I haven't spent too much

I haven't spent too much time on President Reagan's passing because I
knew other people would say the things I wanted to say, only they would
do it better.
Peggy Noonan is one of those people I knew I could count on to get it
right.
She wrote two pieces for the Wall Street Journal and you can find them here and here.

If you haven't read this yet, get thee to the library or a bookstore.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:49 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

...for Mugabe to just die

...for Mugabe to just die already?
It sounds horrible, I know, but dear God, it's the only thing that's
going to bring Zimbabwe back from the brink. Particularly after this
debacle:

HARARE, Zimbabwe - In its latest crackdown on democratic
freedoms, the government announced Tuesday that all farmland will be
nationalized and private land ownership abolished. All land, including
more than 5,000 former white-owned farms handed over to blacks, will
become state-owned and subject to state-issued leases, Land Reform
Minister John Nkomo said. Title deeds of farm properties will be
scrapped and replaced by 99-year leases with rent payable to government
the state Herald newspaper reported. "There shall be no such thing as
private land," Nkomo said. Since the farm seizures began in 2000, about
200,000 black families have been allocated former white-owned land.
About a quarter were given larger properties for commercial rather than
small scale farming. Hundreds of black farmers also bought commercial
farms on the property market which will now be nationalized. Nkomo
asked land owners or occupiers to come forward for vetting to qualify
for state leases. He did not indicate when the nationalization program
would be completed. The government did not intend to "waste time and
money" in disputes on seizures of individual farms whose owners held
title deeds and other legal documents, he said. "Ultimately all land
shall be resettled as state property," he said.

{Insert sound of head slamming against desk. Repeatedly.}

I'm effing speechless. Can Mugabe possibly do more
to ruin his country? I think this will finally be the straw that breaks
the camel's back. You think it was bad when the black farmers squatted
on white-owned land to get said owners to bug out? That was nothing.
Those men, for all their numerous faults, were encouraged by Mugabe and
company to make land reform happen. Now, Mugabe's going to charge them
for that land? And then adds that they're not going to take time to
settle claims?
Wow. Expect outright revolt in Zimbabwe soon.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:45 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 344 words, total size 2 kb.

And this would be it.

And this would be it.

DES MOINES, Iowa - A man who claimed he didn't get the taco
he paid for has been charged with assault for allegedly pelting a Taco
Bell clerk in the face with a chalupa. Nancy Harrison told police she
was working the drive-through Thursday night when Christopher Lame, 24,
ordered some food. He later came into the store, complaining he didn't
get the taco he had ordered, police records say. Harrison said that
when she asked for a receipt, he went back to his car and brought back
the bag. Harrison said she told him the store was closing, and as she
turned away, a chalupa hit her in the face near her right eye.

Ah, well. A chalupa's gotta be better than a flaming hot cocoa that one my employees had winged at them once.

Get a degree and get the hell out of customer service, honey. It's just not worth the effort.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:37 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 169 words, total size 1 kb.

Ahem. Today we have a

Ahem. Today we have a story of doggie lederhosen.

Presented without commentary because I'm laughing too damn hard.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:30 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

Ray Charles has passed away.

Ray Charles has passed away.

-I dreamed about Ray Charles last night and he could see just fine...

I dreamed about Ray Charles last night.
And he could see just fine, you know.
I asked him for a lullaby. He said,
"Honey, I don't sing no more."
No more, no more, no more, Ray don't sing no more.

He said, "Since I got my eyesight back, my voice has just deserted me.
No 'Georgia On My Mind' no more. I stay in bed with M.T.V."
Then Ray took his glasses off and I could look inside his head.
Flashing like a thunderstorm, I saw a shining spider web.

Spider web, spider web, spider web in Ray Charles' head.

I dreamed about Ray Charles last night.
He took me flying in the air. Showed me my own spider web; Said,
"Honey, you had best take care. The world is made of spider webs.
the threads are stuck to me and you. Careful what you're wishing for,
'cause when you gain, you just might lose."

You just might lose your spider web, spider web, spider web Ray Charles said.

When you're feeling lonely, when you're hiding in your bed,
don't forget your string of pearls, don't forget your spider web.
When I go to sleep tonight, don't let me dream of brother Ray.
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad he sees.
Just like him best the other way.

Spider web, spider web, spider web Ray Charles said.
Spider web, spider web, spider web Ray Charles' head.

All I got's my spider web, keepin' me alive.
All I got's my spider web, keepin' me alive.

- come on Ray...

---Joan Osborne, Spiderwebs.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 289 words, total size 2 kb.

Bashing Jacques always seems

Bashing Jacques always seems to brighten my day, for whatever reason.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:18 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 19 words, total size 1 kb.

Bring on the smackdown! The

Bring on the smackdown! The JANE AUSTEN CAGE MATCH is on!

Robert the Llama Butcher and
I have agreed to battle it out to have one of our favorite Jane Austen
characters named numero uno by the blogosphere. I'm arguing for that
paragon of virtue, Elizabeth Bennett, from Pride and Prejudice. He's arguing for that spoiled brat Emma Woodhouse from Emma,
who, for reasons soon to be pithily explained, he thinks is the better
of the two characters. Here are the rules:
1. One 500 word essay will be posted on both sites a week from Monday
(we're hoping). No outside sources will be allowed.
2. One rebuttal each will be allowed
3. YOU will be the judge of who wins! Steve-o, of course, is having a
hard time resisting from photoshopping the hell out of this match, so
that should provide some entertainment value. I believe the Bronte
sisters will be in my corner (and I'm looking forward to seeing the
visual of it). I don't know which literary figures would support Emma's
claim to the throne, but hell, there's gotta be at least one
out there, right? If you're a blogger, some gratuitous linkage would
probably help those who might be interested to find our little
smackdown. Any traffic you can send our way would be greatly
appreciated by both of us. If you need to bone up on your Jane Austen,
and don't want to actually buy the books, there is an online resource
available! Project Gutenberg
has both novels available for downloading and it won't cost you a cent.
Go and read them. They're enjoyable. And, if nothing else, Mrs. Bennett
will make you grateful for your mom. I guarantee it.
Of course, the trash talking begins now, so I would just like to wish Robert the very best of luck in his utterly hopeless effort to see that Emma gets her due.

Tisn't going to happen. But he can give it his best shot. He deserves that much, don't you think?

Posted by: Kathy at 03:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 346 words, total size 2 kb.

There doesn't appear to be

There doesn't appear to be much of that in Darfur right about now.

NOT a single Sudanese child refugee under the age of five
will be alive in six months unless there is immediate and dramatic
international intervention, a senior United Nations official warned
yesterday. Hundreds of thousands of refugees have poured over the
border from Sudan into Chad in the past few months, driven out by a
genocidal campaign against black African inhabitants of the Darfur
region. Many are living in makeshift shelters, unable to get into
established refugee camps, facing the constant threat of attack from
the government-backed Janjaweed militias that have burned villages,
killed thousands of people, raped women and girls and taken young
children as slaves. The UN has described the situation in Darfur -
where something in the region of a million people have been driven from
their homes and estimates have placed the potential death toll at
300,000 - as the world's worst humanitarian crisis, and the imminent
arrival of the rainy season threatens to trigger a fresh catastrophe
among the refugees who have sought shelter in Chad. Aid experts
estimated that around a quarter of the refugees in Chad would die
before the end of the year unless aid could be put in place before the
imminent rains begin in earnest. That figure includes 38,600 children
under the age of five and 10,000 other vulnerable people, including
pregnant women. It's believed 25,000 would suffer severe malnutrition.
Yesterday, the deputy director of the UN World Food Programme in Chad,
Jean-Charles Dei, warned that the rains would make roads impassable for
aid lorries bringing in food, leading to malnutrition and ultimately
starvation for thousands of the refugees. He said the rains would also
bring inevitable outbreaks of disease, including cholera and measles.
"There will be a tragedy if nothing happens," Mr Dei said. "I don't
think any of the children under the age of five will make it, and the
pregnant women too. For those who are under five there is no chance.
They will die from starvation."
The UN has appealed, so far unsuccessfully, for more than $30 million
before the end of this year to prevent a catastrophe. UNICEF, which
alone says it needs $1.6 million to tackle the immediate crisis, has
warned that with the rainy season about to start in earnest, the
situation is now critical. Aid agencies working with refugees along the
border say that about 200,000 people have crossed into Chad, driven
from their homes in the Darfur region of Sudan by the murderous
onslaught of the Janjaweed militia, backed by Sudanese government
forces, including jets and helicopters, which have bombed villages. The
influx has overwhelmed the existing resources and appeals for fresh
financial assistance to buy food and medicines have been unsuccessful

(my emphasis}
Granted, it is possible that Mr. Dei is overstating things in the hope
of getting people to act, but God, if it's true...
There are times when I really wonder about human beings and what causes
us to act and our rationalizations for taking the path we've chosen.
Our humanity. That is what I wonder about. What makes us human beings;
what we find deserving of our empathy and what falls short; and
ultimately our utter cruelty, because human beings are not kind unless
it's in our best interests to be so. We look out only for ourselves. We
make sure we're the ones who reach the top of the heap and damn
everyone to hell who tries to stop us. It's the overwhelming big
picture that frightens me as a human being and makes me not so very
proud to be one at times. Particularly when it comes to a place like
Sudan.
Why does Sudan interest me so much when most people can't find it on
map, let alone care what is going on there? Mainly because this country
is central to the plot of my most recent manuscript. I've done a lot of
research on the civil war between the South and the North and, more
than anything, I've come to realize that while religion may have caused
the spark that blew the powderkeg, this civil war is about nothing more
than the natural resources that will enable the victor to live in
prosperity. And that's it. But different people will tell you different
things about this civil war in an attempt to sway your opinion about
how best to stop it. Christian activists will tell you it's about the
forced adoption of Shari'a Law on the peoples of the south, who are not
Muslim, but mainly follow Christian and Animist religions. Anti-Slavery
activists and human rights organizations will tell you that you should
care because southerners are forced by circumstances or by the barrel
of a gun into slavery by those in the north. The United States
government will tell you that, for all the multitude reasons the war is
raging, only one thing is important: if the war rages on, it will
further exclude the recognized Sudanese government from the
International Community and the north will still be a safe harbor for
terrorist organizations. The SPLA (The Sudanese People's Liberation
Army---the main opposition group in the south) will tell you that the
north wants to oppress them; to shove a set of beliefs that the south
doesn't share down their gullets. The north, well, they won't tell you
anything at all, just that they need to put down the uprisings. All of
these groups try to inveigle you into their arguments, knowing that
your humanity will further help them in their goals. Whatever the
reasons, though, it's the one that's rarely mentioned that should be
given the most credit: the natural resources. It's all about that
particular part of land and what lies beneath it and what can be grown
out of it, in other words. The northern part of Sudan is being
swallowed up into the Sahara and Nubian deserts---two deserts which
used to have distinct boundaries but now do not. It's called
desertification and it's been happening for years. The north does not
have a great abundance of natural resources. They cannot grow their own
food because their land is not arable for the most part. The south,
however, has all that they do not, and due to the idiocy of Colonial
Cartography, the boundaries were shaped a hundred years ago to form one
homogenous country called Sudan. The only problem is that Sudan is not
homogenous. The peoples are wildly different. They believe different
things. They act differently and they want to live under a different
set of laws. The British bugged out in the mid-1950's and were it not
for a ten year breather in the 1970's it would be easy to say that this
civil war has been raging on for almost fifty
years. The people may be different, the official reasons given may be
different, but when you whittle it all down the reasoning for the
earlier civil war and this one is exactly the same: it's the natural
resources---namely oil. But Darfur doesn't have any natural resources.
Bupkiss. It's has nothing. It's a wasteland for the most part. Why is
there a war raging in that province? Particularly when it's hell and
gone from the south? (Sudan is the largest country in Africa. It's
bigger than Texas---it would be as if there was a war between Austin
and Houston and the people in El Paso decided to start flaring up.) If
this is truly a separate humanitarian crisis, why isn't the world
acting? Why aren't they doing their utmost to help, particularly
because it cause problems with the newfound peace between the south and
the north? Mr. Dei is partially right about the fact there's no oil or
diamonds in the region that would cause donor nations to get involved.
However, he doesn't pay enough attention to the fact that this is all
about oil that's under the ground in another region in Sudan. That this
is what's making donor nations leery of getting involved. The northern
government just signed a peace accord with the SPLA. According to the
deal, there is a proportional power sharing arrangement. In the north,
displaced southerners will have a 30% stake in local governments, while
the north holds the majority stake. Reverse it for the southern
provinces. And in six years, God willing, there will be a referendum in
the south and if it is successful it will allow for the south to secede
entirely. In my opinion, there are two things that will prevent this
from ever taking place: one, the SPLA has little to no practical
experience with running a representative government (they're not an
entirely homogenous group, either---as many people in the south have
been murdered by the north as have been murdered by various SPLA
factions) and two, the north has no conceivable interest to keep the
peace and allow the vote: they'd be cut out of everything they've
worked so hard to gain. The southerners would overwhelmingly vote to
keep them the hell out of it. It would be almost as if you'd asked the
Palestinians, after six years of power sharing with the Israelis, if
they wanted to actually work with them, instead of kicking them the
hell out. Do you think that
would happen? Given their acrimonious history? Do you honestly think
that there would be a chance for that to work? I don't either. But who
do you think the various oil companies that have courted Sudanese oil
over the years have inked deals with? The SPLA or the northern
government? There is but one recognized government of Sudan, after all,
and it isn't the SPLA. It's in their best interests right now to keep
the north happy. If a cease fire is finally agreed to, that would allow
the western oil companies to get back into southern Sudan. The north
hasn't been idle during the war. They've built a pipleline and have
been pumping oil---just not at a level that will allow them to pay off
all their debt and really get moving. So, it's everyone's interest to
stop the civil war. And they're making strides towards that, but no one
(other than the United States government---who has pledged millions of
dollars in aid) seems to want to stop what's going on in Darfur. Not
the French. Not the Germans. Not the Russians---who, in fact, did some
manuevering to keep Sudan on the Human Rights council at the UN. No one
on the Security Council other than the US apparently gives a damn. It
still doesn't make any sense, does it? There is one thing that pulls it
all together and the answer is a very simple one: the rebels that are
doing all the slaughtering in Darfur are backed by the northern
government. Reportedly they've even received air support from the
government, and God only knows how many guns and other armaments the
government has supplied them with. It's only a matter of time before
Sudanese troops actively get involved. Knowing this crucial bit of
information, you don't have to be Henry Kissinger to connect the dots:
now that's there's a possibility of peace in the south, to play an
active part in stopping the government backed
rebels in Darfur, let alone helping the people they're killing, could
potentially futz up said peace---and all the oil that could potentially
flow as a result. Quid pro quo, in other words. You scratch my back,
baby, and I'll scratch yours. And millions of people are going to die
for this. The problem for me, in a strictly personal sense, is that I
can see both sides of it. I can see the big picture, the national
interests that lead countries to do what they will and
I can see the smaller, more personal picture. I can see the people
starving. I can see the women fleeing to try and avoid a fate worse
than death. I can see the babies crying for lack of food. And it bothers
me that I can see and understand both points of view, and to know that,
whatever the relative merits of their arguments might be, that it might
be the right thing to do to stay the hell out of Darfur; that the
"greater good" might be served by staying the hell out of it. It should
never be right to stand by and watch people be murdered. It just
shouldn't be. My conscience is giving me trouble. I am a human being. I
live by the Golden Rule: I do unto others what I would want them to do
unto me. I wouldn't want to starve or be raped or threatened into a
refugee camp, so it offends me as a human being that very little is
being done about this problem. We should be better than this. We can do better than this. It's within the realm of what is possible.
But I also know there are limitations to what we can do. We can ship
aid, and this we should be doing. But what can we do about the rest of
it? Can we jeopardize other things, namely the peace in the
south---just on principle? People over here are dying. We have to let you suffer through more war because of it. Sorry, that's just the way things go. It's not a black and white situation when it should be
a black and white situation. Unfortunately, the truth is that, when it
comes to world affairs, that life and death isn't black and white. And
we're all the worse for it as human beings.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:02 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 2286 words, total size 13 kb.

Gliders carrying reinforcements land both

Gliders carrying reinforcements land both behind Utah and east of the
Orne River. The glider landings east of the Orne (on the left flank)
deterred the German counterattack between Juno and Sword Beaches.
Arromanches is captured by British troops from Gold Beach.

Posted by: Kathy at 03:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 52 words, total size 1 kb.

British Glider

British Glider

Posted by: Kathy at 02:59 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 6 words, total size 1 kb.

I don't like the phrase

I don't like the phrase "conflict diamonds." It's a bit too politically
correct for me. You can smell the manuevers the diamond companies made
to change the usage: it stinks of a PR campaign from hell. Ultimately,
it's an obvious effort to ensure that all those trophy wives don't stop
lusting after the stones that keep De Beers in the monopoly business.
Women wouldn't want blood diamonds, after all. They'd want pigeon-blood
rubies, yes, but where their diamonds are concerned, they want them to
be nice and sparkly and blood would ruin the effect.
Blood diamonds are just one more underworld financing scheme that keeps
dirty money out of banks, where it might be tracked, and in the hands
of the people who could use it for nefarious purposes. The US has paid
attention to this problem, but it hasn't done much about it---because
its hands are tied: a lawsuit was filed against De Beers back in the
1960's claiming flagrant violations of the anti-trust statutes. Because
of this lawsuit, De Beers have no formal presence in the United States
other than consistently swamping the airwaves with their cheesy
commercials that invariably make women look like the greedy little
bitches we are when it comes to jewelry. (It's in the blood---we can't
do a damn thing about it. It's like men and breasts: you can't stop
yourself from looking and wanting, either.) No executive from DeBeers
has stepped foot on US soil in all that time because they're afraid
they're going to be served with the papers. I'm completely serious,
too. This isn't an exaggeration or a joke. Everyone goes to them, but
not so much anymore. I read somewhere that because of newfound Russian
competition, that DeBeers is looking into settling the anti-trust suit.
If the Justice Department is wise, they will settle it so they can get
a grasp on the tiger's tail when it comes to stories like this one.

FREETOWN, Sierra Leone - Al-Qaida suspects in the deadly
1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies took shelter in West Africa in the
months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, converting terror cash into
untraceable diamonds, according to findings of a U.N.-backed court
obtained by The Associated Press. The allegations came as part of the
Sierra Leone war crimes court's investigation of former Liberian
President Charles Taylor, alleged have been a middleman between
al-Qaida and West Africa's multimillion-dollar diamond trade. "We have
in the process of investigating Charles Taylor ... clearly uncovered
that he harbored al-Qaida operatives in Monrovia (the Liberian capital)
as late as the summer of 2001," said David Crane, the court's lead
prosecutor. "The central thread is blood diamonds." Other international
investigators told the AP the three suspects are Mohammed Atef of
Egypt, Fazul Abdullah Mohammed of Comoros and Sheikh Ahmed Salim Swedan
of Kenya. Fazul and Swedan are believed in East Africa; Atef was killed
in fighting in Afghanistan {...}Crane, in the Sierra Leone capital of
Freetown, said he had "documentary" and "direct evidence" of al-Qaida's
West Africa dealings. The international investigation findings obtained
in part by the AP concluded that flight records and some undisclosed
evidence in Europe appeared to support the accounts of pre-Sept. 11
al-Qaida diamond business in Liberia. Crane said he gave the
information that his own team uncovered to the United States, European
and other North American countries. "Now, what other countries, and
it's not just the United States, choose to do with that is clearly up
to them," Crane said.

DeBeers is a big conduit for those diamonds, whether they'll admit to
it or not. They have to be. The laws of probabilities demand it. They
have a monopoly on the world's diamond market, and while their choke
hold is lessening, they still are the big dog: some of those diamonds
are going to find their way into De Beers' hands. If the US is willing
to cut them some slack on the anti-trust suit, there is a huge
opportunity to have inside cooperation in tracing these diamonds---and
the terrorism they fund. In return, De Beers will finally have direct
access to the largest market of diamond buyers in a world that's
suddenly doesn't work in its favor anymore. Too many people
have been pissed off by De Beers' "take it or leave it" tactics and
have started mining and marketing their own diamonds, short circuiting
De Beers' access. Currently, however, because of the anti-trust suit,
we don't have access to this company nor do we have any means to make
them cooperate with us. That would change if that suit were settled.
However, if the Justice Department decides they still want to make De
Beers suffer, well, that's just one more terrorist financing outlet we won't ever have any access to, will we? Limited, informed access is better than none at all.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:54 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 815 words, total size 5 kb.

And just after I bitched

And just after I bitched about it too. How's this for instant gratification, eh?

WASHINGTON - CIA Director George Tenet, buffeted by
controversies over intelligence lapses about suspected weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq and the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, has resigned.
President Bush said Thursday that Tenet was leaving for personal
reasons and "I will miss him." Tenet, 51, came to the White House to
inform Bush about his decision Wednesday night. "He told me he was
resigning for personal reasons. I told him I'm sorry he's leaving. He's
done a superb job on behalf of the American people," the president
said.

I suppose it's a testament to Tenet's political skills that he managed
to hold on this long, but I would be highly surprised if Tenet is
actually leaving for "personal reasons" as he claimed. Let's look at
all the things that happened on his watch: the Embassy bombings in
Africa; the failed retaliation in Khartoum and in Afghanistan for those
attacks; the mistaken bombing of the PRC Embassy in Belgrade during the
Kosovo action (remember how those faulty maps reportedly came from the
CIA?);the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen; 9/11;WMD---I could go on.
Of course we don't know how many CIA operations were successful, and we
might never know how many times we were saved from a horrible fate, but
you have to wonder. If these
were the failures, well, how good could the saves have possibly have
been? All of these events could have been prevented or---at the very
least---been turned to our advantage if there had been good
intelligence. A grasp on the operations of Al-Qaeda and their state
sponsors was there for the taking in each one. Yet, we continue to
still have massive intelligence failures where people die as a result.
It is reportedly the DCI's job to provide good intelligence to the
President and the Armed Services. Yet, good intelligence hasn't been
presented. Instead, faulty intelligence, poor management and a
bureaucratic attitude at the CIA have meant people died. Anyone else
would have been sacked after the Embassy Bombings (you know, provided
the Embassy that had been bombed was in Paris rather than in Nairobi
and Dar-Es-Salaam. It would have been a bigger deal if it had been in
Europe, where the media could cover it more easily. I am convinced that
Tenet was saved because the Embassies were in Africa, where the western
media does not have a great coverage. Same deal with the Cole in Yemen
and the fact the 2000 election was coming down to the wire at the same
time). Yet Tenet survived not only those events, he survived 9/11. I
have to think Chalabi was the proverbial straw. It says something that,
even though Chalabi was the Pentagon's guy, that Rummy is still there
and Tenet's out, particularly after Abu Ghraib. Of course this is all
rampant speculation, but it seems plausible to say that Bush very
quietly asked for Tenet's resignation and Tenet gave it. The "personal
reasons" is a face-saving maneuver for Tenet. He'll publish his memoirs
and Bush can only hope that the fact he let Tenet go on the quiet will
help Tenet give him a good recommendation, rather than a scathing one,
later on.
As much as I would like to, I can't let Tenet slide simply because he
was handed the CIA in 1997 after it had been gutted by Congress. I just
can't use that as an excuse. Yes, he was handed a nightmare. I can
completely understand that and sympathize. But if Tenet's supposedly so
crafty, he should have been able to work around the insular,
bureaucratic mindset of the CIA worker bees. If it was obvious to
me---an informed watcher---that the CIA needed to rely less on
satellites and more on humint (human intelligence---spies on the
ground)then it should have been obvious to Tenet by 1997. He should
have made that option work. Anything's possible, after all. I can only
give someone so much credit for working with what they've got when it's
patently obvious that they didn't do anything differently to procure a
different outcome. Tenet worked with what he had in an established way
and did not bother to think outside of the box when it came to
gathering intelligence. I do not want political people who are going to
sit in their office, wondering how best to consolidate their position
so that when the hits invariably come they'll survive the aftermath. I
have to think that's what Tenet did. There's just not much there to
point me in another direction, is there? Particularly not after all of
the spectacular failures of the agency he had been tapped to lead. It
has always been clear, to me at least, that satellites were not going
to protect us from the threats we faced. Listening to phone calls of
Minster of Porta Potties in Oman courtesy of Echelon isn't going to
tell us what we need to know about how terrorism works, how it's
financed, and where the threats are coming from. It just isn't. The
World Trade Center bombings in 1993 should have been a big-ass wake-up
call to anyone in the intelligence community. But they weren't. They
were seen as a random event, instead of as a harbinger of what was to
come due to the destabilization factors that the fall of the USSR
brought about. It was patently apparent that after the collapse of the
Soviet Union (a coup which took the CIA completely by surprise, I might
add)that the world was going to become a much more dangerous place,
rather than a safer one. I still don't know how people could have
logically come to the conclusion they did come to, which was that since
the Soviet Union had fallen, the CIA could now become a line on the
budget where savings were to be found. It makes absolutely no sense.
The paradigm had shifted. If your eyes are starting to glaze over just
by my use of the word paradigm,
think of it this way: we had two dodgeball teams: the US and the USSR.
Countries chose teams, or were forcibly picked, for the massive game of
dodgeball that played out since the end of WWII. These two massive
superpowers played a stabilizing role: they kept it to two teams, and
while, invariably, some of the players would get hit, they would still
be on the team that they had chosen or had been chosen for them. The
minute that one of the teams collapsed, it should have been obvious
that the players, tired of incessantly being hit, would try to form
their own teams when the time came. After the collapse of the Soviet
Union, instead of having two teams playing dodgeball you now had many
trying to play against each other, aligning with each other to play the
one big team---who had also suddenly become the playground
monitor as well as being a competitor in the newly reorganized
dodgeball tournament.
Things had changed. The geopolitics of choosing up sides had changed.
To continue with the dodgeball analogy, it should have been obvious
that better information was needed to see who was going to stay on the
US's team or who, if anyone, was going to try and form their own team
and what kind of hits with the big rubber ball the US was going to
take. It's pretty simple stuff. If I can figure it out, it should be
hugely surprising that the CIA and its funders up on the Hill couldn't.
The world had been destabilized by the breakup of the USSR. Yet the new
Balkanization that sprung up a year later took the CIA by surprise.
Apparently they hadn't realized Yugoslavia was, in reality, a bunch of
small teams banded together under the guiding influence of the USSR,
yet who wanted to get the hell away from people who they thought had
the cooties. Hot spots in Africa flared up and it took the CIA by
surprise. (Of course, though, they had their eye on Cuba, which is
still in the steady, yet meglomaniacal hands of Castro) I could go on,
but I think you get the point. It almost seems to me that the CIA was
in willful denial of the fact that the world had changed, like someone
who refuses to believe that a loved one has died because they just
couldn't deal with the ramifications if that turned out to be true. The
CIA needed to put people on the ground in places they'd never been
before to keep track of what was going on, but they refused to do this
because they'd been bottle-fed with the amazing capabilities of our
satellites for too damn long to make it a palatable proposition.
Tenet had the ability to change this. He did. He saw the threat, but he
didn't make the changes happen that were necessary to play the game
well. Why? My guess is that he was dazzled by the current technological
capabilities of the agency, decided to let it rest there, and that he
felt he was too hamstrung by the budgetary requirements to make things
different. I think with Tenet you had a guy who saw the big picture,
but didn't think there was anything he could do to make a change. Then
9/11 happened. In my opinion he should have overhauled the agency right
there and then: he had the mandate to do so. But he didn't. Perhaps he
just wasn't creative enough a thinker. I don't know, but now that he's
gone we have the opportunity to really get something done. In an ideal
world, we would get a serious hawk into the top spot of agency. Someone
who will work with Congressional oversight, but who knows how to get
things done and can overhaul the agency, and damn the consequences of
firing high ranking analysts. I don't want a James Jesus Angleton in
there; nor do I want an Allen Dulles. I don't want more wily operators.
I want someone like the founder of the OSS, "Wild" Bill Donovan.
Donovan was a man who got things done. He managed to found the OSS, and
make it a worthwhile organization, despite huge isolationist
pressure---and he did this before WWII. We were positioned well for the
war when Pearl Harbor meant that it was time for direct involvment
because of Donovan's powers of persuasion, and his inability to give a
damn when Congress screamed bloody murder. He was a guy who got the job
done. It is time for the CIA to get down to brass tacks. We need
someone in that agency who is going to make sure that human
intelligence is taken seriously and is funded appropriately. I should
also think we need someone who will be able to explain to Congress that
intelligence gathering is a dirty business and that, however
distasteful it might be to the people footing the bill, domestic
sensibilities should not hamper the work of the agents on the ground.
This is a huge opportunity for the Bush administration to get it right
once and for all---to do what they said they were going to do after
9/11 when they formed the Department of Homeland Security: that
agencies would work together and that the endless maze of bureaucratic
crap would stop dead in its tracks. Tenet is the one who's been
hampering things. Now that he's gone, I sincerely hope they will take
this opportunity for what it's worth: a chance to get the war on
terrorism on the right footing. If they place the right person in
Tenet's position, someone who will make that agency work if it kills
them in the process, good things will come out of it.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1978 words, total size 11 kb.

Beeeeyoootiful!

Beeeeyoootiful!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

I couldn't find a name

I couldn't find a name for this rose, but it was the only lavender rose in the garden.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:40 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 28 words, total size 1 kb.

I love this thing! I

I
love this thing! I don't know what you'd call it, but it mows up all
the weeds from the bottom of the lake. We have a big problem with
milfoil here and it chokes the natural lake vegetation, so they have to
mow. This thing makes it around to all the lakes. Once they've got one
done, they haul it to the next. Harriet will be mowed three or four
times this summer.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Regatta!

Regatta!

Posted by: Kathy at 02:36 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

Bumblebee

Bumblebee

Posted by: Kathy at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 3 words, total size 1 kb.

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE

SUPREME HEADQUARTERS ALLIED EXPEDITIONARY FORCE Soldiers, Sailors
and Airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force! You are about to embark
upon the Great Crusade, toward which we have striven these many months.
The eyes of liberty loving people everywhere march with you. In company
with our brave Allies and brothers in arms on other Fronts, you will
bring about the destruction of the German war machine, elimination of
Nazi tyranny over the oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for
ourselves in a free world. Your task will not be an easy one. Your
enemy is well trained, well equipped and battle hardened. He will fight
savagely. But this is the year 1944! Much has happened since the Nazi
triumphs of 1940-41. The United Nations have inflicted upon the Germans
great defeats, in open battle, man to man. Our air offensive has
seriously reduced their strength in the air and their capacity to wage
war on the ground. Our Home Fronts have given us an overwhelming
superiority in weapons and munitions of war, and placed at our disposal
great reserves of trained fighting men. The tide has turned! The free
men of the world are marching together to Victory! I have full
confidence in your courage and devotion to duty and skill in battle. We
will accept nothing less than full Victory! Good luck! And let us
beseech the blessing of Almighty God upon this great and noble
undertaking.

General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Order of the Day
June 6, 1944

Posted by: Kathy at 02:35 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 258 words, total size 2 kb.

British Soldier Reading Eisenhower's Order

British Soldier Reading Eisenhower's Order of the Day

Posted by: Kathy at 02:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 18 words, total size 1 kb.

"Bride's Delight" A gentleman who

"Bride's
Delight" A gentleman who was biking by stopped and chatted with us
about this rose. He loved it and had some in his yard. This hybrid is
pest resistant and the bushes apparently can grow to about four or five
feet high.

Posted by: Kathy at 02:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 53 words, total size 1 kb.