WASHINGTON: Sick and injured cattle, which are at the highest risk of having mad cow disease, have been banned from the US food supply chain.
In a move to bolster confidence in US beef after last week's first confirmed case of mad cow, Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced a range of measures yesterday.
The biggest change is the ban on "downer animals" which cannot walk because of illness or injury. They number about 195,000 of the 35.7 million US cattle slaughtered each year.
And human consumption of certain high-risk parts from older cattle, including the brain, eyes, spinal cord and small intestines, will be prohibited.
In other moves, inspectors will keep potentially ill animals out of the food supply until tests confirm they are safe, while plans for a comprehensive national system to track cattle will be rushed through.
More than 30 countries have banned the import of US beef after the mad cow case in a Holstein cow from Washington state. article
Didn't think you were eating cow eyes and spinal cord?
What you don't know can't hurt you, right?
What's a "potentially ill" animal? That'd be all of them, wouldn't it?
There's more. You'll feel better.
"Inspectors will no longer mark cattle tested for BSE as 'inspected and passed' until ... the animals have, in fact, tested negative for BSE," the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) said. article
Well, damn! That's reassuring. Holy cow! That stamp has in the past really meant, oh, squat, then, hasn't it?
The Washington dairy cow infected with the brain-wasting disease was unable to walk when she arrived for slaughter on Dec. 9, and deemed a "downer" animal by USDA.
Brain tissue was sent that day for mad cow testing, but the carcass was processed into raw beef before the initial test result was completed on Dec. 22. The delay in the test results was due in part to a backlog at the USDA's animal disease laboratory in Ames, Iowa, according to the government.
A faster test to detect mad cow disease in all injured or sick cattle that arrive at slaughter plants, delivering test results within 48 hours, is to be adopted by the government, the USDA said on Tuesday.
Anticipating an increase in mad cow testing, the agency said it will begin using more rapid diagnostic tests. It currently uses what it calls the "gold standard" of mad cow tests, which can take up to five days to complete.
I'm sorry. That sounds to me like there are faster tests available, but they have not been chosen because they weren't "gold standard". Does that mean that we will now get the results quicker (so we can pull that tainted beef off the market sooner? Or will it be held off the shelf for 48 hours?) - but the results may not be as realiable? None of this is sounding really great, is it?
I suppose we'll get a "your food supply is perfectly safe - eat beef in confidence" official statement soon. We had one before this, too, didn't we?
As recently as Monday, USDA officials said testing all estimated 150,000 downer cattle each year would do little to strengthen food safety. However, restaurant industry groups, food retailers and consumer advocates have demanded extra safeguards.
Now it's gonna be hard to come back later and say, we're testing all the animals, so you can be sure that your food is safe. Oh, what am I saying? It'll just be the old "what I meant to say" story again.
Veneman also said beef from advanced meat recovery equipment can no longer contain skulls from older cattle, the dorsal root ganglia and nerve cells connected to the spinal cord. The USDA already bans spinal cord in advanced meat recovery products.
The machines strip and scrape tiny bits of beef from cattle bones. Companies use the technology to reduce hand trimming by employees and to maximize production of meat for hamburger.
Okay, that's better. Now, besides not eating cow eyes and spinal cords, you won't be eating cow skulls either. No, no, no. Wait a minute. The first report said we won't be eating spinal cords. This one says dorsal root ganglia and nerve cells connected to the spinal cord. So I take it we'll still be eating spinal cord.
And for your final kicker...
In Seattle, the governor of Washington, Gary Locke, told reporters, "The USDA must purchase any cattle that they decide must be depopulated," adding that the compensation should cover the "full value" of any lost animals and should be paid before they are killed.
You will be buying those sick cattle whether you eat them or not.
Wouldn't want a cattleman to lose any money, would you?
I didn't think so.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Wednesday, December 31, 2003
Ah-ha! The Plame affair inches forward (or backward)
The Plame affair.
Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday recused himself from the politically sensitive investigation of who leaked the name of a CIA operative. The Justice Department quickly named a special prosecutor to take over the investigation.
The announcement was made by James Comey, the department's new No. 2 official, at the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, will take over the investigation and report to Comey.
...Comey said he had a simple mandate for Fitzgerald: "Follow the facts wherever they lead and do the right thing all of the time." article
Do the right thing. There's a simple rule to follow. Case closed.
How about do the legal thing? Nope. Do the right thing.
...[Plame's husband Joseph] Wilson said he had no idea why Ashcroft chose to recuse himself now. He speculated that Ashcroft, who has long ties to members of the president's staff, simply wanted to make sure that any findings at the end of the investigation are not tainted by even the suspicion of conflict of interest.
Here's some background on possible reasons for recusal. Not to mention, the timing factor and Ashcroft's ties to Karl Rove.
October:
John Ashcroft came under increasing pressure Thursday to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation, with one senior Republican senator saying the attorney general should consider doing so.
Asked whether White House political aide Karl Rove's history as a political advisor to Ashcroft during his gubernatorial and Senate campaigns were grounds for the attorney general to step away from the case, Sen. Arlen Specter said, "Recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider."
...Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who has led his party's charge on the leaks, said Ashcroft should recuse himself immediately.
...Schumer's press secretary said Justice Department rules hold that a federal prosecutor cannot issue subpoenas of news media phone records without the express written consent of the attorney general. Since media phone records may end up being subpoenaed, Schumer believes Ashcroft should step aside.
Hmmm...why would Ashcroft be reluctant to subpoena media phone records?
Now, here's a little something to add to that Specter information...
"So much is riding on Republican unity that CNN caused a brief flurry ... by reporting that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, had called on Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself." ("DEBATING A LEAK: THE INVESTIGATION; Democrats Want Ashcroft Out of Inquiry," The New York Times, October 3, 2003)
Specter told CNN on October 2, 2003: "Recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider. ... I don't know what he knows. But I think it is something he should consider." ("GOP senator: Ashcroft should consider recusal on leak probe," CNN.com, October 2, 2003 Thursday)
Specter also told CNN: "Whoever did it ought to go to jail. I think a law was broken and I think there has to be a tough penalty when we apprehend the perpetrator." ("Lawmakers say White House leak 'perpetrator' should be jailed," Agence France Presse, October 5, 2003)
"After a call from the White House, Specter issues a disclaimer, saying he had been misquoted. What he meant to say was that Ashcroft should refuse to let himself be intimidated." ("COMMENTARY - White House gears up for a great show," Press & Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton, NY), October 8, 2003, Pg. 8A) article
The old "what I meant to say" business.
At any rate, Ashcroft has recused himself. Perhaps we will eventually know why. But I would advise against holding your breath.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday recused himself from the politically sensitive investigation of who leaked the name of a CIA operative. The Justice Department quickly named a special prosecutor to take over the investigation.
The announcement was made by James Comey, the department's new No. 2 official, at the Justice Department. The U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, will take over the investigation and report to Comey.
...Comey said he had a simple mandate for Fitzgerald: "Follow the facts wherever they lead and do the right thing all of the time." article
Do the right thing. There's a simple rule to follow. Case closed.
How about do the legal thing? Nope. Do the right thing.
...[Plame's husband Joseph] Wilson said he had no idea why Ashcroft chose to recuse himself now. He speculated that Ashcroft, who has long ties to members of the president's staff, simply wanted to make sure that any findings at the end of the investigation are not tainted by even the suspicion of conflict of interest.
Here's some background on possible reasons for recusal. Not to mention, the timing factor and Ashcroft's ties to Karl Rove.
October:
John Ashcroft came under increasing pressure Thursday to recuse himself from the CIA leak investigation, with one senior Republican senator saying the attorney general should consider doing so.
Asked whether White House political aide Karl Rove's history as a political advisor to Ashcroft during his gubernatorial and Senate campaigns were grounds for the attorney general to step away from the case, Sen. Arlen Specter said, "Recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider."
...Sen. Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat who has led his party's charge on the leaks, said Ashcroft should recuse himself immediately.
...Schumer's press secretary said Justice Department rules hold that a federal prosecutor cannot issue subpoenas of news media phone records without the express written consent of the attorney general. Since media phone records may end up being subpoenaed, Schumer believes Ashcroft should step aside.
Hmmm...why would Ashcroft be reluctant to subpoena media phone records?
Now, here's a little something to add to that Specter information...
"So much is riding on Republican unity that CNN caused a brief flurry ... by reporting that Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, had called on Mr. Ashcroft to recuse himself." ("DEBATING A LEAK: THE INVESTIGATION; Democrats Want Ashcroft Out of Inquiry," The New York Times, October 3, 2003)
Specter told CNN on October 2, 2003: "Recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider. ... I don't know what he knows. But I think it is something he should consider." ("GOP senator: Ashcroft should consider recusal on leak probe," CNN.com, October 2, 2003 Thursday)
Specter also told CNN: "Whoever did it ought to go to jail. I think a law was broken and I think there has to be a tough penalty when we apprehend the perpetrator." ("Lawmakers say White House leak 'perpetrator' should be jailed," Agence France Presse, October 5, 2003)
"After a call from the White House, Specter issues a disclaimer, saying he had been misquoted. What he meant to say was that Ashcroft should refuse to let himself be intimidated." ("COMMENTARY - White House gears up for a great show," Press & Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton, NY), October 8, 2003, Pg. 8A) article
The old "what I meant to say" business.
At any rate, Ashcroft has recused himself. Perhaps we will eventually know why. But I would advise against holding your breath.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Tuesday, December 30, 2003
Dick Cheney's Xmas cards
Vice President Cheney's Christmas card this year not only offers best wishes in this holiday season but also bears the following quotation from Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention: "And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" Food for thought there: a heavy meal, in fact. article
Operation Rockingham
Nope. Not in Iraq. But related.
Juan Cole posts on claims by former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski that British intelligence agents intentionally provided misleading information to the U.S. in an effort to spur the invasion. Brzezinski also claims other sources of faulty intelligence came from Iraqi political exiles like Ahmad Chalabi and Iyad Alawi and Likud in Israel.
I don't think it was all that hard a sale job. And if they did provide faulty information, who knows who was behind it. After all, we have PNAC and P2OG and scoundrels from Poppy's term who have been designing the Middle East agenda for quite some time.
But it will help His Slowliness the Dope pass off the blame.
Juan Cole posts on claims by former National Security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski that British intelligence agents intentionally provided misleading information to the U.S. in an effort to spur the invasion. Brzezinski also claims other sources of faulty intelligence came from Iraqi political exiles like Ahmad Chalabi and Iyad Alawi and Likud in Israel.
I don't think it was all that hard a sale job. And if they did provide faulty information, who knows who was behind it. After all, we have PNAC and P2OG and scoundrels from Poppy's term who have been designing the Middle East agenda for quite some time.
But it will help His Slowliness the Dope pass off the blame.
Juan Cole discusses Saddam's trial (not likely to be public afer all - surprise!) and the Kurds' demands
Juan Cole discusses Saddam's trial (not likely to be public afer all - surprise!) and the Kurds' demands
Saddam's trial is unlikely to be public, according to Iyad Alawi, member of the Interim Governing Council and head of the Iraqi National Accord (mainly ex-Baathist officers who cooperated in 1990s CIA plots against Saddam). Alawi made the remarks in an interview with the London-based al-Hayat newspaper. He said there would probably be no public trial because "it is possible that he will mention names of states or persons to whom he gave money . . ." Asked if Saddam had admitted to smuggling money abroad, Alawi replied, "He has begun to admit it. He has confessed to important things." [Saddam is thought to have squirreled $30 bn. or more away in secret accounts overseas.]
Now, I know that you are probably having a difficult time believing the trial wouldn't be public. And of course, these IGC people all seem to have an opinion that they don't hesitate to voice.
Like we ever figured that Saddam would get to a public trial. Some don't even think he'll get as far as any trial - public or not. He may be getting the assurance that, in return for certain information, he will get a public trial, but would he know his captors better than to believe that? I think so.
I think we're being fed whatever information they think sounds good. I'm sure I don't know the angles. But that report that Saddam threatened to reveal embarrassing information if his captors continued to pressure him...I have to ask myself: why would he be "threatening" to reveal embarrassing information? Who's he going to reveal it to? I mean, if the CIA is holding and interrogating him in secret. Wouldn't a threat under those circumstances be like assuring yourself that you'd never get a public trial? What kind of threat could that be? He must surely know that the CIA doesn't play by any particular rules. And, hey, anything could happen, right Lee*?
I think the most likely thing going on, if Mr. Hussein is still with us in the land of the living, is that he is trying to negotiate himself to some position somewhere, and the CIA is trying to play him along on that in order to get as much information out of him as they can, and weighing whether he can be of any further use to them alive. (They might both be figuring a way to repay Georgie Double-face for their respective insults. That would be an interesting twist.)
Now where are all those Saddam body doubles? They ought to be good for some future plot.
Cole concludes:
I found Alawi's remarks chilling. The case against Saddam appears likely to proceed as a closed Star Chamber. Alawi, among those in charge of crafting the case, is a plaintiff himself and seemed to imply that he might be involved in a personal injury suit against the former regime! And, Alawi seems to be trying to hold the information that might come out in the trial over the heads of the Jordanian and other regional governments, as a kind of blackmail. Well, at least Rummy won't have to worry about Saddam going on and on about their close friendship back in the day, on Arab satellite television. Ooops. That's probably one reason the Bush administration announced with such alacrity that Saddam would be tried in Iraq.
As regards the Kurds' demands:
The two most prominent Kurdish leaders are making a full court press for an Iraqi Kurdistan to be enshrined in law before the American civil administration decamps on July 1.
Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, has called for a revision of the November 15, 2003, accord between the Interim Governing Council and the United States, saying, "The November 15 accord must be revised and 'Kurdish rights' within an Iraqi federation must be mentioned."
...Laith Kubba, head of the Iraqi National Grouping in Washington DC [says Washington] will tell the Kurds "no."
The question is whether the Kurds will take "no" for an answer. Barzani's reference to the role of the Peshmerga or Kurdish militias in liberating northern Iraq can also be read as a veiled threat to the IGC. The Kurdish areas have been relatively quiet militarily. If Washington quashes the hopes for a new sort of Iraqi Kurdistan, they may get more dangerous quickly. article
Not to mention that, if they really were instrumental in Saddam's "capture", they will have been led to believe they have some payback coming. I wonder if the fact that these demands are being made now, after a November 15 accord was already established gives weight to the claim that they did in fact have Saddam and arranged to hand him over to the Americans. Now they have "requests".
Of course, if so, they forgot who they were negotiating with.
In a follow-up post (the one I lifted), Cole notes that this development, along with the Pentagon's halting of the awarding of contracts, spells problems for having an Iraqi government in place by summer. I would think that may ultimately be the biggest bargaining chip the Kurds have.
But who knows what surprises are around the corner? We seem to get plenty of them these days.
Stay tuned.
*Courtesy Rev. Day-Bu at Re:Zine
Saddam's trial is unlikely to be public, according to Iyad Alawi, member of the Interim Governing Council and head of the Iraqi National Accord (mainly ex-Baathist officers who cooperated in 1990s CIA plots against Saddam). Alawi made the remarks in an interview with the London-based al-Hayat newspaper. He said there would probably be no public trial because "it is possible that he will mention names of states or persons to whom he gave money . . ." Asked if Saddam had admitted to smuggling money abroad, Alawi replied, "He has begun to admit it. He has confessed to important things." [Saddam is thought to have squirreled $30 bn. or more away in secret accounts overseas.]
Now, I know that you are probably having a difficult time believing the trial wouldn't be public. And of course, these IGC people all seem to have an opinion that they don't hesitate to voice.
Like we ever figured that Saddam would get to a public trial. Some don't even think he'll get as far as any trial - public or not. He may be getting the assurance that, in return for certain information, he will get a public trial, but would he know his captors better than to believe that? I think so.
I think we're being fed whatever information they think sounds good. I'm sure I don't know the angles. But that report that Saddam threatened to reveal embarrassing information if his captors continued to pressure him...I have to ask myself: why would he be "threatening" to reveal embarrassing information? Who's he going to reveal it to? I mean, if the CIA is holding and interrogating him in secret. Wouldn't a threat under those circumstances be like assuring yourself that you'd never get a public trial? What kind of threat could that be? He must surely know that the CIA doesn't play by any particular rules. And, hey, anything could happen, right Lee*?
I think the most likely thing going on, if Mr. Hussein is still with us in the land of the living, is that he is trying to negotiate himself to some position somewhere, and the CIA is trying to play him along on that in order to get as much information out of him as they can, and weighing whether he can be of any further use to them alive. (They might both be figuring a way to repay Georgie Double-face for their respective insults. That would be an interesting twist.)
Now where are all those Saddam body doubles? They ought to be good for some future plot.
Cole concludes:
I found Alawi's remarks chilling. The case against Saddam appears likely to proceed as a closed Star Chamber. Alawi, among those in charge of crafting the case, is a plaintiff himself and seemed to imply that he might be involved in a personal injury suit against the former regime! And, Alawi seems to be trying to hold the information that might come out in the trial over the heads of the Jordanian and other regional governments, as a kind of blackmail. Well, at least Rummy won't have to worry about Saddam going on and on about their close friendship back in the day, on Arab satellite television. Ooops. That's probably one reason the Bush administration announced with such alacrity that Saddam would be tried in Iraq.
As regards the Kurds' demands:
The two most prominent Kurdish leaders are making a full court press for an Iraqi Kurdistan to be enshrined in law before the American civil administration decamps on July 1.
Massoud Barzani, head of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, has called for a revision of the November 15, 2003, accord between the Interim Governing Council and the United States, saying, "The November 15 accord must be revised and 'Kurdish rights' within an Iraqi federation must be mentioned."
...Laith Kubba, head of the Iraqi National Grouping in Washington DC [says Washington] will tell the Kurds "no."
The question is whether the Kurds will take "no" for an answer. Barzani's reference to the role of the Peshmerga or Kurdish militias in liberating northern Iraq can also be read as a veiled threat to the IGC. The Kurdish areas have been relatively quiet militarily. If Washington quashes the hopes for a new sort of Iraqi Kurdistan, they may get more dangerous quickly. article
Not to mention that, if they really were instrumental in Saddam's "capture", they will have been led to believe they have some payback coming. I wonder if the fact that these demands are being made now, after a November 15 accord was already established gives weight to the claim that they did in fact have Saddam and arranged to hand him over to the Americans. Now they have "requests".
Of course, if so, they forgot who they were negotiating with.
In a follow-up post (the one I lifted), Cole notes that this development, along with the Pentagon's halting of the awarding of contracts, spells problems for having an Iraqi government in place by summer. I would think that may ultimately be the biggest bargaining chip the Kurds have.
But who knows what surprises are around the corner? We seem to get plenty of them these days.
Stay tuned.
*Courtesy Rev. Day-Bu at Re:Zine
Corruption Concerns Delay Pentagon Reconstruction Projects in Iraq
The Boston Globe reports that the Pentagon has canceled the process of giving out bids to reconstruct Iraq until February 1, out of concern for pervasive corruption. It is being alleged that a small group of mercantile clans is manipulating the bidding process through dummy companies, hiding their continued domination of the economy. The Coalition Provisional Authory of Paul Bremer had been counting on the influx of reconstruction monies to win hearts and minds and begin establishing better security in Iraq. This postponement is another obstacle to the smooth transfer of power on June 30 (see the Laith Kubba interview below).
I just lifted that directly off Juan Cole.
....but you do what you want....you will anyway.
Not that corruption concerns delay anything here. I guess it all depends on which corrupt entity is getting the benefit.
I just lifted that directly off Juan Cole.
....but you do what you want....you will anyway.
Not that corruption concerns delay anything here. I guess it all depends on which corrupt entity is getting the benefit.
What about al-Douri?
I knew you'd ask. According to all current reports, he's still at large. The reason I keep a watch out is that shortly after "the capture" of Saddam Hussein, it was reported in all of Rupert Murdoch's Australian papers that al-Douri had surrendered. But nothing was said in news sources here (or elsewhere that I could find online).
Today, I found a little tidbit that's stuffed down near the end of a 12/29 article which makes the idea of a recent surrender more interesting:
The organizing spirit of the insurgency, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam's number two, actually attempted to negotiate his surrender through Arab tribes in Mosul in April. The talks failed, because, according to sources in Mosul, he demanded immunity from prosecution. article
I do think that if he has recently surrrendered, we will be given a periodic tease about him still being at large, and even this kind of tease that he's been seen. To keep the show going. And then, when Double-face needs another boost, Voila! We "capture" al-Douri - the last of the bad guys. I might have thought that his surrender would have been great PR after "the capture" - you know, it was such a coup that the rest of the bad guys just folded in fear and/or defeat. But, thinking about it a bit more, it may actually work best to leave Americans with the idea that he's still out there, as the demand to pull our troops out might get stronger if people think all the bad guys have been killed or captured. Isn't that why we're over there? And if we pull out before we get al-Douri, we leave an enemy with a leader.
Or something like that. It must be hell trying to figure all the angles and weight them.
Americans are fickle, though, and always in search of new entertainment. I know I am. So I think we will need something bigger and closer to home to take our minds off the steady loss of jobs and other dollar woes by the time another election comes round. (Which is really just more infuriating - they already know how to steal elections, so why terrorize us, too? Perhaps so that eventually they don't have to bother with the cost and trouble of even having elections?)
I guess turning all the news sources into Fox news will help greatly, though. We shall see.
DoJ and FCC have approved the contentious merger of DiretTV and News Corp (Fox News parent).
The Justice Department requires that News Corp. appoint only US citizens to the Hughes Electronics Corp./DirecTV audit committee. article
How interesting is that?
FCC Chairman Michael Powell described the merger as offering "a particularly compelling public interest benefit in light of continued cable rate hikes."
By God, yes. Lower rates is more important than independence or diversity in broadcasting.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Today, I found a little tidbit that's stuffed down near the end of a 12/29 article which makes the idea of a recent surrender more interesting:
The organizing spirit of the insurgency, Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam's number two, actually attempted to negotiate his surrender through Arab tribes in Mosul in April. The talks failed, because, according to sources in Mosul, he demanded immunity from prosecution. article
I do think that if he has recently surrrendered, we will be given a periodic tease about him still being at large, and even this kind of tease that he's been seen. To keep the show going. And then, when Double-face needs another boost, Voila! We "capture" al-Douri - the last of the bad guys. I might have thought that his surrender would have been great PR after "the capture" - you know, it was such a coup that the rest of the bad guys just folded in fear and/or defeat. But, thinking about it a bit more, it may actually work best to leave Americans with the idea that he's still out there, as the demand to pull our troops out might get stronger if people think all the bad guys have been killed or captured. Isn't that why we're over there? And if we pull out before we get al-Douri, we leave an enemy with a leader.
Or something like that. It must be hell trying to figure all the angles and weight them.
Americans are fickle, though, and always in search of new entertainment. I know I am. So I think we will need something bigger and closer to home to take our minds off the steady loss of jobs and other dollar woes by the time another election comes round. (Which is really just more infuriating - they already know how to steal elections, so why terrorize us, too? Perhaps so that eventually they don't have to bother with the cost and trouble of even having elections?)
I guess turning all the news sources into Fox news will help greatly, though. We shall see.
DoJ and FCC have approved the contentious merger of DiretTV and News Corp (Fox News parent).
The Justice Department requires that News Corp. appoint only US citizens to the Hughes Electronics Corp./DirecTV audit committee. article
How interesting is that?
FCC Chairman Michael Powell described the merger as offering "a particularly compelling public interest benefit in light of continued cable rate hikes."
By God, yes. Lower rates is more important than independence or diversity in broadcasting.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
So we don't have to fight them here
That is a much more telling line than you might imagine. Any time someone says that, rest assured that this is not a peace-loving person. Americans are not peace-loving people. We just don't want the fighting going on here where it would interrupt our ability to consume and watch cable TV.
We are a blood-thirsty people with an insatiable appetite for more and newer amusements. A favorite "sport" among our men is hunting. (How many pheasants and mallards did Cheney kill? He's going to eat them all, I suppose. It wasn't just for the sport.) Our favorite entertainment, for both men and women, is violent sport and TV shows like Jerry Springer and Cops. We are eager to send soldiers to any country that gets in the way of our commercial pursuits or dares to challenge our might and "superiority".
We are incredible hypocrites in denial when we say we want peace on earth.
What got me started on this post is an article about soldiers who are recounting the atrocities they committed in Viet Nam, and then I went off on a tangent, my trademark.
It's interesting to me that these articles are coming out now. It's almost as though for thirty years these guys kept quiet - or maybe they just didn't have a ready outlet because no news source was interested in publishing this kind of information. And now, with the very similar approach to warring in Iraq, these men are being given the opportunity to tell their stories. What is interesting about that is those who seem to feel that what they did was justifiable as it was done in the setting of war and under great duress.
"Can you imagine Dodge City without a sheriff?" Mr. Kerney asked. "It's just nuts. You never had a safe zone. It's shoot too quick or get shot. You're scared all the time, you're humping all the time. You're scared. These things happen."
Mr. Doyle said he lost count of the people he killed: "You had to have a strong will to survive. I wanted to live at all costs. That was my primary thing, and I developed it to an instinct."
I will grant that being in war creates situations that make people behave in extreme ways, which is another argument against war. It doesn't justify anything.
Another thing these men who are being interviewed want you to know is that they were under orders to do what they did. I have heard from a special forces friend that this is true. That friend cannot find enough ways to absolve himself of the guilt. But "just following orders" works for some, I guess.
"For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians - in some cases torturing and mutilating them - in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public," the newspaper said, at other points describing the killing of hundreds of unarmed civilians.
"Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers," The [Toledo] Blade said. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings."
That, I think was not done in the heat of the moment, frightened for your life. And I will also grant that it is quite likely a person would be so mentally changed from their fighting experiences that they simply became something less than human. Another argument against war.
However, what's disturbing about the war in Iraq is that news reports of similar atrocities do get into the press, but not widely circulated. And I have the terrible sinking feeling that Americans would not react all that negatively. We would find the actions justifiable. We even came up with a nice name for it: collateral damage.
American troops in Vietnam, he said, had "raped, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of SouthVietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
What American Viet Nam soldier testified thusly to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971?
Senator John Kerry.
No, it's not terrorists that scare me. It's my fellow Americans. There are so many more of them. And they are the ones who kill for the thrill.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
We are a blood-thirsty people with an insatiable appetite for more and newer amusements. A favorite "sport" among our men is hunting. (How many pheasants and mallards did Cheney kill? He's going to eat them all, I suppose. It wasn't just for the sport.) Our favorite entertainment, for both men and women, is violent sport and TV shows like Jerry Springer and Cops. We are eager to send soldiers to any country that gets in the way of our commercial pursuits or dares to challenge our might and "superiority".
We are incredible hypocrites in denial when we say we want peace on earth.
What got me started on this post is an article about soldiers who are recounting the atrocities they committed in Viet Nam, and then I went off on a tangent, my trademark.
It's interesting to me that these articles are coming out now. It's almost as though for thirty years these guys kept quiet - or maybe they just didn't have a ready outlet because no news source was interested in publishing this kind of information. And now, with the very similar approach to warring in Iraq, these men are being given the opportunity to tell their stories. What is interesting about that is those who seem to feel that what they did was justifiable as it was done in the setting of war and under great duress.
"Can you imagine Dodge City without a sheriff?" Mr. Kerney asked. "It's just nuts. You never had a safe zone. It's shoot too quick or get shot. You're scared all the time, you're humping all the time. You're scared. These things happen."
Mr. Doyle said he lost count of the people he killed: "You had to have a strong will to survive. I wanted to live at all costs. That was my primary thing, and I developed it to an instinct."
I will grant that being in war creates situations that make people behave in extreme ways, which is another argument against war. It doesn't justify anything.
Another thing these men who are being interviewed want you to know is that they were under orders to do what they did. I have heard from a special forces friend that this is true. That friend cannot find enough ways to absolve himself of the guilt. But "just following orders" works for some, I guess.
"For seven months, Tiger Force soldiers moved across the Central Highlands, killing scores of unarmed civilians - in some cases torturing and mutilating them - in a spate of violence never revealed to the American public," the newspaper said, at other points describing the killing of hundreds of unarmed civilians.
"Women and children were intentionally blown up in underground bunkers," The [Toledo] Blade said. "Elderly farmers were shot as they toiled in the fields. Prisoners were tortured and executed - their ears and scalps severed for souvenirs. One soldier kicked out the teeth of executed civilians for their gold fillings."
That, I think was not done in the heat of the moment, frightened for your life. And I will also grant that it is quite likely a person would be so mentally changed from their fighting experiences that they simply became something less than human. Another argument against war.
However, what's disturbing about the war in Iraq is that news reports of similar atrocities do get into the press, but not widely circulated. And I have the terrible sinking feeling that Americans would not react all that negatively. We would find the actions justifiable. We even came up with a nice name for it: collateral damage.
American troops in Vietnam, he said, had "raped, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of SouthVietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
What American Viet Nam soldier testified thusly to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971?
Senator John Kerry.
No, it's not terrorists that scare me. It's my fellow Americans. There are so many more of them. And they are the ones who kill for the thrill.
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Mad cow tidbits
I didn't realize that there was a clause in a bill in the Senate last month to prohibit the use of "downer" cattle (those too sick to stand or walk) meat for human consumption, but that it was dropped from the bill in the House.
How very interesting.
Also...
In Washington state Monday, a state dairy group said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could order the slaughter of the cattle herd that included the cow with the disease if officials found that other cows were infected.
"It may not be a situation where the entire herd is taken, but it is a possibility," said Steve Matzen, general manager of the Washington State Dairy Council. "But we'll probably rely on the USDA as they make those calls based on science." article
What? Not faith-based?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
How very interesting.
Also...
In Washington state Monday, a state dairy group said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could order the slaughter of the cattle herd that included the cow with the disease if officials found that other cows were infected.
"It may not be a situation where the entire herd is taken, but it is a possibility," said Steve Matzen, general manager of the Washington State Dairy Council. "But we'll probably rely on the USDA as they make those calls based on science." article
What? Not faith-based?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
Sunday, December 28, 2003
Boy in federal pen for destroying a boathouse - one small detail...
Patrick, whose last name is being withheld, was 14 when he and an older friend broke into a boathouse in Arundel, Maine, on July 7, 2002, to steal a marine radio.
When the two saw security cameras inside, they burned down the boathouse to destroy evidence that might link themselves to the crime. The fire burned down the building and several boats and engines stored there, including a boat engine owned by the elder Bush, who had a summer home in Kennebunkport, just seven miles from the boatyard. article
Okay, okay, okay. Stop. That was reeeeeeeeeeeally stupid. Maybe the security camera was linked to a live feed, which would have made it too late to do anything about, but burn down the boathouse? How about destroy the camera, kids?
Okay, so the kids aren't bright. Let's shake our heads and go on....
The boy's parents, who live in Kennebunkport, first learned about the crime when U.S. Secret Service officers showed up at their home.
"There were Secret Service, ATF agents, fire marshals and local police," the boy's mother, Denise Collier said in an exclusive interview on Good Morning America. "They said that they had concerns that this could be a terrorist attack. They cited national security concerns."
Well, of course. Terrorists target singular boathouses, don't they?
The boy's parents are appealing what they say is a harsh and unfair sentence of 30 months in federal prison. They believe their son is being singled out because of misplaced security concerns, politics and the desire by federal agents to send a message.
Patrick was prepared to plead guilty to local prosecutors, but the case was then turned over to federal prosecutors.
"There seems to be no rational explanation for why Patrick was turned over to the federal justice system," the boy's stepfather and appeals attorney Robert Mongue said. "Every time we asked, we got a different answer, and none of the answers made sense.
Join a large and growing club, folks.
Paula Silsby, the chief federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's office in Maine, declined to appear on Good Morning America, but did issue a statement. When asked whether the prosecution of the case was influenced by the former president's role, she said "absolutely not."
"Arson is a crime of violence," Silsby said.
I'm not sure just how that makes it a federal offense. You?
The other young man involved, Christopher Conley, 19, of Kennebunkport, pleaded guilty last January to arson of a building used in interstate and foreign commerce and aiding and abetting such conduct.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. This particular boathouse was used in interstate and foreign commerce. This boathouse in Kennebunkport that housed one of Poppy's boat engines. I think there's just a wee little bit more to this story that needs to be looked at.
No, I'm not going to investigate. Just wonder.
Patrick's case goes to court January 8. Maybe we'll get some more information then.
Since Patrick was committed to a maximum security facility this past August, his parents are only able to speak with him for five minutes once a week.
"He is scared. He's sad," Collier said. "He's not happy being where he is. It's a very tough situation."
Yeah, well Patrick was a stupid kid. Patrick commited a crime. But, Jeez, maximum security? And his parents can't speak to him for more than five minutes a week? Good lord.
Do people who mete out this kind of "justice" believe in what they do? Or are they just mean SOBs?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
When the two saw security cameras inside, they burned down the boathouse to destroy evidence that might link themselves to the crime. The fire burned down the building and several boats and engines stored there, including a boat engine owned by the elder Bush, who had a summer home in Kennebunkport, just seven miles from the boatyard. article
Okay, okay, okay. Stop. That was reeeeeeeeeeeally stupid. Maybe the security camera was linked to a live feed, which would have made it too late to do anything about, but burn down the boathouse? How about destroy the camera, kids?
Okay, so the kids aren't bright. Let's shake our heads and go on....
The boy's parents, who live in Kennebunkport, first learned about the crime when U.S. Secret Service officers showed up at their home.
"There were Secret Service, ATF agents, fire marshals and local police," the boy's mother, Denise Collier said in an exclusive interview on Good Morning America. "They said that they had concerns that this could be a terrorist attack. They cited national security concerns."
Well, of course. Terrorists target singular boathouses, don't they?
The boy's parents are appealing what they say is a harsh and unfair sentence of 30 months in federal prison. They believe their son is being singled out because of misplaced security concerns, politics and the desire by federal agents to send a message.
Patrick was prepared to plead guilty to local prosecutors, but the case was then turned over to federal prosecutors.
"There seems to be no rational explanation for why Patrick was turned over to the federal justice system," the boy's stepfather and appeals attorney Robert Mongue said. "Every time we asked, we got a different answer, and none of the answers made sense.
Join a large and growing club, folks.
Paula Silsby, the chief federal prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney's office in Maine, declined to appear on Good Morning America, but did issue a statement. When asked whether the prosecution of the case was influenced by the former president's role, she said "absolutely not."
"Arson is a crime of violence," Silsby said.
I'm not sure just how that makes it a federal offense. You?
The other young man involved, Christopher Conley, 19, of Kennebunkport, pleaded guilty last January to arson of a building used in interstate and foreign commerce and aiding and abetting such conduct.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere. This particular boathouse was used in interstate and foreign commerce. This boathouse in Kennebunkport that housed one of Poppy's boat engines. I think there's just a wee little bit more to this story that needs to be looked at.
No, I'm not going to investigate. Just wonder.
Patrick's case goes to court January 8. Maybe we'll get some more information then.
Since Patrick was committed to a maximum security facility this past August, his parents are only able to speak with him for five minutes once a week.
"He is scared. He's sad," Collier said. "He's not happy being where he is. It's a very tough situation."
Yeah, well Patrick was a stupid kid. Patrick commited a crime. But, Jeez, maximum security? And his parents can't speak to him for more than five minutes a week? Good lord.
Do people who mete out this kind of "justice" believe in what they do? Or are they just mean SOBs?
....but hey, do what you want....you will anyway.
The backlash - continued
Not all posts on this subject will truly fit the descriptor "backlash", but I'm going to be using that in the title of each one so that I can easily trace my way back through them to the beginning.
Here's the second reply Nell (sidebar) received to the "Since combat operations ended" post (linked below).
To Bob and Nell - Bravo Zulu (That's Navy-talk for "Well done" to the both of you for having the courage and investing the time to air your views.
To Bob and Nell and everyone else - It is exactly this type of aggressive dialogue that enables our country to excel in the world. The freedom to express our views, disparate as they may be, over our own names, is what gives our nation its great strength and moral fiber.
We all have to do our best to gather credible information from all sources in order to formulate and support our opinions on any issue of importance to ourselves, be it the type of school we choose for our children, investments to make with our money, candidates for office to support, and issues of global impact such as the situation in Iraq.
I don't believe everything I hear on Al Jezeera any more than I believe everything I hear on FOX News. I know the e-mail I received came from a friend of mine who spent time in Iraq, so I automatically add credibility to most parts of the message since he elected to forward it to all of us.
Although I don't believe everything, but I do believe some things:
I believe that oppressors must be confronted earlier, rather than later (Think of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler after the plebiscite in the Sudetenland)
I believe that the economic impact of the world's oil supply greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq (There was no congressional mandate to intervene in Rwanda during the ethnic slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis)
I believe that Saddam Hussein's own action invading Iran and Kuwait greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq
I believe that religious terrorists slaughtered 3000 souls (of many religions) on 11 September 2001, and that this greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq
I believe that no nation can claim the moral high-ground (refer to the use of US Forces against Native Americans (yes - Americans) in the Dakotas in the 1870's in violation of existing treaties after gold was discovered
I believe that military options should be exercised as a last resort, and then decisively
I believe that the next 10 years in Iraq will define the success or failure of the actions of this last year
Again, many thanks to both Bob and Nell for sparking this great dialogue.
Greg XXXXX
Previous message
Original post
Here's the second reply Nell (sidebar) received to the "Since combat operations ended" post (linked below).
To Bob and Nell - Bravo Zulu (That's Navy-talk for "Well done" to the both of you for having the courage and investing the time to air your views.
To Bob and Nell and everyone else - It is exactly this type of aggressive dialogue that enables our country to excel in the world. The freedom to express our views, disparate as they may be, over our own names, is what gives our nation its great strength and moral fiber.
We all have to do our best to gather credible information from all sources in order to formulate and support our opinions on any issue of importance to ourselves, be it the type of school we choose for our children, investments to make with our money, candidates for office to support, and issues of global impact such as the situation in Iraq.
I don't believe everything I hear on Al Jezeera any more than I believe everything I hear on FOX News. I know the e-mail I received came from a friend of mine who spent time in Iraq, so I automatically add credibility to most parts of the message since he elected to forward it to all of us.
Although I don't believe everything, but I do believe some things:
I believe that oppressors must be confronted earlier, rather than later (Think of Neville Chamberlain and Hitler after the plebiscite in the Sudetenland)
I believe that the economic impact of the world's oil supply greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq (There was no congressional mandate to intervene in Rwanda during the ethnic slaughter of Hutus and Tutsis)
I believe that Saddam Hussein's own action invading Iran and Kuwait greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq
I believe that religious terrorists slaughtered 3000 souls (of many religions) on 11 September 2001, and that this greatly influenced the decision to act in Iraq
I believe that no nation can claim the moral high-ground (refer to the use of US Forces against Native Americans (yes - Americans) in the Dakotas in the 1870's in violation of existing treaties after gold was discovered
I believe that military options should be exercised as a last resort, and then decisively
I believe that the next 10 years in Iraq will define the success or failure of the actions of this last year
Again, many thanks to both Bob and Nell for sparking this great dialogue.
Greg XXXXX
Previous message
Original post
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
