Powered by Blogger

Ethel the Blog
Observations (and occasional brash opining) on science, computers, books, music and other shiny things that catch my mind's eye. There's a home page with ostensibly more permanent stuff. This is intended to be more functional than decorative. I neither intend nor want to surf on the bleeding edge, keep it real, redefine journalism or attract nyphomaniacal groupies (well, maybe a wee bit of the latter). The occasional cheap laugh, raised eyebrow or provocation of interest are all I'll plead guilty to in the matter of intent. Bene qui latuit bene vixit.

The usual copyright stuff applies, but I probably won't get enraged until I find a clone site with absolutely no attribution (which, by the way, has happened twice with some of my other stuff). Finally, if anyone's offended by anything on this site then please do notify me immediately. I like to keep track of those times when I get something right.

Google!


How to blog?

METABLOGGING

Blog Madness
Blog Portal
linkwatcher
Monitor

BLOGS (YMMV)

abuddhas memes
alamut
apathy
arms and the man
baghdad burning
bifurcated rivets
big left outside
boing boing
booknotes
bovine inversus
bradlands
bushwacker
camworld
cheek
chess log
cogent provocateur
cool tools
counterspin
crooked timber
delong
digby
drat fink
drmike
d-squared
dumbmonkey
electrolite
eschaton
estimated prophet
ezrael
fat planet
flutterby!
follow me here
geegaw
genehack
ghost
glare
gmtplus9
hack the planet
harmful
hauser report
hell for halliburton
honeyguide
hotsy totsy club
juan cole
kestrel's nest
k marx the spot
kuro5hin
lake effect
lambda
large hearted boy
leftbanker
looka
looking glass
macleod
maxspeak
medley
memepool
metagrrrl
mike's
monkeyfist
more like this
mouse farts
my dog
norbizness
off the kuff
orcinus
pandagon
pedantry
peterme
philosoraptor
pith and vinegar
plastic
portage
q
quark soup
quiggin
randomwalks
rip post
rittenhouse
see the forest
shadow o' hegemon
sideshow
simcoe
south knox bubba
slacktivist
smudge
submerging markets
sylloge
synthetic zero
talking points
tbogg
twernt
unknownnews
vacuum
vanitysite
virulent memes
whiskey bar
windowseat tv
wood s lot

TECH

Librenix
use perl
rootprompt
slashdot
freshmeat
Ars Technica
32BitsOnline
UGeek
AnandTech
Linux Today
Tom's Hardware
DevShed


"When they say, 'Gee it's an information explosion!', no, it's not an explosion, it's a disgorgement of the bowels is what it is. Every idiotic thing that anybody could possibly write or say or think can get into the body politic now, where before things would have to have some merit to go through the publishing routine, now, ANYTHING." - Harlan Ellison



JOLLY OLD PALS
Old pals Rumsy and Saddam


Other stuff of mild interest to some:
unusual literature
scientific software blog
physical oceanography glossary
computer-related tutorials and texts

Wednesday, March 13, 2002

WHAT WOULD JESUS DO, BILLY?
Alexander Cockburn reports on a letter from Billy Graham to Richard Nixon that was first made public in 1989. It was chock full of the human goodness and decency of the same sort exhibited by the Catholic church around minors.
There's a piquant contrast in the press coverage across the decades of Billy Graham's various private dealings with Nixon, as displayed on the tapes gradually released from the National Archive or disclosed from Nixon's papers. I'll come shortly to the recent flap over Graham and Nixon's closet palaverings about the Jews, but first let's visit another interaction between the great evangelist and his commander in chief Back in April, l989 a Graham memo to Nixon was made public. It took the form of a secret letter from Graham, dated April 15, 1969, drafted after Graham met in Bangkok with missionaries from Vietnam. These men of God said that if the peace talks in Paris were to fail, Nixon should step up the war and bomb the dikes. Such an act, Graham wrote excitedly, "could overnight destroy the economy of North Vietnam".

Graham lent his imprimatur to this recommendation. Thus the preacher was advocating a policy to the US Commander in Chief that on Nixon's own estimate would have killed a million people. The German high commissioner in occupied Holland, Seyss-Inquart, was sentenced to death at Nuremberg for breaching dikes in Holland in World War Two. (His execution did not deter the USAF from destroying the Toksan dam in North Korea, in 1953, thus deliberately wrecking the system that irrigated 75 per cent of North Korea's rice farms.)

Apparently the key to committing war crimes is to always be on the winning side.
posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 05:30:44 PM | link

SOME INTERESTING RECENT HISTORY
The following excerpt from a
June 1997 newspaper article provides a supplement to the immediately previous item, as well as some very interesting (in hindsight) behind the scenes machinations. This goes quite a ways toward explaining a couple of things:
  • the overthrow of democratically elected Benazir Bhutto by current Pakistani strongman Nawaz Sharif in a military coup; and
  • the strange blindness of the Bush Cabal that causes them to publicly suspect Bin Laden of being holed up in just about every country in the world except Pakistan.
After all, after going through all the trouble to get a more "flexible" person in charge of Pakistan, it'd be a shame to do anything to weaken his dictatorship, even if he was harboring every card-carrying terrorist on the planet and shining the shoes of each and every one twice a week.
The two-years battle between US oil company Unocal and Argentinean firm Bridas to build an oil and gas pipeline from Turkmenistan, across war-torn Afghanistan and through to Pakistan has intensified after the Nawaz Sharif government signed an agreement with Turkmenistan and Unocal at the Economic Co-ordination Organisation (ECO) in Ashkhabad on May 14. Bridas has the clear support of the Taliban who have promised to give Bridas permission to build the pipeline, while Unocal appear to have secured Turkmenistan and Pakistan's support.

Nagging question behind this deal is why Pakistan has sided with one consortium rather than the other. Since 1995, both the Bhutto government and the military did not commit to one oil company. Pakistan's earlier position was that it would allow both companies to compete and then co-operate with the one that built the pipeline first. But the reality is that the US State Department is heavily backing Unocal, and Turkmenistan is desperately keen to garner US support for its oil and gas exports. Bridas' problems with Unocal in Turkmenistan are generally placed at the door of a US desire to monopolise Turkmenistan?s energy. So the reason why Pakistan now seems to favour one company over the other is that the Sharif government appears to have bent to US pressure.

The protocol signed by Pakistan is deeply flawed. It makes no mention of the Afghan warlords through whose territory the pipeline would pass and does not involve the Taliban in any decision making in the future. The Taliban are expected to react angrily to this development.

The Sharif government is banking on the ISI making sure that the Taliban dump Bridas and go long with whatever Pakistan wants, a senior bureaucrat in Islamabad explains. But that will not be so easy.

History of Bridas and Unocal?s competition in the region is age old. However US interest in laying pipeline through Unocal, was established in April 1995, when Turkmenistan President Niyazov signed our government with Unocal (a 12th largest oil company in the US) and its partner, the Saudi Arabian owned Delta Oil Company to behind a gas pipeline extending from Daulatabad Gas Fields to Multan. Unocal later signed an even more ambitious agreement for laying an oil pipeline from Chardzhou in Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to an oil terminal on Pakistan?s coast delivering 1 million barrels per day.

Bridas also offered to build an oil pipeline but it suffered a setback when President Niyazov banned Bridas oil exports and shutting down its other operations in December 95. Bridas moved the courts and claimed 15 billion US dollars in damages.

Meanwhile, US pressure on Pakistan increased. During two trips to Pakistan and Afghanistan in April and August 1996, US Assistant Secretary of State Robin Raphael frequently lobbied for the Unocal pipeline, according to Pakistani and Afghan diplomats. In August, Raphael also visited Central Asian capitals and Moscow. "We have an American company which is interested in building a pipeline from Turkmenistan through to Pakistan," Raphael said at a press conference in Islamabad on April 21, 1996. "This pipeline project will be very good for Turkmenistan, for Pakistan and for Afghanistan."

Earlier, in March 1996 another senior US diplomat had a major row with Bhutto when he lobbied for Unocal. "He accused Bhutto of ?extortion? when she defended Bridas, and Bhutto was furious," says a senior Bhutto aide who was present at the meeting. "She demanded a written apology from the diplomat which she got," says another aide.

But in Ashkhabad, the Americans achieved their objective. In October, Niyazov gave Unocal-Delta exclusive rights to build the pipeline.

With all the odds stacked heavily against it, Bridas then moved to engage the support of the Taliban. On May 4 in Kabul, Bridas and the Taliban declared that by the end of the month they would sign an agreement to build the pipeline. Pakistan's agreement endorsement of US oil company Unocal?s proposal to build pipelines from Central Asia may bring Islamabad into conflict with the Taliban, who recently cut a deal with a rival company, Bridas. The reader may now understand the US interest in the laying of pipeline and pressures it applied on Benazir Bhutto?s government to grant contractors to a company of its own choosing when she did not succumb to pressures this pipeline turned out to be one of the factors of Benazir Bhutto's downfall.


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 05:04:27 PM | link

GOODBYE BRIDAS
Larry Chin postulates an interesting connection between the Great Game for oil in Central Asia and the recent financial collapse of Argentina.
In Argentina, executives of the old Bridas Group (now part of BP Amoco/Pan American Energy) must have viewed the US war in Afghanistan with more than a little interest. It was Bridas that pioneered exploration in Turkmenistan. It was Bridas that came up with the idea of a trans-Afghanistan pipeline. Before the Clinton administration had declared war on the Taliban, it was Bridas that was best positioned to build the pipeline.

But no Argentine was in a good position to entertain such thoughts. In the summer of 2001, the Argentine economy collapsed.

Argentina owed $132 billion to the IMF, foreign lenders, banks, pension funds and investors. In July 2001, riots and a general strike brought the country to a standstill.

With the approval of George W. Bush, the IMF cut off Argentina's $1.3 billion aid. Wall Street executives and analysts simply shook their heads, writing off Argentina as another case of "hopeless Third World bungling." Merrill Lynch, Deutsche Bank and Salomon Smith Barney were brought in to "restructure the country's international debt exchange."

Virtually unreported in the western media was evidence of a crippling flight of approximately $26 billion out of Argentina by foreign banks. Most of the money went to the United States.

Federal judges Norberto Oyarbide and Maria Servini de Cubria immediately launched investigations (which are still underway). Among the targets of these probes are Citibank (Citigroup), London-based Hong Kong Shanghai Bank, Bank of Boston, Fleet Boston and Banco Rio (Spain)-banks tied to money laundering and on whose boards sit prominent movers and shakers connected to the highest levels of US and world governments.

It is true that Argentina's problems were long in the making. After a decade of "free market reforms" begun under Carlos Menem (massive privatizations, deregulation, draconian austerity and restructuring measures), the nation was at the mercy of multilateral institutions (International Monetary Fund and the World Bank), and foreign banks and lenders.

Still, the timing of the capital flight, between August and November 2001, coincides with other unusual global financial activity over the same period: a global recession, a crashing US stock market, 9/11/ "war"-related disruptions, and Enron looting.

One investigator, Sherman Skolnick, postulates a direct connection between Argentina's plunder and the Afghanistan pipeline. "How do you wreck a pipeline deal for Afghanistan of a competitor group?" he writes. "Simple. You wreck Argentina's business interests."


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 04:53:02 PM | link

KENNY'S MASH NOTE TO GEORGE
The
Smoking Gun reprints a 1997 letter from Kenny Boy Lay to George Bush that lays to rest those silly rumors about both them being more than remotely acquainted and that their greedy little eyes were focused on the Caspian Basin.
posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 04:46:24 PM | link

REMOVING THE OPPOSITION
While the Pentagon is (so far) content with only threatening journalists attempting to provide the proles with a version of the truth unprocessed by the official censors, Israel is taking the process
one step further.
Israel's armed forces killed an Italian photographer yesterday and narrowly missed a TV correspondent in a clearly marked car, who was saved by his flak jacket, adding another entry to a fattening dossier of attacks on journalists trying to cover Israel's activities in the occupied territories.
And here's another item on the matter.
Israeli forces fired for 10 to 15 minutes from tank-mounted machine guns on a hotel where journalists were photographing armor targeting the al-Amari refugee camp early Tuesday.

posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 04:38:32 PM | link

BUCHANAN MAKING SENSE
One of the scariest things about the power-crazed Bush Cabal's Machiavellian machinations is that they're causing even Pat Buchanan
to occasionally sound rational. Has the ghost of Herman Kahn occupied some high-level White House apparatchik, or is this merely another obvious attempt to send more trainloads of cash to the Cabal's buddies in the military-industrial complex, e.g. the Carlyle Group, for building and testing further generations of nuclear weapons?
This weekend's leak of the Pentagon Nuclear Posture Review, wherein U.S. strategic planners discuss building small new atomic weapons for use against North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Libya, may provide a similar spur to the spread of nuclear weapons.

"One of the most sensitive portions of the report," says The New York Times, "is a secret discussion of contingencies in which America might need to use its 'nuclear strike capabilities.'" Among these are "an Iraqi attack on Israel ... a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan."

The Pentagon has not ruled out the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons - on non-nuclear nations. And while all nations have war plans that are never implemented, this secret document raises grave questions about U.S. policy and the mindset of Pentagon planners.

Why would we use nuclear weapons on Iraq in retaliation for an attack on Israel, when Israel has its own nuclear weapons? Under what conceivable circumstances would we use atomic weapons on Syria? Does the United States claim a right of first use of atomic weapons against any "rogue state" that develops a weapon of mass destruction? If so, where does the president get the authority to launch such wars? Or was this document leaked to intimidate the "Axis of Evil"? Is it perhaps a product of the Office of Strategic Influence, the now-defunct disinformation agency of the Pentagon?

While a North Korean attack on the South would imperil U.S. troops on the DMZ, this is not 1950. Why should we fight the South's war, with atomic weapons, when the South's population is twice that of the North and its economy is 30 times as large? Would it not make more sense to get U.S. forces out of South Korea and sell Seoul the weapons she needs to conduct her own defense?

And if, as the Nuclear Posture Review argues, we must be prepared to use atomic weapons on China, to defend Taiwan, why did we abrogate our mutual security treaty with Taiwan? And how can the president commit us to war to defend Taiwan, when six previous presidents have said that Taiwan is "part of China"?


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 04:29:35 PM | link

ENDLESS ESCALATING "THREATS"
The CIA, which consistently and almost certainly deliberately overhyped the threat the USSR posed to the USA during the Cold War, is back to the same old same old. Now they're
telling us that the ballistic missile threat is greater than ever.
The US Central Intelligence Agency warned Monday that the United States was facing a more serious ballistic missile threat than during the Cold War, predicting that North Korea, Iran and possibly Iraq could target it with missiles in the next 15 years.
Let's make sure we read this correctly. The missile threat during the Cold War, posed by "the focus of evil in the modern world", the most evil and perfidious nation ever to stain the face of the earth, the nation whose every last native would rather eat American babies than breathe, the nation that had tens of thousands of missiles with nuclear warheads, was a lesser threat to "the last bastion of freedom and democracy" than is currently posed by nearly collapsing North Korea, Iraq's mortal enemy Iran, and Iran's mortal enemy Iraq. And when you throw in the bamboo spears of Cuba, the still-imminent possibility of the entirety of Nicaragua streaming over the U.S. border at Harligen, and the possibility that up-and-coming military superpower Lichtenstein could go socialist any day now, it just makes you want to crawl into your bomb shelter, weld the doors shut, and drink yourself into the next world before the forces of evil send you there.
posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 04:03:43 PM | link

THE BEIT ISRAEL BOMBING
Joe Vialls offers a slightly different take on the circumstances surrounding the March 2 bombing that killed 10 and injured 57 Israelis. The factuality of this report can be easily disproven if the local reports made in the second paragraph can be shown to be fabrications. On the other hand, if they are indeed correct then much doubt can be cast on the official version.
The intelligence sources point to damage at the crime scene in the Beit Israel district of Jerusalem as proof of their claims that the weapon used was a car bomb rather than a suicide bomber. Photographs shown on this web site prove the claims correct. These photos were taken before the mainstream western media received their "sanitized" versions, in which there is no car and very little shrapnel visible.

From the outline of the car we can tell that there was an internal explosion, with the blast shock waves radiating outwards, before being deflected upwards to atmosphere by a nearby wall. Before the truth was re-written by the Jerusalem Mayor, local reports carried a reasonably accurate account: "Burial society volunteers picked up body parts amid debris slick with motor oil and blood. A truck ferried off the charred husk of a car" and: "Fierce flames from the destroyed car rose into the night sky on the street where the blast ripped through the Beit Israel district of the city just as worshippers were emerging from synagogues"

But then Jerusalem police chief Mr Mickey Levy took over and said a suicide bomber with a shrapnel bomb strapped to him had walked up to a group of people and blown himself up. The bomber "got to the center of the neighborhood, approached a group of people (and detonated) a large explosive on his body," he said. Three cheers for Mickey, whose imagination knows no bounds, and is an essential component of Ariel Sharon's ongoing terror campaign against the Palestinian refugee camps.

The car itself blows away the cover story of course, which is why it was removed so swiftly. This bombing took place during the evening of the Sabbath in one of the most radical and Orthodox Jewish districts in the city, with literally hundreds of armed policemen and troops patrolling the streets. Anyone believing that an Arab could simply drive into the middle of Beit Israel on Saturday night, park right next to the Synagogue and then walk away whistling to himself, is living in cloud cuckoo land. Any such Arab would have been shot in seconds.


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 02:31:32 PM | link

THE ENRON-CHENEY-TALIBAN CONNECTION
Ron Callari makes some interesting points about all the remarkable coincidences involving Dick Cheney, Enron and the Taliban.
Could the Big Secret be that the highest levels of the Bush Administration knew during the summer of 2001 that the largest bankruptcy in history was imminent? Or was it that Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban -- including Osama bin Laden -- up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack? Was a deal in Afghanistan part of a desperate last-ditch "end run" to bail out Enron? Here's a tip for Congressional investigators and federal prosecutors: Start by looking at the India deal. Closely.

Enron had a $3 billion investment in the Dabhol power plant, near Bombay on India's west coast. The project began in 1992, and the liquefied natural gas- powered plant was supposed to supply energy- hungry India with about one-fifth of its energy needs by 1997. It was one of Enron's largest development projects ever (and the single largest direct foreign investment in India's history). The company owned 65 percent of Dabhol; the other partners were Bechtel, General Electric and State Electricity Board.

The fly in the ointment, however was that the Indian consumers could not afford the cost of the electricity that was to be produced. The World Bank had warned at the beginning that the energy produced by the plant would be too costly, and Enron proved them right. Power from the plant was 700 percent higher than electricity from other sources.

Enron had promised India that the Dabhol power would be affordable once the next phase of the project was completed. But to cut expenses, Enron had to find cheap gas to fuel it. They started burning naphtha, with plans that they would retrofit the plant to gas once it was available.

Originally, Enron was planning to get the liquefied natural gas (LNG) from Qatar, where Enron had a joint venture with the state-owned Qatar Gas and Pipeline Company. In fact, the Qatar project was one of the reasons why Enron selected India to set up Dabhol: it had to ensure that its Qatar gas did not remain unsold. In April 1999, however, the project was cancelled because of the global oil and gas glut. With Qatar gone, Enron was back to square one in trying to locate an inexpensive LNG supply source.

Enter the Afghanistan connection.

Where the "Great Game" in Afghanistan was once about czars and commissars seeking access to the warm water ports of the Persian Gulf, today it is about laying oil and gas pipelines via the untapped petroleum reserves of Central Asia, a region previously dominated by the former Soviet Union, with strong influence from Iran and Pakistan. Studies have placed the total worth of oil and gas reserves in the Central Asian republics at between $3 and $6 trillion.

Who has access to that vast sea of oil? Right now the only existing export routes from the Caspian Basin lead through Russia. U.S. oil companies have longed dreamed of their own pipeline routes that will give them control of the oil and gas resources of the Caspian Sea. Likewise, the U.S. government also wants to dominate Central Asian oil in order to reduce dependency on resources from the Persian/Arabian Gulf, which it cannot control. Thus the U.S. is poised to challenge Russian hegemony in a new version of the "Great Game."

Construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan was under serious consideration during the Clinton years. In 1996, Unocal -- one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies -- won a contract to build a 1,005-mile oil pipeline in order to exploit the vast Turkmenistan natural gas fields in Duletabad. The pipeline would extend through Afghanistan and Pakistan, terminating in Multan, near the India border.

Multan was also the end point for another proposed pipeline, this one from Iran. This project never left the drawing boards, however; the pipeline would be much longer (over 1,600 miles) and more expensive. Still, this route was being seriously considered as of early 2001, and it increased the odds that gas would be flowing into Multan from somewhere.

Unocal wasn't the only energy company laying pipe. In 1997, Enron announced that it was going to spend over $1 billion building and improving the lines between the Dabhol plant and India's network of gas pipelines.

Follow the map: Once a proposed 400-mile extension from Multan, Pakistan to New Delhi, India was built, Caspian Sea gas could flow into India's network to New Delhi, follow the route to Bombay -- and bingo! A plentiful source of ultra-cheap LNG that could supply Enron's plant in India for three decades or more.

And about those meetings chaired by Cheney that the Bush Cabal are so desperately attempting to keep secret.
Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration is seeking to keep private.

It's clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney's selection as Bush's Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.

So the obvious question: Did Enron lobby Cheney for help in India? It has already been documented that the Vice President's energy task force changed a draft energy proposal to include a provision to boost oil and natural gas production in India in February of last year. The amendment was so narrow that it apparently was targeted only to help Enron's Dabhol plant in India. Later, Cheney stepped in to try to help Enron collect its $64 million debt during a June 27 meeting with India's opposition leader Sonia Gandhi. But behind the scenes, much more was cooking.

A series of e-mail memos obtained by the Washington Post and NY Daily News in January revealed that the National Security Council led a "Dabhol Working Group" composed of officials from various Cabinet departments during the summer of 2001. The memos suggest that the Bush Administration was running exactly the sort of "war room" that was a favorite subject of ridicule by Republicans during the Clinton years.

The Working Group prepared "talking points" for both Cheney and Bush and recommended that the need to "broaden the advocacy" of settling the Enron debt. Every development was closely monitored: "Good news" a NSC staff member wrote in a e-mail memo: "The Veep mentioned Enron in his meeting with Sonia Gandhi." The Post commented that the NSC went so far that it "acted as a sort of concierge service for Enron Chairman Kenneth L. Lay and India's national security adviser, Brajesh Mishra" in trying to arrange a dinner meeting between the Indian official and Lay.

Gee, it's just too bad we're in a Forever War where it's treasonous to question the emperor and his minions.
posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 02:16:15 PM | link

REMEMBER THE "LIBERTY" AND THE REFUGEE CAMP
A 1996
editorial by Mark Genrich (of the Phoenix Gazzette) draws parallels between Israel's bombing of a U.S. ship and a U.N. refugee camp. Cops call this a modus operandi. This is the same Israel that's painted as the antidote to "terrorism" in the Middle East, as opposed to all the towelheads who are assumed to be "terrorists" until either they prove otherwise or they're eliminated.
On June 8, 1967, Israeli air and naval forces attacked the "USS Liberty," a research ship, in the Mediterranean Sea.

The recent Israeli shelling of a United Nations refugee camp in Lebanon had striking similarities to an Israeli attack on a non-combatant American ship sailing in international waters 29 years ago. On June 8, 1967, Israeli air and naval forces attacked the "USS Liberty," a technical research ship, that was peacefully sailing off the Sinai Peninsula in the Mediterranean Sea. The Israelis used torpedoes, napalm and machine-gun fire to kill 34 Americans and wound 171 others.

Just as the Israelis claimed the shelling of the refugee camp was an accident, so too, did they claim that the attack on the "USS Liberty" was an accident.

There were other similarities:

1. The use of extraordinary brutality.

The April 18 shelling struck a U.N. peacekeepers' compound in south Lebanon killing more than 100 men, women and children. Knight-Ridder Newspapers reported that survivors were overcome by the magnitude of the killing.

"Grown men staggered around the blood-soaked compound, weeping uncontrollably. Wailing women threw themselves onto the burned and mangled corpses of relatives. As they weaved among rows of bodies shrouded with blankets, stepping over scattered body parts, even some battle-hardened U.N. soldiers were in tears."

During the attack on the "USS Liberty," the Israelis used unmarked aircraft, jammed the ship's radios on both U.S. Navy tactical and International Maritime Distress frequencies, destroyed by machine-gun fire life rafts that had been dropped over the side by crewmen preparing to abandon the ship, and refused to offer immediate aid upon cessation of hostilities.

2. The claim Israelis do not target innocent non-combatants.

Reported Associated Press writer Greg Myre, "Israel says it does not intentionally target civilians...But the gray gunboats off the port city of Sidon, 25 miles south of Beirut, fire day and night at civilian cars heading south on what is normally the country's busiest highway. Since Friday, three cars have been destroyed after being hit by shrapnel, and three more have skidded off the road and crashed in high-speed attempts to evade the Israeli fire."

According to Human Rights Watch, an organization that tracks human-rights abuses worldwide, Israel has displayed "indiscriminate and disproportionate" shelling of villages in southern Lebanon. While the human-rights report appropriately condemns Hezbollah guerrillas for indiscriminately firing Katyusha rockets into Israel, it also documented Israel's manifest violations of international law including, "Targeting whole villages without specific military objectives and without regard for civilian casualties; specifically targeting the civilian infrastructure, including power stations and water reservoirs; deliberately creating a refugee crisis to put pressure on the Lebanese government; and deliberately targeting ambulances and civilian vehicles."

A "USS Liberty" survivor, Lt. Cmdr. David Edwin Lewis, says, "The Israelis obviously had sufficient time to plan their armament load. There were apparently heat-seeking missiles used to take out the tuning coil of every antenna, there were fragmentation bombs used to take out the parabolic dish fore and aft. On the first strafing run virtually all communications and all means of survival were destroyed. If it was an accident, it was the best prepared accident on Earth."

3. The Israelis deny the attack was deliberate.

An investigation by Maj. Gen. Franklin van Kappen, a Dutch military adviser to the United Nations, concluded, "While the possibility cannot be ruled out completely, it is unlikely that the shelling of the United Nations compound was the result of gross technical and/or procedural errors."

The "Los Angeles Times" reported, "The most damaging point of the report - and to Israel's case - has been proof that Israel flew surveillance aircraft over the camp while the firing was going on. Contrary to repeated denials, two Israeli helicopters and a remotely piloted vehicle were present in the Qana area at the time of the shelling...Israel denied this to the United Nations and publicly until the British newspaper "The Independent" reported the existence of an amateur videotape showing an Israeli pilotless reconnaissance aircraft - the kind used by artillery spotters to perfect their aim - over Qana during the shelling." Once aware of the videotape, Israel changed its story.

Finally, the most recent unbiased research into the assault on the "USS Liberty" was conducted by Dr. John Edgar Borne at New York University. His detailed analysis concludes that "the account of the attack given by the Liberty men is the correct and truthful one" and that the attack "was deliberate and that all available evidence points to this conclusion."


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 01:59:36 PM | link

CATO PROPAGANDA
A Cato Institute
news release after Tom Daschle conceded that there weren't enough votes in the Senate to pass a major increase in the corporate average fuel economy standards is full of the usual paralogic I've come to expect from an institute that never stops braying about the supposedly illogical positions of its ideological opponents. Fred Heutte, the Energy Coordinator of the Oregon Sierra Club, nicely dissects their press release.
As you may know, Declan, the fuel efficiency/safety debate in the current Senate energy bill fight is not as one-sided as Cato would prefer to believe. There is credible evidence that raising CAFE standards would have *no* effect on safety, or possibly even improve it.

In fact, the trends in auto safety and efficiency have been going in opposite directions over the last four decades, as noted in a paper by David Greene from Oak Ridge National Lab at a California vehicle efficiency workshop last September. He presented a simple chart showing auto fleet fuel efficiency and fatalities from the late 1960s to now. In general, travel has become safer over that period, while fuel efficiency rose from 1975 to 1985 and has since stalled. He concludes:

From 1967-99, there is NO correlation between light-duty vehicle mpg and highway fatalities. ZERO, NONE.
Years of research and dozens of papers have shown that factors leading to increased collisions, injuries and fatalities have to do with vehicle weight *differentials* and driving speed *differentials* (particularly for highway driving).

In that sense, the greater number of "light trucks" (SUVs in particular) has increased the probability and severity of crashes and injuries, as has reduced regulation of highway driving speeds. When speed differentials on highways are 20 mph and greater -- as they are on virtually all major highways these days (at least ones that aren't in rush hour gridlock!) -- this means greater potential for collisions.

But the more important issue for the moment is vehicle weights. Opponents of increasing CAFE fuel efficiency standards have used this issue in the most transparently slipshod way. The National Academy of Sciences report on CAFE last year -- drafted by a lopsidedly industry-leaning panel and then revised *after* peer review when the auto makers complained that it still wasn't the result they wanted -- refers primarily to just *one* study out of literally dozens that have been done on the issue, and it mis-states the conclusions of that study.

The Union of Concerned Scientists "Drilling in Detroit" report last summer concluded, on the other hand:

Automakers can utilize a variety of design and technology options for reducing fuel consumption. The only one that could have a significant impact on occupant safety during a crash, however, is vehicle weight reduction. The auto industry has argued that weight reduction compromises safety and that public policy should not encourage further fuel economy improvements, since they would lead to vehicle weight reduction (as they did in the period from 1977 through 1985).

Contrary to this assumption, the relationship between safety and the weights of vehicles in the fleet is neither direct nor obvious. The factors that affect public safety on the road are so many and varied that actual road casualties can be only generally predicted. In particular, the concern over the safety of weight reduction is driven by the poor safety performance of the lighter vehicles in the fleet. This performance is misleading since it is partly due to two factors: (1) the lightest vehicles in the fleet tend to be the least expensive and thus incorporate the fewest safety advances, and (2) lighter vehicles tend to be driven by younger, more aggressive drivers.

Vehicle weight reduction is a reasonable strategy for fuel economy improvements if it is applied most aggressively to the SUVs, minivans, and pickup trucks used as private passenger vehicles. In addition, these weight reductions can be applied in combination with obvious and inexpensive safety improvements.

Principles of elementary physics imply that in a two-vehicle collision, a heavier vehicle should be safer than a lighter one. In practice, however, that is not necessarily always the case. In a two vehicle crash, for example, if the heavier vehicle is struck in the side by the front of a lighter vehicle, the occupants of the heavier vehicle may be more at risk. Estimates show that a 10 percent reduction in vehicle weight could result in a 3 to 7 percent increase in fuel economy (NRC 1992; OTA 1991).

David Greene of ORNL had a parallel view in his workshop report:
The majority view on fuel economy and safety is based on two fallacies.

1. Because I am safer in a heavier car, everyone would be safer if all cars were heavier. From a societal perspective, there is a "larger vehicle" externality.

2. Existing studies adequately account for spurious correlations with driver and environmental characteristics. The more carefully one controls confounding factors, the more the "weight effect" fades away, or even reverses.

Ann Mesnikoff of the Sierra Club testified to the Senate last December and pointed out that an overlooked factor is that SUVs are inherently less safe than other passenger vehicles due to rollover and other problems:
The current system of separate standards for cars and trucks, which has allowed manufacturers to move heavily into SUV production, compromises traffic safety. Light trucks pose safety dangers to their owners and occupants. SUVs are four times more likely to roll over in an accident. Rollovers account for 62% of SUV deaths, but only 22% in cars. Yet automakers fought new standards protecting occupants in rollover accidents. According to a study by the National Crash Analysis Center, an organization funded by both the government and the auto industry, occupants of an SUV are just as likely as occupants of a car to die once the vehicle is involved in an accident. This is in part because of their higher rollover rates.
When Andrew Card, now chief of staff in the Bush White House, was a newly minted executive at General Motors fresh from his stint running the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), he gave a speech to an aluminum industry gathering where he claimed that the auto industry could do better on fuel efficiency and safety than government regulation.

The fact of the matter is, this simply isn't so. The auto industry started improving fuel efficiency when CAFE went into effect in the 1970s, and stopped when CAFE stopped going up, and spent a great deal of effort in the 1990s to prevent it from rising from current levels. Aggregate fleet efficiency for the 2001 model year was LESS THAN that of the 1981 fleet. It is incredible to think that with all the advances in auto technology during the last 20 years, somehow they just couldn't come up with anything for getting better gas mileage.

Likewise, safety has improved only when the car manufacturers have been pushed by legislation and regulation.

The question of whether increased CAFE standards would have an effect on safety is certainly a mandatory one to address. But there is no question that the answers have been totally politicized, and that the real science and economics around this issue have been obscured by political handwaving.

We *should* want both increased fuel efficiency and more safety. There are tradeoffs, as Senator Levin said in his floor speech in the Senate today, but his further implication that this is a zero-sum game is simply incorrect. We can find a way to do both, and the best guide is our own history between 1975 and 1985, when fuel efficiency and safety *both* significantly improved.


posted by Steven Baum 3/13/2002 01:34:54 PM | link

Tuesday, March 12, 2002

STEELE ON THE RAY REPORT
Julie Hiatt Steele on the Ray Report, wherein Kenneth Starr's replacement ideologue tells that he really, really could have nailed Clinton but just chose not to.
The OIC only now admits that Willey was a liar because they have to explain why, if she had been anything else, they did not indict President Clinton on the strength (?) of her testimony and her grope allegation. What they fail to point out is that they were so driven to remove a twice elected President from office that they were covering for her all along. They point out only the tip of the iceberg in terms of her discrepancies. In fact, she was unable to keep any of her long and over-complicated stories straight.
...
The real question for the OIC, and for every news organization in this country, is why was it necessary to nearly destroy my life and that of my son because I dared to dispute the words of a woman they absolutely knew was lying when she alleged that President Clinton had "groped" her. They tore our lives apart all the while knowing that Willey, their star witness, was a liar and that I had told the truth. Of course they don't mention the "star witness" part either. Let me do that for them...

There is no "high road" that Ray wants us to believe he had taken, are you kidding? What part of that even makes sense?

They admit to more than $65 million of your tax dollars going to the "cause" and then try to tell us that they have grounds for an indictment of the last elected President but are too kind hearted to use them!

I own the Golden Gate Bridge and want to sell you shares if you believe any part of this nonsense! The fact is that they NEVER expected to be able to indict President Clinton on the strength of the Paula Jones civil case deposition. And, for that matter, I have seen the entire Paula Jones case as part of my pre-trial discovery, it was an absolute sham designed to cripple President Clinton. The grand jury, with its Federal venue, was always their planned and "best odds" ticket to destroying the President. They needed one thing to happen for that to be orchestrated successfully.

They needed to convict me and lock the truth away in prison for forty years. The result would be the raising of Willey's credibility and a chance to indict the President for "perjury" in his August 17, 1998 grand jury testimony regarding Willey. As it stood, the President and I were saying the same thing, "it did not happen, there was no grope". We were saying the same thing because it happened to be the truth. The OIC knew that from day one, and still they threatened, bullied, punished, and ultimately prosecuted me because I dared to stand up to them and to tell the truth despite their best efforts to silence me.

The problem was that they did not get a conviction, not even in the notoriously conservative Fourth Circuit were they able to convict. They could not get a conviction with the Foreman a Freeper who posted on the internet via a buddy during the trial (and yes, Pete Yost of the AP and quoted in the report knew that, so did Judge Hilton). They could not get a conviction when another juror (as an example of the Fourth Circuit jury pool) was the wife of a CIA attorney, the Mother of an intern with Bob Barr, and she herself worked for an extreme right wing, "right to life," group. They still could not get a conviction and the "party" was over as a result. Starr packed it in and Robert Ray was left to explain their over zealous prosecution of me.


posted by Steven Baum 3/12/2002 05:36:42 PM | link

ON THUMBNAILS
There's a lengthy, thoughtful discussion at
follow me here about the propriety - legally and otherwise - of using thumbnail images. Although I've never received an angry (or happy, for that matter) email about my using a thumbnail image as a link, I suspect I'd reply with something flippant like, "Okay, then you'll get 100% of the profits I make from that thumbnail." I've sent emails to those who've appropriated sufficiently large chunks of my site without attribution, and it's amazing how often the malefactor is an asshole about it. I don't ask for anything but attribution, but getting even that can be like pulling teeth. The nearest I can figure is that the boneheads think an attribution to the original will keep them from making millions. You know, the same way I've come to be swimming in cash by listing freely available Linux software, reference works, and technical documents. You'll notice I didn't list the blog in the above, seeing how it constitutes less than 1% of my total hits. That more than anything keeps me sufficiently humble whenever I start thinking that my spleen venting is accomplishing anything beyond keeping my spleen well-aerated.

P.S. Okay, I was just kidding about the "humble" thing.
posted by Steven Baum 3/12/2002 04:59:41 PM | link

MY WAR, DRUNK OR SOBER
Some marvelously sensible and entertaining words from the pen of
Joel Miller at, of all places, WorldNetDaily, a site whose motto might as well be "Clinton probably invented abortions, too."
After a while, the nationalistic moralizing and browbeating becomes tiresome. We may be on the side of the angels and have personal nods of approval from the Twelve Apostles, but let's hear some compelling reasons why, instead of simply insisting folks agree.

The whole point of a parliamentary or congressional system is to have fights and throw things. Parliamentarians and congressmen are certainly better employed doing that than actually passing legislation. For the GOP and its pro-war chorus girls in the media, however, it's not about wrestling over which polices are best or "issuplexing" the opponent. It's making sure everyone stays in step.

Britain isn't playing "house" the same way U.S. politicians are. Parliament is a rugby match. Deliberations about joining the U.S. in fire-slapping Saddam have been anything but a rerun of "Yes, Prime Minister."

According to the March 8 Scotsman, "The Prime Minister was told in a stormy meeting that there was deep unease in Westminster about Britain falling full square behind President George Bush." Unless Tony Blair is "able to give full justification for joining the U.S. in any attack on Iraq," his own cabinet warned that he faces open revolt, flying paperweights and the full Monty of murmuring and dissent.

If Clinton were still in power, the GOP would likely see it much the same way as the Brits do today. As Helen Thomas reminds, when Billy Jeff was sitting in Bush's seat, Lott carped on the president's intervention into Iraq. "He predicted that the 'cursory air strikes' would be ineffective and said the operation should be 'more clearly defined.'"

While Lott did retract his criticism, I think that's more because he has a spine with the consistency of warm jelly than the genuine conviction that he misspoke.

Patriotism is not about falling in line behind a president. It is about making sure the president does what's right by the country. And blindly accepting his decisions - be they right or wrong - is little more than asinine.

Said G.K. Chesterton in "The Defendant": "'My country, right or wrong,' is a thing that no patriot would think of saying. It is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober'" - a line that, when fitted for Bush, has special merit. As usual, Chesterton is correct. No real patriot would say that.

Only a fool would.


posted by Steven Baum 3/12/2002 04:30:51 PM | link

ANOTHER WITNESS AGAINST SHARON DIES
Robert Fisk, who must be right seeing how fast he makes warblogger knees twitch, tells of the death of a third potential witness against Ariel Sharon in a war crimes trial. This one died naturally as a silencer-equipped pistol gently floated him into the great beyond. The Mossad claims it was at a bar mitzvah when the trigger was pulled to silence a man who had agreed to testify against Sharon less than 24 hours before he was killed.
Michael Nassar, who was a former associate of Elie Hobeika - the Phalangist leader murdered in a car bombing in Beirut in January - was shot dead in Brazil by a man firing a pistol equipped with a silencer. His young wife, Marie, was shot down beside him.

A Belgian court has postponed a decision over whether to indict Ariel Sharon, the Israeli Prime Minister, for his role in the massacres - he was held "personally responsible" by an Israeli commission of inquiry - while lawyers for the survivors produce more evidence. But the vital evidence that may lie in the memories of those involved with the killers, who were allied to Israel at the time, is disappearing almost by the week as the death list grows.

Nassar grew immensely wealthy from the Lebanese civil war, selling former Phalangist weapons to Croatian militias during the Balkan conflict. One of his ships ended up in the hands of the Serb navy, which sent Nassar a warehouse bill after the guns were impounded. He fled Beirut in 1997 after a Lebanese court demanded he explain his wealth, put at £70m .

Nassar was apparently already worried when he pulled his car into a petrol station in the suburbs of Sao Paolo on Friday; he had used his mobile phone to tell a friend that he was being followed by men in a car. He made a second call - telling his friend that his pursuers seemed to have vanished - just before the gunman fired five bullets into his body and another seven into his wife.


posted by Steven Baum 3/12/2002 04:20:32 PM | link

MISSION CREEPS
Godless, hellbound foreigner
Eric Margolis summarizes recent events.
The present war in Afghanistan fills me with unease. Once again, the White House is not telling the full truth to its citizens, and is risking the lives of soldiers in a war whose aims are constantly shifting, nebulous and overreaching. What began as a limited operation to kill the elusive Osama bin Laden has ballooned into a campaign to invade Iraq and dominate South/Central Asia.

Afghanistan, as last week's bloody fighting showed, was not the cakewalk predicted by hawks and instant experts. Far from "mopping up isolated al-Qaida remnants," U.S. forces and their auxiliaries battled heavily armed forces that included hundreds of new volunteers.

The Pentagon and unquestioning U.S. media always refer to Afghans fighting on the U.S. side as "anti-Taliban Afghan forces." In fact, almost all are U.S.-paid mercenaries. Their lack of martial ardour is why U.S. troops were used in last week's attacks.

President George Bush's claim the U.S. invaded Afghanistan to "defend democracy" and/or "stamp out terrorism" is certainly not the whole story. The Pentagon had drawn up plans to invade Afghanistan, and U.S. Special Forces were operating in Kyrgyzstan, well before 9/11. Over the past five months, the U.S. has established permanent military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and facilities in Kazakstan. In short, a constellation of air and army bases designed for long-term strategic control of the region, under the command of the newly activated U.S. 3rd Army, whose HQ was recently moved from the Southern U.S. to Kuwait.

The so-called "war on terrorism" is being used to mask a far grander imperial design: the overthrow of Saddam Hussein that will allow the U.S. to gain control of Iraq's huge oil reserves, which are second only to Saudi Arabia's, and secure American control of the giant Caspian Oil Basin. The new U.S. bases just happen to follow the route of the planned American pipelines that will bring Central Asia's oil and gas riches - the "new Silk Road" - south through Pakistan. Each day, the U.S. is plunging deeper and deeper into South and Central Asia - which I call the Mideast East. American soldiers could end up fighting there 50 years hence. In fact, the Bush administration seems to be emulating the old British Empire.

What was known in Vietnam as "mission creep" is already at work. A brief U.S. incursion into Afghanistan is now growing into permanent commitment and the very "nation-building" that Bush vowed to avoid. The client regime of U.S.-appointed Afghan leader, Hamid Karzai, is kept in power in Kabul by British and U.S. bayonets - just as former Afghan communist regimes were maintained by the Soviet Red Army. The affable Karzai has become the darling of the U.S. media, which gushes over him and his green cloak with the same misplaced rapture it showed for another CIA "asset," Egypt's late leader, Anwar Sadat, who was adored in New York but hated in Cairo.

The U.S. relied on the Russian-controlled Northern Alliance, run by the reinvigorated Afghan Communist party, to overthrow the Taliban. Russia sent $4 billion worth of arms to the Alliance, the real power behind Karzai's let's pretend regime. The Alliance is bankrolled by the drug trade, which it restored after the Taliban was overthrown. Because Pashtun mercenaries hired by the U.S. are unreliable, the U.S. now plans to build an 80,000-man Afghan national army, trained by American "advisers" (shades of Vietnam). The Soviets did exactly the same thing after they invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The Afghan communist Army proved as poor and disloyal as most of South Vietnam's Army.

Old Afghan hands, this writer included, have repeatedly warned the U.S. not to get involved in Afghan tribal and ethnic politics, not to set up permanent bases, not to drive north into Central Asia, and not to force Pakistan into becoming another obedient U.S. client state, like Egypt or Turkey. To get in and then out of Afghanistan as fast as possible. But Bush administration crusaders, gripped by a lust for blood and oil, are charging forward. In a truly shameful act, the administration is even sending troops to Georgia to battle Chechen independence fighters in the Caucasus mountains.


posted by Steven Baum 3/12/2002 04:12:57 PM | link


Comments?
Archive

LISTS

Books
Software

uPORTALS

cider
crime lit
drive-in
fake lit
hurricanes
os
scripting
sherlock
texas music
top 100
weirdsounds
wodehouse

LEISURE

abebooks
alibris
amazon
bibliofind
bookfinder
hamilton
powells

all music guide
best used cds
cd bargains
second spin
raven's links

ampol
arts & letters
atlantic
art history
attrition
bibliomania
bitch
bizarre
bizarro
bloom country
bob 'n' ed
bob the angry flower
callahan
chile pepper
classical music
cnnsi
crackbaby
cult films
culture jamming
discover
disinformation
dismal scientist
electric sheep
espn
exquisite corpse
feed
fine cooking
fishbowl
fluble
fried society
fry and laurie
hotel fred
hotendotey
hypocrisy network
jerkcity
last cereal
leisure town
logos
london times
mappa mundi
miscmedia
mp3lit
mr. chuck show
mr. serpent
national geographic
new scientist
no depression
not bored
obscure store
onion
on-line books
parking lot is full
pearly gates
phrase and fable
probe
red meat
rough guides
salon
Simpleton
sluggy freelance
spacemoose
spike
straight dope
strenua inertia
suck
superosity
tawdry town
too much coffee man
toon inn
verbivore
vidal index
yes minister
you damn kid





Powered by Blogger