The Terminal Patient

[I'll update this post with accurate quotes and links later.]

I was just listening to All Things Considered on NPR. They were talking about Rumsfeld leaving, along with members of his staff, and the job ahead for the next guy, whose name escapes me.

One interviewee said that "the next guy" dealing with Iraq is like a doctor, and Iraq is a patient. Iraq The Patient is in his 60s and has smoked and drank for many years, and now has lung cancer and heart cancer and says to the doctor, "Help me, do something," when in fact there isn't much any doctor could do in that case.

I'd previously blithely referred to Iraq as "spilled milk" (claiming that once the milk is spilled, who did it and why doesn't matter much and there aren't too many ways of cleaning it up, so differing views on Iraq couldn't actually be that different). I like this guy's assessment too, (the way he phrased it, anyway) and wanted to share it.

I just hope that this doctor can at least make the patient more comfortable while we search for a miracle cure.

Oh, the poor Iraqis... Can you imagine describing the USA as a terminal patient?

A few tidbits from the election

When I was young, we had steaks every Saturday night. Dad would trim his T-bone off the end and would cut that up into bite-sized pieces which he also threw on the grill. These were done long before the steaks, of course, and Dad would call me out to the patio for "Tidbits!" We'd salt them and eat them right off the grill while we waited for the rest of the steaks to cook. They were pretty well done, being so small, but I still always thought they were the best part of Saturday night.

Well, the Democrats are having political steak this week, and while their metaphorical t-bones and strips are well known, let's have some salty, hot tidbits while we're waiting to see what they do with it.

First, Howard Dean is, as Joe Conason put it on Salon, vindicated. He had this crazy idea that instead of running things like they were always done before, he would try a "50-state solution". And it turns out, despite hoots of derision, that he was right. He's not just Rohm Emmanuel's geeky litte brother with Tourette's, he's actually on to something.

Personally, I really, really like the idea of a 50-state solution, because I live in Texas. Now, I love Texas with all my heart like a good cowgirl should, but I usually feel like my vote is a joke. It's not that I don't meet Democrats and other anti-Republicans on a daily basis-- I do, and from all walks of life and age groups-- but let's face facts. My senators are Kay Bailey Even-My-Hair-Is-Afraid-Of-Me Hutchinson and John Shoot-Judges-Until-You-Make-Me-One-Then-Stop Cornyn. They aren't going anywhere by themselves, and neither of them are stupid enough to get caught doing something awful. (Although, a girl can dream...) So, I can vote until I'm blue in the touchscreen finger but it never does any good. I still turn on CNN and there are the Texan Twins of Doom. I do have Lloyd Doggett, a Dem I really like, for House Rep., so the Dems aren't totally comatose in Tejas, but it's close. Sleeping peacefully, shall we say. We could use some help from our coastal-elite brethren.

So bring on your 50-state solution, Dr. Dean! There are Dems wandering the vast wilderness of the fly-over states! We count too!

Interestingly, before I got a chance to post this, I saw a bit on War Room that some, including strategist James Carville, are having a beef with Dean over this, saying that by spreading the love around, he shorted some people in key races. "Some people" in this case is James Ford, Carville's protege of sorts. Yes, yes, Ford was on the cover of Newsweek under the title, "Not your Daddy's Democrats," but I ask you, JC, would you have rather had one cover-boy or the House and Senate? And Ford, while very nice and well-spoken and handsome and black (in Tennessee, mind you), is also against gay marriage and is pro-life, two things that when things settle back down to normal governance put him opposite my views and what I really think the Democratic party should be. I would have liked to see him win, too, but let's not get too greedy.

And that brings me to my next tidbit: what I think the Dems should be. I think that above all, the Democratic party has to stand for one idea: We have to make room for all of us. It's as simple as that. So, you think that if I'm gay, I'm going to hell, and if I get married in the meantime, then the US will go to hell with me? Well, we're here to remind you that not everyone thinks that, and we all have to live here too. We don't all have to be religious, and if we are, we don't have to be Christians, and if we are, we don't have to be evangelical Christians, and if we are, we don't have to be right-wing, and if we are, then there is room for us too, because there is room for everybody. That's what I want. Think a Giant Spaghetti Monster created the world? Excellent, we have room for you too. Think we didn't really go to the moon? Right this way, there's a whole group for you too, have fun! Think you can co-parent with one friend while living with another friend platonically while creating a sort of post-modern nuclear family? The house next door is up for sale, c'mon down, we could be pals. But more importantly, even though our parents think we're nuts and religious zealots would condemn us, there is room for us in the Good Ol' U. S. of A. and we need to defend ourselves against marginalization. Keeping the tent open for all of us and defending the honorable ideals of America including tolerance and freedom I think should be the primary missions of the Democratic party.

Oh, yeah, and while we're on the subject of differing views, let's at least agree that Hard Science, while incomplete and evolving itself, is the empirical study of the facts of nature, and that we must put some faith in it and reveal it, rather than squash reports and studies that conflict with the administration's religious views. Scientific departments of the government were created to establish a groundwork of "known knowns" (oh, I miss him already) for the government, but this administration has used mafioso techniques to squash reports that disagree with the religious views of the base of their party. OK, you're still sure in your heart that the literal interpretation of Genesis is correct? Well, there is a big tent revival down the way, have fun, remember to keep hydrated, but please keep your ideas away from my science, thanks.

My goodness, look at the time. And I haven't even talked about the youth vote turnout or what the agenda of the Dems should be! Tune in for the next installment of Woo-hoo! What Now? , or, as you have lovingly come to know it, Little Miss Patriot. Be good, say your prayers, or don't, and then keep that to yourself.

Allen to concede

CNN is reporting that within the next hour Senator George Allen will officially concede his relection campaign.

OK, everyone, exhale.

There will not be another shoe dropping. It's over.

Democrats now control the House and the Senate. Let's all pray they don't screw it up.

'Bye, Ed

60 Minutes' Ed Bradley has died of lukemia. LMP sends her condolences to friends and family and wishes his spirit a happy journey.

Webb in? and other musings

With a lead of about 7200 votes, Virginia's US Senate candidate Jim Webb has been declared the winner by AP, though CNN isn't touching it until the incumbent George Allen officially concedes or makes a decision to recount.

I'm still in shock. The House, AND the Senate, AND Rummy's on permanent vacation. I was feeling so cynical, so pessimistic, that I wasn't even sure we'd take the House. Of course, I spent a good chunk of election day trapped on I-35, well behind a jack-knifed semi, with a 2 year old in the car who hadn't had lunch, stuck under a Burger King sign. (The kind of stuck where people get out of their cars and start talking to their new neighbors.) So I wasn't feeling too hopeful about anything.

Eventually things started moving again and we finally got home. Is that what is happening to our country too? Lord, I hope so. If you pray, now might be a good time.

Of course, when we talk about "our country" in terms of elections, we're talking about "likely voters". I don't have the exact figures of who did vote, but Texas going in to the election was predicting a 36% turnout.

That means that A MAJORITY OF TEXANS DID NOT EVEN VOTE. I don't have national figures but I can't imagine they are much different.

Look around you. Out of the ten people in your immediate vincinity at the internet cafe or office cubicle farm, only three or four of you voted. If you did, then only 2 or 3 of the folks within earshot did too.

All these polls about "likely voters", but I want to know what unlikely voters think. What about those other 64%?

Pundits like to tell us that "the country" is this or that, we're leaning left, we are mostly churchgoers, we're leaning right, we want to throw the bums out, we think gay marriage and pot should be illegal-- but are we? Do we? Is Texas even really a Red State? What we are told about ourselves is really just what 1/3 of us think and feel. What would happen if the majority of us weighed in?

What would happen if you polled those unlikely voters? Would we find out that most of us aren't churchgoers, we're fine with gay marriage, we don't want legal gambling (I'm just rambling) or that we actually lean way more left (or way more right) than we've been hearing all these years?

Which brings me to another point I've been musing about. What is the role of a candidate (or elected official) in relation to their constituency?

One theory would be that "the elected official is meant to represent the feelings of a majority of the citizens." In other words, we don't have time to make all the decisions, so we pick someone who thinks like us and will say what we would say, and send them to the meetings in our place. Another is, "the elected official should stick by his or her principles, and the citizenry votes whether or not we like those principles and want them to represent us." I feel like we're seeing more and more of this, candidates telling us who we are.

OK, let's take good ol' Anytown, USA. "The Fightin' Anytonians" (as Colbert would say) have a population of 200 people, and everyone knows everyone. The people of Anytown like it quiet, especially at night. Most of them want a noise ordinance in place to keep it quiet. This affects the local nightclub business (that's Ted, owner of "The We Won't Tell Saloon"). An election for Mayor is coming up. A young ambitious recent grad wants to run.

So here's my question. Is he supposed to:

a) go around and find out that most people like it quiet, and he wants to be Mayor, and a Mayor is meant to represent the views of the majority, so he runs on a pro-ordinance platform, or

b) does he look in his own heart and say, "Well, I play guitar in my spare time and I don't like noise ordinances, so I'm going to run as a candidate against it and try to get more people than just Ted to vote for me."

The difference is, in one scenario the citizens are the dog, and in the other they're the leash.

A candidate who tries to accurately reflect his constituency can be accused of pandering. And he might get into trouble if he is asked to decide something that the public hadn't weighed in on. However, it doesn't seem like it's his job to change us. We are who we are, we want what we want-- though that can be affected by our environment, pop culture, the Daily Show, our families, and other people that we respect, like a pastor or Walter Kronkite. We have plenty of people telling us what to think, shouldn't our representative represent us and be a reflection of what we think?

To tie these ideas together, wouldn't it be a good idea for a candidate to find out what the unlikely voters want too, and really get a sense of what the whole district wants and doesn't want (not just 36% of it), and then sell himself as someone who can make these things happen and get a groundswell of previously-unlikely voters? Isn't that his responsibility, to accurately represent us? Or is his responsibility to have certain convictions and convince us that those convictions will steer the district into a healthy situation?

I need more coffee. Weigh in, people, please!

Tester In! Could Dems control Senate?

CNN is calling the Montana Senate race for Dem Jon Tester. We're still waiting (and may for some time) on the race in Virginia between Republican George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb to see if Democrats gain control of the Senate as well. (Webb has apparently called it for himself, but they're still counting. They're still counting in Montana, too, technically, but it is apparently close enough to call.)

If they do, expect the recent smoldering of scandal involving some tedious accounting snafu of Senator Harry Reid to explode into a villagers-with-torches conflagration as pained Republicans seek revenge. Personally, I think that this story is a non-starter, and that if mistakes were made they were just that. Mistakes in accounting can have disastrous consequences (I was once thrown into the role of accountant and made quite a few myself) but they are not necessarily reflective of corruption or evil intent. However, if this means that we have to replace Reid with someone else, I would be OK with that, he's pretty tepid to be the Senate Majority Leader.

Watch for updates on Virginia.

RUMMY OUT

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has stepped down!

Apparently this was in the works for a few days (obviously, because Bush has already secured his replacement in Former CIA chief Robert Gates). I don't know if we can really gloat, but wow. I was expecting to take the House, I was hoping for the Senate, but I was not expecting to topple Rummy in the process. Forget those who say midterms don't mean anything.

Thank you for voting.

Morning Update

Tony Snow's Morning Update:

"President Bush Is 'Looking Forward to Working With the Democrats.'"

heh heh heh

One Word for Today

Vote.

If you don't vote, you can't bitch.

And Lord, do I love bitching.

Outrage

I wonder, will the death toll of soldiers in Iraq get banner headlines (as it did when it reached 1,000 and 2,000) when it surpasses the death toll of 9/11?

I was surprised I hadn't heard anything when it went past 2,752, which I thought was the 9/11 count (and I did see that number on Wikipedia, but now I can't find it). I was looking for that link and instead came up with another page which lists the death toll at 2,997. Currently, the death toll of soldiers in Iraq is 2,813 according to the War Room. Perhaps that is why it wasn't splashed all over CNN. (It certainly wasn't because they suddenly developed taste.)

Here's the thing: milestones of any sort give us a chance to stop the day-to-day and reflect. I've complained again and again that reflection has been sorely lacking in this administration (and when the other side tries, they are accused of whining). I agree with many conservative pundits who said that touting the number 2,000 was sort of silly, since the 1999th soldier was just as important as the 2000th. But if we're not going to reflect on it from soldiers 1-1999, then by all means, let's stop and think a second at 2,000.

But kiddos, you'd better stand up and scream when the toll reaches 2,997 or whatever number you find more reliable. Not because he or she was more important than the 2996th, but because that will mean

THAT GEORGE W. BUSH AND DONALD RUMSFELD HAVE KILLED MORE U.S. CITIZENS THAN THE TERRORISTS DID ON 9/11.

And if that doesn't make you quake in your boots, then for goodness' sake, don't vote next Tuesday.

UPDATE: 02/2007 Well, we're well over 3000 soldiers dead now and no one that I know of ever mentioned this idea that we've surpassed 9/11. I don't know what to make of that, I was sure the media would talk about it.

Quotes

"The Republicans say that government doesn't work, and then they get elected and prove it."
Al Franken

"In Hungary, the people took to the streets in revolution when the President said he'd lied about economic numbers... here, we call that Tuesday."
Jon Stewart

"I gave up being cool and settled for being pleasant."
Garrison Keillor

"You see, in this world there is one awful thing, and that is that everyone has his reasons."
Jean Renoir as Octave in his 1939 film The Rules of the Game.

How much would you pay?

Bush is out giving speeches today, and according to CNN.com, he accused Democrats of wanting to raise taxes if they win in November.

Oh, you've got to be kidding me! That's your boogeyman?

Let me ask those who were clapping for this claptrap this:

How much would you pay per year to save our country from this cabal of madmen?

Lila

I've been reading Lila, Robert Pirsig's sequel to Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. While not a political book, the main thrust of the philosophy gave me the language to address the Foley situation, so I wanted to share it with you.

If you've read Zen, or know someone who has, you might well imagine the mired depths of the philosophy in Lila. Like the Prez once said about his job, "It's hard." I'm going to try to break it down in as few sentences as possible.

There are three main systems in the human condition: biological, social, and intellectual.

Biology came first, obviously: before there were towns or clans, there were people. And the biological system carries great weight; in Lila, there is a humorous description of the narrator's "biology" taking over his "intellect" as it shuts him down for sleep. "Tomorrow [his cells] would need him when they got hungry, and they would turn him on to find some food..." He compares this to a computer, that biology is the hardware while the other systems, such as intellect, are the software that runs on it.

Biology is also our impulses, such as sex and eating, as well as crime, consumerism, dancing, and so on. It is what our bodies want, despite our intellect. Many of these biological impulses are good for the hardware: eating and sleeping, for example. My mother once said of sex, "If it was as boring as brushing your teeth, no one would do it and there wouldn't be babies." Sex in fact might be one of the highest biological systems because it perpetuates the body into another body. One might also think of biology as the "wild" part of ourselves, the part that wants to gambol and gamble, fight and take flight. Take away society's mores, take away the intellect's reasoned choices, and what is left is biology.

Biology run rampant in a group of people is of course anarchy. So as people began to band together, they created society to control the biology. You just can't go around killing people. Your biology might impel you to do so, but society steps in and says you can't, and puts you in jail. Laws are created to control biology.

But society can run rampant too. Pirsig uses the Victorian society as an example of society with too much control, which led to repression. (Pirsig absolves them however by asserting that all they were doing was saying Society is more important than the Individual, and putting the good of society above all else. Not a sin, just a difference of priority.) Taking it farther, the Nazis and other totalitarian society systems exert(ed) total control over the individual. This clearly can't stand any more than anarchy.

The last system is intellect. Intellect, the system of the free-thinking mind, looks for example at the Victorians and asks, "Why?" Why are these rules the way they are? Why can't I live how I want? Who died and made you the boss of me? And so come the Bohemians, the Beatniks, the Hippies, and the Slackers. Each group is a group of "contrarian" (Pirsig's word) intellectuals reacting to the repression of their societies, and asking "Why?" This is why totalitarian systems tend to jail dissidents and intellectuals-- the intellect is a threat to a society that says, "Don't question, obey."

Intellect is there to control society by making sure that it doesn't go haywire. The Great Writ of Habeas Corpus is one example-- an idea created to keep society from locking up your biology for no reason. The Constitution is a intellectual endeavor to create a society and give it functions and limitations over the biological system of the People.

The systems are dependent on each other, but Pirsig also puts them in a hierarchy of control: society is there to control biology, and intellect is there to control society. (And of course without biology, no people, no society or intellect-- it's kind of like rock-paper-scissors.) Biology will, without society, turn naturally to anarchy. Society will, without intellect to guide it, turn naturally to totalitarianism as the epitome of society's control. Intellect will forget to eat if biology doesn't rumble the tummy. Everybody has a job.

Here is the crux of the matter, and the reason this philosophy applies to how I'm feeling about politics these days.

Rep. Foley acted on his Biology (in this case, a deviant biological impulse). That's the first bad thing that happened.

But Society, in the form of the Republican leadership, failed to control Foley. Both as the management of the system of society called Congress, and as the management of our system of society called The USA, they failed to stop and correct the deviant biology that sprung up in their midst and threatened young members of the society.

Biology will out, they say-- I had a boss tell me once, "Every employee will try to get away with whatever they can, including you. It's their nature. It's up to you as a manager to rein them in, and it's my job to rein you in." Yes, Foley did something bad. But the society that fails to correct biology is even more at fault, because they weren't fighting the fog of biological impulses in Foley's head like he was. It was their job to rein him in, and they failed.

The Republican-controlled society has also tried to control intellect by secrecy (just don't let the Intellect know what's going on), and by squashing dissent. If you think of our Society as an entity, its imperative is to rise to dominance. It is therefore the fault of Intellect (philosophers, ethicists, dissidents, Democrats) that we have not made any inroads in controlling this Society. It is our job to rein them in. It's our job to defend Habeas Corpus, to curtail the domestic spying program, to correct our foreign policy. If Intellect fails to step in and parent Society, we are doomed to totalitarianism.

Maya Angelou said after 9/11, "Now is the time for thinkers to think." It was at our own peril that we ignored that admonition.

Well, sometimes you read something and it's so clear to you-- and then sometimes you read Pirsig. (Joke.) What I mean is, sometimes an idea can be clear and you wish you could tell more people about it. I hope that I made some sense. I'd love to hear comments on this!

Long Time No Write

Little Miss Patriot has had to keep her Little Miss TV off to keep her 2-year-old from watching TV all day. (If I watch my shows, he wants his on too.) So, no more CNN all day. I'm still reading the Net but most of what I get hot about is already being addressed by what I'm reading.

First, let me point you to the new CNN Political Ticker. They've turned their politics page into, well, it looks like a blog but I wouldn't go that far. The posts are mostly old-journalism-style fast-fact news bulletins. But in doing it this way, they cover a lot more of the things going on in a day than one might expect from CNN, even though it's clear the suits aren't going to let those two cute girls on their internet team actually, you know, blog like normal people. It's done at the top of the day, for one thing, and appears to not get updated during the day. One item that's pretty cool though is that they give you the President's schedule as well as a rundown of today's planned events of political figures like speeches and news conferences so all of us PolJunkies can fill out our Day Planners.

Second, The War Room at Salon.com (you'll have to watch a short commercial to get there) has been on fire lately. Tim Grieve is always great, but when he's out he has Glenn Greenwald fill in for him. Mr. Greenwald is even more long-winded than I am, God love him, but spot-on, and lately he has been making the points I would make. I start to think, "I'm going to do a post on this [fill in the blank Bush Atrocity]" and then I realize I'm reading one that's better than I could say it. So go read you some War Room, they are rockin' the house.

Now that I've covered my butt with flattery (hmm, that paints a different picture than I intended...) I have to pass on a point Mr. Greenwald made because it's so true I want to shout it (which of course is why I have a blog).

OK, an NIE comes out in April. The WH classifies it. In September part of it gets leaked and it does not look good for the WH. The leaked part basically says, you know, the truth, that the Iraq war has conflagrated terrorism and Bush & Co. have screwed this up six ways to Sunday. Bush is irate, and in trying to take back control of the news cycle, he declassifies the whole report because, according to him, it wasn't as damning as all that, if you read the whole thing.

So GG's point is, is the NIE worth classifying, or not? Let's see the arguments.

YES-- If it was worth classifying in April, it's because it has things in it that, if published, would threaten national security. If that's the case, WHY ARE YOU DECLASSIFYING IT? The WH is revealing classified information that when released could do us harm, simply to get off the policital hot seat. Shame on you, Mr. Bush!

NO-- If the document was not worth classifying in April, because it does not contain sensitive information related to national security, and therefore is harmless to declassify now, then WHY DID YOU CLASSIFY IT THEN? That means that Bush & Co. took a valid document that was a report card on their administration, and like a middle-schooler, hid it from us so they wouldn't get in trouble. Shame on you, Mr. Bush!

Either way, this whole thing should blow back on them. Unless of course it doesn't, because we obviously live in The Twilight Zone.

There's something else bugging me about this NIE story, and that's something I saw on CNN Pol Ticker. They said that a conservative blogger had received leaked quotes from the NIE (this apparently was after the NYT published their leaks and before yesterday's declassifying) that contradicted the earlier leaks, that is to say, painted a rosier picture and backed up what Bush was saying in speeches ("if you saw the whole thing you'd see it's not so bad"). Well, they linked to it like good little blogger wannabes and I followed the link. I read this guy's stuff, and his interpretation, and wanted to punch him in the cybernose. It all reminds me of the line from The Princess Bride, "I don't think it means what you think it means." This guy is claiming to be ex-CIA but his take on things is wonky. Here's an example [the italics are his, to delineate his take on the quote]:

"A large body of reporting indicates that people identifying themselves as jihadists is increasing...however, they are largely decentralized, lack a coherent strategy and are becoming more diffuse." Hmm...doesn't sound much like Al Qaida's pre-9-11 game plan.

Um, OK, and? What they're saying is, if you run over the fire ant hill with your mower, you decentralize them and spread them everywhere. And anyone knows, that is much, much worse. Not only does this cause them to multiply and go underground, like the ants, but in the world of cells that also means that any command structure that provided leadership and control is gone. Wanna blow some shit up? Go ahead! There's no one to rein you in.

Anyway, all of points are like that, and I wanted so badly to do a comment and take his whole post apart like an Edsel, but I refrained because I don't have that kind of time and because I was afraid I'd start a flame war. So would someone who is either calmer than I or doesn't care about remaining polite go over there and kick this guy's ass, please?

And then take your ire over to CNN, because I was equally pissed off that their "blog post" just said, "Hey, this right-wing guy found some stuff that backs up the President," without mentioning that this guy was full of crap. So if you didn't follow the links and read it for yourself, you would come away from that thinking that the NIE really does back up Bush like he's been saying. Shame on you, cute CNN internet girls!

That's all for today, class. I'll try to be on top of this blog more in the future. I don't know if you've missed me, but I've sure missed writing you.

LMP

It's the Little Things in Life

I'm happy today, but not because anything really great has happened. Today, it's all about the little things.

The workers on my street are busily making homes for my future neighbors, and today they are farther up the street from my house, which means they're quieter. In return, I'm trying not to think too much about their legal status as immigrants.

I remembered to buy greeting cards AND send them, which is remarkable for me.

Warren Jeffs, the Big Bad Polygamist, is in custody-- not that I care, but the little bit of happy here is that I will never again have to listen to Anderson Cooper drone on and on about him! Especially in that Voice, dripping with emotion, which I totally bought during Katrina, but when it was applied to Jeffs, I realized how hollow it was.

Tim Grieve over at Salon's War Room posted this today:

CQ Politics has just moved the November outlook for the district once represented by Tom DeLay from "no clear favorite" to "leans Democratic."

Ah yes, I have no complaints today...

Well, you know that's not true. On the topic of little things, we don't know who killed JonBenet after all. I know, we're all supposed to be ashamed at the way we've been fascinated by her like there wasn't anything else going on in the world. But I am fascinated! I had always thought that we would never find out whodunit, that it would go the way of Bob Crane, Kennedy, and the Black Dahlia. Those stories have always fascinated me because of their unsolved nature (I am so psyched for this upcoming Black Dahlia movie!) I was aghast at the idea that we had actually caught JonBenet's killer-- no so much for justice, I admit, but just for knowing... And while I'm glad that they didn't go ahead and prosecute an innocent (and clearly bonkers) man, I'm a little grimmer today that the mystery remains on my list of Things To Ask God When I Die.

There are many real and important things to worry about, but I'm banishing those thoughts and instead worrying about how I'm going to fit all these new shows* on my TiVo. Because sometimes, there is Katrina, and sometimes, it's just August.

* :)
:(
(In order to get to the Salon links above, you will probably have to watch a short commercial, sorry!)

Stranger than Fiction

Did you see that thing about Bush reading Camus' The Stranger on his vacation? Can you believe he admitted that? How dumb are his handlers?

For those of you not familiar, Camus' existentialist masterwork is about, as Jon Stewart so eloquently put it the other night, "a Westerner who kills an Arab on a beach for no reason and dies with no remorse." I love this book. It's an intense look at the inside of an existentialist's mind-- not just asking, "What is the point for all of us?" but more specifically, "If you've ever wondered how some people can just kill and not care, here's a peek at that kind of mind." Or at least, that's how I felt reading it. His description of shooting the stranger because the sun is glaring in his eyes is chilling. And for the perfect soundtrack, the Cure's first single, "Killing an Arab", is based on the book.

Apparently, especially for the Cure, there was some backlash because it was an Arab man that dies, but to me the significance was that he was a stranger, an immigrant, and instead of welcoming or being kind to someone far from home, Meursault kills him. It's the opposite of the Good Samaritan story. The vast cross-cultural aspect, a European and an Arab, makes for a more stark contrast (as opposed to a Frenchman and a Spaniard, for example). But I digress.

Why would they think that telling the world that he read The Stranger improves Bush's image? Was Karl Rove hit on the head? Or was it meant to make him look like some crazy maverick? Maybe they don't want the Bad Guys to see him as a lame duck so they are making him into Kim Jong Il, "He's craaaazy, so watch out! He kills Arabs and then for fun, he reads books about killing Arabs! He's one bad mother--" "watch your mouth!" "just talkin' 'bout W..."

When will these insane people give us back our country?

Where your tax $$$ go...

I saw this sentence in a Salon article (which was actually about something else entirely, so no point in linking to it) that made me want to-- I don't know, something drastic that would somehow miraculously make these politicians fund school lunch programs and after school programs and yank this crap off the table:

The Silver Ring Thing, or SRT -- a Christian outreach organization that, with the help of more than $1 million in government money from the federal faith-based initiatives program, threw concerts[*] and gave silver rings to youths who vowed chastity and/or abstinence until marriage.

*concerts with highly paid pop stars like Christina Aguilera, which is what the article was about

Still think that faith-based initiatives are a good way to spend tax-payer dollars? Because personally I think this proves that the "faith" is a blind faith that ridiculous ideas like this would work on kids. At least with reality-based initiatives, they have been scientifically developed.

And this brings me to a post on Broadsheet, Salon's women's blog. Apparently, after 1 school year of their abstinence-only sex ed program in Canton, Ohio, 65 girls out of 490 got pregnant, so they are cancelling the program and re-introducing safe-sex teachings.

Too much faith, not enough reality.

LMP in Packing Hell

Just a reminder for those of you looking for new posts, we're closing on the new house this week and moving, plus my son just had his second birthday, so I've got my hands full and haven't had time to write. This war would be hard to write about anyway, and frankly, I don't care as much about the whole Joe Lieberman thing as I probably should as a card-carrying Democrat.

Actually I'm not one, but I did go to Hillary Clinton's web site and signed up to be a Hill's Angel, and got a wallet card, for which my mother would certainly decry I was going to hell.

I used to work in political fundraising, as you know, and all that stuff is so silly. They just wanted my email address. There was a great Dave Barry piece back in the 1980s about how his wife accidentally got on some list and the Republicans sent her a whole packet of crap, including a 1-800 line to "The US Senate" (what line is that?) and a lapel pin "that symbolized her special relationship with the President". I wish I could remember the whole thing, my favorite part was, "Since that time I had a possum trapped in my garage, I can't think of a time that I needed a special emergency number to the US Senate."

People often ask me if I would vote for Hillary. I can't think of anyone I'd like to vote for more, other than Barack Obama. I think she's really great, and I think she's done a great job as Senator.

The problem is, there are a lot of people who hate her on a weird visceral level, whether because they hated her as First Lady/Clinton's wife, or because they hated Bill and that's enough to hate her. I personally don't get it, but you know, there are still lots of people who "want to have a beer with" Bush and personally, I would run screaming in the other direction, after having stopped to spit on him. No, in this dry heat, I wouldn't spare the spit.

My parents fall into this category. For numerous reasons, these two centrists moved right over the years. There's a great saying, I don't know by whom, that if you're not a liberal when you're young you're hard-hearted, but if you're not a conservative when you're older you're an idiot. But I digress. These two great people moved right, and Mom even got to the point where she was really crowing about it, in those heady days of 1994 and the Contract with America.

Now, after all the hell this administration has put us through, they have had enough and are starting to swing back to the left again. I don't know how far they would really swing, (my parents as swingers, sorry, that makes me laugh!) but they are certainly as ready to give the Left a shot as I was to give the Right a shot.

However, they still hate Hillary right down to their toes, as far as I can tell, and would never vote for her even if the other ticket was Cheney/Rumsfeld. And if I can't get these two votes, so ripe for picking, to go to Clinton, then she'll never make it to the White House.

Like I told my mom, I can't vote for her because you won't vote for her.

Well, I'll leave you with that as I go back to packing. Remember, there might not be any more new posts until after we're settled in next week. Till then, watch the skies!

Winners

The interesting thing about following a war that your country isn't in is that for once you can see it, if not dispassionately, at least more objectively than one might if it's your country. Our involvement (what a euphemism!) in Iraq is so politically laden, and each American watches it through the prism of his own domestic politics. In the current war, especially for people like me who are neither Arab-American, Muslim, nor Jewish, one can take a step back. What do we see?

War sucks. War is bad. War is messy. War is death. No one can say how many Hezbollah fighters have died, the Israelis have lost something like less than 50, but civilians die by the hundreds. Civilians, civilians, I just keep hearing that word and seeing small feet poke out from dusty blankets, from a pile of blankets all alike.

All the things man has created, strong bridges and sleek buildings and gleaming airports, gone. A world made up of ideas and designs and construction and effort and pride reduced to meaningless rubble. And even if we find a way to stop the fighting, if the sun came out tomorrow, the mess left behind is worse than 10 Katrinas. The life's work of so many people, building homes and careers and families, torn apart and blown into the wind like dandelion seeds.

And as Israel moves farther into Lebanon, and the rockets keep hitting Israel, it seems somehow like the Israelis are "worse" (this is what we've been talking about in the past couple of posts) because they are causing more damage and death-- but today it dawned on me, this is just what it looks like when one side is winning. When one side in a war is more successful, it means they are doing more damage. Hitting critical routes, airports, buildings. Trapping people in their villages. And Israel is really winning on that score, although the rockets keep hitting Israel in record numbers so this may in fact be the old adage you've used a thousand times-- winning the battle but losing the war (or at least keeping it at a draw). The horror of war means that whoever is better, who is succeeding, who is riding a rocket trail of glory, they are in fact the Huns, the Mongols, the Spartans, the Thing To Be Feared, The Bad Dudes. And of course nice people like us don't like The Bad Dudes, so the tide of public opinion turns away from Israel.

I asked myself, "What is Israel supposed to do?" and I still don't have an answer that satisfies me, but I do have one word: win. (I mean, I don't want Hezbollah to win and "eliminate the Zionists from the earth", so I guess I do want Israel or at least the wider world to prevail.) They're supposed to win, and that's what they're doing. This is what winning looks like. We're not used to seeing this in the US because when we are winning, we don't show the damage we leave in our wake on our media. But take a good look kids, before you shout your jingoistic slogans and yell "Sic 'em" to our military and send them out to win. This is what it looks like.

Good Guys and Bad Guys

[Please go to my last real post, and see Caribou's comments.]


"In my opinion, both sides are equally wrong in this war."

I agree with your assessment of pretty much everyone being jerks in this conflict. I guess I'm pretty spoiled. I'm used to there being Good Guys (sometimes us) and Bad Guys (sadly, often us) and being able to root for someone (like the people caught in the middle, in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Israel) or condemn someone (like us, for say, coming over to "help", destroying their country, and floundering around in our Big Mess, all for the benefit of Halliburton, as far as I can tell).

In this conflict, you're right, everyone's to blame. Maya Angelou said about 9/11, "Now is the time for thinkers to think," and I guess I fault Israel-- a modern, educated, democratic people with a history of vast loss of life in war-- for not being somehow above this, above the death and destruction and willing to find alternative solutions. I have no idea where I got this silly notion. Clearly, if the bombs are falling on them, being smart either doesn't help or isn't working. Or maybe their past didn't make them as creative as I would have hoped.

And of course, the other side, while having nicer sides to it-- remember the IRA and Sein Finn-- has sworn to destroy Israel, and I mean destroy it. For them there seems to be no end game, there is no two-state solution or Nice Happy Middle East with Camel Rides and Swaying Palm Trees and a Mid-E-Pass where you can ride the trains from country to country on your vacation. They want a big smoking hole where Israel used to be, and how do you negotiate with that?

"In my opinion, this is a proxy war. This is payback time for the 1993 Hezbollah suicide bombing of the U.S. embassy in Beirut."

I agree that this is a proxy war, although I tend to think of it as one of Iran vs. Israel. (Perhaps Iran & Syria vs. Israel.) Do you think that Israel cares that much that we got bombed 23 years ago (unless you were thinking of something else, that was 1983)? Or are you suggesting that we got Israel to fight in proxy of us? Because I gotta say, we're just not that with it down here south of your border. Other administrations, maybe-- and certainly, this one is the only one recently that's quite evil-genius enough to try it-- but this one really has its hands completely full and is floundering in its own incompetence. So evil yes, genius no. Basically, if it involves getting off their collective ass but doesn't involve anything with direct votes attached to it (like whipping up the base over gay marriage or flag burning), they really don't want to bother.

This reminds me, actually, of a joke I like-- After the intelligence failures that led to 9/11 and the Iraq War, all the crazy people took off their tinfoil hats, realizing that the CIA didn't actually have it together enough to be beaming thought control at them. (There's probably a way to jazz that up so it's funnier, but I'm on my first cup of coffee and my second day on this post, so, well, go find yourself real comedians.)

I'm always rooting for the underdog-- that's a Shakespearean* thing, I think-- and I have always (and I mean since the 1970s when I was a kid and the last era I recall with this much radical Islamic terrorism) respected the Jewish need for a real nation of their own but also the plight of the Palestinians. And maybe I'm just swaying with the breeze here (although I prefer to think of it as a "window into my thought process", haha) but the more I think about this, the more I keep hearing my friend asking, "But what is Israel supposed to do?" And somehow I keep coming around to the idea that this awful tragedy might have been the only way forward. That, to my little peacenik brain, is an anathema, but...

Oh, for God's sake. (Literally.) No wonder no one can work this out. But thanks for reading and writing comments and maybe we'll find some clarity together. Sadly, I have to stop trying to save the world and go back to trying to save my garage from the forces of chaos.



*Shakespeare's plays are often written on the side of the underdog, the outsider, who may get trampled a lot but always at least has their shining moment-- Othello, Shylock, there are more, but remember, first cup of coffee. OK, I can't really use that anymore since it's taken me hours of a line here and a line there in between packing and showing the house, so I'll use that chaos as my Official New Excuse.

OK, Smarty Girl, What is Israel Supposed to Do?

I just had an interesting conversation with my roommate. He had read my post about human shields. We moved beyond the "Is it true?" (in which he said that there was a rocket launched from right near that building in Qana and that's what they hit, the building fell because it was too close), and on to, "Say it is true. Then who has the lesser moral ground, those who use human shields or those who shoot at them anyway?" This was the basic argument:

Him: "I believe that Israel has the right to defend itself if bombs are landing in their country."

Me: "OK. Me too."

Him: "But if you say that they can't attack areas where the bombs are coming from because there are civilians there being used as human shields, then you're essentially saying that they can't defend themselves, because all of the bombs are coming from civilian areas. So what are they supposed to do?"

OK, I have to confess he had me beat. (I think he tried to post a comment but it didn't post.) I need to think on that some more, but I felt a certain moral obligation to tell My Dear Readers that I have in fact been (temporarily) logically bested and that I may not have thought this through enough.

There, I feel better.

What was I just saying?

Well, I went and looked up the transcript from AC360 last night, which teased before the break with, "Are they, as many Israeli officials -- as Israel's ambassador to the U.N. just said to us moments ago, using human beings as shields for their operations in South Lebanon? We'll take a look at that."

And what was the "look"? He interviewed Gary Berntsen, a "former CIA officer" who "led their Hezbollah unit" and is "president of the Berntsen Group, crisis management and global security group." Here's how it went, I did chop it down for space (just follow my link above to read the whole thing, I didn't cut out anything relevant, I swear):

COOPER: Let's talk about Hezbollah and their tactics. Israel's ambassador to the United Nations saying just a short time ago on this program that Hezbollah effectively is using civilians in South Lebanon as human shields...Do you think that's true? Does Hezbollah use humans as human shields?

BERNTSEN: Well, they'll be firing from civilian areas. They may not be throwing them right in front of them in combat operations. What they will be doing is using tactics of asymmetrical warfare.

I think the Israelis can expect that as they come into towns there will be anti-tank mines, there will be explosives set up and improvised explosive devices with command detonation. And then, of course, Hezbollah will follow up with snipers, you know trying to go after those that try to save Israelis that may get injured, you know, by those initial explosions. This is the tactics that Hezbollah will use...They don't want to go power on power with the Israelis.

They want to use small units, disperse, that can constantly redeploy to different positions and then as places get destroyed they can reinhabit some of them and fight from the rubble.

COOPER: Is it possible for Hezbollah to be disarmed, or even for them to voluntarily disarm?

BERNTSEN: I think that Hezbollah will be ultimately pushed back from the southern area. But they're not going to be completely disarmed in Lebanon. They're part of the fabric of Lebanon. 35 percent to 40 percent of the population are Shi'as, and there is some support, significant support among that population for Hezbollah.

And that was it! Having had his question completely evaded, AC never asked again or pushed on that. They went on to chat about Hezbollah vx. Al Quaeda, how the Iranians are acting more like terrorists while Hezbollah had moved into the political arena-- but never again was the question of human shields brought up. And for all their teasers about this story through the previous hour, it was pared down to one evaded question. I'm thoroughly disgusted.

Human Shields?

I've been loathe to do a "war watch", partly because I think Israel is going overboard and being big jerks, and no one on this side of the pond really wants to hear that. I would say I have some complicated views on this one-- and really, what other kind could one have about such a complicated tangle of international politics? I think for now, as unlikely as it may seem, I should keep my general opinions to myself. No doubt you'll guess them as we go.

Of course the other reason to avoid a "war watch": I could comment on each day's tactics and events, but really, these things are typically only understood in hindsight rather than in "the fog of war" and things that seem worth writing about one day are wholly irrelevant the next day -- and since I often don't get my blog post finished in one sitting, that means I'd be chasing my tail.

But I think that if there is a salient point to be made that seems to apply to more than one day, or one phase of war, then I shall make it. "You can't stop the voice of the radio," my college radio promo used to say, and in this case, there is bound to be something that I feel compelled to talk about, and you can't stop me, so there!

In this case, I was reading an article on Salon.com called "The hiding among civilians myth". Israel is bombing the f&%* out of southern Lebanon and has killed hundreds of civilians, even 4 UN observers and the tragedy in Qana-- but this isn't reckless, they say, it's because Hezbollah has buried themselves in the civilian population and are using it as a "human shield". (Not reckless, right, but somehow it's OK to fire at the human shield and worry about placing the blame afterwards... hmm...)

As usual, the reporters you see on CNN consider it "news" if they "report" on press statements issued by Someone Important-- so when they "report" on this, the sentence usually goes like this: "Lebanon is taking heavy civilian casualties, however Israel says that it's because Hezbollah is hiding in the civilian population." No mention if this is, say, true. Equally effective reporting might be, "Lebanon is taking heavy civilian casualties, however Israel says that TomKat's baby is 'funny-looking.'" The reporters are there, is it so hard to report on what you're actually seeing rather than just reporting on official statements? Well, Mitch Prothero has done this in this article.

His main statement is this: "My own reporting and that of other journalists reveals that in fact Hezbollah fighters -- as opposed to the much more numerous Hezbollah political members, and the vastly more numerous Hezbollah sympathizers -- avoid civilians."

Among many real-world examples of this, rich in detail, he makes the following main points:

--"[Hezbollah] has a clear policy of keeping its fighters away from civilians as much as possible. This is not for humanitarian reasons -- they did, after all, take over an apartment building against the protests of the landlord, knowing full well it would be bombed -- but for military ones."

--"Much smarter and better trained than the PLO and Hamas fighters, they know that if they mingle with civilians, they will sooner or later be betrayed by collaborators -- as so many Palestinian militants have been."

--"...one of the political operatives explains that the fighters never come near the town, reinforcing what other Hezbollah people have told me over the years."

--"...a Lebanese military intelligence official, now retired, once told me, "They do not come out with their masks off and never operate around people if they can avoid it. They're completely afraid of collaborators. They know this is what breaks the Palestinians -- no discipline and too much showing off."

--"The Hezbollah guys, on the other hand, know that letting their fighters near outsiders of any kind -- journalists or Lebanese, even Hezbollah supporters -- is stupid... No fighters on corners, no invitations to watch them shoot rockets at the Zionist enemy, nothing that can be used to track them."

--"Every other journalist I know who has covered Hezbollah has had the same experience. A fellow journalist, a Lebanese who has covered them for two decades, knows only one military guy who will admit it, and he never talks or grants interviews."

--"Hezbollah's political members say they have little or no access to the workings of the fighters. This seems to be largely true: While they obviously hear and know more than the outside world, the firewall is strong."

--"Israel, however, has chosen to treat the political members of Hezbollah as if they were fighters. And by targeting the civilian wing of the group, which supplies much of the humanitarian aid and social protection for the poorest people in the south, they are targeting civilians."

--"Lighthouses, grain elevators, milk factories, bridges in the north used by refugees, apartment buildings partially occupied by members of Hezbollah's political wing -- all have been reduced to rubble."

He wraps up by saying,

So the analysts talking on cable news about Hezbollah "hiding within the civilian population" clearly have spent little time if any in the south Lebanon war zone and don't know what they're talking about. Hezbollah doesn't trust the civilian population and has worked very hard to evacuate as much of it as possible from the battlefield. And this is why they fight so well -- with no one to spy on them, they have lots of chances to take the Israel Defense Forces by surprise, as they have by continuing to fire rockets and punish every Israeli ground incursion.

I haven't heard any of this on the MSM. As I said, it's enough for them if they can just quote someone's statement. The last time I saw this was the run-up to the Iraq war-- the WH would say, "There are WMDs," for example, but the MSM would never investigate, but rather would wait until Someone released an opposing statement ("...but Senator Kerry says..."). If no one did, and of course at that time many were afraid to, then the MSM had nothing in opposition to report. There was never any assessment as to what the facts actually were. We're getting the same action here. As I said earlier, all they will say is that the civilian deaths in Lebanon are 10 times those in Israel, "But Israel says..."

Last night AC360 promised to look into this, but I had to go to bed before it came on. I TiVo'd it, and I hope to have an update when I get to watch it, to report whether Anderson Cooper got any closer to the truth of this story. I also emailed Jack Cafferty and Lou Dobbs, two muckrakers if I ever saw one, asking that they look into this or at the very least, ask this poll/email question:

Who has the lower moral ground here, the Hezbollah who (if it's true) are using the Lebanese as human shields, or the Israelis who say, "Yeah, we don't care," and bomb the crap out of them anyway?

In another Salon article by Julie Flint called "The fallout from Qana", she quotes Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon as saying, "Everyone who is still in south Lebanon is linked to Hezbollah," Ramon said, suggesting that "maximum firepower has to be used."

It reminds me of an Onion article from just after 9/11: "God angrily clarifies 'Don't Kill' rule".

Stay tuned and let's see if the second attempt to calm the fight and get the civilians out works this time.

Seeds of Ideas Takes Root, Blooms

Welcome to my newly revamped blog! My humble little blog has been getting a little bit of attention, and folks are stopping by from all over the world, I thought it was time to spruce up the place a bit for company. The look and title are different (a little less defensive, perhaps?) but the meat and potatoes of politics and world affairs hasn't changed. I'll still be dishing it out every morning (after having already dished out breakfast, thereby trapping my 2-year-old in his high chair-- you know, I've gotten used to working with children's TV in the background!) so stop by anytime.

Really, people, start leaving some comments! I know you're there! I'd love to hear some other opinions, or requests for post topics.

In the meantime, try to stay cool in these dog days of summer and blessed be!

PS-- We're moving to a new house around mid-August, so the blog posts might slow to a trickle right around then...

PPS-- HUGE CONGRATS to Floyd Landis, who won this year's Tour De France!!! He'll be having hip surgery soon, here's wishing him all the best. The Tour has not seen the end of Living Strong!

All Hell is Breaking Loose, Part II.

Previously on "All Hell Is Breaking Loose":

Muslims are divided into Sunni and Shi'a, which is similar to the differences between Catholics and Protestants in Christianity. They generally don't like each other and think that the other side is worshipping all wrong.

Muslims are spread all over the world, but some countries are dominate in one or the other sect of Islam. Needless to say, countries that identify with one side are going to back up that side. To compare this to the familiar, Protestant countries like England and Catholic countries like Spain might feel the need to take sides in a Catholic/Protestant conflict. Catholic countries like Mexico, while an ocean away, might feel a camaraderie with their Catholic brethren in Ireland even though culturally they have little in common.

So, who's who? Well, as Wikipedia points out, the Shi'a are kind of the proverbial "red-headed stepchild" of Islam. "One of the lingering problems... in estimating the Shi'a population is that unless the Shi`a form a significant minority in a Muslim country, the entire population is often listed as Sunni... No Sunni-Shi'a breakdown is available for many countries... This is certain to have exaggerated the proportion of Sunni Muslims." It's like the way the US is considered a Protestant country even though there are a lot of Catholics here, certainly enough to make a political impact, as we saw in the recent immigration debate.

Another great example is Iraq. Under Saddam, the country was considered to be Sunni because Saddam and his government were Sunni (though it seems they had lapsed into secularism). As we found out when we cracked Iraq open, it turns out that most of the actual people inside were Shi'a.

Wikipedia is saying that the conventional wisdom breaks it down 85% Sunni and 15% Shi'a, even though because of the problems listed above, that's probably not right.

What's happening in the world is the rift between these two sects is growing and becoming more violent. It seems that when this really ignites, nation-states are going to take sides. So, who sides with whom?

Out of the major players on the world's stage who are predominately Muslim, it breaks down (as far as I can tell, with Wikipedia's help--they have an awesome chart-- and accepting the above disclaimer) like this:


SUNNI
Somalia
Saudi Arabia
Turkey
Yemen
Kuwait
Afghanistan
Libya
Pakistan
United Arab Emirates
Egypt
Jordan
Syria
Indonesia

SHI'A
Bahrain
Iran
Iraq

Out of the countries that aren't predominately Muslim, but have significant (60-75%) Muslim populations, their Muslims break down like this:

SUNNI
Sudan
Albania
Bosnia Herzegovenia

SHI'A
Lebanon

If you're wondering about G8 countries like the US, all of their Muslims are listed as Sunni, probably because of the poor data collection mentioned earlier. (While Muslims might list their religion on US census forms, for example, I don't think it specifies "Sunni" or "Shi'a".)

So let's take a headline from the other day: "Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt issue a statement condemning Hezbollah's attack on Israel." While that seems significant, Arabs turning on Arabs instead of banding together in lockstep against Israel, look at the chart. Hezbollah is a Shi'a group from Shi'a Lebanon. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt are all Sunni. Iran supports Hezbollah, and from a glance at the chart, that makes perfect sense. The Sunni Syrians, on the other hand, took over Shi'ite Lebanon until they were recently kicked out, which explains the animosity there. On the other hand, the Syrians aided Hezbollah in the past, because Hezbollah was formed to fight the Israelis, which despite their differences is something radicals of both groups can get behind. In fact, in this growing rift between Sunnis and Shi'a, the Israel/Hezbollah conflict may be the only thing keeping them together, as seen by the Syrians welcoming Shi'ite Lebanese refugees with open arms.

Iraq has become the hotbed of the conflict between the Sunni and the Shi'a. The Sunni dictatorship of Saddam allowed for Sunni abuse of the Shi'ite majority. (Well, let's face it, the Husseins were just downright sick puppies, and they happened to be Sunni and used that as an excuse.) The US came in and, through many missteps but I think with the idea of rooting for the underdog, ended up handing the country back to the Shi'a. Needless to say, after years of horror, the Shi'a are back and they're pissed, as the saying goes. That's why what is flippantly referred to in the MSM as "sectarian violence" has replaced any kind of insurgency in Iraq.

"I can't understand/ what makes a man/ hate another man," Depeche Mode once sang, and it is unfathomable why such a horror would occur unless you're a part of it. I still find it hard to believe that Ireland was torn apart by what we would now call "sectarian violence", when really, who cares who's Catholic or Protestant. But go into a pub in Ireland and ask that question, and you'll get an earful-- or, the patrons will narrow their eyes at you as if to say, "Idiot," and turn back to their Guinness without a word.

The Shi'a are back in Iraq with a vengeance, and are flooding into the police forces and military, from which position they are purportedly abusing and murdering Sunnis. Those that don't get jobs join gangs, which they euphamisitcally call "militias", and go around abusing and murdering Sunnis on their own. What a fun place.

Is it any wonder that the Sunnis in other countries are starting to get angry with the US for backing the Shi'a and putting them in power? And who exactly would be mad at us? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey, for starters. At least four of those are our business partners and in recent years, friends of a sort, which would be a great loss to us if they should turn on us. Iran, for all of its saber-rattling and hatred of the US, is actually not doing as much as you might imagine to provoke us because on this greater sectarian battleground, we just helped them by creating another Shi'a country. (That's why people keep saying, "The big winner here is Iran," which doesn't really make any sense unless you understand the Shi'a/Sunni conflict.)

I don't have a profound point here, just wanted to get this all straight in my own head and hopefully help you out too. I do have a warning: keep an eye on these Sunni and Shi'a divisions, they will be key to understanding wide-spread conflict and (any God willing) resolution.


UPDATE:
Wow, talk about topicality: just took a look at Salon.com's political blog by Tim Grieve, who posted this:

The Bush administration has long insisted that news stories about violence in Iraq obscure the progress that is being made on the political front.

Perhaps it's time to put that story to rest.

In an extraordinarily gloomy report from Baghdad, Reuters correspondent Mariam Karouny says that Iraqi leaders have "all but given up on holding the country together." Among the ideas now on the table: Divide Baghdad into two zones, one for Shiites and one for Sunnis, in the hopes of stopping the bloodshed between the two.

The harsh words from one unnamed government official: "Iraq as a political project is finished."

I certainly hope that's not the case, since division is never the solution ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Reagan) but I will say I understand all that a lot better having done all this research.

All Hell is Breaking Loose

There is something really important happening in the world. It's not just that Hezbollah and Israel are at each other's throats, it's not just that the US has destabilized the region and upped the ante. It's that there are two main branches of Islam, the Sunni and the Shi'a, and they are ready to fight to the death.

All of your preconceptions about the conflict in the Muslim world, which states are nice and/or democratic versus which states are mean and/or "rogue", forget them. This battle is going to come down based on who believes what.

If you're having trouble getting your brain around this, think about the Catholics and the Protestants. While both religions follow Jesus Christ, they differ significantly about how to follow Him. To over-simplify it (oh, don't worry, I'll be over-simplifying the Muslims too), the Catholics believe that Jesus chose the disciple Peter as his successor, and Peter formed the Church and became the first Bishop of Rome, a position which later became known as the Pope. That makes the Pope the direct "descendant" of Peter, who got his marching orders directly from Jesus, which makes him the Supreme Head of the Church. Conversely, the Protestants think that Jesus didn't pick a clear successor (there were other Bishops of other cities at that time who were not considered any more important than Peter) because His whole point was that your relationship with God is personal and you don't need anyone in between you and God. This is known as the "priesthood of the believer", which means that if you believe, you are a priest yourself, and you don't need any intercession of priest or even prayers to saints.

Well, that sounds like a pretty academic argument, but if you know anything about European history, you know it has been the cause of much strife and death. And the beautiful, ethereal Ireland became the main front in a war of ideas in modern history. The Irish have more in common with each other than with any other people on the planet, and yet they were killing each other during the Troubles as if Catholics Were From Mars and Protestants Were From Venus.

The Sunni/Shi'a division is very similar. Muhammed (Peace Be Upon Him) also did not leave a clear successor, which left his followers at a bit of a loss as to how to proceed after his death in 632.

Mohammed was a merchant who often went to caves near Mecca to pray. "Muslims believe that in 610, at about the age of forty, while in a cave in the mountain called Hira, he was visited by the Angel Gabriel, who commanded him to recite the verses sent by God. These verses were later collected as part of the Qur'an (which was revealed to him over a period of about twenty-three years until his death)." [Wikipedia]

He went on a preaching mission, similar to Jesus, reinforcing monotheism and warning of Judgement Day, similar to John the Baptist. "He did not completely reject Judaism and Christianity, two other monotheistic faiths known to the Arabs, but said that he had been sent by God in order to complete and perfect those teachings." [Wikipedia] Remember, ultimately the God of Judaism and the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are all the same entity, the religions having already branched off (twice) many centuries before.

He moved the people of his time to reinvigorate their relationship with God, and as the quote above said, to "perfect" it. Consequently, his death left a large vacuum. If Muhammad was the only one who understood what was to be done and how to perfect religion, then who would direct the people now? "Two questions faced these early Muslims: who was to succeed Muhammad, and what sort of authority he was to exercise." [Wikipedia] Jesus left a similar vacuum-- He told us that there was a better way, but He was gone after three years, leaving mere mortals to figure out what the heck He was talking about.

What we would call the "disciples" of Muhammad are called "caliphs" in Islam. Mohammed had plenty of these. Traditionally, according to Wikipedia, Arabic leaders were chosen to lead by a committee called the "caliphate" (think of Jesus' disciples, only more of them). If a familial heir was competent, great, but if not, the caliphate was free to choose someone else that would do a better job. (Apparently there was no official method to do this.)

Muhammad had two potential successors--

-- Abu Bakr who was M's lieutenant and right-hand man (think St. Peter) and
-- Alī ibn Abī Talib, who was his son-in-law.

The followers of Abu, the lieutenant, became the Sunni.
The followers of Ali, the son-in-law, became the Shi'a.

(I hope it's not rude to shorten their names like that, but it will help readers follow all of this.)

The Sunni refer to themselves as followers of the "sunna" or the TEACHINGS of Mohammed. Their leaders are called Caliphs.

The Shi'a refer to themselves as followers of the "Ahlul Bayt", or the FAMILY of Mohammed. Their leaders are called Imams.

They not only don't agree, but these days they really don't get along at all, ala the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland.

In Part II, we'll look at what effect this split is having on today's politics.

Torn

A news junkie who is a caring citizen, like myself, often finds she is torn when waking up in the morning: Do I turn on the TV and see how bad it is today, or not?

It seems we might be on the brink of WWIII. I'm not sure what else to say about that.

It's strange to watch a war on TV that we're not in. I'm so used to the Pentagon briefings about planned strikes that it's very strange to watch the reporters scurry around and report where bombs fell and being genuinely surprised by each turn of the screw.

Stranger still to watch them cover anything else. I was flipping around last night and after wrapping up a panel discussion on this crisis, the cable news TV host (not trying to protect an identity, just can't remember!) went on to tease for the next story, which was that somebody saw TomKat's baby and said it was "funny-looking", which besides being COMPLETELY AND ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT was also three-day-old news.

I haven't turned on the TV yet but in pulling up my browser I saw a bit of CNN.com.

Now, I must be wrong about this, but I thought the idea was to keep Syria in particular out of this conflict. It may well be, as many assert, that the nation of Syria (meaning, its government) is one of the two "parents" of Hezbollah-- Iran being its "father" I guess. So perhaps that's what you do when the kid starts acting out and, you know, bombing the neighbor's cat: you call his parents. But it was also my impression that Syria was saying if they had to get involved, Israeli would pay big time-- they're already pissed off after the recent fly-by of the Israeli air force over the Syrian President's house-- and we know that Israel would be ready for them.

I must have been wrong about all that though, because the headline on CNN.com was "Bush calls on Syria to act". Now, he's an idiot but surely not that big of an idiot, right? He'd never say "Bring it on"-- oh, wait.

Leaving aside that argument-- is he calling Hezbollah's mom, or inciting a bigger conflict-- I opened the article to see what it had to say, and this line caught my eye:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said during a news conference ahead of the Group of Eight summit in St. Petersburg, Russia. [CNN.com]

As Yosemite Sam would have said, "Oooooh, that varmit!" OK, here's why that pisses me off. (And wait until you hear the rest of it.)

After 9/11, the question on everyone's lips was "Why do they hate us?" Even Oprah did a show on it, bringing on the then-not-questionable Judith Miller to explain it. We were so surprised that the US could have done anything or be doing anything to make people want to inflict that kind of violence on us. Our first reaction was to find out why.

Of course, finding out why might have led to finger-pointing and/or a reassessment of US foreign policy, which was not the direction that the White House wanted to go right after 9/11. If there was a "post-9/11 mindset", then there is also a "post-Operation Iraqi Freedom mindset" where now we look at things a little more cautiously and analytically. But we were still in post-9/11 shock, and while thoughtful consideration might be the knee-jerk reaction for some of us, it wasn't for Karl Rove.

So before the conversation really got started, the White House shut it down by hitting us where it hurt-- accusing us of being pussies for wanting to talk about it.

The quote I was hunting for, to my surprise, was only from June 2005, to which fact I can only say, this is how he felt all along, and finally said it. And that he shifted the conversation using other political means, like putting up the Patriot Act for a vote which worked on the premise that there was nothing else to do but attack, attack, attack.

Regardless, here it is:

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said. [Washingtonpost.com]

Now, let me reprint that Bush remark so you can see them side-by-side:

"The best way to stop violence is to understand why the violence occurred in the first place," Bush said. [CNN.com]

Oooh, that varmit!

Again, I'm torn! Does one get mad at them for being hypocrites, or happy that they've come around? Arianna Huffington recently found herself in a similar debate. (Sorry, can't find a link right now and I'm making pancakes so I just need to keep going.)

But even more mind-snapping than that was what he said next!

"And that is because Hezbollah has been launching rocket attacks out of Lebanon and into Israel because Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers." [CNN.com]

OK, WHAT? First of all, that sentence doesn't make any sense. Why would H attack I because H kidnapped I's soldiers? Now, Israel bombing Hezbollah because H stole their men I get, although it certainly leaves out more than half of the story. But this makes no sense at all.

Which might even be fine, except that he was just crowing about "understanding why violence occured" and he clearly doesn't understand much of anything, including what's happening on the ground right now.

The only thing worse than having Bush as Pres during and after 9/11, that is, our war, is having him President during someone else's war which is inextricably linked with ours.

So make some blueberry pancakes and watch the beginning of WWIII. Or a nice Sandler comedy like "50 First Dates". (Say whatever you want about me, but that movie is adorable.) Or if you're one of those studious types that feel the need to make good use of your time at all times, go shopping for a hybrid car. Word has it that gas is going to hit $4/gal, and if Iran gets into this, much, much higher.

We've decided to be the Good Guys after all!

Well, maybe this crazy ol' world is swinging back towards sanity. Whether this swing will be enough to keep the GOP in power, it's hard to say at this point. But whatever their motivations, we can all sleep a little easier tonight.

The Department of Defense has issued a directive that every single person held by the military, no matter where, and no matter who he or she is, is entitled to and will receive the treatment outlined in Geneva Conventions.

The memo instructs recipients to ensure that all Defense Department policies, practices and directives comply with Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions governing the humane treatment of prisoners.

"You will ensure that all DOD personnel adhere to these standards," [Deputy Defense Secretary] England wrote. [CNN.com]

You may remember that the Administration's somewhat twisted plans for people detained by the US Military was struck down by the US Supreme Court. (I say "twisted" because the rules seemed to be all tangled-- this guy gets this treatment in this place, but if he gets moved here or if he's a different kind of guy he gets this kind, etc.)

That BTW was such a cool exercise in the way government operates, shown in real time. I'm not being sarcastic! If I had been a teacher, I would use this story in my class to explain how the three branches deal with each other. Basically, the Executive made up some rules, the Judiciary reviewed those rules and said that the Executive couldn't do that under current law; however, it directed the Exec and the Legislative to work together to draft a law that would allow it. Now, if this weren't such a dangerous and important thing for our National Character, I would have liked to see the story play out: the other two branches hammer out a law, the Congress passes it, the Exec signs it, and the Judiciary is satisfied. If only it were a little stamp tax or something.

But instead, thank the Good Lord above, the Exec came to their senses and realized that if they went to the Congress, even one held by their own party, and worked out a deal whereby they could torture people, arguing in committees whether this or that horrible thing is torture, that would look really, really bad. Instead, they went back to those good ol' Geneva Conventions-- you know, the ones where another group of people many years ago already hammered out those details "so you don't have to". It's my understanding this means that there won't be a law drafted by the Congress because now there doesn't need to be. Although the McCain "torture amendment" already passed the Senate 90-9, I'd like to see Congress use this time to cement this DOD directive into law and set up some protections in US law that would keep another "War President" from going haywire again.

On the other hand, WH Press Sec Tony Snow was quoted in that CNN article as saying "We look forward to working with Congress on this," so that would imply just having a DOD directive doesn't mean it's all squared away. Of course, he also said, "This isn't a policy change," and it clearly is, so I'm not sure it's worth listening to him anyway.

These are just my observations based on reading one article on this, and I can't see a downside. But as I get to research this more fully and read other points of view on it, I might come back and update this post or do another.

Suing Rumsfeld

[Note: this post has been updated with clearer details.]

A former US Navy SEAL is filming a documentary in a faraway land about an ancient civilization, the kind of thing you watch at 3am on the History Channel. He is arrested in that country because the yahoo policemen that pull over the taxi in which he was riding one day discover washing-machine timers, which bomb-makers can use as timing devices. He is thrown in prison and held without counsel or hearing for 55 days, until his family makes a big enough stink by suing the government that is holding him. Suddenly, law enforcement decides that the former US Navy SEAL is not, after all, what they were calling an "imminent security threat" [CNN.com] and releases him, a spokesman crowing that this showed "the effectiveness of our detainee review process."

A shocking, shocking story. We should find those f*&%kers and bomb them.

Oh, wait, it was us.

The former US Navy SEAL in question is an American named Cyrus Kar. He is in his mid-40s, a part-time college professor, and is of Iranian descent. He was in Iraq making "a documentary film about Cyrus the Great, the Persian king who wrote the world's first human rights charter." [CNN.com] Oh, the irony, it would make a great documentary. But my sarcasm digresses me. He was originally pulled over by Iraqi police. When he asked to contact the US Embassy, he was instead turned over to the US Military, who put him in one of their Iraqi prisons for 55 days.

I read about this on CNN.com, but a quick Google search of Cyrus Kar yields even more details from sites all over the web. (Would it surprise you to know that Bill O'Reilly-- who thinks that all film-makers are pinkos, appartently-- decried Kar as a "lefty" who is getting "legitimacy" by having his story covered by the mainstream press? And how does making a documentary film about ancient civilizations make you a Hollywood liberal?) The more shocking details of his treatment by US soldiers, even after explaining repeatedly that he was an Armed Services vet, include having his head slammed into a concrete wall.

And let us not forget that the FBI also raided his Los Angeles home and searched it, after they had determined that whatever they found in that cab was the cabbie's, and they continued to hold him for nearly seven weeks after that, despite having cleared him of suspicion. Go down into your storm cellar, have your kids bring you food twice a day, and stay there for seven weeks and tell me that's no big deal.

So, now he is suing Donald Rumsfeld. "In addition to Rumsfeld, the defendants include Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., commanding general of the multinational forces in Iraq, and Maj. Gen. William H. Brandenburg, who was in charge of detainee operations in Iraq at the time of Kar's detention." [CNN.com]

Well, the administration, using their news minions at FOX News, is going to jump all over this guy and rip him to pieces, like they did Cindy Sheehan and, well, anyone that gets in their way at all.

But it will be very hard to deny the charges when the person you detained and treated questionably is a former US Navy SEAL, and a film-maker. (They will deny them, and they might even make it look easy, but it's going to be tricky.)

I wonder if the judge can award that Rummy has to give up that smarmy smirk as part of the damages.

A simple Sunday lesson

I pulled up CNN.com this morning and scanned the headlines at the top of the page. Among other headlines, I saw this:


SOMALI BAND BEATEN FOR PLAYING MUSIC

DAVE CHAPPELLE: THIS HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT


With all due respect to Mr. Chappelle, tell that to the band.


BTW, in case you were wondering, CNN says: "The Islamic militiamen controlling the Somali capital broke up a wedding celebration because a band was playing and women and men were socializing together, witnesses said Saturday, describing the latest crackdown by a group feared to be installing Taliban-style rule in this African nation."

Oh, goodie.

For better or worse

There is an article on Salon.com by Nir Rosen called "Did the invasion make things worse in Iraq?" that I thought was worth quoting. He has been in Iraq since 2003 as a reporter and most of the article lists atrocities committed by the Hussein regime before the US invasion.

Was it all worth it? Was it better to leave Saddam in power? Are Iraqis better or worse off than they were before the American war?

I never know what to say when asked this question. How do you compare different kinds of terror?

Those spared Saddam's prisons and executioners may be better off, though they have not been spared the American prisons, or attacks, or the resistance's bombs, or the death squads of the civil war. The Kurds are certainly better off, on their way to independence, benefiting from their relative stability and improved economy. The rest of Iraq? In many ways, things are worse. Under Saddam the violence came from one source, the regime. Now it has been democratically distributed. Death can come from anywhere, at all times, no matter who you are. You can be killed for crossing the street, for going to the market, for driving your car, for having the wrong name, for being in your house, for being a Sunni, for being a Shia, for being a woman. The American military can kill you in an operation, you can be arrested by militias and disappear in Iraq's new secret prisons, now run by Shias, or you can be kidnapped by the resistance, or by criminal gangs.

Americans cannot simply observe the horror of Iraq and shake their heads in wonder, as if it were Rwanda and they had no role. America is responsible for the new chaos in Iraq, which began following the invasion and the botched and brutal occupation. Iraq's people continue to suffer under the American occupation and civil war, just as they did under the American-imposed sanctions and bombings before the war, and just as they did under the years of dictatorship. Once more they are mere victims of powers they cannot control. Saddam is out and the Americans are in, but Iraq is still a republic of fear.

Sorry so quiet

I haven't posted in a while, partly because I've had company visiting and we're getting ready to move to a new house and decorate it, and partly because nothing has pissed me off enough to drive me to the computer.

Also, the last thing I was working on was about the Seas of David, a story that seems to have died.

Is it encumbent on me to be different than the MSM and keep beating a drum long after the parade is over? We do complain that they move on off a story all too soon. All I know is that thinking about it seems like a waste of time, and with an almost-two son, time isn't something I can mess around with much.

Today there are a few items of note. Ken Lay, the luckiest SOB to walk the earth, has died of natural causes before serving a day in jail or seeing his finances decimated like those of his former employees. North Korea set off a few missiles, which seemed to prove only that they don't really have the capability to do much of anything. (Although that was a touch scary because I took a nap with the baby and when I woke up, my roommate said, "North Korea fired off 3 missiles while you were sleeping." For just a second it was like waking up and seeing the WTC on TV.) Fortunately, we didn't have to show that our ability to shoot down the missile would have certainly failed too. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict has escalated significantly, that has me more worried than anything. But I haven't had time to really research what the heck is going on so I can't really write about it. Rush Limbaugh got off for having that Viagra, which is fine, only I can't help but think of how many black men are in Florida jails today who have done far less in the way of drugs but didn't get the sweetheart deal RL got. I do feel for him having a drug problem, I don't judge him, but I do have to judge the Florida court system and/or drug laws for its blatantly unfair behavior.

Hope you had a great Independence Day. It's strange, I never really felt patriotism-- not that I wasn't patriotic, but I didn't feel it strongly-- until 9/11. Suddenly I felt a rush of love for my country. I knew it would pass and it did. But the intervening 5 years of the Bush Administration has made me feel more truly patriotic and adoring of my country in a lasting way. I well up with tears when I hear words from the Declaration or the Constitution. My heart swells when I read the speeches from Lincoln and FDR and Kennedy. I was describing this to my roommate and he said, "Because you know what you're losing." A fitting description. My country has been hijacked, its ideals trashed in the name of patriotism and fear. Remember that show Sliders? I feel like this is the alternate universe where everything goes to hell in a handbasket-- my only solace is that somewhere there is a universe where everything is wonderful and I hope they appreciate it. In the meantime, we have to live here, and it's breaking my heart. How do we restore the greatness of America? I'm at a loss, although step one seems to be removing the cabal that scurries in the hall behind the Presidential podium.

Well, that was cheery, wasn't it? Sorry. Why don't you use the comments field of this post to suggest content? I'll take requests, and research it and give you how I see it. In the meantime, have a great week and if you see any good decorating tips, send them our way.

Brother Corey and the Seas of David

[This post is meant to provide background info on another post, entitled "The Law Enforcement Paradigm".]

For this post, I just want expound on this one item, Brother Corey of the Seas of David. There is another post I'm working on about this group of seven that were arrested for domestic terrorism (or rather, the conspiracy to commit such). On Anderson Cooper 360, John Zarrella was approached outside the infamous warehouse by another member, "Brother Corey" who declared their innocence. The only reason he's important is that he was clearly bat-shit crazy. It was like talking to one of those homeless people who feel the need to explain at length why they need a dollar only you walk away not knowing what the hell they were talking about. Something about moon bats and pie? Now, one wonders, was he a crazy hanger-on, were the men in jail watching this groaning and saying, "Oh my Allah, I can't BELIEVE they are talking to him! WE don't even talk to him! This is so embarrassing..." I'm really surprised that no one has mentioned this startling interview again on any news program. Since virtually no one except however many people hang on every second on AC360 has seen it, I wanted to give you some of the transcript, only it's way too long. Here instead are some classic Brother Corey moments, edited for space:

ZARRELLA: What happened? Do you know?

BROTHER COREY: I know that it was supposed to have been a letter sent off to the Sears Tower, which I don't recommend that -- I don't believe my Brother Prince (ph) were -- had to jeopardize his temple as we worship here...We are not no terrorists (UNINTELLIGIBLE). We are prince of Allah, that we study and we believe in a word of God. This is a place where we worship and also have business as a worksite, as a construction company we trying to build up. And my prince, he told me never to come here and observe nothing that the outside that's trying to observe. We had to keep to ourself because we are general. We are generals and we take care of ourselves.

ZARRELLA: And you're not terrorists? Not related in any way to al Qaeda?

BROTHER COREY: Sir, I don't want to release none of that information, but I know we are not terrorists. And I don't have nothing else against the same situation that they had to do here, but I don't feel like that was right for the search warrant to go down. Because we are legal citizens here, which I know they trying to say my brothers, they locked up five of them. So right now I'm sitting here just observing because I have more authority to come here and distribute the things that they have...The way we worship, we come around, we got things we look out for the kids and everything here. So right now I'm just telling you that there is no way they'll -- right now that I can assume that we have this terrorist in our heart. We are not terrorists. We are members of David, Seas of David.

[JZ asks again about al Qaeda.]

BROTHER COREY: No, sir. Right now, only thing I can tell you is that we worshipers of this temple here. And we allow certain people to come and join our prayers, but we have certain authorities that we run by.... That I know my brother has not been treated right in the system. He's been locked up for-- on the sense that he was driving without a license. But this brother of mines, I love him to death. And I tell all of my brother -- I didn't (UNINTELLIGIBLE) get a chance to talk to them. We have codes. We have everything that's, you know, right now that is trying to establish. We're trying to build up a restaurant here. We really take toll in trying to do things the right way. We are not no terrorists.

ZARRELLA: Anderson wants to know what is the purpose of your organization? And the meaning of the name Seas of David?

BROTHER COREY: Actually I can tell you we are in a bible. And we studied Allah and also the worship of the regular bible. But it is not no terrorist or threat that you guys say that we are threats to this -- any other community. I grew up in this city. I'm a residential citizen. And all my brothers that I have, on my line right now, we are not no terrorist attackers. And I grew up with my brother that's been in the system now, the Haitian guy. They're saying illegal alien. He grew up here. I know or a fact that we are in general as one. We talk as among each other as young men. And we work out and help each other... Yes, we have connections to people in Chicago. We're -- so -- this is like we -- we negotiate to help the peace. We try to bring as many brothers in to help them out.

ZARRELLA: But there were connections to other members of this group in Chicago?

BROTHER COREY: Yes, we have soldiers in Chicago.

ZARRELLA: Why do you call yourselves soldiers? What's the -- you know, if it's a peaceful group, why use the term soldier.

BROTHER COREY: Because we study and we train through the bible, not only physical -- not only physical, but mentally. We study and we worship that we have the sense of direction that got other people in the right direction. We are not no terrorists. We come here every morning and we have the sense to go to work. We are not no homeless -- this is not no homeless shelter for a terrorist attack. You hear me?

Then JZ throws it back to AC and he has no choice but to throw this to his roundtable of Jeanne Meserve, Pat D'Amuro, Mike Brooks and Jim Walsh. Not one of them, and I find this shocking, mentioned that Brother Corey was clearly a nutjob. Meserve could only point out that it differed from what the FBI was saying (yeah, and?), and AC summed up their reactions best when he said, "I'm sort of still trying to figure out what came out of that interview, but it was sort of fascinating." It's times like these when you do long for FOX News, which at least would have had a big belly laugh at this guy.

But instead they try to hold their giggles until they are off-camera, and instead they try to pick apart his words as if they meant something. And it's true there were some weird tidbits in there.

Of course, I should have said this earlier, being a nutjob doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. But it does make you wonder: is this guy really affiliated with this group, or is he a nutjob that kept hanging around and now, being the only one left standing, he's still hanging around this empty warehouse trying to pretend he's important? Or are they all like this, which calls into question whether or not they were capable of doing anything except practicing spastic karate?

Regardless, they clearly did have some kind of connection to Chicago, and he refers to them as soldiers and generals. Actually, he called himself one of the "generals" and the people in Chicago as "soldiers", which is also telling, but what it's telling is unclear-- aspirations of militaristic might or delusions of grandeur? And he was referencing the prison system several times, implying that they help people get back on their feet after getting out of prison, and perhaps recruiting members in prison itself.

He was also really skinchy about Al Qaeda, and while his answers look definitive in the transcript, he would stop suddenly, stare at JZ, then look down and to the right, and then look back up and say, "No sir." But it was really hinky.

And does that mean they are all crazy, or that he's not really involved with them?

Family members have also taken to the airwaves, though most of them are older people, like mothers-- which is only significant because I'm sure many people thought as I did, "How many mothers know what their adult kids are really up to?" So just because a mom or an aunt says they're innocent, well, I'm not sure how much weight that has at this early stage.

Reports are that these guys didn't have any weapons, or money to buy weapons, or really hardly any money at all to do much of anything. It seems to have been all talk, although they were caught when the leader, Narseale Batiste, approached or was approached by a federal agent posing as an Al Qaeda operative, and hit him up for money. According to CNN, "The indictment says Batiste gave the informant a list of equipment he needed, including "boots, uniforms, machine guns, radios and vehicles" as well as bullet-proof vests and $50,000 in cash," to "wage jihad" to "kill all the devils we can," while the defense attorney for one of the men said, "The only al Qaeda person was the undercover guy." Even Attorney General Gonzales said, "There is no immediate threat ... part of the reason for that is because they didn't have the materials they requested, they didn't receive the weapons, at least [that] we know of." However, as best as I can tell, only Batiste actually talked to the undercover operative, and it may well be that no one else knew what he was up to. He apparently took a bunch of Catholic and Christian men and got them praying to Allah a little by combining the two faiths, and a bunch of ex-cons and got them to stop drinking, practice karate, and get their acts together. It may well be that he was luring these men with the promise of resurrecting their broken lives and never telling them that he was secretly planning to wage jihad.

So yes, I have my doubts as to what is going on here, and I think it's too early to tell. I do think that it's interesting what happens to a terrorism case when the family is vocal, unlike Jose Padilla, who perhaps because of his former gang activity with the Latin Kings doesn't have anyone willing to stand up for him in public. But as to what the heck was really going on here, it's too early to tell.