As promised, Rumsfeld's invasion plan has made every effort to secure Iraqi resources for the future of the Iraqi people. The liberating US forces even went out of their way to protect Iraq's priceless historical artifacts, which have survived every human war in history until this one.

U.S. forces made some headway in their struggle to restore order on Saturday but suffered a high-profile setback as looters made off with a priceless collection of irreplaceable antiquities from the National Museum, making off with treasures dating back to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia. "They have looted or destroyed 170,000 items of antiquity dating back thousands of years. ... They were worth billions of dollars," said deputy director Nabhal Amin, weeping. [Reuters]

In Salt Lake City news, after several years of court battles an Atheist has finally won the right to deliver a prayer at a Murray City Council meeting. It took three years and the goddamn Supreme Court to rule in his favor. Glad to see that the Court is aware that the 1st Amendment restricts the government from disciminating on the basis of non-religion as well as on the basis of religion. [AP]

James' comments today were strangely well-timed. I was just getting ready to post a closely related article on the subject of Bush, god, creationism, the anti-cloning movement, and the generally anti-scientific stance of the current administration. The entire article is very interesting; I'll give one excerpt on cloning and Leon Kass, chairman of the administration's "Council on Bioethics":

The Bush presidency was in its infancy when Rove identified cloning as a topic that needed to be tackled. The administration's contempt for the issue was made transparent when he suggested introducing a bill into Congress that would ban all forms of cloning. Kass readily agreed: "We are repelled by the prospect of cloning human beings," he has written, "not because of the strangeness or novelty of the undertaking, but because we intuit and feel the violation of things that we rightfully hold dear." [The Guardian]

"Things" that we hold dear, he says. We are "repelled" by the concept of human cloning. I need to look up more of Kass's arguments. I believe Dave Dick was telling me that Kass upholds "repulsion" as a basic criterion in making ethical determinations. Here's to undoing every last bit of more than 2000 years of philosophical reasoning about ethics.

Another ass-rific conversation with sadly imitable J. Stephen Garrett occured on Foppery these last few days. The flame-fest eclipsed the thread's actual purpose of discussing The Chairman's new photo blog in New Zealand. Mr. Garrett burst onto the scene with some typical cock-waving, non-sequitors, and cries that nobody answered his "arguments" but that he didn't want them to anyway. I find it baffling that someone like this even exists. I therefore decided to preserve the conversation for posterity. Highlights are as follows:

Iraqi tyrant deposed, millions liberated, US soldiers smooched by happy citizens in the streets---Foppery "oddly" silent. Well, then again, so is the New York Times. Not to beat a dead horse, but amusing reading nonetheless that is quite relevant to the question posed a few weeks back (you know, who is more frightening to the Chief Fop---Saddam or Bush). Enjoy: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/11/opinion/11JORD.html? -Posted by J. Stephen Garrett at April 11, 2003 01:36 PM Heck, why be coy---here's the relevant section. Not that I want to detract you from the *true* news of the day, like King Missile or Sigur Ros, naturally. This piece appeared in (of all places) The New York Times, courtesy of Eason Jordan, a CNN reporter who notes that CNN refused to broadcast news of Saddam's atrocities for fear of reprisals directed at their Iraqi employees by the regime once headed by that jolly fellow Saddam, the man who scares liberals more than W. [some quotes from the NYT article about Iraqi attrocities follow] -Posted by J. Stephen Garrett at April 11, 2003 01:40 PM From www.dictionary.com: ger·mane (adj.) - Being both pertinent and fitting. Synonym: relevant. JSG, go start your own blog if you want to dictate the topic of the thread. -Posted by Chris at April 11, 2003 05:07 PM Chris---good to see you've found a dictionary. Consider it a fine friend in ridding you of those orthographic troubles that riddle most of your posts. Free speech (that is, if it's not the "God the US is horrible/capitalism is the scourge of Allah" sort of speech) really kills you, huh? Incidentally, I noted with pleasure that not ONE of the arguments put forth in the last post were addressed---the leftist, as always, presented with FACTS and REASONS and routed back to his dingy one-bedroom flat like a whipped dog. I bet those Iraqis waving American flags just drives you crazy, doesn't it? Anyway, rousing the rabble on Foppery is always a delight. As to having my own Blog, that's not a half bad idea---thanks for the inspiration. -Posted by J. Stephen Garrett at April 11, 2003 06:36 PM JSG: You've put a great deal of effort into picking pointless fights in these threads, but I don't think I've ever actually stated my politics. I did not notice any arguments in your posts, which is why they received no response. You also shouldn't assume that I'm out looking for the same fights you are. Who/what I support or don't support is something I usually keep to myself. In conversation, I look for a mutually edifying exchange consisting of either new facts or interesting analysis. You are mostly useless for that type of conversation. You want me to wear a "leftist" costume so that you can use me to act out some strange fantasy of harassing the leftist. I don't call myself a leftist. In fact on campus here in Canada most people would percieve me as a conservative war-supporter. I am neither. I just prefer to have balanced conversations that give fair coverage to all sides. With Jim and the fopperites I tend to let that slide a bit because the forum is designed for glib remarks, not in-depth conversations. I have taken this time to explain myself in the hopes that you will realize that you will not find a sparring partner here. If you want to inform, enlighten, or discuss, then I'm sure I and everyone else would welcome your *polite* conversation. I leave you with one more word from dictionary.com: ha·rass - To irritate or torment persistently. To wear out; exhaust. To fatigue; to tire with repeated and exhausting efforts; esp., to weary by importunity, teasing, or fretting. -Posted by Chris at April 11, 2003 11:04 PM "Why won't anyone respond, point-by-point, to my anal and pedantic non-sequiturs?" You sound like a laugh at a party, mate, but I'll have to pass. Chris and Jim are always welcome. Bad news Jim, not a single Klingon, belly dancing or otherwise at the "Armageddon: Aucklands Pop Culture Festival." Or at least none that I saw. Maybe I'll actually go inside tomorrow. Chris! I'd love to talk to you sometime soon. I was going to say that I don't have your e-mail address... But it turns out I do, so I'll do so right now. -Posted by Lord ViperScorpion at April 12, 2003 03:57 AM Contrary to Chris's thoughts on the subject, I think that Mr. Garrett makes some extremely salient points. I've decided to address them as follows: If a nation beyond a reality tunnel finds subtle faults with the Californian essay, then a steam engine implodes. Now and then, some utilitarian paradigm falls in love with a worldly photon. A lasagna assimilates a false geodesic dome, because a paycheck learns a hard lesson from a football team living with a peak experience. Now and then, a class action suit ostensibly pees on an eggplant near a recliner. When the horse appears to be pagan, the sexist corporation gives secret financial aid to the masochistic apartment building. -Posted by James at April 12, 2003 10:58 AM Chris/James/LVS (odd how so many of the grey little creatures see the need to name themselves after more colorful personalities drawn from the media): Who says I want you to respond to *anything* I say? Honestly, I must admit that the notion of toying with your little minds amuses me, in that it's interesting watching you attempt to *think*, but as for a response from you---bah. I don't expect it. You are just a few examples of the worthless American student-for-life class and its endless variations, whose indolent, spineless, snivelling, worthless existence is made possible by the brave young men and women now manning the cold and lonely frontier ramparts of civilization. Those folks provide you with the right to be glib and ironic; you should be thankful for them. I must confess, though, that baiting and skewering y'all is much like the USAF buzzing the late unlamented Iraqi air force---fun to get a rise out of the peons, and fun to send their air-jalopies burning to the ground. After all, to sup with the Devil you must first descend into Hell. Mark me, JSG -Posted by J. Stephen Garrett at April 12, 2003 03:38 PM Chris---one more little point, as to your little tirade contending that you're not a leftist. I have had hundreds of conversations with folks who say they're "not liberal or conservative", who go on to expound their view that Bush is equivalent to Saddam, that America is an imperialist, bellicose power, and that capitalism is worse than Pol Pot. Of course you're not a liberal or a conservative---you're a freethinker, right? Naturally. -Posted by J. Stephen Garrett at April 12, 2003 03:49 PM One last try, JSG. You said: "I have had hundreds of conversations with folks who say they're 'not liberal or conservative', who go on to expound their view that..." Kudos to you for having so many conversations with people who are not me. Before demanding that I answer a long list of your "arguments," you might try finding out whether I actually disagree with you. I've never said anything about my attitude toward capitalism, nor have I actually declared a stance (to you) on the war in Iraq. My opinions are my own, and I do not share them with you because 1) you haven't asked for them, and 2) you are not worthy to hear them. And if you must know, the only polical party to which I've ever been an actual member was the Libertarian party, which are usually not classified as "liberal." If you want to learn how to cope with "free thinkers," you might pick up a copy of Reason magazine. If you can manage to actually pay attention to the content, you might find that authors in Reason agree with your opinions a lot of the time. You might also get a chance in some cases to see what a good argument looks like. I might also add that if not for the "indolent, spineless, snivelling, worthless existence" of long-term students like me, those brave men and women in uniform would not have spiffy satellites and communications equipment and computers and digital listening devices and guided missiles and stealth bombers and all the other high-tech things that actually require partially educated minds to successfully produce. Although certainly the best of technological advances can't stack up to the vast contributions made by a moronic jackoff with a business degree, or whatever. I close with a reference to our previous conversation: fuck off. -Posted by Chris at April 12, 2003 04:23 PM This is exactly what I've been talking about, JSG. This post was supposed to be an announcement for the benefit of my friends who know LVS and want to know how he's doing. But you decided it needed to be a flamewar. I banned you once before, and you seemed to think it was based on your political views. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know that it pleases your ego to think that you're being censored for your "radical" thoughts, but you're not. Your take on current events is about as interesting as Bill O' Reilly on a cough syrup binge. This has to do with the fact that you're an arrogant prick who relishes nothing more than thumping your chest trying to get a rise out of people you don't even know. How pathetic is that? You're just wasting everybody's time. In your own words: "Who says I want you to respond to *anything* I say?" You don't care if anyone responds to your posts, thus you're not trying to contribute to a discussion. And you're being insanely pretentious while you're at it. "Mark me". Please. For your trouble you've been banned. Again. Any posts you make will subsequently be auto-deleted. So please take your ranting somewhere else. And in the words of Shatner: "Get a life!" -Posted by Jim at April 12, 2003 05:02 PM

There you have it. While JSG's comments were not initially directed at me, these conversations have tended to be primarily between he and I because I am usually the only one who attempts to respond. Perhaps I shouldn't, but like I said, I have a hard time believing that this guy is for real. There must be something with a brain behind all this nonsense. I failed in all of my efforts to reach the supposed gray matter that belongs to this guy. So to JSG, I say keep raging against whatever it is you're raging about. Take the power back, man.

Here's a great example of everything that's wrong with religious charities, from the Miami Herald: Army chaplain offers baptisms, baths. The guy, Llano, has a big pool of water, and if you're a soldier and want a bath, which you can't get very easily in Iraq right now, you have to get baptized. Fair enough; if you're starving to death and the guy with the apples is a devout worshipper of Sol Invictus, you scream, "Long live the sun," and get an apple. You don't have to do much of anything for it, and you don't have to mean it. However, before your baptism/bath, you have to sit through an hour-and-a-half long sermon. Then, the baptism itself is an hour of Bible quotations. This is the main problem with government funding of religious charities. In principle, charities are charities, and they should all get money if they legally qualify as charities. The snag is that when the money comes from the government and the aid is accompanied by sermons and proselytizing, the First Amendment is effectively shat upon. If religious charities had a track record of being able to resist trying to convert transients before or while they're feeding them, they should be able to get government funds. They do not have this track record. I didn't really intend this post to be another tirade against the Bush admin's "faith-based" initiative, but it sort of turned out that way. Like so many of the Bush regime's policies, it's extraordinary because they have all but admitted that its stated purpose is a ruse. Bush clearly wants to give government money to religious charities as a way to fund anti-abortion rights groups. He said so to that bunch of priests, when the mic was turned on, but before the event had begun. (Remember that? A couple years ago?) Several people called him on it. He ignored them. And his position hasn't changed. One other thing: the chaplain from the article above, Llano, said this about his methods: ''You have to be aggressive to help people find themselves in God.'' What in the world does this mean? What's the story behind the concept of being or finding oneself "in" God or Jesus? Does it come from the Bible? What in the hell does it mean? What's the difference between being OF the Christian diety and being IN the Christian deity? Is it like being in a car? Or in a swimming pool? Or in trouble? And who cares? Chris, do you have any insight on this? I see that phrasing all the time, and I've even heard Christian-type people insist that there is a distinction being the OF and the IN, and that the latter is preferable. Perhaps your Southern Baptist background could provide more info than my Mormon one. I don't recall Mormons emphasizing the physical location of one's body in relation to the imaginary entity in question, but maybe I'm remembering incorrectly. (I'm really just trying to get all the banner ads on this site to point to Jesus-y stuff again. I love those things!)

This week's Tom the Dancing Bug is choice. As is last week's, a war time version of "Super-Fun-Pak Comix". The panel with Jasper the Friendly American laying down oil pipe floors me.

Here's an interesting article which breaks down the financial cost of the Iraq war and evaluates the proportion which different economic classes pay [Fortune]. "The President just asked Congress for $75 billion to cover the next six months..." That's the next six months. What have we spent already? The initial deployment of forces to Iraq, reported by the Congressional Budget Office in October, was up to $13 billion. There don't appear to be an actual tallies available yet for what has actually been spent. In February, estimates were around $50-100 billion for the initial war [BBC]. Ignoring costs of reconstruction, long-term occupation, and possible instability caused by paramilitaries from Iraq and other Arab countries, a very optimistic estimate places us at about $135 billion. For perspective on this figure, the total federal expenditure on public education for 1999-2000 was $382 billion [policy almanac].

It seems as though cable news networks exist solely to broadcast footage like that of the statue of Saddam Hussein being pulled to the ground. I am beginning to think that it simply isn't possible to get any real information from any of the majors. Fox News is useless, MSNBC is pedestrian, and CNN is CNN. Nancy Franklin wrote a great piece on this subject for The New Yorker last week, and it can be found here. For instance:

The cable news networks’ ratings have shot up many hundreds of points as a result of the war, and, even with the sand blowing in their eyes and the war not going as well as they and the White House had led us to believe it would, they weren’t about to let go of the adrenaline rush that they had helped fuel. ... None of them used the weather delay to do any in-depth stories on the history of Iraq or of other countries’ relations with Iraq, or to discuss the various factions in the country—the Kurds, the Shiite and Sunni Muslims. Instead, they began to hedge their bets on the war, focussing on “the mood of America” and on heartrending stories of service and sacrifice.

I have to admit that I'm much less interested in a human interest story about Joe Army leaving his wife and six kids behind on a dirt farm in Kentucky to go "fight for our freedoms" than I am about what's actually happening in the region in question. What about Syria? And Israel? And Iran? And who exactly was doing the beating of the Saddam statue? Which segment of Iraqi society was that? What about those who clearly oppose American military presence in the area? Only for so long can I watch stuff like that described by Franklin:

But, back here at home, it’s amateur hour too much of the time: when you hear a young CNN reporter ask the father of a P.O.W. to describe the soldier’s “relationship with his children”—who are two years old and five months old—and then ask him, “Is it, like, you’re going to be sitting by the phone?,” you are, like, glad that there are still people over fifty in the news business, who have some gravity and a grasp of grammar.

Like a damn cliche, I usually end up trolling the websites of the different respectable newspapers, like the NYTimes and the WashPost and picking up underreported tidbits from muckrakers like Matt Drudge. But then I also end up going to the BBC. Case in point, this little thing at the BBC News website. The reporter in Jordan tells about one man's reaction to the siege of Baghdad:

Another man told me it was the saddest news he'd ever heard, because it opened the door to British and American colonialism throughout the region. He said: "God protect us from what will come".

I start to wonder about the words the man actually spoke, and if he really does want god to protect him from what will come, ignoring god's ineptitude at preventing the situation in the first place. Or is it just a common cultural phrase, like if I were to exclaim, "Godammit!" When I use that phrase, I'm not literally calling upon the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity to personally "damn" something for me, whatever that means. Is the Arabic phrase in question of a similar tenor? Franklin also mentions that the NYTimes has been pretty good about displaying the horrors as well as the relative victories. I have to agree. If you haven't looked at some of the slide shows at nytimes.com, do so. There's some incredible stuff in there. I particularly liked the photo of a bunch of Basra residents who

...broke into a fearsome military intelligence prison where hundreds had languished in tiny cells and electrical wires still protruded from the walls, ready to be used for torture. [In the photo], they read pages of secret files blown out of buildings by bombs.

I don't have a link directly to the image, but go here and find the slide show entitled Prison Tours, Vengeance and Tea. I'll try to put a copy of it up here later.

Drunken elephants are still causing trouble in India. A few months ago I listed an article about crazed wild elephants who raid Indian villages looking for rice wine. Well they're still at it. The situation is so dangerous that pregnant women are climbing onto tree platforms to give birth so that they don't get trampled by drunken elephants.

The animals stray out of their shrinking habitat in the wild in search of food. A police officer in Dumka said: "Tribals who love rice beer brew the liquor at home. Elephants too are fond of this beer. "Often it is found that, attracted by the strong smell of the liquor, wild elephants tear down the tribal houses where the brew is stored." In eastern India last year, about 350 people were killed and hundreds were injured in elephant attacks.[link]

What is Iraq trying to accomplish? An Iraqi diplomat is claiming that "Iraq has now already achieved victory - apart from some technicalities." He further claims that the US was deployed to Iraq by Israel, and that Israel armed and trained US soldiers for the war in Iraq. [link] I suppose the paratroopers are actually moon-men sipping fizzy lifting drink who act on telepathic orders from Zionist brain-jars hidden deep within the Earth's core...

CNN, Reuters, MSNBC, et al have been pushing this story about chemical weapons potentially found in Iraq:

Major Michael Hamlet of the U.S. 101st Airborne Division told Reuters that initial investigations of 14 barrels found at a military training camp on Sunday revealed levels of nerve agents sarin and tabun and the blister agent lewisite. He said the find could be the "smoking gun" which proved U.S. and British charges that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein had been hiding banned weapons of mass destruction -- the central plank of their case for military action to overthrow him. [Reuters]

I'm having trouble reconciling this with a report from Yahoo News that the materials were confirmed to be pesticides:

A military intelligence officer for the US 101st Airborne Division's aviation brigade, Captain Adam Mastrianni, told AFP that comprehensive tests Monday determined the presence of the pesticide compounds. Initial tests had reportedly detected traces of sarin -- a powerful toxin that quickly affects the nervous system -- after US soldiers guarding the facility near Hindiyah, 100 kilometres (60 miles) south of Baghdad, became ill. Mastrianni said: "They thought it was a nerve agent. That's what it tested. But it is pesticide." He said a "theatre-level chemical testing team" made up of biologists and chemists had disproved the preliminary field tests results and established that pesticide was in fact the substance involved. Mastrianni added that the dozen sick soldiers, who had become nauseated, dizzy and developed skin blotches, had all recovered. The belated correction was an embarrassment for the US forces in the region, who had been quick to say that they thought they had finally found the proof they have been actively looking for, that Iraq (news - web sites) was hiding weapons of mass destruction. A spokesman for the US army's 3rd Infantry Division, Major Ross Coffman, had told journalists at Baghdad's airport that the site "could be a smoking gun". [Yahoo]

So are these not the same sites? Or are CNN and the gang just clinging to a sensationalized story before all the facts are in? "Chemicals Found" is the big bold headline on cnn.com right now. Even the military isn't sticking to that story at this point.