Up until now, I've resisted the "it's just about oil" theory for the Bush administration's obsession with Iraq. But this Newsday article quotes Administration sources as eyeing the Iraqi oil supply as a "spoil of war":
Bush administration officials are seriously considering proposals that the United States tap Iraq's oil to help pay the cost of a military occupation, a move that likely would prove highly inflammatory in an Arab world already suspicious of U.S. motives in Iraq.
Officially, the White House agrees that oil revenue would play an important role during an occupation period, but only for the benefit of Iraqis, according to a National Security Council spokesman.
Yet there are strong advocates inside the administration, including the White House, for appropriating the oil funds as "spoils of war,” according to a source who has been briefed by participants in the dialogue.
"There are people in the White House who take the position that it's all the spoils of war,” said the source, who asked not to be further identified. "We [the United States] take all the oil money until there is a new democratic government [in Iraq].”
...Another source who has worked closely with the office of Vice President Dick Cheney said that a number of officials there too are urging that Iraq's oil funds be used to defray the cost of occupation.
Jennifer Millerwise, a Cheney spokeswoman, declined to talk about "internal policy discussions.”
That last sentence, especially, is an unsettlingly vague non-denial.
My friend Dodd's recent argument against the "it's about oil" concept was that if it were true, the Administration would drop sanctions and buy all it could. But free oil as a result of an invasion...that's another matter.
What's profoundly worrying about this is, should it prove true, the US's international support would collapse, and the Arab would would be furious. Even acknowledging Iraq as a security concern, is an invasion really worth the damage these actions would cause to the US's relations with practically every other country in the world?
With warm heart I offer my friendship, and greetings,and I hope this mail meets you in good time. However strange or surprising this contact might seem to you,as we have not met personally or had any dealings inthe past, I humbly ask that you take due consideration of its importance and immense benefit. I also sincerely seek your confidence in this transaction,which I propose to you as a person of integrity.
First and foremost I wish to introduce myself properly to you. My name is Paul Oliveira Savimbi, I am a nephew and Personal Assistant to Late Jonas Malheiro Savimbi, leader of UNITA (National Union for the Total Independence of Angola). As led by my instinct, I selected your email address from an internet directory, in my search for a partner, hence this proposal.
...I am sincerely proposing to you to render me your highly needed assistance in respect to safekeeping of some of my Uncle's money that arose from Diamonds sales. This money (US$18.5million), which was already on its way to my Uncle's Swiss Bank account, through the Diplomatic means we use to move money abroad, and was on transit with a private safe deposit Finance / loans Discount house &Security company here in Amsterdam, Netherlands in February when the tragic incident of my Uncle's death occurred. I then instructed the company to secure the consignment containing the money pending on further instructions from me. I have waited for sometime now for security reasons, and have now deicded to act with your reliable assistance. As a matter of fact, the reason I came to Holland and sought for political asylum here is the safe deposit.
Your role in this project, is clearing the safety deposit containing the money which is deposited in my name, from the Security company, after which, the money will lodged into an account preferably a new account you should open for this transaction. My share of the money will be returned to me when my asylum application in this country is granted, and I have permission to do business and open an account here.
For your reliable assistance, I will reward you with 15% ($2,775,000) of the money.
The U.S. economy suffered a surprise 101,000 jobs drop in December, the government said on Friday, underscoring gloom among retailers and other employers and raising the political stakes for President Bush as he touts a $674 billion stimulus plan.
The U.S. jobless rate last month remained at its eight-year high of 6 percent while the number of workers on private industry payrolls fell to its lowest level since the recession began in early 2001, the Labor Department reported today.
Analysts said those figures, plus downward revisions in earlier estimates of payroll employment in October and November, were evidence that even though the economy is growing employers aren't hiring.
The nation's unemployment rate held steady at 6 percent in December as a dismal holiday season for retailers and manufacturers cost over 101,000 jobs, the sharpest loss in 10 months.
Seriously, this is distrubing...consumer spending simply can't keep the economy going forever. I'm sure Bush, ever-mindful of his father's re-election defeat, really does want to be perceived as "concerned" about job losses. Heck, people may even buy it. But I think current events suggest that Bush's economic policies aren't doing a lot for the economy right now, and I expect voters will assess his performance accordingly come Election Day.
One of the Destroy All Monsters news posts I just mentioned links to a review excoriating a Japanese hentai game that involves the rape and molestation of the losing fighter. It's part of a regular feature of Something Awful in which the staff pan hentai computer games.
Hentai games ususally revolve around the player's quest to have sex with one or (usually) more anime hotties. They're frequently little more than click-fests that send the player through a linear storyline studded with 256-color depictions of various sexual acts. The, um, illustrations are frequently obscured by a mosaic-style censor; other times, the male member is invisible (a common convention in hentai anime). Less savory themes such as bondage and non-consensual sex are not uncommon. The player is frequently offered few choices, and thus the games pose little challenge, but they also frequently require the player to click through a vast number of options and text messages before moving on to the next stage of the game. As a result, the boredom factor can be surprisingly high, and replayability low. (Winning a game usually unlocks a picture-gallery mode.)
Dating simulators such as Seasons of the Sakura sometimes incorporate hentai elements as well, but are frequently milder than their H-game counterparts. For example, winning a game might lead to a brief consummation cutscene. However, dating sims are much more concerned with the characters, and offer many more choices for the player. As such they're both more difficult and more replayable, as they frequently include multiple endings. For more on dating simulators, see this FAQ.
One reviewer's take on hentai games is summed up in this paragraph in a review of Ring Out:
I would just like to take a second to point something out to all of the people who incessantly e-mail me asking "where can I get this game?!" You are horrible human beings for wanting to play any of these games. I do these reviews as a public service to all of mankind so that no one has to experience the perversion or more importantly the tedium of one of these [bleep]-fests.
SAO PAULO, Brazil (Reuters) - Still tall, tanned and stunning at the age of 55, the legendary "Girl from Ipanema" will again grace the Playboy Brazil magazine cover. But this time, Helo Pinheiro, who first posed for Playboy 15 years ago, will be snapped along with her youngest daughter, Ticiane.
Initially Playboy wanted to snap Ticiane alone for its March edition, but the 24-year-old actress only agreed to do so with her mother by her side.
"Playboy said that it would be more angelic, sweeter and familiar. My daughters are still very close to me," Helo told Reuters on Thursday.
Helo, who inspired the famous Bossa Nova song as a teen-ager in 1962, said that when she first posed for Playboy in 1987 people thought it was her eldest daughter.
Okay, let me get this straight: the current rationale for the US confrontation with Iraq is about weapons of mass destruction (that whole "regime change" thing didn't sell). Bush agrees, reluctantly or otherwise, to postpone his coveted attack until UN weapons inspection goes forward. Now the chief UN weapons inspector--while far from handing Iraq a clean bill of health--says, basically, that his teams haven't found much in the way of evidence of violations. Essentially, we're in no different a situation than we were prior to inspections--Bush insists that Saddam has WMDs, (don't forget, that leaves aside the question of deterring Saddam from using them), but can't or won't cough up the evidence. I take the sharing of US intelligence data with the inspectors as a positive sign, but not evidence by itself.
That'd make the Administration rationale for its coming war with Iraq (does anyone believe Bush when he says he hasn't decided yet? Does anyone even believe he hadn't made up his mind months ago?) something like "We don't want Iraq to have weapons of mass destruction, and the UN hasn't found any, so that means they must therefore exist and be well hidden"?
I am certainly not denying that Iraq could have WMDs. But I do assert that Bush has, as far as I'm concerned, long since blown his credibility WRT Iraq, and I positively refuse to support going to war against Iraq based purely on his assertions. It hinges, rather, on--if not proof--at least evidence. Show me the money.
It's a given that North Korea's moves are all part of the great diplomatic chess game, and that the North's withdrawal from a treaty it'd already admitted violating is largely symbolic, but these things do matter. What's most distressing is that they give no indication that US policy is achieving the aims of American national interests, but rather the contrary. Our goal should be a cooling off, not an escalation, of rhetoric.
In fact, throughout this crisis situation, there's been a conspicuous failure of Bush Administration policy to achieve American goals on the Korean peninsula. For starters, it may well be that Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech and stated support for preemption made an already-paranoid North Korean government even more fearful and prompted this confrontation. There's also this disquieting analysis indicating that North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il may be more confrontational than his late father and less likely to compromise for fear of appearing weak before Korea's powerful generals.
We absolutely must pursue a foreign policy congruent with American goals. Haughty insistence that North Korea make concessions before negotiations begin is foolhardy in light of the fact that negotiations are what we want. This policy is doomed to failure, and the possible outcomes are a choice between bad or worse: Either Korea refuses to comply, and no negotiations occur, denying America one of its objectives, or Korea refuses to comply and negotiations occur anyway, thus weakening the US hand.
I'd love to hear evidence or argument suggesting that the Bush Administration's stance toward North Korea is the result of some clever strategy--or indeed, any coherent policy at all. Of course, such an argument would have to be weighed against ample evidence to the contrary. Sadly, all indications point toward policy--such as it is--being crafted by the White House political establishment with an eye toward selling the administration's policies (*cough*Iraq*cough*), not achieving American objectives.
One last thing...I've heard hawks saying argue that the Korean situation only proves that we need to confront Saddam militarily now, while he hasn't yet developed nukes. That argument stinks on ice, as it implies that we're only strong in the face of weaker nations, and pussycats against foes packing a greater threat (in short, the classic traits of a bully). Policy based on such a concept, rather than ensuring security, leads inevitably to destabilization, as it motivates hostile nations to develop nukes as an anti-interventionist trump card. Great going, guys.
(Update: I've combined this formerly two-section post into one.)
Since I've been playing a lot of Ridge Racer V on my PS2 lately, I thought I'd mention that game's virtual girl, Ai Fukami. So far, she's appeared in the game a lot less than her Ridge Racer Type 4 counterpart, Reiko Nagasi (not at all, in fact, aside from the opening animation and in silhouette in the menu screen). Random-abstract has a page devoted to both Ai Fukami and Reiko Nagasi. Here's an appreciation of Ai Fukami at ps2.ign.com.
The fact that the economy did well under Clinton’s policies drove conservatives crazy. It simply could not be that the good fortune that the country experienced under Clinton was actually caused by the policies enacted under Clinton. The good things must be attributed to something, anything else.
The conservative spin was not long in coming. Clinton had nothing to do with the operation of the economy. Conservatives attributed the economic growth during the Clinton years to the hard work and industriousness of the American people and to Alan Greenspan. Never was Bill Clinton to be given any credit for the economy whatsoever. Only a liberal Democrat would believe that government has any role in creating jobs or growing the economy.
...President Bush announced his alleged economic stimulus package today. At the very end of the Washington Post article on the announcement we noticed the following:
"Overall, Bush's Council of Economic Advisers said the president's plan would create 2.1 million jobs over three years, the White House said."
What? Government policy and not the hard working entrepreneurs create jobs? Now surely the right wing pundits will not allow that claim to stand.
Newsweek has an interesting analysis on the policies of Clinton and Bush II regarding North Korea.
“What they are trying to avoid at all costs is looking like the Clinton administration,” says Kurt Campbell, a senior Clinton Pentagon official for Asia and now senior vice-president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “You can’t imagine how much they hated everything the Clinton administration stood for. There is a personal dimension, because of the defeat of [Bush’s] father, that cannot be underestimated. But they are starting to finesse the line that they don’t negotiate, and that is a smart thing to do. There will be informal talks, then some multilateral arrangement, with China, Russia and Japan negotiating together with the U.S.”
In the meantime, the Bush administration’s tough talk is serving to strain ties further with Seoul. Relations with the South were hurt in the first months of the Bush administration when President Kim Dae Jung visited the White House in 2001. Secretary of State Powell pledged to pick up where the Clinton officials had left off, suggesting more engagement with the North. But the next day, sitting alongside President Kim, President Bush dismissed the idea of talks until there was “complete verification” of previous agreements with Pyongyang.
Administration officials did little to hide their glee at the prospect of President Kim being replaced with a conservative hardliner, Lee Hoi Chang, in last year’s elections. Instead Roh Moo Hyun, a center-left former human rights lawyer, won power with the promise of greater dialogue with the North.
“In reality the Bush administration faces not one crisis but two,” says Campbell. “One is the crisis involving nuclear weapons in the North. The second is the crisis of confidence with our allies in the South.”
...President Bush repeatedly says he will not allow “the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most dangerous weapons”. How he goes about doing that in North Korea is likely to be as tough a test of machismo as any military conflict in Iraq.
The other day, I obtained a couple of her albums and singles, including songs in Japanese, Korean, English and Chinese (!). Here are a couple of more images of the young songstress.
I can remember when I was heavily into the anti-drug-war movement a few years back that one of the most effective strategies I found for dealing with those who supported the drug war was to ask them questions about its effectiveness. For example, I would ask them how many people would have to be put in jail before we could consider the "drug war" to be "won". And, if they were strong Christians, I would ask them which they thought Jesus was more likely to do in response to drug use: build more prisons or more hospitals.
In other words, engage people in a dialogue where you put the onus on them to explain why their position is the right one.
So, if you encounter people who are buying into the Bush PR line, don't scoff at them or throw around negative comments about Bush. Ask them honestly to explain why Bush's proposal appeals to them. Then ask them to explain the details behind those parts of the proposal that appeal to them. Then ask them even more questions. Get them to start the digging into the details.
I find that it is easier to convince people when you can make them think that it was they who came up with the idea.
Lies are easy to hide under layers of obfuscation. Many people don't know how to navigate their way through those obfuscations. Many don't even realize that there is obfuscation involved. But, once you start trying to get them to explain what it is they support, the deficiencies in the proposal start to become apparent.
The key here is to not be snide and insulting while doing this. Try to be as unthreatening as possible. Try to be as interested in the other person's point of view as you can be. Don't try to sell your point of view. Get them to convince you.
The death penalty has always been a curiosity to me. I don't really have a philosophical objection to it, but let's face it: the risk of killing innocent people is a really big practical objection. If you imprison someone and later find he's innocent, at least you can free him and make restitution. You can't do that after you've executed someone.
But the real curiosity is this: why are there so many people who are passionate about keeping the death penalty? What's the emotional appeal? A life sentence without possibility of parole keeps murderers off the street just as effectively, but death penalty advocates are dead set against accepting this as a substitute. Even the risk of killing the occasional innocent person doesn't keep them from demanding an eye for an eye.
Why is this?
On a similar subject, I was listening to Talk of the Nation yesterday via Internet radio, and the program looked at a recent Justice Department policy of imposing stiffer prison sentences on first-time white-collar offenders. Several of the callers--including one ex-con--commented that even minimum-security prison is not exactly a day at the beach. Even from a retribution standpoint, I'm far from convinced that keeping someone in prison for decades is somehow a softer penalty than the death sentence.
