text:
Just pull that green jersey on over your head… November 13, 2012Posted by WorldbyStorm in Economy, Irish Politics.
Gabriel Byrne might not have expected the pushback he received for his comments recently about the Gathering.
Byrne has – to my mind not entirely incorrectly – pointed to the artificial nature of the project. Indeed for those with long memories, longer than mine I have to admit, it smacks of An Tóstal, the tourist 'festival' introduced for a period in the 1950s by Irish governments in order to attract tourists to the state. It failed because of one basic problem. A two or three week period [IIRC] wasn't enough to sustain a modern tourist industry. And while the Gathering eschews that time limitation, or more accurately extends it by many months, it still has something of that feeling about it.
Byrne's main criticism was that:
…it was designed to "shake down" the Diaspora for a few quid. He described Taoiseach Enda Kenny's speech at the launch of project in the US as "slightly offensive".
Shake down is strong, but perhaps not entirely incorrect. The primary purpose of the exercise is to increase tourist revenues.
And Kenny's speech is… well… an interesting speech. Because between all the usual rhetorical stuff about community and so on (which reads fairly oddly given the expenditure cuts that are being felt in communities) it is remarkably blunt… for example:
With The Gathering, we will showcase our tourism product that is at the heart of our future success and the envy of many small countries…and not so small…..nations across the globe.
We estimate this project alone, can bring in an extra 325,000 visitors to Ireland in 2013. With all the attendant revenue.
And there's this which has an odd phrasing:
This initiative was first presented at the recent Global Irish Economic Forum.
We looked at what is, by any objective measure, the downright dazzling potential of the Diaspora.
And we sought ways not to exploit…. this altruism and affection of Ireland………. because to 'exploit' is too superficial for the project in which we are engaging.
And so on… in fairness as a cultural ambassador Byrne might be reasonably well placed to decode the nuances of such stuff and how it might be received elsewhere.
And personally I find the concept problematic not least because those I know elsewhere are going through tough times as much as those of us in this state and the idea of putting any pressure at all on them to return 'home' is a step I wouldn't take.
Meanwhile on to Leo Varadkar:
Later on Today FM Mr Varadkar described Mr Byrne as popular with "women of a certain age".
In a grown up discussion a puerile (and sexist) comment like that shouldn't even enter the picture. If Varadkar has substantive criticism it should be levelled at Byrne's argument. But that complacent and glib condescension is something that FG might want to watch. Leo Vardakar or Gabriel Byrne? It would be interesting to see the results of that popularity contest.
But hold on a moment. Note the aforementioned pushback. The SBP this weekend had a piece which noting Byrne's credentials also noted that:
[Byrne] worked with the government and Culture Ireland to help develop Irish arts, culture and the creative industries, particularly in the United States. Byrne did not receive a salary as honorary cultural ambassador, but his expenses were covered.
And those expenses?
… he racked up expenses of almost €16,000 last year on luxury hotels, chauffeur services and premier flights between New York and Dublin during his stint as an Irish cultural ambassador.
And yet, and yet.
Doesn't mean he's wrong.
- 1. Eagle - November 13, 2012
I have issues with The Gathering too, but I don't share Byrne's concerns. It might attract attention of potential tourists, but they'll want to see what they're going to get before they buy.
They're not being shaken-down, but they are being sold. It's a marketing campaign. It could have, should have been a lot more.
But even evaluating it as a marketing campaign, does it work? What is it we're selling? Is it a "gathering of the clans" or whatever? That's what I thought it was supposed to be, but the web site is very unclear. It seems to be about just about anything. In fact, I can't see how The Gathering is different than any other Visit Ireland campaign.
It seems to me that The Gathering is so big and unfocused that it fails to make the sale.
- RosencrantzisDead - November 13, 2012
I agree. With no central theme or event, it is difficult to discern why returning in 2013 should be any more special than returning in 2014 or any other year.
They could have used an opportunity like this to, say, extend the vote (in certain limited elections) to diaspora or linked to celebrations of Irish independence.
The paradox of the tourism industry is that, in order for it to be successful, it must avoid the appearance of being an industry altogether. The Gathering fails on this part and this is, in part, why Byrne is so affronted. On top of that, he also points out that it is poor value for money.
- 2. Ed - November 13, 2012
"Leo Vardakar or Gabriel Byrne? It would be interesting to see the results of that popularity contest."
I've a decent sample of opinion here. My mam went to college with Byrne, she was in his Irish class in UCD; always says he was a lovely bloke, almost painfully shy back then; when he bumped into one of their classmates years later, long established as a Hollywood star, he recognised her straight away and ushered her into a quiet corner for a chat away from the star-struck people hanging around him.
Varadkar, on the other hand, she has to encounter from time to time for work reasons, and she reckons that on a purely non-political level, he is an odious, slimy little twerp. I would be surprised if this was a wildly eccentric opinion.
- Ed - November 13, 2012
In fact if anyone has time, I'd suggest splicing a few clips of Varadkar into old episodes of Bracken; you can picture him as Niall Toibin's brattish little son who's never worked a day in his life, and ends up with a box to the face for his trouble: 'I'll show you, Pat! My father could buy and sell your poxy little farm!'
- sonofstan - November 13, 2012
An entirely unfair, puerile and equally sexist response would be to brand Varadkar as obviously unattractive to women or men of any age, as the poignant scenes in RTE's pre-election programme following a few candidates around on the hustings, and eavesdropping on poor Leo return home to his lonely bachelor abode illustrated. But that would be beneath us.
- 3. CL - November 14, 2012
The hot new trend in travel is disaster tourism. So why not bus tours of ghost estates and visits to zombie banks, concluding perhaps with a seminar at Trinity on voodoo economics.
- 4. Cedar Creek Vineyard Blog - November 14, 2012
Artificial Cedar Group…
[…] ts in order to attract tourists to the state. It failed because of one basic pro […]…


text:
The lights are on
In a more serious podcast, we discuss some of the new contenders in the console market, plus talk about the reignited debate over game violence.
In the first segment, host Matt Helgeson is joined by Matt Bertz and Andy Reiner to talk about a new host of non-traditional consoles, including Ouya, the GameStick, Nvidia's Project Shield, and the Piston Steam Box. It's an interesting time for the industry, and the gang has a lot to say about the prospects of these consoles.
In the second segment, Reiner sticks around and Jeff Cork comes in the booth to record a serious discussion about the renewed furor of violent games which has happened in the wake of the horrible events that transpired at Sandy Hook Elementary, as well as Joe Biden's upcoming task force meetings with the NRA and representatives from the game industry, motion pictures, and television. [Note: We recorded this podcast before we received word from the ESA that its CEO Michael Gallagher would be attending Biden's meetings].

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Our mission is to operate with four basic principles in mind: to restore your health, improve your daily functioning, increase your independence, and provide you with the utmost comfort.The amenities we provide are designed to make your stay both relaxing and convenient, allowing you to focus on improving your health and well-being.
900 Square-Foot Rehabilitation / Therapy Center
On-Site Medical Director
On-Site Podiatrist
On-Site Dentist
On-Site Salon / Spa Services
On-Site Religious Services
State-of-the-Art Therapy Equipment
Pet Therapy
Wifi Accessibility
Fine Dining with Gourmet Menus
Warmly Decorated Private and Semi-Private Rooms
In-Room Free Cable Service
Private Phones
In-Room Phones (Arranged by Family)
Manicured Gardens
Outdoor Courtyard
Comfortable Family / Resident Lounge
Happy Valentine's Day!
Joining our Talent Network will enhance your job search and application process. Whether you choose to apply or just leave your information, we look forward to staying connected with you.Click Here To Join
Click here to view our center's brochure and find out what we can do for you or your loved one.


text:
Seven North Laurel teenagers have been arrested and charged in connection with the assault and robbery of a Columbia teen earlier this month, according to Howard County Police.
Charged with first- and second-degree assault, robbery, theft and reckless endangerment are:
- Drew Jeremiah Abraham, 17, Reservoir High School student, released on $20,000 bond.
- Shareff Abdul Malik Aroi, 16, inactive Hammond High School student, held on $25,000 bond.
- Dario Glendell Burley, Jr., 17, Reservoir High School 2013 graduate, released on $20,000 bond.
- Abdul Rahman Cole, 16, Reservoir High School student enrolled as Abdul Rahman Sesay, released on $20,000 bond.
- Jeffrey Michelet Francois, 18, Reservoir High School 2013 graduate, released on $25,000 bond.
- Davon Phillip Jones, 16, Reservoir High School student, released on $20,000 bond.
- Ike Oheneba Lawrence, Jr., 16, Hammond High School student, released on $20,000 bond.
According to the Howard County Public School System's policy on students charged with community or reportable offenses, if it is determined that students charged with reportable offenses (which include first-degree assault) or their presence in schools "(have) a direct effect on the order and the general welfare of the schools, the students will be assigned to alternative educational placements and/or disciplined. The final disposition of a student's case may impact the student's educational status in the public school system."
Those alternative educational placements include evening school, the Homewood Center or the system's home and hospital program.
As of Thursday afternoon, according to school officials, three of the four teenagers still enrolled in the system have been assigned to evening school.
Police said the 16-year-old victim was walking near Hayshed Lane and Yellowrose Court in Columbia at about 10 a.m. on Aug. 2 when he was approached by a group of teenagers in a black SUV.
Police said the teens exited the car and began punching him and stomping him and then allegedly stole his iPhone and cash. The victim suffered a broken jaw and was transported to Johns Hopkins Hospital. He has since been released, police said.
Through investigation, police identified Abraham, who drives a 2003 black Ford Explorer, as a possible suspect. Additional evidence, which police would not release citing an ongoing investigation, led to the arrest of the six other suspects.
Staff writer Sara Toth contributed to this report.


text:
Not content with getting an exhibition, the Colossal Squid now has her own stamp and coin! The dollar stamp and coin no less. Cool. Thanks NZ Post!
The other giants are the Giant Moa (extinct), Giant Eagle (extinct), Southern Right Whale, Giant Weta.
I'm going to chase down a curator tomorrow and find out a) what the scientific names of these creatures are and b) whether New Zealand has more Giant species than most places.


text:
We would have ti trade away next years first and a bunch of picks from this year to get to a position to take him which we should not do anyway.
All this talk of Manziel, Bortles... I pray these two guys come off the board first and the Jets find themselves in a position to land Bridgewater. I'd give up picks to make it happen.
He's a freaking stud... Total package with near flawless mechanics, and footwork. He's got Good enough arm, and uncanny accuracy. I'm not impressed at all with the guys he played with in college, and yet when you compare his game footage to someone like Sanchez (or even Geno) in college, you can see a huge difference in ability and experience. He also played under center a lot, which will help with his transition. He truly is a more talented and polished version of Geno. Not quite as athletic, but better mechanics and anticipation.
His lean build is the only thing people can nitpick and he's going to fill out.
Only Luck has been a better as a college prospect in the last 10 years in my mind.
I suspect all this talk of these other guys is just that IMO, Bridgewater is the only elite prospect in this draft...
With all the picks the Jets have, I'd give up our 2nd to make a move...
Last edited by Monsterxman; 02-15-2014 at 09:59 AM.
We would have ti trade away next years first and a bunch of picks from this year to get to a position to take him which we should not do anyway.
I don't believe it, but still very well might be willing to give up next years 1 + maybe some picks this year. Having 12 or so picks in one draft is great on paper, but everyone can't make the team.
I've been more or less raving the same sentiment... only to my Dad - a Browns' fan. I've been telling him "You guys should be JACKED! Bridgewater might still be there when you pick! Browns might actually catch a break"
There's no way he get past CLE/OAK/MIN. But, the fact that Bortles and Manziel are being drafted ahead of him, is laughable. There's few, VERY FEW, QB prospects i've been as certain as I am about Bridgewater.
Any GM that picks Bortles or Manziel before Bridgewater should be fired.
He doesn't fit the mold of a your poster boy 6'4 230 QB. And i don't really care. He can play quarterback.
You know, he hasn't been a lights out 1st rnd TE, but he's not BAD. He's good blocker, makes plays in space, and has had some big games. I'd love it if he was on the Jets right now. Calvin's been the only consistent thing there in DET.
Honestly you don't think Bridgewater can put on 20 pounds easily when he gets in an nfl weight room. You're making like he going to be 197 pounds the rest of his career. IF A GM is dumb enough to pass on him because of his weight right now, than he has no one but himself to blame, when he eventually gets fired.
BTw Russell Wilson says hello 5'11 206. Lmao
Last edited by Raider9175; 02-15-2014 at 03:19 PM.
After listening to some draft podcasts it seems this board is way more excited about bridgewater than nfl scouts are. I'm confused about it but there is some negative buzz on bridgewater. On the draft insider podcast tony Pauline said many scouts see him as able to do many things good but he's not amazing in any category. He's not looked at as an elite qb prospect in the way Payton manning, Andrew luck or those types are.
Last edited by Monsterxman; 02-15-2014 at 05:38 PM.
I saw bridgewater play vs an awful Uconn team.
Let me tell you, he was not impressive.
2. LMAO - russell wilson at 5'11 206 is a LOT more durable and muscular then a person who is 6'2 197. Do you know even understand height vs lbs and how that could relate to durability?
3. What does he do well exactly? How is he a better prospect then geno who is faster and has a better arm?
Hes a thin person and in the NFL durability is huge.
Whenever he's been in a big game or asked to step up, he's been as clutch as any qb I've seen. The bowl games, 2012 vs Rutgers where he played hurt, and single handily willed that team to victory by consistently making clutch, accurate throws.
We'll see how he transitions to the pros, will he have enough arm, will he be durable... I wouldn't bet against him...
Bridgewater is far more refined - anticipation, accuracy, experience taking snaps under center, mechanics - throwing motion and footwork...
He's better than Geno for the same reasons Drew Brees is better.
Last edited by Monsterxman; 02-15-2014 at 08:50 PM.


text:
Learn and Explore
Since 1916, the National Park Service has been entrusted with the care of our national parks. With the help of volunteers and partners, we safeguard these special places and share their stories with more than 275 million visitors every year. But our work doesn't stop there.
We are proud that tribes, local governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individual citizens ask for our help in revitalizing their communities, preserving local history, celebrating local heritage, and creating close to home opportunities for kids and families to get outside, be active, and have fun.
Taking care of the national parks and helping Americans take care of their communities is a job we love, and we need—and welcome—your help and support.
Our Mission
The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world.
Explore general legislation and other laws relating to the National Park Service.
Our Employees
More than 20,000 strong, the uncommon men and women of the National Park Service share a common trait: a passion for caring for the nation's special places and sharing their stories.
How We Are Organized
The National Park Service is a bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior and is led by a Director nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The Director is supported by senior executives who manage national programs, policy, and budget in the Washington, DC, headquarters and seven regional directors responsible for national park management and program implementation.
- Organization of the National Park Service
- Contact information for the Washington office, regional offices, and parks
Our Official Emblem
The National Park Service arrowhead was authorized as our official emblem in 1951. The components of the arrowhead may have been inspired by key attributes of the National Park System, with the sequoia tree and bison representing vegetation and wildlife, the mountains and water representing scenic and recreational values, and the arrowhead itself representing historical and archeological values. A history of the arrowhead and other elements of NPS visual design is available. The arrowhead is also the registered service mark of the agency (number 4706627), protected by the trademark laws of the United States. The NPS allows limited use of the NPS arrowhead when doing so contributes to our work.
Learn how to request permission to use the arrowhead.


text:
Level 2 (Memory Chronicles #1)
- Synopsis
- In this gripping exploration of a futuristic afterlife, a teen discovers that death is just the beginning.Since her untimely death the day before her eighteenth birthday, Felicia Ward has been trapped in Level 2, a stark white afterlife located between our world and the next. Along with her fellow drones, Felicia passes the endless hours reliving memories of her time on Earth and mourning what she's lost--family, friends, and Neil, the boy she loved. Then a girl in a neighboring chamber is found dead, and nobody but Felicia recalls that she existed in the first place. When Julian--a dangerously charming guy Felicia knew in life--comes to offer Felicia a way out, Felicia learns the truth: If she joins the rebellion to overthrow the Morati, the angel guardians of Level 2, she can be with Neil again. Suspended between Heaven and Earth, Felicia finds herself at the center of an age-old struggle between good and evil. As memories from her life come back to haunt her, and as the Morati hunt her down, Felicia will discover it's not just her own redemption at stake... but the salvation of all mankind.
- Copyright:
- 2013
Book Details
- Book Quality:
- Publisher Quality
- 9781442441873
- Related ISBNs:
- 9781442441859
- Publisher:
- Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers
- Date of Addition:
- 02/16/13
- Copyrighted By:
- Lenore Appelhans
- Adult content:
- No
- Language:
- English
- Categories:
- Teens, Literature and Fiction, Science Fiction and Fantasy
- Grade Levels:
- Eighth grade, Ninth grade, Seventh grade, Tenth grade
- Submitted By:
- Bookshare Staff
- Usage Restrictions:
- This is a copyrighted book.


text:
RENO, Nev. -- You might have seen protests around town recently with people drumming, dancing and holding up signs that say "Idle No More." It's part of an international peace protest by Native Americans against a piece of Canadian legislation and the local tribes aren't staying silent.
They've hit the Outlets at Legends, rallied at Meadowood Mall, stormed the arch downtown and have united at the Walmart at the Reno Sparks Colony, but it's only the beginning for the local tribes.
The local tribes beat their drums to the sound of injustice. "Idle No More" is a grassroots movement that has gained a serious following through flash mobs and social media.
"Everyon's been asking about it, you know 'what is this?' They're so curious. It's really nice to speak out and tell them what's going on, said Layce Roberts, a protestor. "When you tell them, their eyes open up."
It began in Canada when Prime Minister Stephen Harper passed Title C-45, a budget bill that will change the Indian Act and Navication Protection Act. It was initially made to help the economy.
"They're sneaking new laws and new bills and forcing ours out. We don't have a word anymore," Roberts said. "Sometimes we have to stand up and say 'no that's not ok.'"
Protestors say they were not consulted about the changes that will take away the land and water that was reserved to them long ago.
"They were promises. We like to keep our word and we would hope that the other person would keep their's as well," she said.
Protestors across the globe have shown their support for a tribe leader in Ontario, Chief Theresa Spence, who has been on a hunger strike from 29 days. She has vowed not to eat until the Canadian government shows more respect for Native American treaties.
"Even if it's happening in Canada, it's still our people, it's still our brothers and sisters; our family. It affects us in every way," said Summer
Dressler, a protestor.
Prime Minister Harper has agreed to meet with Chief Spence this Friday and organizers have already labeled it "Global Day of Action."
"It's been years so it's finally happening and you know it's not going to stop," Roberts said. "We're just going to keep it going and going even after they meet."
This Saturday, Jan. 12 at 2 p.m. under the Reno arch downtown, more than 200 local protestors will stand together in solidarity holding signs, dancing and singing as part of the movement.


text:
Andrew, welcome to the forum. you have taken the first step, eastmans magazine will give you the starting point. The mrs section is a good hard copy guide of historically good units in an easy to read format. Best of luck to you.
Hey guys I'm new to the forum and this is my first post...me and 3 buddy are planning a mule deer hunt for 2015 in Montana or Wyoming.started doing some looking into some info a couple weeks ago, we are going to do a DIY public land hunt. What public land would be good to start with. I'm getting to subscribe to eastmans hunting to get some info to. Never done this kind of hunt before any help would be great. Thanks
Andrew, welcome to the forum. you have taken the first step, eastmans magazine will give you the starting point. The mrs section is a good hard copy guide of historically good units in an easy to read format. Best of luck to you.
You have the time to do some good research and planning. Welcome to this part of the world!!!
Colorado Cowboy
Cowboy Action Shooter; Endowment Life Member-NRA, NRA certified Range Safety Officer, Pistol Instructor, Rifle Instructor, RMEF, Boone & Crockett Club.
The Original Rocket Scientist-Retired
"My Father always considered a walk in the mountains as the equivalent of church going."
Aldous Huxley
Thanks guys....been looking at some gear....backpacks, boots, tents....any suggestions?
Welcome to the forum Andrew. As far as your questions go your first stepping stone will be the forum and the magazine. Also you will need to figure out what type of hunt you want both states offer alot of different options when it comes to mule deer hunting from the eastern plains of the state to the western high country. Sky is the limit. As far as gear goes this is really going to hurt but I will treat it like a band aid and just say it. BUY THE BEST YOU CAN!! I cant stress that enough you might save a little here and there on certain items. But as far as comfort and saftey dont skimp. There are alot of reviews, reccomendations, and information on this site so if you are looking for something in perticular chances are it was gone over somewhere and you could search it. Good Luck with your planning and Welcome again.
I have to echo that the type of hunt you want will determine all your options and where you end up going. Mule deer in the west live in very diverse country and depending on time etc. things can be very different.
That being said, if you are thinking WY start buying point now and expect the price of the tag to jump $200 between now and then. I have been hunting in WY and am looking to add MT to my list here pretty soon. My hunts have ranged from timberline in early October, to desert in September to 2 foot snow November. Really not sure why you would not include CO in your list but I would look at it as well. Do you want a back pack hunt? A hunt from a central location accessible by truck? Do you want to hunt early high, late low? Hit the rut? Do you want to see lots of deer and a lower chance of a big one. Or see fewer deer knowing that you have a better chance at finding an older age class of buck?
Over all it really depends on what you want. For a good general hunt I like the look of teh MT set up as you can hunt later then in general than you can in other western states...
Gear will all depend on what you decide for the hunt..,
get points in both states, MT non-res deer only tag odds are like 60% or less I think?
You might want to look at the big horn mountains around buffalo wy that is region y lots of space, several walk in areas also, you might want to look at antelope while you are there, good luck


text:
[T]he many disappointments and crimes and blunders... do not relieve us of a responsibility that is either insufficiently stressed or else passed over entirely: What is to become, in the event of a withdrawal, of the many Arab and Kurdish Iraqis who do want to live in a secular and democratic and federal country? We have acquired this responsibility not since 2003, or in the sideshow debate over prewar propaganda, but over decades of intervention in Iraq's affairs, starting with the 1968 Baathist coup endorsed by the CIA, stretching through Jimmy Carter's unforgivable permission for Saddam Hussein to invade Iran, continuing through the decades of genocide in Kurdistan and the uneasy compromise that ended the Kuwait war, and extending through 12 years of sanctions and half-measures, including the "no-fly" zones and the Iraq Liberation Act, which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote. It is not a responsibility from which we can walk away when, or if, it seems to suit us.
October 31, 2006
"We have acquired this responsibility..."
71 comments:
- Doyle said...
If we can invade when it suits us, why can't we withdraw when it suits us?
Plus, it seems withdrawal is more popular with the Iraqi people than invasion ever was.
- MadisonMan said...
why can't we withdraw when it suits us?
Well, I'd feel responsibility for the ensuing bloodshed. I'd like to think that the US presence is helping Kurds, repaying a debt from Gulf War I.
- Doyle said...
Oh I forgot to mention Hitchens' credibility on the Iraq war is precisely nil.
He's still coming to grips with the demise of his colonialist fantasy, and the process involves a lot of drinking.
- amba said...
This is the part of all the "pullout" talk that really sickens me. (Un)Fortuntely, if we do abandon Iraq we will pay, and for a long time. The karma will be proportionate. In this case, the morally right thing to do is also where our long-term self-interest lies: in not handing a third of Iraq to Iran and another third to al-Qaeda, and terminally alienating our best allies there, the Kurds.
- VICTOR said...
I guess you can say the same about many, many different countries.
How about, say, Afghanistan?
His ranting about it doesn't sound like it contains any constructive suggestions.
- Doyle said...
Well, I'd feel responsibility for the ensuing bloodshed.
That's awfully sweet, and totally consistent with our foreign policy.
- MadisonMan said...
Doyle, I don't consider it a sweet position. It's a moral one.
- Eric said...
Not to point out the obvious, but none of us has a clue about how to handle the war in Iraq. I think it is clear it was a mistake to invade, even if it was with the best intentions (dubious). But do we, in our position as U.S. citizens, really have any understanding of a) the actual situation in Iraq; b) the "flavor" of countries in the region keeping tabs on our involvement; and c) the limitless repercussions our actions or inactions could spur? Our media has failed us miserably for the last decade and a half. Not to begin another debate, but the problem of profit-driven media has caused a race to the bottom which has not been beneficial to the country. I read three national newspapers each day (I don't sleep much) and scour the internet for as much relevant material as I can. But there is a complete dearth of useful data on Iraq.
One other point is clear: no matter what happens from here on out, "bad things" will happen in the region. I'd like to see an international peace-keeping force in Iraq (fat chance) and an honest effort to rebuild the infrastructure we destroyed (not when Republicans control the Executive and Legislature – too expensive). After that, I admittedly have no intelligent comments to add.
- Fenrisulven said...
Doyle: Oh I forgot to mention Hitchens' credibility on the Iraq war is precisely nil. He's still coming to grips with the demise of his colonialist fantasy, and the process involves a lot of drinking.
Its become obvious that your only concern re Iraq is as a political tool. Your credibility on the Iraq war is precisely nil.
- Abraham said...
If we can invade when it suits us, why can't we withdraw when it suits us?
A concept which apparently is foreign to you: honor.
- Balfegor said...
One other point is clear: no matter what happens from here on out, "bad things" will happen in the region.
Hitchens' broader point, in the excerpt seems to be that for the past 100 years or so, extremely bad things have been happening in the region, and many of them have been happening at Western instigation.
In the specific case of Saddam Hussein and Iraq, his argument seems to be that some decades ago, we decided that in to get a stable ally, and a secure flow of oil, it was fine for a few million Iraqis to be killed. [I am not sure his history here is correct, given that the French and the Soviets supplied most of his gear] And that later, Carter decided that in order to get a bit of revenge on the Iranians for humiliating him, it was fine for another million Iraqis to die fighting Iran. That, in other words, the status quo ante the invasion was a monstrous situation which would not have occurred had it not been for our past efforts in propping up bloodthirsty tyrants -- and that just because there weren't video cameras on the scene, and the reporters were all too scared to report what was going on, that doesn't mean we aren't culpable for those past atrocities.
Of course, the germ of the current problems in the Middle East -- from Lebanon, to Israel, to Iraq, and not excluding Egypt and Syria -- is the colonial policy pursued by the British and the French, especially after the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the abolition of the caliphate. And we could pursue the same sort of course as they had in the past, or as we have in the more recent past -- choose some group (the Kurds say, or any militia/warlord of choice), throw our firepower behind them and allow them to massacre their enemies down to the last man, woman, and child. And there would be peace; the same sort of peace Hafez Assad achieved when he had the terrorists resisting his government slaughtered, or the same peace the King of Jordan had, when he had the PLO terrorists acting against his government slaughtered. It's a simple military solution that's easy, and that works. But then we'd be perpetuating the unnatural state of affairs that Hitchens thinks created our moral culpability in Iraq. We'd just be setting up another Saddam.
- A Menken Moment said...
Hitchens is correct to point out that there are people in Iraq who would suffer if the American troops were to abandon all of their efforts there, namely the secular and more democratically inclined. He is also correct to remind us that, regardless of how we got to Iraq and how well or ill we proceeded there, just leaving without any concern or preparation for the consequences would be dishonorable.
The question is, is Iraq so full of factional strife that nothing our troops staying there can do will relieve the violence. Hitchens does mention an idea: redeploy to Kurdistan ready to come to the aid of the Iraqi government. So he is not without an proposed solution. It seems better we should turn our attention to debating this idea rather than declaring ex cathedra that Hitchens's credibility is nil or trolling on about his drinking.
- Doyle said...
Political tool? I was against this war back when it was popular.
- Kirk Parker said...
"I think it is clear it was a mistake to invade"
Well, it's equally clear to me that invading was the least worst option. Have you really forgotten that sanctions were crumbling and could not have been sustained much longer, or is that just a convenient oversight on your part? If the latter, do you really think the world would be better/safer today with a sanction-free Sadaam in place getting his reconsituted nuclear-weapons under way, perhaps with help purchased from a still-unknown-to-the-West A. Q. Khan?
- Kirk Parker said...
My reaction to claims about Hitchen's drinking is the same as Lincoln's supposed response to complaints about Grant's: let's buy the rest of the punditry whatever he's drinking!
- Zeb Quinn said...
Political tool? I was against this war back when it was popular.
Seising the lowground that you've always been clueless is an interesting gambit.
- Fenrisulven said...
Doyle: Political tool? I was against this war back when it was popular
Yeah. We get that. Now its time for you to step up and be constructive, instead of throwing rocks from the sidelines. Remember, you plan on taking the House? Consider it an experiment. Maybe you'll latch on to a new plan that will save a signifigant number of lives, American and Iraqi.
- SteveR said...
Yeah it was far better when we passed feckless legislation or assumed that our intelligence agencies were working out of sight to right wrongs or that the UN would organize some great humanitarian effort to ensure justice to the poor and oppressed throughout the region (and the world for that matter).
Maybe the europeans should have stayed out of the region entirely and left them to slaughter eachother so that we could now ignore history like say we do with the massacre of the Armenians.
Confronting reality really bites and criticizing those who do is so so very very easy and intellectually unchallenging. "gee they did something and it wasn't perfect"
- Danny said...
For every Iraqi who wants to live in a secular democracy, there are hundreds of Iraqis who want to live with basic access to food, water, shelter and medicine. The US military knows it can't provide any of those, and they sure aren't helping much in terms of security. So why are we there?
My guess is Iran. If we leave, then they'd take our place.
- Doyle said...
Now its time for you to step up and be constructive, instead of throwing rocks from the sidelines.
What a joke. I get accused of being only concerned with the war as a political tool, and for pointing out that my position predates the unpopularity of the war (which is necessary for it to be a "political tool" at all), I get accused of throwing rocks.
- Fenrisulven said...
Dolye: What a joke. I get accused of being only concerned with the war as a political tool, and for pointing out that my position predates the unpopularity of the war (which is necessary for it to be a "political tool" at all), I get accused of throwing rocks.
"If we can invade when it suits us, why can't we withdraw when it suits us?"
"Plus, it seems withdrawal is more popular with the Iraqi people than invasion ever was."
"Oh I forgot to mention Hitchens' credibility on the Iraq war is precisely nil."
"He's still coming to grips with the demise of his colonialist fantasy, and the process involves a lot of drinking."
"That's awfully sweet, and totally consistent with our foreign policy."
- ShadyCharacter said...
Eric, if I were you I'd pick three different newspapers to read each day (I'd also start using Google to help with the "scouring of the internet").
You say what you'd love to see an international peace-keeping force in Iraq. Well, 3 seconds of using The Google got me the following current list (with troop numbers and commitments):
1 United Kingdom 7,200 1,300 8,500
2 South Korea ~3,000 ~3,000 ~2,000 (end of 2006)
3 Italy 1,785 1,785 0 (Dec. 2006)
4 Australia 1,400 ~500 ~1,900
5 Poland 900 900 0 (end of 2006)
6 Romania 865 865
7 Denmark 515 ~35 (NATO and UNAMI) ~550
8 El Salvador 380 380
9 Georgia 300 550 (UNAMI) 850
10 Azerbaijan 150 150
11 Bulgaria ~150 ~150
12 Latvia 136 136
13 Mongolia 131 131
14 Albania 120 120
15 Slovakia 104 104
16 Czech Republic 100 100
17 Lithuania ~50 ~50
18 Armenia 46 46
19 Estonia 38 38
20 Bosnia & Herzegovina 37 37
21 Macedonia 33 33
22 Kazakhstan 29 29
23 Moldova*
Maybe these aren't your favorite 23 countries, but I'd say the grouping meets the definition of "international"...
Next comes the predictable gripe about troop numbers from these allies. Well, look around the world today and the only countries that have militaries capable of sending thousands of troops generally tend to be bad guys (north korea, china, arguably Russia). Those that we may wish would help us with boots on the ground (canada, france, germany etc...) really couldn't help much even if they were fully committed to the project (canada couldn't even get troops to the Afghan theater without hitching a ride on our troop transport planes). Israel would probably be willing to help, but that wouldn't exactly be a stabilizing force.
Your second "point" that Republicans are too cheap to spend money on an "honest effort" of reconstruction took about 3 seconds to deconstruct also. As of August of 2005 we'd committed 186 billion to Iraq and 66 billion to Afghanistan. We've spent more since. Even if they're too lily-livered to send troops, what's keeping the EU and the rest of our "allies" from sending money to help out on reconstruction? That's the position Japan is taking given its unique constitutional situation.
"After that, I admittedly have no intelligent comments to add."
- JohnK said...
It never occurs to anyone that perhaps all of the options in a given situation are bad option. I suppose it is human nature to expect a simple easy simple solution to every problem and every war and when one does not present itself it is because of someone's "mistakes" or "incompetence". Everyone assumes that it was a mistake to overthrow Hussein. Oh really? Does anyone ever consider that a we might have had more problems in last three years dealing with a defiant and increasingly accepted Saddam than we have had? People act as if only we hadn't invaded life would be days of wine and roses. Arm chair twits like Andrew Sullivan move divisions around the world like risk pieces with no account for logistics or second order effects. People just refuse to accept that sometimes there are only hard options.
In some ways the current war in Iraq reminds of the predicament the Union was in in 1864 or the allies were in 1915. The fact is that the Army of Northern Virginia was well lead, fanatically loyal, well armed and on its home territory. The war wasn't going to be won without a hugely difficult and bloody fight. When Grant did just that he was branded a drunk and a butcher; as if he should have had a magic wand and through tactical brilliance defeated Lee. It was the same in 1916. Hague is one of the most reviled generals in history, yet have never met one critic of Hague who can point one good option for the allies in 1916 facing a well lead committed enemy dug in and occupying the better part of France along a line taking advantage of every topographical advantage.
Today we face a rededicated and clever enemy in Iraq. There is no magic bullet to defeat him. Only through dogged determination and effort will Iraq be stabilized. That will, like everything in war take time and blood. Eventually, the enemy will get tired of dying and run out of motivation, people and know how. That is a hard option, but it is better than running home with a bloody nose and letting Iraq become Taliban Afghanistan times 10.
- Doyle said...
- This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
- george said...
Would someone in Christopher Hitchen's circle of relatives and friends, please do an intervention on him and get him into a rehab clinic? The sauce has pickled his brain.
What responsibility do I have to the Iraqi people? I was against the war from the very beginning fearing a foreign policy debacle similiar to the one that I experienced as a medical corpsman in Vietnam. But at least in Vietnam, only half of the country hated us.
It's ironic, how history repeats itself due to the innate stupidity and moral corruption of pundits like Christopher Hitchens and politicians like Senators Joseph Biden and Kay Baley Hutchison, who have proposed the partitioning of Iraq as a solution to the debacle there. Don't you just love wacky politicians pandering to voters during midterm elections? The senators remind me of firemen, who have set the house on fire with their affirmative votes for the war resolution on Iraq, standing in front of the burning building and casually debating how to put out the flames while they are holding water hoses that don't work in their hands.
Abraham has replied to a previous writer that we must stay in Iraq to salvage our honor. I heard the same noble argument from civilians when I returned to the world after my tour of duty. Try giving up indoor plumbing and sleeping in the great outdoors, Abraham, if you believe so deeply in the concept of honor. Endure rocket attacks on your base that seem like your very own version of "Apocalypse Now." You won't like the scenario of that war movie. I wonder how deeply you would view civilians safely back in the world believing in your obligation to defend the war and perhaps buy the farm to salvage the country's honor?
101 American soldiers have died this month in Iraq, one of the worst months since the invasion. I want the men and women serving in Iraq safely back home with their arms and legs still attached to their bodies. That means much more to me that some abstract concept like honor.
For all the readers who still believe in this debacle, try an experiment for just one day. Pretend that you have lost one of your arms or your legs. Then try to go about the normal routines of the day without that arm or leg.
- Tibore said...
Doyle, don't take this personally, but to be blunt, your comments do not reveal any constructive opinions. They do come off as mere rock throwing from the sidelines; that's why you're being criticized. Yes, you're against the war. We get it. But just dropping things and leaving doesn't necessarily follow from that; if anything, it's antithetical to it, because it does not involve repairing what is broken.
What should we do to fix the situation? That's the question. I'm afraid I'm going to have to rule out withdrawing as an adequate solution, because it does not address the issue of fixing the problem. What do you think we should do to solve the issue?
If you can answer that, then maybe you won't be the target of thrown rocks yourself.
- Brent said...
Thank you, Doyle, for proving for the thousandth time that liberals have difficulty taking an argument at face value. It's just so much easier for liberals to cast aspersion on the messenger.
You started out good, Doyle ol' friend, on the first comment.
Then you had to make it personal. Doesn't that wear on you? Don't you secretly hope that you can at least influence one person to consider your position?
It's generally impossible to tell if you actually have a point that may be worth considering because you seem so pleased with yourself in your sarcasm.
Please use your obviously above average intelligence to actually engage the conversation, taking on actual points raised, and perhaps benefit all of us.
- Goesh said...
There is the madman from North Korea with nukes, the Pakis have nukes and a powerful presence of islamic fundamentalists and the mullahs of Iran will soon have control over nuclear weapons. We simply cannot cut and run from Iraq as we know the Democrats/Liberals will do and subsequently embolden islamofacists the world over. What impact would it have on strategic allies in the middle east and their planning and treaties and dealings with other nations not friendly to the US? It goes way beyond simply saving some American lives and money for the sake of some votes. Alliances could radically and quickly change, investment strategies could collapse, treaties could be negated, etc. etc. Only a fool would think a withdrawal from Iraq benefits the US and only a fool would think the terrorists would be content to convert their swords to plow shears once the US was gone.
- Fenrisulven said...
johnk: I suppose it is human nature to expect a simple easy simple solution to every problem and every war and when one does not present itself it is because of someone's "mistakes" or "incompetence".
I think part of it is the new America - everything is jiffy-pop microwavable drive-thru. Can't reform a country in three years? Quagmire. Imagine how such an attitude would have affected our efforts during WW2.
- Richard Dolan said...
Hitchens was, as always, sharp. Ann leaves out his comment that we are in Iraq at least as much for our own sake as theirs. While I agree with those in this threat who say that Hitchens' point is rooted in concepts of honor and commitment, it's also even more deeply rooted in self interest and necessity. As Hitchens says, there is no distinction any more between "over there" and "over here" as far as the jihadi killers are concerned. Right now, it's hard for them to execute their murderous plots "over here," but that will be only a temporary condition if we give up the fight and run away.
The reality that "over there" and "over here" are now one and the same was the lesson that 9/11, and before it the USS Cole and the embassy bombings and the first WTC bombings, and the London, Madrid and Bali bombings, and all the rest, brought home in a way that only the truly blind refuse to see. Bush made an important point recently about the continuing war, in Iraq and more generally against Islamofascism, when he observed that the definition of "victory" that many in the West now adopt is the cessation of murderous mayhem. If that's it, then it also follows that "victory" can't be achieved -- not in Iraq, not in Israel or Palestine generally, and not even in France -- without a long term commitment to do what it takes to wipe out the sources and sponsors of jihadi terror.
The question is not whether the US and the West generally will be forced to see this fight through, but only when and how. The jihadi terror didn't start in 2003 with the invasion of Iraq, and we have no power to end it with a breezy "never mind!" as if the Iraq war were an SNL skit. If we leave Iraq, the jihadi killers just move on to their next target, emboldened by the suicidal fecklessness of their chosen enemies, and eventually (and not far down that road), they'll bring their war to Egypt, Turkey, Israel, the EU and the US. As Hitchens says, for those who hadn't grown weary of the task by the afternoon of 9/11, it's obvious that they already have, and don't intend to stop until we do what it takes to stop them.
I think Hitchens is right that the US has "acquired this responsibility." I would only add that, if we try to duck our responsibility in the short term, events will force it on us later when facing up to it will entail even more terrible consequences.
- Brent said...
Wow, Doyle, I didn't think that my comment would follow a similar one making the same points about you! I guess it's an intellectual "intervention"!
An old Irish saying: "If everybody says you're drunk, you'd better sit down."
- Henry said...
It's ironic, how history repeats itself...
One amazing fact about the Iraq debacle is that there is yet no refugee crisis.
George, remember the Vietnamese boat people? Remember the killing fields in Cambodia? Those crises came after U.S. withdrew its forces and military support from our Southeast Asian allies.
You say it's ironic how history repeats itself. I agree. Why haven't you withdrawal hawks learned anything?
- Fenrisulven said...
george: 101 American soldiers have died this month in Iraq, one of the worst months since the invasion.
There's a reason this is one of the worst months since the liberation - the jihadi's have finally figured out American politics and are targeting YOU. Why do you think 75% of the violence is around the Western media enclaves? You are the target - their goal is to discourage you into retreating.
I want the men and women serving in Iraq safely back home with their arms and legs still attached to their bodies.
The men and women serving in Iraq want to finish the job so they [or their children] don't have to go back there 10 years from now.
For all the readers who still believe in this debacle, try an experiment for just one day. Pretend that you have lost one of your arms or your legs. Then try to go about the normal routines of the day without that arm or leg.
Better idea, pretend that you're an infidel who is beheaded because you won't convert to Islam. Or a woman who is gang-raped and set on fire because you showed too much ankle. Or buried beneath a wall because you are gay. All in Boston, not Baghdad.
To paraphrase Trotsky: "While you may not be interested in Islam, Islam is interested in you". If we surrender Iraq, your children will take up the fight on American streets.
: It doens't matter that you are not interested in Islam. Islam is interested in you.
- Justin said...
Okay, to make a more serious rebuttal than Doyle's, lets put it this way.
Is there any realistic chance Hitchens won't be saying the same thing in 5 years? What about 20? Okay, no? Then staying is simply delaying the inevitable at all cost to them, and to us. It's silly, and its only being done so that a certain set of losers don't have to admit they burned down the house with their imagined superpowers (and some matches).
- Old Dad said...
Since you're prescient, what's the market going to do next week?
- Joe Baby said...
1. Hitchens' argument that our previous actions give us a responsibility to do the right thing has been rejected by the left on numerous occasions. The 'previous action' theme is frequently the punchline to the argument that we should get the hell out.
2. I'm surprised that Demo candidates aren't selling a vastly different plan of action re: Iraq, but in general the ads and statements are of the "we'll do something different" or "Iraq is broken" variety. Call me cynical, but it appears to be an appeal to moderates while communicating quite clearly to the left, "we're done in Iraq."
3. Meanwhile, plenty of ads that President Bush should do something re: Darfur.
4. Of course, even if the Dems win both houses they can't easily produce a withdrawal. We'll simply get two more years of p.o.'ed Dems who are certain the the global war on terror should only be fought in Afghanistan.
- Doyle said...
As constructive an opinion as I'm able to offer:
My direct access to "the generals on the ground" is unfortunately limited, but I am very reluctant to believe the doomsayers on the consequences of withdrawal when they are so often the same people who advocated invasion. Those who expected (or at least promised) a swift liberation and return to stability have no credibility in my book.
As intuitive as it may seem that 140,000 U.S. troops would have the effect of quelling violence in Iraq, it does not seem to be working out that way. Moreover, our continued presence in Iraq is intensifying the threat of a terrorist attack on the United States. I know that argument makes some people unhappy, but it's supported by the most recent NIE and I think makes common sense.
In any case, while I can't say that immediate withdrawal is the best option, I do think a lot of the arguments against it are specious. As long as we stay, hawks will be able to speculate how much worse things would be if we left, when as long as we're there, we'll never know. If I were president, I'd give it some serious consideration, which Bush has made clear he is not doing.
- MadisonMan said...
Careful fenrisulven -- it sounds like you've been talking to jihadis, as how else could you know their motives? DHS is gonna be tapping into you.
Your explanation is plausible -- but it's equally likely that crazy criminals don't need a reason to kill.
- Doyle said...
Side note: I hate the "phased withdrawal" talk which comes mostly from Democrats. If we're going to leave, we should do it quickly, without leaving some portion of our ground force there in smaller number (and thus in a more vulnerable position).
- The Jerk said...
Why is it that only those who criticize the current Iraq policy have an obligation to suggest constructive alternatives? I don't see Fenrisulven et. al. putting forth any ideas.
- Brent said...
Impressive, thought provoking reply. Thank you.
I do not agree with the thought that staying in Iraq increases the terrorist threat, because I do not believe that the supply of terrorists will end until freedom is established in the Middle East. When?
Literally decades from now.
American lives the cost? A safer, far more stable world in the future fror my grandchildren and great grandchildren is the benefit. Sorry if it sounds crass.
Do I believe that the Middle East can culturally be changed into a thriving, civil and free society? Sadly, I have to admit probably not.
But that's a whole other discussion . . .
- JohnK said...
"Moreover, our continued presence in Iraq is intensifying the threat of a terrorist attack on the United States. I know that argument makes some people unhappy, but it's supported by the most recent NIE and I think makes common sense."
That is a complete mischaracterization of the NIE. You might try reading the thing rather than the NYT biased propeganda about it. The NIE says in pertinent part
"The Iraq conflict has become the —cause celebre" for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters forthe global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves,and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carryon the fight."
Withdrawing will fuel terrorism not sticking to the fight and winning. Further, while Iraq is the "cause celebre" of the jhiadist movement, there are other factors involved. The report states
"Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Westerndomination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq —jihad;" (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-USsentiment among most Muslims–all of which jihadists exploit."
Withdrawing from Iraq will do nothing to address these factors and would probably agrivate them by making the jhiadists look stronger and the probable winning side.
The lying about the NIE by the national media is nothing short of disgraceful.
- Andrew Shimmin said...
Whether Hitchens, Bush, whomever, have any credibility or don't, does not mean they're wrong about the consequences of withdrawal. To think so is like assuming that since the last time you flipped a coin it came up heads, this time it'll come up tails.
- RogerA said...
I certainly have no magic solutions for the situation in Iraq, but it seems there are at least several imporant things at work for evil there and in no particular order:
(1) outright ciminality. I dont think that is anything any American policy or force can deal with it; ominously enough, if the Iraqi government can't deal with their criminal elements they certainly wont be able to deal with larger security issues IMHO. Certainly one branch of our policy and effort should be aimed at controlling the criminal elements; (2) federal issues: we really need to evaluate the feasibility of a federated Iraq; as long as we stay wedded to a unified post bellum Iraq we foreclose other important options--there are, of course, some real geostrategic issues with a shite south most likely joined with Iran, a kurdish north, and impoverished sunni rump state, but have we really addressed how those issues might be dealt with? I think not
(3) the insurgency itself--to the degree that federalism is successful, it would let two out of three elements of Iraq (Kurds and Shiites) control their own boundaries and eliminate the insurgency--and if at some point the Iraqis decide a more centralized Iraq is desireable, they can move in that direction.
What strikes me about my thoughts is this: there isnt much of a role for any larger military force--thus that military force that is left should be there to maintain Iraqi EXTERNAL security.
Just some thoughts
- Doyle said...
Andrew -
You have that backwards. It's inferring because a coin landed heads, it will do so again.
But coin flips are independent events, whereas I'm arguing people who supported invasion initially are more likely to insist withdrawal is a bad idea.
If the law of averages were in effect, they'd have gotten something right by now.
- Goesh said...
All throughout the war we would get snippets of info about foreign fighters being caught and killed. Let's dispel the myth first that Ahmed from Egypt leaves his shoe selling stall in Cairo, gets himself to Iraq and is instantly capable of handling all weapons and explosives, identifying units and officers and aircraft, able to plan and execute ambushes, skilled in sniping, able to marshal resources and command men. The Left's infatuation with Che Gueverra has come full circle folks and now manifested in Iraq. Jihadist, blooded veterans from Chechyna, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Gaza, Kasmir, Somolia, West Bank, etc. have been flocking to Iraq in droves. It is their obligation. The Left can't understand this any more than they can't understand our enlistment quotas being filled, wounded men demanding to be returned to their units and all kinds of men voluntarily extending their duty in Iraq. Why in God's name do you think all the professional military men and planners left the borders porous? Sheesh! Attrition takes on a whole new meaning when the logistics to reconstitute are 3rd world logistics. No self-respecting jihadist is going to allow Western style representative government to exist in the heart of the middle east. Women voting, my AK-47! A Consitution in lieu of al qu'ran, my IED! The best they can do is bleed the people with sectarian violence hoping US voters will cut and run.
- Abraham said...
I wonder how deeply you would view civilians safely back in the world believing in your obligation to defend the war and perhaps buy the farm to salvage the country's honor?
It would be irrelevant, because that would be the obligation that I freely and voluntarily assumed. Perhaps I would come to regret my choice - perhaps not - but if I were upset at my position, I would have nobody to blame except myself, and would perform my duties out of personal honor if nothing else.
- michael a litscher said...
Fenrisulven: It doens't matter that you are not interested in Islam. Islam is interested in you.
And more to the point for the twits in the audience with the "End the war, bring the troops home" signs in their front lawns: Islam is at war with us, and has been for at least three decades. We may withdraw our troops from the battlefield, but the war won't be over - radical Islam will still be at war with us, and will continue to be at war with us until said twits wake the hell up and decide we need to fight back, and fight until the other side surrenders.
- DookOfURL said...
My thinking is that Hitchins is the same sort of liberal that I am, and that the perfect statement of our view of US foreign policy is: "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
Kinda makes you all nostalgic, doesn't it?
- Doyle said...
... for a president who sounds like a president? You bet.
- Pogo said...
Fenris is right. Hitchens is right. We should take Islamic fascists at their word. They don't want something from us, they want us dead.
But half the country, like Doyle, wants to run away from this fact, and have constructed marvelous windbaggy treatises of Chomskeyesque proportions intent on proving we are the Worst Nation That Ever Was and We Deserve It and Bush I and Bush II caused it all.
And when it lands on our doostep (again), the dozing giant will awaken, enraged. Meanwhile, buses in France burn, and 50 cars per day set afire, by the religion of peace.
So go back to sleep, Doyle. Blame the messenger. Call him drunk. But he's been dead right most of the way, and you've got nothing but bumper sticker notions to share. Denmark is too afraid of its own Muslim citizens to speak against them, or have their throats cut. But sleep on, Doyle.
WW: juash. I kid you not.
- Mark R. said...
Hitch is right, but he doesn't address the root of the current problem - vicious circle of jihad re-inforcing sectarian violence re-inforcing jihadis.
Our mission in Iraq (should we choose to accept it) needs to focus on breaking this vicious circle. With the significantly lower levels of sectarian violence, the Iraqi government would be able to do much more to take on and defeat the jihadis with a lot fewer American "boots on the ground". That is my definition of victory.
Options? Remove the Sunni Baathits will to fight by killing enough of them, running them out of the country, or buying them off with oil bonds. At the same time, remove the Iranian sponsored Shi'ia militias from the scene as an effective fighting force.
It only takes our will. But we have to impose it, not dick around with PC "let them run their country while we are nice enough to defend them" BS. For better or for worse, after removing Saddam we own Iraq. Let's act like it. Iraqis need to be fearful in the short term, grateful in the long term. Anything else gets more of them and of our soldiers killed.
- joe said...
There's this movie everyone's talking about "No Substitute for Victory: from Vietnam to Iraq". Originally "No Substitute for Victory" was a documentary hosted by Jon Wayne released when during war in Vietnam. Now this film is re-released on a DVD and examines out current conflicts in the Middle East as seen through the scope of history from our previous conflict in Vietnam. It has exclusive modern day interviews. I think it will be an excellent source of vital information and entertainment! You should check it out!
- Freder Frederson said...
Options? Remove the Sunni Baathits will to fight by killing enough of them, running them out of the country, or buying them off with oil bonds. At the same time, remove the Iranian sponsored Shi'ia militias from the scene as an effective fighting force.
And how exactly would you go about achieving these goals? How would you instill fear in the Iraqis? Encourage retalitory killings by U.S. troops? Perhaps summary executions or the use of rape as a weapon? Teams of U.S. soldiers organized into death squads? What exactly are we talking about here? You really need to be specific. I really need to know what kind of depravity you are talking about.
- Revenant said...
Plus, it seems withdrawal is more popular with the Iraqi people than invasion ever was
That raises the question of whether people have the *right* to an unfree society, even if that's what they want. If eighty percent of the population wants religious dictatorship and twenty percent wants peaceful, secular democracy, the morally correct thing to do is ignore the wishes of the eighty percent.
Of course, it isn't our government's job to do the morally right thing; it is the government's job to do what's best for Americans. I don't think it has any particular moral obligation to the Iraqi people. I do, however, think that both our interests and theirs are served by establishing a secular democracy in Iraq.
- Mark R. said...
Freder: I really need to know what kind of depravity you are talking about.
Why is it that some people automatically imagine depravity as the only tactics to achieve strategic objectives?
I am not close to the situation on the ground (terrorist-produced and CNN-distributed sniper videos don't count) to propose a specific plan. But I am sure we have military and political leadership that can develop the plans if they are allowed to go at it without one arm tied behind their back. After all, in Gulf I they proved pretty effective about making Iraq head for the exits from Kuwait post haste.
- Doyle said...
terrorist-produced and CNN-distributed sniper videos don't count
Sure they do.
That we are totally sheltered from images of soldiers' death is, I think, wrong. It's purely for the benefit of domestic morale and does a disservice to the soldiers who are actually dying.
- Revenant said...
It's purely for the benefit of domestic morale and does a disservice to the soldiers who are actually dying
What a load of horseshit. Soldiers don't want their deaths broadcast on international television. What the hell planet are you FROM?
- Freeman Hunt said...
If eighty percent of the population wants religious dictatorship and twenty percent wants peaceful, secular democracy, the morally correct thing to do is ignore the wishes of the eighty percent.
An extremely good point.
- Doyle said...
Sooo, it's done to shield soldiers from the potential, what, shame of being killed by a sniper?
My guess is they are far more concerned with that actual risk of death by sniper than what does and doesn't get aired on CNN.
If Americans could see even a fraction of the violence in Iraq, support for the war would decline even further.
- Doyle said...
An extremely good point, if you ignore that, in a democracy, what 80% of the population wants it will (eventually) get.
- Freeman Hunt said...
An extremely good point, if you ignore that, in a democracy, what 80% of the population wants it will (eventually) get.
We're talking about liberal democracy--democracy with protected individual rights. Not mob rule.
- Revenant said...
Sooo, it's done to shield soldiers from the potential, what, shame of being killed by a sniper?
I am not going to explain to you why snuff films are disrespectful to the victims and their families. A decent person could figure it out on his own.
My guess is they are far more concerned with that actual risk of death by sniper than what does and doesn't get aired on CNN.
No shit. Just because they'd prefer to live doesn't mean they want to wind up as porn for left-wingers and Muslims in the event that they DO die.
An extremely good point, if you ignore that, in a democracy, what 80% of the population wants it will (eventually) get.
That's why the 80% has to be dealt with, one way or another, before the 20% is subjected to its whims.
- Bruce Hayden said...
One of the things that some of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq have figured out that a lot of people here in the U.S. have not yet is that we are the primary force keeping them alive.
The other thing is that while everyone is talking about al Qaeda, et al., the foreign born terrorists who have infiltrated have become significantly less of a threat since Zarqawi was nailed this summer, and a lot of his network rolled up. Add to that that the Iraqi security forces can easily detect foreigners, and that Anbar Provence has become a lot less hospitable for them in the last six months, with the Sunni tribes there being more likely now to kill them than to help them. Add to this that some 3/4 of the tribes have signed on with the government for helping to provide security in the last month or so.
Most of the violence now is Iraqi on Iraqi. It is concentrated in Baghdad for a number of reasons, one of which is that that is the best place to hide.
But keep in mind that the Sunni Arabs are using indiscriminate killing of mostly innoncents in a last desperate attempt to try to reclaim power. Meanwhile, the Sunni Arabs who either have been involved in this, or were involved in atrocities under Saddam Hussein, are being personally targetted and executed, mostly by the Shiite militias. Worse, their families are also being targetted, both from the pragmatic point of view that killing the families of those who kill innocents works to discourage more of that, and that many of those involved in the executions are avenging murdered family members.
But note, this side of the bloodshed is highly targetted, about as highly targetted as the other side is indiscriminate.
Back to my original point. If we leave before things are better stabilized, there is a good likelyhood that a lot more Sunni Arabs will be killed. They apparently now constitute 15% of the population, down from 20% when we intervened. And the other side has the trained soldiers, plus most of the guns. Not close to an even fight any more. Add in between 30 and a couple hundred years of pent up revenge on the part of the Shiites and Kurds, and it wouldn't be pretty.
Of course, the MSM is still fighting the last battle, against OBL and al Qaeda.
- Bruce Hayden said...
It wasn't just the western Europeans who were heavily involved. Just to the east, in Iran, the Brits and the Russians spent almost the entire 19th Century squabbling over Iran. One would essentially run the country, then the other one would. No wonder the once proud Persians hate westerners. My only question is why they hate us even more than their former colonial powers.
Iraq at least was somewhat luckier there, not really becoming a pawn of empires until the final dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire.
- KnightErrant said...
There are no good solutions to the Iraq problem. The United States (George Bush) has so botched the occupation that any definition of victory is impossible. We should ignore why we invaded and forget any goals we used to have. Iraq becoming a western-style democracy that is an ally of the United States is an impossible fantasy. We should concentrate on finding the best possible bad solution. I can see five possible outcomes.
Alternative #1: The US Army steps up the fighting against all the rebelling factions, Sunni and Shi'ite, to suppress the rebellion once and for all. We do all the heavy lifting for a government that cannot get organized. Probable effect: We would have to engage in near genocide to secure the country as an occupying army. Remember, outside of Kurdistan, over 70 percent of the population hates us.
Alternative #2: Install a strongman (Saddam-lite) who will be able to rule through fear. Probable effect: Unless the strongman is a Kurd, the Kurds will fight him. If he is a Kurd, the rest of the country will resist. Result, civil war.
Alternative #3: Withdraw and allow the Iraqis to decide for themselves, either through peaceful or violent means. Probable effect: Civil War, although the terror of unmitigated civil war might convince the factions to talk.
Alternative #4: Support a reluctant, ineffective, sectarian-ridden Iraq army and police force which is mistrusted by the population. Hope things will somehow turn out alright. Probable Effect: This is the current policy. I call it Stay-and-Pray. We will keep a lid on full-blown civil war at the cost of decades of unresolved chaos.
Alternative #5: Partition Iraq into Sunni, Shi'ite, and Kurdish regions. Probable effect: Iran will absorb the Shi'ite region, Syria will absorb the Sunni region, and there will be a self-governing Kurdish region. This will not solve the problem of Baghdad. Probable effect: This is the most peaceful solution, but even here the killing will continue in Baghdad. It will mean three-fourths of Iraq will be enemies of the United States but, hey, that is already the case.
My choice is Alternative 5. Alternative 3 is the big risk/big reward option. It has a chance of something resembling success if rational minds prevail; or it will make Hell look peaceful.
- Fenrisulven said...
Iraq becoming a western-style democracy that is an ally of the United States is an impossible fantasy
Its also a strawman. Iraq will be an Arab democracy, with that culture's characteristics. There will be many things about that we don't like, but they will evolve. Much the same way we evolved by freeing the slaves, civil rights, woman's suffrage, animal rights, etc.
- Fenrisulven said...
This is the most peaceful solution
Looking over your options, I see a consistent flaw - you appear to have "peace" as your primary goal. You don't get peace by seeking peace [see ww2]. Peace is the reward for Strength and Diligence. Much like Success is the reward for Hard Work and Perseverance. You don't get one without seeking the other.
- KnightErrant said...
To Fenrisulven:
I noticed throughout your many comments you have offered no suggestions. None. You make no attempt to travel from where we are to some identifiable conclusion.
You like comparing this war to World War II. WWII had an easily identifiable goal (peace through the total defeat of the armed forces of Germany and Japan). Every effort was aimed at achieving this goal.
What is your goal in this war? What strategy in Iraq do you believe will achieve this goal? Stop whining and share.
- Bruce Hayden said...
Alternative #1: Add a lot of troops and suppress violence with extreme prejudice.
I disagree that this would be essentially genocide. But I also think that it misreads the current situation.
Alternative #2: Install a strongman.
The only viable strongman would have to be Shiite, given the populations of the various ethnic groups. A Shiite strongman over most of the country and a Kurdish quasi-republic up north is probably more viable.
Alternative #3: Cut and run.
No, the result wouldn't be Civil War. That buys into the MSM misstatement of the current condition. But the Iraqi Sunni Arabs don't have enough of the population or enough of the guns or trained fighters for a Civil War. They have dropped to about 15% of the population, and lower than that in the national security forces. Instead, the proper term for it would be genocide.
Currently, I would suggest that the best way of looking at the situation is as a fight between terrorists and vigilantes. It is when the vigilantes switch over into more indiscriminate violence that we would be entering the genocide phase. There is some of this already, but the vast majority of the Sunnit Arab deaths appear to be vigilante justice - so far.
Alternative #4: Support the security forces being trained up by us right now.
Let me first note that it is the police that are the big problem. Last I knew, the army was getting a lot better marks from the Iraqi people, and didn't appear to have nearly the level of corruption as the police do.
Nevertheless, I see this as the most viable of your alternatives, despite your characterization of the security forces. Many in our military have argued that we haven't put enough resources into this area, and, instead have worked harder at killing and capturing bad guys, playing "Whack a Terrorist".
Alternative #5: Split the country up into three regions.
This suggestion ignores a lot of the reality of Iraq today. First, what would you give the Sunni Arabs? Anbar? Little oil and a lot of sand there. If you give them the area around Kurkut for some oil, the Kurds are likely to take violent exception to that - and they have the guns to back themselves up.
One big problem with the oft suggested suggestion to split the country into three sectarian countries or quasi-countries is what to do with the Sunni Arabs. Of course, that is the problem right now. But other than Anbar, there is little of Iraq in which the Sunni Arabs are the majority. Parts of Baghdad, and some of the close in towns around there. But that is about it. Also, as I noted before, the majority of the oil is under Shiite lands, and most of the rest under land the Kurds have reason to claim.
Finally, would the Shiite Arab Iraqis merge with their Shiite Persian cousins? Highly unlikely. Definately not voluntarily. Your suggestion here ignores several millenia of tension between these very different ethnic and cultural peoples.
So, no surprise that the bulk of Saddam Hussein's forces in his war against Iran were Shiite. Many volunteered to fight their historic enemies (and, yes, a lot were drafted). Still, when it came to picking a side, many more Shiite Arabs seemed to pick the Sunni Arab side over the Shiite Persian side of that war.
If you give the Sunni Arabs too much, the Shiites and the Kurds will just take it away. But if they try to do that, the Sunni Arabs would likely appeal to their Sunni Arab brethern outside the country for help, which they would likely get. And then the Iranians would be welcomed into the south to counter this.
Here is my vote ranking the alternatives from best to worst:
Alternative #4: work on the current security forces.
Alternative #1: More U.S. fighting.
Alternative #2: Strongman - though I would pick Shiite
Alternative #5: Split the country up.
Alternative #3: Cut and Run.
- KnightErrant said...
To Bruce Hayden:
Thank you for your reasoned disagreement. I'm afraid I can't share your faith in the "stay the course" approach. The security situation has deteriorated markedly over the past three years. There was a chance, three years ago, to choose a course that would have led to victory. That time has long past.
It is unlikely that following a path that has led to three years of failure will somehow, eventually, lead to success. It is more likely continuing to follow a failed path will lead to continued failure.


text:
Short Story Index
Database details
- Searchable by author, title, subject, keyword, date, literary technique and source, or by any combination of terms.
- Subject access-including theme, locale, narrative technique or device.
- Detailed indexing of more than 117,000 stories from more than 4,200 collections and anthologies.
- Full text for nearly 5,000 stories.
- Coverage dating as far back as 1984.
Need assistance? Contact the Web Administrator.


text:
Join the Nation's Conversation
To find out more about Facebook commenting please read the Conversation Guidelines and FAQs
Little thumb drives now a big security threat
(Editor's note: Whistleblower Edward Snowden finagled access to sensitive data about phone and Internet data mining programs at the NSA and reportedly snuck the data out of the agency using thumb drives. In this guest essay, Dave Jevans, founder of Marble Security and current chairman of the Anti-Phishing Working Group, outlines how the little thumb drive has become a security threat.)
USB thumb drives, or flash drives, are back in the news as a security threat. Recent NSA secrets leaker, Edward Snowden, allegedly used a USB thumb drive to copy secrets about the PRISM spy program from the US National Security Agency (NSA), and disclose those to the world's media.
Hundreds of millions of thumb drives (aka flash drives) are sold every year. In addition to backing up data, these little devices are extremely useful for sharing large files between computers. I speak at cyber security conferences around the world on a regular basis, and my flash drive is the best and most reliable way for me to copy large PowerPoint presentations and photos between my computer and the computers at conferences that display the presentations to my audiences. It's more convenient and secure than using an Internet file sharing service.
But there are dangers to using USB storage devices. The first is the risk of storing your private data on a thumb drive, and then losing it in a taxi or airport, or having the device stolen. This risk can easily be mitigated by using a secure USB thumb drive that requires a password to unlock it, such as an IronKey. Malicious viruses can also be spread through thumb drives. Secure thumb drives often include anti-virus capabilities that prevent portable viruses like Confiker from spreading to your computers. You should also disable auto-run on your Windows computers to prevent malicious code on thumb drives from infecting your computers.
An even bigger risk is that most employees walk in every day with devices that can steal company information. It's their iPhones, iPads, Androids and any other smartphone. These are all storage devices that can be used to copy gigabytes of company information and walk right out the door, or share that data over the Internet.
Requiring Mobile Device Security software on any device that is allowed to connect to your computers is a great way to enforce the same level of security as that provided by secure thumb drives to protect your data. The remote wipe capability can also allow you to remotely delete data if you or an employee loses their smartphone or tablet.
About the Author
David Jevans is the founder, Chairman and Chief Technology Officer of Marble Security, provider of security software and services for mobile devices. He was was previously the founder of IronKey,which makes secure thumb drives. Jevans is also chairman of the Anti-Phishing Working Group.


text:
Did you read today's front page stories & breaking news?
From the Wires
Free Research Reports on C, FCX, NOK and P Issued by the Bedford Report
Note to Editors: The Following Is an Investment Opinion Being Issued by the EQUITY NEWS CIRCUIT
By: Marketwired .
Dec. 6, 2012 08:15 AM
NEW YORK, NY -- (Marketwire) -- 12/06/12 -- The Bedford Report has released new equity reports today. As a leading provider of free in depth reports and timely market updates, Bedford is an essential resource for hundreds of thousands of investors across the country.
Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) shares surged 7 percent on over 61 million shares traded Wednesday. The company has reported that it plans to cut 11,000 jobs which will result in a $1 billion fourth-quarter charge.
Find out more about Citigroup including full access to the free equity report at: www.BedfordReport.com/C
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (NYSE: FCX) shares declined over 15 percent on nearly 10 times the average daily volume Wednesday. The company has reported that it plans to purchase both McMoRan and Plains Exploration & Production Co. for a total of $9 billion.
Find out more about Freeport-McMoRan including full access to the free equity report at: www.BedfordReport.com/FCX
Nokia Corporation (NYSE: NOK) shares surged 11 percent to a seven-month high Wednesday after announcing a sales deal with China Mobile. China Mobile will sell a Chinese version of Nokia's Lumia 920.
Find out more about Nokia including full access to the free equity report at: www.BedfordReport.com/NOK
Pandora Media Inc. (NYSE: P) shares of the internet radio provider plummeted 17 percent on over 19 million shares traded Wednesday after projecting slowing revenues and a loss for the fourth quarter.
Find out more about Pandora Media including full access to the free equity report at: www.BedfordReport.com/P
Disclaimer: Equity News Circuit is not a registered investment advisor, and nothing in this report is intended as a solicitation to buy or sell any security. A third party, bedfordreport.com has paid Equity News Circuit four hundred and fifty dollars for the publication of this news release. Neither Equity News Circuit, nor the hiring party, has a financial relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this release.
Contact Information:
Latest AJAXWorld RIA Stories
Subscribe to the World's Most Powerful Newsletters
Subscribe to Our Rss Feeds & Get Your SYS-CON News Live!
SYS-CON Featured Whitepapers
Most Read This Week


text:
After thousands of protestors rallied, federal officials launched an investigation and the national media directed a laser-like spotlight on the shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, Gov. Rick Scott took two significant moves Thursday to involve himself in the case.
Scott spoke with the current state attorney handling the case—who then decided to step down to avoid the "appearance of conflict of interest,"—and announced a new task force to study the state's controversial Stand Your Ground law and other parts of the case.
Trayvon, a black high school student from South Florida, was shot dead while walking home in Sanford last month. The shooter, volunteer neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman, has not been arrested. That has sparked national outcry of police malpractice and racial profiling.
The local state attorney, Norman Wolfinger, is now off the case, and has been replaced by Angela B. Corey of Florida's Fourth Judicial Circuit in Jacksonville, Scott's office announced Thursday evening.
The state's first black Lieutenant Governor, Jennifer Caroll, will lead a new task force that will look into the issues surrrounding the case, including the state's Stand Your Ground law and possibly racial profiling.
On Tuesday, a group of about 50 attorneys marched to Scott's office, urging the governor to take a more proactive stand in the case and to set up a task force on racial profiling, which many believe was at play in the shooting death of Trayvon, a black high school student.
"In order to ensure that we will not return here again, your office should form a task force addressing the problems of racial profiling and the abuse of police and prosecutorial discretion," Tallahassee criminal defense attorney Mutaqee Akbar told Scott during an impromptu meeting in his office Tuesday.
It was one of several rallies across the country this week, as the nation's attention focused on Florida and one of its most controversial laws. On Thursday, thousands of people rallied in Sanford to protest the handling of Trayvon's case.
Protesters in the street and some prominent lawmakers have called for a repeal of the state's Stand Your Ground law, which allows people who feel threatened to use deadly force to protect themselves.
This week, Sen. Oscar Braynon, D-Miami Gardens, called for the Senate to hold hearings on how the law is being applied. Martin, who was visiting his father in Central Florida, lived in Braynon's district.
"It shouldn't be that, if you feel intimidated by someone, you can pull a gun on someone and shoot them? That's not the kind of law we need," Braynon said.
Scott said a Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection will take a closer look at the 2005 law, and other issues surrounding the case.
"After listening to many concerned citizens in recent days, I will call for a Task Force on Citizen Safety and Protection to investigate how to make sure a tragedy such as this does not occur in the future, while at the same time, protecting the fundamental rights of all of our citizens - especially the right to feel protected and safe in our state," Scott said in a release.
The task force will convene after the investigation takes place, and will include public hearings.
In addition to Carroll, Reverend R. B. Holmes, Jr., the pastor of the Bethel Missionary Baptist Church in Tallahassee, has agreed to be the vice-chair of the task force. Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Legislature's Republican leadership--some of whom co-sponsored the Stand Your Ground law--also supported the new task force.
In 2005, several Democrats in Florida's House of Representatives predicted the Stand Your Ground law would lead to tragic deaths, racial profiling and a case of legislative regret.
"If you vote for this, you are going to be very upset and in a few years you will be back trying to fix this bill…because innocent people could be shot," said former Rep. Kenneth Gottlieb, D-Hollywood.


text:
No Quarter
The long-awaited third play from Royal Court prodigy Polly Stenham – at 26 still younger than most first time playwrights – is a lively, indulgent psychodrama about a young bohemian determined to go down with his rambling family pile.
At its centre lies Tom Sturridge's Robin, a compelling blend of Peter Pan, Johnny 'Rooster' Byron and gap year hippie. Raised in rural isolation by his fiery mother Lily (Maureen Beattie), Robin has turned away from the world to act as both guardian of the dying Lily's Summer of Love-ish values, and also Lily herself, who he has 'rescued' from a hospice.
Stenham's writing is at its most affecting in the first scene – in which Sturridge's peculiar waif bends every bone in his frail body to ease his mother's pain – and the final one, a bruising, tender encounter between Robin and his older brother Oliver, who suggests that many of the certainties Robin has built his life around may not be true. Stenham confirms her prowess at writing about the intimacy, agony and ecstasy of family, and it's an exemplary turn from Sturridge, who plays the fey Robin with immense empathy.
In between the two scenes is a big, fuck off party, and it's here that Jeremy Herrin's production wobbles. On its own, standalone merits, the lengthy party sequence is fun. In particular, Zoe Boyle and Joshua James are a hoot as Scout and Arlo, two unbearably pretentious friends that Robin acquired during an abortive spell at music college.
But after half an hour or so I did find myself questioning why exactly I was watching a bunch of posh people getting mashed. They continue to do so for an hour as more and more people – some spectacularly peripheral – swing by Robin's pad.
Stenham is unlikely to ever quite escape the shadow of her huge teenage hit 'That Face' (and certainly won't so long as her oeuvre consists solely of family psychodramas that play at the Royal Court Upstairs). Still, for all its faults 'No Quarter' is indubitably the work of a perceptive and gifted writer, not a hipster who got lucky once.
And those who say Stenham can break no new ground are off the mark – this is surely the first play I've seen in which two different characters say the word 'fuckweasel' in two different contexts.
|Venue name:
|Royal Court Theatre
Sloane Square
|Tube: Sloane Sq
|£10-£20, £15 concs. Runs 1hr 45mins


text:
There are a lot of beer-centric holidays on the brew lover's calendar. From the widely celebrated holidays of Saint Patrick's Day and Cinco de Mayo to the younger, more obscure days dedicated to IPAs or stouts, there seems to be a day every month to celebrate with a glass of suds. April is no different, and Sunday is (evidently) National Beer Day!
The deep scar left on our nation by the ruinous Volstead Act is still apparent on the face of American brewing, and the consolidation and homogenization of breweries during Prohibition took decades to undo. The first step in the repeal of the 18th Amendment was the signing of the Cullen-Harrison Act on March 22, 1933. The law made the sale of low-alcohol beer (below 4% alochol by volume) legal once again and took effect on April 7, 1933. In 2009 a group of beer lovers, with the support of the Brewers Assn., took to social media to drum up support for celebrating a National Beer Day.
Arbitrary? Perhaps, but the beer lovers of Los Angeles have plenty to celebrate. Los Angeles has a long -- and sometimes sordid -- brewing history. Legend claims that Hollywood bombshell Jean Harlow was present at the Eastside Brewery on April 7, 1933, to christen the first delivery truck to carry real beer from the brewery in over a decade.


text:
Just a Moment: Monkeys
With that in mind, my only decent photo from this weekend is two random zoo monkeys. Maybe their judgmental glares will get me motivated to do better?
6 comments:
When I first got into photograhy years ago after college, I would bring my dslr and lenses with me to almost everywhere but once I felt I succeeded trying all the techniques, I guess I was satisfied and didn't bring my equipment with me much, also there were other priorities that came with age. Now, I only bring my dslr on vacations, and even then, I dont carry it with me everywhere, my phone or point-and-shoot camera would do.ReplyDeleteReplies
Yes exactly. But I guess my skills weren't that good b/c I've totally lost the ability to take some good photos when I really want to. I guess I need to practice more than others?Delete
The focus and colour are great. I think you definitely nailed it. Keep practicing!ReplyDelete
Is this the Bronx Zoo? Great pic!ReplyDelete
Awesome pic. I liked the background of the photograph.ReplyDelete
Elegant Granites


text:
Jay-Z And Kanye West Go To Ridiculous Efforts To Stop Album From Leaking
from the for-how-much-benefit? dept
And, amazingly, all of this "worked." The album apparently was released on time without any leaks. Our critic said this proves that I'm a liar when I say "musicians don't care about piracy." Of course, I've never said nor implied any such thing. I know that plenty of musicians "care" about piracy. But this story first of all wasn't about "piracy" so much as it was about leaks. It's clear from the article that it wasn't about the economic threat of a pre-release, but how it fit into the marketing strategy. Jay-Z wanted to try to get people to listen to the whole album.
On top of that, all the crazy "CIA" stuff isn't what stopped the album from leaking. For all the talk of "hackers" breaking into computers and grabbing copies of tracks early, most tracks leak because of one thing: someone in the final processing chain gets the master early and leaks the tracks. The reason this album didn't leak early was because they delivered the masters as close to the release as possible. Any artist who wants to avoid leaks really just needs to do something like that, and ignore the Mission Impossible crap.
But the larger point is... is something like this even worth it? The article also notes that others may follow suit. But I'm curious if the "cost" really is worth it. It limits the creative freedom (such as emailing back and forth tracks). It does little to nothing to stop actual infringement. All it does is make sure the marketing plan goes down without anyone being able to listen to it early or help promote it on blogs and such when it comes out. If anything it seems to ignore the modern marketing strategy, where new tracks are purposely leaked to get the buzz going. I'm sure the album will do fine, given the two names attached to it. But I don't' see how this has anything to do with "piracy," and I can't see how any "benefit" outweighs the cost. I have to imagine that if other artists go down this same path, they're going to discover it's a waste of time and money for almost no benefit.