Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says

This is no longer looking like some kooky left-wing conspiracy theory. First, the realization that Bush's administration was over run with P-NAC members. Then the using of 9-11 and the tragic loss of innocent lives to forward a political plot from the 90s by trying to link Sadaam to 9-11. The censoring of the 9-11 commission report to protect our so-called ally governments whose countries provided the financial and human resources for the 9/11 attacks. Then the Downing Street Memo. Now this... When will it end?


March 27, 2006
Leaders
Bush Was Set on Path to War, British Memo Says
By DON VAN NATTA Jr.

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

The latest memo is striking in its characterization of frank, almost casual, conversation by Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair about the most serious subjects. At one point, the leaders swapped ideas for a postwar Iraqi government. "As for the future government of Iraq, people would find it very odd if we handed it over to another dictator," the prime minister is quoted as saying.

"Bush agreed," Mr. Manning wrote. This exchange, like most of the quotations in this article, have not been previously reported.

Mr. Bush was accompanied at the meeting by Condoleezza Rice, who was then the national security adviser; Dan Fried, a senior aide to Ms. Rice; and Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff. Along with Mr. Manning, Mr. Blair was joined by two other senior aides: Jonathan Powell, his chief of staff, and Matthew Rycroft, a foreign policy aide and the author of the Downing Street memo.

By late January 2003, United Nations inspectors had spent six weeks in Iraq hunting for weapons under the auspices of Security Council Resolution 1441, which authorized "serious consequences" if Iraq voluntarily failed to disarm. Led by Hans Blix, the inspectors had reported little cooperation from Mr. Hussein, and no success finding any unconventional weapons.

At their meeting, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair candidly expressed their doubts that chemical, biological or nuclear weapons would be found in Iraq in the coming weeks, the memo said. The president spoke as if an invasion was unavoidable. The two leaders discussed a timetable for the war, details of the military campaign and plans for the aftermath of the war.

Discussing Provocation

Without much elaboration, the memo also says the president raised three possible ways of provoking a confrontation. Since they were first reported last month, neither the White House nor the British government has discussed them.

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

It also described the president as saying, "The U.S. might be able to bring out a defector who could give a public presentation about Saddam's W.M.D," referring to weapons of mass destruction.

A brief clause in the memo refers to a third possibility, mentioned by Mr. Bush, a proposal to assassinate Saddam Hussein. The memo does not indicate how Mr. Blair responded to the idea.

Mr. Sands first reported the proposals in his book, although he did not use any direct quotations from the memo. He is a professor of international law at University College of London and the founding member of the Matrix law office in London, where the prime minister's wife, Cherie Blair, is a partner.

Mr. Jones, the National Security Council spokesman, declined to discuss the proposals, saying, "We are not going to get into discussing private discussions of the two leaders."

At several points during the meeting between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, there was palpable tension over finding a legitimate legal trigger for going to war that would be acceptable to other nations, the memo said. The prime minister was quoted as saying it was essential for both countries to lobby for a second United Nations resolution against Iraq, because it would serve as "an insurance policy against the unexpected."

The memo said Mr. Blair told Mr. Bush, "If anything went wrong with the military campaign, or if Saddam increased the stakes by burning the oil wells, killing children or fomenting internal divisions within Iraq, a second resolution would give us international cover, especially with the Arabs."

Running Out of Time

Mr. Bush agreed that the two countries should attempt to get a second resolution, but he added that time was running out. "The U.S. would put its full weight behind efforts to get another resolution and would twist arms and even threaten," Mr. Bush was paraphrased in the memo as saying.

The document added, "But he had to say that if we ultimately failed, military action would follow anyway."

The leaders agreed that three weeks remained to obtain a second United Nations Security Council resolution before military commanders would need to begin preparing for an invasion.

Summarizing statements by the president, the memo says: "The air campaign would probably last four days, during which some 1,500 targets would be hit. Great care would be taken to avoid hitting innocent civilians. Bush thought the impact of the air onslaught would ensure the early collapse of Saddam's regime. Given this military timetable, we needed to go for a second resolution as soon as possible. This probably meant after Blix's next report to the Security Council in mid-February."

Mr. Blair was described as responding that both countries would make clear that a second resolution amounted to "Saddam's final opportunity." The memo described Mr. Blair as saying: "We had been very patient. Now we should be saying that the crisis must be resolved in weeks, not months."

It reported: "Bush agreed. He commented that he was not itching to go to war, but we could not allow Saddam to go on playing with us. At some point, probably when we had passed the second resolutions — assuming we did — we should warn Saddam that he had a week to leave. We should notify the media too. We would then have a clear field if Saddam refused to go."

Mr. Bush devoted much of the meeting to outlining the military strategy. The president, the memo says, said the planned air campaign "would destroy Saddam's command and control quickly." It also said that he expected Iraq's army to "fold very quickly." He also is reported as telling the prime minister that the Republican Guard would be "decimated by the bombing."

Despite his optimism, Mr. Bush said he was aware that "there were uncertainties and risks," the memo says, and it goes on, "As far as destroying the oil wells were concerned, the U.S. was well equipped to repair them quickly, although this would be easier in the south of Iraq than in the north."

The two men briefly discussed plans for a post-Hussein Iraqi government. "The prime minister asked about aftermath planning," the memo says. "Condi Rice said that a great deal of work was now in hand.

Referring to the Defense Department, it said: "A planning cell in D.O.D. was looking at all aspects and would deploy to Iraq to direct operations as soon as the military action was over. Bush said that a great deal of detailed planning had been done on supplying the Iraqi people with food and medicine."

Planning for After the War

The leaders then looked beyond the war, imagining the transition from Mr. Hussein's rule to a new government. Immediately after the war, a military occupation would be put in place for an unknown period of time, the president was described as saying. He spoke of the "dilemma of managing the transition to the civil administration," the memo says.

The document concludes with Mr. Manning still holding out a last-minute hope of inspectors finding weapons in Iraq, or even Mr. Hussein voluntarily leaving Iraq. But Mr. Manning wrote that he was concerned this could not be accomplished by Mr. Bush's timeline for war.

"This makes the timing very tight," he wrote. "We therefore need to stay closely alongside Blix, do all we can to help the inspectors make a significant find, and work hard on the other members of the Security Council to accept the noncooperation case so that we can secure the minimum nine votes when we need them, probably the end of February."

At a White House news conference following the closed-door session, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair said "the crisis" had to be resolved in a timely manner. "Saddam Hussein is not disarming," the president told reporters. "He is a danger to the world. He must disarm. And that's why I have constantly said — and the prime minister has constantly said — this issue will come to a head in a matter of weeks, not months."

Despite intense lobbying by the United States and Britain, a second United Nations resolution was not obtained. The American-led military coalition invaded Iraq on March 19, 2003, nine days after the target date set by the president on that late January day at the White House.

Stolen from Sadie

1. What is your favorite decade for music?
That’s a real tough one. My tastes depend on my mood at the moment. There’s great – and crappy – music from every decade. And are we talking about my tastes now or then? Cuz let’s face it, I’m sure we all liked music at one time and looking back say “I liked that???” How about my favorite music from each decade?

• 40’s- Big Band swing
• 50’s- Rockabilly – Elvis & Buddy Holly etc.
• 60’s- Motown
• 70’s- Psych Rock, Prog Rock & early metal (Zepplin, Floyd, Rush, Hendrix)
• 80’s- Some pop, New Wave (New Order, Depeche Mode) , Early Metal (Metallica - not butt-rock like Poison), Punk (Clash, Ramones)
• 90’s- Nirvana, Ministry, Nine inch Nails, Chris Isaak, Pre-gangsta rap (ala Public Enemy)
• 00’s- Killers, Radiohead, Coldplay, Johnny Lang, Moby

2. Who is the musician you respect the most?
There’s several… I respect Bob Geldof for his humanitarian efforts, Roger Waters for his deep poetry, the Dixie Chicks for not backing down, Pearl Jam for taking on ticketmaster...

3. Who is the musician you respect the least?
I think I have to stick with Britney Spears – though some of the “gangsta” guys are up on my list too.

4. What was the first album you ever bought or that someone bought for you?
It’s hard to remember which were mine and which were my sister’s or my parents. I remember liking a lot of my dad’s pink floyd albums. One of the first albums I remember getting as a gift was a Mojo Nixon album with a song “Debbie Gibson’s Pregnant with my Two-Headed Love Child”. I guess that was foreshadowing of strange tastes to come...

5. What was the first album you ever heard that you thought was great?
It’s hard to separate my feelings now from then. I honestly don’t remember what album I first thought was great or maybe I didn’t feel that way until high school? I doubt it, but that’s the first memory I have of being simply blown away by an album, and that album was Wish You Were Here by Pink Floyd.

6. What is the most underrated band of all time?
That's a tough one. Liz Phair maybe? Rage Against the Machine too. There's tons of people I like who are never played on the radio (which is a form of being under-rated).

7. What is the most overrated band of all time?
Genesis - post Peter Gabriel. Rod Stewart... seriously - what's that asshole's deal? And an honorable mention for Andrew Lloyd Webber - I know he's not a "band" but still.


8. What is your favorite album of all time?
What’s my mood? Seriously it depends. There’s several by Pink Floyd that would make my top list - among those Echoes, Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall are some heavy hitters. OK Computer by Radiohead. Quadrophenia by the Who. Ministry’s Psalm 69…

9. What is your favorite album cover of all time?

Well, I love most of Pink Floyd’s album covers because for most of them, they really enacted whatever was on the cover.


One of my favorite stories is of the Animals cover – where they actually inflated a giant floating pig over the Battersea Power Station. They actually had a marksman on hand in case it came loose and they had to shoot it down. It took 3 days to get the shots, and they ended up having to use a super-impose pig anyway since the sky they wanted was photographed before the pit was afloat.


They set someone on fire and hired a gymnast to stay still in the water (notice there's no ripples around his body - that's real) for Wish You Were Here.



But I think Ummagumma is my favorite – the pictures within the picture- ever changing configurations of the band members.


10. Do you think albums will even exist in 10 years?

In some form or another they will exist, but I sometimes miss the feel of a record and the little pops and defects in the sound. There’s something real about it. And think of all the stories and artwork that will be missed if they get rid of album art?

Are you stupid? No really, are you?

I don't normally read the RedEye - the dumbed-down, free version of the Chicago Tribune with stories about nightlife and what the pop stars are up to. But this morning a headline caught my eye:

Think your online posts are private?
They could come back to haunt you.

Well DUH! I'm sorry, but I just have no sympathy for someone who bitches about work, or posts incriminating or embarrasing stuff on their blog or website and then whines that it bit them in the ass. It's not private - it's ONLINE! If you want private - get a journal. Or a shrink.

True, most of us write our little chunk of cyberspace never expecting strangers to stumble upon us, but the possibility of that happening still exists - and if we stop to think about it - we know it.

I don't post about work, except for nonspecific things like the elevators, or stupid people in my classes. Most stuff I post is about current events, and I take full responsibility for it. I don't post pictures of people in incriminating situations, and I don't say anything that I would normally want to hide.

My question is how naiive or stupid (cuz let's face it, some people are plain stupid) do you have to be to think that if you post something on the internet that it's somehow still private? And don't say that kids don't know any better - they're more technolgically capable than their e-tarded parents and know what it means to post something on the internet - and if they don't then they get what they deserve.

Thank you for smoking

We saw two movies this weekend: V for Vendetta and Thank You for Smoking. I will defer you to the excellet reviews by Cyberkitten and Dbackdad for V. I will only say it was excellent, relevant, and frighteningly familiar. The night before, I was in a debate with my cousin about how he is willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. Alas, maybe he should see this too.


On a lighter note, Thank You for Smoking was one of the best satires (or was it?) I've seen in a long time. It's about Nick Naylor, a sleezy lobbyist for big tobacco, and his feud with an anti-smoking senator who wants to put this horrifically gory warning label on cigarettes. I'm told by my friend SecretRudy, who spends a lot of time in Canada lately, that cigarettes there already have a gory picture of a cancerous lung with the warning label. Just goes to show that a warning label doesn't stop people from buying someting they know will kill them, right?

Anyway, Nick is a member of the MOD squad (Merchants of Death) comprised of spokespeople for the tobacco, alcohol and firearms lobbies. Each week they debate over dinner which product kills the most people. Nick tries to justify his job to his son, by explaining that if you argue correctly, you're never wrong. During the course of the movie he bribes the Marlboro Man, tries to convince Hollywood to put cigarettes in the hands of more than just villians to make smoking cool again, and spills his guts to a Washington Probe reporter with a nice rack (Katie Holmes). I'm terrible at movie reviews, so you should probably just watch the trailer...

Bloggin Buddies

Ok, so the instructions are as follows:
Pick 5 blog friends
Go to an image search engine
Think of one word that describes that person
Find a picture that goes along with your description of their online personality

Well, screw that. Several of my bloggin buddies are also my friends in real life, so regardless of what their online personalities reveal, I can't limit it to that. I also can't to the Queen of the Universe and Auntie Heathen without doing Cillic - they're like the three musketeers. So I'm doing 6 people. pppbbbtt. I'd love to do everyone, but I just can't right now. Maybe later. So I picked people that, to my knowledge, no one did yet. So don't feel snubbed because I didn't do yours.


Tshsmom: Teacher

I admire this woman very much. She works a very hard job, homeschools her teenage son who has tourette's syndrome, raised from what I can tell an exceptional daughter, manages to find time to do home repair, research her state government, post very well written pieces on her blog and still hasn't gone postal... I know I couldn't do it. I enjoy reading her writing, since she's always got something interesting to say. Sometimes it's personal, sometimes political, sometimes both - but never boring or irrelevant.

Heathen: Laborious

I've known Heathen for... is it really over 10 years now? Christ. Some things never change - she's always busy. If she's not busy, she'll find something to do so she can be busy. I'm glad she found Cillic, because I think she might have imploded long ago if she didn't have someone to ground her and someone to say that it's OK to relax now and then. She's intensely creative and inquisitive - I've never known anyone who reads more than this woman - she could run a used bookstore out of their apartment. Someday soon, she'll be Dr. Heathen - and then John will ask her silly questions like "does this look right to you" while pointing to a mole on his butt. Just kidding - there's no mole on his butt.

Also, I swear I've seen the above picture somewhere before, but I can't remember where - anyone? A Psychology textbook? That would be coincidence, wouldn't it?


~R: Cautious

Yes, that is how I would describe the Queen of the Universe if I had one word. Why? I would say she gives herself far too little credit and sells herself short sometimes, not out of fear, but out of cautiousness. (What if?... If only...) She can do anything she wants to, when she puts her mind to it. And what a mind she has - inquisitive, creative, and wicked smart. If I could give her one gift like the fairies in Sleeping Beauty, I'd give her unwavering confidence, because sometimes that cautiousness gets in the way of something she might really to try (like that cute boy at Phaedra's party ;) ). I love reading her blog, even if sometimes I cannot think of anything to say.

Cillic: Cynical

What? I didn't pick the word silly for Cillic? Nope. Behind that facade of goofy behavior lies a cynic. This comes out every now and again on the Cillic Braindump, like the post after Katrina hit the gulf coast. Likewise for Cillic, I'm glad he found Heathen, who tends to have a bit more positive outlook on things. Don't get me wrong, he's not so cynical that he'd just let the world rot on the vine - he's gotten involved in the past few local elections to try and make a positive impact. But I get the idea that he's sure the human race would be better off if we just got it over with and blew ourselves up. Sometimes I feel that way too. I consider him a true friend - someone who would go the extra mile to help people he cares about.


Shawn: Clever

I'm sure if I went back through my posts to find the first one Shawn commented on, it would be some pithy comment that made me choke with laughter on whatever I was drinking. I love reading Cheese is Moldy Milk because of the diversity of topics and the writing style: Serious, contemplative, angry, and/or downright silly - but always interesting. I picture Shawn at the corner pub talking music or politics or tennis, perfectly content just to be.

Dbackdad: Deliberate



Dbackdad - which I can assume is a reference to the Arizona Diamondbacks - though I've never asked if that's true - posts all kinds of different articles, opinions, research, reviews, and even family stuff. But all of it has a deliberate purpose. Sometimes it's to provoke thought (or arguments ;) ), sometimes it's to vent, sometimes to dream of a better world. I never would have thought there were die-hard liberals in Arizona until I 'met' this guy. Now, if only he can convince the other millions - right?

More Katrina Problems

I got this today from the People for the American Way.

New Orleans municipal elections scheduled for this spring could set new records for minority disenfranchisement. The team that rebuilds New Orleans may be elected without input of the majority of the city's displaced residents -- who are largely African American -- who cannot afford to return to vote.

• This would add insult to the injury of those already victimized by Hurricane Katrina.
• An estimated 45-65% of the nearly 300,000 registered voters from New Orleans still remain displaced outside of the city, and the election is scheduled for April 22.
• Of these, 66% aren't even in the state of Louisiana.
• An overwhelming majority of these displaced voters are poor and African American and will be directly affected by their elected government.

This is a national issue, not just a local one. Allowing an election to proceed that so clearly contradicts the principles of fairness and equality at the heart of our democracy fundamentally undermines the American way.

People For has been working with the NAACP to fight to have these elections postponed until satellite voting centers can be set up in cities outside Louisiana with large numbers of displaced New Orleans voters. But the federal Justice Department has refused to step in, failing to meet its obligations under the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana's Legislature, which comes back into session next week, seems unlikely to take action either.

I am writing to ask you to sign onto a statement calling on Louisiana officials to reconsider.
If satellite voting centers could be set up in the U.S. for Iraqis to vote in their recent elections, surely we should do at least as much for Americans displaced in their own country.

Dialectizer

OH MY GOD!!! I found THE best site on the face of the entire earth... It translates websites into different dialects... You have your choice of

Jive
Redneck
Cockney
Elmer Fudd
Swedish Chef
Moron
Pig Latin
Hacker

Some highlights from the Jive Sarchasm:

So's I dun did mah' civic duty and voted in de primary today. Slap mah fro! Illinois be one uh dose states where ya' duzn't gots'ta regista' wid some party, so's if ya' wants'ed to, ya' kin vote in any one primary. Slap mah fro! A few years ago ah' voted in de Republican primary t'help de weakest kindun didate fo' Governo' win dat race. At da damn time, ah' wuz livin' in Lakeview, which be a real liberal part uh town (Jan Schakowsky's district). Dey actually had t'get some GOP ballot fum de back room and had only one Republican bood set down. ah' crin'ed when de judge yelled across de room dat she needed some Republican ballot. Man! No, real, I'm not baaaad - I'm plum drawn dat way. Slap mah fro!

Anyway. Slap mah fro!

Try CNN.com, or the Whitehouse! FUNNNNNNNN for hours!

I voted, what's you're excuse?

So I did my civic duty and voted in the primary today. Illinois is one of those states where you don't have to register with a party, so if you wanted to, you can vote in any one primary. A few years ago I voted in the Republican primary to help the weakest candidate for Governor win that race. At the time, I was living in Lakeview, which is a very liberal part of town (Jan Schakowsky's district). They actually had to get a GOP ballot from the back room and had only one Republican booth set up. I cringed when the judge yelled across the room that she needed a Republican ballot. No, really, I'm not bad - I'm just drawn that way.

Anyway.

Today, I voted with the most ridiculous ballot in the world. Maybe it's because we have a large population of elderly voters in our district, but the ballot was HUGE. Gigantic. You wouldn't believe me if I told you how big it was.

You really want to know? OK. It had to have been 12" wide by 24" long, printed on heavy glossy cardboard. They gave you this giant shield to cover your ballot - you know, for privacy. It was seriously as close to the Fisher Price voter booth as you could get. I actually laughed when I saw the thing. You had to mark with a big X in the circle for the person you were voting for.

So anyway - go out and vote dammit. I know it's just the primary, but this election determines the lack of choice you will have in November.

Springtime is here!

well, sort of. According to the calendar, today is the Vernal Equinox, but according to my thermometer, it's still February...

Celebrate the return of spring with the traditional symbols of fertility, bunnies, baby animals and eggs... wait, that sounds familiar.

As Eddie Izzard would say: On Easter children eat chocolate eggs because the color of the chocolate matches the color of the wood on the cross... just kidding.

Now, if only it would warm up...

Zuma's Revenge

I am weak... WEAK I tell you!



So John got an XBox 360 much to my chagrin. One of the features is that you can download arcade games from online and play them. Well, I love puzzle games (I'd sit at play Tetris for hours on Nintendo). Well, I started playing Zuma, and boy am I sorry.

It's fun. It's realllly fun. It's so fun that I want to play it all the time. I actually had a dream about it last week. Not as weird as the Sudoku dream I had where I was trapped on a giant Sudoku board and had to push the numbers into place (I've since lapsed in my Sudoku addiction - it just got too, well, boring).

But Zuma is not boring. You fire these little colored balls into a track and make them disappear before they fall into the whole. It's got an Aztec feel to it too, which is pretty cool.

Until I find another knitting project (the scarf and hat I made my cousin are done - just in time for the warm weather!) I'll be playin Zuma...

St. Patty's Day

First off, how much does it have to suck to be an Irish Catholic today and not be able to have corned beef? My boss, who's Catholic, said that some "drunken Bishop" usually gives special dispensation for that. Too funny. Nothing like an eternal law, huh?

I have mixed feelings about this holiday. On the one hand, I like celebrating my Irish heritage (mmmm Potatoes!). On the other hand, I hate that we celebrate someone who was likely a murderer. Like other epic historical events, the legend is written by the winners.

St. Patrick chased the "snakes" out of Ireland, as the myth goes, and taught the Celts about the holy trinity using the 3-leafed shamrock.

What most people don't realize is that the snakes likely refer to the Druid people themselves. One of their most sacred symbols was a serpent. They had serpents on their coins, serpents in their art, and many had tattoos of serpents around their arms and wrists. St. Patrick not only chased the snakes, but also the rich culture and history of the Celtic people, out of Ireland. Some of it has been recovered, but like the history of many conquered cultures, it can never be fully reconstructed without being influenced by the conquerers.



As for the trinity, I find that hard to believe, as the Celts on the Isle of Man already had a concept of trinity in Druidic religion: the three aspects of the goddess - maiden, mother, and crone - and even had a symbol, the Triskele, to represent it. The triskele also appears prominently in Old St. Pat's Cathedral in Chicago.




That said, enjoy a pint, paint a serpent on your wrist, have fun, and never forget that all knowledge is infused with the ideology of those who wrote it.


If you had the luck of the Irish
You'd be sorry and wish you were dead
You should have the luck of the Irish
And you'd wish you was English instead!
--John Lennon

The Inferno Test

Not to detract attention from my previous post, since I still want to keep that discussion going, but a recent post at Sadico Junction inspired me to post the results from my Inferno Test. What ring of the Inferno would you be in?


The Dante's Inferno Test has banished you to the Third Level of Hell!
Here is how you matched up against all the levels:

Level	Score
Purgatory (Repenting Believers)	Very Low
Level 1 - Limbo (Virtuous Non-Believers)	Low
Level 2 (Lustful)	High
Level 3 (Gluttonous)	Very High
Level 4 (Prodigal and Avaricious)	Very Low
Level 5 (Wrathful and Gloomy)	High
Level 6 - The City of Dis (Heretics)	High
Level 7 (Violent)	Moderate
Level 8- the Malebolge (Fraudulent, Malicious, Panderers)	Very High
Level 9 - Cocytus (Treacherous)	High

Wow! That makes me look like a horrible, horrible person. Of course, the questions are very much from a strict medieval interpretation of Christian morality, so I guess the "do you have pagan beliefs" question knocked me down a few notches...

Not exactly something to put on a Match.com profile, huh?


Take the Dante Inferno Test

Here's one for the ladies

OK. Here it is, finally. It's not that it took me so long to write this as it took a while for me to get my ass in gear and scan the photos. Then I tried to get the text wrapping to look right. However, given that I'm an HTML retard, that didn't work very well. So, John did it for me.

Let me start off by saying that I don’t necessarily see images of sex and sexuality as a negative thing. I think our society is far too repressed. Maybe it’s our puritan roots – who knows. But when people get offended by seeing a 2 second snapshot of Janet Jackson’s boob, something is wrong. For instance, remember a few years back when Demi Moore was on the cover of Vanity Fair, mostly nude and pregnant? I thought that was a gorgeous photograph.

That said, I do think that images of sexuality portrayed in the media are very different for men and women. The age-old double standard still exists today, and while the images and language might get more explicit, the same old story is unfolding:
Men are depicted as the actors and agents, women as the objects of men’s attention. Just look at the cover photo (above).

Take as examples, some of the titles for the Tom Ford photo shoot in Vanity Fair’s March issue. For women, much of the language describes objects to ogle (The Knockout, The Beauty), to play with (The Living Doll), to tame (The Tempest, The Wild Honey), to handle gently (The Bird). And then there’s the advertising, which, in many cases the advertising is worse than the portraits.

Let me preface, that in some cases, while scanning the photos, I cropped them to save space. I didn’t cut out any important content, just background. For some that spanned two pages, I just took the main page. For others, I had to do both.

Some of the photos were just plain gorgeous.

I love this one of Angelina Jolie, it has a certain power in it that is lacking in many of the other female photos in this set, and yet at the same time, is a very passive pose. I think John likes it too. His first words upon seeing it were “I could eat oatmeal out of that ass.” I know – it’s a lovely mental image… Note, though, that it’s entitled The Tempest. This is such a negative term for a person – a violent storm, a disturbance. Sure, she bucks the trend and is a little weird (but what’s really normal, right?). She’s strong, though, speaks her mind and does what she thinks is right. So is this what she is? A Disturbance?

Probably to some of your surprise (and chagrin) I didn’t see anything wrong with the Dakota Fanning photo. She wasn’t overly made-up, except her hair, which was done in a sort of adult fashion, but nothing that little girls don’t do when playing dress-up anyway. There was no obvious eye makeup or lipstick or blush, and her dress wasn’t really revealing; it showed one shoulder. Sure it was an adult looking dress, but I’d find it more belittling to depict her in a little girl’s sun dress while the biography says she will become one of the most powerful actresses in Hollywood. It will be interesting to see photos of her as she comes of age, and see if the images of this “starling” as they call her become more demeaning as time goes by. Just wait until she’s suspected of having an eating disorder…

I also had no real problems with this photo, of Joy Bryant (right), which if it wasn’t for the nudity, would appear no different than photos of other classic Hollywood beauties like Lana Turner (left).
	The artfulness of the photograph itself is astounding. However, I have to question the title of the piece. What would you guess the title of this one is? The Goddess? The Beauty? Nope. The Wild Honey.
There’s many pictures of women in this series that appear more wild than this, so why choose that title? Even her short biography in the caption doesn’t exactly portray her as “wild”. Hm. Can anyone think of a reason? Anyone who’s seen Jean Kilborne’s Killing Us Softly research should know what I’m getting at.

Now, for the one’s I do not like at all:

The Living Doll: Zooey Deschanel certainly looks like she’s been thrown around like a doll in this photo. She also looks like a fucking rape victim tied up in the back of someone’s van.

Another question for advertising, is why women are depicted in a sexualized manner, even for products that have nothing to do with sex. Below are two different ads for Lens Crafters that appeared in the March Vanity Fair. Two people, with nearly the exact same glasses supposedly with the same message: Buy these glasses. Very different imagery. Why?

Here you go everyone – the American Beauty! Academy Award Winner Reese Witherspoon looking like a clueless little girl. The tone of this photo is completely dismissive. She looks frightened, confused, lost. Should it matter that this was taken before her smashing success as a “serious” actress in Walk the Line?

How about this ad: I almost didn’t use this one because I thought it was too subtle, but John picked it up and went “wow, she looks like she’s 12”. So here it is. It is yet another example of women being dressed up like little girls and ogled by voyeuristic men. How are women really supposed to navigate the mixed messages sent by the media in images like this? This model cannot have more than a size B bra cup (if that), yet we’re constantly bombarded with ads for breast enhancements. The media tells us to be sexy, but not too sexy (lest you be considered a slut).
Dressing women up like little girls strips them of their power. Girls are juvenile and can be dismissed and controlled rather easily.

In this ad, the women don’t even look real. Stare all you want, they have no voice – they’re plastic. They look like mannequins. It’s more evident when you see the full-print, hi-res image. It took me a long time to determine whether or not they were real women. This was a two page ad depicting several women in what appeared to be an Old West brothel. They’re objectified in two ways: Not only do they resemble mannequins, but they’re also depicted as prostitutes. The perfect little doll to ogle and use as you wish.

Here’s a good one – same company as the ad above. These women look very junvenille, and yet they’re hyper-sexualized. Young girls get such terrible messages from the media – they’re sold clothing that is way too grown up for them, and yet they see the grown-up women who are selling these clothes made to look like little girls.

This is also a good example of how the media makes a commodity out of lesbianism. Seriously, could you picture an ad like this in a mainstream magazine with two men groping each other? We all know that male homoeroticism is only tolerated if it comes in the form of 1) an insult to another person, 2) a clown, 3) Professional wrestling. Yet, lesbianism is not just tolerated, it is consumed. Why? There’s many theories that I won’t get into now, maybe later. But it’s something to think about…

For the men, some of the language reinforces stoic individualism (The Lone Gun, The Artist, The Boss), Sexual prowess (The Graduate, The Man’s Man), while the rest are fairly innocuous. The images, however, are far from innocuous. In the images of the male actors, they are either pictured alone, or along with a woman who is used as a prop. I don’t remember seeing any images of the actresses in positions of power over a man, why is that?

This is the new Tom Hanks? Seriously? Do I really need to illustrate what’s wrong with this picture? Just for shits and giggles, imagine the situation reversed… ridiculous isn’t it? It’s one thing to have women as eye-candy. But dissecting women into parts, into props, is one of the ways the media strips women of power and agency.

Here’s a similar image, but in an ad for Calvin Klein jeans. Again, a man in a position of power over a woman.

This scene reminded me a lot of O’ Brother Where Art Thou scene with the sirens singing and doing their laundry in the river. Look at Clooney’s face and the way he’s pointing. Look at the furrowed brow and the intense expression. Now imagine a scene like this with the roles reversed. Pick a powerful actress/director/producer, like Jodie Foster. Picture her in the same pose, with nothing but men in boxer shorts waiting passively for the next instruction. It’s difficult to imagine being taken seriously, isn’t it?

I had to put this one in here because it’s just so damn ridiculous. I don’t even know who this guy is (Jamie Bell), but he just looks like such a cheeser. You may liken this one to the photo of Joy Bryant, and on the surface that might be true. But consider a few things:

Jamie is in an active position, a powerful looking position, and the expression on his face is very intense, almost commanding. The feeling I get when looking at this, is that the observer is meant to feel down low, almost kneeling (if you get my drift). There’s no nudity, but this picture is very pornographic in nature.

Joy on the other hand is passive, allowing the viewer to look at her while she stands demurely. There is no action, and there is no power, except on the part of the viewer, who is more like a voyeur.


Now, I’m not saying that there’s some consious conspiracy to hold women down in our society. What I'm saying is that the remnants of the political and social forces that kept women in subservient roles still exist, but are more subtle. These types images are so commonplace that we rarely think about them. The first thought for many people when viewing these is how much sex was in the pictures. That's not what I saw. Sure, there's sex - but not on equal terms.

Pictures are worth a thousand words, as the saying goes, but do we really ever listen to what they’re saying? The power to wield images you want to portray to the world is a privilege given to a powerful few. Look beyond the façade. Language, and the privilege to define it, is more valuable than physical or military power. You can only dominate people with physical force for a finite amount of time. Real control requires winning the "hearts and minds" of the people. Bush knew that. He didn't implement that strategy properly in Iraq, but he knew it. If people surrender to the dominant language, images, and ideals of right and wrong, and buy-in to the political and economic forces that dominate them, they can be controlled indefinitely.

Jolly Numbers

I hear all the time that numbers and statistics lie. I'd have to disagree with that. Numbers are numbers, they don't lie - people can use numbers to mislead. It's technically true, for instance, that the enrollment for the summer study-abroad course I want to take increased 100% since last week. The fact that it increased from 1 (me) to 2, doesn't make that statement false, just misleading.

That said, I am encouraged by the latest poll numbers. I was talking last week with a friend at work who studies poll numbers and decided to look into this myself: Apparently Bush II has the third highest disapproval rating in a polling history that goes back to FDR.

The following numbers come from a good poll analysis:

Highest Disapproval Ratings:
Nixon - 66
Truman - 65
Bush 2 - 61
Bush 1 - 60
Carter - 59
Reagan - 56
Johnson - 52
Clinton - 50
Ford - 45
FDR - 43
Ike - 36
Kennedy - 30
(I tried phutzing around with tables to get that to display better, but I just don't get HTML. I never have been a language person...)

And apparently Cheney has a lower approval rating (18%) than Americans gave Joseph Stalin in a 2003 poll.

I know poll numbers aren’t everything. The Bushies even say they don’t mean much – unless of course they’re in their favor.

But numbers sure can be fun…

Is it just me, or has blogger been really flaky lately?

Something to think about

My father-in-law sent this to me a while back. After the Great White Bear's and Shawn's recent posts, I remembered that I wanted to put it up.

It just keeps getting more and more entertaining

So now, apparently Iran is our biggest challenge as a nation. Not Iraq, the war on terror, rebuilding Afghanistan (though we put that on the B-list real quick didn't we?), fighting extremism, the state of education, unemployment, millions of people without health insurance... nope. Don't worry about that stuff. It's Iran.

Then we hear that Dubai Ports World has agreed to give up it's stake in US Ports and transfer it to a "US entity". However you feel about that issue, you have to agree that it's pretty damn funny that Bush's own rhetoric has finally bitten him in the ass.

Bush: Be afraid! VERY afraid! of Arabs!... no, not those Arabs, the Iranian Arabs.
Rational person: But they're not Arab.
Karl Rove: SHHH Quiet you unpatriotic bafoon!

This whole week has been pretty entertaining. We actually had a faculty member ask us if it was OK to open an envelope addressed to her that was marked "confidential". Just goes to show, a degree is not a substitute for common fucking sense.

I promise, Sadie, I'll get to the Vanity Fair thing. I've just gotten sidetracked this week.

In other news, we bought a new couch last weekend. The POS we inherited from the previous tenants is going in the alley, to claim it's rightful place as king of the trash heap. The new one is made just for us. One end is for the Green Giant, deep and high-backed and then it slopes down to the other end for Little Sprout (me) with shallower seat and lower back. I got sick of the chaise lounge part of our current couch. It's too hard to get in and out of. We also got two kick ass ottoman cubes, complete with storage inside. John picked the pattern, it's pretty damn cool. We get it in about 6 weeks.

On a lighter note

This is too funny. I normally hate these shows, but this is priceless.

Finally!

I proud to announce I have my own troll!

Here's some of the lovely things this person, who prefers to remain anonymous for some reason has said in response to the Confederate States of America post from last week. If you want to read the full exchange, go ahead, I'm just reprinting my favorites. The reason I'm doing this, is because the CSA post is old and dead, and I want everyone to be able to participate in this lovely exchange.

"Apparently you [Laura] live in a neighborhood where black men don't drive up and down the street looking for women to rape, men to assault or the next place to do drug deals. How often do you see drive-by shootings? Assaults with hammers that nearly sever an older white man's legs? Rapes and assaults in Wal-Mart parking lots?"

I asked if crime wasn't more of a class and poverty issue and you said "No, I do not. Because caucasians and Asians of the same class are not committing the same crimes to the degree that Hispanics and African-Americans are." I'm curious, do you think this is a genetic trait? If not, how do you explain it not being an issue of class. Do you honestly thing that a black man and a white man of the same social and economic class are treated the same in this society? Really?

And by the way, I live in Chicago. Yes, I hear gunshots and have seen drugged out prostitues walking the streets. I have friends who were jumped by a gang of black kids and beaten to a pulp. And yet, somehow, I manage not to run screaming clutching my purse when I see a black man walking toward me (gasp). Do I attribute their behavior to their race? Absolutely not. Yes, a woman was raped two doors down from our old apartment. I'd love to see your explanation for how the non-racist, non-biased media seems to only make a big deal about rapes that occur in the rich white neighborhoods even though they occur much more often in poor neighborhoods.

"White people are not priviledged. I never received any special accomodations for being white. In fact I don't remember being offered scholarships just because I was white, or having a position made for me in the work place just so there were sufficient numbers of each "racial stock". ... It is with great pride that African-Americans claim their heritage and display their colors. It is with great pride that Latinos do the same. Yet, the Stars and Bars have been threatened and there is insistence that they are removed. Claiming pride in your Germanic or European ancestry immediately risks being labelled a white supremicist. Feel free to take notice that there are no labels of "black supremecist" or "brown supremecist" or anything else of the sort."

You receive special treatment every day in ways that you don't even realize. In fact, we're trained not to see the inequalities and instead to see other groups' fight for equality as somehow unfair to white people. Women don't cross the street when they see you coming. If you wanted to wear an old t-shirt and ratty pants, you could, without being mistaken for a drug addict or a homless person. Clerks don't follow you around the store automatically thinking you're going to rob the place. If you were speaking in a different language, the first reaction wouldn't be "that wetback should learn English". You can probably find a neighborhood in which you want to live, where the rents are affordable. And if you were able to live in a more affluent neighborhood, you wouldn't be considered "a credit to your race" as many middle-class minority families are.

Scholarships exist for white people by the way, I applied for one for being Irish once. But sure, there are more scholarships for underrepresented minorities in education precisely because education is the key to a better life. African Americans have the lowest college graduation rates. Not because they're "inferior racial stock" as you might call them, but because the most often come from poor schools, with poor resources and usually not from schools with "college prep" classes. They need extra help because of the broader social atmosphere, not because they're dumb and intent on stealing white people's jobs.

As for the "brown supremicist" argument. There is a difference between someone wearing a t-shirt with the African continent on it and someone wearing a swastika or stars and bars. Sorry, but there is. The history and context of those two latter symbols are that of oppression not pride. Those symbols are infused with powerful meaning. Maybe you don't agree with the meaning, but you can't deny that the meaning is there.

"[Racism] doesn't have anything to do with power, priviledge, accomplishment or excess."

Actually, racism is about concentrating power into the hands of one group and decreasing the power of others.

"One person against another? I don't think I have ever heard that definition. In fact, such a simplistic definition would categorize any confrontational, adversarial, or competitive act as a form of racism. "

You misunderstood, or I was not clear. What I meant was that most people see racism as not systemic but as something perpetrated by an individual. Why else would we have a society where blacks make 56% that of whites (with the same education) and still have the majority of people say "well, I'm not racist. I don't hate black people." All the while, never thinking of things they could do to make society more equitable.

As for the whole anonymous thing, I prefer to have a name to respond to. It helps distinguish between anonymous posters, for one. I can tell from your rhetoric that you might be the anonymous poster from the Shani Davis post, but I can't be sure. I don't know any of my other bloggin buddies in person either, but associating what they say in each comment helps develop an understanding of them as individuals. I can tell, for instance, probably what Great White Bear or Sadie or Tshsmom or Shawn will say to certain posts of mine and there is a "relationship" of sorts. By remaining anonymous, it shows that you just want to come here and spew your opinion. Not to discuss, not to understand or to debate. It's obvious that you don't want that - and to me, that is cowardice, yes.

Justice?

So Chicago has launched this website allowing people to view the names, neighborhood of reisdence and photos of men who have solicited prostitutes. Now, I'm not giving you the link because I necessarily think this is a good thing but because I want you to look at a sample of the pictures and then think about this:

Who's missing from those photos?

The photos are all minority or 'white trash' - why? Are they the only one's who pay money for sex? Absolutely not. Where are the rich white guys who buy their high-line tail from "escort" services? Well, you wouldn't see them on the list. You also don't find those escorts incarcerated at even a fraction of the rate of the "streetwalker" prostitutes. Why not? They're breaking the law just the same.

This is an issue of class, people. Streetwalkers and their johns are easier for police to catch, they're out in the open, and usually don't have the social or financial resources to keep things quiet. They're already poor - otherwise they'd be working and patronizing the Moonlight Bunnyranch or partying with Hugh Hefner.

I personally think this website is an invasion of privacy. It is also a blatant example of American's unhealthy obsession with "deviant" sex. Why not post photos of everyone convicted of everything? Why single out sex-related crimes? With photos no less? And, let's face it, prostitution is only a crime because of our puritanical views about sexuality.

On the one hand, I'm glad that the male customers are finally being prosecuted along side their prostitutes, since for many years the legal system ignored the men. That reminds me of the story someone at work told me about his catholic high school and how a girl was expelled for getting pregnant, but the boy was able to graduate with his class - no consequences. I suppose it sort of evens out the double standards of gender - in a really fucked-up sort of way. What about issues of class? I would love to see the mug shots of rich white guys on this website, with their Armani suits and Martini glasses - but that won't happen.

After further reflection, the following section was added:

Here's a list of similar websites I'd like to see for public humiliation purposes:

1. Assholes who beat their kids
2. Assholes who beat their spouses
3. Rich people who cheat on their taxes
4. Americans who are "for" the war on terror who can't find Iraq/Afghanistan on a map
5. Business owners who pay less than the minimum wage or break labor laws

I'm sure I'll think of more later... any other ideas?

The Dubai Farce

As usual, if you have something to say, there's probably someone who's said it better...

This article is basically what I've been finding so entertaining about the whole Dubai debacle:

"Feel the pain over at Fox television. How do you go on stoking xenophobic hysteria against the Arabs when the Golden Boy in the White House has turned over management of American ports to an emir who once backed the Taliban? OK, so now he's a good guy, responding to Daddy Bush's charity pitch by throwing $100 million to Katrina victims, and before that another million into the Bush presidential library. But how do you sell that to a Fox television audience brainwashed to believe that Saddam Hussein is indistinguishable from Osama bin Laden because they both speak Arabic?...

Now, maybe this port deal is not really that big a threat to US security, but then neither was Saddam Hussein. That didn't stop Bush from ripping up Iraq and turning it into a showcase for religious fratricide. So he makes mistakes, but he's our President and we are in a WAR, a War on Terror. Terror, terror, TERROR, all the time.

But now, we're getting mixed messages. First, the President told us that in a war on terror you trust your own government to provide Homeland Security. You put your faith in the stern, electronic wand-waving Americans in white shirts and TSA epaulettes who check your shoes at the airport; those upstanding Americans who report to other upstanding Americans, like Michael Chertoff, and people he trusts. Now they tell us it's OK to have some Arab as the guy in charge of checking our shoes--excuse me, ports?..."

Heathen's Response to the V-day post comments

I had to post this, since many of you had good things to say on the V-Day post. Too bad Zombieslayer is on hiatus, as he's the one that made all the give'm guns comments. That line of reasoning bothered me very much, and I couldn't put my finger on why. Heathen hit it right on the head...

And Sadie - my Vanity Fair post is forthcoming, it's just very time consuming.