JWN readers might remember my lament here last July about the “digitial divide” in Central Virginia (and beyond) between those who can get broadband and those who cannot.
Alas, I’m still stuck with Wildblue Satellite. It’s better than dial-up, when it works, and when it’s not raining. Embarq’s DSL is still about 900 yards to my east and 1200 yards to my west.
Comcast has bought up the bankrupt Adelphia cable/broadband assets. When I called them, a representative (sitting at a computer in Toronto) assured me I could now get Comcast – but that was six months ago.
Meanwhile, progressive states like Oregon and Vermont are moving ahead with creative initiatives to bring broadband to their entire populations. But here in vuhGinyah, well, gosh, why would governmnent of, by and for something other than the people want to interfere in the miraculous chaos of the free market?
That’s not quite fair. Our “radical” experiment here with Broadband Over Powerline via our electric “cooperative”continues its four year tradition of going nowhere fast. In January, CVEC blamed the company providing the technology (IBEC) which in turn blamed the latest delays on a lowly chip company (DS2). With an alleged “line noise” problem solved, we were instructed to watch for a March update. Of course, it’s now April. If past pattern holds, we’ll see a new message shamelessly appear in about July, with yet another drumroll announcement to watch that space for a “full roll-out” by Christmas. Not. Even if we get it, the announced speeds for BPL (256 mbs) are half what I now limp along with via Satellite.
A solution!?
At long last, however, those of us on the wong side of the digital divide may have a solution, one oh so fitting for the frustrating *$%#^* that we’ve endured. It’s an amazingly simple, ecologically friendly, and almost “free” solution: Google’s TiSP DSL service, just announced on Sunday. If you haven’t read about this already, check it out.
Author: Scott H
Craig Murray: About that “Fake British Map”
I have been extremely displeased by the media reporting regarding the ongoing Iran-Britain “detainee” crisis. The boundaries questons surrounding the Shatt/Arvand River are hardly of recent vintage. They are instead a crtical flash-point of contention that goes back centuries. Insuring access to world seaways via the disputed area is a vital interest, not just to Iraq, but to Iran also. And Iranians of all political persuasions have reasons to be deeply suspicious of “perfidious Albion” — on this issue.
It has been a crisis waiting to happen – or be manufactured. More on my views, a backgrounder, and cautions in another post.
For now, here’s a few stunning excerpts from the extraordinary blog of Craig Murray, the dissident former UK Ambassador to Uzbekistan, and a onetime “Head of the Maritime Section of the U.K. Foreign and Commonwealth Office.”
As he did before, he’s blowing the whistle on “sexed-up” Blair-spin — and on the incredibly lazy reporting in the mainstream media (here in the US and in the UK):
Today (March 28th):
“The British Government has published a map showing the coordinates of the incident, well within an Iran/Iraq maritime border. The mainstream media and even the blogosphere has bought this hook, line and sinker.
But there are two colossal problems.
A) The Iran/Iraq maritime boundary shown on the British government map does not exist. It has been drawn up by the British Government. Only Iraq and Iran can agree their bilateral boundary, and they never have done this in the Gulf, only inside the Shatt because there it is the land border too. This published boundary is a fake with no legal force.
B) Accepting the British coordinates for the position of both HMS Cornwall and the incident, both were closer to Iranian land than Iraqi land. Go on, print out the map and measure it. Which underlines the point that the British produced border is not a reliable one.”
Well imagine that. Should we be surprised? Who was it that invented the art of artificial line drawing in the Middle East?
Murray’s blog entries since March 23 are all worth considering – and comparing with what we’re reading in the media. To be sure, Murray sees room for blame on all sides
“None of which changes the fact that the Iranians, having made their point, should have handed back the captives immediately. I pray they do so before this thing spirals out of control. But by producing a fake map of the Iran/Iraq boundary, notably unfavourable to Iran, we can only harden the Iranian position.”
I share Murray’s wish that this be resolved rapidly, before ideological hotheads on both sides (AN & TB) turn this into something bigger and more difficult to unwind.
And will somebody please get Helena’s hotline suggestion – e.g., Colonel Lang’s “deconflict mechanism” – working and stat!?
Comments?
The Mother of all Sermons
(Note: this is Scott Harrop writing.)
Four years ago this past week, 23 March 2003 to be exact, I heard what for me then was the “mother of all sermons.” Yet until now, I have resisted writing about it:
*First, I am not inclined to be too autobiographical in the blogosphere.
*Second, when I finally forced myself to re-listen to the digital recording of “the sermon,” it dawned on me that I’ve heard far worse since. (See John Hagee section below)
*Third, I have long resisted returning to the subject of “Christian Zionism.” Where I was raised in Pennsylvania, Hal Lindsey and his 1970’s bestseller “The Late Great Planet Earth” was widely read at churches my family attended. A bit later at a “Christian University,” I once wrote a paper on “Peace and Prophecy” with the edgy subtitle, “Are they Compatible?” I had the “nerve” to think they were. Still do.
*Lastly, I am also not too inclined to ridicule ministers in public, even when well “earned.“
But then I saw a bumper sticker on the family van of one of my daughter’s friends that proclaimed, “No Jesus, No Peace.” It convinced me that I needed to go back and “unpack” four years of pent-up angst over what “the sermon” signifies for me, then and now.
Besides, I have analyzed the Friday political sermons of Shia clerics for over two decades, so I shouldn’t be so abstemious about assessing what presumed “Gospel” ministers have to say on Middle East matters. I also lamely take some courage from how George Fox challenged ministers of his day.
THE Sermon:
The context of “the sermon” was just days after the US “shock and awe” bombs began raining down on Saddam’s Iraq in 2003, as the first stages of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” The setting was one of the larger “evangelical” churches here in Charlottesville, Virginia. We had been “visiting” this church, in part as the Pastor had assured us that his “new covenant” church didn’t preach “Christian Zionism.”
The sermon that day four years ago was delivered by a visiting older minister, long a mentor, an “Apostle” to the local pastor, and now involved primarily in outreach efforts to drug-infested communities. Jesse Owens was his name – not to be confused with the famous Olympian.
Much of “the Apostle’s” sermon tone was blistering high-volume, classic fire-and-brimstone, text-less, “holy spirit” fury. At early points, Owens was nearly apoplectic, as his face turned deep red and purple and his neck veins bulged.
But his subject that day wasn’t about heaven or hell, sin, eternal damnation, or any of that.
GAO’s Pogo Report on Unsecured Munitions In Iraq
GAO, meet POGO.
Yesterday, the US Government Accounting Organization released an unclassified 35 page version of a study submitted to the Pentagon in December, with a long-winded title: “Operation Iraqi Freedom: DOD Should Apply Lessons Learned Concerning the Need for Security over Conventional Munitions Storage Sites to Future Operations Planning.”
A better title, in Pogo’s immortal “Swamp Speak,” might be, “In Iraqi IED’s, We have Met the Enemy and He is Us.”
The gist of the report is that “hundreds of thousands of tons” of Iraqi munitions were left unsecured after Iraq was “liberated” in April of 2003. Such munitions and components are being used by insurgents in making the roadside mines (IED’s), the devises deemed responsible for half of American casualties.
As Secretary of Defense Gates admitted yesterday, unsecured weapons caches have been a “huge, huge problem.” Characterizing Iraq now as “one huge ammo dump,” the munitions on the loose literally provide the raw materials for much of the carnage in Iraq today.
So how did this happen dear Pogo?
Elementary. We did it to ourselves.
First, “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (OIF) assumed that after Saddam’s regime was overthrown,
“the regular Iraqi army units would ‘capitulate and provide internal security.’ Knowledgeable senior-level DOD officials stated that these Iraqi army units would have been used to secure conventional munitions storage sites….” (over 400 of them… p.8)
“As stated in the OIF war plan, the U.S. Commander, CENTCOM, intended to preserve, as much as possible, the Iraqi military to maintain internal security and protect Iraq’s borders during and after major combat operations.”
The US military planners also assumed that,
“Iraqi resistance was unlikely…. the plan did not consider the possibility of protracted, organized Iraqi resistance to U.S. and coalition forces after the conclusion of major combat operations. As a result, DOD officials stated that the regime’s conventional munitions storage sites were not considered a significant risk.”
Why should they have feared such resistance? After all, then Assistant Defense Secretary Wolfowitz was channeling the koolaid being mixed by Chalabi, Lewis, Ajami and their neocon pals. Remember the welcome to Iraq predictions?
In short, and as incredible as this may now sound, OIF planners assumed that, “Postwar Iraq would not be a U.S. military responsibility.”
As a result, “U.S. forces did not have sufficient troop levels to provide adequate security for conventional munitions storage sites in Iraq because of OIF planning priorities and certain assumptions that proved to be invalid.”
“Heck of a Job there Tommy.”
Worst of all (and to be more candid than the GAO report), the OIF military’s planners did not anticipate the actions of their own government:
“On May 23, 2003, the Coalition Provisional Authority dissolved the Iraqi Army, which the CENTCOM commander assumed would provide internal security.”
As a direct consequence, Iraq’s weapons caches and manufacturing facilities went essentially unguarded for months. The US Military did not have a coordinated effort to manage and monitor Iraq’s munitions depots until after August of 2003. Even now, the GAO contends that monitoring and control of such “vulnerable” Iraqi munitions sites remains poor.
The consequences of leaving Iraqi munitions so vulnerable to theft have been… grave:
“As reported by DOD and key government agencies, the human, strategic, and financial costs of not securing conventional munitions storage sites have been high. Estimates indicate that the weapons and explosives looted from unsecured conventional munitions storage sites will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region. Government agencies also assessed that looted munitions are being used in the construction of IEDs.”
In turn, ongoing high levels of violence impede reconstruction and stabilization efforts.
Remember this report next time you learn of a breathless claim that Iranian origin components are somehow the root of the road mines that are “killing Americans.” The neocons wanted to use such claims to buttress their “regime change” and bomb Iran campaigns. One wonders how the neocons will respond to the more plausible explanation that such American casualties are the fruit of American incompetence at the highest levels.
Pogo would frown at blame-somebody-else tactics.
Molewatch: Cheney & Ahmadinejad?
On a lighter note, Nicholas Kristof recently suggested that Americans will learn more about Israel’s real problems by reading Israeli papers than in the self-censored pablum in the US mainstream media. He might have added that one can get great ideas for new columns there too.
Back on March 1st, Isreali columnist Guy Bechor revealed that Iranian President Ahmadinejad was in fact Our {Israel’s} Secret Agent in Iran.
“Could it be that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is working for us? He is after all doing an excellent job for Israel. This week, while Teheran is divided between pragmatic elements calling to suspend Iran’s nuclear program (or at least enter dialog with the US,) and militant elements who are not prepared to make any concessions – militant Ahmadinejad should definitely be supported.”
Bechor then satirically bullets Ahmadinejad’s “top achievements” in isolating Iran and making his own reputation as “as the world’s problem child.”
How else can we explain that one man brought such pressure down upon Iran and support for Israel? Obviously, he must be a deep cover Israeli mole. Oh but of course.
And now we have Nicholas Kristof, by coincidence no doubt, asking if our own Vice President Dick Cheney is “an Iranian mole?”
“Consider that the Bush administration’s first major military intervention was to overthrow Afghanistan’s Taliban regime, Iran’s bitter foe to the east. Then the administration toppled Iran’s even worse enemy to the west, the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq.
You really think that’s just a coincidence? That of all 193 nations in the world, we just happen to topple the two neighboring regimes that Iran despises?
Moreover, consider how our invasion of Iraq went down. The U.S. dismantled Iraq’s army, broke the Baath Party and helped install a pro-Iranian government in Baghdad. If Iran’s ayatollahs had written the script, they couldn’t have done better — so maybe they did write the script
We fought Iraq, and Iran won. And that’s just another coincidence?
Oh, but of course! Cheney is Iran’s man in Washington. Didn’t he once criticize Clinton policy on Iran for hurting American oil companies? One of his implants must get transmissions from Tehran.
New Challenges to AIPAC
An interesting crop of articles examining AIPAC – the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee – has emerged in the wake of the latest AIPAC convention in Washington.
In his taboo breaking Sunday column in the New York Times, Nicholas Kristof bravely observes what has long been obvious here:
“There is no serious political debate among either Democrats or Republicans about our policy toward Israelis and Palestinians. And that silence harms America, Middle East peace prospects and Israel itself.”
George Soros laments the same problem in the April 12 issue of the New York Review of Books:
“Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC’s influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it.”
An article in the current issue of Salon closes with a similar ironic challenge:
“We find ourselves in a very strange situation. America’s Mideast policies are in thrall to a powerful Washington lobby that is only able to hold power because it has not been challenged by the people it presumes to speak for. But if enough American Jews were to stand up and say “not in my name,” they could have a decisive impact on America’s disastrous Mideast policies.”
In his essay, Soros anticipated that, “Anybody who dares to dissent may be subjected to a campaign of personal vilification.” (Ask Mearsheimer & Walt, Carter & Hagel, etc.)
As noted by the new web site from Jewish Voices for Peace, “Muzzlewatch,” the New York Sun, as if on cue, shamelessly accused Soros, Kristof and others of being no different from the Nazis in pursuing a “new blood libel” against Israel.
And so it goes.
US-Iran Thaw: Is it for Real?
R.K. Ramazani writes on the signs of a US-Iran “thaw” and asks ”Is it for Real?” Read the extended essay here.
To get you started, I offer a few personalized accents:
On March 10, the representatives of the United States and Iran faced each other in a regional conference in Baghdad, Iraq. The event has raised crucial questions. Is this a real shift away from the Bush administration’s dogged stance against talking to Iran, allegedly “the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism”?
Is it a real change in American strategy or is it a tactical gimmick, one of pretending to pursue diplomacy while preparing for confrontation and war?…
The Professor first hones in on problems that I have noted here repeatedly, issues central to my own work:
“The Bush administration has adamantly refused to talk to Iran, claiming that to do so would bestow legitimacy on its revolutionary regime.
Even a novice in world politics would know that a regime’s legitimacy is given or withheld by a combination of international and domestic acceptance. Muhammad Reza Shah’s international legitimacy was in effect bestowed by America rather than by the international community. He lost his throne ignominiously because the Iranian people no longer trusted him.”
One wonders how Secretary Rice will explain that talking to Iran now doesn’t contradict her previous statements.
Ramazani laments that the U.S. blew off a serious offer from Iran in 2003 – the “grand bargain” by which Iran offered concretely to resolve all outstanding issues between the US and Iran, ranging from terrorism to a two-state solution for Palestine to nuclear aspirations. Secretary Rice lately has been less than candid in her own lamely parsed testimony claiming that she doesn’t recall such an offer. Such denials have prompted two former top aides of hers to accuse her of prevaricating.
That “little” matter aside, the fact that US and Iranian officials can admit to talking at all, courtesy the Iraqis, is an important, if precarious development. At least the two sides can belatedly and in the same room admit to having much common ground in Iraq. But Ramazani then warns that
“these expressions of common interest between Iran and the United States may yet founder on shoals of inveterate hostility and mistrust that have developed over the past half a century. It was not always that way.”
Ramazani reminds us that for the century prior to 1953, Iranians generally had a profoundly favorable view towards America. Dating to the first half of the 1800’s,
Halliburton’s Move to Dubai: Reasons?
In our capitalist system, Halliburton ostensibly does what’s best for Halliburton. No doubt… Halliburton (aka HAL on Wall Street) has announced it’s moving its corporate headquarters from Houston to Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.
This is “richly” ironic on several levels. Halliburton’s current CEO, Dave Lessar, announced in Bahrain that the company wished to be closer to its growing business interests in Asia:
“The eastern hemisphere is a market that is more heavily weighted toward oil exploration and production opportunities and growing our business here will bring more balance to Halliburton’s overall portfolio.”
Balance? As the CNBC talking heads might speculate (for other companies), the statement deserves heavy “discounting.” Halliburton has other reasons for getting out of Dodge.
Remember Halliburton? This is the same oil services giant, ostensibly once run (poorly) by Vice President Dick Cheney. This same Halliburton is widely suspected of underhanded abuse of its connection to Cheney to obtain over $25 billion in lucrative, often no-bid contracts in Iraq.
Ok, sure, 38% of Halliburton’s business now comes from “the eastern hemisphere” – including Iraq… Is this new? Or is something wrong with the airport in Houston?
Just last month, Halliburton was cited by US investigators as responsible for as much as $2.7 billion of an estimated $10 billion in contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq. And last year, Halliburton made $2.3 billion in profits, though profits were down 40% last quarter.
I venture a guess that Halliburton’s reputation with the American people is right down there with Enron.
HAL’s share price is down about 25% off of its highs from last year. To be fair, the Wall Street oil services index is also off about 18% from its high.
Yet shareholder and political heat has been building at HAL. So why not get the exit underway before the party is…voted fully out of office?
On the other side of this intriguing move, remember Dubai? Dubai is the remarkable Arab trading hub that has mushroomed dramatically as a trading portal in all directions, especially to the north with Iran and to the Caspian region beyond.
Dubai is also very tax friendly to foreign corporations. It’s the Delaware of the Arab world.
And remember Dubai Ports World, the international conglomerate that, with Bush family backing, wished to invest heavily in six major American ports? “The Lobby” helped force DPW to agree to sell off those investments last year, on the rather specious argument that DPW, an Arab based company, might not be trustworthy in defending against terrorism. DPW recently threatened to reverse its decision, claiming that the New York Port Authority was trying to blackmail it.
Anybody want to put two and two together here?
Mayan Priests, Bush, Dobson, & St. Newt
Holy Chakotay! (irony alert)
Maybe it’s my native American side, but I rather think these Guatemalan Mayan Priests are on to something. According to the AP, they’ve announced plans to “purify a sacred archaeological site to eliminate “bad spirits” after President Bush visits next week.”
“That a person like (Bush), with the persecution of our migrant brothers in the United States, with the wars he has provoked, is going to walk in our sacred lands, is an offense for the Mayan people and their culture,” Juan Tiney, the director of a Mayan nongovernmental organization with close ties to Mayan religious and political leaders, said Thursday.”
The Mayans likely will not stop Bush’s visit to the Iximche archaeological site on Guatemala’s high western plateau. However, the
“spirit guides of the Mayan community decided it would be necessary to cleanse the sacred site of ‘bad spirits’ after Bush’s visit so that their ancestors could rest in peace…. [T]he rites — which entail chanting and burning incense, herbs and candles – would prepare the site for the third summit of Latin American Indians March 26-30.
Imagine the visuals! I sure hope CNN or at least SciFi covers this ritual cleansing.
Speaking of surreal, how “faith-based” can this Bush tour of Latin America get? Oh sure, he’ll be there to promote trade, listen, and go fishing in Uruguay — while Baghdad burns.
He’s also in Brazil in pursuit of cheap ethanol – albeit with a 54% tariff on it to protect US sugar barons. Whatever happened to promoting free trade? And how much more of the Amazon rain forest must we clear to replace Middle Eastern oil?
We’re also told that he’s in Latin America, in part, to counter radicalism and support democracy.
Ah yes. And his next tour of Arab countries will include Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, and Egypt — from whence to preach the good news of demcracy for Iran.
For now, the Bushistas are complaining that the Latin protest rallies against Bush are being orchestrated and funded by radicals like Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. And this from the Administration that until recently loved to put the President before military base crowds — all of them “volunteering” their enthusiasm too. If the President wants friendly crowds, why not a visit to Australia and get Murdoch media to manage the crowds. Snow-jobs melt there.
Back to our theme of “priests” with chutzpah, America’s favorite evangelical shrink, Dr. James Dobson, has been hosting fess-up sessions on national radio with Newt Gingrich. On Thursday, the broadcast focused on “Rediscovering America’s Spiritual Heritage.” (More on that in another post.)
On Friday’s program, Gingrich pontificates about the monstrous “gathering threat” of Islam as a preface (cover?) to addressing “tough questions” about his moral failings “of the past.”
Newt’s moral credentials include dumping his first wife amid her battle with cervical cancer and then cheating on his second wife at the very time he was orchestrating the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
Dobson “appreciated” Gingrich for confessing his indiscretion, and seems to absolve him.
Besides, Gingrich is helping Christians focus on the real enemy – Islam. Lest you think I overstretch that point, I’ve often wondered why Christian social conservatives refuse to consider that they should have considerable common cause with their Muslim neighbors, precisely on family issues. Explanation – the eschatalogical focus within “Christian Likudism” on Israel trumps all.
In any case, Gingrich says he didn’t criticize Clinton for having an extramarital affair, but for perjuring himself before a grand jury. (never mind that Clinton was accused of lying about an affair) Now who is parsing his words?
So how low will Dobson go? Are Dobson & his “focused on the family” audience seriously contemplating support for Saint Newt, the family man, if he runs for President….? G*wd almighty indeed.
And speaking of, if you will, strange bedfellows, I learned yesterday that Pat Robertson’s Regent University will have Mitt Romney – the Mormon Governor – as its commencement speaker on May 7th. I suspect this will go down “hard” among the muzzled faculty and student body there. And this will be after Rudi Guliani – another maritally-challenged Presidential candidate, but staunch Israel defender – returns to Regent on April 17th.
Odd ball prediction: if these “leading lights” from the “Christian-Likudnik” right keep compromising their own principles in the service of an increasingly narrow agenda (Israel and sometimes “the family”), they may energize a backlash of political disbelief from their own followers.
They might even be inclined to take a page out of the Mayan playbook, and “sit out the next two years” while purifying the church’s moral core.
No, I don’t yet see another “great reversal” or “exile” back into the pews. Yet the building “sit-out” threat should be a warning both to the Republicans who have long taken them for granted – and to their own political bishops.
This whole subject has me pondering my Sunday School lessons from long ago on the separationist principles of Roger Williams, the Rhode Island Baptist pioneer and fellow seeker.
The 2008 faith and politics show is just beginning. Keep your “spirit guides” handy.
Senator Webb’s Leash for the Dog of War
“We have already given… one effectual check to the dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”
–Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789
If our new Virginia Senator, Jim Webb, didn’t impress enough yet with his memorable response to the President’s State of the Union address, he’s leading the political troops again with a bold measure to rein in the Imperial Presidency.
While the new Congress muddles gingerly in efforts to restrain the President’s hand in the war already in progress in Iraq, Senator Webb has introduced new legislation intended precisely to prohibit the Bush-Cheney Administration from launching a new war on Iran – without formal Congressional authorization.
Jefferson would approve.
Below I provide the full text of Webb’s floor speech from earlier today (March 5th) introducing his legislation and a few excerpts from his afternoon press conference. It appears the main stream media has barely touched Webb’s bill — so far, even though I anticipate it may yet garner wide, even bipartisan support. (I’ll add more details on the Bill # and actual text, when I get it.) Let’s note reports we see on the bill in the discussion.
Here’s Webb’s Senate speech, with comments inserted:
“Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran without congressional authorization. The purpose of this legislation is to restore a proper balance between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to the commencement of military activities.
“I have taken great care in the preparation of this bill to ensure that it will not in any way prevent our military forces from carrying out their tactical responsibilities in places such as Iraq and in the international waters off Iran’s coast. The legislation allows American forces to directly respond to attacks or possible attacks that might be initiated from Iran, as well as those that might be begun elsewhere and then carry over into Iranian territory. I have also excluded operations related to intelligence gathering.
“The major function of this legislation is to prevent this Administration from commencing unprovoked military activities against Iran without the approval of the Congress. The legislation accomplishes this goal through the proper constitutional process of prohibiting all funding for such an endeavor. Unlike the current situation in Iraq, where cutting off funds might impede or interrupt ongoing operations, this legislation denies funding that would be necessary to begin such operations against Iran in the first place.
Webb then approvingly notes what may be the Bush Administration’s efforts to head off widespread concerns that it was deliberately seeking a pretext to start a war with Iran: