut or banyan tree but framing a large, deserted square like a parade ground. This is because Sulphur Bay is one of a handful of villages in this part of the world where the people neither worship the Christ of the missionaries nor practice the traditional kastom (custom) religion of their ancestors, but who live with a god of their own: a spirit messiah known as John Frum.
John Frum is the son of God, but he's not Jesus. He's a black Melanesian, but sometimes a white man - or, according to others, a black American GI. He's a kastom messiah, come to turn the people of Tanna back to their old ways before the missionaries - but he's also a universal avatar of change, a successor to Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed. Like Jesus, he's poised to return - or, perhaps, he's already here. He's a volcano god, with an army of the dead who live down in the crater, and a spirit who approaches the men of Tanna when they drink their intoxicating kava and bring their spirits into communion with him. Back in the days of colonial rule when he first appeared, the British thought he was one of the locals dressing up and spouting nonsense to foment rebellion. They arrested a succession of 'troublemakers', pillorying them before their community to expose the deception, but the locals knew perfectly well that John Frum was neither this man nor that one. Apart from anything else, he continued to appear. So, a new tactic: anyone who was found to be talking John Frum nonsense was hauled off to jail in Port Vila, the administrative capital over a hundred miles away. But these 'ringleaders' became martyrs to the growing religion, and the stories of how John appeared to them in jail are now part of the canon of oral traditions, hymns and revelations of the new religion.
To anthropologists, John Frum was an example of one of the strangest and most exotic phenomena to be observed in traditional cultures: the cargo cult. All across Melanesia, from New Guinea to the Solomon Islands to Tanna's archipelago, the New Hebrides, dozens of unconnected communities, thousands of miles apart and speaking unrelated languages, seemed spontaneously to generate the same set of bizarre beliefs. A new dispensation was on the way, when the white man would vanish from the islands, and his cargo - Western goods - would be diverted by magical means to the local people, who were its rightful owners.
'Cargo cults' got into full swing during the 1950s, though once the phenomenon had been classified by Westerners it seemed that the beginnings of the movement could be traced way back, as far as the 1890s. The classic account was by the Australian anthropologist Peter Lawrence who went out to the Madang district of New Guinea in 1949 to conduct field research into the traditional social relations of people who, despite colonial rule, were still living much as they had in the recent Stone Age. Lawrence gradually discovered that his presence in Madang had become woven into an extraordinary complex of beliefs. Persistent rumours abounded that a cargo ship was about to arrive in the harbour with huge consignments of goods for him, and the local people asked him to help them supervise the clearing of an airstrip. When he asked what the airstrip was for, he was told that cargo planes were about to arrive bringing tinned meat, rice, tools, tobacco and a machine for making electric light. And when he asked who was sending this cargo, they replied 'God in Heaven'.
http://www.nthposition.com/thelastcargo.php
I read about this in Smithsonion Magazine last night-
by Mike Jay
It's shortly after dawn on February 15th on the remote island of Tanna in the South Pacific. The oppressive humidity and heat of the rainy season is already building, the pigs and chickens are slowly stirring, and - as on every February 15th for the last 45 years - one of the world's strangest religious ceremonies is about to take place.
The village of Sulphur Bay is waking up, as it does every morning, directly under an active volcano. The cone of Mount Yasur steeples up above it, thumping periodically as blisters of magma burst inside its crater, and scattering ash onto the dead plains around its base like a carbon snowfall. On the coastal side of the village is a black sand beach running with steaming rivulets of scalding spring water, too hot to touch but ideal for washing clothes and dishes. Between the devil and the deep, the palm and thatch huts are arranged quite untypically for a Melanesian village: not around a central clan hut or banyan tree but framing a large, deserted square like a parade ground. This is because Sulphur Bay is one of a handful of villages in this part of the world where the people neither worship the Christ of the missionaries nor practice the traditional kastom (custom) religion of their ancestors, but who live with a god of their own: a spirit messiah known as John Frum.
John Frum is the son of God, but he's not Jesus. He's a black Melanesian, but sometimes a white man - or, according to others, a black American GI. He's a kastom messiah, come to turn the people of Tanna back to their old ways before the missionaries - but he's also a universal avatar of change, a successor to Buddha or Jesus or Mohammed. Like Jesus, he's poised to return - or, perhaps, he's already here. He's a volcano god, with an army of the dead who live down in the crater, and a spirit who approaches the men of Tanna when they drink their intoxicating kava and bring their spirits into communion with him. Back in the days of colonial rule when he first appeared, the British thought he was one of the locals dressing up and spouting nonsense to foment rebellion. They arrested a succession of 'troublemakers', pillorying them before their community to expose the deception, but the locals knew perfectly well that John Frum was neither this man nor that one. Apart from anything else, he continued to appear. So, a new tactic: anyone who was found to be talking John Frum nonsense was hauled off to jail in Port Vila, the administrative capital over a hundred miles away. But these 'ringleaders' became martyrs to the growing religion, and the stories of how John appeared to them in jail are now part of the canon of oral traditions, hymns and revelations of the new religion.
To anthropologists, John Frum was an example of one of the strangest and most exotic phenomena to be observed in traditional cultures: the cargo cult. All across Melanesia, from New Guinea to the Solomon Islands to Tanna's archipelago, the New Hebrides, dozens of unconnected communities, thousands of miles apart and speaking unrelated languages, seemed spontaneously to generate the same set of bizarre beliefs. A new dispensation was on the way, when the white man would vanish from the islands, and his cargo - Western goods - would be diverted by magical means to the local people, who were its rightful owners.
'Cargo cults' got into full swing during the 1950s, though once the phenomenon had been classified by Westerners it seemed that the beginnings of the movement could be traced way back, as far as the 1890s. The classic account was by the Australian anthropologist Peter Lawrence who went out to the Madang district of New Guinea in 1949 to conduct field research into the traditional social relations of people who, despite colonial rule, were still living much as they had in the recent Stone Age. Lawrence gradually discovered that his presence in Madang had become woven into an extraordinary complex of beliefs. Persistent rumours abounded that a cargo ship was about to arrive in the harbour with huge consignments of goods for him, and the local people asked him to help them supervise the clearing of an airstrip. When he asked what the airstrip was for, he was told that cargo planes were about to arrive bringing tinned meat, rice, tools, tobacco and a machine for making electric light. And when he asked who was sending this cargo, they replied 'God in Heaven'.
http://www.nthposition.com/thelastcargo.php
I read about this in Smithsonion Magazine last night-
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
The Stone Face of ZarqawiIraq is no "distraction" from al Qaeda.
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:01 a.m.
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
Since February 2004, there have been numberless attacks on Shiite religious processions and precincts. Somewhat more insulting to Islam (one might think) than a caricature in Copenhagen, these desecrations did not immediately produce the desired effect. Grand Ayatollah Sistani even stated that, if he himself fell victim, he forgave his murderers in advance and forbade retaliation in his name. This extraordinary forbearance meant that many Shiites--and Sunnis, too--refused to play Zarqawi's game. But the grim fact is, as we know from Cyprus and Bosnia and Lebanon and India, that a handful of determined psychopaths can erode in a year the sort of intercommunal fraternity that has taken centuries to evolve. If you keep pressing on the nerve of tribalism and sectarianism, you will eventually get a response. And then came the near-incredible barbarism in Samarra, and the laying waste of the golden dome.
It is not merely civil strife that is partly innate in the very make-up of Iraq. There could be an even worse war, of the sort that Thomas Hobbes pictured: a "war of all against all" in which localized gangs and mafias would become rulers of their own stretch of turf. This is what happened in Lebanon after the American withdrawal: The distinctions between Maronite and Druze and Palestinian and Shiite became blurred by a descent into minor warlordism. In Iraq, things are even more fissile. Even the "insurgents" are fighting among themselves, with local elements taking aim at imported riffraff and vice-versa. Saddam's vicious tactic, of emptying the jails on the eve of the intervention and freeing his natural constituency of thugs and bandits and rapists, was exactly designed to exacerbate an already unstable situation and make the implicit case for one-man "law and order." There is strong disagreement among and between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and between them and the Kurds, only the latter having taken steps to resolve their own internal party and regional quarrels.
America's mistake in Lebanon was first to intervene in a way that placed us on one minority side--that of the Maronites and their Israeli patrons--and then to scuttle and give Hobbes his mandate for the next 10 years. At least it can be said for the present mission in Iraq that it proposes the only alternative to civil war, dictatorship, partition or some toxic combination of all three. Absent federal democracy and power-sharing, there will not just be anarchy and fragmentation and thus a moral victory for jihadism, but opportunist interventions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (That vortex, by the way, is what was waiting to engulf Iraq if the coalition had not intervened, and would have necessitated an intervention later but under even worse conditions.) There are signs that many Iraqi factions do appreciate the danger of this, even if some of them have come to the realization somewhat late. The willingness of the Kurdish leadership in particular, to sacrifice for a country that was gassing its people until quite recently, is beyond praise.
Everybody now has their own scenario for the war that should have been fought three years ago. The important revelations in "Cobra II," by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, about the underestimated reserve strength of the Fedayeen Saddam, give us an excellent picture of what the successor regime to the Baath Party was shaping up to be: an Islamized para-state militia ruling by means of vicious divide-and-rule as between the country's peoples. No responsible American government could possibly have allowed such a contingency to become more likely. We would then have had to intervene in a ruined rogue jihadist-hosting state that was already in a Beirut-like nightmare.
I could not help noticing, when the secret prisons of the Shiite-run "Interior Ministry" were exposed a few weeks ago, that all those wishing to complain ran straight to the nearest American base, from which help was available. For the moment, the coalition forces act as the militia for the majority of Iraqis--the inked-fingered Iraqis--who have no militia of their own. Honorable as this role may be, it is not enough in the long run. In Iraq we have made some good friends and some very, very bad enemies. (How can anyone, looking down the gun-barrel into the stone face of Zarqawi, say that fighting him is a "distraction" from fighting al Qaeda?) Over the medium term, if our apparent domestic demoralization continues, the options could come down to two. First, we might use our latent power and threaten to withdraw, implicitly asking Iraqis and their neighbors if that is really what they want, and concentrating their minds. This still runs the risk of allowing the diseased spokesmen of al Qaeda to claim victory.
Second, we can demand to know, of the wider international community, if it could afford to view an imploded Iraq as a spectator. Three years ago, the smug answer to that, from most U.N. members, was "yes." This is not an irresponsibility that we can afford, either morally or practically, and even if our intervention was much too little and way too late, it has kindled in many Arab and Kurdish minds an idea of a different future. There is a war within the war, as there always is when a serious struggle is under way, but justice and necessity still combine to say that the task cannot be given up.
Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is the author of "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq" (Penguin, 2003).
BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS
Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:01 a.m.
In February 2004, our Kurdish comrades in northern Iraq intercepted a courier who was bearing a long message from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to his religious guru Osama bin Laden. The letter contained a deranged analysis of the motives of the coalition intervention ("to create the State of Greater Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates" and "accelerate the emergence of the Messiah"), but also a lethally ingenious scheme to combat it. After a lengthy and hate-filled diatribe against what he considers the vile heresy of Shiism, Zarqawi wrote of Iraq's largest confessional group that: "These in our opinion are the key to change. I mean that targeting and hitting them in their religious, political and military depth will provoke them to show the Sunnis their rabies . . . and bare the teeth of the hidden rancor working in their breasts. If we succeed in dragging them into the arena of sectarian war, it will become possible to awaken the inattentive Sunnis as they feel imminent danger."
Some of us wrote about this at the time, to warn of the sheer evil that was about to be unleashed. Knowing that their own position was a tenuous one (a fact fully admitted by Zarqawi in his report) the cadres of "al Qaeda in Mesopotamia" understood that their main chance was the deliberate stoking of a civil war. And, now that this threat has become more imminent and menacing, it is somehow blamed on the Bush administration. "Civil war" has replaced "the insurgency" as the proof that the war is "unwinnable." But in plain truth, the "civil war" is and always was the chief tactic of the "insurgency."
Since February 2004, there have been numberless attacks on Shiite religious processions and precincts. Somewhat more insulting to Islam (one might think) than a caricature in Copenhagen, these desecrations did not immediately produce the desired effect. Grand Ayatollah Sistani even stated that, if he himself fell victim, he forgave his murderers in advance and forbade retaliation in his name. This extraordinary forbearance meant that many Shiites--and Sunnis, too--refused to play Zarqawi's game. But the grim fact is, as we know from Cyprus and Bosnia and Lebanon and India, that a handful of determined psychopaths can erode in a year the sort of intercommunal fraternity that has taken centuries to evolve. If you keep pressing on the nerve of tribalism and sectarianism, you will eventually get a response. And then came the near-incredible barbarism in Samarra, and the laying waste of the golden dome.
It is not merely civil strife that is partly innate in the very make-up of Iraq. There could be an even worse war, of the sort that Thomas Hobbes pictured: a "war of all against all" in which localized gangs and mafias would become rulers of their own stretch of turf. This is what happened in Lebanon after the American withdrawal: The distinctions between Maronite and Druze and Palestinian and Shiite became blurred by a descent into minor warlordism. In Iraq, things are even more fissile. Even the "insurgents" are fighting among themselves, with local elements taking aim at imported riffraff and vice-versa. Saddam's vicious tactic, of emptying the jails on the eve of the intervention and freeing his natural constituency of thugs and bandits and rapists, was exactly designed to exacerbate an already unstable situation and make the implicit case for one-man "law and order." There is strong disagreement among and between the Shiites and the Sunnis, and between them and the Kurds, only the latter having taken steps to resolve their own internal party and regional quarrels.
America's mistake in Lebanon was first to intervene in a way that placed us on one minority side--that of the Maronites and their Israeli patrons--and then to scuttle and give Hobbes his mandate for the next 10 years. At least it can be said for the present mission in Iraq that it proposes the only alternative to civil war, dictatorship, partition or some toxic combination of all three. Absent federal democracy and power-sharing, there will not just be anarchy and fragmentation and thus a moral victory for jihadism, but opportunist interventions from Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. (That vortex, by the way, is what was waiting to engulf Iraq if the coalition had not intervened, and would have necessitated an intervention later but under even worse conditions.) There are signs that many Iraqi factions do appreciate the danger of this, even if some of them have come to the realization somewhat late. The willingness of the Kurdish leadership in particular, to sacrifice for a country that was gassing its people until quite recently, is beyond praise.
Everybody now has their own scenario for the war that should have been fought three years ago. The important revelations in "Cobra II," by Michael Gordon and Bernard Trainor, about the underestimated reserve strength of the Fedayeen Saddam, give us an excellent picture of what the successor regime to the Baath Party was shaping up to be: an Islamized para-state militia ruling by means of vicious divide-and-rule as between the country's peoples. No responsible American government could possibly have allowed such a contingency to become more likely. We would then have had to intervene in a ruined rogue jihadist-hosting state that was already in a Beirut-like nightmare.
I could not help noticing, when the secret prisons of the Shiite-run "Interior Ministry" were exposed a few weeks ago, that all those wishing to complain ran straight to the nearest American base, from which help was available. For the moment, the coalition forces act as the militia for the majority of Iraqis--the inked-fingered Iraqis--who have no militia of their own. Honorable as this role may be, it is not enough in the long run. In Iraq we have made some good friends and some very, very bad enemies. (How can anyone, looking down the gun-barrel into the stone face of Zarqawi, say that fighting him is a "distraction" from fighting al Qaeda?) Over the medium term, if our apparent domestic demoralization continues, the options could come down to two. First, we might use our latent power and threaten to withdraw, implicitly asking Iraqis and their neighbors if that is really what they want, and concentrating their minds. This still runs the risk of allowing the diseased spokesmen of al Qaeda to claim victory.
Second, we can demand to know, of the wider international community, if it could afford to view an imploded Iraq as a spectator. Three years ago, the smug answer to that, from most U.N. members, was "yes." This is not an irresponsibility that we can afford, either morally or practically, and even if our intervention was much too little and way too late, it has kindled in many Arab and Kurdish minds an idea of a different future. There is a war within the war, as there always is when a serious struggle is under way, but justice and necessity still combine to say that the task cannot be given up.
Mr. Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair, is the author of "A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq" (Penguin, 2003).
Monday, March 20, 2006
Have you ever thought, "what the world needs is a repository of celebrities playing table tennis"-
Here it is!
http://www.larrytt.com/celebrities_playing_tt/
Here it is!
http://www.larrytt.com/celebrities_playing_tt/
DST
Criticism of DST
DST is not universally accepted and many localities do not observe it. Opponents claim that there is not enough benefit to justify the need to adjust clocks twice every year. The disruption in sleep patterns associated with setting clocks either forward or backward correlates with a spike in the number of severe auto accidents, as well as lost productivity as sleep-disrupted workers adjust to the schedule change. It is also noted that much effort is spent reminding everyone twice a year of the change, and thousands are inconvenienced by showing up at the wrong time when they forget. Since DST exchanges morning daylight for evening daylight, late sunrises occur when DST is in effect either too far before the vernal equinox or too far after the autumnal equinox and darkness in the morning can be undesirable for early risers like schoolchildren and workers who begin their workday at 8:00 A.M. or earlier.
There is also a question whether the decrease in lighting costs justifies the increase in summertime air conditioning costs. While many people use more sunlight under DST, most people also experience more heat, which prompts many people to turn on the air conditioner during the warmer afternoon hours. When air conditioning was not widely available, the change did save energy; however, air conditioning is much more widespread now than it was several decades ago. Air conditioning often uses more energy than artificial lighting. It was for this reason that Arizona rejected DST and opted to stay on standard time all year [citation needed].
It is also speculated that one of the benefits—more afternoon sun—would also actually increase energy consumption as people get into their cars to enjoy more time for shopping and the like.
No formal studies have been performed, but an enormous amount of time has been spent by software developers to deal with the fact that 2400 hours past 2pm is not necessarily 2pm 100 days later.
For example, during a North American time change, a fall night where clocks are reset from 3 AM summer to 2 AM winter time, times between 2AM and 3AM will occur twice, causing confusion in transport schedules, payment systems, etc. On a more trivial note, this also means that people born during one of those two hours have no way to know which one it really was unless someone like their parents bothers to make an according note in their baby photo album since birth certificates normally don't pay attention to this aspect. Aside from astrologists this doesn't actually cause harm to anybody, but it's a bother to people who would like to know their (almost) exact time of birth and have the bad luck to be born on such dates.
Some studies do show that changing the clock increases the traffic accident rate.[1] Following the spring shift to daylight saving time (when one hour of sleep is lost) there is a measurable increase in the number of traffic accidents that result in fatalities.
Some campaigners in Britain would like the country to stay on British Summer Time (BST) all year round, or in other words, adopt Central European Time and abolish BST. Alternatively, some would like Britain to adopt Central European Time and jump forward another hour during the summer (adopting a Single/Double Summer Time from Britain's perspective). This would make winter evenings longer, thereby reducing traffic accidents and cases of seasonal affective disorder. Opponents point to the longer hours of darkness on winter mornings, especially in Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland which might well cause an increase in road accidents. In response to this, there have been proposals to introduce legislation to put Scotland on a different time-zone to England & Wales. [1]
DST is particularly unpopular among people working in agriculture because the animals do not observe it, and thus the people are placed out of synchronization with the rest of the community, including school times, broadcast schedules, and the like.
Other critics suggest that DST is, at its heart, government paternalism and that people rise in the morning as a matter of choice because many people enjoy nighttime hours and their jobs do not require them to make the most of daylight. Different people start their day at different times (office workers start their day later than factory workers, who start their day later than farm workers), regardless of daylight saving time.
DST is not universally accepted and many localities do not observe it. Opponents claim that there is not enough benefit to justify the need to adjust clocks twice every year. The disruption in sleep patterns associated with setting clocks either forward or backward correlates with a spike in the number of severe auto accidents, as well as lost productivity as sleep-disrupted workers adjust to the schedule change. It is also noted that much effort is spent reminding everyone twice a year of the change, and thousands are inconvenienced by showing up at the wrong time when they forget. Since DST exchanges morning daylight for evening daylight, late sunrises occur when DST is in effect either too far before the vernal equinox or too far after the autumnal equinox and darkness in the morning can be undesirable for early risers like schoolchildren and workers who begin their workday at 8:00 A.M. or earlier.
There is also a question whether the decrease in lighting costs justifies the increase in summertime air conditioning costs. While many people use more sunlight under DST, most people also experience more heat, which prompts many people to turn on the air conditioner during the warmer afternoon hours. When air conditioning was not widely available, the change did save energy; however, air conditioning is much more widespread now than it was several decades ago. Air conditioning often uses more energy than artificial lighting. It was for this reason that Arizona rejected DST and opted to stay on standard time all year [citation needed].
It is also speculated that one of the benefits—more afternoon sun—would also actually increase energy consumption as people get into their cars to enjoy more time for shopping and the like.
No formal studies have been performed, but an enormous amount of time has been spent by software developers to deal with the fact that 2400 hours past 2pm is not necessarily 2pm 100 days later.
For example, during a North American time change, a fall night where clocks are reset from 3 AM summer to 2 AM winter time, times between 2AM and 3AM will occur twice, causing confusion in transport schedules, payment systems, etc. On a more trivial note, this also means that people born during one of those two hours have no way to know which one it really was unless someone like their parents bothers to make an according note in their baby photo album since birth certificates normally don't pay attention to this aspect. Aside from astrologists this doesn't actually cause harm to anybody, but it's a bother to people who would like to know their (almost) exact time of birth and have the bad luck to be born on such dates.
Some studies do show that changing the clock increases the traffic accident rate.[1] Following the spring shift to daylight saving time (when one hour of sleep is lost) there is a measurable increase in the number of traffic accidents that result in fatalities.
Some campaigners in Britain would like the country to stay on British Summer Time (BST) all year round, or in other words, adopt Central European Time and abolish BST. Alternatively, some would like Britain to adopt Central European Time and jump forward another hour during the summer (adopting a Single/Double Summer Time from Britain's perspective). This would make winter evenings longer, thereby reducing traffic accidents and cases of seasonal affective disorder. Opponents point to the longer hours of darkness on winter mornings, especially in Scotland, the north of England and Northern Ireland which might well cause an increase in road accidents. In response to this, there have been proposals to introduce legislation to put Scotland on a different time-zone to England & Wales. [1]
DST is particularly unpopular among people working in agriculture because the animals do not observe it, and thus the people are placed out of synchronization with the rest of the community, including school times, broadcast schedules, and the like.
Other critics suggest that DST is, at its heart, government paternalism and that people rise in the morning as a matter of choice because many people enjoy nighttime hours and their jobs do not require them to make the most of daylight. Different people start their day at different times (office workers start their day later than factory workers, who start their day later than farm workers), regardless of daylight saving time.
Thursday, March 16, 2006
15lb Burger Gives Restaurant A New Claim To Fame
March 16, 2006 12:30 p.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - All Headline News Staff Writer
Clearfield, PA (AHN) - A US restaurant has beaten its own record for the bragging rights of having the world's biggest burger, with a mouth watering 15-pounder.
Denny's Beer Barrel Pub, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, had already claimed the title of world’s biggest burger with a 6lb burger.
However the pub’s owners had other ideas and believed a 15-pound burger would prove an even bigger attraction.
Dennis Liegey III, son of the restaurant's owner says, "Every restaurant needs a gimmick - ours is big burgers."
Customers who can finish the burger in less than five hours win a cash prize, a T-shirt and have their name posted on the pub's wall of fame. Not to mention the burger is free.
The new 15lb burger, nicknamed the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, is almost as big as a car tire.
It’s served with a cup and half each of mayonnaise, mustard and ketchup, a head of lettuce, two onions, three tomatoes and 25 slices of cheese.
March 16, 2006 12:30 p.m. EST
Ayinde O. Chase - All Headline News Staff Writer
Clearfield, PA (AHN) - A US restaurant has beaten its own record for the bragging rights of having the world's biggest burger, with a mouth watering 15-pounder.
Denny's Beer Barrel Pub, in Clearfield, Pennsylvania, had already claimed the title of world’s biggest burger with a 6lb burger.
However the pub’s owners had other ideas and believed a 15-pound burger would prove an even bigger attraction.
Dennis Liegey III, son of the restaurant's owner says, "Every restaurant needs a gimmick - ours is big burgers."
Customers who can finish the burger in less than five hours win a cash prize, a T-shirt and have their name posted on the pub's wall of fame. Not to mention the burger is free.
The new 15lb burger, nicknamed the Beer Barrel Belly Buster, is almost as big as a car tire.
It’s served with a cup and half each of mayonnaise, mustard and ketchup, a head of lettuce, two onions, three tomatoes and 25 slices of cheese.
Surging Vancouver pushes the button marked 'grow'
Annexation - A currently stalled move would make Vancouver the second-biggest city in Washington state
Thursday, March 16, 2006
ALLAN BRETTMAN The Oregonian
VANCOUVER -- Annexation made Vancouver what it is today.
In 1997, the city added 55,000 new residents and 11,258 acres, becoming the fourth-biggest city in Washington state and the second-largest in the Portland metropolitan area.
Before, "Vancouver was the backwater of Portland," says Mayor Royce E. Pollard, a poster screaming, "think BIG!" looming over his shoulder. "We're not anymore."
Vancouver is looking to grow again through annexation, with an eye on becoming the second-biggest city in Washington. Although officials emphasize advantages to potential annexees and the city's state-mandated role in delivering urban services, there is a simpler motivation: status.
"It's a fact of life," says Pollard, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Bigger brings attention; it brings power, money and prestige."
If it's the attention of Portland decision-makers that Vancouver wants, that already has been achieved, says Portland Mayor Tom Potter.
"I applaud Vancouver," Potter says, "They're positioning themselves well. Obviously it's a growing city."
The latest annexation has been put on hold for now, effectively blocked by Clark County officials. But the episode has been instructive about Vancouver's place in its parallel worlds in Washington state and the Portland area.
That dual purpose will be on display today at Portland State University as Pollard, Gov. Chris Gregoire and others from Washington state participate with their Oregon counterparts, including Potter and Gov. Ted Kulongoski, in conference on bistate cooperation.
Pollard likes to remind listeners of where Vancouver once stood.
"Do you know what's the 11th-largest city in Washington?" he asks.
In the mid-1990s, only a dedicated few may have known that the answer was Vancouver, a position now held by Bellingham. Pollard is convinced the added residents gave the city new respect in the state capital in Olympia as well as with Portland officials.
The city now has an estimated 154,800 residents; the county has 391,500. If those numbers don't represent clout enough in the Portland area, consider this: Oregon received nearly 55,000 income tax returns from Clark County in 2004, totaling about $121 million in income taxes. Only seven of Oregon's 36 counties paid more.
The mayor, who relishes his role as the city's cheerleader, believes everyone needs an occasional chest-bumping reminder that Vancouver is a player.
That attitude helps explain why the city recently attempted to annex another huge swath of land -- 26 square miles with more than 65,000 people. The instant addition from the northeast side of the city's urban growth area would have made Vancouver bigger than Tacoma and Spokane, second only to Seattle.
The issue showed that Vancouver's biggest rivalry may not be with Portland, but closer to home -- with Clark County.
City-county friction
Days after Vancouver's annexation plan was revealed in December, Clark County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris accused city officials of concocting the plan in secret and complained the public had no say in the plan.
Nevertheless, the city forged ahead with the steps necessary for the annexation. One of those steps was to present the proposal in late February to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Clark County.
In late January, county commissioners dissolved the boundary review board.
The annexation has been on hold since, with alternating calls from city and county officials for greater cooperation, offset by closed-door sessions by the City Council to discuss suing the county.
This kind of conflict may not be the best way to conduct government, some observe. The region is best served when Vancouver and Clark County officials speak with one voice, these experts say.
Also, they must work cohesively with Portland metro officials, said Ethan Seltzer, director of Portland State University's School of Urban Studies and Planning.
But inescapable differences, such as the states' tax structures, have lured not only home buyers from Oregon to Clark County, but also several small and medium-sized businesses.
Any economic competition between the two states is scheduled for a rest today. One of the topic's in the PSU forum calls for "participants (to) identify key opportunities for advancing the region's economy by cooperating."
Allan Brettman: 360-896-5746 or 503-294-5900; allanbrettman@news.oregonian.com
Annexation - A currently stalled move would make Vancouver the second-biggest city in Washington state
Thursday, March 16, 2006
ALLAN BRETTMAN The Oregonian
VANCOUVER -- Annexation made Vancouver what it is today.
In 1997, the city added 55,000 new residents and 11,258 acres, becoming the fourth-biggest city in Washington state and the second-largest in the Portland metropolitan area.
Before, "Vancouver was the backwater of Portland," says Mayor Royce E. Pollard, a poster screaming, "think BIG!" looming over his shoulder. "We're not anymore."
Vancouver is looking to grow again through annexation, with an eye on becoming the second-biggest city in Washington. Although officials emphasize advantages to potential annexees and the city's state-mandated role in delivering urban services, there is a simpler motivation: status.
"It's a fact of life," says Pollard, a retired Army lieutenant colonel. "Bigger brings attention; it brings power, money and prestige."
If it's the attention of Portland decision-makers that Vancouver wants, that already has been achieved, says Portland Mayor Tom Potter.
"I applaud Vancouver," Potter says, "They're positioning themselves well. Obviously it's a growing city."
The latest annexation has been put on hold for now, effectively blocked by Clark County officials. But the episode has been instructive about Vancouver's place in its parallel worlds in Washington state and the Portland area.
That dual purpose will be on display today at Portland State University as Pollard, Gov. Chris Gregoire and others from Washington state participate with their Oregon counterparts, including Potter and Gov. Ted Kulongoski, in conference on bistate cooperation.
Pollard likes to remind listeners of where Vancouver once stood.
"Do you know what's the 11th-largest city in Washington?" he asks.
In the mid-1990s, only a dedicated few may have known that the answer was Vancouver, a position now held by Bellingham. Pollard is convinced the added residents gave the city new respect in the state capital in Olympia as well as with Portland officials.
The city now has an estimated 154,800 residents; the county has 391,500. If those numbers don't represent clout enough in the Portland area, consider this: Oregon received nearly 55,000 income tax returns from Clark County in 2004, totaling about $121 million in income taxes. Only seven of Oregon's 36 counties paid more.
The mayor, who relishes his role as the city's cheerleader, believes everyone needs an occasional chest-bumping reminder that Vancouver is a player.
That attitude helps explain why the city recently attempted to annex another huge swath of land -- 26 square miles with more than 65,000 people. The instant addition from the northeast side of the city's urban growth area would have made Vancouver bigger than Tacoma and Spokane, second only to Seattle.
The issue showed that Vancouver's biggest rivalry may not be with Portland, but closer to home -- with Clark County.
City-county friction
Days after Vancouver's annexation plan was revealed in December, Clark County Commissioner Betty Sue Morris accused city officials of concocting the plan in secret and complained the public had no say in the plan.
Nevertheless, the city forged ahead with the steps necessary for the annexation. One of those steps was to present the proposal in late February to the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Clark County.
In late January, county commissioners dissolved the boundary review board.
The annexation has been on hold since, with alternating calls from city and county officials for greater cooperation, offset by closed-door sessions by the City Council to discuss suing the county.
This kind of conflict may not be the best way to conduct government, some observe. The region is best served when Vancouver and Clark County officials speak with one voice, these experts say.
Also, they must work cohesively with Portland metro officials, said Ethan Seltzer, director of Portland State University's School of Urban Studies and Planning.
But inescapable differences, such as the states' tax structures, have lured not only home buyers from Oregon to Clark County, but also several small and medium-sized businesses.
Any economic competition between the two states is scheduled for a rest today. One of the topic's in the PSU forum calls for "participants (to) identify key opportunities for advancing the region's economy by cooperating."
Allan Brettman: 360-896-5746 or 503-294-5900; allanbrettman@news.oregonian.com
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Raheem- "Self Preservation"
Check this out, I sent this to Kevin Murphy in Phoenix to post on his blog. This is the first record I bought a few years ago before I even had a player. Excellent song, very rare. Enjoy the magic!
http://www.gorillavsbear.net/
http://www.gorillavsbear.net/
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
"We're the Ones Who Will Change You"
Mullah Krekar, an Al Qaeda-linked Islamic leader who was granted refugee status in Norway, told a Norwegian newspaper today that Islam will win. (From Jihad Watch.)
"Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, told an Oslo newspaper on Monday that there’s a war going on between “the West” and Islam. He said he’s sure that Islam will win, and he also had praise for suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
“We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in his first interview since an uproar broke out over cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims.
“Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” Krekar said. “Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children.
“By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”
He claimed that ”our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.“ He loosely defined “western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, he claimed.
Krekar, who’s been supported by the Norwegian government since arriving as a refugee from northern Iraq in the early 1990s, now faces deportation after violating the terms of his refugee status and being deemed a threat to national security.
Krekar told Dagbladet that he favours Islamic rule where political and religious leaders are one and the same. One such leader he respects, he said, is Osama bin Laden. “Osama bin Laden is a good person,” Krekar said. He claimed Osama bin Laden is considered a terrorist simply because he lacks his own state.
“Those who say Osama bin Laden is a terrorist are themselves killing our women and children,” Krekar said.
Attempts to “spread democracy,” he claimed, are merely a ruse to wage war against Islam, adding that “the West destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan” because “it feared the Islamic state.”
Agora has translated the full interview: Mullah Krekar: Islam will be Victorious against the West.
Mullah Krekar, an Al Qaeda-linked Islamic leader who was granted refugee status in Norway, told a Norwegian newspaper today that Islam will win. (From Jihad Watch.)
"Norway’s most controversial refugee, Mullah Krekar, told an Oslo newspaper on Monday that there’s a war going on between “the West” and Islam. He said he’s sure that Islam will win, and he also had praise for suspected terrorist leader Osama bin Laden.
“We’re the ones who will change you,” Krekar told Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet in his first interview since an uproar broke out over cartoons deemed offensive to Muslims.
“Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes,” Krekar said. “Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries are producing 3.5 children.
“By 2050, 30 percent of the population in Europe will be Muslim.”
He claimed that ”our way of thinking... will prove more powerful than yours.“ He loosely defined “western thinking” as formed by the values held by leaders of western or non-islamic nations. Its “materialism, egoism and wildness” has altered Christianity, he claimed.
Krekar, who’s been supported by the Norwegian government since arriving as a refugee from northern Iraq in the early 1990s, now faces deportation after violating the terms of his refugee status and being deemed a threat to national security.
Krekar told Dagbladet that he favours Islamic rule where political and religious leaders are one and the same. One such leader he respects, he said, is Osama bin Laden. “Osama bin Laden is a good person,” Krekar said. He claimed Osama bin Laden is considered a terrorist simply because he lacks his own state.
“Those who say Osama bin Laden is a terrorist are themselves killing our women and children,” Krekar said.
Attempts to “spread democracy,” he claimed, are merely a ruse to wage war against Islam, adding that “the West destroyed the Taliban regime in Afghanistan” because “it feared the Islamic state.”
Agora has translated the full interview: Mullah Krekar: Islam will be Victorious against the West.
Here is the MP3 of William S. Burroughs’ Seven Souls, as heard during the first few minutes of Sunday night’s episode of The Sopranos.
Monday, March 13, 2006
William S. Burrough's Kicks Off New Sopranos
The ancient Egyptians postulated seven souls, Top soul, and the first to leave at the moment of death, is Ren, the Secret Name. This corresponds to my Director, He directs the film of your life from conception to death. The Secret Name is the title of your film. When you die, that's where Ren came in. Second soul, and second one off the sinking ship, is Sekem: Energy, Power, Light The Director gives the orders, Sekem presses the right buttons. Number three is Khu, the Guardian Angel. He, she, or it is third man out . . . depicted as flying away across a full moon, a bird with luminous wings and head of light. Sort of thing you might see on a screen in an Indian restaurant in Panama. The Khu is responsible for the subject and can be injured in his defense- but not permanently, since the first three souls are eternal. They go beck to Heaven for another vessel.
The four remaining souls must take their chances with the subject in the Land of the Dead. Number four is Ba, the heart, often treacherous. This is a hawk's body with your face on it, shrunk down to the size of a fist. Many a hero has been brought down, like Samson, by a perfidious Ba. Number five is Ka, the Double, most closely associated with the subject. The Ka, which usually reaches adolescence at the time of bodily death, is the only reliable guide through the Land of the Dead to the western Lands. Number six is Khaibit, the Shadow, Memory, your whole past conditioning from this and other lives. Number seven is Sekhu, the Remains. I first encountered this concept in Norman Mailer's, Ancient Evenings, and saw that it corresponded precisely with my own mythology, developed over a period of many years, since birth in fact. Ren, the Director, the Secret Name, is your life story, your destiny-in one word or one sentence, what was your life about? Nixon: Watergate. Billy the Kid: Quien es? And what is the Ren of the Director? Actors frantically packing in thousands of furnished rooms and theatrical hotels: "Don't bother with all that junk, John. The Director is on stage! And you know what that means in show biz: every man for himself." Sekem corresponds to my Technician: Lights. Action. Camera. ' "Look, boss, we don't got enough Sek to fry an elderly woman in a fleabag hotel fire. And you want a hurricane?" "Well, Joe, we'll just have to start faking it" "Fucking moguls don't even know what buttons to push or what happens when you push them. Sure; start faking it and leave the details to Joe." Look, from a real disaster you get a pig of Sek: sacrifice, tears, heartbreak, heroism and violent death. Always remember, one case of VD yields more Sek than a cancer ward. And you get the lowest acts of which humans are capable-remember the Italian steward who put on women's clothes and so filched a seat in a lifeboat? "A cur in human shape, certainly he was born and saved to set a new standard by which to judge infamy and shame." With a Sek surplus you can underwrite the next one, but if the first one's a fake you can't underwrite a shithouse. Sekem is second man out: 'No power left in this set" He drinks a bicarbonate of soda and disappears in a belch. Lots of people don't have a Khu these days. No Khu would work for them. Mafioso Don: "Get offa me, Khu crumb! Worka for a living!" Ba, the Heart: that's sex. Always treacherous. Suck all the Sek out of a man. Many Bas, have poison juices. The Ka is about the only soul a man can trust. If you don't make it, he don't make it. But it is very difficult to contact your real Ka. Sekhu is the physical body, and the planet is mostly populated with walking Sekhus, just enough Sek to keep them moving. The Venusian invasion is a takeover of the souls. Ren is degraded by Hollywood down to John Wayne levels. Sekem works for the Company. The Khus are all transparent fakes. The Bas is rotten with AIDS. The Ka is paralyzed. Khaibit sits on yon like a nagging wife. Sekhu is poisoned with radiation and contaminants and cancer. There is intrigue among the souls, and treachery. No worse fate can befall a man than to be surrounded by traitor souls. And what about Mr. Eight-Ball, who has these souls? They don't exist without him, and he gets the dirty end of every stick. Eights of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your dirty rotten vampires: A hundred years ago there were rat-killing .dogs known as "Fancies." A man bet on his "Fancy," how many rata he would kill. The rats were confined in a circular arena too high for a rat to jump over. But they formed pyramids, so that the top rats could escape. Sekhu is bottom rat in the pyramid. Like the vital bottom integer in a serial, when that goes, the whole serial universe gone up in smoke. It never existed. Angelic boys who walk on water, sweet inhuman voices from a distant star. The Khu, sweet -bird of night, with luminous wings and a head of light, flies across the full moon . . . a born-again redneck raise's his shotgun. . . . "Stinkin' Khu!" The Egyptians recognized many degrees of immortality. The Ren and the Sekem and the Khu are relatively immortal, but still subject to injury. The other souls who survive physical death are much more precariously situated. Can any soul survive the searing fireball of an atomic blast? If humans and animal souls are seen as electromagnetic force fields, such fields could be totally disrupted by a nuclear explosion. The mummy's 'nightmare: disintegration of souls, and this is precisely the ultrasecret and supersensitive function of the atom bomb: a Soul Killer, to alleviate an escalating soul glut.
The four remaining souls must take their chances with the subject in the Land of the Dead. Number four is Ba, the heart, often treacherous. This is a hawk's body with your face on it, shrunk down to the size of a fist. Many a hero has been brought down, like Samson, by a perfidious Ba. Number five is Ka, the Double, most closely associated with the subject. The Ka, which usually reaches adolescence at the time of bodily death, is the only reliable guide through the Land of the Dead to the western Lands. Number six is Khaibit, the Shadow, Memory, your whole past conditioning from this and other lives. Number seven is Sekhu, the Remains. I first encountered this concept in Norman Mailer's, Ancient Evenings, and saw that it corresponded precisely with my own mythology, developed over a period of many years, since birth in fact. Ren, the Director, the Secret Name, is your life story, your destiny-in one word or one sentence, what was your life about? Nixon: Watergate. Billy the Kid: Quien es? And what is the Ren of the Director? Actors frantically packing in thousands of furnished rooms and theatrical hotels: "Don't bother with all that junk, John. The Director is on stage! And you know what that means in show biz: every man for himself." Sekem corresponds to my Technician: Lights. Action. Camera. ' "Look, boss, we don't got enough Sek to fry an elderly woman in a fleabag hotel fire. And you want a hurricane?" "Well, Joe, we'll just have to start faking it" "Fucking moguls don't even know what buttons to push or what happens when you push them. Sure; start faking it and leave the details to Joe." Look, from a real disaster you get a pig of Sek: sacrifice, tears, heartbreak, heroism and violent death. Always remember, one case of VD yields more Sek than a cancer ward. And you get the lowest acts of which humans are capable-remember the Italian steward who put on women's clothes and so filched a seat in a lifeboat? "A cur in human shape, certainly he was born and saved to set a new standard by which to judge infamy and shame." With a Sek surplus you can underwrite the next one, but if the first one's a fake you can't underwrite a shithouse. Sekem is second man out: 'No power left in this set" He drinks a bicarbonate of soda and disappears in a belch. Lots of people don't have a Khu these days. No Khu would work for them. Mafioso Don: "Get offa me, Khu crumb! Worka for a living!" Ba, the Heart: that's sex. Always treacherous. Suck all the Sek out of a man. Many Bas, have poison juices. The Ka is about the only soul a man can trust. If you don't make it, he don't make it. But it is very difficult to contact your real Ka. Sekhu is the physical body, and the planet is mostly populated with walking Sekhus, just enough Sek to keep them moving. The Venusian invasion is a takeover of the souls. Ren is degraded by Hollywood down to John Wayne levels. Sekem works for the Company. The Khus are all transparent fakes. The Bas is rotten with AIDS. The Ka is paralyzed. Khaibit sits on yon like a nagging wife. Sekhu is poisoned with radiation and contaminants and cancer. There is intrigue among the souls, and treachery. No worse fate can befall a man than to be surrounded by traitor souls. And what about Mr. Eight-Ball, who has these souls? They don't exist without him, and he gets the dirty end of every stick. Eights of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your dirty rotten vampires: A hundred years ago there were rat-killing .dogs known as "Fancies." A man bet on his "Fancy," how many rata he would kill. The rats were confined in a circular arena too high for a rat to jump over. But they formed pyramids, so that the top rats could escape. Sekhu is bottom rat in the pyramid. Like the vital bottom integer in a serial, when that goes, the whole serial universe gone up in smoke. It never existed. Angelic boys who walk on water, sweet inhuman voices from a distant star. The Khu, sweet -bird of night, with luminous wings and a head of light, flies across the full moon . . . a born-again redneck raise's his shotgun. . . . "Stinkin' Khu!" The Egyptians recognized many degrees of immortality. The Ren and the Sekem and the Khu are relatively immortal, but still subject to injury. The other souls who survive physical death are much more precariously situated. Can any soul survive the searing fireball of an atomic blast? If humans and animal souls are seen as electromagnetic force fields, such fields could be totally disrupted by a nuclear explosion. The mummy's 'nightmare: disintegration of souls, and this is precisely the ultrasecret and supersensitive function of the atom bomb: a Soul Killer, to alleviate an escalating soul glut.
Hero
For Muslim Who Says Violence Destroys Islam, Violent Threats
By JOHN M. BRODER
LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.
Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.
She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.
Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.
In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.
"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.
Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."
Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."
She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."
She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.
She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.
DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."
"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."
The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."
Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.
But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.
"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."
She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.
After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.
BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.
An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.
In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."
Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.
Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."
She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."
Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.
"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."
By JOHN M. BRODER
LOS ANGELES, March 10 — Three weeks ago, Dr. Wafa Sultan was a largely unknown Syrian-American psychiatrist living outside Los Angeles, nursing a deep anger and despair about her fellow Muslims.
Today, thanks to an unusually blunt and provocative interview on Al Jazeera television on Feb. 21, she is an international sensation, hailed as a fresh voice of reason by some, and by others as a heretic and infidel who deserves to die.
In the interview, which has been viewed on the Internet more than a million times and has reached the e-mail of hundreds of thousands around the world, Dr. Sultan bitterly criticized the Muslim clerics, holy warriors and political leaders who she believes have distorted the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran for 14 centuries.
She said the world's Muslims, whom she compares unfavorably with the Jews, have descended into a vortex of self-pity and violence.
Dr. Sultan said the world was not witnessing a clash of religions or cultures, but a battle between modernity and barbarism, a battle that the forces of violent, reactionary Islam are destined to lose.
In response, clerics throughout the Muslim world have condemned her, and her telephone answering machine has filled with dark threats. But Islamic reformers have praised her for saying out loud, in Arabic and on the most widely seen television network in the Arab world, what few Muslims dare to say even in private.
"I believe our people are hostages to our own beliefs and teachings," she said in an interview this week in her home in a Los Angeles suburb.
Dr. Sultan, who is 47, wears a prim sweater and skirt, with fleece-lined slippers and heavy stockings. Her eyes and hair are jet black and her modest manner belies her intense words: "Knowledge has released me from this backward thinking. Somebody has to help free the Muslim people from these wrong beliefs."
Perhaps her most provocative words on Al Jazeera were those comparing how the Jews and Muslims have reacted to adversity. Speaking of the Holocaust, she said, "The Jews have come from the tragedy and forced the world to respect them, with their knowledge, not with their terror; with their work, not with their crying and yelling."
She went on, "We have not seen a single Jew blow himself up in a German restaurant. We have not seen a single Jew destroy a church. We have not seen a single Jew protest by killing people."
She concluded, "Only the Muslims defend their beliefs by burning down churches, killing people and destroying embassies. This path will not yield any results. The Muslims must ask themselves what they can do for humankind, before they demand that humankind respect them."
Her views caught the ear of the American Jewish Congress, which has invited her to speak in May at a conference in Israel. "We have been discussing with her the importance of her message and trying to devise the right venue for her to address Jewish leaders," said Neil B. Goldstein, executive director of the organization.
She is probably more welcome in Tel Aviv than she would be in Damascus. Shortly after the broadcast, clerics in Syria denounced her as an infidel. One said she had done Islam more damage than the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet Muhammad, a wire service reported.
DR. SULTAN is "working on a book that — if it is published — it's going to turn the Islamic world upside down."
"I have reached the point that doesn't allow any U-turn. I have no choice. I am questioning every single teaching of our holy book."
The working title is, "The Escaped Prisoner: When God Is a Monster."
Dr. Sultan grew up in a large traditional Muslim family in Banias, Syria, a small city on the Mediterranean about a two-hour drive north of Beirut. Her father was a grain trader and a devout Muslim, and she followed the faith's strictures into adulthood.
But, she said, her life changed in 1979 when she was a medical student at the University of Aleppo, in northern Syria. At that time, the radical Muslim Brotherhood was using terrorism to try to undermine the government of President Hafez al-Assad. Gunmen of the Muslim Brotherhood burst into a classroom at the university and killed her professor as she watched, she said.
"They shot hundreds of bullets into him, shouting, 'God is great!' " she said. "At that point, I lost my trust in their god and began to question all our teachings. It was the turning point of my life, and it has led me to this present point. I had to leave. I had to look for another god."
She and her husband, who now goes by the Americanized name of David, laid plans to leave for the United States. Their visas finally came in 1989, and the Sultans and their two children (they have since had a third) settled in with friends in Cerritos, Calif., a prosperous bedroom community on the edge of Los Angeles County.
After a succession of jobs and struggles with language, Dr. Sultan has completed her American medical licensing, with the exception of a hospital residency program, which she hopes to do within a year. David operates an automotive-smog-check station. They bought a home in the Los Angeles area and put their children through local public schools. All are now American citizens.
BUT even as she settled into a comfortable middle-class American life, Dr. Sultan's anger burned within. She took to writing, first for herself, then for an Islamic reform Web site called Annaqed (The Critic), run by a Syrian expatriate in Phoenix.
An angry essay on that site by Dr. Sultan about the Muslim Brotherhood caught the attention of Al Jazeera, which invited her to debate an Algerian cleric on the air last July.
In the debate, she questioned the religious teachings that prompt young people to commit suicide in the name of God. "Why does a young Muslim man, in the prime of life, with a full life ahead, go and blow himself up?" she asked. "In our countries, religion is the sole source of education and is the only spring from which that terrorist drank until his thirst was quenched."
Her remarks set off debates around the globe and her name began appearing in Arabic newspapers and Web sites. But her fame grew exponentially when she appeared on Al Jazeera again on Feb. 21, an appearance that was translated and widely distributed by the Middle East Media Research Institute, known as Memri.
Memri said the clip of her February appearance had been viewed more than a million times.
"The clash we are witnessing around the world is not a clash of religions or a clash of civilizations," Dr. Sultan said. "It is a clash between two opposites, between two eras. It is a clash between a mentality that belongs to the Middle Ages and another mentality that belongs to the 21st century. It is a clash between civilization and backwardness, between the civilized and the primitive, between barbarity and rationality."
She said she no longer practiced Islam. "I am a secular human being," she said.
The other guest on the program, identified as an Egyptian professor of religious studies, Dr. Ibrahim al-Khouli, asked, "Are you a heretic?" He then said there was no point in rebuking or debating her, because she had blasphemed against Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Koran.
Dr. Sultan said she took those words as a formal fatwa, a religious condemnation. Since then, she said, she has received numerous death threats on her answering machine and by e-mail.
One message said: "Oh, you are still alive? Wait and see." She received an e-mail message the other day, in Arabic, that said, "If someone were to kill you, it would be me."
Dr. Sultan said her mother, who still lives in Syria, is afraid to contact her directly, speaking only through a sister who lives in Qatar. She said she worried more about the safety of family members here and in Syria than she did for her own.
"I have no fear," she said. "I believe in my message. It is like a million-mile journey, and I believe I have walked the first and hardest 10 miles."
Bunker
Iran builds a secret underground complex as nuclear tensions rise
By Philip Sherwell in Washington(Filed: 12/03/2006)
"Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
The complex of rooms and offices beneath the Abbas Abad district in the north of the capital is designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters for the country's rulers as military tensions mount.
The recently completed command centre is connected by tunnels to other government compounds near the Mossala prayer ground, one of the city's most important religious sites.
Offices of the state security forces, the energy department and the Organisation of Islamic Culture and Communications are all located in the same area."
By Philip Sherwell in Washington(Filed: 12/03/2006)
"Iran's leaders have built a secret underground emergency command centre in Teheran as they prepare for a confrontation with the West over their illicit nuclear programme, the Sunday Telegraph has been told.
The complex of rooms and offices beneath the Abbas Abad district in the north of the capital is designed to serve as a bolthole and headquarters for the country's rulers as military tensions mount.
The recently completed command centre is connected by tunnels to other government compounds near the Mossala prayer ground, one of the city's most important religious sites.
Offices of the state security forces, the energy department and the Organisation of Islamic Culture and Communications are all located in the same area."
fighting words
The End of Fukuyama
Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 6:59 AM ET
I have a feeling that last week was a disappointing one for Francis Fukuyama, whose essay "After Neoconservatism" (adapted from his upcoming book America at the Crossroads) was awarded seven pages in the Feb. 19 New York Times Magazine. The anti-Danish mayhem that had been dominating the news was surpassed by the fantastic criminality and sacrilege in Samarra, and nobody seemed to have time for the best-advertised defection from the neocon ranks. This, I think, is a pity, since the essay exhibits several points of interest.
However, it must also be said that Fukuyama himself made it hard for people to concentrate on his words. There appears to be an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside his word processor, so that he has only to touch the keyboard for one of them to spring abruptly onto the page. Thus, in the first paragraph, we are told that Iraq has become "a magnet" for jihadists, later that democracy-promotion has been attacked both from the left and (gasp) the right, later that neocons have issues with "overreaching," and soon after that "it is not an accident" that many neoconservatives started out as "Trotskyites."
Not everyone will appreciate the unironic beauty of those last two formulations; they will appeal most to the few who are connoisseurs of leftist sectarianism. The opening words, "It is no accident, comrades," used to be the dead giveaway of a wooden Stalinist hack (who would also make use of the deliberately diminishing term Trotskyite instead of Trotskyist). And these nuances matter, because Fukuyama now tells us that the book that made him famous, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), "presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism." Alas, the purity of his Marxism was soon to be corrupted by the likes of William Kristol and Robert Kagan, whose position was "by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States." Pause to note, then, that even the advocate of the new foreign-policy "realism" feels compelled to borrow the most overused anti-Hegelian line from Karl Marx's 18th Brumaire.
For all this show of knowledge about the arcana of Marxism and Straussianism, Fukuyama's actual applications of them are surprisingly thin. It is not even a parody of the Trotskyist position to say that the lesson they drew from Stalinism was "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes." Nor is it even half-true to say, of those who advocated an intervention in Iraq, that they concluded "that the 'root cause' of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq."
The first requirement of anyone engaging in an intellectual or academic debate is that he or she be able to give a proper account of the opposing position(s), and Fukuyama simply fails this test. The term "root causes" was always employed ironically (as the term "political correctness" used to be) as a weapon against those whose naive opinions about the sources of discontent were summarized in that phrase. It wasn't that the Middle East "lacked democracy" so much that one of its keystone states was dominated by an unstable and destabilizing dictatorship led by a psychopath. And it wasn't any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement. The charge that used to be leveled against the neoconservatives was that they had wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein (pause for significant lowering of voice) even before Sept. 11, 2001. And that "accusation," as Fukuyama well knows, was essentially true—and to their credit.
The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering "yes" thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like "magnet," he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.
That's why last week was a poor one for him to pick. Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)
In the face of this global threat and its recent and alarmingly rapid projection onto European and American soil, Fukuyama proposes beefing up "the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like." You might expect a citation from a Pew poll at about this point, and, don't worry, he doesn't leave that out, either. But I have to admire that vague and lazy closing phrase "and the like." Hegel meets Karen Hughes! Perhaps some genius at the CIA is even now preparing to subsidize a new version of Encounter magazine to be circulated among the intellectuals of Kashmir or Kabul or Kazakhstan? Not such a bad idea in itself, perhaps, but no substitute for having a battle-hardened army that has actually learned from fighting in the terrible conditions of rogue-state/failed-state combat. Is anyone so blind as to suppose that we shall not be needing this hard-bought experience in the future?
I have my own criticisms both of my one-time Trotskyist comrades and of my temporary neocon allies, but it can be said of the former that they saw Hitlerism and Stalinism coming—and also saw that the two foes would one day fuse together—and so did what they could to sound the alarm. And it can be said of the latter (which, alas, it can't be said of the former) that they looked at Milosevic and Saddam and the Taliban and realized that they would have to be confronted sooner rather than later. Fukuyama's essay betrays a secret academic wish to be living in "normal" times once more, times that will "restore the authority of foreign policy 'realists' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger." Fat chance, Francis! Kissinger is moribund, and the memory of his failed dictator's club is too fresh to be dignified with the term "tradition." If you can't have a sense of policy, you should at least try to have a sense of history. America at the Crossroads evidently has neither.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/
The End of Fukuyama
Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Wednesday, March 1, 2006, at 6:59 AM ET
I have a feeling that last week was a disappointing one for Francis Fukuyama, whose essay "After Neoconservatism" (adapted from his upcoming book America at the Crossroads) was awarded seven pages in the Feb. 19 New York Times Magazine. The anti-Danish mayhem that had been dominating the news was surpassed by the fantastic criminality and sacrilege in Samarra, and nobody seemed to have time for the best-advertised defection from the neocon ranks. This, I think, is a pity, since the essay exhibits several points of interest.
However, it must also be said that Fukuyama himself made it hard for people to concentrate on his words. There appears to be an arsenal of clichés and stock expressions located somewhere inside his word processor, so that he has only to touch the keyboard for one of them to spring abruptly onto the page. Thus, in the first paragraph, we are told that Iraq has become "a magnet" for jihadists, later that democracy-promotion has been attacked both from the left and (gasp) the right, later that neocons have issues with "overreaching," and soon after that "it is not an accident" that many neoconservatives started out as "Trotskyites."
Not everyone will appreciate the unironic beauty of those last two formulations; they will appeal most to the few who are connoisseurs of leftist sectarianism. The opening words, "It is no accident, comrades," used to be the dead giveaway of a wooden Stalinist hack (who would also make use of the deliberately diminishing term Trotskyite instead of Trotskyist). And these nuances matter, because Fukuyama now tells us that the book that made him famous, The End of History and the Last Man (1992), "presented a kind of Marxist argument for the existence of a long-term process of social evolution, but one that terminates in liberal democracy rather than communism." Alas, the purity of his Marxism was soon to be corrupted by the likes of William Kristol and Robert Kagan, whose position was "by contrast, Leninist; they believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States." Pause to note, then, that even the advocate of the new foreign-policy "realism" feels compelled to borrow the most overused anti-Hegelian line from Karl Marx's 18th Brumaire.
For all this show of knowledge about the arcana of Marxism and Straussianism, Fukuyama's actual applications of them are surprisingly thin. It is not even a parody of the Trotskyist position to say that the lesson they drew from Stalinism was "the danger of good intentions carried to extremes." Nor is it even half-true to say, of those who advocated an intervention in Iraq, that they concluded "that the 'root cause' of terrorism lay in the Middle East's lack of democracy, that the United States had both the wisdom and the ability to fix this problem and that democracy would come quickly and painlessly to Iraq."
The first requirement of anyone engaging in an intellectual or academic debate is that he or she be able to give a proper account of the opposing position(s), and Fukuyama simply fails this test. The term "root causes" was always employed ironically (as the term "political correctness" used to be) as a weapon against those whose naive opinions about the sources of discontent were summarized in that phrase. It wasn't that the Middle East "lacked democracy" so much that one of its keystone states was dominated by an unstable and destabilizing dictatorship led by a psychopath. And it wasn't any illusion about the speed and ease of a transition so much as the conviction that any change would be an improvement. The charge that used to be leveled against the neoconservatives was that they had wanted to get rid of Saddam Hussein (pause for significant lowering of voice) even before Sept. 11, 2001. And that "accusation," as Fukuyama well knows, was essentially true—and to their credit.
The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering "yes" thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like "magnet," he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.
That's why last week was a poor one for him to pick. Surely the huge spasm of Islamist hysteria over caricatures published in Copenhagen shows that there is no possible Western insurance against doing something that will inflame jihadists? The sheer audacity and evil of destroying the shrine of the 12th imam is part of an inter-Muslim civil war that had begun long before the forces of al-Qaida decided to exploit that war and also to export it to non-Muslim soil. Yes, we did indeed underestimate the ferocity and ruthlessness of the jihadists in Iraq. Where, one might inquire, have we not underestimated those forces and their virulence? (We are currently underestimating them in Nigeria, for example, which is plainly next on the Bin Laden hit list and about which I have been boring on ever since Bin Laden was good enough to warn us in the fall of 2004.)
In the face of this global threat and its recent and alarmingly rapid projection onto European and American soil, Fukuyama proposes beefing up "the State Department, U.S.A.I.D., the National Endowment for Democracy and the like." You might expect a citation from a Pew poll at about this point, and, don't worry, he doesn't leave that out, either. But I have to admire that vague and lazy closing phrase "and the like." Hegel meets Karen Hughes! Perhaps some genius at the CIA is even now preparing to subsidize a new version of Encounter magazine to be circulated among the intellectuals of Kashmir or Kabul or Kazakhstan? Not such a bad idea in itself, perhaps, but no substitute for having a battle-hardened army that has actually learned from fighting in the terrible conditions of rogue-state/failed-state combat. Is anyone so blind as to suppose that we shall not be needing this hard-bought experience in the future?
I have my own criticisms both of my one-time Trotskyist comrades and of my temporary neocon allies, but it can be said of the former that they saw Hitlerism and Stalinism coming—and also saw that the two foes would one day fuse together—and so did what they could to sound the alarm. And it can be said of the latter (which, alas, it can't be said of the former) that they looked at Milosevic and Saddam and the Taliban and realized that they would have to be confronted sooner rather than later. Fukuyama's essay betrays a secret academic wish to be living in "normal" times once more, times that will "restore the authority of foreign policy 'realists' in the tradition of Henry Kissinger." Fat chance, Francis! Kissinger is moribund, and the memory of his failed dictator's club is too fresh to be dignified with the term "tradition." If you can't have a sense of policy, you should at least try to have a sense of history. America at the Crossroads evidently has neither.
Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. His most recent book is Thomas Jefferson: Author of America. His most recent collection of essays is titled Love, Poverty, and War.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2137134/
Friday, March 10, 2006
Peggy Noonan on Hollywood
"Which gets us to George Clooney, and his work. George Clooney is Hollywood now. He is charming and beautiful and cool, but he is not Orson Welles. I know that's like saying of an artist that he's no Rembrandt, but bear with me because I have a point that I think is worth making.
Orson Welles was an artist. George Clooney is a fellow who read an article and now wants to tell us the truth, if we can handle it.
More important, Orson Welles had a canny respect for the audience while maintaining a difficult relationship with studio executives, whom he approached as if they were his intellectual and artistic inferiors. George Clooney has a canny respect for the Hollywood establishment, for its executives and agents, and treats his audience as if it were composed of his intellectual and artistic inferiors. (He is not alone in this. He is only this year's example.)
And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them. He must teach them about racial tolerance and speaking truth to power, etc. He must teach them to be brave. And so in his acceptance speech for best supporting actor the other night he instructed the audience about Hollywood's courage in making movies about AIDS, and recognizing the work of Hattie McDaniel with an Oscar.
Was his speech wholly without merit? No. It was a response and not an attack, and it appears to have been impromptu. Mr. Clooney presumably didn't know Jon Stewart would tease the audience for being out of touch, and he wanted to argue that out of touch isn't all bad. Fair enough. It is hard to think on your feet in front of 38 million people, and most of his critics will never try it or have to. (This is a problem with modern media: Only the doer understands the degree of difficulty.)
But Mr. Clooney's remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don't think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn't even know he's not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.
How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.
Most Americans aren't leading media, they're leading lives. It would be nice to see a new respect in Hollywood for the lives they live. It would be nice to see them start to understand that rediscovering the work of, say, C.S. Lewis, and making a Narnia film, is not "giving in" to the audience but serving it. It isn't bad to look for and present good material that is known to have a following. It's a smart thing to do. It's why David O. Selznick bought "Gone With the Wind": People were reading it. It was his decision to make it into a movie from which he would profit that gave Hattie McDaniel her great role. Taboos are broken by markets, not poses."
Orson Welles was an artist. George Clooney is a fellow who read an article and now wants to tell us the truth, if we can handle it.
More important, Orson Welles had a canny respect for the audience while maintaining a difficult relationship with studio executives, whom he approached as if they were his intellectual and artistic inferiors. George Clooney has a canny respect for the Hollywood establishment, for its executives and agents, and treats his audience as if it were composed of his intellectual and artistic inferiors. (He is not alone in this. He is only this year's example.)
And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them. He must teach them about racial tolerance and speaking truth to power, etc. He must teach them to be brave. And so in his acceptance speech for best supporting actor the other night he instructed the audience about Hollywood's courage in making movies about AIDS, and recognizing the work of Hattie McDaniel with an Oscar.
Was his speech wholly without merit? No. It was a response and not an attack, and it appears to have been impromptu. Mr. Clooney presumably didn't know Jon Stewart would tease the audience for being out of touch, and he wanted to argue that out of touch isn't all bad. Fair enough. It is hard to think on your feet in front of 38 million people, and most of his critics will never try it or have to. (This is a problem with modern media: Only the doer understands the degree of difficulty.)
But Mr. Clooney's remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don't think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn't even know he's not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.
How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they've experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven't experienced life; they've experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.
Most Americans aren't leading media, they're leading lives. It would be nice to see a new respect in Hollywood for the lives they live. It would be nice to see them start to understand that rediscovering the work of, say, C.S. Lewis, and making a Narnia film, is not "giving in" to the audience but serving it. It isn't bad to look for and present good material that is known to have a following. It's a smart thing to do. It's why David O. Selznick bought "Gone With the Wind": People were reading it. It was his decision to make it into a movie from which he would profit that gave Hattie McDaniel her great role. Taboos are broken by markets, not poses."
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Let it Roll Indeed
Iran fears the blind, toothless United Nations so much that today an Iranian delegation threatened the United States in a meeting of the IAEA.
“The United States has the power to cause harm and pain,” said a statement delivered by the Iranian delegation. “But the United States is also susceptible to harm and pain. So if that is the path that the U.S. wishes to choose, let the ball roll.”
The Senate has decided not to investigate the NSA program, and there is no joy in moonbatland today; The Real Ugly American has a look at the pitiful thrashing and moaning at Glenn Greenwald’s blog.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Policy Primer
States of Insecurity
The Atlantic recently asked a group of foreign policy authorities—selected for their breadth of knowledge and first-hand experience in international affairs—about threats facing the U.S. and the allies that will be instrumental in confronting them.
.....
Q: Which states will pose the greatest overall threats to U.S. security over the next decade, either directly or indirectly? (38 votes)
1. Iran 2. North Korea 3. Pakistan 4. China 5. Saudi Arabia 6. Iraq 7. Russia Write-ins: Egypt, Venezuela (one vote each)
On Iran
"The first new hostile nuclear power in almost half a century."
"A nuclear-armed Iran under radical leadership would destabilize the entire Middle East, threaten Israel's survival, and enable Iran to sponsor terrorism against the U.S. and our allies while meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity."
"If Iran's leadership (as it appears) is recovering its revolutionary impulse, we face a future of destabilizing activities in the region."
"Iran has a combination of nuclear program, continued support for terrorist groups and reactionary states, and growing regional influence especially with Shia dominated Iraq."
"We are heading toward the Cuban missile crisis in terms of their nuclear program."
"Unless both the U.S. and Iran shift course, this could become a major threat to U.S. security; [much depends] on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of leaders."
On North Korea
"North Korea represents the biggest immediate nuclear proliferation threat. Nothing should give us comfort that North Korea will not sell nukes to Al Qaeda or other U.S. adversaries, or even start a conflict threatening US forces and interests on the Korean peninsula. The failure of the Bush administration, distracted by a non-nuclear Iraq, to deal effectively with the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea constitutes the single most serious failure of U.S. national security policy in a generation."
"Their nuclear program, history of proliferation, and political instability could ignite a regional crisis."
"The big problem here is what happens when the regime starts to implode. That could be very messy."
"North Korea will not last the decade. It will collapse, hopefully peacefully, and be absorbed by South Korea. We will then have a pro-Western but potentially nuclear unified Korea which will be a challenge but also a potential ally. It will not be a threat to our interests."
On Pakistan
"Pakistan could become number one on this list in a heart beat, if Musharraf is toppled in a coup by radicals with the willingness to use or transfer nuclear weapons."
"In the next ten years, the most likely threats to U.S. security will come from states disintegrating rather than from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan tops the list – it is a weak state, with uncertain control over nuclear weapons, and home to various terrorists groups that remain largely beyond the control of the state security forces."
"Pakistan is a very unstable government with nuclear weapons and a radicalizing security establishment."
"The problem in the war on terror is our 'friends' as much as our enemies. The worst kept secret in the world is that we are not allowed to debrief A.Q. Khan [the father of Pakistan's nuclear program now under house arrest for transferring nuclear technology to other states] because he'd tell us what we already know and fear to confirm—the generals were in on the proliferation scam with him."
On China
"China will threaten U.S. security indirectly as a consequence of: its insatiable thirst for oil and its willingness to do anything to compete for access to secure energy supplies; its growing economic, technological and military power; and the fact that it holds large quantities of U.S. debt."
"Our long term interests just don't line up well; they want to be the dominant power in East Asia and we are the dominant power in East Asia."
"A rising power with more political and diplomatic challenges than military challenges, but they are modernizing a military establishment in ways that we need to pay very close attention to."
"China is increasingly complicating American and European international actions, especially toward the Middle East."
"China may or may not be a major threat over time. It is not now."
On Saudi Arabia
"More democracy would just bring worse Wahhabists to power. On the other hand, the members of the corrupt ruling family are hardly poster children for [responsibility]; supporting them is to court long-term disaster. Either way, this is a major problem."
On Iraq
"Iraq represents a massive diversion of our energies, the prospect of a radically destabilized region, and a massive erosion in the perception of our power and moral authority."
"Iraq is our most immediate challenge. If we fail to create an independent state with a reasonably good chance of long term viability our global position—and our ability to influence events in the Middle East—will be so degraded that it will be difficult to predict future threats."
"If that doesn't go right, after all the American blood and resources, then we're in for real trouble by a bolstered radical Islamic ideology."
On Russia
"Russia will continue its slide into authoritarianism and dictatorship and will increasingly challenge Western interests, albeit largely on [the West's] periphery."
"Russia will be a continued challenge for the U.S., with disagreements over regional issues and attempts [by Russia] to play the energy card, but it will not be a direct security threat."
Q: What country will be the United States' most indispensable ally over the next decade?
1. Britain 2. Japan 3. The European Union 4. Germany, India, NATO, and Russia (1 vote each)
On Britain
"Easily our largest foreign direct investor (and vice versa), a country with real military and diplomatic capability, and political ties that are so close we take them for granted. The strategic realities underwriting the romance of the alliance is unlikely to change. It's not just about glorious Churchill/Roosevelt jokes or the glory days of Reagan and Thatcher. As prime minister Blair has shown, whether it's his 'friendship' with Clinton or Bush, at base it's about shared interests as much as shared values. That's why it's likely to endure."
"Current history has demonstrated that the end of the Cold War, the instabilities in part a consequence of that event, and a U.S. prepared to flex its muscles with less regard for the "good opinion" of others could all affect how we relate to the U.K. to a degree. Do not misunderstand me: I believe that independent "muscle flexing" will be an absolute necessity if we are to preserve any semblance of global stability."
"She's about all we can count on at this point so long as President Bush is in office and provided Blair's successor does not feel compelled to differentiate himself by distancing himself from Washington."
"Because for any significant use of force an American president will need to show that at least the Brits are on board. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan will all be of significant help to Washington over the next decades on particular issues."
"The only country that has will and capabilities to project force around the world with which America has a strategic convergence on most issues."
On Japan
"Japan ... should be a central pillar of stability in a rapidly changing East Asia."
"Our closest, richest, and strongest ally in the most important region of the world."
"I see over the next thirty years the rise of China is our greatest strategic challenge. We don't want that to become adversarial, but we can't afford to have Japan allied with China against our interests. So Japan becomes the key in this important (but narrow) dimension."
On The European Union
"As the trend for greater coordination of E.U. foreign policies continues, it is still the most capable and like minded partner for broadest range of issues."
"Because for all the differences in interest and diplomatic approach to world problems our interests and values are still closest to theirs, and they still do have significant influence."
On Allies Generally
"It is enormously valuable to have allies to work with in the world, but no ally should be thought of as indispensable. The term implies that we would not be willing or able to defend our interests unless that ally agreed with us and worked with us to do so. No ally, however, has such control over us."
"We must reconstitute 20th century alliances, particularly including nato with a new, broader mandate. Bi-lateral relations will matter less in the 21st century than international alliances."
Poll Participants: Ken Adelman, Madeleine Albright, Graham Allison, Ronald Asmus, Sandy Berger, Daniel Blumenthal, Max Boot, Steven Bosworth, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ivo Daalder, James Dobbins, Lawrence Eagleburger, Leslie Gelb, Marc Grossman, Douglas Feith, John Gaddis, Jay Garner, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Bruce Hoffman, John Hulsman, Robert Hunter, Robert Kagan, David Kay, John Lehman, James Lindsay, Jessica Mathews, William Nash, Joseph Nye, Carlos Pascual, Kenneth Pollack, Thomas Pickering, Joseph Ralston, Wendy Sherman, Ann Marie Slaughter, James Steinberg, Susan Rice, and Anthony Zinni.
The Atlantic recently asked a group of foreign policy authorities—selected for their breadth of knowledge and first-hand experience in international affairs—about threats facing the U.S. and the allies that will be instrumental in confronting them.
.....
Q: Which states will pose the greatest overall threats to U.S. security over the next decade, either directly or indirectly? (38 votes)
1. Iran 2. North Korea 3. Pakistan 4. China 5. Saudi Arabia 6. Iraq 7. Russia Write-ins: Egypt, Venezuela (one vote each)
On Iran
"The first new hostile nuclear power in almost half a century."
"A nuclear-armed Iran under radical leadership would destabilize the entire Middle East, threaten Israel's survival, and enable Iran to sponsor terrorism against the U.S. and our allies while meddling in Iraq and Afghanistan with impunity."
"If Iran's leadership (as it appears) is recovering its revolutionary impulse, we face a future of destabilizing activities in the region."
"Iran has a combination of nuclear program, continued support for terrorist groups and reactionary states, and growing regional influence especially with Shia dominated Iraq."
"We are heading toward the Cuban missile crisis in terms of their nuclear program."
"Unless both the U.S. and Iran shift course, this could become a major threat to U.S. security; [much depends] on the wisdom or lack of wisdom of leaders."
On North Korea
"North Korea represents the biggest immediate nuclear proliferation threat. Nothing should give us comfort that North Korea will not sell nukes to Al Qaeda or other U.S. adversaries, or even start a conflict threatening US forces and interests on the Korean peninsula. The failure of the Bush administration, distracted by a non-nuclear Iraq, to deal effectively with the nuclear threats from Iran and North Korea constitutes the single most serious failure of U.S. national security policy in a generation."
"Their nuclear program, history of proliferation, and political instability could ignite a regional crisis."
"The big problem here is what happens when the regime starts to implode. That could be very messy."
"North Korea will not last the decade. It will collapse, hopefully peacefully, and be absorbed by South Korea. We will then have a pro-Western but potentially nuclear unified Korea which will be a challenge but also a potential ally. It will not be a threat to our interests."
On Pakistan
"Pakistan could become number one on this list in a heart beat, if Musharraf is toppled in a coup by radicals with the willingness to use or transfer nuclear weapons."
"In the next ten years, the most likely threats to U.S. security will come from states disintegrating rather than from rogue states armed with weapons of mass destruction. Pakistan tops the list – it is a weak state, with uncertain control over nuclear weapons, and home to various terrorists groups that remain largely beyond the control of the state security forces."
"Pakistan is a very unstable government with nuclear weapons and a radicalizing security establishment."
"The problem in the war on terror is our 'friends' as much as our enemies. The worst kept secret in the world is that we are not allowed to debrief A.Q. Khan [the father of Pakistan's nuclear program now under house arrest for transferring nuclear technology to other states] because he'd tell us what we already know and fear to confirm—the generals were in on the proliferation scam with him."
On China
"China will threaten U.S. security indirectly as a consequence of: its insatiable thirst for oil and its willingness to do anything to compete for access to secure energy supplies; its growing economic, technological and military power; and the fact that it holds large quantities of U.S. debt."
"Our long term interests just don't line up well; they want to be the dominant power in East Asia and we are the dominant power in East Asia."
"A rising power with more political and diplomatic challenges than military challenges, but they are modernizing a military establishment in ways that we need to pay very close attention to."
"China is increasingly complicating American and European international actions, especially toward the Middle East."
"China may or may not be a major threat over time. It is not now."
On Saudi Arabia
"More democracy would just bring worse Wahhabists to power. On the other hand, the members of the corrupt ruling family are hardly poster children for [responsibility]; supporting them is to court long-term disaster. Either way, this is a major problem."
On Iraq
"Iraq represents a massive diversion of our energies, the prospect of a radically destabilized region, and a massive erosion in the perception of our power and moral authority."
"Iraq is our most immediate challenge. If we fail to create an independent state with a reasonably good chance of long term viability our global position—and our ability to influence events in the Middle East—will be so degraded that it will be difficult to predict future threats."
"If that doesn't go right, after all the American blood and resources, then we're in for real trouble by a bolstered radical Islamic ideology."
On Russia
"Russia will continue its slide into authoritarianism and dictatorship and will increasingly challenge Western interests, albeit largely on [the West's] periphery."
"Russia will be a continued challenge for the U.S., with disagreements over regional issues and attempts [by Russia] to play the energy card, but it will not be a direct security threat."
Q: What country will be the United States' most indispensable ally over the next decade?
1. Britain 2. Japan 3. The European Union 4. Germany, India, NATO, and Russia (1 vote each)
On Britain
"Easily our largest foreign direct investor (and vice versa), a country with real military and diplomatic capability, and political ties that are so close we take them for granted. The strategic realities underwriting the romance of the alliance is unlikely to change. It's not just about glorious Churchill/Roosevelt jokes or the glory days of Reagan and Thatcher. As prime minister Blair has shown, whether it's his 'friendship' with Clinton or Bush, at base it's about shared interests as much as shared values. That's why it's likely to endure."
"Current history has demonstrated that the end of the Cold War, the instabilities in part a consequence of that event, and a U.S. prepared to flex its muscles with less regard for the "good opinion" of others could all affect how we relate to the U.K. to a degree. Do not misunderstand me: I believe that independent "muscle flexing" will be an absolute necessity if we are to preserve any semblance of global stability."
"She's about all we can count on at this point so long as President Bush is in office and provided Blair's successor does not feel compelled to differentiate himself by distancing himself from Washington."
"Because for any significant use of force an American president will need to show that at least the Brits are on board. China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan will all be of significant help to Washington over the next decades on particular issues."
"The only country that has will and capabilities to project force around the world with which America has a strategic convergence on most issues."
On Japan
"Japan ... should be a central pillar of stability in a rapidly changing East Asia."
"Our closest, richest, and strongest ally in the most important region of the world."
"I see over the next thirty years the rise of China is our greatest strategic challenge. We don't want that to become adversarial, but we can't afford to have Japan allied with China against our interests. So Japan becomes the key in this important (but narrow) dimension."
On The European Union
"As the trend for greater coordination of E.U. foreign policies continues, it is still the most capable and like minded partner for broadest range of issues."
"Because for all the differences in interest and diplomatic approach to world problems our interests and values are still closest to theirs, and they still do have significant influence."
On Allies Generally
"It is enormously valuable to have allies to work with in the world, but no ally should be thought of as indispensable. The term implies that we would not be willing or able to defend our interests unless that ally agreed with us and worked with us to do so. No ally, however, has such control over us."
"We must reconstitute 20th century alliances, particularly including nato with a new, broader mandate. Bi-lateral relations will matter less in the 21st century than international alliances."
Poll Participants: Ken Adelman, Madeleine Albright, Graham Allison, Ronald Asmus, Sandy Berger, Daniel Blumenthal, Max Boot, Steven Bosworth, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Ivo Daalder, James Dobbins, Lawrence Eagleburger, Leslie Gelb, Marc Grossman, Douglas Feith, John Gaddis, Jay Garner, John Hamre, Gary Hart, Bruce Hoffman, John Hulsman, Robert Hunter, Robert Kagan, David Kay, John Lehman, James Lindsay, Jessica Mathews, William Nash, Joseph Nye, Carlos Pascual, Kenneth Pollack, Thomas Pickering, Joseph Ralston, Wendy Sherman, Ann Marie Slaughter, James Steinberg, Susan Rice, and Anthony Zinni.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
On Francisco Franco
On Francisco Franco written by Charles Few Americans know much about Francisco Franco, leader of the winning side in the Spanish C...
-
Starálfur Blá Nótt Yfir HimininnBlá Nótt Yfir MérHorf-Inn Út Um GluggannMinn Með HendurFaldar Undir KinnHugsum Daginn MinnÍ Dag Og Í GærBlá ...
-
"From our perspective this is an issue between Colombia and Ecuador," he said. "I'm not sure what this has to do with Ven...
-
OK, Grandma ... put your hands in the air ... slowly ... step away from the bingo machine ... put down the knitting needles...