CONDIPLOMACY

US Secretary of State Condoleezaa Rice holding her ubiquitous imaginary tuna casserole, the key component of her global diplomatic style. After all. who doesn't pretend to like imaginary tuna casserole?

NOTE: Princess Sparkle Pony would argue that Condi is actually fondling her invisible friend and she's probably right as she has a Ms.sters in Condilology as well as having written several treatmeants on Cranial Follicularity. Her link is on my page.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE (US Secretary of State): Hello-o-o…? Hi-ee! It’s me, Condi…anyone home?

FOUAD SINIORA (PM of Lebanon): Wha--? Condi! Qu’elle surprise! Who could have possibly predicted you’d fly over here?

CONDI: No-one, obviously. It’s not like people get PDB’s about that sort of thing.
Anyway, I’d been meaning to come over for ages, but you know how things get some times…so I brought you some tuna casserole….

SINIORA: Well you have your hands in front of you and a few inches apart as though you were holding a casserole dish, but I don’t see anything…

CONDI: Why is it that everywhere I go no one can possibly imagine I’m holding a tuna casserole?

SINIORA: Okay…ummm…well…in that case have some hummus.

CONDI: Hamas?

SINIORA: Never mind. If I’d known you were coming I’d have tidied-up a bit, the house is a mess…

CONDI: Oh no, not on my account. You have a lovely hole…home…. It’s very ….rustic, yet ..post-modern. Did you have it done professionally…?

SINIORA: Funny you should ask. All I know is that I came back from work and bingo, everything was re-arranged! I think it was one of those extreme makeover things…my wife probably arranged it as a surprise.

CONDI: And where is she?

SINIORA: No idea; probably buried in a department store somewhere, you know how she loves to shop…anyway, whatever are you doing here?

CONDI: I know how I love to shop…ha-ha

SINIORA: Ha-ha

CONDI: Anywhoo… I admit this isn’t an entirely social visit…the fact is that there are things going on in the neighborhood that I’m a bit concerned about…

SINIORA: Such as…?

CONDI: Well it seems your boys have been firing rockets into the neighbor’s yard.

SINIORA: Ah yes. boys will be boys you know…what’s the name of yours? George? I’ve heard he can be a bit of a handful too.

CONDI: Well…the Ritalin seems to be helping lately--but never mind that!
The point is that I’m really good friends with your neighbors; and it puts me in a very difficult position and I’m just asking you as a good acquaintance to stop sending rockets over the fence…

SINIORA: Well you know Condi, the boys have always been headstrong and I’m afraid they really don’t listen to me anymore… just like your George.

CONDI: George has nothing to do with it. The point is that your boys have been firing rockets over the fence ever since they kidnapped the neighbors’ boys, which was not a very nice thing to do…

SINIORA: I agree, but the trouble is the Hezbollah boys have some influence and support in our political system, rather like your Christian right—a lot of them say Islam is a violent cult and call for the destruction of its followers, the Hezbollah militants have pretty much the same view regarding Jews and Christians.

CONDI: But the Christian Right doesn’t murder civilians!

SINIORA: Not as directly as Hezbollah I grant you (ignoring the occasional queer-killing and doctor shooting), but it wasn’t the Christian Left who championed the invasion of Iraq which has resulted in, how many dead civilians…?

CONDI: That’s not a fair comparison

SINIORA: Maybe so, but there’s very little that seems fair these days.

CONDI: Well that brings me to my point. You have to stop Hezbollah sending missiles over the fence. And return the lads that were kidnapped. Then your neighbors will stop dropping bombs and then we can all sit down and have mint juleps and tuna casserole and sort things out in a civilized fashion.

SINIORA: Now why didn’t I think of that? Of course! It’s so crazy that it just might work! Except….

CONDI: Except what?

SINIORA: Except that I don’t know where the kidnapped are, or the kidnappers, and it’s kind of tough to find out because the phone system has been severely damaged as are the roads and if I go out on what’s left of the streets I risk getting shot or blown-up or just crushed to death. For all I know the kidnapped could be dead already, murdered by Hezbollah or killed by the Israeli bombing.

CONDI: Well why don’t you know where the kidnappers are?

SINIORA: I’m sorry? How many people have been abducted and are still missing in the US?

CONDI: The US has a lot more people….

SINIORA: And the US has a lot more resources, and it isn’t being bombed to dust every goddamned day!
Look, if the Israelis really gave a damn about getting back their boys, they wouldn’t be bombing the crap out of everything—they could end up killing their own. Of course they’ll get damn all help from my government as a whole, but this country is more about business than politics—it always has been. Hezbollah is not now helping business, and neither are the Israelis. I can’t do a hell of a lot whilst they keep bombing everything! So far they’ve killed four-hundred civilians and a few dozen Hezbollah and destroyed our economy. The most the Israeli’s have really done is make our tourism industry worse than theirs! Hezbollah will retaliate as long as Israel retaliates. I don’t control Hezbollah.

CONDI: Well you need to get control of them, and make them stop!

SINIORA: I need to survive these bombings first. And who the hell are you to tell me what to do and how to do it? How’re things in Afghanistan and Iraq; still the shining examples of democracy and peace? Why don’t YOU tell Israel to stop!

CONDI: Look, mister ma-in-a-moody, you’ve got to stop Hezbollah, or else! I, Condi Rice, demand it!

SINIORA: Or else what? You’ll provide more bombs to Israel? Oh wait, you are already doing that! You’ll invade Lebanon yourselves? You and what army? You’re supposed to be a scholar of Russian history; did you ever hear of the siege of Stalingrad?

CONDI: I really don’t think you can compare the two; Stalingrad was very cold and Lebanon is very hot. And now I think about it, China is very big.

SINIORA: Look, Condi, Lebanon was just getting on its feet again and we had a shot at democratic self-governance and the new government was a necessary, shaky compromise. Now it’s blown to shit and I’ve got nothing to offer. So go tell Israel to stop the bombing. I’m sure Hezbollah will not honor any ceasefire, but then Israel can target them proportionately as they have done in the past, and give Lebanon a chance to establish a stronger government. We need constructive, not destructive, efforts to establish stability and peace.

CONDI: So get rid of Hezbollah!

SINIORA: Get rid of Al Qaeda! Get rid of terrorism! Get rid of American Idol! Get rid of Iran! Easier said than done, but bombs won’t do it. It takes time and manipulation to achieve success, just like your elections of 2000 and 2004. But the trick then is to do something productive and meaningful for the majority.

CONDI: Oh my goodness, is that the time? I really must be going, I have a thing to go to and George can get so fussy and vulnerable when things don’t go as planned. So, as I was saying, stop attacking Israel and then everything will be just fine! Enjoy the tuna casserole! E-mail me when you get a chance. Byeee!

SINIORA: Huh! Whaddyaknow? All that time and I didn’t hear a single jet or bomb! Maybe I misjudged her, and the Israelis! Ahhh! Peace and quiet! Now perhaps I can—oh crap!

Fighting Words

A carbon-based biological combat functionary equipped with the latest Situational Awareness Combat and Kinetic Overview Semantic Heuristical Informational Tautological System (or "SACKOSHITS") that allows the US to distinguish "war" and "not-war" , providing the US with actionable parameters for engagement on any conflict, subject to the will of God and the PNAC.

In a recent press briefing Tony Snow was asked regarding the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and in reference to Bush seemingly sitting on the sidelines “…why is this not our war?”
Snow responded: “Why would it be our war? I mean, it's not on our territory. This is a war in which the United States -- it's not even a war. What you have are hostilities, at this point, between Israel and Hezbollah. I would not characterize it as a war.”

“War” tends to be officially declared from the outset, or else defined as such upon completion (no-one really announced “men of the Middle-Ages, we are about to begin the Hundred-Years War!”)
But though the US never officially declared war on Iraq (or Afghanistan), everyone accepted it as a war and used the term freely.

Israel hasn’t officially declared war either but this isn’t some border skirmish (which is how it started). Israel is bombing the crap out of Lebanon and some troops are across the border and engaging with Hezbollah who are retaliating with missile attacks on Israel. 9 days on, Tony Snow’s “hostilities” have thus far lasted “officially” longer than the 1991 Gulf War.

The subtext of Tony Snow’s response seems to be this: It’s not a war until the US says it is and as long as it isn’t a “war” it doesn’t deserve major US involvement.

Why is the White House suddenly so coy about using the term?

One reason might be protocol—it’s up to Israel to declare war, which it hasn’t actually done.

Another issue concerns civilian casualties and the prospect of war crimes; the BBC has a cogent piece about that here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5198342.stm

It may also be that the Administration would prefer to avoid the term, given the unpopularity of the “War in Iraq”; major involvement in this situation might be one war too many (despite recent saber-rattling regarding Iran the White House has chosen to stick with diplomacy thus far).
And it may be that identifying it as a war might trigger some informal (or possibly formal) obligations (to Israel) or protocols that Bush would just as soon not have to deal with right now.

But never mind the esoterics of subtext, whatever the motivation or motivations for once the White House doesn’t seem to be rushing to judgment or action (and given its international record and the complexities of the situation, reticence may well be the best course for the moment).

Two armies arrayed against each other on mutually defined areas of engagement or fighting over possession of military assets over a period of time, ultimately leading to concessions by one side, or a mutual halt to combat is perhaps the “classic” definition of war and history offers many examples. But if so then World War II surely began to change the nature of war for four simple reasons—air power, mechanization of ground troops, industrialization and urbanization.

In WWII warfare could be conducted from a significant distance, and supporting resources became military targets. During the American Civil War civilians could and did picnic on safe vantage points as Union and Confederate armies clashed, before returning home exhilarated by the spectacle.
In WWII civilians had no such luxury for the war was carried to their homes and workplaces, and that’s been the case ever since. Population growth and the concentration of industry and jobs into large urban areas has made the “battlefield” extinct and so too the old definition of war. WWII also redefined the distribution and confluence of industrial, political and military power through the break up of traditional militarily controlled empires, the last being the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Viewed from the remaining imperial throne, this latest exchange of munitions and death may not meet the old definition of war, but for those on the receiving end, on both sides and to the armed and the defenseless, it surely is exactly that.

Here's a glimpse of what war most immediately involves:

This is an unofficical portrait of a soldier after "major combat operations are over".













I have no idea why or how this kid died. He could have been a legitmate combat casualty. Or not. I also don't know whether bullets or shrapnel opened up his head, but that white stuff is his brain spilling out.

I actually saw such a thing once from a car accident, but there's a big difference in the context of the event and consequence--accident is one thing, but war is premeditated.











And here's Tony Snow. the new public face of the Bush administration which is oh so happy to wage war, but hesitant to declare it or define it.

This juxtaposition of pictures is specifically unfair to Mr Snow who is only doing his job defending the policies and incompetence of his immediate employer ( ignoring the fact that his "employer" is actually an employee also, of the American public--in theory anyway).

The point is that Tony Snow and his superiors have never seen the immediate consequences of war first-hand and never will, therefore their concept of war will continue to revolve around semantics and statistics, and the pronouncements they make and the decisions they take will continue to be made absent of experience of reality.

To them war is a political concept, not a present reality. They might not call it war, but war it is.

Back to The Future

After much tribulation it appears my PC is back to near-normal. Henceforth I shall...umm...re-continue (?) blogging and as usual let the microchips fall where they may.

NYC Bomb Plot: Idiots Thwart Other Idiots

On July 7th The New York Daily News broke the story of a foiled plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel which of course instantly became a national story.

That very morning one of the News’ writers was on air with Brian Lehrer of WNYC—definitely the best informed, intelligent and moderate topical talk radio mediators I’ve ever heard--who asked the reporter if, given the impracticality of the alleged scheme, he’d had any sense from his sources that the story might be in some way be politically motivated. The reporter calmly replied that he had no such impression.

So with that assurance let’s look at the original story and then the follow up.

Only July 7 the Daily News opened with this lead (emphases mine):

The FBI has uncovered what officials consider a serious plot by jihadists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in hopes of causing a torrent of water to deluge lower Manhattan, the Daily News has learned.

Accompanied by a photo of the Holland Tunnel captioned:

New Jersey-bound traffic speeds through Holland Tunnel beneath more than 40 feet of earth and concrete - and the Hudson.

The body then went on:

The plotters wanted to detonate a massive amount of explosives inside the Holland Tunnel to blast a hole that would destroy the tunnel, everyone in it, and send a devastating flood shooting through the streets of lower Manhattan. …They also wanted to attack subways and other tunnels.

But then added that:

Experts also said that even if the [Holland] tunnel cracked, the Financial District would not be flooded because it is above the level of the river.

And in the second to last paragraph wrote that:

The disclosure of the Holland Tunnel plot came at the same time Homeland Security Department officials announced a boost in funds to protect rail and transit lines in the New York City area yesterday.

This of course was several weeks after the DHS had cut anti-terror funding to NYC by 40% due to its lack of landmarks, bridges, tunnels and significant financial centers.

Now according to the Daily News (who “own” this story) on 7/8

The plot, as The News first reported, was to blow up underwater tunnels, break the walls, flood the tunnel, and possibly drown the subway system and lower Manhattan.

The Daily News characterized the story as a plot to bomb the Holland Tunnel, mentioning the tunnel specifically five times (and “subways and other tunnels” just once) apparently based on what the FBI told them. The News goes on to report:

Mark Mershon, the assistant director in charge of the FBI in New York and top city officials confirmed what the Daily News exclusively reported yesterday.
Mershon said the focus of the group was "specifically only the PATH tunnels" and not the Holland Tunnel, as The News reported. But several high-level sources said the plotters had eyed other tunnels in lower Manhattan, including the Holland Tunnel, before settling on the PATH trains.

Now it seems just 24 hours later that the “target” was the PATH tunnel not the Holland Tunnel as was so clearly initially reported. The Daily News both “corrects” its initial story and yet claims confirmation—and from whom? The very same sources that gave them the story in the first place and have since changed it.

For those of you who don’t know, the Holland Tunnel and the PATH tunnels that connect New Jersey to lower Manhattan are separate and a mile apart on both sides of the Hudson. An explosion in one would not affect the other.
In the interest of informing the public whilst not revealing too much, the FBI might have instructed the Daily News report that the plot simply involved downtown tunnels (which could have included the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel) but they let them run the story that the Holland was the target.
Now that seems to be “wrong”, the FBI aren’t directly correcting the story but just changing it, and the Daily News isn’t really correcting the story either. So how reliable are the sources, and how thorough are the Daily News reporters?

Whilst you are pondering that, let’s move on shall we?

The suicidal plot to attack Hudson River tunnels, kill thousands and flood lower Manhattan was the "real deal," but was busted up with the arrest of three terrorists, the city's top FBI agent said yesterday.

So the plot was actually foiled yesterday (7/7) and publicly revealed, presumably AFTER the arrest of three “terrorists”, though as this latest article goes on to mention:

Three suspects have been busted - including self proclaimed mastermind Assem Hammoud, authorities said. Hammoud is in a Lebanese jail. Another suspect was in custody in England, and a third was picked up in Canada, sources said. Canadian media reported a Montreal man was questioned but later released because there wasn't enough evidence to hold him.
Five other suspects remained at-large, but Kelly said their whereabouts "are known and they are being observed."

I can only imagine that the FBI, having glommed a plot being hatched by terrorists dumb enough to use an internet chat room assume that the remaining conspirators are too stupid and too busy Instant Messaging each other (“what happened to Assem? Haven’t heard from him! Did his ‘puter crash again? I keep telling him to get an Apple, or at least bomb Microsoft HQ instead of NYC!”) to bother looking at say, the Al Jazeera website which (along with a zillion other sites) has been carrying the story since it “broke”, and therefore won’t notice that they are “known and being observed”.

However stupid the “terrorists” may have been by discussing their plans in an easily accessible chat room, they at least seem to have been smart enough to conclude that blowing up the Holland Tunnel to flood Manhattan’s (DHS-defined non-existent) financial center might not work on account of the fact they’d need a bomb big enough not only to breach 4 feet or more of solid concrete (plus the surrounding granite bedrock), but also big enough to raise the level of the Hudson River 11 feet.


Now, according to Saturday’s FBI, the plan was actually to attack the PATH tunnel, not the Holland Tunnel (as Friday’s FBI explained it). Why the difference in the story? Maybe Friday’s FBI will say any old shit just so they can go home early and Saturday’s FBI don’t want to work on Saturday so they’ll say any old shit just to make the day go faster—who knows?

But never mind that, the important thing is that the plot was real!

"We're here today to discuss what we believe is the real deal," said Mershon, who was flanked by Mayor Bloomberg, Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Port Authority Police Superintendent Samuel Plumeri.

How real was it? Well according to Mershon (who apparently spends Fridays AND Saturdays juggling keeping us safe from terrorists with trying to get his story straight):

"For most of the year we have been focusing on a group of Al Qaeda followers who have targeted the Hudson River tubes that connect New Jersey to lower Manhattan…"This is a plot that involved martyrdom and explosives”.

(I’m sure Mershon really meant explosives first and martyrdom second, or martyrdom with explosives, because you know, it’s tough to set off explosives after you are a martyr).
Anyway, according to the Daily News

They decided that "martyrs" could ride the PATH trains with backpacks full of explosives in an effort to duplicate the July 7, 2005, London bus and subway attacks, sources said.

Although…

The plotters hadn't yet decided how many suicide bombers were needed.
"There was never a set number [of bombers]," said a senior law enforcement official in Washington. "Their debate was over how many it would take to damage the tunnel."

Nonetheless the plotters apparently were looking to take action apparently in October or November of 2006

"They were about to go to a phase where they would attempt to surveil targets, establish a regimen of attack and acquire the resources necessary to effectuate the attacks," Mershon said. "And at that point I think it's entirely appropriate to take it down."

Umm…“effectuate”? With prejudicial extremeosity, I presumicate?

"This is more advanced than the Miami Seven," said one of the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Begging your pardon sir, but tofu is more advanced than the “Miami Seven”.

Still, never mind all that, let's summarize shall we?

A Lebanese millionaire and seven other people scattered around the world were monitored for a year discussing a suicide attack on NYC transportation tunnels. During that time the DHS cut anti-terror funding to NYC by 40% because NYC didn’t really have anything much worth blowing up.
Though the supposed “mastermind” of the plot had recently received a Canadian visa (he’d been to Canada and the US before) the FBI has not reported that any of the other co-conspirators had made any travel arrangements.
Believing the conspirators were getting ready to execute their plan the FBI (and other appropriate security agencies) nabbed three of the eight would be terrorists.

Immediately after the three arrests the FBI and the Daily News revealed the plot publicly despite the fact that the investigation was still on-going and that five suspects still remained at large, though as the FBI so reassuringly explained to the public, their whereabouts were known and they were being watched.

The Daily News pushed the story that, according to their FBI sources, the plan was to blow up the Holland Tunnel and flood Manhattan’s Financial District.

Despite the very obvious facts that blowing even a crack in the tunnel walls to begin a flood would require careful placement of a large amount of explosives, or the casual placement of a truckload of explosives---and any truck trying to speed into the Holland Tunnel wouldn’t get very far—the Financial District is 10 feet above sea level ergo no flooding would be possible. Nonetheless this was the story provided on 7/7.

On 7/8 the story, again sourced to the FBI. had changed to describe a far more plausible plot of suicide bombers blowing themselves up on a PATH train.

Such a scheme would be quite ghastly of course, but as the target in question was apparently only the WTC tunnel, only that would have been immediately affected. The PATH at WTC does not share any tunnels with the city subway system.

Yet the Daily News made sure to state:
The plot, as The News first reported, was to blow up underwater tunnels, break the walls, flood the tunnel, and possibly drown the subway system and lower Manhattan.
Of course The News first reported the (utterly unfeasible) plot was to blow up the Holland Tunnel; but let’s not nitpick about reporters falsely reporting on their own reporting.
I’d say blowing up multiple tunnels, flooding downtown Manhattan AND the subway system is entirely possible, as long as you had more than 8 guys (who hadn’t decided how many people or how much explosives they needed).

So the upshot here seems to be that some incompetent “terrorists” were caught plotting by the FBI who couldn’t catch everyone in the plot.
The FBI then incompetently reveals the incompetent plot to incompetent journalists just as the DHS restored anti-terror funding for the subjects of the plot after having incompetently determined the NYC had no such targets.
The FBI then incompetently changes the story which the incompetent journalists simply parrot whilst ignoring their own incompetence. And finally an incompetent politician Rep. Pete King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee who had just the previous week demanded the jailing of competent NY Times journalists declared:
"This is a success story. The FBI did its job."

There was no way these “terrorists” could have accomplished, even in part, their plans for the Holland Tunnel. One or two of them could however have killed themselves and others on the PATH train and in that regard the FBI had good cause for concern.

But why the initial story about the Holland Tunnel being presented as though it were crediible? Why the change in story the next day, with no official acknowledgment of the nonsense in the previous story?

Why tell the story when the investigation is incomplete?

Why state that the remainder of the group were known and were being observed? Why does Peter King, a New York Representative and Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee call this “a success story”, when by rights he should be demanding the heads of the Daily News reporters and those who leaked the story?

The terrorist plot isn’t the story; it’s the telling of the story.

And it’s a tale told by idiots, fretting and strutting upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying...well, that any idiot can hatch a plot, any idiot can be a reporter, and any idiot can be can hold public office.

Normal Service Will Be Resumed as Soon As Possible, and The Non-Story of A

I stopped posting for a while because I really couldn't think of anything satisfactory to say and I couldn't focus--I have a dozen half-arsed posts that I just couldn't complete and publish.

Now I have some technical problems on my PC and my best bet is to "rebuild" it. With all the software and gizmos I have it will likely take a few days to do a thorough job.

I've also been away from home these last few days, and had an interesting encounter: I happened to meet and chat with a government analyst who had just returned from Iraq.

I'm being obscure in this telling out of courtesy to the individual in question--protecting the source. I'll call this person "A".

"A" was both circumspect and open in answering my questions and responding to my comments regarding "A"s visit and findings. "A" apparently has been doing this sort of thing for quite a while and is very bright and dedicated and experienced and above all professional in the best sense of the word.

"A" had one "small" aspect of the Iraq situation. What "A" told me was not really surprising, but it was still surprising. " A" , actually being there and apprised of the situation had a hard time believing how bad things STILL were and how horribly mismanaged everything was.

I asked about "A"s professional position.
A had been "tempted several times" to disclose what's going on, the ramifications and so forth but hasn't yet. A's job is to report,

I asked for some good news.

"A" responded with a wry laugh. There was some "good news" but precious little and of unfortunately no significance.

"A" has had enough. I didn't press "A" on policy or politics, but "A" was pretty clear: The Iraq adventure was and continues to be horribly mismanaged. There is no progress and "A" cannot be involved with it any more. "A" will not quit government service, but is certainly prtepared to quite this government's policies.

Yeah, I know this sounds and reads badly--it's not real reporting. But it's interesting to hear from such a source, and very sad too.

More Than Inconvenient

In April 2001 shiny new President Bush, still settling into his comfy executive chair, re-iterated one of his election promises by stating “…my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.”

In June 2001 Bush then demonstrated his “commitment to leadership” and to his promise by pointing out that “Our country, the United States, (yes, that’s exactly what he said) is the world's largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world's man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world's economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions…”, but then he went on to say “We also recognize the other part of the story -- that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries.”

In other words, until nations like Mali, Krygyzstan and Haiti don’t do something about greenhouse gas emissions, well then the US sure as hell won’t either!

It so happens that around 90 countries have since ratified the Kyoto Accord making it a binding agreement requiring their respective governments to mitigate CO2 emissions. And how has the Bush administration responded?

By spending the last five years actively challenging the data and science at every turn not with any equivalent research but by quoting verbatim the economic theories and opinions of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Indeed just the other week Bush said “There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused” when in fact there is no debate, at least amongst those who actually know what they are talking about.
Bush’s very next sentence was “We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary”.

his is utter drivel; if there really were still a debate about the cause of global warming then, given the supposed debate, exactly what technologies would be implemented?
The fact is that Bush has no opinion on this matter, he can’t be bothered or doesn’t have the wit to deal with the actual problem except to consider it only in political terms—his financiers, through the CEI, give him a script to which he adds that something should be done, without actually doing anything, thus maintaining his financial foundation whilst decorating the presidential edifice with a façade of “leadership”.

Asked if he’d go and see “An Inconvenient Truth” he responded “probably not”. Why, given his initial 'concern'?

Because it would be inconvenient for his political and financial survival to do so. For the rest of the planet however his willful and self-serving disinterest is far more than inconvenient, it's a matter of nothing less than life and death in the present and for the foreseeable future.

Funniest President Ever?

Photo snagged from CrazyNews.net

"And one reason I went to Iraq yesterday, no matter how secretive the trip was, was to get a firsthand feel for how those people are thinking over there, what are they like?"

No matter how secretive? What? Which people thinking what? The troops? The Iraqi’s? He's so wacky!

"I understand leadership. Leadership requires determination. You've got to be determined to do something in order to be able to lead, particularly in difficult circumstances."

So you’ve got to be determined to lead in order to lead which means doing something? Like leading lemmings over a cliff? You can't tell me rodents commiting suicide isn't funny!

"You've got to have will. You've got to have desire to succeed. You've got to have a plan. And that's what I found in Iraq."

Found a plan! Observational humour! Like Seinfeld. Brilliant!

"It's really important that the Iraqi people have no doubt in their mind that we will help this government succeed. It's important for them to understand that."

C’mon people, how many times do I have to say it? Stop staring out of that shell hole in what’s left of the wall, stop fidgeting with your shrapnel wounds put the IED away and pay attention! Bueller? Bueller? Hi-larious!

"And I know there's going to be different voices, and there should be different voices out of America."

Because different voices tells us who the traitors are! And then they can be deported to Gitmo! Topical! Looo-ving it!

"That's where we're great. That's what makes us interesting… "

We are sooo interesting, and wer'e great at it! Hip sarcasm. I'm plotzing

"...and great; people can say whatever they want to say, as they try to attract votes. But my voice, what you hear from me, no matter what these polls and all the business look like, is that it's worth it, it is necessary, and we will succeed."

WE! Oh stop, stop, you're killing me! You're killing!!!

Oh! Wait a sec...that's not ....funny.

World Cup Chaos Theory

Not pics from the World Cup, but from "Bend It Like Beckham" which is about the confluence of sport and society and a lot of other stuff. If you've never seen it do so. It's
damn funny, very touching and it just might help you "get" soccer, at least in part.

When I left the UK for the US, I also left soccer (it’s perfectly okay to use that term). Truth be told I’d left soccer when I went to college—I’d grown out of it. I thought the game was dull and I absolutely hated the hooliganism.

I think the last match I watched was when the US beat Sweden in the Women’s World Cup. It was a good game and a deserved win, but that was a special occasion and it wasn’t enough to rekindle a consistent interest.

Now comes the World Cup and it being special too, I thought it worth watching the opening match to see if I had really been missing anything during my self imposed and quite comfortable exile from the game.

Even before the first goal I realized what I’d been missing: “the beautiful game”.
I don’t love the teams, I don’t love the players but man, how I love the game! Watching the games brought back memories of when I used to play, and made me think of what is really involved, and how really difficult the game is.

Being English I couldn’t avoid soccer any more than I could avoid tea, grey “summer” skies, pervasive damp and Marmite. I think I was four when I took an interest, and eight when I took it seriously by joining “Mayford Athletic”, a newly formed local team in the “West Surrey Boy’s League” which comprised about thirty other teams, which meant a 30-game season played over 8 months.

Given that information the image that comes to my adult mind is a horde of small children mindlessly gravitating towards the ball in an hour-long melee with no discernable result, but in a soccer nation such random activity is (and was) not the case (think of the sophistication of the youngest Little Leaguer’s in the US).
There were no concessions to our size and youth; at 8 we played on full size pitches with full size goals in the regulation time.

The first match we ever played, we lost 7-1, our only goal scored by our goal-keeper who, disgusted with our pathetic efforts actually took the ball past us and the opposition the entire length of the field to score, to the amazement of everyone but himself.
Ashamed, we improved but we still ended up being the second-worst team in the league (BTW 3 years later we won the League championship in front of 18,000 spectators—a far cry from our typical 20 person attendances, mostly interested parents).

When you get onto the pitch, all you know is yourself and your team. There are no time-outs, no time to huddle to discuss strategies or tactics. Your coaches and the manager are sidelined—they are out of the game. The only respite is half-time and then you are too knackered and thirsty to listen to any speeches all you want to do is rest and then play again.

When you get the ball, you can “hold” it, run with it, pass it or just give it a “boot”. Whilst considering these options an opposing player is charging down on you whilst other opponents and your own team-mates are repositioning themselves. You have to be sure you have the ball under control so you can do something useful with it, or quickly and accurately deliver it to a teammate so that they can do something useful with it. And you have to avoid being knocked over by the opposition (which will void your options). You have to look at the ball, look at your rival, look at your team-mate, your team mate’s rival, consider tactic versus strategy and make a decision, all within 1/10th to 2-5 seconds. And all this has to happen between your brain and your feet.

When you don’t have the ball you have to figure out how to get it again and stop the other guy from exploiting possession and scoring. You have to either “mark” an opponent or mark a zone (like basketball) but a single zone can be at least half the size of a basketball court. You have to know when to stand your ground, harass or attack. You have to anticipate what your opponent might do, keep your eye on the ball and watch for misdirection. Timing the tackle is also critical—the penalty for getting it wrong can be anything from a free kick or a goal to being sent off and/or seriously hurting your opponent in the process.

On top of all this you have to know how to kick the ball whilst you are running and you have to know how to receive it too. You have to receive or deliver a ball anywhere from a distance of a few feet to 50 yards, on the run, in the air, bouncing, along the ground, ahead or behind or to the side of you and do something useful with it.

I guess the essence of football is in the creation of order out of its inherent chaos, and the pleasure comes from the ability to do so. Maybe that’s the key—maybe the rest of the world has learned to deal with chaos, whilst the US is perhaps only beginning to come to terms with it.

And speaking of chaos this post is quite a mess, but I’m all wrapped up in the immediacy of the World Cup. It’s like a good first date after a long hiatus—I can’t think straight, I’m just enjoying the moment, bursting with thoughts and words and all jumbled up. Screw it—I had to say something. I love this game.

For a deeper and more coherent insight, Tony Karon http://www.tonykaron.com/ has written a gorgeous piece “How to Watch the World Cup: Politics and War by Other Means” and has other posts there that explain what I as yet cannot.

The Patient Died, But the Operation Was A Success!

This has to be one of the weirdest things I've ever seen: a vicious psycopath hours after being killed by a bomb, presented like a work of art.

Do I feel emotionally, spiritually or intellectually challenged? Absolutely!
And what does this picture say to me? It says to me that our world is increasingly defined not by intelligence and reason but stupidity and insanity, and in the most inane and seemingly inconsequential ways.


Last week the RCMP nabbed some would-be terrorists after a good deal of investigative work, and tagged a couple Brits in the process. The Brits recently conducted a major raid which has yet to turn up anything. One suspect got shot in the shoulder.
In the wake of the 7/7 bombings in London an innocent man was shot to death by police, but continued investigations nabbed the London bombers accomplices and supporters.
After the 3/11 train bombings in Spain, police work tracked down the perpetrators—some of them fought to the death others were captured. German and Italian police too have made their own arrests of potential and proven terrorists.

Note the common theme here—investigate and police.

Now; the US get’s tipped off as to the whereabouts of Zarqawi. By all accounts he's a sociopath and a psychopath and perhaps conflated by US rhetoric to a significant political figure in Iraq (a country where currently politics equals death and death equals politics) but still at least a self-proclaimed force, the leader of “Al Qaida in Iraq”.

And what’s the American reaction to the intelligence? Do they deploy Special Forces to grab him and his cohorts, so that they can then interrogate him and his colleagues and learn something about how he ran his operations, what resources and connections he had?

Nope.

Instead they drop a 500lb bomb on him (that’s the smallest bomb in the US inventory at the moment).
In case you forgot, the London and Madrid bombs were only 10-15 pounds and they weren’t encased in fragmentary metal (which adds to the initial explosive force and distributes shrapnel with an initial velocity of around 2700 feet per second—two to three times faster than a bullet).

This is what the US calls a precision strike.

This is how the US apparently combats terrorist organizations—they just try and kill the leader.
I guess the idea here is that once you knock off the top guy, you fuck-up the entire org chart.
Now some poor sap has to re-arrange the Power Point presentation—assuming there’s a working laptop left after the precision strike.
Whatever evidence and intelligence there might have been at the site, if it hasn’t been charred to a crisp or blown away, it lies in the rubble waiting to be found after days of searching.

As many observers have already noted, on both sides of the US political aisle and the Arab press as well, whatever Zarqawi’s real or imagined political or military influence, his sudden and violent death is essentially irrelevant.

Had he and his cohorts lived, some intelligence and insight might have been gathered and lives might have been saved.

But no—Somebody high up decided it was better to blow Zarqawi to bits rather than to capture him alive and try to use him. Maybe US forces are stretched too thin these days to manage such a task.

Rule of thumb: when trying to prosecute or present any case, preserve the evidence rather than destroy it, and try not kill any material witnessess, or indeed the accused--it kind of undermines everything.

DHS and the "Three F's"--Fear, Fairness and Fu-something else

Michael Chertoff using his immense psycho-kinetic powers to levitate the new Magic 8-Ball "threat matrix" device that reveals to him and him alone who will attack the US, when and where, and who deserves security moolah. He can also steal your watch without you noticing.


The DHS has almost halved “anti-terror” grants to Washington D.C. and New York City, redistributing the savings from the $1.7 billion budget to other states by using a shiny new risk assessment formula.


I for one am comforted to know they have a new risk assessment formula because the one being used around August 6th 2001; the old “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in the U.S.” formula didn’t work out very well.
And let’s not forget the formula applied in the 2004 election to Ohio’s Warren County (where it only takes 5,000 people to be a “city”). No one saw that coming (except Dick Cheney and obviously we can’t keep bothering him about where the next attack might take place).
Apparently the DHS feels that the entire U.S. is fair game for freedom hating freedom-haters so anti-terror funds should be distributed equally because equality is what America is all about.

And what’s the new risk assessment formula all about? How does it all work?
Well according to spokesman Russ Knocke the DHS "...crunches millions of bits of data in a powerful new matrix” to determine where anti-terror funding is most needed.
To give you some idea of the scale of the task, a million bits is the equivalent of about 15 pages of text!
Fortunately advances in data storage have resulted in a “floppy disk” that can hold a whopping 11,520,000 bits (or 1.44 "megabytes"), thus making the task of defending the United States a lot easier.

As for the “matrix” Tracy A. Henke, assistant secretary for grants and training at DHS can’t provide exact details of the newer, fairer system but apparently it include factors such as population, vulnerable assets and intelligence information, all of which are assessed by review panels made up of officials from 47 states who can’t be identified (I guess the three unrepresented states had to attend their kids’ school play or some such). Grants are also judged on the “effectiveness” of the applicant’s planning as well as spelling and neatness of the great applications.

As an example, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff gave high marks to NYC for their current security efforts, suggesting that NYC didn’t need as much money any more, and had to “ding” the city $83 million for a poor job in articulating its needs and filing by fax instead of electronically even though a state official provided a written affirmation of the successful application and that the city could “log in” anytime to view it (ever tried to log-in to a fax?)

Also working against New York is the fact that as Ms. Henke carefully explained certain landmarks, bridges and tall buildings assumed by most New-Yorkers to be landmarks, bridges and tall buildings were counted in other categories such as bridges and tall buildings (but NOT landmarks). Additionally NYC apparently has way too many financial institutions worth less than $8 billion, and no public transportation infrastructure worth mentioning (a lot of it is undergound so who would notice, really?).

The famed Manhattan skyline with it's towering 5th-floor walkups, as seen from Washington

As Tony Snow pointed out to the whining press:

“The point of homeland security, as I said before, is to provide security for the entire homeland”: Hence, Lousville Kentucky deserves a 41.2% increase to help protect its racetrack whilst Omaha, Nebraska—home of Offut Air Force Base and the Strategic Air Command deserves a 38% increase in funds, just in case it ever receives a credible terrorist threat. It never has of course, but as it is also home to a slew of insurance companies; well you know how they like to insure against disasters.

Frankly the New York politicians are simply crying about losing federal money, money they and the liberal elitist New Yorkers don’t really need.
As Michael Chertoff said: “…I do think it's fair to ask this question: After a city gets $500 million, more than twice as much as the next-largest city, is it correct to assume they should continue to get the same amount of money year after year after year after year with everybody else dividing up what remains?"
And he’s right, of course! Why indeed should a city of 8 million (NYC) get more than twice as much money as the next largest city (Los Angeles, population 3.8 million )? Because aren’t they both American cities, and don’t the terrorists hate all Americans?

Besides, as Tony Snow also pointed out, just because NYC lost $83 million this year, the grants for preventing and preparing for terrorist attacks will be reconsidered annually and could change “if some grand and unforeseen need arises”—like perhaps someone flying fuel-laden hijacked airliners into tall landmark buildings. Or just blowing something else up that's really big and well known in a highly populated, symbolocally significant area---like say, Wyoming or Kentucky.