I should be working, rather than fiddling with this Journal Entry, but I had a few things I'd like to share with you, and it's faster to just post and then get back to it. Bit of news, a pair of Texttoons and the Quote.

Quote:
When, in 1910, like several of its sister republics, Mexico celebrated the centennial anniversary of its independence, the era of peace and progress inaugurated by Porfirio Diaz seemed likely to last indefinitely, for he was entering upon his eighth term as President. Brilliant as his career had been, however, and greatly as Mexico had prospered under his rigid rule, a sullen discontent had been brewing. The country that had had but one continuous President in twenty-six years was destined to have some fourteen chief magistrates in less than a quarter of that time, and to surpass all its previous records for rapidity in presidential succession, by having one executive who is said to have held office for precisely fifty-six minutes!

It has often been asserted that the reason for the downfall of Diaz and the lapse of Mexico into the unhappy conditions of a half century earlier was that he had grown too old to keep a firm grip on the situation. It has also been declared that his insistence upon reelection and upon the elevation of his own personal candidate to the vice presidency, as a successor in case of his retirement, occasioned his overthrow.

The truth of the matter is that these circumstances were only incidental to his downfall; the real causes of revolution lay deeprooted in the history of these twenty-six years. The most significant feature of the revolt was its civilian character. A widespread public opinion had been created; a national consciousness had been awakened which was intolerant of abuses and determined upon their removal at any cost; and this public opinion and national consciousness were products of general education, which had brought to the fore a number of intelligent men eager to participate in public affairs and yet barred out because of their unwillingness to support the existing regime.

Some one has remarked, and rightly, that Diaz in his zeal for the material advancement of Mexico, mistook the tangible wealth of the country for its welfare. Desirable and even necessary as that material progress was, it produced only a one-sided prosperity. Diaz was singularly deaf to the just complaints of the people of the laboring classes, who, as manufacturing and other industrial enterprises developed, were resolved to better their conditions. In the country at large the discontent was still stronger. Throughout many of the rural districts general advancement had been retarded because of the holding of huge areas of fertile land by a comparatively few rich families, who did little to improve it and were content with small returns from the labor of throngs of unskilled native cultivators.

Wretchedly paid and housed, and toiling long hours, the workers lived like the serfs of medieval days or as their own ancestors did in colonial times. Ignorant, poverty-stricken, liable at any moment to be dispossessed of the tiny patch of ground on which they raised a few hills of corn or beans, most of them were naturally a simple, peaceful folk who, in spite of their misfortunes, might have gone on indefinitely with their drudgery in a hopeless apathetic fashion, unless their latent savage instincts happened to be aroused by drink and the prospect of plunder. On the other hand, the intelligent among them, knowing that in some of the northern States of the republic wages were higher and treatment fairer, felt a sense of wrong which, like that of the laboring class in the towns, was all the more dangerous because it was not allowed to find expression.

Diaz thought that what Mexico required above everything else was the development of industrial efficiency and financial strength, assured by a maintenance of absolute order. Though disposed to do justice in individual cases, he would tolerate no class movements of any kind. Labor unions, strikes, and other efforts at lightening the burden of the workers he regarded as seditious and deserving of severe punishment. In order to attract capital from abroad as the best means of exploiting the vast resources of the country, he was willing to go to any length, it would seem, in guaranteeing protection. Small wonder, therefore, that the people who shared in none of the immediate advantages from that source should have muttered that Mexico was the "mother of foreigners and the stepmother of Mexicans." And, since so much of the capital came from the United States, the antiforeign sentiment singled Americans out for its particular dislike.

If Diaz appeared unable to appreciate the significance of the educational and industrial awakening, he was no less oblivious of the political outcome. He knew, of course, that the Mexican constitution made impossible demands upon the political capacity of the people. He was himself mainly of Indian blood and he believed that he understood the temperament and limitations of most Mexicans. Knowing how tenaciously they clung to political notions, he believed that it was safer and wiser to forego, at least for a time, real popular government and to concentrate power in the hands of a strong man who could maintain order.

Accordingly, backed by his political adherents, known as cientificos (doctrinaires), some of whom had acquired a sinister ascendancy over him, and also by the Church, the landed proprietors, and the foreign capitalists, Diaz centered the entire administration more and more in himself. Elections became mere farces. Not only the federal officials themselves but the state governors, the members of the state legislatures, and all others in authority during the later years of his rule owed their selection primarily to him and held their positions only if personally loyal to him. Confident of his support and certain that protests against misgovernment would be regarded by the President as seditious, many of them abused their power at will. Notable among them were the local officials, called jefes politicos, whose control of the police force enabled them to indulge in practices of intimidation and extortion which ultimately became unendurable.

Though symptoms of popular wrath against the Diaz regime, or diazpotism as the Mexicans termed it, were apparent as early as 1908, it was not until January, 1911, that the actual revolution came. It was headed by Francisco I. Madero, a member of a wealthy and distinguished family of landed proprietors in one of the northern States. What the revolutionists demanded in substance was the retirement of the President, Vice President, and Cabinet; a return to the principle of no reelection to the chief magistracy; a guarantee of fair elections at all times; the choice of capable, honest, and impartial judges, jefes politicos, and other officials; and, in particular, a series of agrarian and industrial reforms which would break up the great estates, create peasant proprietorships, and better the conditions of the working classes. Disposed at first to treat the insurrection lightly, Diaz soon found that he had underestimated its strength. Grants of some of the demands and promises of reform were met with a dogged insistence upon his own resignation. Then, as the rebellion spread to the southward, the masterful old man realized that his thirty-one years of rule were at an end. On the 25th of May, therefore, he gave up his power and sailed for Europe.

Madero was chosen President five months later, but the revolution soon passed beyond his control. He was a sincere idealist, if not something of a visionary, actuated by humane and kindly sentiments, but he lacked resoluteness and the art of managing men. He was too prolific, also, of promises which he must have known he could not keep. Yielding to family influence, he let his followers get out of hand. Ambitious chieftains and groups of Radicals blocked and thwarted him at every turn. When he could find no means of carrying out his program without wholesale confiscation and the disruption of business interests, he was accused of abandoning his duty. One officer after another deserted him and turned rebel. Brigandage and insurrection swept over the country and threatened to involve it in ugly complications with the United States and European powers. At length, in February, 1913, came the blow that put an end to all of Madero's efforts and aspirations. A military uprising in the city of Mexico made him prisoner, forced him to resign, and set up a provisional government under the dictatorship of Victoriano Huerta, one of his chief lieutenants. Two weeks later both Madero and the Vice President were assassinated while on their way supposedly to a place of safety.

Huerta was a rough soldier of Indian origin, possessed of unusual force of character and strength of will, ruthless, cunning, and in bearing alternately dignified and vulgar. A cientifico in political faith, he was disposed to restore the Diaz regime, so far as an application of shrewdness and force could make it possible. But from the outset he found an obstacle confronting him that he could not surmount. Though acknowledged by European countries and by many of the Hispanic republics, he could not win recognition from the United States, either as provisional President or as a candidate for regular election to the office. Whether personally responsible for the murder of Madero or not, he was not regarded by the American Government as entitled to recognition, on the ground that he was not the choice of the Mexican people. In its refusal to recognize an administration set up merely by brute force, the United States was upheld by Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Cuba. The elimination of Huerta became the chief feature for a while of its Mexican policy.

Meanwhile the followers of Madero and the pronounced Radicals had found a new northern leader in the person of Venustiano Carranza. They called themselves Constitutionalists, as indicative of their purpose to reestablish the constitution and to choose a successor to Madero in a constitutional manner. What they really desired was those radical changes along social, industrial, and political lines, which Madero had championed in theory. They sought to introduce a species of socialistic regime that would provide the Mexicans with an opportunity for self-regeneration. While Diaz had believed in economic progress supported by the great landed proprietors, the moral influence of the Church, and the application of foreign capital, the Constitutionalists, personified in Carranza, were convinced that these agencies, if left free and undisturbed to work their will, would ruin Mexico. Though not exactly antiforeign in their attitude, they wished to curb the power of the foreigner; they would accept his aid whenever desirable for the economic development of the country, but they would not submit to his virtual control of public affairs. In any case they would tolerate no interference by the United States. Compromise with the Huerta regime, therefore, was impossible. Huerta, the "strong man" of the Diaz type, must go. On this point, at least, the Constitutionalists were in thorough agreement with the United States.

A variety of international complications ensued. Both Huertistas and Carranzistas perpetrated outrages on foreigners, which evoked sharp protests and threats from the United States and European powers. While careful not to recognize his opponents officially, the American Government resorted to all kinds of means to oust the dictator. An embargo was laid on the export of arms and munitions; all efforts to procure financial help from abroad were balked. The power of Huerta was waning perceptibly and that of the Constitutionalists was increasing when an incident that occurred in April, 1914, at Tampico brought matters to a climax. A number of American sailors who had gone ashore to obtain supplies were arrested and temporarily detained. The United States demanded that the American flag be saluted as reparation for the insult. Upon the refusal of Huerta to comply, the United States sent a naval expedition to occupy Vera Cruz.

Both Carranza and Huerta regarded this move as equivalent to an act of war. Argentina, Brazil, and Chile then offered their mediation. But the conference arranged for this purpose at Niagara Falls, Canada, had before it a task altogether impossible of accomplishment. Though Carranza was willing to have the Constitutionalists represented, if the discussion related solely to the immediate issue between the United States and Huerta, he declined to extend the scope of the conference so as to admit the right of the United States to interfere in the internal affairs of Mexico. The conference accomplished nothing so far as the immediate issue was concerned. The dictator did not make reparation for the "affronts and indignities" he had committed; but his day was over. The advance of the Constitutionalists southward compelled him in July to abandon the capital and leave the country. Four months later the American forces were withdrawn from Vera Cruz. The "A B C" Conference, however barren it was of direct results, helped to allay suspicions of the United States in Hispanic America and brought appreciably nearer a "concert of the western world."

While far from exercising full control throughout Mexico, the "first chief" of the Constitutionalists was easily the dominant figure in the situation. At home a ranchman, in public affairs a statesman of considerable ability, knowing how to insist and yet how to temporize, Carranza carried on a struggle, both in arms and in diplomacy, which singled him out as a remarkable character. Shrewdly aware of the advantageous circumstances afforded him by the war in Europe, he turned them to account with a degree of skill that blocked every attempt at defeat or compromise. No matter how serious the opposition to him in Mexico itself, how menacing the attitude of the United States, or how persuasive the conciliatory disposition of Hispanic American nations, he clung stubbornly and tenaciously to his program.

Even after Huerta had been eliminated, Carranza's position was not assured, for Francisco, or "Pancho," Villa, a chieftain whose personal qualities resembled those of the fallen dictator, was equally determined to eliminate him. For a brief moment, indeed, peace reigned. Under an alleged agreement between them, a convention of Constitutionalist officers was to choose a provisional President, who should be ineligible as a candidate for the permanent presidency at the regular elections. When Carranza assumed both of these positions, Villa declared his act a violation of their understanding and insisted upon his retirement. Inasmuch as the convention was dominated by Villa, the "first chief" decided to ignore its election of a provisional President.

The struggle between the Conventionalists headed by Villa and the Constitutionalists under Carranza plunged Mexico into worse discord and misery than ever. Indeed it became a sort of three-cornered contest. The third party was Emiliano Zapata, an Indian bandit, nominally a supporter of Villa but actually favorable to neither of the rivals. Operating near the capital, he plundered Conventionalists and Constitutionalists with equal impartiality, and as a diversion occasionally occupied the city itself. These circumstances gave force to the saying that Mexico was a "land where peace breaks out once in a while!"

Early in 1915 Carranza proceeded to issue a number of radical decrees that exasperated foreigners almost beyond endurance. Rather than resort to extreme measures again, however, the United States invoked the cooperation of the Hispanic republics and proposed a conference to devise some solution of the Mexican problem. To give the proposed conference a wider representation, it invited not only the "A B C" powers, but Bolivia, Uruguay, and Guatemala to participate. Meeting at Washington in August, the mediators encountered the same difficulty which had confronted their predecessors at Niagara Falls. Though the other chieftains assented, Carranza, now certain of success, declined to heed any proposal of conciliation. Characterizing efforts of the kind as an unwarranted interference in the internal affairs of a sister nation, he warned the Hispanic republics against setting up so dangerous a precedent. In reply Argentina stated that the conference obeyed a "lofty inspiration of Pan-American solidarity, and, instead of finding any cause for alarm, the Mexican people should see in it a proof of their friendly consideration that her fate evokes in us, and calls forth our good wishes for her pacification and development." However, as the only apparent escape from more watchful waiting or from armed intervention on the part of the United States, in October the seven Governments decided to accept the facts as they stood, and accordingly recognized Carranza as the de facto ruler of Mexico.

Enraged at this favor shown to his rival, Villa determined deliberately to provoke American intervention by a murderous raid on a town in New Mexico in March, 1916. When the United States dispatched an expedition to avenge the outrage, Carranza protested energetically against its violation of Mexican territory and demanded its withdrawal. Several clashes, in fact, occurred between American soldiers and Carranzistas. Neither the expedition itself, however, nor diplomatic efforts to find some method of cooperation which would prevent constant trouble along the frontier served any useful purpose, since Villa apparently could not be captured and Carranza refused to yield to diplomatic persuasion. Carranza then proposed that a joint commission be appointed to settle these vexed questions. Even this device proved wholly unsatisfactory. The Mexicans would not concede the right of the United States to send an armed expedition into their country at any time, and the Americans refused to accept limitations on the kind of troops that they might employ or on the zone of their operations. In January, 1917, the joint commission was dissolved and the American soldiers were withdrawn. Again the "first chief" had won!

On the 5th of February a convention assembled at Queretaro promulgated a constitution embodying substantially all of the radical program that Carranza had anticipated in his decrees. Besides providing for an elaborate improvement in the condition of the laboring classes and for such a division of great estates as might satisfy their particular needs, the new constitution imposed drastic restrictions upon foreigners and religious bodies. Under its terms, foreigners could not acquire industrial concessions unless they waived their treaty rights and consented to regard themselves for the purpose as Mexican citizens. In all such cases preference was to be shown Mexicans over foreigners. Ecclesiastical corporations were forbidden to own real property. No primary school and no charitable institution could be conducted by any religious mission or denomination, and religious publications must refrain from commenting on public affairs. The presidential term was reduced from six years to four; reelection was prohibited; and the office of Vice President was abolished.

When, on the 1st of May, Venustiano Carranza was chosen President, Mexico had its first constitutional executive in four years. After a cruel and obstinately intolerant struggle that had occasioned indescribable suffering from disease and starvation, as well as the usual slaughter and destruction incident to war, the country began to enjoy once more a measure of peace. Financial exhaustion, however, had to be overcome before recuperation was possible. Industrial progress had become almost paralyzed; vast quantities of depreciated paper money had to be withdrawn from circulation; and an enormous array of claims for the loss of foreign life and property had rolled up.
--W. R. Shepherd

I might post Willy's views on another nation, which jumped out at me as I dug into it for that bit. And is/would-be rather timely. Until then.

sewN:
Dirty Persian Spy stopped from videoing Key Nuclear Facility. No gameboys were involved. [runner up, See FANDP below]

Tom Toles dissected. [...]we'll suggest that you savor an irony here; we'll suggest that you savor the way the DC elite has slunk away from its greatest narrative about Gore and the truth. For the past seven years, they pushed a great theme: "Al Gore has a problem with the truth!" They said it over and over and over--and they kept inventing "lies" by Gore to convince you that their story was accurate. Interesting entry, but I would suggest Gore's problems are manifold. The Wife and his 'views' on social issues are far greater impediments. Moreover, his emphasis on those issues, to attract/pull the middle out of the electorate, often sickens any core he has collected in the past. His efforts in this most recent push on ClimateChange is a far better use of his time. Tom, on the other hand, is doing well. I don't think he's shown up in any of my Stupid Political Cartoons segments yet.

New Mexico election fiasco continues. The decision was a victory for all those involved in the effort to recount the 2004 New Mexico presidential election results. Analysis of the certified results revealed troubling anomalies including 2,087 phantom votes and an alarmingly high undervote rate (2.78% statewide, 21,084 in all), particularly from polling places using Sequoia Advantage and Shouptronic 1242 direct record electronic (DRE) voting machines. Shortly after the state certified the results of the November 2004 election, presidential candidates from the Green Party (David Cobb) and Libertarian Party (Michael Badnarik) requested a recount. The candidates had submitted a deposit of $114,400 and argued that was the proper amount for a recount based on a formula in state election law. Help America Recount coordinated the recruitment and training of hundreds of citizen observers. But the state canvassing board, which consisted of Governor Bill Richardson, Secretary of State Rebecca Vigil-Giron, and Supreme Court Chief Justice Petra Maes decided in mid-December 2004 that the candidates could have a recount only if they paid a security deposit of $1.4 million, which was an estimate of the full cost of a statewide recount.

Filters fail-it again. Emails objecting to a house extension failed to reach a council planning department because their computer system blocked the word "erection". Commercial lawyer Ray Kennedy, from Middleton, Greater Manchester, claims he sent three emails to Rochdale council complaining about his neighbour's plans. But the first two messages, which contained the word "erection", failed to reach the planning department because the software on the town hall's computer system deemed them offensive. When his third email, containing the same word, somehow squeezed through it was too late. A planning officer told Mr Kennedy that his next-door neighbour's proposals had already been given the go ahead. The software used by Rochdale council is designed to filter out any obscene material and thought the word "erection" - used by Mr Kennedy in the context of building an extension - was a sexual term. Now the lawyer, who lives on Sunny Brow Road, is considering complaining to the local government ombudsman over the blunder. A spokesman for Rochdale council said: "The software that protects the council's email system from spam and other offensive material is not designed by the council and we do not control which words are blocked.

In other penile news -- A French Letter laundered. Jean-Louis Gergorin, a former vice-president of the defence firm EADS, is being questioned near Paris. He has admitted writing an anonymous letter to a judge which implicated Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy in an alleged money-laundering scheme.

Simon's been nipping at the rat-cheese, again. Take the scene in front of the west face of the Abbey when the crazed French detective Fache arrests Ian McKellen, playing the crazed Sir Leigh Teabing, or Sir Teabag, as I think of him, and as hammy here as a Boxing Day lunch - anyhow the crazed detective (are you still with me?) leaves Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou entirely alone, even though they have just spent 12 hours or so escaping from the whole Paris and London police forces. They then go, unmolested, to the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland, where Hanks turns to Tautou and makes his dramatic declaration (I will not spoil the plot for anyone - is there anyone left who does not know the plot?). I was ashamed of our fellow cinemagoers' silence, since the only possible response to that is a loud guffaw and a cry of "so get your kit off!" Miss Tautou, whose performance is either wonderfully understated, or dead as a boiled lobster, looks mildly discommoded, as if the Estee Lauder counter had run out of eye-liner.

Capital of the Forgotten land now forgotten[suppressed, surly?!?] once again. No sign of the Mayor. Must be an oil meeting somewhere ...else.

Kimberly Dozier gets todays Free and Not Dead Press entry.

*YAITJ: Manual Mode

Texttoon:
Fumetti-LoBandwidth : A giant composited, and close-cropped, GWB head [Zardoz style, slack jaw source pic] chasing a stampede of bald men down a NYC street ['glass-canyon']. The bald men are all yelling, "Run For Your Poopers!", in common stemmed and single echo-ing bubbles. Optional: assorted doll-sized iconic common-people being crushed unheeded under the feet of the running bald men.

Fumetti-HiBandwidth : A Flash animation of George W Bush on a curtained stage. Kneeling, and facing the viewer, a row of his bald headed political appointees [and a Jimmy-Jeff too]. When the mouse is hovered on any baldman --George rubs their head, in a circular motion, while they pucker up and make a glassy 'wooooo'-ing sound. Clicking on George has no effect, nor does a click on any of his bald minions. Exit, Taskswitch and Quit are all disabled.

Just a quick posting with a chunk of a rather interesting find, from the PGut recent list, on the Boer War. I had only glanced thru a copy, briefly, some years ago, and it is by an author who is more known for fiction than historical tomes. So, like so many excellent secondary works, it rarely appears in shops or libraries. [pimp]Yet another example of where PGut is so important, and why it deserves your support[/pimp].

To continue, it has several passages that would have fit into my sequence 'War in the Shell'. But, its tardiness is of no matter, as this part is well suited to highlighting some of the current themes in our world today. Some news, a texttoon, etc. Here's the big-H with his rap now[...]

Quote:
It must not, however, be understood that the Annexation was a foregone conclusion, or that Sir T. Shepstone came up to the Transvaal with the fixed intention of annexing the country without reference to its position, merely with a view of extending British influence, or, as has been absurdly stated, in order to benefit Natal.

He had no fixed purpose, whether it were necessary or no, of exercising the full powers given to him by his commission; on the contrary, he was all along most anxious to find some internal resources within the State by means of which Annexation could be averted, and of this fact his various letters and despatches give full proof. Thus, in his letter to President Burgers, of the 9th April 1877, in which he announces his intention of annexing the country, he says: "I have more than once assured your Honour that if I could think of any plan by which the independence of the State could be maintained by its own internal resources I would most certainly not conceal that plan from you."

It is also incidentally remarkably confirmed by a passage in Mr. Burgers' posthumous defence, in which he says: "Hence I met Shepstone alone in my house, and opened up the subject of his mission. With a candour that astonished me, he avowed that his purpose was to annex the country, as he had sufficient grounds for it, unless I could so alter as to satisfy his Government. My plan of a new constitution, modelled after that of America, of a standing police force of two hundred mounted men, was then proposed. He promised to give me time to call the Volksraad together, and to _abandon his design_ if the Volksraad would adopt these measures, and the country be willing to submit to them, and to carry them out." Further on he says: "In justice to Shepstone I must say that I would not consider an officer of my Government to have acted faithfully if he had not done what Shepstone did."

It has also been frequently alleged in England, and always seems to be taken as the groundwork of argument in the matter of the Annexation, that the Special Commissioner represented that the majority of the inhabitants wished for the Annexation, and that it was sanctioned on that ground. This statement shows the great ignorance that exists in this country of South African affairs, an ignorance which in this case has been carefully fostered by Mr. Gladstone's Government for party purposes, they having found it necessary to assume, in order to make their position in the matter tenable, that Sir T. Shepstone and other Officials had been guilty of misrepresentation.

Unfortunately, the Government and its supporters have been more intent upon making out their case than upon ascertaining the truth of their statements. If they had taken the trouble to refer to Sir T. Shepstone's despatches, they would have found that the ground on which the Transvaal was annexed was, not because the majority of the inhabitants wished for it, but because the State was drifting into anarchy, was bankrupt, and was about to be destroyed by native tribes. They would further have found that Sir T. Shepstone never represented that the majority of the Boers were in favour of Annexation. What he did say was that most thinking men in the country saw no other way out of the difficulty; but what proportion of the Boers can be called "thinking men?"

He also said, in the fifteenth paragraph of his despatch to Lord Carnarvon of 6th March 1877, that petitions signed by 2500 people, representing every class of the community, out of a total adult population of 8000, had been presented to the Government of the Republic, setting forth its difficulties and dangers, and praying it "to treat with me for their amelioration or removal." He also stated, and with perfect truth, that many more would have signed had it not been for the terrorism that was exercised, and that all the towns and villages in the country desired the change, which was a patent fact.

This is the foundation on which the charge of misrepresentation is built--a charge which has been manipulated so skilfully, and with such a charming disregard for the truth, that the British public has been duped into believing it. When it is examined into, it vanishes into thin air.

But a darker charge has been brought against the Special Commissioner--a charge affecting his honour as a gentleman and his character as a Christian; and, strange to say, has gained a considerable credence, especially amongst a certain party in England. I allude to the statement that he called up the Zulu army with the intention of sweeping the Transvaal if the Annexation was objected to. I may state, from my own personal knowledge, that the report is a complete falsehood, and that no such threat was ever made, either by Sir T. Shepstone or by anybody connected with him, and I will briefly prove what I say.

When the mission first arrived at Pretoria, a message came from Cetywayo to the effect that he had heard that the Boers had fired at "Sompseu" (Sir T. Shepstone), and announcing his intention of attacking the Transvaal if "his father" was touched. About the middle of March alarming rumours began to spread as to the intended action of Cetywayo with reference to the Transvaal; but as Sir T. Shepstone did not think that the king would be likely to make any hostile movement whilst he was in the country, he took no steps in the matter. Neither did the Transvaal Government ask his advice and assistance. Indeed, a remarkable trait in the Boers is their supreme self-conceit, which makes them believe that they are capable of subduing all the natives in Africa, and of thrashing the whole British army if necessary. Unfortunately, the recent course of events has tended to confirm them in their opinion as regards their white enemies.

To return: towards the second week in April, or the week before the proclamation of annexation was issued, things began to look very serious; indeed, rumours that could hardly be discredited reached the Special Commissioner that the whole of the Zulu army was collected in a chain of Impis or battalions, with the intention of bursting into the Transvaal and sweeping the country. Knowing how terrible would be the catastrophe if this were to happen, Sir T. Shepstone was much alarmed about the matter, and at a meeting with the Executive Council of the Transvaal Government he pointed out to them the great danger in which the country was placed.

This was done in the presence of several officers of his Staff, and it was on this friendly exposition of the state of affairs that the charge that he had threatened the country with invasion by the Zulus was based. On the 11th of April, or the day before the Annexation, a message was despatched to Cetywayo, telling him of the reports that had reached Pretoria, and stating that if they were true he must forthwith give up all such intentions, as the Transvaal would at once be placed under the sovereignty of Her Majesty, and that if he had assembled any armies for purposes of aggression they must be disbanded at once. Sir T. Shepstone's message reached Zululand not a day too soon. Had the Annexation of the Transvaal been delayed by a few weeks even--and this is a point which I earnestly beg Englishmen to remember in connection with that act--Cetywayo's armies would have entered the Transvaal, carrying death before them, and leaving a wilderness behind them.

Cetywayo's answer to the Special Commissioner's message will sufficiently show, to use Sir Theophilus' own words in his despatch on the subject, "the pinnacle of peril which the Republic and South Africa generally had reached at the moment when the Annexation took place." He says, "I thank my Father Sompseu (Sir T. Shepstone) for his message. I am glad that he has sent it, because the Dutch have tired me out, and I intended to fight them once and once only, and to drive them over the Vaal. Kabana (name of messenger), you see my Impis (armies) are gathered. It was to fight the Dutch I called them together; now I will send them back to their homes. Is it well that two men ('amadoda-amabili') should be made 'iziula' (fools)? In the reign of my father Umpanda the Boers were constantly moving their boundary further into my country. Since his death the same thing has been done. I had therefore determined to end it once for all!" The message then goes on to other matters, and ends with a request to be allowed to fight the Amaswazi, because "they fight together and kill one another. This," says Cetywayo naively, "is wrong, and I want to chastise them for it."

This quotation will suffice to convince all reasonable men, putting aside all other matters, from what imminent danger the Transvaal was delivered by the much-abused Annexation.

Some months after that event, however, it occurred to the ingenious mind of some malicious individual in Natal that, properly used, much political capital might be made out of this Zulu incident, and the story that Cetywayo's army had been called up by Sir Theophilus himself to overawe, and, if necessary, subdue the Transvaal, was accordingly invented and industriously circulated. Although Sir T. Shepstone at once caused it to be authoritatively contradicted, such an astonishing slander naturally took firm root, and on the 12th April 1879 we have Mr. M. W. Pretorius, one of the Boer leaders, publicly stating at a meeting of the farmers that "previous to the Annexation Sir T. Shepstone had threatened the Transvaal with an attack from the Zulus as an argument for advancing the Annexation." Under such an imputation the Government could no longer keep silence, and accordingly Sir Owen Lanyon, who was then Administrator of the Transvaal, caused the matter to be officially investigated, with these results, which are summed up by him in a letter to Mr. Pretorius, dated 1st May 1879:--

1. The records of the Republican Executive Council contained no allusion to any such statement.

2. Two members of that Council filed statements in which they unreservedly denied that Sir T. Shepstone used the words or threats imputed to him.

3. Two officers of Sir T. Shepstone's staff, who were always present with him at interviews with the Executive Council, filed statements to the same effect.

"I have no doubt," adds Sir Owen Lanyon, "that the report has been originated and circulated by some evil-disposed persons."

In addition to this evidence we have a letter written to the Colonial Office by Sir T. Shepstone, dated London, August 12, 1879, in which he points out that Mr. Pretorius was not even present at any of the interviews with the Executive Council on which occasion he accuses him of having made use of the threats. He further shows that the use of such a threat on his part would have been the depth of folly, and "knowingly to court the instant and ignominious failure of my mission," because the Boers were so persuaded of their own prowess that they could not be convinced that they stood in any danger from native sources, and also because "such play with such keen-edged tools as the excited passions of savages are, and especially such savages as I knew the Zulus to be, is not what an experience of forty-two years in managing them inclined me to." And yet, in the face of all this accumulated evidence, this report continues to be believed, that is, by those who wished to believe it.

Such are the accusations that have been brought against the manner of the Annexation and the Officer who carried it out, and never were accusations more groundless. Indeed both for party purposes, and from personal animus, every means, fair or foul, has been used to discredit it and all connected with it. To take a single instance, one author (Miss Colenso, p. 134, "History of the Zulu War") actually goes the length of putting a portion of a speech made by President Burgers into the mouth of Sir T. Shepstone, and then abusing him for his incredible profanity. Surely this exceeds the limits of fair criticism.

Before I go on to the actual history of the Annexation there is one point I wish to submit to my reader. In England the change of Government has always been talked of as though it only affected the forty thousand white inhabitants of the country, whilst everybody seems to forget that this same land had about a million human beings living on it, its original owners, and only, unfortunately for themselves, possessing a black skin, and therefore entitled to little consideration,--even at the hands of the most philanthropic Government in the world.

It never seems to have occurred to those who have raised so much outcry on behalf of the forty thousand Boers, to inquire what was thought of the matter by the million natives. If they were to be allowed a voice in their own disposal, the country was certainly annexed by the wish of a very large majority of its inhabitants. It is true that Secocoeni, instigated thereto by the Boers, afterwards continued the war against us, but, with the exception of this one chief, the advent of our rule was hailed with joy by every native in the Transvaal, and even he was glad of it at the time.

During our period of rule in the Transvaal the natives have had, as they foresaw, more peace than at any time since the white man set foot in the land. They have paid their taxes gladly, and there has been no fighting among themselves; but since we have given up the country we hear a very different tale. It is this million of men, women, and children who, notwithstanding their black skins, live and feel, and have intelligence as much as ourselves, who are the principal, because the most numerous sufferers from Mr. Gladstone's conjuring tricks, that can turn a Sovereign into a Suzerain as airily as the professor of magic brings a litter of guinea-pigs out of a top hat. It is our falsehood and treachery to them whom we took over "for ever," as we told them, and whom we have now handed back to their natural enemies to be paid off for their loyalty to the Englishman, that is the blackest stain in all this black business, and that has destroyed our prestige, and caused us to be looked on amongst them, for they do not hide their opinion, as "cowards and liars."

But very little attention, however, seems to have been paid to native views or claims at any time in the Transvaal; indeed they have all along been treated as serfs of the soil, to be sold with it, if necessary, to a new master. It is true that the Government, acting under pressure from the Aborigines Protection Society, made, on the occasion of the Surrender, a feeble effort to secure the independence of some of the native tribes; but when the Boer leaders told them shortly that they would have nothing of the sort, and that, if they were not careful, they would reoccupy Laing's Nek, the proposal was at once dropped, with many assurances that no offence was intended. The worst of the matter is that this treatment of our native subjects and allies will assuredly recoil on the heads of future innocent Governments.

Shortly after the appointment of the Joint-Commission alluded to at the beginning of this chapter, President Burgers, who was now in possession of the Special Commissioner's intentions, should he be unable to carry out reforms sufficiently drastic to satisfy the English Government, thought it best to call together the Volksraad. In the meantime, it had been announced that the "rebel" Secocoeni had sued for peace and signed a treaty declaring himself a subject of the Republic. I shall have to enter into the question of this treaty a little further on, so I will at present only say that it was the first business laid before the Raad, and, after some discussion, ratified. Next in order to the Secocoeni peace came the question of Confederation, as laid down in Lord Carnarvon's Permissive Bill.

This proposal was laid before them in an earnest and eloquent speech by their President, who entreated them to consider the dangerous position of the Republic, and to face their difficulties like men. The question was referred to a committee, and an adverse report being brought up, was rejected without further consideration. It is just possible that intimidation had something to do with the summary treatment of so important a matter, seeing that whilst it was being argued a large mob of Boers, looking very formidable with their sea-cow hide whips, watched every move of their representatives through the windows of the Volksraad Hall. It was Mr. Chamberlain's caucus system in practical and visible operation.

A few days after the rejection of the Confederation Bill, President Burgers, who had frequently alluded to the desperate condition of the Republic, and stated that either some radical reform must be effected or the country must come under the British flag, laid before the Raad a brand new constitution of a very remarkable nature, asserting that they must either accept it or lose their independence.

The first part of this strange document dealt with the people and their rights, which remained much as they were before, with the exception that the secrecy of all letters entrusted to the post was to be inviolable. The recognition of this right is an amusing incident in the history of a free Republic. Under following articles the Volksraad was entrusted with the charge of the native inhabitants of the State, the provision for the administration of justice, the conduct of education, the regulation of money-bills, &c.

It is in the fourth chapter, however, that we come to the real gist of the Bill, which was the endowment of the State President with the authority of a dictator. Mr. Burgers thought to save the State by making himself an absolute monarch. He was to be elected for a period of seven years instead of five years, and to be eligible for re-election. In him was vested the power of making all appointments without reference to the legislature. All laws were to be drawn up by him, and he was to have the right of veto on Volksraad resolutions, which body he could summon and dissolve at will. Finally, his Executive Council was to consist of heads of departments appointed by himself, and of one member of the Volksraad.

The Volksraad treated this Bill in much the same way as they had dealt with the Permissive Confederation Bill, gave it a casual consideration, and threw it out.

The President, meanwhile, was doing his best to convince the Raad of the danger of the country; that the treasury was empty, whilst duns were pressing, that enemies were threatening on every side, and, finally, that Her Majesty's Special Commissioner was encamped within a thousand yards of them, watching their deliberations with some interest.

He showed them that it was impossible at once to scorn reform and reject friendly offers, that it was doubtful if anything could save them, but that if they took no steps they were certainly lost as a nation. The "Fathers of the land," however, declined to dance to the President's piping. Then he took a bolder line. He told them that a guilty nation never can evade the judgment that follows its steps. He asked them "conscientiously to advise the people not obstinately to refuse a union with a powerful Government. He could not advise them to refuse such a union. . . . He did not believe that a new constitution would save them; for as little as the old constitution had brought them to ruin, so little would a new constitution bring salvation. . . . If the citizens of England had behaved towards the Crown as the burghers of this State had behaved to their Government, England would never have stood so long as she had." He pointed out to them their hopeless financial position. "To-day," he said, "a bill for 1100 pounds was laid before me for signature; but I would sooner have cut off my right hand than sign that paper--(cheers)--for I have not the slightest ground to expect that, when that bill becomes due, there will be a penny to pay it with."

And finally, he exhorted them thus: "Let them make the best of the situation, and get the best terms they possibly could; let them agree to join their hands to those of their brethren in the south, and then from the Cape to the Zambesi there would be one great people. Yes, there was something grand in that, grander even than their idea of a Republic, something which ministered to their national feeling--(cheers)--and would this be so miserable? Yes, this would be miserable for those who would not be under the law, for the rebel and the revolutionist, but welfare and prosperity for the men of law and order."

These powerful words form a strong indictment against the Republic, and from them there can be little doubt that President Burgers was thoroughly convinced of the necessity and wisdom of the Annexation. It is interesting to compare them, and many other utterances of his made at this period, with the opinions he expresses in the posthumous document recently published, in which he speaks somewhat jubilantly of the lessons taught us on Laing's Nek and Majuba by such "an inherently weak people as the Boers," and points to them as striking instances of retribution.

In this document he attributes the Annexation to the desire to advance English supremacy in South Africa, and to lay hold of the way to Central South Africa. It is, however, noticeable that he does not in any way indicate how it could have been averted, and the State continue to exist; and he seems all along to feel that his case is a weak one, for in explaining, or attempting to explain, why he had never defended himself from the charges brought against him in connection with the Annexation, he says: "Had I not endured in silence, had I not borne patiently all the accusations, but out of selfishness or fear told the plain truth of the case, the Transvaal would never have had the consideration it has now received from Great Britain.

However unjust the Annexation was, my self-justification would have exposed the Boers to such an extent, and the state of the country in such a way, that it would have deprived them both of the sympathy of the world and the consideration of the English politicians." In other words, "If I had told the truth about things as I should have been obliged to do to justify myself, there would have been no more outcry about the Annexation, because the whole world, even the English Radicals, would have recognised how necessary it was, and what a fearful state the country was in."

But to let that pass, it is evident that President Burgers did not take the same view of the Annexation in 1877 as he did in 1881, and indeed his speeches to the Volksraad would read rather oddly printed in parallel columns with his posthumous statement. The reader would be forced to one of two conclusions, either on one of the two occasions he is saying what he does not mean, or he must have changed his mind. As I believe him to have been an honest man, I incline to the latter supposition; nor do I consider it so very hard to account for, taking into consideration his natural Dutch proclivities.

In 1877 Burgers is the despairing head of a State driving rapidly to ruin, if not to actual extinction, when the strong hand of the English Government is held out to him. What wonder that he accepts it gladly on behalf of his country, which is by its help brought into a state of greater prosperity than it has ever before known? In 1881 the wheel has gone round, and great events have come about whilst he lies dying. The enemies of the Boers have been destroyed, the powers of the Zulus and Secocoeni are no more; the country has prospered under a healthy rule, and its finances have been restored. More,--glad tidings have come from Mid-Lothian, to the "rebel and the revolutionist," whose hopes were flagging, and eloquent words have been spoken by the new English Dictator that have aroused a great rebellion.

And, to crown all, English troops have suffered one massacre and three defeats, and England sues for peace from the South African peasant, heedless of honour or her broken word, so that the prayer be granted. With such events before him, that dying man may well have found cause to change his opinion. Doubtless the Annexation was wrong, since England disowns her acts; and may not that dream about the great South African Republic come true after all?

Has not the pre-eminence of the Englishman received a blow from which it can never recover, and is not his control over Boers and natives irredeemably weakened? And must he,--Burgers,--go down to posterity as a Dutchman who tried to forward the interests of the English party?

No, doubtless the Annexation was wrong; but it has done good, for it has brought about the downfall of the English: and we will end the argument in the very words of his last public utterance, with which he ends his statement: "South Africa gained more from this, and has made a larger step forward in the march of freedom than most people can conceive."

Who shall say that he is wrong? the words of dying men are sometimes prophetic! South Africa has made a great advance towards the "freedom" of a Dutch Republic.
-- H. Rider Haggard.

Well, fast forward to today, and you'll find a country of a different color. If one puts aside old Zulu rapists and the usual corruption, South Africa has moved itself successfully into a new country. Which was sitting right there, all along, for the people to reclaim. What luck. I recommend this viewpoint when faced with the old-- "If you don't like it, move to a different country!".

Of course, your reply will/would be: "Thank you, I shall."

News, darker than before:
Silli Kosack, 'wilbur', takes a slice out of the silly buggers. "You will find petroleum jelly in the bathroom," said Mr. Russert. Top hole[hehe].

Shrub's writers are no less farcical.

The usual crypto-corp-press-pushers tarring as 'That pesky red commie pinko Kunuckistani nickle union...', "We have less than 24 hours to go and we are nowhere near a collective agreement," said Wayne Fraser, a representative with the United Steelworkers union., has already begun.

Time to repost all those priests and vatican members c.1930's doing the Hitler salute. [insert 20 odd assorted examples, including at least one from Quebec, with audio of marching feet]

Tigers will return to Norway to resume talks. "We have agreed that the LTTE will meet in Norway on the 8th and 9th of June to discuss the security of peace monitoring efforts," Jon Hannsen-Bauer, told journalists after meeting senior LTTE leaders in the rebel-held town of Kilinochchi in northern Sri Lanka. Sri Lankan officials will also participate in the Norway meeting, he said. Mr Bauer made the announcement after holding talks with the political wing leader of the LTTE , Mr S P Thamilselvan.

Take it way, Genghis! It combines operatic singing with a rock beat, although traditional Mongolian elements like throat-singing and the horse-head fiddle also feature. Ganzorig, the guitarist with rock band The Black Wolves, called the rock opera genre "the height of rock". "I find it really satisfying to play rock with a full orchestra," he said. "To me, that's real music."

Free And Not Dead Press!

Press Briefing Softball Highlights:May 25th
MR. MCCORMACK: Look, I think there was progress on both sides. You know, all these things are interconnected, both on the incentive side and the disincentive side. So you have to -- you've made progress on both aspects of it. You don't have a final agreement until you have everything worked out on both sides. So I think it's safe to say on both sides there are probably a few issues to work out.

QUESTION: And would you say that the Russians and Chinese came with a constructive attitude?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think there was a positive attitude certainly from the Russians, I think.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken with any of her colleagues since yesterday?

MR. MCCORMACK: She has not, no. Well, on this topic she has not, Charlie. She did have a talk with Foreign Minister Downer of Australia on the situation in East Timor.
So, give her a biscuit and take this Strike One.

QUESTION: So are we to understand that the ministerial will be the place and the time when a final deal would be reached, that that's why there'll be a meeting of the ministers, that that's where the closure will come?

MR. MCCORMACK: We certainly hope that would be the case. Certainly hope that would be the case.

Yes.

QUESTION: Are you in a position to elaborate further on what ElBaradei told Rice yesterday? He said he briefed her on what Larijani had said. Anything else to offer on that? He was a little vague, what he said.

MR. MCCORMACK: No.

QUESTION: Did he push her to talk directly to Iran?

MR. MCCORMACK: They had a good discussion. They had a good discussion. I'm not going to go into it any further.

Mr. Gollust.

QUESTION: Did you mean to leave the impression that China's attitude wasn't positive? You said --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, no, no --

QUESTION: You volunteered that Russia was positive.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think all the various parties played a constructive role in the talks. Yeah.

Anything else? (Laughter.) Yeah, Teri's ready. Teri's going to finish my sentences now.

QUESTION: I've given you an opening, given you an opening.

MR. MCCORMACK: Ah, Lambros. Welcome back.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. How are you?

MR. MCCORMACK: It hasn't been the same without you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Everything is under control here, yes? (Laughter.)

MR. MCCORMACK: Yes. I don't know, not anymore. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Okay. I would like to know any update on the Aegean issue?

MR. MCCORMACK: Any update on the Aegean issue?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I don't. No.
Two balls, one fielding error, and a strike. Three and two.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about the U.S. Ambassador to Armenia? Apparently, the Congress is concerned about the dismissal of this ambassador.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, he's -- my understanding is that he will be -- he has plans to leave post after two years. Usually the tour is three years. There has been an individual, a Mr. Hoagland, I believe. Mr. Hoagland has been -- intent to nominate yesterday.

Look, we -- all appointed officials -- me, everybody else who goes through Senate confirmations -- served at the pleasure of the President and the Secretary. And certainly Mr. -- Ambassador Evans should be congratulated for his long career and his distinguished service to our country. He has served in the State Department for, what, 35 years, Tom?

MR. CASEY: Yeah.

MR. MCCORMACK: Thirty-five years. Yeah.

QUESTION: So it has nothing to do with any comment on the genocide of Armenians?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, Sylvie, like I all said -- like I said, we all serve at the pleasure of the President.

Yes.

QUESTION: Sean, is it your understanding that he plans to retire?

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Is it your understanding that he plans to retire after he leaves post?

MR. MCCORMACK: I believe so, but you'll have to check with him, Nicholas, about what his plans are.

QUESTION: And I suppose that you wouldn't -- since you didn't answer her -- Sylvie's question, would you be able to say whether he is leaving post because of his own decision or was he asked to leave post?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, Nicholas, we all -- like I said, we all serve at the pleasure of the President and he's done a fine job for the American people over 35 years and we appreciate his service. There is somebody who has been -- at least the intent to nominate has come out and we would hope that the Senate would act in a speedy manner on that nomination, as we would -- would hope with all nominations that are coming out of the State Department and going up to the Hill.
That last bit, by Sean, is a game winning combo of understatement and mangled brown nosing.

OYAITJ:
June4th-next entry.

TYAITJ:
72505 : Pope blather, "A rump leadership is still intact and over 18,000 potential terrorists are at large with recruitment accelerating on account of Iraq.", Several US newspapers refused to print the cartoon, which was due to be published two weeks after US civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq. The scene in the strip is unrelated to Mr Berg or the Iraq war. [Fear the white chair!], Sir Loin of MEAT! with DEPUTY SECRETARY ARMITAGE: And you know this is not indicative of our armed forces. I don't know what went on at Abu Ghraib, but I can guarantee you that we're going to get to the bottom of it. And once we have gotten to the bottom of it, we'll punish those who are guilty and go as far up the chain as necessary to do so. I might suggest too many bottoms have been 'gotten to'. , and more.

TYAITJ:
32339 : How much more blood can the White Whale demand you feed him? Its gained several more tastes, including sailboat-fuel, now.

FYAITJ:
8189 : Taco goes to MacHack.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Stephen Harper in a press scrum. Overlayed speech bubble has him saying; "Aww, you guys are too hostile!" Caption at the bottom says; "Suck it up, Homeboy!"

The front page item on plagiarism seemed to call for a historical trip back in time, to the origins of adaptation and revision of other works. [and] It does go clear back to the very beginnings of the Western-Tradition. Moreover, the opposition to the practice is equally as old. So, here's an overview of some of the thinking at the beginning.

Quote:
In the dramatic world comedy greatly preponderated over tragedy; the spectators knit their brows, when instead of the expected comedy a tragedy began. Thus it happened that, while this period exhibits poets who devoted themselves specially to comedy, such as Plautus and Caecilius, it presents none who cultivated tragedy alone; and among the dramas of this epoch known to us by name there occur three comedies for one tragedy. Of course the Roman comic poets, or rather translators, laid hands in the first instance on the pieces which had possession of the Hellenic stage at the time; and thus they found themselves exclusively confined to the range of the newer Attic comedy, and chiefly to its best-known poets, Philemon of Soli in Cilicia (394?-492) and Menander of Athens (412-462). This comedy came to be of so great importance as regards the development not only of Roman literature, but even of the nation at large, that even history has reason to pause and consider it.

The pieces are of tiresome monotony. Almost without exception the plot turns on helping a young man, at the expense either of his father or of some -leno-, to obtain possession of a sweetheart of undoubted charms and of very doubtful morals. The path to success in love regularly lies through some sort of pecuniary fraud; and the crafty servant, who provides the needful sum and performs the requisite swindling while the lover is mourning over his amatory and pecuniary distresses, is the real mainspring of the piece.

There is no want of the due accompaniment of reflections on the joys and sorrows of love, of tearful parting scenes, of lovers who in the anguish of their hearts threaten to do themselves a mischief; love or rather amorous intrigue was, as the old critics of art say, the very life-breath of the Menandrian poetry. Marriage forms, at least with Menander, the inevitable finale; on which occasion, for the greater edification and satisfaction of the spectators, the virtue of the heroine usually comes forth almost if not wholly untarnished, and the heroine herself proves to be the lost daughter of some rich man and so in every respect an eligible match.

Along with these love-pieces we find others of a pathetic kind. Among the comedies of Plautus, for instance, the -Rudens- turns on a shipwreck and the right of asylum; while the -Trinummus- and the -Captivi- contain no amatory intrigue, but depict the generous devotedness of the friend to his friend and of the slave to his master. Persons and situations recur down to the very details like patterns on a carpet; we never get rid of the asides of unseen listeners, of knocking at the house-doors, and of slaves scouring the streets on some errand or other. The standing masks, of which there was a certain fixed number--viz., eight masks for old men, and seven for servants--from which alone in ordinary cases at least the poet had to make his choice, further favoured a stock-model treatment. Such a comedy almost of necessity rejected the lyrical element in the older comedy--the chorus--and confined itself from the first to conversation, or at most recitation; it was devoid not of the political element only, but of all true passion and of all poetical elevation.

The pieces judiciously made no pretence to any grand or really poetical effect: their charm resided primarily in furnishing occupation for the intellect, not only through their subject-matter --in which respect the newer comedy was distinguished from the old as much by the greater intrinsic emptiness as by the greater outward complication of the plot--but more especially through their execution in detail, in which the point and polish of the conversation more particularly formed the triumph of the poet and the delight of the audience. Complications and confusions of one person with another, which very readily allowed scope for extravagant, often licentious, practical jokes--as in the -Casina-, which winds up in genuine Falstaffian style with the retiring of the two bridegrooms and of the soldier dressed up as bride--jests, drolleries, and riddles, which in fact for want of real conversation furnished the staple materials of entertainment at the Attic table of the period, fill up a large portion of these comedies.

The authors of them wrote not like Eupolis and Aristophanes for a great nation, but rather for a cultivated society which spent its time, like other clever circles whose cleverness finds little fit scope for action, in guessing riddles and playing at charades. They give us, therefore, no picture of their times; of the great historical and intellectual movements of the age no trace appears in these comedies, and we need to recall, in order to realize, the fact that Philemon and Menander were really contemporaries of Alexander and Aristotle. But they give us a picture, equally elegant and faithful, of that refined Attic society beyond the circles of which comedy never travels.

Even in the dim Latin copy, through which we chiefly know it, the grace of the original is not wholly obliterated; and more especially in the pieces which are imitated from Menander, the most talented of these poets, the life which the poet saw and shared is delicately reflected not so much in its aberrations and distortions as in its amiable every day course. The friendly domestic relations between father and daughter, husband and wife, master and servant, with their love-affairs and other little critical incidents, are portrayed with so broad a truthfulness, that even now they do not miss their effect: the servants' feast, for instance, with which the -Stichus- concludes is, in the limited range of its relations and the harmony of the two lovers and the one sweetheart, of unsurpassed gracefulness in its kind.

The elegant grisettes, who make their appearance perfumed and adorned, with their hair fashionably dressed and in variegated, gold- embroidered, sweeping robes, or even perform their toilette on the stage, are very effective. In their train come the procuresses, sometimes of the most vulgar sort, such as one who appears in the -Curculio-, sometimes duennas like Goethe's old Barbara, such as Scapha in the -Mostettaria-; and there is no lack of brothers and comrades ready with their help. There is great abundance and variety of parts representing the old: there appear in turn the austere and avaricious, the fond and tender-hearted, and the indulgent accommodating, papas, the amorous old man, the easy old bachelor, the jealous aged matron with her old maid-servant who takes part with her mistress against her master; whereas the young men's parts are less prominent, and neither the first lover, nor the virtuous model son who here and there occurs, lays claim to much significance.

The servant- world--the crafty valet, the stern house-steward, the old vigilant tutor, the rural slave redolent of garlic, the impertinent page--forms a transition to the very numerous professional parts. A standing figure among these is the jester (-parasitus-) who, in return for permission to feast at the table of the rich, has to entertain the guests with drolleries and charades, or, according to circumstances, to let the potsherds be flung at his head. This was at that time a formal trade in Athens; and it is certainly no mere poetical fiction which represents such a parasite as expressly preparing himself for his work by means of his books of witticisms and anecdotes.

Favourite parts, moreover, are those of the cook, who understands not only how to boast of unheard-of sauces, but also how to pilfer like a professional thief; the shameless -leno-, complacently confessing to the practice of every vice, of whom Ballio in the -Pseudolus- is a model specimen; the military braggadocio, in whom we trace a very distinct reflection of the free-lance habits that prevailed under Alexander's successors; the professional sharper or sycophant, the stingy money-changer, the solemnly silly physician, the priest, mariner, fisherman, and the like. To these fall to be added, lastly, the parts delineative of character in the strict sense, such as the superstitious man of Menander and the miser in the -Aulularia- of Plautus.

The national-Hellenic poetry has preserved, even in this its last creation, its indestructible plastic vigour; but the delineation of character is here copied from without rather than reproduced from inward experience, and the more so, the more the task approaches to the really poetical. It is a significant circumstance that, in the parts illustrative of character to which we have just referred, the psychological truth is in great part represented by abstract development of the conception; the miser here collects the parings of his nails and laments the tears which he sheds as a waste of water. But the blame of this want of depth in the portraying of character, and generally of the whole poetical and moral hollowness of this newer comedy, lay less with the comic writers than with the nation as a whole.

Everything distinctively Greek was expiring: fatherland, national faith, domestic life, all nobleness of action and sentiment were gone; poetry, history, and philosophy were inwardly exhausted; and nothing remained to the Athenian save the school, the fish-market, and the brothel. It is no matter of wonder and hardly a matter of blame, that poetry, which is destined to shed a glory over human existence, could make nothing more out of such a life than the Menandrian comedy presents to us. It is at the same time very remarkable that the poetry of this period, wherever it was able to turn away in some degree from the corrupt Attic life without falling into scholastic imitation, immediately gathers strength and freshness from the ideal. In the only remnant of the mock-heroic comedy of this period--the -Amphitruo- of Plautus--there breathes throughout a purer and more poetical atmosphere than in all the other remains of the contemporary stage.

The good-natured gods treated with gentle irony, the noble forms from the heroic world, and the ludicrously cowardly slaves present the most wonderful mutual contrasts; and, after the comical course of the plot, the birth of the son of the gods amidst thunder and lightning forms an almost grand concluding effect But this task of turning the myths into irony was innocent and poetical, as compared with that of the ordinary comedy depicting the Attic life of the period. No special accusation may be brought from a historico- moral point of view against the poets, nor ought it to be made matter of individual reproach to any particular poet that he occupies the level of his epoch: comedy was not the cause, but the effect of the corruption that prevailed in the national life. But it is necessary, more especially with a view to judge correctly the influence of these comedies on the life of the Roman people, to point out the abyss which yawned beneath all that polish and elegance.

The coarsenesses and obscenities, which Menander indeed in some measure avoided, but of which there is no lack in the other poets, are the least part of the evil. Features far worse are, the dreadful desolation of life in which the only oases are lovemaking and intoxication; the fearfully prosaic atmosphere, in which anything resembling enthusiasm is to be found only among the sharpers whose heads have been turned by their own swindling, and who prosecute the trade of cheating with some sort of zeal; and above all that immoral morality, with which the pieces of Menander in particular are garnished.

Vice is chastised, virtue is rewarded, and any peccadilloes are covered by conversion at or after marriage. There are pieces, such as the -Trinummus- of Plautus and several of Terence, in which all the characters down to the slaves possess some admixture of virtue; all swarm with honest men who allow deception on their behalf, with maidenly virtue wherever possible, with lovers equally favoured and making love in company; moral commonplaces and well-turned ethical maxims abound. A finale of reconciliation such as that of the -Bacchides-, where the swindling sons and the swindled fathers by way of a good winding up all go to carouse together in the brothel, presents a corruption of morals thoroughly worthy of Kotzebue.

Such were the foundations, and such the elements which shaped the growth, of Roman comedy. Originality was in its case excluded not merely by want of aesthetic freedom, but in the first instance, probably, by its subjection to police control.

Among the considerable number of Latin comedies of this sort which are known to us, there is not one that did not announce itself as an imitation of a definite Greek model; the title was only complete when the names of the Greek piece and of its author were also given, and if, as occasionally happened, the "novelty" of a piece was disputed, the question was merely whether it had been previously translated.

Comedy laid the scene of its plot abroad not only frequently, but regularly and under the pressure of necessity; and that species of art derived its special name (-fabula palliata-) from the fact, that the scene was laid away from Rome, usually in Athens, and thai the -dramatis personae- were Greeks or at any rate not Romans. The foreign costume is strictly carried out even in detail, especially in those things in which the uncultivated Roman was distinctly sensible of the contrast, Thus the names of Rome and the Romans are avoided, and, where they are referred to, they are called in good Greek "foreigners" (-barbari-); in like manner among the appellations of moneys and coins, that occur ever so frequently, there does not once appear a Roman coin.

We form a strange idea of men of so great and so versatile talents as Naevius and Plautus, if we refer such things to their free choice: this strange and clumsy "exterritorial" character of Roman comedy was undoubtedly due to causes very different from aesthetic considerations. The transference of such social relations, as are uniformly delineated in the new Attic comedy, to the Rome of the Hannibalic period would have been a direct outrage on its civic order and morality. But, as the dramatic spectacles at this period were regularly given by the aediles and praetors who were entirely dependent on the senate, and even extraordinary festivals, funeral games for instance, could not take place without permission of the government; and as the Roman police, moreover, was not in the habit of standing on ceremony in any case, and least of all in dealing with the comedians; the reason is self-evident why this comedy, even after it was admitted as one of the Roman national amusements, might still bring no Roman upon the stage, and remained as it were banished to foreign lands.

The compilers were still more decidedly prohibited from naming any living person in terms either of praise or censure, as well as from any captious allusion to the circumstances of the times. In the whole repertory of the Plautine and post-Plautine comedy, there is not, so far as we know, matter for a single action of damages. In like manner--if we leave out of view some wholly harmless jests--we meet hardly any trace of invectives levelled at communities (invectives which, owing to the lively municipal spirit of the Italians, would have been specially dangerous), except the significant scoff at the unfortunate Capuans and Atellans and, what is remarkable, various sarcasms on the arrogance and the bad Latin of the Praenestines.

In general no references to the events or circumstances of the present occur in the pieces of Plautus. The only exceptions are, congratulations on the course of the war or on the peaceful times; general sallies directed against usurious dealings in grain or money, against extravagance, against bribery by candidates, against the too frequent triumphs, against those who made a trade of collecting forfeited fines, against farmers of the revenue distraining for payment, against the dear prices of the oil-dealers; and once--in the -Curculio- --a more lengthened diatribe as to the doings in the Roman market, reminding us of the -parabases- of the older Attic comedy, and but little likely to cause offence

But even in the midst of such patriotic endeavours, which from a police point of view were entirely in order, the poet interrupts himself; -Sed sumne ego stultus, qui rem curo publicam Ubi sunt magistratus, quos curare oporteat?- and taken as a whole, we can hardly imagine a comedy politically more tame than was that of Rome in the sixth century.

The oldest Roman comic writer of note, Gnaeus Naevius, alone forms a remarkable exception. Although he did not write exactly original Roman comedies, the few fragments of his, which we possess, are full of references to circumstances and persons in Rome. Among other liberties he not only ridiculed one Theodotus a painter by name, but even directed against the victor of Zama the following verses, of which Aristophanes need not have been ashamed: -Etiam qui res magnas manu saepe gessit gloriose, Cujus facta viva nunc vigent, qui apud gentes solus praestat, Eum suus pater cum pallio uno ab amica abduxit.- As he himself says, -Libera lingua loquemur ludis Liberalibus,-he may have often written at variance with police rules, and put dangerous questions, such as: -Cedo qui vestram rem publicam tantam amisistis tam cito?- which he answered by an enumeration of political sins, such as: -Proveniebant oratores novi, stulti adulescentuli.-

But the Roman police was not disposed like the Attic to hold stage- invectives and political diatribes as privileged, or even to tolerate them at all. Naevius was put in prison for these and similar sallies, and was obliged to remain there, till he had publicly made amends and recantation in other comedies. These quarrels, apparently, drove him from his native land; but his successors took warning from his example--one of them indicates very plainly, that he has no desire whatever to incur an involuntary gagging like his colleague Naevius. Thus the result was accomplished--not much less unique of its kind than the conquest of Hannibal--that, during an epoch of the most feverish national excitement, there arose a national stage utterly destitute of political tinge.

But the restrictions thus stringently and laboriously imposed by custom and police on Roman poetry stifled its very breath, Not without reason might Naevius declare the position of the poet under the sceptre of the Lagidae and Seleucidae enviable as compared with his position in free Rome. The degree of success in individual instances was of course determined by the quality of the original which was followed, and by the talent of the individual editor; but amidst all their individual variety the whole stock of translations must have agreed in certain leading features, inasmuch as all the comedies were adapted to similar conditions of exhibition and a similar audience.

The treatment of the whole as well as of the details was uniformly in the highest degree free; and it was necessary that it should be so. While the original pieces were performed in presence of that society which they copied, and in this very fact lay their principal charm, the Roman audience of this period was so different from the Attic, that it was not even in a position rightly to understand that foreign world.

The Roman comprehended neither the grace and kindliness, nor the sentimentalism and the whitened emptiness of the domestic life of the Hellenes. The slave-world was utterly different; the Roman slave was a piece of household furniture, the Attic slave was a servant. Where marriages of slaves occur or a master carries on a kindly conversation with his slave, the Roman translators ask their audience not to take offence at such things which are usual in Athens; and, when at a later period comedies began to be written in Roman costume, the part of the crafty servant had to be rejected, because the Roman public did not tolerate slaves of this sort overlooking and controlling their masters. The professional figures and those illustrative of character, which were sketched more broadly and farcically, bore the process of transference better than the polished figures of every-day life; but even of those delineations the Roman editor had to lay aside several--and these probably the very finest and most original, such as the Thais, the match-maker, the moon-conjuress, and the mendicant priest of Menander --and to keep chiefly to those foreign trades, with which the Greek luxury of the table, already very generally diffused in Rome, had made his audience familiar.

If the professional cook and the jester in the comedy of Plautus are delineated with so striking vividness and so much relish, the explanation lies in the fact, that Greek cooks had even at that time daily offered their services in the Roman market, and that Cato found it necessary even to instruct his steward not to keep a jester. In like manner the translator could make no use of a very large portion of the elegant Attic conversation in his originals. The Roman citizen or farmer stood in much the same relation to the refined revelry and debauchery of Athens, as the German of a provincial town to the mysteries of the Palais Royal. A science of cookery, in the strict sense, never entered into his thoughts; the dinner-parties no doubt continued to be very numerous in the Roman imitation, but everywhere the plain Roman roast pork predominated over the variety of baked meats and the refined sauces and dishes of fish. Of the riddles and drinking songs, of the Greek rhetoric and philosophy, which played so great a part in the originals, we meet only a stray trace now and then in the Roman adaptation.

The havoc, which the Roman editors were compelled in deference to their audience to make in the originals, drove them inevitably into methods of cancelling and amalgamating incompatible with any artistic construction. It was usual not only to throw out whole character- parts of the original, but also to insert others taken from other comedies of the same or of another poet; a treatment indeed which, owing to the outwardly methodical construction of the originals and the recurrence of standing figures and incidents, was not quite so bad as it might seem.

Moreover the poets, at least in the earlier period, allowed themselves the most singular liberties in the construction of the plot. The plot of the -Stichus- (performed in 554) otherwise so excellent turns upon the circumstance, that two sisters, whom their father urges to abandon their absent husbands, play the part of Penelopes, till the husbands return home with rich mercantile gains and with a beautiful damsel as a present for their father-in-law. In the -Casina-, which was received with quite special favour by the public, the bride, from whom the piece is named and around whom the plot revolves, does not make her appearance at all, and the denouement is quite naively described by the epilogue as "to be enacted later within."

Very often the plot as it thickens is suddenly broken off, the connecting thread is allowed to drop, and other similar signs of an unfinished art appear. The reason of this is to be sought probably far less in the unskilfulness of the Roman editors, than in the indifference of the Roman public to aesthetic laws.

Taste, however, gradually formed itself. In the later pieces Plautus has evidently bestowed more care on their construction, and the -Captivi- for instance, the -Pseudolus-, and the -Bacchides- are executed in a masterly manner after their kind. His successor Caecilius, none of whose pieces are extant, is said to have especially distinguished himself by the more artistic treatment of the subject.
-- T. Mommsen

News collected and displayed in brass cages:
Fear the irony lips of doom! For the full effect one should note: the site, its stance, the author, and the text. And, most of all, the direction of the argument too. My my, the layers of irony are getting quite thick.

Judy's been laying it on rather thick too.

McCain's a bit thick too. Repeatedly fondled by the Shrub and then Pwn3d by a school girl. Pathetic. See my Toon sub-titled: 'rohe-rohe-yar-boat'.

Staff of Thicky's PlayLand may strike. Zimbabwe's main labour union movement has stepped up threats to lead a national strike for higher wages. The warning follows the failure of five-month talks with the government to protect salaries in a country where annual inflation is more than 1,000%.

The dogs of War. Two and four legged. [Cue Pink Floyd A:Dogs ~15secs]

Having run out of #3's they've moved on to Aide'ing.

In the Forgotten Land: Mars stalks eternal.

Although some places claim to be even more Forgotten.

Simon pays, The main debate was on MPs' pay, a topic of perennial fascination to MPs. I must be careful here. Members take the view that they are unjustly criticised in the press, specifically by people who probably earn more than them. This is true in many cases, though of course we don't have their allowances, and we don't get to vote on our own pay. Still, it's a real problem, and one that was sidestepped yesterday by keeping this year's rise to a mere 1%. The new leader of the House, Jack Straw, said that salaries were now "out of kilter with the comparators", which is not a line you often heard from an old-fashioned shop steward.

BrownLeatherJacket You couldn't make it up. Former South African deputy president Jacob Zuma, defending himself in court against a charge of rape, explained that the woman who brought the complaint, a family friend less than half his age (she is 31, he is 64) who was staying in his home, had signalled that she wanted to have sex with him. How? By wearing a knee-length skirt and sitting with uncrossed legs. So what was a gentleman to do? If the woman truly wanted to have sex with him, Zuma pointed out, then the rules of Zulu culture obliged him to oblige her. Not to have done so when she so clearly wanted it would, by the rules of Zulu culture, have been tantamount to raping her. In other words, he had to have sex with her in order not to rape her.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Tony Blair speaking to the press outside of #10. Overlayed speech bubble has him singing; "/Simple peace can't be found/ Inside our restless minds/ Keep on hoping it's there/ Take a number stand in line!/"

In regards to the usage of the title rif today, yes both versions are topical-ly implied. The endless stream of idiotic news occasionally allows for this kind of idiomatic multiplicity of multiple meanings.

Altho' her new pair is a welcome revision of the previous release[(s) surely!?!]. 'Freedom from the Ass of Doom is the treasure you will win' seems rather unlikely. As they too multiply.

So have the 'nutty' Texttoons, News of an indifferent amount, and the Quote. This passage came to mind while reading various blogs on the topic of the NSA domestic spying. That, the rest of the weeks news, and the previous JE's quote, sort of impelled this/it the fore. Once again, I had the PGut-text already on hand, yay!. Filled with cruft, aggg! Anyway, read on.

Quote:
During the war, the dread of retaliation had taught the two parties to temper with moderation the license of victory. Little blood had been shed except in the field of battle. But now that check was removed.

The fanatics, not satisfied with the death of the king, demanded, with the Bible in their hands, additional victims; and the politicians deemed it prudent by the display of punishment to restrain the machinations of their enemies. Among the royalists in custody were the duke of Hamilton (who was also earl of Cambridge in England), the earl of Holland, Goring, earl of Norwich, the Lord Capel, and Sir John Owen, all engaged in the last attempt for the restoration of Charles to the throne. By a resolution of the House of Commons in November, Hamilton had been adjudged to pay a fine of one hundred thousand pounds, and the other four to remain in perpetual imprisonment; but after the triumph of the Independents, this vote had been rescinded, and a high court of justice was now established to try the same persons on a charge of high treason.

It was in vain that Hamilton pleaded the order of the Scottish parliament under which he had acted; that Capel demanded to be brought before his peers, or a jury of his countrymen, according to those fundamental laws which the parliament had promised to maintain; that all invoked the national faith in favour of that quarter which they had obtained at the time of their surrender. Bradshaw, the president, delivered the opinions of the court. To Hamilton, he replied, that, as an English earl, he was amenable to the justice of the country; to Capel, that the court had been established by the parliament, the supreme authority to which all must submit; to each, that quarter given on the field of battle insured protection from the sword of the conqueror, but not from the vengeance of the law.

All five were condemned to lose their heads; but the rigour of the judgment was softened by a reference to the mercy of parliament. The next day the wives of Holland and Capel, accompanied by a long train of females in mourning, appeared at the bar, to solicit the pardon of the condemned. Though their petitions were rejected, a respite for two days was granted. This favour awakened new hopes; recourse was had to flattery and entreaty; bribes were offered and accepted; and the following morning new petitions were presented. The fate of Holland occupied a debate of considerable interest.

Among the Independents he had many personal friends, and the Presbyterians exerted all their influence in his favour. But the saints expatiated on his repeated apostasy from the cause; and, after a sharp contest, Cromwell and Ireton obtained a majority of a single voice for his death. The case of Goring was next considered. No man during the war had treated his opponents with more bitter contumely, no one had inflicted on them deeper injuries; and yet, on an equal division, his life was saved by the casting voice of the speaker. The sentences of Hamilton and Capel were affirmed by the unanimous vote of the house; but, to the surprise of all men, Owen, a stranger, without friends or interest, had the good fortune to escape. His forlorn condition moved the pity of Colonel Hutchinson; the efforts of Hutchinson were seconded by Ireton; and so powerful was their united influence, that they obtained a majority of five in his favour. Hamilton, Holland, and Capel died on the scaffold, the first martyrs of loyalty after the establishment of the commonwealth.

But, though the avowed enemies of the cause crouched before their conquerors, there was much in the internal state of the country to awaken apprehension in the breasts of Cromwell and his friends. There could be no doubt that the ancient royalists longed for the opportunity of avenging the blood of the king; or that the new royalists, the Presbyterians, who sought to re-establish the throne on the conditions stipulated by the treaty in the Isle of Wight, bore with impatience the superiority of their rivals. Throughout the kingdom the lower classes loudly complained of the burthen of taxation; in several parts they suffered under the pressure of penury and famine. In Lancashire and Westmoreland numbers perished through want; and it was certified by the magistrates of Cumberland that thirty thousand families in that county "had neither seed nor bread corn, nor the means of procuring either."

But that which chiefly created alarm was the progress made among the military by the "Levellers," men of consistent principles and uncompromising conduct under the guidance of Colonel John Lilburne, an officer distinguished by his talents, his eloquence, and his courage. Lilburne, with his friends, had long cherished a suspicion that Cromwell, Ireton, and Harrison sought only their private aggrandizement under the mantle of patriotism; and the recent changes had converted this suspicion into conviction. They observed that the same men ruled without control in the general council of officers, in the parliament, and in the council of state.

They contended that every question was first debated and settled in the council of officers, and that, if their determination was afterwards adopted by the house, it was only that it might go forth to the public under the pretended sanction of the representatives of the nation; that the council of state had been vested with powers more absolute and oppressive than had ever been exercised by the late king; and that the High Court of Justice had been established by the party for the purpose of depriving their victims of those remedies which would be afforded by the ordinary courts of law. In some of their publications they went further. They maintained that the council of state was employed as an experiment on the patience of the nation; that it was intended to pass from the tyranny of a few to the tyranny of one; and that Oliver Cromwell was the man who aspired to that high but dangerous pre-eminence.

A plan of the intended constitution, entitled "the agreement of the people," had been sanctioned by the council of officers, and presented by Fairfax to the House of Commons, that it might be transmitted to the several counties, and there receive the approbation of the inhabitants.

As a sop to shut the mouth of Cerberus, the sum of three thousand pounds, to be raised from the estates of delinquents in the county of Durham, had been voted to Lilburne; but the moment he returned from the north, he appeared at the bar of the house, and petitioned against "the agreement," objecting in particular to one of the provisions by which the parliament was to sit but six months, every two years, and the government of the nation during the other eighteen months was to be intrusted to the council of state.

His example was quickly followed; and the table was covered with a succession of petitions from officers and soldiers, and "the well-affected" in different counties, who demanded that a new parliament should be holden every year; that during the intervals the supreme power should be exercised by a committee of the house; that no member of the last should sit in the succeeding parliament; that the self-denying ordinance should be enforced; that no officer should retain his command in the army for more than a certain period; that the High Court of Justice should be abolished as contrary to law, and the council of state, as likely to become an engine of tyranny; that the proceedings in the courts should be in the English language, the number of lawyers diminished, and their fees reduced; that the excise and customs should be taken away, and the lands of delinquents sold for compensation to the well-affected; that religion should be "reformed according to the mind of God;" that no one should be molested or incapacitated on account of conscience; that tithes should be abolished; and that the income of each minister should be fixed at one hundred pounds per annum, to be raised by a rate on his parishioners.

Aware of the necessity of crushing the spirit of opposition in the military, general orders were issued by Fairfax, prohibiting private meetings of officers or soldiers "to the disturbance of the army;" and on the receipt of a letter of remonstrance from several regiments, four of the five troopers by whom it was signed were condemned by a court-martial to ride the wooden horse with their faces to the tail, to have their swords broken over their heads, and to be afterwards cashiered. Lilburne, on the other hand, laboured to inflame the general discontent by a succession of pamphlets, entitled, "England's New Chains Discovered," "The Hunting of the Foxes from Newmarket and Triploe Heath to Whitehall by five small Beagles" (in allusion to the five troopers), and the second part of "England's New Chains." The last he read to a numerous assembly at Winchester House; by the parliament it was voted a seditious and traitorous libel, and the author, with his associates, Walwyn, Prince, and Overton; was committed, by order of the council, to close custody in the Tower.

It had been determined to send to Ireland a division of twelve thousand men; and the regiments to be employed were selected by ballot, apparently in the fairest manner. The men, however, avowed a resolution not to march. It was not, they said, that they refused the service; but they believed the expedition to be a mere artifice to send the discontented out of the kingdom; and they asserted that by their engagement on Triploe Heath they could not conscientiously move a step till the liberties of the nation were settled on a permanent basis. The first act of mutiny occurred in Bishopsgate.

A troop of horse refused to obey their colonel; and, instead of marching out of the city, took possession of the colours. Of these, five were condemned to be shot; but one only, by name Lockyer, suffered. At his burial a thousand men, in files, preceded the corpse, which was adorned with bunches of rosemary dipped in blood; on each side rode three trumpeters, and behind was led the trooper's horse, covered with mourning; some thousands of men and women followed with black and green ribbons on their heads and breasts, and were received at the grave by a numerous crowd of the inhabitants of London and Westminster. This extraordinary funeral convinced the leaders how widely the discontent was spread, and urged them to the immediate adoption of the most decisive measures.

The regiments of Scrope, Ireton, Harrison, Ingoldsby, Skippon, Reynolds, and Horton, though quartered in different places, had already elected their agents, and published their resolution to adhere to each other, when the house commissioned Fairfax to reduce the mutineers, ordered Skippon to secure the capital from surprise, and declared it treason for soldiers to conspire the death of the general or lieutenant-general, or for any person to endeavour to alter the government, or to affirm that the parliament or council of state was either tyrannical or unlawful.

At Banbury, in Oxfordshire, a Captain Thompson, at the head of two hundred men, published a manifesto, entitled "England's Standard Advanced," in which he declared that, if Lilburne, or his fellow-prisoners, were ill-treated, their sufferings should he avenged seventy times seven-fold upon their persecutors. His object was to unite some of the discontented regiments; but Colonel Reynolds surprised him at Banbury, and prevailed on his followers to surrender without loss of blood.

Another party, consisting of ten troops of horse, and more than a thousand strong, proceeded from Salisbury to Burford, augmenting their numbers as they advanced. Fairfax and Cromwell, after a march of more than forty miles during the day, arrived soon afterwards, and ordered their followers to take refreshment. White had been sent to the insurgents with an offer of pardon on their submission; whether he meant to deceive them or not, is uncertain; he represented the pause on the part of the general as time allowed them to consult and frame their demands; and at the hour of midnight, while they slept in security, Cromwell forced his way into the town, with two thousand men, at one entrance, while Colonel Reynolds, with a strong body, opposed their exit by the other. Four hundred of the mutineers were made prisoners, and the arms and horses of double that number were taken. One cornet and two corporals suffered death; the others, after a short imprisonment, were restored to their former regiments.

This decisive advantage disconcerted all the plans of the mutineers. Some partial risings in the counties of Hants, Devon, and Somerset were quickly suppressed; and Thompson, who had escaped from Banbury and retired to Wellingborough, being deserted by his followers, refused quarter, and fell fighting singly against a host of enemies.

To express the national gratitude for this signal deliverance, a day of thanksgiving was appointed; the parliament, the council of State, and the council of the army assembled at Christ-church; and, after the religious service of the day, consisting of two long sermons and appropriate prayers, proceeded to Grocer's Hall, where they dined by invitation from the city. The speaker Lenthall, the organ of the supreme authority, like former kings, received the sword of state from the mayor, and delivered it to him again. At table, he was seated at the head, supported on his right hand by the lord general, and on the left by Bradshaw, the president of the council; thus exhibiting to the guests the representatives of the three bodies by which the nation was actually governed. At the conclusion of the dinner, the lord mayor presented one thousand pounds in gold to Fairfax in a basin and ewer of the same metal, and five hundred pounds, with a complete service of plate, to Cromwell.

The suppression of the mutiny afforded leisure to the council to direct its attention to the proceedings in Scotland and Ireland. In the first of these kingdoms, after the departure of Cromwell, the supreme authority had been exercised by Argyle and his party, who were supported, and at the same time controlled, by the paramount influence of the kirk.

The forfeiture and excommunication of the "Engagers" left to their opponents the undisputed superiority in the parliament and all the great offices of the state. From the part which Argyle had formerly taken in the surrender of the king, his recent connection with Cromwell, and his hostility to the engagement, it was generally believed that he had acted in concert with the English Independents. But he was wary, and subtle, and flexible. At the approach of danger he could dissemble; and, whenever it suited his views, could change his measures without changing his object. At the beginning of January the fate with which Charles was menaced revived the languid affection of the Scots.

A cry of indignation burst from every part of the country: he was their native king--would they suffer him to be arraigned as a criminal before a foreign tribunal? By delivering him to his enemies, they had sullied the fair fame of the nation--would they confirm this disgrace by tamely acquiescing in his death? Argyle deemed it prudent to go with the current of national feeling; he suffered a committee to be appointed in parliament, and the commissioners in London received instructions to protest against the trial and condemnation of the king. But these instructions disclose the timid fluctuating policy of the man by whom they were dictated. It is vain to look in them for those warm and generous sentiments which the case demanded. They are framed with hesitation and caution; they betray a consciousness of weakness, a fear of provoking enmity, and an attention to private interest; and they show that the protestors, if they really sought to save the life of the monarch, were yet more anxious to avoid every act or word which might give offence to his adversaries.

The commissioners delivered the paper, and the Scottish parliament, instead of an answer, received the news of the king's execution. The next day the chancellor, attended by the members, proceeded to the cross in Edinburgh, and proclaimed Charles, the son of the deceased prince, king of Scotland, England, France, and Ireland. But to this proclamation was appended a provision, that the young prince, before he could enter on the exercise of the royal authority, should satisfy the parliament of his adhesion both to the national covenant of Scotland, and to the solemn league and covenant between the two kingdoms.

At length, three weeks after the death of the king, whose life it was intended to save, the English parliament condescended to answer the protestation of the Scots, but in a tone of contemptuous indifference, both as to the justice of their claim and the consequences of their anger.

Scotland, it was replied, might perhaps have no right to bring her sovereign to a public trial, but that circumstance could not affect the right of England. As the English parliament did not intend to trench on the liberties of others, it would not permit others to trench upon its own. The recollection of the evils inflicted on the nation by the misconduct of the king, and the consciousness that they had deserved the anger of God by their neglect to punish his offences, had induced them to bring him to justice, a course which they doubted not God had already approved, and would subsequently reward by the establishment of their liberties. The Scots had now the option of being freemen or slaves; the aid of England was offered for the vindication of their rights; if it were refused, let them beware how they entailed on themselves and their posterity the miseries of continual war with their nearest neighbour, and of slavery under the issue of a tyrant.

The Scottish commissioners, in reply, hinted that the present was not a full parliament; objected to any alteration in the government by king, lords, and commons; desired that no impediment should be opposed to the lawful succession of Charles II.; and ended by protesting that, if such things were done, the Scots were free before God and man from the guilt, the blood, the calamities, which it might cost the two kingdoms. Having delivered this paper, they hastened to Gravesend. Their object was to proceed to the United Provinces, and offer the Scottish crown on certain conditions to the young king. But the English leaders resolved to interrupt their mission. The answer which they had given was voted a scandalous libel, framed for the purpose of exciting sedition; the commissioners were apprehended at Gravesend as national offenders, and Captain Dolphin received orders to conduct them under a guard to the frontiers of Scotland.

This insult, which, though keenly felt, was tamely borne, might retard, it could not prevent, the purposes of the Scottish parliament. The earl of Cassilis, with four new commissioners, was appointed to proceed to Holland, where Charles, under the protection of his brother-in-law, the prince of Orange, had resided since the death of his father.

His court consisted at first of the few individuals whom that monarch had placed around him, and whom he now swore of his privy council. It was soon augmented by the earl of Lanark, who, on the death of his brother, became duke of Hamilton, the earl of Lauderdale, and the earl of Callendar, the chiefs of the Scottish Engagers; these were followed by the ancient Scottish royalists, Montrose, Kinnoul, and Seaforth, and in a few days appeared Cassilis, with his colleagues, and three deputies from the church of Scotland, who brought with them news not likely to insure them a gracious reception, that the parliament, at the petition of the kirk, had sent to the scaffold the old marquess of Huntley, forfaulted for his adhesion to the royal cause in the year 1645.

All professed to have in view the same object--the restoration of the young king; but all were divided and alienated from each other by civil and religious bigotry. By the commissioners, the Engagers, and by both, Montrose and his friends, were shunned as traitors to their country, and sinners excommunicated by the kirk. Charles was perplexed by the conflicting opinions of these several advisers. Both the commissioners and Engagers, hostile as they were to each other, represented his taking of the covenant as an essential condition; while Montrose and his English counsellors contended that it would exasperate the Independents, offend the friends of episcopacy, and cut off all hope of aid from the Catholics, who could not be expected to hazard their lives in support of a prince sworn to extirpate their religion.

While the question was yet in debate, an event happened to hasten the departure of Charles from the Hague. Dr. Dorislaus, a native of Holland, but formerly a professor of Gresham College, and recently employed to draw the charge against the king, arrived as envoy from the parliament to the States. That very evening, while he sat at supper in the inn, six gentlemen with drawn swords entered the room, dragged him from his chair, and murdered him on the floor.

Though the assassins were suffered to escape, it was soon known that they were Scotsmen, most of them followers of Montrose; and Charles, anticipating the demand of justice from the English parliament, gave his final answer to the commissioners, that he was, and always had been, ready to provide for the security of their religion, the union between the kingdoms, and the internal peace and prosperity of Scotland; but that their other demands were irreconcilable with his conscience, his liberty, and his honour.

They acknowledged that he was their king; it was, therefore, their duty to obey, maintain, and defend him; and the performance of this duty he should expect from the committee of estates, the assembly of the kirk, and the whole nation of Scotland. They departed with this unsatisfactory answer; and Charles, leaving the United Provinces, hastened to St. Germain in France, to visit the queen his mother, with the intention of repairing, after a short stay, to the army of the royalists in Ireland.

That the reader may understand the state of Ireland, he must look back to the period when the despair or patriotism of Ormond surrendered to the parliament the capital of that kingdom. The nuncio, Rinuccini, had then seated himself in the chair of the president of the supreme council at Kilkenny; but his administration was soon marked by disasters, which enabled his rivals to undermine and subvert his authority.

The Catholic army of Leinster, under Preston, was defeated on Dungan Hill by Jones, the governor of Dublin, and that of Munster, under the Viscount Taafe, at Clontarf, by the Lord Inchiquin. To Rinuccini himself these misfortunes appeared as benefits, for he distrusted Preston and Taafe on account of their attachment to Ormond; and their depression served to exalt his friend and protector, Owen Roe O'Neil, the leader of the men of Ulster. But from such beginnings the nation at large anticipated a succession of similar calamities; his adversaries obtained a majority in the general assembly; and the nuncio, after a declaration that he advanced no claim to temporal authority, prudently avoided a forced abdication, by offering to resign his office.

A new council, consisting, in equal number, of men chosen out of the two parties, was appointed; and the marquess of Antrim, the Lord Muskerry, and Geoffrey Brown, were despatched to the queen mother, and her son Charles, to solicit assistance in money and arms, and to request that the prince would either come and reside in Ireland, or appoint a Catholic lieutenant in his place. Antrim hoped to obtain this high office for himself; but his colleagues were instructed to oppose his pretensions and to acquiesce in the re-appointment of the marquess of Ormond.

During the absence of these envoys, the Lord Inchiquin unexpectedly declared, with his army, in favour of the king against the parliament, and instantly proposed an armistice to the confederate Catholics, as friends to the royal cause. By some the overture was indignantly rejected. Inchiquin, they said, had been their most bitter enemy; he had made it his delight to shed the blood of Irishmen, and to pollute and destroy their altars. Besides, what pledge could be given for the fidelity of a man who, by repeatedly changing sides, had already shown that he would always accommodate his conscience to his interest?

It were better to march against him now that he was without allies; and, when he should be subdued, Jones with the parliamentary army would necessarily fall. To this reasoning it was replied, that the expedition would require time and money; that provision for the free exercise of religion might be made in the articles; and that, at a moment when the Catholics solicited a reconciliation with the king, they could not in honour destroy those who drew the sword in his favour. In defiance of the remonstrances made by Rinuccini and eight of the bishops, the treaty proceeded; and the nuncio believing, or pretending to believe, that he was a prisoner in Kilkenny, escaped in the night over the wall of the city, and was received at Maryborough with open arms by his friend O'Neil.

The council of the Catholics agreed to the armistice, and sought by repeated messages to remove the objections of the nuncio. But zeal or resentment urged him to exceed his powers. He condemned the treaty, excommunicated its abettors, and placed under an interdict the towns in which it should be admitted. But his spiritual weapons were of little avail. The council, with fourteen bishops, appealed from his censures; the forces under Taafe, Clanricard, and Preston, sent back his messengers; and, on the departure of O'Neil, he repaired to the town of Galway, where he was sure of the support of the people, though in opposition to the sense of the mayor and the merchants. As a last effort, he summoned a national synod at Galway; but the council protested against it; Clanricard surrounded the town with his army; and the inhabitants, opening the gates, made their submission.

War was now openly declared between the two parties. On the one hand, Jones in Dublin, and Monk in Ulster, concluded truces with O'Neil, that he might be in a better condition to oppose the common enemy; on the other, Inchiquin joined with Preston to support the authority of the council against O'Neil. Inroads were reciprocally made; towns were taken and retaken; and large armies were repeatedly brought in face of each other.

The council, however, began to assume a bolder tone: they proclaimed O'Neil a rebel and traitor; and, on the tardy arrival of Ormond with the commission of lord-lieutenant, sent to Rinuccini himself an order to quit the kingdom, with the information that they had accused him to the pope of certain high crimes and misdemeanors.
--J. Lingard and H. Belloc

Ye olde Newes ande Itemes ofe noticee:
Uncle Sam has an odd kick to his stride. Foreshadowing to a crash? All I'll say is don't let them herd you into blowing it all on the transaction fees in the wildness to come. Remember that the 'Cash is King' bit comes with the added complexity, of which kind to choose, in these moments in time.

Thicky's Playland tokens are likely at the bottom of everyone's lists. A loaf of broad now costs between Z$80,000 - Z$110,000 (79 US cents - $1.08) up from about Z$7,500 (7 US cents) last year, when the price was controlled by the government. A carton of orange juice costs about Z$500,000 and a kilo of beef up to Z$1m. "Business quotations are not valid for more than two days," an office manager in Harare told the BBC News website. Well, at least they don't have to listen to the old folk go on about how low prices were before. Few there live past 35 these days.

Bush to the bush. Little Howard to assume the position illustrated in the link. Slobbering and occasional choking noises to follow.

Kidnaped Roll: A small brown bun that no one claims credit for baking.

Won't some one think of the penguins! More than 100 dead Magellan penguins, coated in oil, have been washed up on the southern coast of Argentina.

Conscientious Objectors oppose Global War. Very good, nice to see your lot has been paying attention, get in the lineup with the rest of us. We've been here for 252[see past JEs] years so you'll find it's a bit of a haul to the end of the line.

Simon is Speaking of Mr Blair, there is a passage in Roy Hattersley's memoirs which is even funnier than he intends. He describes attending an important diplomatic meeting when the table collapses, due to someone "tugging a nob underneath it". You have the vision of a member of the aristocracy, possibly chinless and wearing a monocle, holding up the table until someone pulls on him and he lets go, to general embarrassment and hilarity. Similarly the Daily Telegraph reported this week that Andrew "Freddie" Flintoff had spoken at a charity bash in London, where he used the occasion to make an attack on the prime minister. "My teammate, Matthew Hoggard, called the prime minister a 'nob' when we celebrating winning the Ashes at Downing Street ... that's the first thing Hoggy's got right in a while: Blair is a nob." I don't think Freddie was calling the prime minister a member of the landed gentry. There seems to be a 'k' missing.

BrownLeatherJacket finds quite a few 'k's. Under a headline reading "Enemy at the Gate", the Moscow business daily Kommersant, normally a critic of the Kremlin, said that "the Cold War has restarted, only now the front line has shifted." "Komsomolskaya Pravda" asked: "What is Russia to do? Evidently it needs to strengthen links with Belarus and Central Asia. And get friendly with China, to counter-balance this Western might." Over-reactions, of course -- there is no new Cold War -- but Cheney's criticisms would have been more credible and less offensive if he were not so obviously applying a double standard. Kazakhstan is expected to become one of the world's top ten oil producers in the next decade. It is a close ally of the United States, even sending a small contingent of Kazakh troops to Iraq. But Kazakhstan is not a democracy (though it observes all the forms), and Nursultan Nazarbayev is not a democrat. When Dick Cheney became Secretary of Defence in the administration of the elder George Bush in 1989, Nursultan Nazarbayev was already the First Secretary of the Kazakh Communist Party. By 1990 he was president of the Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic and a member of the Soviet politburo in Moscow. And by the end of 1991 he was the president of an independent Kazakhstan and a keen advocate of the free market, as if his Communist past had been merely an adolescent foible. And that 'ker' Cheney too. Additional updates.

SD-DPB softball game highlight. QUESTION: Still Iran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: A senior official told us in New York that the U.S. is not being pressured privately by P-5 members or other countries to open these talks with -- open talks with Tehran, but they continue to be discussed even increasingly in the press. Is it still so that in private meetings and private phone calls, as much as you can say about them, that countries are not suggesting to the United States that they would like to see the U.S. and Tehran open direct talks?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think what we're hearing is a consensus view that we need to, together, come up with this package for the Iranian regime so they can make a choice. This is something, you know, prior to traveling up to New York, Secretary Rice had been thinking about it. She talked a little bit about it with her teams, talked about it with the White House as well. So we believe that we're on the proper course.

I know that there have been a lot of suggestions in public that the United States should engage directly with the Iranians. Our view, at this point, is that there are plenty of channels of communication if the Iranians want to pass information to us or we want to pass information to them. We believe that the right course at the moment is to move forward in coming up with this package of incentives and penalties. And at the same time, we are also going to be talking to other states about actions that they might consider taking themselves, or like-minded states might take themselves, on the financial front. And I would also expect as Libya alluded to that we're going to be continuing discussions on the specific language of resolutions.

So however this turns out over the next several weeks, and we're hopeful that we can come up with a package. At a minimum, what we're looking at is a Chapter 7 resolution that demands the Iranian regime come into compliance with the demands of the IAEA as well as the Security Council presidential statement. So in terms of multilateral action, I think that's, at a minimum, what you're looking at. Outside of that, an action on a resolution wouldn't preclude steps by individual states or like-minded states on actions related to assets or the financial aspects of the funding for Iran's nuclear program as well as terrorism.

QUESTION: That's my question, it's much more specific than that. We were given information as of 1:00 a.m. Tuesday morning that the United States was not being pressured privately to hold direct talks with Tehran.

MR. MCCORMACK: Listen --

QUESTION: I'm aware of --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Look, that is certainly not the message that we are getting from other members of the international community involved in these discussions. This is not -- these discussions are not about why the United States should engage with Iran directly. These discussions are about how, as a group, that we can move forward, down this diplomatic process.

QUESTION: Are you puzzled when you see these continued public statements from leaders that you do speak with quite frequently, including Germany, that they say publicly they would like to see this but they don't say that privately. Is that puzzling to you?

MR. MCCORMACK: Look, all I can describe for you is the course that we're on. Of course, when -- you know, we value the statements and advice of our partners in this endeavor, but we are, as a group, working on a common approach now. And at the moment, I wouldn't expect that that includes direct engagement between the United States and Iran on these issues.

And it's an important point, the problems that Iran has right now with -- are with the rest of the world, not just between the United States and Iran. The concerns about Iran's nuclear program, the concerns about their support for terrorism, the concerns about the treatment of their own people, these are global concerns. This isn't just the United States and Iran. And I know that certainly the Iranians would -- this Iranian regime would like to turn it into a U.S.-Iran issue, but it's just not the case.

QUESTION: You referenced to the channel communication, is that a subtle invitation for a follow-up letter? After all, the reaction here at the White House here was that it didn't address the Iranian overture, it didn't address the nuclear issue.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right, right. It was --

QUESTION: Would you like to hear from them again?

MR. MCCORMACK: It was just a -- it was a statement of fact, Barry, that we have well-known, long-established channels of communication.

QUESTION: You wouldn't like to -- you're not suggesting --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I'm not trying to -- it was merely a statement of fact.

QUESTION: Okay.

*YAITJ: Manual Mode <ninjaEdit> TYAITJ: May13th 2003/33377: The move would overturn a ten-year ban on such developments, and still has to be approved by the full House and Senate. The shift of policy has been sought by the Pentagon since last summer, when it began to develop plans to reshape the US nuclear arsenal to take account of the new doctrine of pre-emption.

Texttoon(1):
Wax crayon on blue-ruled paper/scan/jpg : A crude child like drawing of a rabbit and a fish. Caption in CenturySchoolBook-Italic says; "Lesser known presidential animals : Savagilagus-Canoie and Micropeterus-Malumidae".

Texttoon(2):
Fumetti : Stock photo of George W. Bush and Laura Bush. Existing photo with a bandaged face or overlayed bandage for George. In a pair of bubbles Laura asks; "Forget the safe word with 'Tops' again, George?" George replies, "Shut up!" between. Laura finishes with, "Now he remembers it!"

Texttoon(3):
Fumetti : Stock photo of Scott McClellan serving brownies his wife made on Air Force One. Overlayed speech bubble has him saying; "My wife came up with a great new recipe for brownies while reading Tom Tomorrow's last strip." Optional composited vomit and caption; May contain nuts.

I think this moc-math example could do with a fair bit more work on the wording, but it has been kicking around on my scrap file, unposted, for too long. A quote by Mr. Hume, News, and a Texttoon.

21st Century American Social Math expressed as a Curve.
Given two points, each with a control point, on a 2D surface. Listed here as Pn, drawn with the curve U0 to U1.

Axis values: X Amount of Wealth & Representation, and a Y of Position & Prominence.

Locational points:
P0 [0,0]: Iconified as the child of a 12 year old foster who is, chained to a broken radiator and starving in the cold.
P2 [1,1]: Iconified as a man who has the wealth and position to manipulate; the market place, the judiciary to the highest courts in the land, and the legislatures from the civil to even the executive. All to his advantage. [see topic icon]

Control points:
P1 [1,0]: The control point for the most disadvantaged is firmly at the X-max and at its lowest level[Y]. As it has been for the last ~2200 years.
P3 [1,0]: At one time the second control point had a greater Y value than its origin. Reformers right up to the late 19th and early 20th centuries had made progress and the curve relaxed, somewhat. But recent advances in intimidating the rich has reduced it to the gutter with the previous control point. [see gated towns, outing, selective enforcement, muckraking, race-baiting, and anthrax]

Result: An L curve so rectangular, it might as well be called perpendicular. The intersection of a test ray from 0.5,0.5 to U(0.5) on the curve is almost equal to the square.

Trip-dot: There is no American Middle-Class or Middle-Income group to speak of. QED.

Quote:
The king, impelled more by the love of military glory than by superstition, acted from the beginning of his reign, as if the sole purpose of his government had been the relief of the Holy Land, and the recovery of Jerusalem from the Saracens.

This zeal against infidels, being communicated to his subjects, broke out in London on the day of his coronation, and made them find a crusade less dangerous, and attended with more immediate profit. The prejudices of the age had made the lending of money on interest pass by the invidious name of usury; yet the necessity of the practice had still continued it, and the greater part of that kind of dealing fell everywhere into the hands of the Jews; who being already infamous on account of their religion, had no honour to lose, and were apt to exercise a profession, odious in itself, by every kind of rigour, and even sometimes by rapine and extortion.

The industry and frugality of this people had put them in possession of all the ready money, which the idleness and profusion, common to the English with other European nations, enabled them to lend at exorbitant and unequal interest. The monkish writers represent it as a great stain on the wise and equitable government of Henry, that he had carefully protected this infidel race from all injures and insults; but the zeal of Richard afforded the populace a pretence for venting their animosity against them.

The king had issued an edict prohibiting their appearance at his coronation; but some of them, bringing him large presents from their nation, presumed, in confidence of that merit, to approach the hall in which he dined: being discovered, they were exposed to the insults of the bystanders; they took to flight; the people pursued them; the rumour was spread that the king had issued orders to massacre all the Jews; a command so agreeable was executed in an instant on such as fell into the hands of the populace; those who had kept at home were exposed to equal danger; the people, moved by rapacity and zeal, broke into their houses, which they plundered, after having murdered the owners; where the Jews barricaded their doors, and defended themselves with vigour, the rabble set fire to the houses, and made way through the flames to exercise their pillage and violence; the usual licentiousness of London, which the sovereign power with difficulty restrained, broke out with fury, and continued these outrages; the houses of the richest citizens, though Christians, were next attacked and plundered; and weariness and satiety at last put an end to the disorder: yet, when the king empowered Glanville, the justiciary, to inquire into the authors of these crimes, the guilt was found to involve so many of the most considerable citizens, that it was deemed more prudent to drop the prosecution; and very few suffered the punishment due to this enormity.

But the disorder stopped not at London. The inhabitants of the other cities of England, hearing of this slaughter of the Jews, imitated the example: in York, five hundred of that nation, who had retired into the castle for safety, and found themselves unable to defend the place, murdered their own wives and children, threw the dead bodies over the walls upon the populace, and then setting fire to the houses perished in the flames. The gentry of the neighbourhood, who were all indebted to the Jews, ran to the cathedral, where their bonds were kept, and made a solemn bonfire of the papers before the altar. The compiler of the Annals of Waverley, in relating these events, blesses the Almighty for thus delivering over this impious race to destruction.

The ancient situation of England, when the people possessed little riches and the public no credit, made it impossible for sovereigns to bear the expense of a steady or durable war, even on their frontiers; much less could they find regular means for the support of distant expeditions like those into Palestine, which were more the result of popular frenzy than of sober reason or deliberate policy.

Richard, therefore, knew that he must carry with him all the treasure necessary for his enterprise, and that both the remoteness of his own country and its poverty made it unable to furnish him with those continued supplies, which the exigencies of so perilous a war must necessarily require. His father had left him a treasure of above a hundred thousand marks; and the king, negligent of every consideration but his present object, endeavoured to augment this sum by all expedients, how pernicious soever to the public, or dangerous to royal authority.

He put to sale the revenues and manors of the crown; the offices of greatest trust and power, even those of forester and sheriff, which anciently were so important , became venal; the dignity of chief justiciary, in whose hands was lodged the whole execution of the laws, was sold to Hugh de Puzas, Bishop of Durham, for a thousand marks; the same prelate bought the earldom of Northumberland for life; many of the champions of the cross, who had repented of the vow, purchased the liberty of violating it; and Richard, who stood less in need of men than of money, dispensed, on these conditions, with their attendance. Elated with the hopes of fame, which, in that age, attended no wars but those against the infidels, he was blind to every other consideration; and when some of his wiser ministers objected to this dissipation of the revenue and power of the crown, he replied that he would sell London itself, could he find a purchaser. Nothing, indeed, could be a stronger proof how negligent he was of all future interests in comparison of the crusade, than his selling, for so small a sum as ten thousand marks, the vassalage of Scotland, together with the fortresses of Roxburgh and Berwick, the greatest acquisition that had been made by his father during the course of his victorious reign; and his accepting the homage of William in the usual terms, merely for the territories which that prince held in England.

The English of all ranks and stations were oppressed by numerous exactions; menaces were employed, both against the innocent and the guilty, in order to extort money from them; and where a pretence was wanting against the rich, the king obliged them, by the fear of his displeasure, to lend him sums which, he knew, it would never be in his power to repay.

But Richard, though he sacrificed every interest and consideration to the success of this pious enterprise, carried so little the appearance of sanctity in his conduct, that Fulk, curate of Neuilly, a zealous preacher of the crusade, who, from that merit, had acquired the privilege of speaking the boldest truths, advised him to rid himself of his notorious vices, particularly his pride, avarice, and voluptuousness, which he called the king's three favourite daughters. YOU COUNSEL WELL, replied Richard, and I HEREBY DISPOSE OF THE FIRST TO THE TEMPLARS, OF THE SECOND TO THE BENEDICTINES, AND OF THE THIRD TO MY PRELATES.

Richard, jealous of attempts which might be made on England during his absence, laid Prince John, as well as his natural brother, Geoffrey, Archbishop of York, under engagements, confirmed by their oaths, that neither of them should enter the kingdom till his return; though he thought proper, before his departure, to withdraw this prohibition. The administration was left in the hands of Hugh, Bishop of Durham, and of Longchamp, Bishop of Ely, whom he appointed justiciaries and guardians of the realm.

The latter was a Frenchman, of mean birth, and of a violent character; who, by art and address, had insinuated himself into favour, whom Richard had created chancellor, and whom he had engaged the pope also to invest with the legatine authority, that, by centering every kind of power in his person, he might the better ensure the public tranquillity. All the military and turbulent spirits flocked about the person of the king, and were impatient to distinguish themselves against the infidels in Asia; whither his inclinations, his engagements, led him, and whither he was impelled by messages from the King of France, ready to embark in this enterprise.

The Emperor Frederic, a prince of great spirit and conduct, had already taken the road to Palestine, at the head of one hundred and fifty thousand men, collected from Germany and all the northern states. Having surmounted every obstacle thrown in his way by the artifices of the Greeks and the power of the infidels, he had penetrated to the borders of Syria; when, bathing in the cold river Cydnus during the greatest heat of the summer season, he was seized with a mortal distemper, which put an end to his life and his rash enterprise.

His army, under the command of his son, Conrade, reached Palestine; but was so diminished by fatigue, famine, maladies, and the sword, that it scarcely amounted to eight thousand men; and was unable to make any progress against the great power, valour, and conduct of Saladin. These reiterated calamities attending the crusades had taught the Kings of France and England the necessity of trying another road to the Holy Land; and they determined to conduct their armies thither by sea, to carry provisions along with them, and, by means of their naval power, to maintain an open communication with their own states, and with the western parts of Europe. The place of rendezvous was appointed in the plains of Vezelay, on the borders of Burgundy. Philip and Richard, on their arrival there, found their combined army amount to one hundred thousand men; a mighty force, animated with glory and religion, conducted by two warlike monarchs, provided with every thing which their several dominions could supply, and not to be overcome but by their own misconduct, or by the unsurmountable obstacles of nature.

The French prince and the English here reiterated their promises of cordial friendship, pledged their faith not to invade each other's dominions during the crusade, mutually exchanged the oaths of all their barons and prelates to the same effect, and subjected themselves to the penalty of interdicts and excommunications, if they should ever violate this public and solemn engagement. They then separated; Philip took the road to Genoa, Richard that to Marseilles, with a view of meeting their fleets, which were severally appointed to rendezvous in these harbours. They put to sea; and, nearly about the same time, were obliged, by stress of weather, to take shelter in Messina, where they were detained during the whole winter. This incident laid the foundation of animosities which proved fatal to their enterprise.

Richard and Philip were, by the situation and extent of their dominions, rivals in power; by their age and inclinations, competitors for glory; and these causes of emulation which, had the princes been employed in the field against the common enemy, might have stimulated them to martial enterprises, soon excited, during the present leisure and repose, quarrels between monarchs of such a fiery character. Equally haughty, ambitious, intrepid, and inflexible, they were irritated with the least appearance of injury, and were incapable, by mutual condescensions, to efface those causes of complaint, which unavoidably arose between them. Richard, candid, sincere, undesigning, impolitic, violent, laid himself open, on every occasion, to the designs of his antagonist; who, provident, interested, intriguing, failed not to take all advantages against him: and thus, both the circumstances of their disposition in which they were similar, and those in which they differed, rendered it impossible for them to persevere in that harmony which was so necessary to the success of their undertaking.

The last King of Sicily and Naples was William II., who had married Joan, sister to Richard, and who, dying without issue, had bequeathed his dominions to his paternal aunt, Constantia, the only legitimate descendant surviving of Roger, the first sovereign of those states who had been honoured with the royal title.

This princess had, in expectation of that rich inheritance, been married to Henry VI., the reigning emperor; but Tancred, her natural brother, had fixed such an interest among the barons, that, taking advantage of Henry's absence, he had acquired possession of the throne, and maintained his claim, by force of arms, against all the efforts of the Germans. The approach of the crusaders naturally gave him apprehensions for his unstable government; and he was uncertain, whether he had most reason to dread the presence of the French or of the English monarch. Philip was engaged in a strict alliance with the emperor his competitor; Richard was disgusted by his rigours towards the queen-dowager, whom the Sicilian prince had confined in Palermo, because she had opposed with all her interest his succession to the crown.

Tancred, therefore, sensible of the present necessity, resolved to pay court to both these formidable princes; and he was not unsuccessful in his endeavours. He persuaded Philip that it was highly improper for him to interrupt his enterprise against the infidels, by any attempt against a Christian state: he restored Queen Joan to her liberty; and even found means to make an alliance with Richard, who stipulated by treaty to marry his nephew, Arthur, the young Duke of Britany, to one of the daughters of Tancred. But before these terms of friendship were settled, Richard, jealous both of Tancred and of the inhabitants of Messina, had taken up his quarters in the suburbs, and had possessed himself of a small fort, which commanded the harbour; and he kept himself extremely on his guard against their enterprises.

The citizens took umbrage. Mutual insults and attacks passed between them and the English: Philip, who had quartered his troops in the town, endeavoured to accommodate the quarrel, and held a conference with Richard for that purpose. While the two kings, meeting in the open fields, were engaged in discourse on this subject, a body of those Sicilians seemed to be drawing towards them; and Richard pushed forwards, in order to inquire into the reason of this extraordinary movement.

The English, insolent from their power, and inflamed with former animosities, wanted but a pretence for attacking the Messinese: they soon chased them off the field, drove them into the town, and entered with them at the gates.

The king employed his authority to restrain them from pillaging and massacring the defenceless inhabitants; but he gave orders, in token of his victory, that the standard of England should be erected on the walls. Philip, who considered that place as his quarters, exclaimed against the insult, and ordered some of his troops to pull down the standard: but Richard informed him by a messenger, that, though he himself would willingly remove that ground of offence, he would not permit it to be done by others; and if the French king attempted such an insult upon him, he should not succeed but by the utmost effusion of blood.

Philip, content with this species of haughty submission, recalled his orders; the difference was seemingly accommodated; but still left the remains of rancour and jealousy in the breasts of the two monarchs.

Tancred, who, for his own security, desired to inflame their mutual hatred, employed an artifice which might have been attended with consequences still more fatal. He showed Richard a letter, signed by the French king, and delivered to him, as he pretended, by the Duke of Burgundy; in which that monarch desired Tancred to fall upon the quarters of the English, and promised to assist him in putting them to the sword, as common enemies.

The unwary Richard gave credit to the information; but was too candid not to betray his discontent to Philip, who absolutely denied the letter, and charged the Sicilian prince with forgery and falsehood. Richard either was, or pretended to be, entirely satisfied.
--D. Hume

News from the future of yesterday:
It's the Punch'en Judy Show.

Pitt takes WashPo's Richard Cohen to task. You speak of the angry mob because you got slapped around via email, but your characterization of the anti-war crowd tells me you have not spent a single moment out in the streets with them. --vs-- What to make of all this? First, it's not about Colbert. His show has an audience of about 1 million -- not exactly "American Idol" numbers. Second, it marks the end of a silly pretense about interactive media: We give you our e-mail addresses and then, in theory, we have this nice chat. Forget about it. Not only is e-mail too often a kind of epistolary spitball, but there's no way I can even read the 3,506 e-mails now backed up in my queue -- seven more since I started writing this column. Wow, really? A whole seven past the filters in the time it took to expose your own ignorance. That's progress for ya!

But don't get too full of yourselves. There is still enough Dark-Ages to go around. A prominent philosopher who has written extensively on cultural and philosophical topics, Jahanbegloo is director of Contemporary Studies at the Cultural Research Bureau, a private institution in Tehran. His academic writings include more than 20 books in English, French and Persian. He has also written for newspapers and magazines in Iran and abroad. "The arbitrary arrest of Ramin Jahanbegloo shows the perilous state of academic freedom and free speech in Iran today," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "This prominent scholar should be celebrated for his academic achievements, not interrogated in one of Iran's most infamous prisons." The authorities detained Jahanbegloo at Tehran Airport on or around Thursday, April 27. Officials refused to acknowledge his detention until Wednesday, May 3, when Tehran's deputy prosecutor general, Mahmoud Salarkia, confirmed Jahanbegloo's detention in an interview with the Iranian Students News Agency.

Picking a winner in NZ. "Dr Brash has to tell us now whether his team accepted his suggestion that US strategists be used in his campaign and whether, as was widely rumoured at the time, the strategist did visit New Zealand in order to assist the National party.

Rice Record. QUESTION: Let's hope we're all in and locked up. Our guest obviously needs no introduction. I will say on behalf of the news division, on behalf of our news division president, who as we mentioned is leaving for the airport, Madame Secretary, we appreciate you spending some time with us today. And I guess our ground rules are actually your choice. I guess we're on the record unless I was -- SECRETARY RICE: On the record. Nice of him to point out the key points before they started "...we're all in [it up to our ears] and [should be] locked up..." and "...our ground rules are actually your choice[command, as always]".

Puppet Show III nearly ready. Mr Maliki said that he hoped to form a new administration within two days. He said nominations for the key posts in the cabinet have been submitted by Shia, Sunni and Kurdish groups. And not, repeat not, an obvious short list submitted by the USA.

Tigers came and went. Now they don't want to come back.

Explored Roll: A bun that is left undiscovered by those already there.

Improperly monitored : Translation "Did not hire us... the bastards".

The StrawDog's replacement. Mrs Beckett's appointment as foreign secretary in Friday's reshuffle was a surprise - not least to her. After a weekend of briefings in her Derby South constituency, her posting began at the VIP lounge at Heathrow airport at 11am on Monday where she started work on her red boxes.

Simon says: Yesterday he outlined a programme that would have kept the Victorians flat out for a century, while insisting that he would leave his successor plenty of time "to bed himself in". It was wonderful: demented, mad, crazed. Did he hear what he was saying? Blazing neologisms flew past like those plasma things airmen imagine are flying saucers. He asked us to ponder the views of those "at the reasonable end of the market". What on earth could that mean? We had a mental picture of a street market where at one end stallholders scream, ("arnly a pahnd a pahnd, darlink!"), while at the reasonable end traders murmur: "I have some passable bananas here, moderately though not foolishly priced. Might you consider purchasing a quantity?" He also showed - unusually - signs of suffering from secondary Prescott, the verbal disorder that afflicts anyone who has dealings with the deputy PM, like the lasagne that laid waste Spurs. Of Charles Clarke's dismissal, he said: "There was no one I less wanted to make the decision in respect of." And through it all we were hypnotised by the eye, the one gleaming, bulging eye that tells us so much about what is really going on inside the Blair brain. It seems to act independently of the other, often wider, sometimes hooded. Occasionally, even while he is grinning, the eye focuses balefully on a tormentor. It resembles a special branch officer, who, while the politician glads hands and slaps backs, scans the crowd for concealed weaponry.

SD-DPB May 5th softball game.
QUESTION: Can we talk about Darfur, please?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: And update us on any progress -- well, the progress we know about and whether he is doing better in getting more rebel parties to sign on?

MR. MCCORMACK: Yeah. The situation now is still -- I guess the way to put it is still evolving. Deputy Secretary Zoellick has talked to some of the media in Abuja. And right now, it -- you know, what we hope is that this is a good and hopeful day for the people of Sudan and the people of Darfur. It -- you know, the news reports coming out of Abuja have the Government of Sudan and then the main rebel -- main faction of the rebel groups under the leadership of Minni Minawi agreeing on an accord. The talks are still continuing and I think that there is still some consideration on the part of at least one of the other rebel groups led by Abdulwahid whether or not they're going to sign on to the accord. So that's where we stand right now. I think it's still an evolving situation but a potentially very hopeful day for the people of Darfur.

Now I just have to caution that even if there is an agreement, an agreement on paper, there will be a need to implement that agreement. And it's going to require as much, if not more, work on the part of the parties involved and the international community to see an agreement implemented. And we will be right there to work with members of international community to see that it is implemented. But first we have to get signatures on the piece of paper. At this point, I'm not aware that we have that quite yet.

QUESTION: And what happens if only one party signs on? Is the deal invalid or do you try to move forward with --

MR. MCCORMACK: No, I think you continue to move forward. I think that you -- again, we're getting into the realm of "ifs" here. But if that is, in fact, the case, you continue working the political process, so you -- there's no substitute for a political accommodation, a political settlement in order to ultimately resolve the grave humanitarian and security issues that exist there. You address those in their own right. But ultimately, you're not going to solve the issues in Darfur with -- absent that political agreement.

Sue.

QUESTION: Is this going to be under discussion with both the Quartet and the P-5? And how far are you getting in terms of finding troops and others to implement this agreement?

MR. MCCORMACK: In terms of P-5, it could very well come up in that context. Quartet, I don't expect it to come up. I know that the British Government has made some suggestions about a potential meeting on Darfur up in New York, and that's certainly a very interesting idea. We're going to follow up with them as well as our other colleagues at the UN on that idea, but at this point there's nothing that's gelled on that.

QUESTION: Are you talking within the context of these meetings next week when you say --

MR. MCCORMACK: Excuse me? No, I've seen -- again, I've seen the press reports on it.

QUESTION: No, I mean, but next -- but for next week, not just like in the future.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right.

QUESTION: You're talking about next week.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. Yeah, again, I've seen the press reports about that but there's nothing -- I mean, there's nothing to -- that certainly I could confirm on that.

Our focus right now is on the Abuja talks and making those work and doing what we can to see that they move forward.

QUESTION: So who would attend these talks possibly that the British are interested in?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, this is -- you know, I've seen the news -- I've seen the news reports on this, Sue, so, you know, it is not -- it is not something that's on anybody's agenda at this point.

QUESTION: It's on the agenda of the French. They announced it officially. (Laughter.) But it will be --

MR. MCCORMACK: I didn't mean to leave out my French colleagues.

QUESTION: It will be at 4pm.

QUESTION: That's not fairly definite, then?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, yeah -- no, it's not fairly definite. As of right now, Sylvie, it's not on the Secretary's schedule.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: What are Deputy Secretary Zoellick's plans? Is he coming back? Is he staying to see if he can get more signatures? Is he going on to --

MR. MCCORMACK: Right now he's there and he's working hard and he's working side by side with the AU negotiators and President Obasanjo of Nigeria. And I just have to single out President Obasanjo and the leadership of the AU for the effort that they have put in to bring this negotiating process to the point at which it finds itself right now. We hope that it is successful in terms of gaining as many possible signatures on the document from the rebel groups as possible, but President Obasanjo and the AU deserve great praise and great credit for the effort that they have put in and the focus that they have devoted to get the process to the point at which we are right now.

*YAITJ: Manual Mode :

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of James Brown on stage. Composited head and hands of Ken Lay to replace. Overlayed speech bubble;
"(horn flourish to bass and lead)
We feel real good [Aooow! Yah!]
About where we are right now [Hunh!!]

We think (stab, horns)
In fact (stab, horns+strings)
In the end (stab, all)

(double time)
We're going to prevail [Waaaaow! Nah-nah! Hit it!]
(horn breakdown -- end on stab for cue)

(sliding funk)
God has blessed me and my family enormously [Ahaha! Yah!]
He's been in that courtroom every day [Wak'n ha'd nah!]
He has a plan and a purpose in this [Oooh yah!]

(double time)
I have complete confidence [Ss'again! Nah!]
I have complete confidence [Oooowww! Yah!]
It's going to come out fine [Yah nah! Hunh!]
(repeats until fades from press)"

In addition to considering that lyric ref I would like you to view this toon I made a while ago. I should think the vast number of online commemorations of Kent State May 4/1970 can also be assumed to be in mind.

I will also point out, as my toon illustrates so well, they will/would not be using just horses and infantry in future fiascos. APC and LAVs, attack helicopters, and more. The cynic in me says it is all too likely to see a recycling of a Pinkerton's charge with a higher body count than ever before. Say with Blackwater, or the like, clearing the Washington Monument grounds with 20 and 50mm rounds from armoured air and ground units. As the coming storm[(s) surly!] will not, I fear, be localized to campuses or the factory gates. Military contractors, of various sorts, are once again, already well scattered among the police of most every state and city.

As advisors and for technical assistance only, I'm sure [...for now].

On the other hand, one can hope that Shrub, and the rest of the current social engineers of the 14th century, don't take the paths their forefathers did. I've presented a large number of quotes, highlighting those previous dark moments, in the history of the USA. [and] It hardly helps that this current era's examples are delving so far back in the past for their tactics. *sigh*

Perhaps I should filk 'Caligula' on the change to 'Torquamada'. But, neither they, or Shrub&Co, can blush. And, I'm not in that humourious a mood. I have troubling visions of the dark days ahead. I grow ever more concerned for my American friends, and the parts of my family still there. And for you, my American readers [& /.'rs et al American]. Moreover, it has been, and will, continue spilling into the rest of the planet.

Too TinFoilHat-ish you say? Answer this, in your mind--no need to reply, what is the 'best case' scenario you can think of, for the remaining <1000 days of the Bush administration? Worst cases are far too easy to extrapolate, it's much harder to find a...any possible path for them to take that does not end in a Grue.

The quote today is a rather long one on the mind set of people capable of, and enabling of, eating their own --as well as everyone elses. I do hope you will at least skim John's rant. Parts have been edited for space if that is any consolation. [/;-)

Quote:
The fons errorum in M. Comte's later speculations is this inordinate demand for "unity" and "systematization." This is the reason why it does not suffice to him that all should be ready, in case of need, to postpone their personal interests and inclinations to the requirements of the general good: he demands that each should regard as vicious any care at all for his personal interests, except as a means to the good of others--should be ashamed of it, should strive to cure himself of it, because his existence is not "systematized," is not in "complete unity," as long as he cares for more than one thing. The strangest part of the matter is, that this doctrine seems to M. Comte to be axiomatic.

That all perfection consists in unity, he apparently considers to be a maxim which no sane man thinks of questioning. It never seems to enter into his conceptions that any one could object ab initio, and ask, why this universal systematizing, systematizing, systematizing? Why is it necessary that all human life should point but to one object, and be cultivated into a system of means to a single end? May it not be the fact that mankind, who after all are made up of single human beings, obtain a greater sum of happiness when each pursues his own, under the rules and conditions required by the good of the rest, than when each makes the good of the rest his only subject, and allows himself no personal pleasures not indispensable to the preservation of his faculties?

The regimen of a blockaded town should be cheerfully submitted to when high purposes require it, but is it the ideal perfection of human existence? M. Comte sees none of these difficulties. The only true happiness, he affirms, is in the exercise of the affections. He had found it so for a whole year, which was enough to enable him to get to the bottom of the question, and to judge whether he could do without everything else. Of course the supposition was not to be heard of that any other person could require, or be the better for, what M. Comte did not value. "Unity" and "systematization" absolutely demanded that all other people should model themselves after M. Comte. It would never do to suppose that there could be more than one road to human happiness, or more than one ingredient in it.

The most prejudiced must admit that this religion without theology is not chargeable with relaxation of moral restraints. On the contrary, it prodigiously exaggerates them. It makes the same ethical mistake as the theory of Calvinism, that every act in life should be done for the glory of God, and that whatever is not a duty is a sin. It does not perceive that between the region of duty and that of sin there is an intermediate space, the region of positive worthiness. It is not good that persons should be bound, by other people's opinion, to do everything that they would deserve praise for doing.

There is a standard of altruism to which all should be required to come up, and a degree beyond it which is not obligatory, but meritorious. It is incumbent on every one to restrain the pursuit of his personal objects within the limits consistent with the essential interests of others. What those limits are, it is the province of ethical science to determine; and to keep all individuals and aggregations of individuals within them, is the proper office of punishment and of moral blame. If in addition to fulfilling this obligation, persons make the good of others a direct object of disinterested exertions, postponing or sacrificing to it even innocent personal indulgences, they deserve gratitude and honour, and are fit objects of moral praise.

So long as they are in no way compelled to this conduct by any external pressure, there cannot be too much of it; but a necessary condition is its spontaneity; since the notion of a happiness for all, procured by the self-sacrifice of each, if the abnegation is really felt to be a sacrifice, is a contradiction. Such spontaneity by no means excludes sympathetic encouragement; but the encouragement should take the form of making self-devotion pleasant, not that of making everything else painful.

The object should be to stimulate services to humanity by their natural rewards; not to render the pursuit of our own good in any other manner impossible, by visiting it with the reproaches of other and of our own conscience. The proper office of those sanctions is to enforce upon every one, the conduct necessary to give all other persons their fair chance: conduct which chiefly consists in not doing them harm, and not impeding them in anything which without harming others does good to themselves. To this must of course be added, that when we either expressly or tacitly undertake to do more, we are bound to keep our promise. And inasmuch as every one, who avails himself of the advantages of society, leads others to expect from him all such positive good offices and disinterested services as the moral improvement attained by mankind has rendered customary, he deserves moral blame if, without just cause, he disappoints that expectation. Through this principle the domain of moral duty is always widening. When what once was uncommon virtue becomes common virtue, it comes to be numbered among obligations, while a degree exceeding what has grown common, remains simply meritorious.

M. Comte is accustomed to draw most of his ideas of moral cultivation from the discipline of the Catholic Church. Had he followed that guidance in the present case, he would have been less wide of the mark. For the distinction which we have drawn was fully recognized by the sagacious and far-sighted men who created the Catholic ethics. It is even one of the stock reproaches against Catholicism, that it has two standards of morality, and does not make obligatory on all Christians the highest rule of Christian perfection. It has one standard which, faithfully acted up to, suffices for salvation, another and a higher which when realized constitutes a saint. M. Comte, perhaps unconsciously, for there is nothing that he would have been more unlikely to do if he had been aware of it, has taken a leaf out of the book of the despised Protestantism. Like the extreme Calvinists, he requires that all believers shall be saints, and damns then (after his own fashion) if they are not.

Our conception of human life is different. We do not conceive life to be so rich in enjoyments, that it can afford to forego the cultivation of all those which address themselves to what M. Comte terms the egoistic propensities. On the contrary, we believe that a sufficient gratification of these, short of excess, but up to the measure which renders the enjoyment greatest, is almost always favourable to the benevolent affections.

The moralization of the personal enjoyments we deem to consist, not in reducing them to the smallest possible amount, but in cultivating the habitual wish to share them with others, and with all others, and scorning to desire anything for oneself which is incapable of being so shared. There is only one passion or inclination which is permanently incompatible with this condition--the love of domination, or superiority, for its own sake; which implies, and is grounded on, the equivalent depression of other people. As a rule of conduct, to be enforced by moral sanctions, we think no more should be attempted than to prevent people from doing harm to others, or omitting to do such good as they have undertaken.

Demanding no more than this, society, in any tolerable circumstances, obtains much more; for the natural activity of human nature, shut out from all noxious directions, will expand itself in useful ones. This is our conception of the moral rule prescribed by the religion of Humanity. But above this standard there is an unlimited range of moral worth, up to the most exalted heroism, which should be fostered by every positive encouragement, though not converted into an obligation. It is as much a part of our scheme as of M. Comte's, that the direct cultivation of altruism, and the subordination of egoism to it, far beyond the point of absolute moral duty, should be one of the chief aims of education, both individual and collective.

We even recognize the value, for this end, of ascetic discipline, in the original Greek sense of the word. We think with Dr Johnson, that he who has never denied himself anything which is not wrong, cannot be fully trusted for denying himself everything which is so. We do not doubt that children and young persons will one day be again systematically disciplined in self-mortification; that they will be taught, as in antiquity, to control their appetites, to brave dangers, and submit voluntarily to pain, as simple exercises in education.

Something has been lost as well as gained by no longer giving to every citizen the training necessary for a soldier. Nor can any pains taken be too great, to form the habit, and develop the desire, of being useful to others and to the world, by the practice, independently of reward and of every personal consideration, of positive virtue beyond the bounds of prescribed duty. No efforts should be spared to associate the pupil's self-respect, and his desire of the respect of others, with service rendered to Humanity; when possible, collectively, but at all events, what is always possible, in the persons of its individual members.

There are many remarks and precepts in M. Comte's volumes, which, as no less pertinent to our conception of morality than to his, we fully accept. For example; without admitting that to make "calculs personnels" is contrary to morality, we agree with him in the opinion, that the principal hygienic precepts should be inculcated, not solely or principally as maxims of prudence, but as a matter of duty to others, since by squandering our health we disable ourselves from rendering to our fellow-creatures the services to which they are entitled.

As M. Comte truly says, the prudential motive is by no means fully sufficient for the purpose, even physicians often disregarding their own precepts. The personal penalties of neglect of health are commonly distant, as well as more or less uncertain, and require the additional and more immediate sanction of moral responsibility. M. Comte, therefore, in this instance, is, we conceive, right in principle; though we have not the smallest doubt that he would have gone into extreme exaggeration in practice, and would have wholly ignored the legitimate liberty of the individual to judge for himself respecting his own bodily conditions, with due relation to the sufficiency of his means of knowledge, and taking the responsibility of the result.

Connected with the same considerations is another idea of M. Comte, which has great beauty and grandeur in it, and the realization of which, within the bounds of possibility, would be a cultivation of the social feelings on a most essential point. It is, that every person who lives by any useful work, should be habituated to regard himself not as an individual working for his private benefit, but as a public functionary; and his wages, of whatever sort, as not the remuneration or purchase-money of his labour, which should be given freely, but as the provision made by society to enable him to carry it on, and to replace the materials and products which have been consumed in the process.

M. Comte observes, that in modern industry every one in fact works much more for others than for himself, since his productions are to be consumed by others, and it is only necessary that his thoughts and imagination should adapt themselves to the real state of the fact. The practical problem, however, is not quite so simple, for a strong sense that he is working for others may lead to nothing better than feeling himself necessary to them, and instead of freely giving his commodity, may only encourage him to put a high price upon it.

What M. Comte really means is that we should regard working for the benefit of others as a good in itself; that we should desire it for its own sake, and not for the sake of remuneration, which cannot justly be claimed for doing what we like: that the proper return for a service to society is the gratitude of society: and that the moral claim of any one in regard to the provision for his personal wants, is not a question of quid pro quo in respect to his co-operation, but of how much the circumstances of society permit to be assigned to him, consistently with the just claims of others.

To this opinion we entirely subscribe. The rough method of settling the labourer's share of the produce, the competition of the market, may represent a practical necessity, but certainly not a moral ideal. Its defence is, that civilization has not hitherto been equal to organizing anything better than this first rude approach to an equitable distribution. Rude as it is, we for the present go less wrong by leaving the thing to settle itself, than by settling it artificially in any mode which has yet been tried. But in whatever manner that question may ultimately be decided, the true moral and social idea of Labour is in no way affected by it. Until labourers and employers perform the work of industry in the spirit in which soldiers perform that of an army, industry will never be moralized, and military life will remain, what, in spite of the anti-social character of its direct object, it has hitherto been--the chief school of moral co-operation.

Thus far of the general idea of M. Comte's ethics and religion. We must now say something of the details. Here we approach the ludicrous side of the subject: but we shall unfortunately have to relate other things far more really ridiculous.

There cannot be a religion without a cultus. We use this term for want of any other, for its nearest equivalent, worship, suggests a different order of ideas. We mean by it, a set of systematic observances, intended to cultivate and maintain the religious sentiment. Though M. Comte justly appreciates the superior efficacy of acts, in keeping up and strengthening the feeling which prompts them, over any mode whatever of mere expression, he takes pains to organize the latter also with great minuteness. He provides an equivalent both for the private devotions, and for the public ceremonies, of other faiths.

The reader will be surprised to learn, that the former consists of prayer. But prayer, as understood by M. Comte, does not mean asking; it is a mere outpouring of feeling; and for this view of it he claims the authority of the Christian mystics. It is not to be addressed to the Grand Etre, to collective Humanity; though he occasionally carries metaphor so far as to style this a goddess. The honours to collective Humanity are reserved for the public celebrations. Private adoration is to be addressed to it in the persons of worthy individual representatives, who may be either living or dead, but must in all cases be women; for women, being the sexe aimant, represent the best attribute of humanity, that which ought to regulate all human life, nor can Humanity possibly be symbolized in any form but that of a woman.

The objects of private adoration are the mother, the wife, and the daughter, representing severally the past, the present, and the future, and calling into active exercise the three social sentiments, veneration, attachment, and kindness. We are to regard them, whether dead or alive, as our guardian angels, "les vrais anges gardiens." If the last two have never existed, or if, in the particular case, any of the three types is too faulty for the office assigned to it, their place may be supplied by some other type of womanly excellence, even by one merely historical. Be the object living or dead, the adoration (as we understand it) is to be addressed only to the idea.

The prayer consists of two parts; a commemoration, followed by an effusion. By a commemoration M. Comte means an effort of memory and imagination, summoning up with the utmost possible vividness the image of the object: and every artifice is exhausted to render the image as life-like, as close to the reality, as near an approach to actual hallucination, as is consistent with sanity. This degree of intensity having been, as far as practicable, attained, the effusion follows. Every person should compose his own form of prayer, which should be repeated not mentally only, but orally, and may be added to or varied for sufficient cause, but never arbitrarily. It may be interspersed with passages from the best poets, when they present themselves spontaneously, as giving a felicitous expression to the adorer's own feeling.

These observances M. Comte practised to the memory of his Clotilde, and he enjoins them on all true believers. They are to occupy two hours of every day, divided into three parts; at rising, in the middle of the working hours, and in bed at night. The first, which should be in a kneeling attitude, will commonly be the longest, and the second the shortest. The third is to be extended as nearly as possible to the moment of falling asleep, that its effect may be felt in disciplining even the dreams.

The public cultus consists of a series of celebrations or festivals, eighty-four in the year, so arranged that at least one occurs in every week. They are devoted to the successive glorification of Humanity itself; of the various ties, political and domestic, among mankind; of the successive stages in the past evolution of our species; and of the several classes into which M. Comte's polity divides mankind. M. Comte's religion has, moreover, nine Sacraments; consisting in the solemn consecration, by the priests of Humanity, with appropriate exhortations, of all the great transitions in life; the entry into life itself, and into each of its successive stages: education, marriage, the choice of a profession, and so forth.

Among these is death, which receives the name of transformation, and is considered as a passage from objective existence to subjective--to living in the memory of our fellow-creatures. Having no eternity of objective existence to offer, M. Comte's religion gives it all he can, by holding out the hope of subjective immortality--of existing in the remembrance and in the posthumous adoration of mankind at large, if we have done anything to deserve remembrance from them; at all events, of those whom we loved during life; and when they too are gone, of being included in the collective adoration paid to the Grand Etre.

People are to be taught to look forward to this as a sufficient recompense for the devotion of a whole life to the service of Humanity. Seven years after death, comes the last Sacrament: a public judgment, by the priesthood, on the memory of the defunct. This is not designed for purposes of reprobation, but of honour, and any one may, by declaration during life, exempt himself from it. If judged, and found worthy, he is solemnly incorporated with the Grand Etre, and his remains are transferred from the civil to the religious place of sepulture: "le bois sacre" qui doit entourer chaque temple de l'Humanite."

This brief abstract gives no idea of the minuteness of M. Comte's prescriptions, and the extraordinary height to which he carries the mania for regulation by which Frenchmen are distinguished among Europeans, and M. Comte among Frenchmen.

It is this which throws an irresistible air of ridicule over the whole subject. There is nothing really ridiculous in the devotional practices which M. Comte recommends towards a cherished memory or an ennobling ideal, when they come unprompted from the depths of the individual feeling; but there is something ineffably ludicrous in enjoining that everybody shall practise them three times daily for a period of two hours, not because his feelings require them, but for the premeditated, purpose of getting his feelings up.

The ludicrous, however, in any of its shapes, is a phaenomenon with which M. Comte seems to have been totally unacquainted. There is nothing in his writings from which it could be inferred that he knew of the existence of such things as wit and humour. The only writer distinguished for either, of whom he shows any admiration, is Moliere, and him he admires not for his wit but for his wisdom. We notice this without intending any reflection on M. Comte; for a profound conviction raises a person above the feeling of ridicule. But there are passages in his writings which, it really seems to us, could have been written by no man who had ever laughed. We will give one of these instances.

As M. Comte's religion has a cultus, so also it has a clergy, who are the pivot of his entire social and political system. Their nature and office will be best shown by describing his ideal of political society in its normal state, with the various classes of which it is composed.

The necessity of a Spiritual Power, distinct and separate from the temporal government, is the essential principle of M. Comte's political scheme; as it may well be, since the Spiritual Power is the only counterpoise he provides or tolerates, to the absolute dominion of the civil rulers. Nothing can exceed his combined detestation and contempt for government by assemblies, and for parliamentary or representative institutions in any form. They are an expedient, in his opinion, only suited to a state of transition, and even that nowhere but in England.

The attempt to naturalize them in France, or any Continental nation, he regards as mischievous quackery. Louis Napoleon's usurpation is absolved, is made laudable to him, because it overthrew a representative government. Election of superiors by inferiors, except as a revolutionary expedient, is an abomination in his sight. Public functionaries of all kinds should name their successors, subject to the approbation of their own superiors, and giving public notice of the nomination so long beforehand as to admit of discussion, and the timely revocation of a wrong choice. But, by the side of the temporal rulers, he places another authority, with no power to command, but only to advise and remonstrate.

The family being, in his mind as in that of Frenchmen generally, the foundation and essential type of all society, the separation of the two powers commences there. The spiritual, or moral and religious power, in a family, is the women of it. The positivist family is composed of the "fundamental couple," their children, and the parents of the man, if alive. The whole government of the household, except as regards the education of the children, resides in the man; and even over that he has complete power, but should forbear to exert it. The part assigned to the women is to improve the man through his affections, and to bring up the children, who, until the age of fourteen, at which scientific instruction begins, are to be educated wholly by their mother.

That women may be better fitted for these functions, they are peremptorily excluded from all others. No woman is to work for her living. Every woman is to be supported by her husband or her male relations, and if she has none of these, by the State. She is to have no powers of government, even domestic, and no property. Her legal rights of inheritance are preserved to her, that her feelings of duty may make her voluntarily forego them. There are to be no marriage portions, that women may no longer be sought in marriage from interested motives. Marriages are to be rigidly indissoluble, except for a single cause.

It is remarkable that the bitterest enemy of divorce among all philosophers, nevertheless allows it, in a case which the laws of England, and of other countries reproached by him with tolerating divorce, do not admit: namely, when one of the parties has been sentenced to an infamizing punishment, involving loss of civil rights. It is monstrous that condemnation, even for life, to a felon's punishment, should leave an unhappy victim bound to, and in the wife's case under the legal authority of, the culprit. M. Comte could feel for the injustice in this special case, because it chanced to be the unfortunate situation of his Clotilde. Minor degrees of unworthiness may entitle the innocent party to a legal separation, but without the power of re-marriage. Second marriages, indeed, are not permitted by the Positive Religion. There is to be no impediment to them by law, but morality is to condemn them, and every couple who are married religiously as well as civilly are to make a vow of eternal widowhood, "le veuvage eternel."

This absolute monogamy is, in M. Comte's opinion, essential to the complete fusion between two beings, which is the essence of marriage; and moreover, eternal constancy is required by the posthumous adoration, which is to be continuously paid by the survivor to one who, though objectively dead, still lives "subjectively." The domestic spiritual power, which resides in the women of the family, is chiefly concentrated in the most venerable of them, the husband's mother, while alive. It has an auxiliary in the influence of age, represented by the husband's father, who is supposed to have passed the period of retirement from active life, fixed by M. Comte (for he fixes everything) at sixty-three; at which age the head of the family gives up the reins of authority to his son, retaining only a consultative voice.

This domestic Spiritual Power, being principally moral, and confined to a private life, requires the support and guidance of an intellectual power exterior to it, the sphere of which will naturally be wider, extending also to public life. This consists of the clergy, or priesthood, for M. Comte is fond of borrowing the consecrated expressions of Catholicism to denote the nearest equivalents which his own system affords.

The clergy are the theoretic or philosophical class, and are supported by an endowment from the State, voted periodically, but administered by themselves. Like women, they are to be excluded from all riches, and from all participation in power (except the absolute power of each over his own household).

They are neither to inherit, nor to receive emolument from any of their functions, or from their writings or teachings of any description, but are to live solely on their small salaries. This M. Comte deems necessary to the complete disinterestedness of their counsel. To have the confidence of the masses, they must, like the masses, be poor. Their exclusion from political and from all other practical occupations is indispensable for the same reason, and for others equally peremptory.

Those occupations are, he contends, incompatible with the habits of mind necessary to philosophers. A practical position, either private or public, chains the mind to specialities and details, while a philosopher's business is with general truths and connected views (vues d'ensemble). These, again, require an habitual abstraction from details, which unfits the mind for judging well and rapidly of individual cases. The same person cannot be both a good theorist and a good practitioner or ruler, though practitioners and rulers ought to have a solid theoretic education. The two kinds of function must be absolutely exclusive of one another: to attempt them both, is inconsistent with fitness for either. But as men may mistake their vocation, up to the age of thirty-five they are allowed to change their career.

To the clergy is entrusted the theoretic or scientific instruction of youth. The medical art also is to be in their hands, since no one is fit to be a physician who does not study and understand the whole man, moral as well as physical. M. Comte has a contemptuous opinion of the existing race of physicians, who, he says, deserve no higher name than that of veterinaires, since they concern themselves with man only in his animal, and not in his human character. In his last years, M. Comte (as we learn from Dr Robinet's volume) indulged in the wildest speculations on medical science, declaring all maladies to be one and the same disease, the disturbance or destruction of "l'unite cerebrale."

The other functions of the clergy are moral, much more than intellectual. They are the spiritual directors, and venerated advisers, of the active or practical classes, including the political. They are the mediators in all social differences; between the labourers, for instance, and their employers. They are to advise and admonish on all important violations of the moral law. Especially, it devolves on them to keep the rich and powerful to the performance of their moral duties towards their inferiors.

If private remonstrance fails, public denunciation is to follow: in extreme cases they may proceed to the length of excommunication, which, though it only operates through opinion, yet if it carries opinion with it, may, as M. Comte complacently observes, be of such powerful efficacy, that the richest man may be driven to produce his subsistence by his own manual labour, through the impossibility of inducing any other person to work for him.

In this as in all other cases, the priesthood depends for its authority on carrying with it the mass of the people--those who, possessing no accumulations, live on the wages of daily labour; popularly but incorrectly termed the working classes, and by French writers, in their Roman law phraseology, proletaires. These, therefore, who are not allowed the smallest political rights, are incorporated into the Spiritual Power, of which they form, after women and the clergy, the third element.

It remains to give an account of the Temporal Power, composed of the rich and the employers of labour, two classes who in M. Comte's system are reduced to one, for he allows of no idle rich. A life made up of mere amusement and self-indulgence, though not interdicted by law, is to be deemed so disgraceful, that nobody with the smallest sense of shame would choose to be guilty of it.

Here, we think, M. Comte has lighted on a true principle, towards which the tone of opinion in modern Europe is more and more tending, and which is destined to be one of the constitutive principles of regenerated society. We believe, for example, with him, that in the future there will be no class of landlords living at ease on their rents, but every landlord will be a capitalist trained to agriculture, himself superintending and directing the cultivation of his estate. No one but he who guides the work, should have the control of the tools. In M. Comte's system, the rich, as a rule, consist of the "captains of industry:" but the rule is not entirely without exception, for M. Comte recognizes other useful modes of employing riches.

In particular, one of his favourite ideas is that of an order of Chivalry, composed of the most generous and self-devoted of the rich, voluntarily dedicating themselves, like knights-errant of old, to the redressing of wrongs, and the protection of the weak and oppressed.

He remarks, that oppression, in modern life, can seldom reach, or even venture to attack, the life or liberty of its victims (he forgets the case of domestic tyranny), but only their pecuniary means, and it is therefore by the purse chiefly that individuals can usefully interpose, as they formerly did by the sword. The occupation, however, of nearly all the rich, will be the direction of labour, and for this work they will be educated. Reciprocally, it is in M. Comte's opinion essential, that all directors of labour should be rich. Capital (in which he includes land) should be concentrated in a few holders, so that every capitalist may conduct the most extensive operations which one mind is capable of superintending.

This is not only demanded by good economy, in order to take the utmost advantage of a rare kind of practical ability, but it necessarily follows from the principle of M. Comte's scheme, which regards a capitalist as a public functionary. M. Comte's conception of the relation of capital to society is essentially that of Socialists, but he would bring about by education and opinion, what they aim at effecting by positive institution. The owner of capital is by no means to consider himself its absolute proprietor. Legally he is not to be controlled in his dealings with it, for power should be in proportion to responsibility: but it does not belong to him for his own use; he is merely entrusted by society with a portion of the accumulations made by the past providence of mankind, to be administered for the benefit of the present generation and of posterity, under the obligation of preserving them unimpaired, and handing them down, more or less augmented, to our successors. He is not entitled to dissipate them, or divert them from the service of Humanity to his own pleasures. Nor has he a moral right to consume on himself the whole even of his profits.

He is bound in conscience, if they exceed his reasonable wants, to employ the surplus in improving either the efficiency of his operations, or the physical and mental condition of his labourers. The portion of his gains which he may appropriate to his own use, must be decided by himself, under accountability to opinion; and opinion ought not to look very narrowly into the matter, nor hold him to a rigid reckoning for any moderate indulgence of luxury or ostentation; since under the great responsibilities that will be imposed on him, the position of an employer of labour will be so much less desirable, to any one in whom the instincts of pride and vanity are not strong, than the "heureuse insouciance" of a labourer, that those instincts must be to a certain degree indulged, or no one would undertake the office. With this limitation, every employer is a mere administrator of his possessions, for his work-people and for society at large. If he indulges himself lavishly, without reserving an ample remuneration for all who are employed under him, he is morally culpable, and will incur sacerdotal admonition.

This state of things necessarily implies that capital should be in few hands, because, as M. Comte observes, without great riches, the obligations which society ought to impose, could not be fulfilled without an amount of personal abnegation that it would be hopeless to expect. If a person is conspicuously qualified for the conduct of an industrial enterprise, but destitute of the fortune necessary for undertaking it, M. Comte recommends that he should be enriched by subscription, or, in cases of sufficient importance, by the State. Small landed proprietors and capitalists, and the middle classes altogether, he regards as a parasitic growth, destined to disappear, the best of the body becoming large capitalists, and the remainder proletaires. Society will consist only of rich and poor, and it will be the business of the rich to make the best possible lot for the poor.

The remuneration of the labourers will continue, as at present, to be a matter of voluntary arrangement between them and their employers, the last resort on either side being refusal of co-operation, "refus de concours," in other words, a strike or a lock-out; with the sacerdotal order for mediators in case of need. But though wages are to be an affair of free contract, their standard is not to be the competition of the market, but the application of the products in equitable proportion between the wants of the labourers and the wants and dignity of the employer. As it is one of M. Comte's principles that a question cannot be usefully proposed without an attempt at a solution, he gives his ideas from the beginning as to what the normal income of a labouring family should be.

They are on such a scale, that until some great extension shall have taken place in the scientific resources of mankind, it is no wonder he thinks it necessary to limit as much as possible the number of those who are to be supported by what is left of the produce. In the first place the labourer's dwelling, which is to consist of seven rooms, is, with all that it contains, to be his own property: it is the only landed property he is allowed to possess, but every family should be the absolute owner of all things which are destined for its exclusive use. Lodging being thus independently provided for, and education and medical attendance being secured gratuitously by the general arrangements of society, the pay of the labourer is to consist of two portions, the one monthly, and of fixed amount, the other weekly, and proportioned to the produce of his labour. The former M. Comte fixes at 100 francs (£4) for a month of 28 days; being £52 a year: and the rate of piece-work should be such as to make the other part amount to an average of seven francs (5s. 6d.) per working day.

Agreeably to M. Comte's rule, that every public functionary should appoint his successor, the capitalist has unlimited power of transmitting his capital by gift or bequest, after his own death or retirement. In general it will be best bestowed entire upon one person, unless the business will advantageously admit of subdivision. He will naturally leave it to one or more of his sons, if sufficiently qualified; and rightly so, hereditary being, in M. Comte's opinion, preferable to acquired wealth, as being usually more generously administered. But, merely as his sons, they have no moral right to it.

M. Comte here recognizes another of the principles, on which we believe that the constitution of regenerated society will rest. He maintains (as others in the present generation have done) that the father owes nothing to his son, except a good education, and pecuniary aid sufficient for an advantageous start in life: that he is entitled, and may be morally bound, to leave the bulk of his fortune to some other properly selected person or persons, whom he judges likely to make a more beneficial use of it. This is the first of three important points, in which M. Comte's theory of the family, wrong as we deem it in its foundations, is in advance of prevailing theories and existing institutions.

The second is the re-introduction of adoption, not only in default of children, but to fulfil the purposes, and satisfy the sympathetic wants, to which such children as there are may happen to be inadequate. The third is a most important point--the incorporation of domestics as substantive members of the family. There is hardly any part of the present constitution of society more essentially vicious, and morally injurious to both parties, than the relation between masters and servants. To make this a really human and a moral relation, is one of the principal desiderata in social improvement. The feeling of the vulgar of all classes, that domestic service has anything in it peculiarly mean, is a feeling than which there is none meaner.

In the feudal ages, youthful nobles of the highest rank thought themselves honoured by officiating in what is now called a menial capacity, about the persons of superiors of both sexes, for whom they felt respect: and, as M. Comte observes, there are many families who can in no other way so usefully serve Humanity, as by ministering to the bodily wants of other families, called to functions which require the devotion of all their thoughts. "We will add, by way of supplement to M. Comte's doctrine, that much of the daily physical work of a household, even in opulent families, if silly notions of degradation, common to all ranks, did not interfere, might very advantageously be performed by the family itself, at least by its younger members; to whom it would give healthful exercise of the bodily powers, which has now to be sought in modes far less useful, and also a familiar acquaintance with the real work of the world, and a moral willingness to take their share of its burthens, which, in the great majority of the better-off classes, do not now get cultivated at all.

We have still to speak of the directly political functions of the rich, or, as M. Comte terms them, the patriciate.

The entire political government is to be in their hands. First, however, the existing nations are to be broken up into small republics, the largest not exceeding the size of Belgium, Portugal, or Tuscany; any larger nationalities being incompatible with the unity of wants and feelings, which is required, not only to give due strength to the sentiment of patriotism (always strongest in small states), but to prevent undue compression; for no territory, M. Comte thinks, can without oppression be governed from a distant centre. Algeria, therefore, is to be given up to the Arabs, Corsica to its inhabitants, and France proper is to be, before the end of the century, divided into seventeen republics, corresponding to the number of considerable towns: Paris, however, (need it be said?) succeeding to Rome as the religious metropolis of the world.

Ireland, Scotland, and Wales, are to be separated from England, which is of course to detach itself from all its transmarine dependencies. In each state thus constituted, the powers of government are to be vested in a triumvirate of the three principal bankers, who are to take the foreign, home, and financial departments respectively. How they are to conduct the government and remain bankers, does not clearly appear; but it must be intended that they should combine both offices, for they are to receive no pecuniary remuneration for the political one. Their power is to amount to a dictatorship (M. Comte's own word): and he is hardly justified in saying that he gives political power to the rich, since he gives it over the rich and every one else, to three individuals of the number, not even chosen by the rest, but named by their predecessors.

As a check on the dictators, there is to be complete freedom of speech, writing, printing, and voluntary association; and all important acts of the government, except in cases of emergency, are to be announced sufficiently long beforehand to ensure ample discussion. This, and the influences of the Spiritual Power, are the only guarantees provided against misgovernment. When we consider that the complete dominion of every nation of mankind is thus handed over to only four men--for the Spiritual Power is to be under the absolute and undivided control of a single Pontiff for the whole human race--one is appalled at the picture of entire subjugation and slavery, which is recommended to us as the last and highest result of the evolution of Humanity.

But the conception rises to the terrific, when we are told the mode in which the single High Priest of Humanity is intended to use his authority. It is the most warning example we know, into what frightful aberrations a powerful and comprehensive mind may be led by the exclusive following out of a single idea.

The single idea of M. Comte, on this subject, is that the intellect should be wholly subordinated to the feelings; or, to translate the meaning out of sentimental into logical language, that the exercise of the intellect, as of all our other faculties, should have for its sole object the general good.

Every other employment of it should be accounted not only idle and frivolous, but morally culpable. Being indebted wholly to Humanity for the cultivation to which we owe our mental powers, we are bound in return to consecrate them wholly to her service. Having made up his mind that this ought to be, there is with M. Comte but one step to concluding that the Grand Pontiff of Humanity must take care that it shall be; and on this foundation he organizes an elaborate system for the total suppression of all independent thought. He does not, indeed, invoke the arm of the law, or call for any prohibitions. The clergy are to have no monopoly.

Any one else may cultivate science if he can, may write and publish if he can find readers, may give private instruction if anybody consents to receive it. But since the sacerdotal body will absorb into itself all but those whom it deems either intellectually or morally unequal to the vocation, all rival teachers will, as he calculates, be so discredited beforehand, that their competition will not be formidable. Within the body itself, the High Priest has it in his power to make sure that there shall be no opinions, and no exercise of mind, but such as he approves; for he alone decides the duties and local residence of all its members, and can even eject them from the body. Before electing to be under this rule, we feel a natural curiosity to know in what manner it is to be exercised. Humanity has only yet had one Pontiff, whose mental qualifications for the post are not likely to be often surpassed, M. Comte himself. It is of some importance to know what are the ideas of this High Priest, concerning the moral and religious government of the human intellect.

One of the doctrines which M. Comte most strenuously enforces in his later writings is, that during the preliminary evolution of humanity, terminated by the foundation of Positivism, the free development of our forces of all kinds was the important matter, but that from this time forward the principal need is to regulate them. Formerly the danger was of their being insufficient, but henceforth, of their being abused.

Let us express, in passing, our entire dissent from this doctrine. Whoever thinks that the wretched education which mankind as yet receive, calls forth their mental powers (except those of a select few) in a sufficient or even tolerable degree, must be very easily satisfied: and the abuse of them, far from becoming proportionally greater as knowledge and mental capacity increase, becomes rapidly less, provided always that the diffusion of those qualities keeps pace with their growth. The abuse of intellectual power is only to be dreaded, when society is divided between a few highly cultivated intellects and an ignorant and stupid multitude. But mental power is a thing which M. Comte does not want--or wants infinitely less than he wants submission and obedience.

Of all the ingredients of human nature, he continually says, the intellect most needs to be disciplined and reined-in. It is the most turbulent "le plus perturbateur," of all the mental elements; more so than even the selfish instincts. Throughout the whole modern transition, beginning with ancient Greece (for M. Comte tells us that we have always been in a state of revolutionary transition since then), the intellect has been in a state of systematic insurrection against "le coeur." The metaphysicians and literati (lettres), after helping to pull down the old religion and social order, are rootedly hostile to the construction of the new, and desiring only to prolong the existing scepticism and intellectual anarchy, which secure to them a cheap social ascendancy, without the labour of earning it by solid scientific preparation. The scientific class, from whom better might have been expected, are, if possible, worse.

Void of enlarged views, despising all that is too large for their comprehension, devoted exclusively each to his special science, contemptuously indifferent to moral and political interests, their sole aim is to acquire an easy reputation, and in France (through paid Academies and professorships) personal lucre, by pushing their sciences into idle and useless inquiries (speculations oiseuses), of no value to the real interests of mankind, and tending to divert the thoughts from them. One of the duties most incumbent on opinion and on the Spiritual Power, is to stigmatize as immoral, and effectually suppress, these useless employments of the speculative faculties. All exercise of thought should be abstained from, which has not some beneficial tendency, some actual utility to mankind. M. Comte, of course, is not the man to say that it must be a merely material utility.

If a speculation, though it has no doctrinal, has a logical value--if it throws any light on universal Method--it is still more deserving of cultivation than if its usefulness was merely practical: but, either as method or as doctrine, it must bring forth fruits to Humanity, otherwise it is not only contemptible, but criminal.

That there is a portion of truth at the bottom of all this, we should be the last to deny.

No respect is due to any employment of the intellect which does not tend to the good of mankind. It is precisely on a level with any idle amusement, and should be condemned as waste of time, if carried beyond the limit within which amusement is permissible. And whoever devotes powers of thought which could render to Humanity services it urgently needs, to speculations and studies which it could dispense with, is liable to the discredit attaching to a well-grounded suspicion of caring little for Humanity. But who can affirm positively of any speculations, guided by right scientific methods, on subjects really accessible to the human faculties, that they are incapable of being of any use?

Nobody knows what knowledge will prove to be of use, and what is destined to be useless. The most that can be said is that some kinds are of more certain, and above all, of more present utility than others. How often the most important practical results have been the remote consequence of studies which no one would have expected to lead to them! Could the mathematicians, who, in the schools of Alexandria, investigated the properties of the ellipse, have foreseen that nearly two thousand years afterwards their speculations would explain the solar system, and a little later would enable ships safely to circumnavigate the earth?

Even in M. Comte's opinion, it is well for mankind that, in those early days, knowledge was thought worth pursuing for its own sake. Nor has the "foundation of Positivism," we imagine, so far changed the conditions of human existence, that it should now be criminal to acquire, by observation and reasoning, a knowledge of the facts of the universe, leaving to posterity to find a use for it. Even in the last two or three years, has not the discovery of new metals, which may prove important even in the practical arts, arisen from one of the investigations which M. Comte most unequivocally condemns as idle, the research into the internal constitution of the sun? How few, moreover, of the discoveries which have changed the face of the world, either were or could have been arrived at by investigations aiming directly at the object!

Would the mariner's compass ever have been found by direct efforts for the improvement of navigation? Should we have reached the electric telegraph by any amount of striving for a means of instantaneous communication, if Franklin had not identified electricity with lightning, and Ampere with magnetism? The most apparently insignificant archaeological or geological fact, is often found to throw a light on human history, which M. Comte, the basis of whose social philosophy is history, should be the last person to disparage. The direction of the entrance to the three great Pyramids of Ghizeh, by showing the position of the circumpolar stars at the time when they were built, is the best evidence we even now have of the immense antiquity of Egyptian civilization.

The one point on which M. Comte's doctrine has some colour of reason, is the case of sidereal astronomy: so little knowledge of it being really accessible to us, and the connexion of that little with any terrestrial interests being, according to all our means of judgment, infinitesimal. It is certainly difficult to imagine how any considerable benefit to humanity can be derived from a knowledge of the motions of the double stars: should these ever become important to us it will be in so prodigiously remote an age, that we can afford to remain ignorant of them until, at least, all our moral, political, and social difficulties have been settled. Yet the discovery that gravitation extends even to those remote regions, gives some additional strength to the conviction of the universality of natural laws; and the habitual meditation on such vast objects and distances is not without an aesthetic usefulness, by kindling and exalting the imagination, the worth of which in itself, and even its re-action on the intellect, M. Comte is quite capable of appreciating.

He would reply, however, that there are better means of accomplishing these purposes. In the same spirit he condemns the study even of the solar system, when extended to any planets but those which are visible to the naked eye, and which alone exert an appreciable gravitative influence on the earth. Even the perturbations he thinks it idle to study, beyond a mere general conception of them, and thinks that astronomy may well limit its domain to the motions and mutual action of the earth, sun, and moon. He looks for a similar expurgation of all the other sciences. In one passage he expressly says that the greater part of the researches which are really accessible to us are idle and useless.

He would pare down the dimensions of all the sciences as narrowly as possible. He is continually repeating that no science, as an abstract study, should be carried further than is necessary to lay the foundation for the science next above it, and so ultimately for moral science, the principal purpose of them all. Any further extension of the mathematical and physical sciences should be merely "episodic;" limited to what may from time to time be demanded by the requirements of industry and the arts; and should be left to the industrial classes, except when they find it necessary to apply to the sacerdotal order for some additional development of scientific theory.

This, he evidently thinks, would be a rare contingency, most physical truths sufficiently concrete and real for practice being empirical. Accordingly in estimating the number of clergy necessary for France, Europe, and our entire planet (for his forethought extends thus far), he proportions it solely to their moral and religious attributions (overlooking, by the way, even their medical); and leaves nobody with any time to cultivate the sciences, except abortive candidates for the priestly office, who having been refused admittance into it for insufficiency in moral excellence or in strength of character, may be thought worth retaining as "pensioners" of the sacerdotal order, on account of their theoretic abilities.

It is no exaggeration to say, that M. Comte gradually acquired a real hatred for scientific and all purely intellectual pursuits, and was bent on retaining no more of them than was strictly indispensable.
--JS Mill.

Need I suggest replacing French and Catholic with Bush[haha ok ok, the USA] and Evangelicals in the above? I think not. I've riffed that George and his merry band are right out of Comte's play book for years. But the truth is, they have infested every time period so far. Mick could sing that tune at most anytime in history.

The lyric title today also served to note my current conundrum. That pesky global warming has gone and melted my igloo, and like any good Kunukistani, I must construct a new shelter [one that floats this time, Ha! *waves fist in defiance at rapacious industrialists*]. My poor boxen hate the blueroom. They also look at you sadly and flash their uptime at you when you go to store them.

Silliness aside, I'll be posting at even more erratic intervals until sometime near the end of the summer. At which time, I intend to have a roof and return this back to a "daily journal" [maybe with some new (or more regular) running features to accompany 'SD-DPB softball', 'Free and not dead Press', Rolls... etc too].

Of course, if you've exhausted your ideas of what to read today or wish to see a topical item enbiled in a timely way, drop me a Gmail[rev-handle] and I'll be pleased to dig up something vile for you. Moreover, do take this time to click back to past JEs [on the day or at random] as time is already a rather flexible concept throughout these JEs. Until then.

News compressed for space:
Simon says: A year ago it was merely the first ripples on the surface of the bathwater. Now we are seeing the whirlpool beginning to form over the plughole. Next we will hear the gurgling that marks the final draining.

100 seats less for the Vicar's crew.

White bishop takes yellow Bishop.

UN to gauge rectal insertions.

Darfuring the last moments.

Bolton on Iran.

SD-DPB Softball.

*YAITJ [while (!Fall){manual_mode=1;}]

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Joe Wilson and his wife 'Joe Wilson's wife' at the WHCD. Caption at the bottom "The belle of the Balls-O-Licious.".

That's not a lyric. And this is not a JE. It is a link to a previous JE on Dec 18th 2003.

And, as I can not help expressing things in idioms, a/the toon[hehe].

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Stephen Colbert, arms crossed half seated at the edge of a desk looking face on. Composited iPod in his pocket and buds. From one of the buds a stem that leads to a speech bubble which has the text;
"Now, I'm not arrogant or haughty/ And I'm certainly not conceited
But anyone trying to match my wits/ Is very soon defeated

I'm a marvellous human being/ I'm just one big hunk of man
Sometimes I have to marvel/ At how very great I am"

PS: New "recent" toon index here. Regular post Tue/Wed ish. Until then.

Another quick topical quote. News, previous entries and assorted.

Quote:
The will was made in August--The Duchess died in October.

In November Pitt was a courtier. The Pelhams had forced the King, much against his will, to part with Lord Carteret, who had now become Earl Granville. They proceeded, after this victory, to form the Government on that basis, called by the cant name of "the broad bottom." Lyttelton had a seat at the Treasury, and several other friends of Pitt were provided for.

But Pitt himself was, for the present, forced to be content with promises. The King resented most highly some expressions which the ardent orator had used in the debate on the Hanoverian troops. But Newcastle and Pelham, expressed the strongest confidence that time and their exertions would soften the royal displeasure.

Pitt, on his part, omitted nothing that might facilitate his admission to office. He resigned his place in the household of Prince Frederick, and, when Parliament met, exerted his eloquence in support of the Government. The Pelhams were really sincere in their endeavours to remove the strong prejudices which had taken root in the King's mind. They knew that Pitt was not a man to be deceived with ease or offended with impunity. They were afraid that they should not be long able to put him off with promises. Nor was it their interest so to put him off. There was a strong tie between him and them. He was the enemy of their enemy.

The brothers hated and dreaded the eloquent, aspiring, and imperious Granville. They had traced his intrigues in many quarters. They knew his influence over the royal mind. They knew that, as soon as a favourable opportunity should arrive, he would be recalled to the head of affairs. They resolved to bring things to a crisis; and the question on which they took issue with their master was whether Pitt should or should not be admitted to office. They chose their time with more skill than generosity. It was when rebellion was actually raging in Britain, when the Pretender was master of the northern extremity of the island, that they tendered their resignations. The King found himself deserted, in one day, by the whole strength of that party which had placed his family on the throne. Lord Granville tried to form a Government; but it soon appeared that the parliamentary interest of the Pelhams was irresistible, and that the King's favourite statesman could count only on about thirty Lords and eighty members of the House of Commons.

The scheme was given up. Granville went away laughing. The ministers came back stronger than ever; and the King was now no longer able to refuse anything that they might be pleased to demand. He could only mutter that it was very hard that Newcastle, who was not fit to be chamberlain to the most insignificant prince in Germany, should dictate to the King of England.

One concession the ministers graciously made. They agreed that Pitt should not be placed in a situation in which it would be necessary for him to have frequent interviews with the King. Instead, therefore, of making their new ally Secretary at War as they had intended, they appointed him Vice-Treasurer of Ireland, and in a few months promoted him to the office of Paymaster of the Forces.

This was, at that time, one of the most lucrative offices in the Government. The salary was but a small part of the emolument which the Paymaster derived from his place. He was allowed to keep a large sum, which, even in time of peace, was seldom less than one hundred thousand pounds, constantly in his hands; and the interest on this sum he might appropriate to his own use. This practice was not secret, nor was it considered as disreputable. It was the practice of men of undoubted honour, both before and after the time of Pitt. He, however, refused to accept one farthing beyond the salary which the law had annexed to his office. It had been usual for foreign princes who received the pay of England to give to the Paymaster of the Forces a small percentage on the subsidies. These ignominious veils Pitt resolutely declined.

Disinterestedness of this kind was, in his days, very rare. His conduct surprised and amused politicians. It excited the warmest admiration throughout the body of the people. In spite of the inconsistencies of which Pitt had been guilty, in spite of the strange contrast between his violence in Opposition and his tameness in office, he still possessed a large share of the public confidence. The motives which may lead a politician to change his connections or his general line of conduct are often obscure; but disinterestedness in pecuniary matters everybody can understand. Pitt was thenceforth considered as a man who was proof to all sordid temptations. If he acted ill, it might be from an error in judgment; it might be from resentment; it might be from ambition. But poor as he was, he had vindicated himself from all suspicion of covetousness.

Eight quiet years followed, eight years during which the minority, which had been feeble ever since Lord Granville had been overthrown, continued to dwindle till it became almost invisible. Peace was made with France and Spain in 1748. Prince Frederick died in 1751; and with him died the very semblance of opposition. All the most distinguished survivors of the party which had supported Walpole and of the party which had opposed him, were united under his successor. The fiery and vehement spirit of Pitt had for a time been laid to rest. He silently acquiesced in that very system of continental measures which he had lately condemned.

He ceased to talk disrespectfully about Hanover. He did not object to the treaty with Spain, though that treaty left us exactly where we had been when he uttered his spirit-stirring harangues against the pacific policy of Walpole. Now and then glimpses of his former self appeared; but they were few and transient. Pelham knew with whom he had to deal, and felt that an ally, so little used to control, and so capable of inflicting injury, might well be indulged in an occasional fit of waywardness.

Two men, little, if at all inferior to Pitt in powers of mind, held, like him, subordinate offices in the Government. One of these, Murray, was successively Solicitor-General and Attorney- General. This distinguished person far surpassed Pitt in correctness of taste, in power of reasoning, in depth and variety of knowledge. His parliamentary eloquence never blazed into sudden flashes of dazzling brilliancy; but its clear, placid, and mellow splendour was never for an instant overclouded. Intellectually he was, we believe, fully equal to Pitt; but he was deficient in the moral qualities to which Pitt owed most of his success.

Murray wanted the energy, the courage, the all- grasping and all-risking ambition, which make men great in stirring times. His heart was a little cold, his temper cautious even to timidity, his manners decorous even to formality. He never exposed his fortunes or his fame to any risk which he could avoid. At one time he might, in all probability, have been Prime Minister. But the object of his wishes was the judicial bench. The situation of Chief justice might not be so splendid as that of First Lord of the Treasury; but it was dignified; it was quiet; it was secure; and therefore it was the favourite situation of Murray.

Fox, the father of the great man whose mighty efforts in the cause of peace, of truth, and of liberty, have made that name immortal, was Secretary-at-War. He was a favourite with the King, with the Duke of Cumberland, and with some of the most powerful members of the great Whig connection. His parliamentary talents were of the highest order. As a speaker he was in almost all respects the very opposite to Pitt. His figure was ungraceful; his face, as Reynolds and Nollekens have preserved it to us, indicated a strong understanding; but the features were coarse, and the general aspect dark and lowering. His manner was awkward; his delivery was hesitating; he was often at a stand for want of a word; but as a debater, as a master of that keen, weighty, manly logic, which is suited to the discussion of political questions, he has perhaps never been surpassed except by his son.

In reply he was as decidedly superior to Pitt as in declamation he was Pitt's inferior. Intellectually the balance was nearly even between the rivals. But here, again, the moral qualities of Pitt turned the scale. Fox had undoubtedly many virtues. In natural disposition as well as in talents, he bore a great resemblance to his more celebrated son. He had the same sweetness of temper, the same strong passions, the same openness, boldness, and impetuosity, the same cordiality towards friends, the same placability towards enemies. No man was more warmly or justly beloved by his family or by his associates. But unhappily he had been trained in a bad political school, in a school, the doctrines of which were, that political virtue is the mere coquetry of political prostitution, that every patriot has his price, that government can be carried on only by means of corruption, and that the State is given as a prey to statesmen.

These maxims were too much in vogue throughout the lower ranks of Walpole's party, and were too much encouraged by Walpole himself, who, from contempt of what, is in our day vulgarly called humbug; often ran extravagantly and offensively into the opposite extreme. The loose political morality of Fox presented a remarkable contrast to the ostentatious purity of Pitt. The nation distrusted the former, and placed implicit confidence in the latter. But almost all the statesmen of the age had still to learn that the confidence of the nation was worth having.

While things went on quietly, while there was no opposition, while everything was given by the favour of a small ruling junto, Fox had a decided advantage over Pitt; but when dangerous times came, when Europe was convulsed with war, when Parliament was broken up into factions, when the public mind was violently excited, the favourite of the people rose to supreme power, while his rival sank into insignificance.

Early in the year 1754 Henry Pelham died unexpectedly. "Now I shall have no more peace," exclaimed the old King, when he heard the news. He was in the right. Pelham had succeeded in bringing together and keeping together all the talents of the kingdom. By his death, the highest post to which an English subject can aspire was left vacant; and at the same moment, the influence which had yoked together and reined-in so many turbulent and ambitious spirits was withdrawn.

Within a week after Pelham's death, it was determined that the Duke of Newcastle should be placed at the head of the Treasury; but the arrangement was still far from complete. Who was to be the leading Minister of the Crown in the House of Commons? Was the office to be intrusted to a man of eminent talents? And would not such a man in such a place demand and obtain a larger share of power and patronage than Newcastle would be disposed to concede? Was a mere drudge to be employed? And what probability was there that a mere drudge would be able to manage a large and stormy assembly, abounding with able and experienced men?

Pope has said of that wretched miser Sir John Cutler, "Cutler saw tenants break and houses fall For very want: he could not build a wall."

Newcastle's love of power resembled Cutler's love of money. It was an avarice which thwarted itself, a penny-wise and pound- foolish cupidity. An immediate outlay was so painful to him that he would not venture to make the most desirable improvement. If he could have found it in his heart to cede at once a portion of his authority, he might probably have ensured the continuance of what remained. But he thought it better to construct a weak and rotten government, which tottered at the smallest breath, and fell in the first storm, than to pay the necessary price for sound and durable materials. He wished to find some person who would be willing to accept the lead of the House of Commons on terms similar to those on which Secretary Craggs had acted under Sunderland, five-and-thirty years before.

Craggs could hardly be called a minister. He was a mere agent for the Minister. He was not trusted with the higher secrets of State, but obeyed implicitly the directions of his superior, and was, to use Doddington's expression, merely Lord Sunderland's man. But times were changed. Since the days of Sunderland, the importance of the House of Commons had been constantly on the increase. During many years, the person who conducted the business of the Government in that House had almost always been Prime Minister.

In these circumstances, it was not to be supposed that any that any person who possessed the talents necessary for the situation would stoop to accept it on such terms as Newcastle was disposed to offer. --Macaulay

News pounded into the mast:
Arise Sir Loin of Meeeeat!!! Sausage-Girl signs off on the kah-nigit-ing of Richard Armitage. Colin's a scotsman, so what's next? She already gave Tubby Black a catskin, so I'm at a loss as to how far she'll go.

UK politics is such a mess. Gunardina's man Simon in the field reports. I had been studying the home secretary during question time. He had adopted the defence hysterical, by which he demonstrates his insouciant unconcern for what the other side may say by laughing jovially at everything. But his scalp told a different story: it was bright, crimson, almost beetroot red. Dave the Chameleon would have been envious. When he stood up, however, his pate had gone pallid. The blood had drained away, heaven knows where. His manner had switched from forced joviality to curt aggression. The release of all these prisoners was, he said, "deeply regrettable" and his priority was now to set it right. He spoke for exactly two minutes, 41 seconds, which, given the seriousness of what had occurred, might be thought something of an insult. He parked his backside back on the bench to cries of "What about 'Sorry'?" from Tories. But New Labour doesn't do sorry.

Ms Rice, who flew in a few hours later, told reporters on her plane that the joint visit with Mr Rumsfeld was to ensure the two were singing from the same hymn sheet. Singing--"I'm happy/ I'm happy though the whole thing is ready to blow/ Be happy that the sun has rise'd up again/ That somewhere in this world I still got a friend/ Be happy that the big one --it hasn't dropped yet/ Be happy that you still got something/ Something, something to forget/ I'm happy/"

Black hats[note space and caps] and the lure of power and money. The Satmar are the largest and most dynamic of the Orthodox Jewish sects. Taking their name from Satu Mare, a town in in present-day Romania, they claim 65,000 adherents in Williamsburg and Kiryat Joel and several thousand others in Jerusalem, London, Antwerp and Montreal. They owe their primacy to the uncle of the recently deceased rabbi, Joel Teitelbaum, who emerged from post-Holocaust Europe to rebuild the sect. "He was really the one who re-established the dynasty here in America. He was a very powerful ideological leader, and very actively involved," said Samuel Heilman, professor of Jewish studies at the City University of New York. Under Joel Teitelbaum's leadership, the Satmar clung to a doctrine that was regarded as more stringent than other adherents of Hasidism, the mystical movement that emerged in 18th-century eastern Europe. He also kept them more insular than other ultra-Orthodox groups, and he was fiercely opposed to Zionism.
[insert image of a the flock of Nemo-Gulls('Mine!') with composited hats and shawls]

Maoist rebels headline Nepal's return to democracy. The Maoists, who have been waging a decade-old insurgency, said they now want to see a new constitution formed. A statement issued by rebel leader Prachanda said the group will refrain from "offensive military action" for a three-month period. He said he hoped the ceasefire would encourage the formation of a new constituent assembly tasked with rewriting the constitution. The rebels want a new constitution to end the monarch's grip on power. The king's grip on reality was gone long before. Which is likely to remain the problem in the days ahead. Popcorn and hard cover.

Juan goes back to Kosovo. As to NATO interpretation, in the same book I reviewed the official story. Once the standard inversion of the historical record is corrected (the timing of the bombing and the anticipated atrocities), the US official justification reduces to preserving "the credibility of NATO," which of course means "credibility of the US." For the meaning of "credibility," ask your favourite Mafia Don.

Selected innings from the USA's very owned State Dept Daily Press Softball. First off--24th with Adam Ereli to bat.
QUESTION: There are Russian news agency reports sourced to the Kremlin today that show Moscow taking a pretty hard line saying that Russia opposes Iran acquiring the technical know-how to become a nuclear power. Do you have a reaction to that?

MR. ERELI: I've seen those reports. I'm not -- I haven't seen exactly what's been said. But clearly I think what it underscores, the reports underscore, is what we've been saying for some time, that there is a growing international consensus that Iran's nuclear program is inconsistent with its professed commitment to peaceful use of nuclear energy, that it has been flagrant in its refusal to abide by calls of the IAEA and the UN Security Council to suspend enrichment and return to negotiations, and that as a result the international community, as represented in the near term by the P5 + Germany is going to look at ways that it can effectively respond to an Iranian regime that seems hell-bent on defying the international community and pursuing a nuclear program that is of growing concern.

To review the bidding, we are looking forward to a report by the Director General, ElBaradei, at the end of this week on Iran's actions since the presidential statement at the end of March, the UN Security Council presidential statement. We expect -- we certainly expect that to be a negative report given that the presidential statement called on Iran to suspend enrichment activity and return to negotiations and Iran's answer has been to announce that it has completed a 164-centrifuge cascade and produced enriched uranium.

There is a P5+1 meeting scheduled May 2nd to review not only the Director General's report but to consider the next steps that we should take in response to what we expect to be a negative report. And then, obviously building on that, we will be developing a Security Council strategy as well as a strategy for dealing with Iran's defiance in other ways.
Like a strike, perhaps? Well, you've got one so far. Play Ball.

QUESTION: President Ahmadi-Nejad also says that now he doesn't see there's any need for talks with the U.S. about what's happening in Iraq since the new Iraqi Prime Minister has now been designated. Is that the same way you feel?

MR. ERELI: I hadn't seen those comments. I think, you know, we have this channel open to us to talk to the Iranians on Iraq. I expect that it'll be used when necessary and appropriate. I don't want to get into speculations about timing, but I can tell you that, again, it will deal with Iran's actions in Iraq. We'll see. If the Iranians feel there's a use for it, if the Iranians want to engage, we'll do it. I would note we've had these kinds of conversations before in Afghanistan, so it's not a radical departure from past practice.

QUESTION: So the bottom line is you still think there are things you need to discuss with Iran or you'd like to discuss with Iran about their behavior in Iraq.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. There are still issues on the table to be presented.
Ball clipped up.

QUESTION: The Secretary is going to visit Greece tomorrow.

QUESTION: Can we stay on Iran? Sorry.

MR. ERELI: Sure. Saul, we'll get back to you.
Rolls past the short-stop.

QUESTION: What about -- what is your understanding of whether Iran did or did not, has or has not, threatened to quit the NPT?

MR. ERELI: I don't have anything definitive on it. I've seen the reports. Frankly, they've been reported to -- the IAEA Board of Governors reported them to the Security Council because of their noncompliance with their safeguards obligations. I don't want to speculate on what Iran is going to do. I can tell you what -- and you know very well what the international community has called on them to do and so far they've refused to do it.

QUESTION: But by mentioning that they were reported for their noncompliance, are you saying that there's not really any reason for them to stay in, since (inaudible)?

MR. ERELI: No, of course not. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that their record of performance as a responsible member of the NPT is not very good. Does that mean they should withdraw from the NPT? Of course, not. They should, to the contrary, endeavor and take every action to be a member in good standing with the NPT, because why, that's the way Iran can, frankly, be an accepted member of the international community, rather than isolate itself, which all its action to date have done. And actions which go against the NPT only serve the purpose of isolating them further.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to put you through this drill more than three times a week, but some of us had a session with the head of Germany's international relations committee this morning. He said, "It wouldn't be a bad idea. Be patient about Iran." "It wouldn't be a bad idea" was his phrase to have a Board of Governors take another look at the situation. So I have to keep sort of a clock on this, I think. Should the Administration change its mind about wanting action by the Security Council following the report from ElBaradei? The U.S. posture remains a report is due on the 28th --

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: -- and the Council should take up what to do about Iran?

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: You're not looking for more IAEA --

MR. ERELI: Well, the IAEA -- first of all, the Director General will report both to the IAEA and to the Security Council so -- and the work of the Security Council, as stated in the presidential statement of March 28th, is to support and reinforce the role of the IAEA in answering the outstanding questions about Iran's nuclear program and in ensuring Iranian compliance with its safeguards obligations. So there is obviously a symbiotic relationship between what actions the Security Council is taking and the role of the IAEA. So the way we look at it is both are working in concert towards a common goal, which is to uphold the integrity of the UN system and to reinforce the power and authority of those institutions to deal with a threat to the international community.

QUESTION: And your position has been action is necessary to accomplish that goal.

MR. ERELI: Right, right.

QUESTION: You're not -- well, you know, I don't want to grill you here, but the Administration --

MR. ERELI: That's why I'm here, sir.

QUESTION: Well, you're not backing off from maybe we'll have another turn at looking at maybe a travel curb imposed by the Dominican Republic and, you know, a trade sanction imposed by Belize. You're still looking for the Security Council to weigh sanctions again --

MR. ERELI: Sanctions are -- sir, as Under Secretary Burns told you on Friday and the Secretary has said, sanctions are very much an issue of discussion among all of us in a variety of contexts, both multilateral within the UN as well as outside the UN if the UN can't decide to take action.
And picked up for one strike and three errors, making a total of two and three.

QUESTION: Change of subject. Hamas, in general. Jan Eliasson, who's currently the UNGA President, said that it's fine for countries to invite individuals who are members of Hamas to their countries because it's the group that's considered terrorists. He said this in reference to Norway inviting some Hamas leaders there. Does that differ from -- I mean, I know it differs from U.S. policy, but do you think that's going to be a problem?

MR. ERELI: Well, I don't -- I've seen the reports about a Hamas official going to Norway. I don't know that that's actually been finalized yet. So number one, let's see what actually happens with respect to that visit. Number two, I think the Quartet and others have made it clear that Hamas and its representatives are members of a foreign terrorist organization that have a history of killing innocent civilians. And that we as an international community and those of us who oppose terror should take every opportunity to make it clear to Hamas and its sympathizers and those who support it in any way, that that kind of behavior, those kinds of policies are unacceptable. And that if we are to find a way forward in alleviating the plight of the Palestinian people, then all of us, but most particularly Hamas, needs to clearly renounce terror, recognize Israel and accept agreements that the Palestinian Authorities have entered into.

QUESTION: The Norwegians says that the U.S. representatives, I presume from the embassy, went and stated their views on this and basically asked them not to invite them. Is that why you don't know whether it's final yet? You don't know the effects of your diplomacy?

MR. ERELI: I'll leave it to the Norwegians to say whether Hamas is definitely coming or not.

QUESTION: Can you say that --

MR. ERELI: I don't have any comment on diplomatic conversations.

Yeah.

QUESTION: With respect to this in Gaza --

MR. ERELI: I'm sorry, do you --

QUESTION: Yeah. On the (inaudible), which is two things. Just to follow up on Teri's because we have reports from Oslo saying the U.S. asked them not to meet with these people.

MR. ERELI: Yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: You don't want to confirm that?

MR. ERELI: I don't.

QUESTION: Okay, fine. So the second question is is that: If they do meet with these people, as they are scheduled to do on May 15th -- and we have two names -- is this going to have any consequence for relations with -- or any diplomatic fallout?

MR. ERELI: First of all, I don't want to speculate, as I said, what the Norwegian Government may or may not want to do.

QUESTION: Right. Okay.

MR. ERELI: As I answered to the earlier question, countries -- and governments of those countries -- are going to make their own decisions about contacts to have with Hamas. We've made our position very clear. I think the Quartet has made its position very clear. There are others who have met with Hamas, or members of Hamas, and we've always said the same thing. We're not going to do it. We think they're a terrorist organization. If you're going to do it, it's important that you send a clear and unmistakable message to Hamas that their policies are unacceptable, they're at variance with the norms of behavior that the international community finds acceptable and that the only way forward for you and for your people is through renunciation of violence, peaceful -- embracing of peace and peaceful negotiations, recognition of Israel, and accepting agreements that have been completed between the Palestinians and Israel.

QUESTION: Are you going to ask for any clarification on these Eliasson remarks because he's not just the UNGA President, he's also the Swedish Foreign Minister and Sweden is a member of the EU, but therefore, a member of the Quartet?

MR. ERELI: I haven't seen the remarks.

QUESTION: Well, are you interested in them? Are you going to check them out? Is it a problem?

MR. ERELI: Teri, I think I've explained to you what our position is on this.
Adam fails it on the easy bunt making it Three & Four. The Umpire walks.

Next game! On the 25th, it's Adam to spin again.
QUESTION: Yes. About Venezuela, is there any statement related to the decision of President Chavez about leaving the Andean Community of Nations? I mean --

MR. ERELI: Well, that's -- it's up to every country to decide whether it wants to participate or belong to regional organizations. The United States isn't a member of that group. So we don't necessarily have a comment on it, beyond -- it's up to every country to decide what it wants to do. Our position, frankly, is that in our relations with the states of the region, particularly the Andean states, we want to help promote free trade. We want to help promote economic growth. We want to help harness economic development in ways that positively affect the lives of the people of these countries. And that's why we've been so committed in reaching free trade agreements with countries like Colombia, with countries like Peru, with the Central American countries. Because free trade works, free trade helps people of all classes and all backgrounds to improve their lives and improve the futures for their children. So we're very -- we have a very activist free trade agenda and we look forward to working with the countries of the Andean community in ways that benefit the peoples of both countries and that's really what guides our policy on the issue.
Swung at it even before the ball left the mound. One and one.

QUESTION: Have you made any overtures to the Iranian Government for discussions on Iraq? I know publicly they said yesterday they didn't feel they had the need. But since yesterday, have you made any progress either through the embassy?

MR. ERELI: I don't have any information on that. I really don't. I think, you know, our focus is still on and remains on helping and working with our partners in Iraq to complete the process of forming a government of national unity. As you know, over the weekend, they agreed on a presidency council which was positive and approved by the parliament. The next step is obviously a cabinet. The Prime Minister is in the process of forming and they've got 30 days to do that. And we want to be of whatever assistance or support we can, as they put into place the final pieces of a permanent government.
Try this step to just as old of a tune; Two and one.

QUESTION: On the same subject -- Palestinian issue. British Prime Minister has said yesterday that he's ready to meet Hamas leaders to discuss with them the Quartet requirements and to be a mediator between them and Israel.

MR. ERELI: The British Prime Minister?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR. ERELI: I hadn't seen those remarks. News to me.
This "Strike three", however, is not new or even news.

OYAITJ: [next is May 15th]

TYAITJ:
69695 : Fall Ooo Jah!, Oil hints, Trains and much more.

TYAITJ:
31813 : Oil giant Shell has taken out full-page adverts in Nigerian newspapers warning of the "unimaginable carnage" that would result if one of its oil installations was blown up.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Karl Rove on his way to court April 26th/06. Composited ear buds and the top of an iPod in his jacket. A speech bubble with music notes used as quotes from the iPod sings; "The prize that you claim/ Can never be yours to take
Like castles in Spain/ Hope is all that will remain

Abstain from the fools paradise/ It's an illusion of life
The whole cause of our desires/ Fools are often loathe to testify
It's an illusion of life/ The whole cause of our demise

Contemplate the world/ And it's traitors to the soul
The forces of derision/ And it's legions manifold
Usurpers of the crown/ All pretenders to the throne
Your world has lived in chains/ All in one --one in all"

That has got to be one of the most obscure lyric refs I've used yet. Google will not help you this time, you'll have to search thru a different pool to find that meme. So, I will offer this as an alternative that reflects the method, rather than their motive. "/Violence as self defense/ Smiles and metaphors/"

Skipping over the ox pulls and Huntington's stump. That will appear at some point in a future JE. As for now there will be some more sporadic delays and topical posts. I'll pick up that thread anon. News, toon etc. Read on.

Quote(1):
In 1889 the old fears of possible Russian aggression again revived, and Gilgit was reoccupied with a strong detachment of Cashmere troops, accompanied by several English officers. The Government of India pointed out that the development of Russian military resources in Asia rendered it necessary to watch the passes over the mountains, in order to prevent what was called a coup de main from the north. In short, they dreaded the march of a Russian army over the Pamirs and the Hindoo Koosh --a region where Nature has constructed for us perhaps one of the most formidable frontiers in the world.

Friendship with the ruler of Chitral was also cultivated. He was given an annual subsidy, and a present of 500 Sniders; being visited also by English officers. It was even contemplated at the time to construct a direct road from his capital to our frontier near Peshawur; but as he was suspicious, and as his neighbours in Swat, Bajour, and others would probably have objected, the suggestion was happily postponed.

In October 1892 the ruler of Chitral died, and after the usual family contests and intrigues, Nizamul-Mulk, his son, established his authority in the country.

In January, 1893, Dr. Robertson arrived at Chitral as our representative, accompanied by two officers and fifty Sikhs. Although he was received in a friendly manner by the new ruler, his account of the state of affairs in April was discouraging and ominous. He wrote: 'We seem to be on a volcano here. Matters are no longer improving; the atmosphere of Chitral is one of conspiracy and intrigue.' A few weeks later he gave a more cheerful account, and although he described the people as fickle, he considered that Englishmen were safe. It became evident, however, that the Nizam-ul-Mulk was weak and unpopular, and Dr. Robertson described the country as 'in a distracted state, and torn by factions.'

The reports of our Agent, in short, would seem to prove that he was in a false and dangerous position, with a small escort, far away in the mountains, about 200 miles from our frontier.

In January, 1895, the Nizam was murdered by his brother, and the whole country at once again fell into anarchy. Dr. Robertson, who had been temporarily absent, but had returned in February, was besieged in a fort, with his escort, which, however, had been increased to about 290 men. The crisis had come at last, and there was no time to spare.

A strong force under Sir Robert Low was assembled at Peshawur, and crossed the frontier on April 1. It must be pointed out that, in proceeding to Chitral, the British troops had necessarily to pass through a difficult mountainous country inhabited by independent tribes; and the Government of India issued a proclamation in which they pointed out that their sole object 'is to put an end to the present and to prevent any future unlawful aggression on Chitral territory, and that as soon as this object has been attained the force would be withdrawn.' The proclamation went on to say, that the Government 'have no intention of permanently occupying any territory through which Mura Khan's misconduct may now force them to pass, or of interfering with the independence of the tribes.'

The military operations were conducted with great skill and rapidity, and Dr. Robertson's small garrison, which at one time had been hard pressed, was saved: a small force under Colonel Kelly, which had left Gilgit, having by a daring and successful march arrived just before the main body from Peshawur.

The short campaign having thus accomplished its object, the gradual withdrawal of the British troops in accordance with the proclamation would seem to have been a natural sequence. In the weak, distracted state of the country, and in the assumed necessity of not losing our influence in those distant regions, the Government of India, however, considered that a road from our frontier to Chitral should be made, and certain positions retained in order to guard it. This vital question having been carefully considered at home, the Secretary of State for India, on June 13, 1895, telegraphed to the Viceroy that her Majesty's Government regretted they were unable to concur in the proposal. He went on to say that no 'military force or European Agent shall be kept at Chitral; that Chitral should not be fortified; and that no road shall be made between Peshawur and Chitral.' He added that all positions beyond our frontier should be evacuated as speedily as circumstances allowed.

It so happened that within a few days of this important decision a change of Government occurred at home, and the question was reconsidered; and on August 9, fresh instructions were telegraphed to India, by which it was ordered that British troops should be stationed at the Malakund Pass, leading into Swat, and that other posts up to, and including, Chitral, should also be held, and a road made through the country. In short the previous decision was entirely reversed.

Before going further it may be as well to point out that this is no mere question between one political party and another. It goes far beyond that, and we may feel assured that in considering the subject, both Governments were actuated by a desire to do what was considered best in the interests of the Indian Empire.

Still, it is I think impossible not to regard the ultimate decision as very unfortunate, and as likely to lead to serious consequences. In a mere military point of view, it was a repetition of the policy pursued of recent years of establishing isolated military posts in countries belonging to others, or in their vicinity; inevitably tending to aggravate the tribes, and which in time of trouble, instead of increasing our strength, are and have been the cause of anxiety to ourselves. Therefore, not only as a matter of policy, but in a purely military sense, the arrangement was dangerous.

I would further observe that many officers, both civil and military, men of the highest character and long experience in the Punjaub and its borders, did not hesitate to express their opinions at the time, that retribution would speedily follow; and their anticipations appear now to have been verified. Suddenly, not many weeks ago, the people of Swat, who were said to be friendly, violently attacked our position on the Malakund, losing, it is said, 3,000 men in the attempt; and also nearly captured a fortified post a few miles distant at Chakdara. Not only that, but this unexpected outbreak was followed by hostilities on the part of the tribes in Bajour, and by the Mohmunds north, of Peshawur, and also by the Afredis, who, subsidised by us, had for years guarded the celebrated Kyber. Again, the tribes of the Samana range, and others to the west of Kohat, rose in arms; and a very large force of British troops had to be pushed forward in all haste to quell this great combined attack on the part of our neighbours. General Sir Neville Chamberlain, perhaps the greatest living authority on frontier questions, has written quite recently, pointing out that never previously had there been a semblance of unity of action amongst the different tribesmen.

There surely must have been some very strong feeling of resentment and injustice which brought so many tribesmen for the first time to combine in opposition to what they evidently considered an invasion of their country. As regards the Afredis, who are spoken of as treacherous and faithless, it must be borne in mind that in 1881 we specially recognised their independence, and have ever since subsidised them for the special purpose of guarding the commerce through the Kyber; a duty which they have faithfully carried out until the present summer. Lord Lytton, who was Viceroy when the arrangement was proposed at the end of the war, wrote in 1880--

'I sincerely hope that the Government of India will not be easily persuaded to keep troops permanently stationed in the Kyber. I feel little doubt that such a course would tend rather to cause trouble than to keep order. Small bodies of troops would be a constant provocation to attack; large bodies would die like flies....'

'I believe that the Pass tribes themselves, if properly managed, will prove the best guardians of the Pass, and be able, as well as willing, to keep it open for us, if we make it worth their while to do so....'

Many of these very men, and those of other tribes on the frontier, have for years enlisted in our ranks, and have proved to be good soldiers. I repeat that some strong cause must have influenced them suddenly to break out into war.--John Ayde

Quote(2):
Our travellers soon sallied forth from their hotel, impatient to drink the strength-giving waters of the fountains. They continued their walk far up the valley under the poplars. The new grain was waving in the fields; the birds singing in the trees and in the air; and every thing seemed glad, save a poor old man, who came tottering out of the woods, with a heavy bundle of sticks on his shoulders.

Returning upon their steps, they passed down the valley and through the long street to the tumble-down old Lutheran church. A flight of stone steps leads from the street to the green terrace or platform on which the church stands, and which, in ancient times, was the churchyard, or as the Germans more devoutly say, God's-acre; where generations are scattered like seeds, and that which is sown in corruption shall be raised hereafter in incorruption. On the steps stood an old man,--a very old man,--holding a little girl by the hand. He took off his greasy cap as they passed, and wished them good day. His teeth were gone; he could hardly articulate a syllable. The Baron asked him how old the church was. Hegave no answer; but when the question was repeated, came close up to them, and taking off his cap again, turned his ear attentively, and said; "I am hard of hearing."

"Poor old man," said Flemming; "He is as much a ruin as the church we are entering. It will not be long before he, too, shall be sown as seed in this God's-acre!"

The little girl ran into a house close at hand, and brought out the great key. The church door swung open, and, descending a few steps, they passed through a low-roofed passage into the church. All was in ruin.

The gravestones in the pavement were started from their places; the vaults beneath yawned; the roof above was falling piecemeal; there were rents in the old tower; and mysterious passages, and side doors with crazy flights of wooden steps, leading down into the churchyard. Amid all this ruin, one thing only stood erect; it was a statue of a knight in armour, standing in a niche under the pulpit.

"Who is this?" said Flemming to the old sexton; "who is this, that stands here so solemnly in marble, and seems to be keeping guard over the dead men below?"

"I do not know," replied the old man; "but I have heard my grandfather say it was the statue of a great warrior!"

"There is history for you!" exclaimed the Baron. "There is fame! To have a statue of marble, and yet have your name forgotten by the sexton of your parish, who can remember only, that he once heard his grandfather say, that you were a great warrior!"

Flemming made no reply, for he was thinking of the days, when from that old pulpit, some bold reformer thundered down the first tidings of a new doctrine, and the roof echoed with the grand old hymns of Martin Luther.

When he communicated his thoughts to the Baron, the only answer he received was; "After all, what is the use of so much preaching? Do you think the fishes, that heard the sermon of St. Anthony, were any better than those who did not? I commend to your favorable notice the fish-sermon of this saint, as recorded by Abraham a Santa Clara. You will find it in your favorite Wonder-Horn."

Thus passed the day at Langenschwalbach; and the evening at the Allee-Saal was quite solitary; for as yet no company had arrived to fill its chambers, or sit under the trees before the door.--Longfellow

As time makes itself available, I'll say more... Until then.

News in 8 pin dot-matrix font:
From a few days ago, but worthy of echoing. Some are smeared and some are spots/ Feels like a murder, but that's alright/ Somebody said, 'there's too much light/'

Emily meets Arnold Lane on Alternet.

Hey there pretty girl what is with you?/ Don't you know the love that wants to kiss you?/ And she said, "You may dream believe I see/ All the people who are in need"...Not! Rice dishes out the answers
QUESTION: Madame Secretary, Maliki said he would like to merge the militias with the Iraqi army. What's your view on this? Do you think that this is the right way to go or do you think that this might lead to even more sectarian problems?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, I read just the brief statement that is in the press and so I don't want to comment until I know more properly what he said, except to say, Sue, that he also said that there can be only one -- essentially one authority and one gun. I mean, he said that, you know, that armed force has to belong to the state. And with that we would certainly agree and so I think the question of how militias are going to be handled, how they will be demobilized, what aspects or what elements of armed groups might be incorporated into the national army, I think those are all issues to be discussed in a more detailed way than we can do based on initial comments. But I would just note that he did make a very strong statement that armed force has to be the providence of the state.
[insert clip of SNL:Church lady "Special" here, ~12 seconds]

"I do not want to go into the details of any of my advice to the prime minister and his response to my advice," he said stiffly. But soon he was back where he was happiest: playing with jargon like a small boy diving into a huge box of Lego. "With rigorous methodology we try to draw out solutions which are rooted in incentive structures ... conventional performance measurement capability," he said merrily, or at least some combination of the above.

The mix, of Osama Bin Laden and the various Pigeon hunts, calls for a repost of my toon from a while back.

Four Canadian soldiers have been killed in a roadside bombing in Afghanistan, Canadian military officials have said. ... [Texttoon{localized+=3}] ...Fifteen Canadian soldiers and one diplomat have been killed in Afghanistan since 2002.

SD-DPB Softball continues with the BlackSox vs the EvenBlackerSox. Let's get right to the play by play:
QUESTION: Okay. Can I -- if I don't know if we're done with that, but I wanted to ask you about terrorism, if I might. A Knight Ridder good reporter has what seems to be accurate statistics, if that's the word, on an increase in terrorism incidents last year. You have a report coming out in about a week. Is that account -- which now, of course, others are beginning to duplicate -- is that account basically correct? Can you speak about that?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, a couple things, Barry. One, a process point, the National Counterterrorism Center is responsible for producing a number of statistics related to terrorism incidents worldwide. The State Department is responsible for producing an annual report regarding the state of the fight against terrorism. Certainly, that report reflects the reality of the statistics accumulated by the NCTC, but it is a narrative. It doesn't include statistics. So those two processes are conducted separately, yet, in parallel.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: So the NCTC will talk about what the statistics are. The legal requirement is that these reports come out on or about May 1st. So I would expect -- I don't think we've set the exact date yet, but I would expect probably at the end of next week or the beginning of the week following that, that we'll have these reports we'll do a briefing for you on it. So they can speak to the numbers at that point.

I would make one important point and that is that if you look back over the past three years, the methodology that the NCTC has used to make these counts has changed. So there is -- you don't have a baseline. I don't think it's technically inaccurate. You know, I guess technically you could say that there might be a larger number of incidents from one year to another, but it's comparing apples and oranges. You don't have a common baseline. Just this past year, the change was made because of a change in the law. In prior years, it was actually just a change in methodology that the NCTC made that was an internal change in the way they counted things. So I expect within the next week or so we'll have those reports out and people can brief you in more depth, in detail about exactly what the numbers are and also about the narrative.

QUESTION: Well -- but for now to the extent that you can say, is that estimate about 10,000 additional incidents last year? I realize measurements change. I mean, what's going on in Iraq? Is that every incident in terror or not? I mean, this is difficult to wrestle with. But that aside, how does 10,000 -- as a surge, a surge in terrorist incidents last year about 10,000 -- does that stand up?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first of all, in terms of specific numbers, Barry, well, let's wait a week. Let's wait a week or so and people can brief you on that. And again, I would have to, you know, you'll choose your own words, but I would take issue with the word "surge" because that implies that you're counting from a common baseline, which we're not.

QUESTION: Right.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, two different -- two completely different baselines. It's -- the count this year will be unique. You can't compare it against the count from the previous year or the year before that.
Sreee*cough*911eerriiik! One unique strike.

QUESTION: Yesterday at the White House, there were two pretty major mishaps regarding President Hu's visit: the national anthem, the name of the People's Republic of China being called the Republic of China and also the Falun Gong protestor slipping through security. How can these two incidents not affect U.S.-Chinese relations? I mean, those things are seen as very offensive over in China. You know, and given their importance with talks on Iran and North Korea and things like that, is this something that's worrying the United States? Have the Chinese moved on?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'm going to have to get back to how that relates to Iran, but --

(Laughter.)

QUESTION: Well, I mean, you know, Nick met with him for a half hour last week or an hour-and-a-half.

MR. MCCORMACK: I know, I know, I hear you. Look, Libby, the folks over at the White House talked about these incidents yesterday and I think that their assessment -- I'm not going to try to add to their assessment of what effect that had on any particular discussions. I think, you know, certainly, the U.S.-China relationship is broad enough and deep enough so that such incidents aren't going to have -- cause any major disturbances in those relations.

Look, you know, the White House talked about how that it was regrettable that those things occurred, but their readout of the meetings was that it didn't really affect the meeting, so I would expect that it doesn't have any effect on the relations, Libby, as much as everybody wishes that those things had not occurred.
Two, and one for the error in not mentioning CNN's first hand look at the 'limits to democracy'(tm). [Sarcastic 'sweet' voice]--"Play Ball!"

QUESTION: April 24th the Secretary Condoleezza Rice will travel to Ankara, but the same day the world famous American pop singer Madonna will travel to Kurdish city Amed, A-m-e-d, known among Kurds as the capital of Kurdistan in Southeast of Turkey. She will give a free concert in a football stadium to entertain, as she says, the Kurdish people. I'm wondering if you're concerned about her safety since April 17 you issued, Mr. McCormack, a Public Announcement advising the U.S. citizens not to visit this (inaudible) area of Southeast of Turkey by May 16, 2006.

MR. MCCORMACK: We're not going to the concert, I can tell you that. You know, people make their own assessments. We put out this information for people to consider. They will make their own judgments about traveling in areas where there are Travel Warnings and Travel Announcements.
And Three for the show. See you next time sport fans.

OYAITJ:
104470 : News in verse and audio direction. "Fifty bodies found in Iraqi river" and other top hits of spring 2005 including the new dance number--QUESTION: Look, yesterday the State Department did publicly commit the National Counterterrorism Center to releasing these statistics.

MR. ERELI: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And it's a simple question. Do you believe that they will do so, as you said that you did yesterday?

MR. ERELI: I think they will decide. They will make a decision, you know -- they will make a decision and I'll leave it to them to speak to how and when and on what basis they're going to make their decision.

TYAITJ:
69346 : Scaphological Temporal Explorations 'R' Us, Atlantis waits still[see SDball above], Galloway and much more.

TYAITJ:
31023 : The retired US general sent to lead an interim administration has begun assessing the damage the war inflicted on Baghdad, where large parts of the population are still without water or electricity. Jay Garner flew into Baghdad insisting he was a "facilitator not a ruler", but opposition appeared to be growing to the invading forces taking a leading role in the reconstruction. A Kurdish leader, Jalal Talabani, said he objected to any "foreigner" leading an administration for Iraq. Do you like your "New World Order" ? They bought it just for you...kinda...in a trickle downish future returns after expenses way.

Texttoon:
Ink on paper/half-tone/cel-phone grab/ : A figure dressed as an Australian soldier drawn from the rear right. He looks into a vast vaulted hall. With solders of every era sitting on benches before the tables. Winged valkyries serve ale from giant casks in the arcades above. Most of the patrons are drawn with muted lines, except for a group at a table mid left, who are rendered in bolder lines and white spaced. These are all dressed as ANZAC's. One is waving a folded brim hat and says in a bubble; "O'er lad!"

The primary quote for this JE is from someone who was described to me, by a close observer of linguistic-anthropology, as being 'bug-shagging-crazy'. It also was to appear near the end of this sequence--which would have been today. But alas, delays in posting have made it more in the middle of this 'The 21st Century Pundits and Ox-Pull'. Some News, Texttoon, and links to previous JE's too. Hold your nose!

Quote(1):
We can all remember when the Mideast was not a crisis but rather an unanswered question: How will they find peace? It was a place that in our lifetimes had not achieved amity and accord but was not always at war, at least not always in full, hot war.

But now everyone--literally everyone you read, hear, speak to--has the sense that events are accelerating toward some unknown outcome. And no one--no one--believes the outcome will be good. We are out of optimists and optimism. The scenarios floated are dire. "Watch Lebanon," says the ahead-of-the-pack Charles Krauthammer. Hezbollah in southern Lebanon has 8,000 Katyusha rockets; they have already threatened to hit Haifa. If they do, Israel will answer, and not only in Lebanon but possibly in Syria, where the Hezbollah receives support. Syria would likely strike back with chemical weapons. Israel would answer unconventionally. And Armageddon is launched.

Tuesday night I bumped into a celebrated foreign-policy genius at a birthday party for a friend. He told me he thought that President Bush is doing well, has not yet made any serious mistakes. I said I agreed, and that I thought any effort that buys us time is good. By "us" I meant the world. He surprised me with his vehemence. "There is no 'land for peace,' " he said. "There is only land for time."

"This is not solvable," he added. And he had spent his life trying to solve international problems.

The Bush administration is passionately criticized from right and left. The right says he is shifting, unsure; that sending Colin Powell and calling for Israel to withdraw shows insufficient support for Israel and insufficient resolve in the face of terror. The left scores Mr. Bush for being reflexively pro-Israeli, as America always is. ABC News's daily political Internet report, "The Note," wonders if there's a method in Mr. Bush's madness. Perhaps he's crazy like a trapped fox, deliberately confusing everyone while he vamps up time and searches for options.

Mr. Bush stays in the kitchen and keeps stirring the broth, as Lee Atwater used to say. "Just keep stirring the pot, you never know what will come up." Thus Mr. Bush's statements, which haven't been so much contradictory as--well, let's say he chooses each day to emphasize a different truth. One senses the people at the White House hope they'll be able to look back on this as a strategy of creative ambiguity.

Mr. Bush criticizes Israel to buy time. He sends Mr. Powell to buy time. He criticizes Arafat to buy time. He has Ari Fleischer declare that Ariel Sharon wants peace to buy time. Why buy time? Because time is good. Because it's better than rushing hard and terrible events. Because the horse may laugh.

You remember the old English story. An angry king is about to put a disloyal servant to death. "My lord," the servant says, "give me only one year of life and I will do something amazing and unheard of. I will make your horse rear back and laugh with happiness." The king says, "That's impossible, horses don't laugh." The servant answers, "I have the power to, in only one year, teach your horse to laugh at all your jokes. And when I succeed I will ask you, if your grace will, to spare me. And if I should fail I will peacefully lay down my life."

The king ponders and agrees. Later a friend asks the servant why he made such a stupid, impossible vow. The servant said, "Well, in a year the king may die, or I may die. Or the horse may laugh."

That's what I think Mr. Bush is thinking: The horse may laugh.

You think this way only when you have no other options.

But isn't it odd that in a world full of geniuses, no one has an answer? Isn't it amazing that the whole highly sophisticated, technologically evolved, psychologically and historically astute world feels so at the mercy of this drama, so unable to help it or end it? This is the core of the world's pessimism: Everything you know of life tells you that if there are hundreds of thousands of Muslim fanatics who are shrewd, talented and capable, and if they live in the age of "obliterates," of weapons of mass destruction that can obliterate whole cities and countries, then some of them will get their hands on those weapons and slip through or over lines and borders. And everything you know of life and history tells you that Israel will not surrender; and that, as the writer Ron Rosenbaum, who normally speaks with a voice that is more cerebral than visceral, said this week in the New York Observer, "This is the way it is likely to happen: Sooner or later a nuclear weapon is detonated in Tel Aviv, and sooner, not later, there is nuclear retaliation--Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, perhaps all three. . . . The unspoken corollary of the slogan 'Never again' is: 'And if again, not us alone.' "

Those are the emotions coming from both sides, aimed at and springing from the Mideast, which a Catholic writer has called the vortex, the portal through which God has talked to man since the very dawn of history. The Garden of Eden, Moses, the Ten Commandments, the prophets, the birth of Christ the Redeemer, the crucifixion, the fall of the temple, the return of Israel. The Mideast is the place where God talks to us.

And where these days his message does not seem ambiguous. It's this: You're all in a heap of trouble.

So what are we to do? I was daydreaming about all this as I walked in my neighborhood on Pierrepont Street yesterday, and I found myself staring at a message someone had drawn onto newly poured concrete: "Smile. Today is what you have." It struck me, naturally, as sentimental street art. And then I thought no, it's both spiritual--"This is the day the Lord made/ let us rejoice and be glad in it," wrote the Psalmist--and fatalistic.

It made me think of Mother Teresa and the Catholic writer Henri Nouwen, who was a priest. He went to her once and poured out his problems--he wasn't appreciated, he was misunderstood, higher-ups weren't helping him in his good work. "You wouldn't be having these problems if you prayed more," she said. And that's all she said. At first Nouwen felt resentful--he had expected encouragement, sympathy, solidarity. Instead he got a blunt statement that he knew, in a moment, was true. He really wouldn't be having these problems if he prayed more. So he went home and prayed. And the problems became manageable, and life did not end. --P. Noonan

Quote(2):
There is a place that waits for the lowest man--the fertilizer plant!

The men would talk about it in awe-stricken whispers. Not more than one in ten had ever really tried it; the other nine had contented themselves with hearsay evidence and a peep through the door. There were some things worse than even starving to death. They would ask Jurgis if he had worked there yet, and if he meant to; and Jurgis would debate the matter with himself. As poor as they were, and making all the sacrifices that they were, would he dare to refuse any sort of work that was offered to him, be it as horrible as ever it could? Would he dare to go home and eat bread that had been earned by Ona, weak and complaining as she was, knowing that he had been given a chance, and had not had the nerve to take it?--And yet he might argue that way with himself all day, and one glimpse into the fertilizer works would send him away again shuddering. He was a man, and he would do his duty; he went and made application--but surely he was not also required to hope for success!

The fertilizer works of Durham's lay away from the rest of the plant. Few visitors ever saw them, and the few who did would come out looking like Dante, of whom the peasants declared that he had been into hell. To this part of the yards came all the "tankage" and the waste products of all sorts; here they dried out the bones,--and in suffocating cellars where the daylight never came you might see men and women and children bending over whirling machines and sawing bits of bone into all sorts of shapes, breathing their lungs full of the fine dust, and doomed to die, every one of them, within a certain definite time. Here they made the blood into albumen, and made other foul-smelling things into things still more foul-smelling.

In the corridors and caverns where it was done you might lose yourself as in the great caves of Kentucky. In the dust and the steam the electric lights would shine like far-off twinkling stars--red and blue-green and purple stars, according to the color of the mist and the brew from which it came. For the odors of these ghastly charnel houses there may be words in Lithuanian, but there are none in English. The person entering would have to summon his courage as for a cold-water plunge. He would go in like a man swimming under water; he would put his handkerchief over his face, and begin to cough and choke; and then, if he were still obstinate, he would find his head beginning to ring, and the veins in his forehead to throb, until finally he would be assailed by an overpowering blast of ammonia fumes, and would turn and run for his life, and come out half-dazed.

On top of this were the rooms where they dried the "tankage," the mass of brown stringy stuff that was left after the waste portions of the carcasses had had the lard and tallow dried out of them. This dried material they would then grind to a fine powder, and after they had mixed it up well with a mysterious but inoffensive brown rock which they brought in and ground up by the hundreds of carloads for that purpose, the substance was ready to be put into bags and sent out to the world as any one of a hundred different brands of standard bone phosphate. And then the farmer in Maine or California or Texas would buy this, at say twenty-five dollars a ton, and plant it with his corn; and for several days after the operation the fields would have a strong odor, and the farmer and his wagon and the very horses that had hauled it would all have it too. In Packingtown the fertilizer is pure, instead of being a flavoring, and instead of a ton or so spread out on several acres under the open sky, there are hundreds and thousands of tons of it in one building, heaped here and there in haystack piles, covering the floor several inches deep, and filling the air with a choking dust that becomes a blinding sandstorm when the wind stirs.

It was to this building that Jurgis came daily, as if dragged by an unseen hand. The month of May was an exceptionally cool one, and his secret prayers were granted; but early in June there came a record-breaking hot spell, and after that there were men wanted in the fertilizer mill.

The boss of the grinding room had come to know Jurgis by this time, and had marked him for a likely man; and so when he came to the door about two o'clock this breathless hot day, he felt a sudden spasm of pain shoot through him--the boss beckoned to him! In ten minutes more Jurgis had pulled off his coat and overshirt, and set his teeth together and gone to work. Here was one more difficulty for him to meet and conquer!

His labor took him about one minute to learn. Before him was one of the vents of the mill in which the fertilizer was being ground--rushing forth in a great brown river, with a spray of the finest dust flung forth in clouds. Jurgis was given a shovel, and along with half a dozen others it was his task to shovel this fertilizer into carts. That others were at work he knew by the sound, and by the fact that he sometimes collided with them; otherwise they might as well not have been there, for in the blinding dust storm a man could not see six feet in front of his face. When he had filled one cart he had to grope around him until another came, and if there was none on hand he continued to grope till one arrived. In five minutes he was, of course, a mass of fertilizer from head to feet; they gave him a sponge to tie over his mouth, so that he could breathe, but the sponge did not prevent his lips and eyelids from caking up with it and his ears from filling solid. He looked like a brown ghost at twilight--from hair to shoes he became the color of the building and of everything in it, and for that matter a hundred yards outside it. The building had to be left open, and when the wind blew Durham and Company lost a great deal of fertilizer.

Working in his shirt sleeves, and with the thermometer at over a hundred, the phosphates soaked in through every pore of Jurgis' skin, and in five minutes he had a headache, and in fifteen was almost dazed. The blood was pounding in his brain like an engine's throbbing; there was a frightful pain in the top of his skull, and he could hardly control his hands. Still, with the memory of his four months' siege behind him, he fought on, in a frenzy of determination; and half an hour later he began to vomit--he vomited until it seemed as if his inwards must be torn into shreds. A man could get used to the fertilizer mill, the boss had said, if he would make up his mind to it; but Jurgis now began to see that it was a question of making up his stomach.

At the end of that day of horror, he could scarcely stand. He had to catch himself now and then, and lean against a building and get his bearings. Most of the men, when they came out, made straight for a saloon--they seemed to place fertilizer and rattlesnake poison in one class. But Jurgis was too ill to think of drinking--he could only make his way to the street and stagger on to a car. He had a sense of humor, and later on, when he became an old hand, he used to think it fun to board a streetcar and see what happened. Now, however, he was too ill to notice it--how the people in the car began to gasp and sputter, to put their handkerchiefs to their noses, and transfix him with furious glances. Jurgis only knew that a man in front of him immediately got up and gave him a seat; and that half a minute later the two people on each side of him got up; and that in a full minute the crowded car was nearly empty--those passengers who could not get room on the platform having gotten out to walk.

Of course Jurgis had made his home a miniature fertilizer mill a minute after entering. The stuff was half an inch deep in his skin--his whole system was full of it, and it would have taken a week not merely of scrubbing, but of vigorous exercise, to get it out of him. As it was, he could be compared with nothing known to men, save that newest discovery of the savants, a substance which emits energy for an unlimited time, without being itself in the least diminished in power. He smelled so that he made all the food at the table taste, and set the whole family to vomiting; for himself it was three days before he could keep anything upon his stomach--he might wash his hands, and use a knife and fork, but were not his mouth and throat filled with the poison?

And still Jurgis stuck it out! In spite of splitting headaches he would stagger down to the plant and take up his stand once more, and begin to shovel in the blinding clouds of dust. And so at the end of the week he was a fertilizer man for life--he was able to eat again, and though his head never stopped aching, it ceased to be so bad that he could not work.

So there passed another summer. It was a summer of prosperity, all over the country, and the country ate generously of packing house products, and there was plenty of work for all the family, in spite of the packers' efforts to keep a superfluity of labor. They were again able to pay their debts and to begin to save a little sum; but there were one or two sacrifices they considered too heavy to be made for long--it was too bad that the boys should have to sell papers at their age. It was utterly useless to caution them and plead with them; quite without knowing it, they were taking on the tone of their new environment. They were learning to swear in voluble English; they were learning to pick up cigar stumps and smoke them, to pass hours of their time gambling with pennies and dice and cigarette cards; they were learning the location of all the houses of prostitution on the "Levee," and the names of the "madames" who kept them, and the days when they gave their state banquets, which the police captains and the big politicians all attended.

If a visiting "country customer" were to ask them, they could show him which was "Hinkydink's" famous saloon, and could even point out to him by name the different gamblers and thugs and "hold-up men" who made the place their headquarters. And worse yet, the boys were getting out of the habit of coming home at night. What was the use, they would ask, of wasting time and energy and a possible carfare riding out to the stockyards every night when the weather was pleasant and they could crawl under a truck or into an empty doorway and sleep exactly as well? So long as they brought home a half dollar for each day, what mattered it when they brought it? But Jurgis declared that from this to ceasing to come at all would not be a very long step, and so it was decided that Vilimas and Nikalojus should return to school in the fall, and that instead Elzbieta should go out and get some work, her place at home being taken by her younger daughter.

Little Kotrina was like most children of the poor, prematurely made old; she had to take care of her little brother, who was a cripple, and also of the baby; she had to cook the meals and wash the dishes and clean house, and have supper ready when the workers came home in the evening. She was only thirteen, and small for her age, but she did all this without a murmur; and her mother went out, and after trudging a couple of days about the yards, settled down as a servant of a "sausage machine."

Elzbieta was used to working, but she found this change a hard one, for the reason that she had to stand motionless upon her feet from seven o'clock in the morning till half-past twelve, and again from one till half-past five. For the first few days it seemed to her that she could not stand it--she suffered almost as much as Jurgis had from the fertilizer, and would come out at sundown with her head fairly reeling. Besides this, she was working in one of the dark holes, by electric light, and the dampness, too, was deadly--there were always puddles of water on the floor, and a sickening odor of moist flesh in the room. The people who worked here followed the ancient custom of nature, whereby the ptarmigan is the color of dead leaves in the fall and of snow in the winter, and the chameleon, who is black when he lies upon a stump and turns green when he moves to a leaf. The men and women who worked in this department were precisely the color of the "fresh country sausage" they made.

The sausage-room was an interesting place to visit, for two or three minutes, and provided that you did not look at the people; the machines were perhaps the most wonderful things in the entire plant. Presumably sausages were once chopped and stuffed by hand, and if so it would be interesting to know how many workers had been displaced by these inventions. On one side of the room were the hoppers, into which men shoveled loads of meat and wheelbarrows full of spices; in these great bowls were whirling knives that made two thousand revolutions a minute, and when the meat was ground fine and adulterated with potato flour, and well mixed with water, it was forced to the stuffing machines on the other side of the room. The latter were tended by women; there was a sort of spout, like the nozzle of a hose, and one of the women would take a long string of "casing" and put the end over the nozzle and then work the whole thing on, as one works on the finger of a tight glove.

This string would be twenty or thirty feet long, but the woman would have it all on in a jiffy; and when she had several on, she would press a lever, and a stream of sausage meat would be shot out, taking the casing with it as it came. Thus one might stand and see appear, miraculously born from the machine, a wriggling snake of sausage of incredible length.

In front was a big pan which caught these creatures, and two more women who seized them as fast as they appeared and twisted them into links. This was for the uninitiated the most perplexing work of all; for all that the woman had to give was a single turn of the wrist; and in some way she contrived to give it so that instead of an endless chain of sausages, one after another, there grew under her hands a bunch of strings, all dangling from a single center. It was quite like the feat of a prestidigitator--for the woman worked so fast that the eye could literally not follow her, and there was only a mist of motion, and tangle after tangle of sausages appearing. In the midst of the mist, however, the visitor would suddenly notice the tense set face, with the two wrinkles graven in the forehead, and the ghastly pallor of the cheeks; and then he would suddenly recollect that it was time he was going on.

The woman did not go on; she stayed right there--hour after hour, day after day, year after year, twisting sausage links and racing with death. It was piecework, and she was apt to have a family to keep alive; and stern and ruthless economic laws had arranged it that she could only do this by working just as she did, with all her soul upon her work, and with never an instant for a glance at the well-dressed ladies and gentlemen who came to stare at her, as at some wild beast in a menagerie. --U. Sinclair

One could say this is a horrid time for the American press [and its offshoot Punditry] when I can make that second quote fit like a well worn shoe. Moreover, I have noted a recent upswing in interest to Upton's little tome --vis Immigration-- not the activities of the protagonists.

Which is the point I, on the other hand, draw your attention to: Judy, Jared, Jimmy-Jeff, Novak, etc etc --all of them provide us with ample examples to fit as characters in the classic sillie style. Although, one may have to speak of it as a metaphoric stench, but I will submit it has permeated their surroundings with equal results.

I'll be presenting more of these 'exhibits from the zoo', both 'fowl and fare'[sic], in this sequence. In the next JE, I'll be quoting Huntington to fill in the reference by Dyer made in the previous JE, paired with an odd quote from the 1790's. Until then.

News with which it is assumed:
Juan you go back to where you came from. Noam on USA's immigration flap.

Don't gain the world and lose your soul/ Wisdom is better than silver and gold/ Author Doug Rushkoff's take is that the Protocols believers have it partly right; Jews are a "corrosive force." He writes: --"[T]he thing that makes Judaism dangerous to everybody, to every race, to every nation, to every idea; is that we smash things that aren't true. We don't believe in the boundaries of the nation-state, we don't believe in the ideas of these individual gods that protect individual groups of people, these are all artificial constructions and Judaism really teaches us how to see that." --While that's the Judaism I believe in, and while I suspect there's some validity to this explanation, it strikes me as just a bit too glossy to provide the whole story. The elephant in the room is Israel, a topic Levin eventually gets to; just but not extensively enough, in my opinion.

BrownLeatherJacket says: What this is all about is Mexicans. The United States, contrary to local belief, does not have a particularly high proportion of recent immigrants compared to other industrialised countries. No more than one person in eight is foreign-born in the US, considerably less than in neighbouring Canada (where the ratio is one in five) and not much more than in large European countries like Germany, France or Britain. But nowhere else has so many illegal immigrants, nor so many who are unskilled workers, nor such a high share from a single country. Mexican nationals make up the great majority of the "undocumented workers" (illegal immigrants) in the US economy. Their large numbers and high visibility give rise to paranoid fears among some longer established Americans that the United States is becoming a de facto bilingual country. They also stir a wider concern that this large and vulnerable work-force of illegal immigrants is deliberately maintained by employers as a way of keeping the wages of unskilled workers down. The language issue is largely a red herring: most newly arrived Hispanic families have become fluent in English by the second generation, just as previous waves of immigrants did before them.

King Silvio fights for his crown. [Courts! And Judges!, Surly!]

Skilling shuffles around. "Did you ever have a single conversation where you sat down with anyone at Enron where you said in so many words, 'Look we're not cutting it, we need to break the law?'" Mr Skilling's defence lawyer asked. "No, I never did that," the former Enron chief executive replied.

Oz Wheat-Cookie Jar games continue. Australia's foreign minister has told an inquiry that he was not aware of reports that wheat exporters were making illegal payments to Iraq. Alexander Downer was testifying before an inquiry in Sydney into the actions of the Australian Wheat Board (AWB). It is alleged the board paid millions of dollars in bribes to Saddam Hussein's regime to secure contracts. Prime Minister John Howard is expected to deliver a written statement to the inquiry later today. Mr Downer is the most senior government figure so far to give evidence.

Don't shoot the BlueHats! The gunmen struck near Baidoa, seat of the interim Somali parliament, police and relief workers said. The 72-lorry convoy managed to return to Baidoa with all its cargo of maize, beans, cooking oil and porridge intact.

That goes for rare antelope too.

It's ... [brief clip of the Liberty Bell March cut off by a Organ playing a Baseball Stab] SD-DPB softball time again. Old Dick Boucher has been shoved off into the farm team with the cookie pushers, so it's the plucky Sean McCormack up for the first spinning.
QUESTION: Is the United States communicating directly with the King's -- as this message?

MR. MCCORMACK: Oh, this message is intended to communicate directly with him.

QUESTION: But did -- is the American Ambassador talking to him or --

MR. MCCORMACK: They have not had a direct conversation.

QUESTION: Is there one planned or do you really plan this as the only way to get the message to him?

MR. MCCORMACK: We are going to -- we are certainly going to follow up our -- this message with the King directly. The King and our Ambassador, at this point in time, are not co-located in the same city, so we thought that we would send this very public message, which we would have, in any case, repeated after the Ambassador delivered it
High and wild...scooped up directly for "Strike one".

QUESTION: Can I ask about the Italian elections? Iraq evidently was not a major issue in the campaign, but still one of the U.S.'s best friends Berlusconi, seems to have lost. And the winner is somebody who wants to get out of Iraq as soon as possible. Will the U.S. miss the Berlusconi government? You lost Aznar in Spain and now Berlusconi in Italy. Do you feel any loss so far as maintaining a coalition?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think, Barry, we certainly are not going to put much stock into exit polls at this point. We'll see what the final conclusions are and before you have a final vote count, I'm not going to have any comment on it. We certainly look forward to working with whoever is the next prime minister. Italy is a good friend and ally and we look forward to working with them on a number of issues of common concern between our two countries.

QUESTION: But Prodi has been notably anti-American over the years.

MR. MCCORMACK: Like I said, we're not -- I'm not here to declare winners in the Italian election. We'll work with the next Italian -- we will look forward to working with the next Italian Government.

QUESTION: Sean, I guess it is early, as you say.

MR. MCCORMACK: Right. It's at 3:00, I think, they're supposed to have some initial polls out. But again, we here, Barry, are very leery of commenting on exit polls.

QUESTION: All right. Well, I tried anyhow, but I can see that you want to wait a little bit. The Prodi coalition has Communists in it and I think 30 years ago, the U.S. refused to deal with Italy because there were Communists in the government.

Do you have -- does the U.S. have a position on dealing with a government is it like Hamas?

MR. MCCORMACK: I know you're a baseball fan, Barry, so I'll just say swing and a miss.

QUESTION: Change of subject?

QUESTION: Sí, cómo no?

QUESTION: Swing and miss?

QUESTION: Swing and miss, it's a baseball thing. We'll explain later.

QUESTION: We'll tell you later.

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll fill you in later. Barry can fill you in later on it.
COM-MUUU-NIISTTTSSS!!! Riiiiight, two and one. [Umpire looks up at the players like they might be actually paying attention, pauses, and then says: 'Play Ball']

QUESTION: Can you confirm or deny reports that Venezuela is holding conversations with Iran to obtain uranium?

QUESTION: No, wait a minute. Please stay in that area.

MR. MCCORMACK: We'll come back on this particular topic. Yeah, go ahead, Nicholas.
Two and Two.

QUESTION: Can we just follow up on that? I'm just a bit puzzled because the United States has declared genocide is going on in Sudan and has invested an enormous amount of diplomatic capital in trying to resolve the situation. The Secretary has gone there once. I think the Deputy Secretary has gone there four times. We took the whole month of February to try to get a UN resolution on this.

But the solution seems to be -- while the situation is maybe going backward and getting further away from a solution, we seem to be giving Khartoum a veto over what will happen or will not happen there. A) Are you getting frustrated and B) is there some point there where the United States is going to have to take more muscular action on its own to resolve the situation?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, Peter, the solution here is to work through the multilateral institutions. The U.S. has provided quite a bit of assistance, much more than $100 million in assistance directly to the AU Mission. So we have really put our money where our rhetoric is in this case. We're pushing very hard on a number of different fronts in the UN, in NATO, and also in the Abuja talks. We have people that are there 24-7 to try to help move the Abuja political process forward. And really, that is where this terrible situation in Darfur is going to ultimately be resolved and that is through political accommodation among the various parties.

Right now in Abuja, we have all the key players on the Sudanese side. Vice President Taha is in Abuja, as well as a number of the other -- rebel leaders. The reports back from Abuja are they are making some progress in Abuja, but there's still some difficult decisions to make among the parties. Mr. Rannenberger has been there, our chargé to Sudan. Ambassador Hume has been there. Deputy Secretary Zoellick is very involved in this issue, as is the Secretary.

So we are engaged on all the variety of fronts here, whether that's providing humanitarian assistance, helping out with the security, or pushing the political process forward, so we've been deeply involved. And what has taken place in Darfur is a human tragedy. We know that. We have seen that. And that is why we are dedicating the efforts that we are dedicating to try to resolve the issue. Ultimately, though, the security and the humanitarian assistance are going to ameliorate a terrible situation there, but it's not going to solve it. What's going to solve the situation in Darfur is coming to a political solution.
Sean caught a piece of that. So by the Fictitious Rules of Press Softball a Designated Runner is sent up to first. Sean continues to bat. Two and Two. Play ball.

QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to Venezuela, we -- it was always the perception that the U.S. Government or the State Department decide the Venezuelan issue should be solved in more a regional context with the help of other countries. What happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: With the help of regional countries?

QUESTION: Yes, and multilateral level. What happened?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, there are -- you know, we have bilateral relationship with Venezuela and if there's any friction --

QUESTION: What happened with the OAS, for example?

MR. MCCORMACK: The OAS doing --

QUESTION: Yes, as probably to help improve U.S. and Venezuelan relations? Do you know?

MR. MCCORMACK: I'm not sure that there's help needed in that regard. We are ready to have a good relationship with the Government of Venezuela. We have, in the past, cooperated on a number of different fronts, including anti-narcotic efforts. Assistant Secretary Shannon took the opportunity to invite his counterpart, who was visiting Miami, up to Washington for a meeting. And we have daily interaction between our embassy, as well as members of the Venezuelan Government.

So the United States is certainly prepared to have a good relationship with the Government of Venezuela and to make that the best possible relationship. Certainly, we do have some publicly stated concerns about the way the current government has governed and our concerns about the fact that some of the actions that they have taken undermine the continued health of Venezuelan democracy. So we will speak openly about those concerns and honestly about those concerns. But that doesn't preclude our wanting to work with the Government of Venezuela on a number of different issues and to have a good relationship with the Government of Venezuela.
Strike three. One man left on. Check out the full game text for the rest of the play by play.

OYAITJ:
104470 : Silvio, The bodies of more than 50 men, women and children have been recovered from the River Tigris in the town of Suwayra, south of Baghdad. , Seventeen Afghans held in Guantanamo Bay have been handed over to the Afghan authorities in the capital, Kabul. Afghan intelligence sources told the BBC that the men will be questioned until Wednesday, when they will be re-united with their families. Some of them complained of mistreatment by the US. and more.

TYAITJ:
68113 : Vietnam, Spainish bomb arrests, Scalia deletes the press, plus many other items.

TYAITJ:
30012 : Bark at the Sun.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of George W Bush composited into a teen garage band photo from the 1960's. Rummy, Cheney and Condi are set in as other members for George, who sings in an overlayed speech bubble:
"Singled out the kids who are mean to me/Get straight A-s but they still make fun/ I don't give a -- I'll laugh last

Stayed in every night/ Do my homework so I'll be smart/ Girls all say I'm a little fucked

Mommy, I'm a good boy/ Mommy, I'm a fuckin' savior/ Mommy, I'm alive/ Mommy, can I go out and kill tonight?"
Caption at the bottom; "Bush family home photos".

After some interesting delays, I return to the field.
*adjusts saddle, checks lance, and pats steed*

More quotes for the sequence 'The 21st Century Pundits and Ox-Pull', News, Texttoon, and the *YAITJs.

"Ignorant Armies, Present Arms! 'Ten-shun! Let loose The Dog Of War!"

Quote(1):
In 1948, a forty-two-year-old Egyptian novelist, poet, and critic named Sayyid Qutb sailed from Alexandria for New York on his first visit to the West. He spent two years in the United States at the expense of King Farouk's government, and was revolted by what he saw. A puritanical man and a lifelong bachelor, he viewed the relatively permissive culture of post-Second World War America as a bottomless sink of moral iniquity, with temptations waiting to trap the believer at every turn. Even a harmless church hop dismayed him with what he saw as flagrant sexuality: in one of his letters from America he recounts how the pastor put on a record of "Baby, It's Cold Outside" and "The dancing intensified.... The hall swarmed with legs.... Arms circled arms, lips met lips, chests met chests, and the atmosphere was full of love."

Qutb's sensibility, if not his strategy, prefigured almost precisely that of Mohammed Atta, chief of the September 11 hijackers, and of a whole later generation of other lonely, socially awkward young Muslim men in the diaspora who were simultaneously fascinated and terrified by the sexual openness of the modern West and took refuge in a pose of fastidious disengagement from the corruption around them. As Qutb later described it, "The Believer from his height looks down at the people drowning in dirt and mud. He may by the only one; yet he is not dejected or grieved, nor does his heart desire that he take off his clean and immaculate garments and join the crowd." And not long after he got home to Egypt in 1950, he joined the Muslim Brotherhood.

The philosophy that Qutb developed over the next decade, codified in his 1964 book Milestones, built on the Salafi tradition in Islam. The name comes from al-Salaf al-Salih, "the venerable forefathers," a reference to the generation of the Prophet and his companions, and the Salafis hold that most modern Muslims are little more than idolaters and must strive to return Islamic society to the pure state of that first generation of Muslims, fourteen centuries ago. Qutb's special contribution, and the key to his doctrine's immense influence in the Arab world over the succeeding decades, was to make an explicit analogy between the current dreadful state of the Arab world (he would have said Islamic world, but the only part he really knew was the Middle East) and the evil state of things in seventh-century Arabia in the decades before the Prophet's birth: foreign occupation, sin, vulgarity, and ignorance. The pre-Islamic period is known in Arabic as the jahiliyah (literally, "the state of ignorance"), and Qutb declared that the Arab world had fallen victim to a new jahiliyah from which only religious reform could save it.

But while the language was Koranic, Qutb's thinking on how the jahiliyah might be ended borrowed very heavily from contemporary European ideologies, especially in adopting the notion of a revolutionary vanguard of militant believers who would bring about this transformation by violence. As Malise Ruthven noted in his book A Fury for God, this is a concept "imported from Europe, through a lineage that stretches back to the Jacobins, through the Bolsheviks and latter-day Marxist guerillas such as the Baader-Meinhof gang."

So it's hardly surprising that Nasser had Qutb executed in 1966 - but his martyrdom, coming only a year before the 1967 defeat discredited all the secular regimes of the Arab world, only gave his ideas added power.

It was the abject failure of the Arab nationalist and Marxist regimes to solve the two great problems of the Arab world - Israel and backwardness - that caused many people to turn to militant Islamism in the 1970s. As early as 1972, according to recently opened records, the British Foreign Office was picking up signs that Islamic radicalism was beginning to take over as the dominant revolutionary movement in the Arab world.

That was the year that diplomat James Craid, later British ambassador to Syria and Saudi Arabia, wrote in a memorandum after a visit to several Arab countries, "One theory put to me in Beirut was that, since Arab nationalism had manifestly failed, people are turning to the alternative of Islamic nationalism. I argued that this, too, had failed - indeed, it failed long ago. The reply was that the very length of time which had passed since this failure made it possible to consider giving it a second trial run."

There was, however, a serious ideological problem that the Salafis had to solve if their ideas were to command a mass following in the Arab world. Their ultimate goal was not nationalist at all: it was the establishment of a single transnational community of the faithful everywhere - the traditional idea of the umma - living under Sharia law in obedience to the original precepts of the founding generation of Islam as they conceived them. Nationalism, they believed, was an idolatry that only served to divide the umma, and ultimately all national boundaries should be erased.

Most of their potential followers, however, were Arabs who were mainly concerned with the failures of existing Arab states in the here-and-now, and what they really wanted was better social and economic conditions, a restoration of Arab dignity, and if possible victory over Israel. Like the internationalist Bolsheviks who had to come to terms with the fact that their main clientele was nationalist Russians, the Islamists had to tailor their ideas to appeal to the interests and priorities of Arabs who were still primarily nationalists.

The solution was to argue that all the trials and defeats of this era, the darkest in the history of the Muslim peoples (of the Arabs, really, but slide past that), were due to a vast global plot hatched by the "Zionist-Crusader alliance" to enslave the Muslims and destroy Islam. Israel and the various Arab governments that co-operated with the West were all part of this plot, whose headquarters was in the United States. Therefore the things that really preoccupied the Arab man in the street - the struggle against Israel and the need to replace corrupt, incompetent, and repressive Arab governments - were legitimate and necessary parts of the larger struggle to defend and reform Islam. The real enemy was the West - and no one talked too much about the final goal of a single, all-embracing, and ultimately global Islamic state for the moment.

That was the high ideology of it. For the average Arab, the argument was a good deal simpler. Stripped to its bare bones, the logic goes like this: We Arabs have enjoyed God's favour from the time of the Prophet, and our history was mostly gloriously successful, but for generations now we have been losing every time, on every issue. What are we doing wrong that has made God turn away from us? If you ask this question anywhere in the Arab world these days, you will find somebody nearby with the answer: "We are doing everything wrong. For most of a century we have been trying to catch up with the West by copying the West - not just its technology, but its systems, its manners, its values, even its clothes. We have abandoned our own Islamic values and traditions, and so God has turned his back on us."

Not only is this argument internally consistent for the true believer, but it is immensely attractive because it implicitly promises that a solution is available. There is no need to beat the West at its own games, political, military, and economic (which is a great relief since we Arabs haven't been doing too well in that endeavour). On the contrary, what we must do is to abandon all these Westernized ways of thinking and acting, and return to our own Islamic values and behaviour. In other words, the solution is well within the reach of ordinary Arab men and women: we must only persuade all our fellow Muslims to return to the original and proper Islamic ways, and God will be with us once again. Then He will give us the power to overthrow the hated domination of the West, and we will resume our rightful place in the world.

The fly in this ointment is that relatively few people in any Arab country actually want to lead the extremely austere and in many ways pre-modern lives that the Islamists insist is the only proper way to live Islam. Yet that is what everybody must do if the Islamists' solution is to work - so the reluctant majority must be forced into the proper ways, which requires that the Islamists gain control of the state, pass laws that define proper Islamic comportment, and enforce them against the entire population. To be an Islamist is to be a revolutionary, and from the beginning the organizations they created in the various Arab states were precisely that. During the 1970s such groups as the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Takfir wal-Hijra in Egypt grew rapidly but remained out of sight - but at the end of the decade they came out into the open with a bang.

In November 1979, several hundred men led by Juhayman al-Utaybi, a veteran of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca and proclaimed al-Utaybi's brother-in-law Muhammad al-Qahtani to be the Mahdi, the long-awaited messiah who, according to one tradition, would purify the Muslim world and lead the Muslims to victory. The Saudi rulers, al-Utaybi proclaimed, were apostates who had "made religion into a means of acquiring their materialistic interests. They have brought upon Muslims all evil and corruption."

The Saudi government was at a loss as to how to respond, since the use of heavy weapons to retake Islam's most sacred site was out of the question, so they called on the help of the French gendarmerie's paramilitary anti-terrorism force, the Groupe d'Intervention.

It took them more than two weeks to take the mosque back in bitter hand-to-hand fighting, and rumours continue to circulate that poison gas was used, or that the mosque's basements were flooded and a high-voltage current passed through the water to electrocute the rebels. In the end al-Utaybi and more than sixty of his followers were captured and subsequently beheaded in the largest mass decapitation in Saudi history. And that was just the start.

In 1981, Islamist soldiers serving in the Egyptian army shot and killed President Anwar Sadat for having made peace with Israel. His successor, Hosni Mubarak, an ex-fighter pilot, has survived at least five Islamist assassination attempts. In 1983, the Muslim Brotherhood rose against Hafez al-Assad's Ba'athist regime in Syria, which was closely modelled on that of East Germany (except that it was mainly based on clan ties among the country's small Alawite minority), and seized control of the country's third largest city, Hama. The Syrian army took the city back with heavy artillery, killing an estimated twenty thousand people in the process. By the end of the 1980s, there were serious Islamist revolutionary organizations in all of the larger Arab countries that were perfectly willing to use violence in order to take power, so that they could begin to put their program for solving the Arab world's problems into effect.

The 1980s were the heyday of the militant Islamism in the Arab world, a time when there were real fears that these radical anti-Western revolutionaries might actually gain power in a major Arab country (as their unacknowledged Shia cousins had done in Iran in 1978). They very nearly did achieve that goal in 1991 in Algeria, when the worn-out and totally discredited National Liberation Front (FLN) regime that has ruled that country since the French army pulled out in 1962 made the mistake of holding more or less free elections. "Le pouvoir," as the shadowy group of generals who actually run Algeria are known, believed they could control the outcome of the election and gain some legitmacy as a result. The first round of the parliamentary elections proved them wrong. Algerians would probably even have voted for the Gay Liberation Front if it seemed to have a chance of removing those in power, but the actual alternative they had was the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS), and they voted for it in droves. So the regime panicked and cancelled the second round of the elections.

France and the United States, which were appalled by the prospect of an Islamist government coming to power in Algeria, backed the ruling generals all the way. It was embarrassing for them to support publicly such a blatant rejection of democracy, but the alternative of an overtly Islamist government in what was, after all, the second most populous Arabic-speaking country (and an oil exporter, to boot) out-weighed all other considerations. Algeria has paid a terrible price for this decision, as the thwarted Islamists then turned to violence. Between one and two hundred thousand people have been killed in a no-quarter war between the regime and the insurgents of the Armed Islamic Groups (GIA), FIS's armed wing, over the past decade - but it was, in the end, a defeat for the Islamists.

In fact, the crest of the Islamist wave seemed to have passed in the Arab world by the mid-1990s. The Islamists were still convinced that they had the solution, if only they could take power and put it into effect, but in fifteen years of trying they had no success whatever. They had killed a great many people, and thousands of the Islamists themselves had died terrible deaths in the torture chambers of the regimes they were trying to overthrow, but they had nothing at all to show for it: no Arab state was ruled by Islamists, or seemed even close to falling into their hands. The cause was becoming just one more failure in the pattern of failure that had descended on the Arab world like an ancient curse. It was at this point that Osama bin Laden entered the scene.

"To the people of the countries allied to the iniquitous American government..." began the audiotape of November 2002 that gave the first clear evidence since the saturation bombing of the caves of Tora Bora in the White Mountains of southeastern Afganistan the previous year that Osama bin Laden was still alive. "What has happened since the conquests of New York and Washington up until now - like the operations on Germans in Tunisia, the explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, on the French in Karachi, the operations against the [U.S.] Marines in Failaka [Kuwait], on Australians and Britons in the explosions in Bali, as well as the recent hostage-taking in Moscow and other operations here and there - were nothing but the response of Muslims eager to defend their religion and respond to the order of God and their Prophet.

"What Bush, the pharaoh of the century, did by murdering our children in Iraq and what Israel, the ally of America, did in bombing the houses of the elderly, women, and children in Palestine, using American planes, was enough for the wises among your leaders to distance themselves from this criminal gang.... Do your governments not know that the clique in the White House is made up of the greatest murderers of the century? Rumsfeld is the butcher of Vietnam who has killed more than two million people. Cheney and Powell have murdered and destroyed in Baghdad more than did Hulagu [the thirteenth-century Mongol who conquered the city]. Why did your governments ally themselves with America to attack us in Afghanistan, and I cite in particular Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany and Australia?... "[R]emember our [people] killed among the children of Palestine, in Iraq. Remember our dead in Afghanistan. As you look at your dead in Moscow, also recall ours in Chechnya. For how long will fear, massacres, destruction, exile, orphanhood and widowhood be our lot, while security, stability and joy remain your domain alone? It is high time that equality be established to this effect. As you assassinate, so will you be [assassinated], and as you bomb, so will you like-wise be [bombed]."

In the dark arts of image management and political spin, Osama bin Laden could rope, pin, and hogtie President Bush's political manager and resident Machiavelli, Karl Rove, in under ten seconds. He sometimes affects sheikly robes to which he has no rightful claim (his father grew wealthy in the construction trade, but was of an undistinguished lineage), but in his carefully produced video appearances he more commonly wears a calculated mix of modern combat fatigues and the long beard and headdress of a traditional Islamic sage. And he regularly implies that events as widely separated as the Chechen attacks in Moscow and Palestinian bombings in Israel are all part of the same universal Muslim struggle against the "Zionist-Crusader alliance," and that his own organization and strategy are the solution.

What he wants, in other words, is to make Samuel Huntington's prediction of an apocalyptic clash of civilizations come to pass, and to portray what is really an Arab cause and organization as a pan-Islamic one. But the figures speak for themselves: al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan with bin Laden before September 2001, according to a series of interviews conducted with the Islamist leader by Ahmed Zeidan, al-Jazeera television's Islamabad correspondent, and later published as Bin Laden Unmasked, included 62 British Muslims, 30 Americans, 8 Frenchmen, 1,660 men from the Maghreb (Algeria, Morocco, and Tunisia), 680 Saudi Arabians, 480 Yemenis, 430 Palestinians, 270 Egyptians, 520 Sudanese, 80 Iraqis, 33 Turks and 180 Filipinos. There must have been substantial numbers of Afghan and Pakistani members as well, who are perhaps omitted because they had not travelled long distances to join bin Laden, but the statistics are still striking. While more than 80 per cent of the world's Muslims are non-Arabs, the overwhelming majority of al-Qaeda's combatants were from the Arab world.

It should also be noted that nearly a third of al-Qaeda's "Afghan Arabs" come from the Maghreb - principally from Algeria, where the bloody ten-year war between Islamist guerillas and the military regime has radicalized many young Muslims. One in seven came from Saudi Arabia, where the ruling family has long subsidized a network of Islamic colleges to keep the huge numbers of educated but unemployed youths off the street. Less than a fifth came from the densely populated cultural heartland of the Arab world, the Fertile Crescent stretching from Egypt to Iraq that accounts for more than 40 per cent of the total Arab population - and only 2 per cent were Iraqis. Al-Qaeda isn't even representative of the Arab world, let alone of the broader Muslim world - but it has done a pretty good job of fooling the West in that regard. --Gwynne Dyer

Quote(2):
All religious systems, it is confessed, are subject to great and insuperable difficulties. Each disputant triumphs in his turn; while he carries on an offensive war, and exposes the absurdities, barbarities, and pernicious tenets of his antagonist.

But all of them, on the whole, prepare a complete triumph for the Sceptic; who tells them, that no system ought ever to be embraced with regard to such subjects: For this plain reason, that no absurdity ought ever to be assented to with regard to any subject. A total suspense of judgement is here our only reasonable resource. And if every attack, as is commonly observed, and no defence, among Theologians, is successful; how complete must be his victory, who remains always, with all mankind, on the offensive, and has himself no fixed station or abiding city, which he is ever, on any occasion, obliged to defend?

But if so many difficulties attend the argument a posteriori, said DEMEA, had we not better adhere to that simple and sublime argument a priori, which, by offering to us infallible demonstration, cuts off at once all doubt and difficulty? By this argument, too, we may prove the infinity of the Divine attributes, which, I am afraid, can never be ascertained with certainty from any other topic. For how can an effect, which either is finite, or, for aught we know, may be so; how can such an effect, I say, prove an infinite cause? The unity too of the Divine Nature, it is very difficult, if not absolutely impossible, to deduce merely from contemplating the works of nature; nor will the uniformity alone of the plan, even were it allowed, give us any assurance of that attribute. Whereas the argument a priori ...

You seem to reason, DEMEA, interposed CLEANTHES, as if those advantages and conveniences in the abstract argument were full proofs of its solidity. But it is first proper, in my opinion, to determine what argument of this nature you choose to insist on; and we shall afterwards, from itself, better than from its useful consequences, endeavour to determine what value we ought to put upon it.

The argument, replied DEMEA, which I would insist on, is the common one. Whatever exists must have a cause or reason of its existence; it being absolutely impossible for any thing to produce itself, or be the cause of its own existence. In mounting up, therefore, from effects to causes, we must either go on in tracing an infinite succession, without any ultimate cause at all; or must at last have recourse to some ultimate cause, that is necessarily existent: Now, that the first supposition is absurd, may be thus proved. In the infinite chain or succession of causes and effects, each single effect is determined to exist by the power and efficacy of that cause which immediately preceded; but the whole eternal chain or succession, taken together, is not determined or caused by any thing; and yet it is evident that it requires a cause or reason, as much as any particular object which begins to exist in time. The question is still reasonable, why this particular succession of causes existed from eternity, and not any other succession, or no succession at all. If there be no necessarily existent being, any supposition which can be formed is equally possible; nor is there any more absurdity in Nothing's having existed from eternity, than there is in that succession of causes which constitutes the universe.

What was it, then, which determined Something to exist rather than Nothing, and bestowed being on a particular possibility, exclusive of the rest? External causes, there are supposed to be none. Chance is a word without a meaning. Was it Nothing? But that can never produce any thing. We must, therefore, have recourse to a necessarily existent Being, who carries the REASON of his existence in himself, and who cannot be supposed not to exist, without an express contradiction. There is, consequently, such a Being; that is, there is a Deity.

I shall not leave it to PHILO, said CLEANTHES, though I know that the starting objections is his chief delight, to point out the weakness of this metaphysical reasoning. It seems to me so obviously ill-grounded, and at the same time of so little consequence to the cause of true piety and religion, that I shall myself venture to show the fallacy of it.

I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by any arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no being, therefore, whose non-existence implies a contradiction. Consequently there is no being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.

It is pretended that the Deity is a necessarily existent being; and this necessity of his existence is attempted to be explained by asserting, that if we knew his whole essence or nature, we should perceive it to be as impossible for him not to exist, as for twice two not to be four. But it is evident that this can never happen, while our faculties remain the same as at present. It will still be possible for us, at any time, to conceive the non-existence of what we formerly conceived to exist; nor can the mind ever lie under a necessity of supposing any object to remain always in being; in the same manner as we lie under a necessity of always conceiving twice two to be four. The words, therefore, necessary existence, have no meaning; or, which is the same thing, none that is consistent.

But further, why may not the material universe be the necessarily existent Being, according to this pretended explication of necessity? We dare not affirm that we know all the qualities of matter; and for aught we can determine, it may contain some qualities, which, were they known, would make its non-existence appear as great a contradiction as that twice two is five. I find only one argument employed to prove, that the material world is not the necessarily existent Being: and this argument is derived from the contingency both of the matter and the form of the world.

"Any particle of matter," it is said Dr. Clarke, "may be conceived to be annihilated; and any form may be conceived to be altered. Such an annihilation or alteration, therefore, is not impossible." But it seems a great partiality not to perceive, that the same argument extends equally to the Deity, so far as we have any conception of him; and that the mind can at least imagine him to be non-existent, or his attributes to be altered. It must be some unknown, inconceivable qualities, which can make his non-existence appear impossible, or his attributes unalterable: And no reason can be assigned, why these qualities may not belong to matter. As they are altogether unknown and inconceivable, they can never be proved incompatible with it.

Add to this, that in tracing an eternal succession of objects, it seems absurd to inquire for a general cause or first author. How can any thing, that exists from eternity, have a cause, since that relation implies a priority in time, and a beginning of existence?

In such a chain, too, or succession of objects, each part is caused by that which preceded it, and causes that which succeeds it. Where then is the difficulty? But the whole, you say, wants a cause. I answer, that the uniting of these parts into a whole, like the uniting of several distinct countries into one kingdom, or several distinct members into one body, is performed merely by an arbitrary act of the mind, and has no influence on the nature of things. Did I show you the particular causes of each individual in a collection of twenty particles of matter, I should think it very unreasonable, should you afterwards ask me, what was the cause of the whole twenty. This is sufficiently explained in explaining the cause of the parts.

Though the reasonings which you have urged, CLEANTHES, may well excuse me, said PHILO, from starting any further difficulties, yet I cannot forbear insisting still upon another topic. It is observed by arithmeticians, that the products of 9, compose always either 9, or some lesser product of 9, if you add together all the characters of which any of the former products is composed.

Thus, of 18, 27, 36, which are products of 9, you make 9 by adding 1 to 8, 2 to 7, 3 to 6. Thus, 369 is a product also of 9; and if you add 3, 6, and 9, you make 18, a lesser product of 9. To a superficial observer, so wonderful a regularity may be admired as the effect either of chance or design: but a skilful algebraist immediately concludes it to be the work of necessity, and demonstrates, that it must for ever result from the nature of these numbers.

Is it not probable, I ask, that the whole economy of the universe is conducted by a like necessity, though no human algebra can furnish a key which solves the difficulty? And instead of admiring the order of natural beings, may it not happen, that, could we penetrate into the intimate nature of bodies, we should clearly see why it was absolutely impossible they could ever admit of any other disposition? So dangerous is it to introduce this idea of necessity into the present question! and so naturally does it afford an inference directly opposite to the religious hypothesis!

But dropping all these abstractions, continued PHILO, and confining ourselves to more familiar topics, I shall venture to add an observation, that the argument a priori has seldom been found very convincing, except to people of a metaphysical head, who have accustomed themselves to abstract reasoning, and who, finding from mathematics, that the understanding frequently leads to truth through obscurity, and, contrary to first appearances, have transferred the same habit of thinking to subjects where it ought not to have place.

Other people, even of good sense and the best inclined to religion, feel always some deficiency in such arguments, though they are not perhaps able to explain distinctly where it lies; a certain proof that men ever did, and ever will derive their religion from other sources than from this species of reasoning. -- D. Hume

Next up: Bug-Shagging-Crazy and Sillie-buggers. Until Then.

News by revelation of truth through obscurity:
Juan's reply -- AG: Noam Chomsky, I wanted to ask you a question. As many people know, you're perhaps one of the most cited sources of analysis in the world. And I thought this was an interesting reference to these citations. This was earlier this month -- Tim Russert, Meet the Press , questioning the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace.

TIM RUSSERT: Mr. Jaafari said that one of his favorite American writers is professor Noam Chomsky, someone who has written very, very strongly against the Iraq war and against most of the Bush administration foreign policy. Does that concern you?

GEN. PETER PACE: I hope he has more than one book on his nightstand.

TIM RUSSERT: So, it troubles you?

GEN. PETER PACE: I would be concerned if the only access to foreign ideas that the prime minister had was that one author. If, in fact, that's one of many, and he's digesting many different opinions, that's probably healthy.

AG: That's Gen. Peter Pace, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, being questioned by Tim Russert, talking about Jaafari, who at this very moment is struggling to hold on to his position as prime minister of Iraq. Your response, Noam Chomsky?

NC: Well, I, frankly, rather doubt that Gen. Pace recognized my name or knew what he was referring to, but maybe he did. The quote from Tim Russert, if I recall, was that this was a book that was highly critical of the Iraq war. Well, that shouldn't surprise a prime minister of Iraq. After all, according to U.S. polls, the latest ones I've seen reported, Brookings Institution, 87 percent of Iraqis want a timetable for withdrawal. That's an astonishing figure. If it really is all Iraqis, as was asserted. That means virtually everyone in Arab Iraq, the areas where the troops are deployed. I, frankly, doubt that you could have found figures like that in Vichy France or, you know, Poland under ... when it was a Russian satellite.

What it means essentially is that virtually everyone wants a timetable for withdrawal. So, would it be surprising that a prime minister would read a book that's critical of the war and says the same thing? It's interesting that Bush and Blair, who are constantly preaching about their love of democracy, announce, declare that there will be no timetable for withdrawal. Well, that part probably reflects the contempt for democracy that both of them have continually demonstrated, them and their colleagues, virtually without exception.

But there are deeper reasons, and we ought to think about them. If we're talking about exit strategies from Iraq, we should bear in mind that for the U.S. to leave Iraq without establishing a subordinate client state would be a nightmare for Washington. All you have to do is think of the policies that an independent Iraq would be likely to pursue, if it was mildly democratic. It would almost surely strengthen its already developed relations with Shiite Iran right next door. Any degree of Iraqi autonomy stimulates autonomy pressures across the border in Saudi Arabia, where there's a substantial Shiite population that has been bitterly repressed by the U.S.-backed tyranny but is now calling for more autonomy. That happens to be where most of Saudi oil is.

Gold hits 600+, oil stays high on nuke-Iran-a-ramma.

Which 'The Nutty Strawdog' says is "nuts".

Thicky's theme park staff likely to be mostly younger folk for a generation or two now. Zimbabwe's women have an average life expectancy of 34 years and men on average do not live past 37, it said.

Nepalese police out for a second days worth of thumping local youth. Police in Nepal have used teargas in clashes with hundreds of protesters who defied a curfew for a second day to rally against King Gyanendra's rule. At least three people have been killed since police first opened fire on mass rallies on Saturday. They have been ordered to shoot anyone who violates the curfew in Kathmandu and other cities. King Gyanendra took power 14 months ago, accusing political parties of failing to quell a Maoist insurgency.

Last heard from the attacker was -- Buuu-Weeeee-Click-Click. Translation: "For great justice!"

Howard pekpek antap olgeta man, gen. "The spectre of terrorism is now being used by Prime Minister Howard, to deprive West Papuans of their rights and he should say what he has in mind in reviewing those rights."

I sometimes wonder what we will get wrong in, say, 100 years. " 'Flogging a dead horse' referred to the practice in the last century of selling horses through eBay. After being bought, few of the animals survived being posted, and almost all arrived dead. Hence the phrase means a pointless activity." --"Brownie points, a jocular way of suggesting that someone has done something to gain approval, is a mispronunciation of 'brown knee points,' and is connected with another phrase, 'get yer knees brown'. This in turn refers to hard-working people who get down on their knees to do the gardening." -- "Mad as a hatter" is thought to refer to the controversial 20th century politician Roy Hattersley." O RLY?

BTW RTL k *4: l8r

Free and not dead press.

SD-DPB Softball time.
QUESTION: Can you clarify for me whether any assistance is going to continue to go to President Abbas since the government -- the Palestinian government is kind of multi-headed there?

MR. MCCORMACK: I think that that is still an open question at this point, Charlie. I think David will probably have a little bit more detail for you. He has recently returned from the region and has had some conversations with President Abbas as well as others on the presidential staff. So I think that he could probably fill you in a bit more on that particular question. But to my knowledge there is, at this point, not any assistance planned for President Abbas's office.
Strike One. Although one could say this is a long known weakness in their playing style.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about the U.S. Ambassador to Venezuela, Bill Brownfield? His car was pelted with eggs and fruit and vegetables by supporters of government -- of President Chavez. And your Embassy spokesman is saying that the protest appears to be organized by the mayor of Caracas.

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen those reports, Elise. Clearly, we are very concerned about any incidence that might affect the security of our embassy personnel, including the ambassador. And we believe it is an important responsibility for any host government to work with the American embassy to help ensure that our personnel are protected in the way that we would expect them to be protected and in a way similar that we work with foreign embassies here in the United States to ensure that their personnel are protected.

QUESTION: Could you let us know if you have anything more specific on this particular incident?

MR. MCCORMACK: Sure.

QUESTION: It was very serious.

QUESTION: And also what have you asked -- I mean, you said you've asked the -- or these reports said that the U.S. has asked the Venezuelan Government for increased security because this isn't the first time that Ambassador Brownfield has been a target. Can you say -- and also this current report said that security officials did nothing to intervene in this attack.

MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, again, I haven't seen these reports. But clearly, if that is in fact the case, that would be a source of serious concern to us.

QUESTION: And can you confirm that you've asked Venezuela for more security and --

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, I haven't seen the reports so I haven't talked to anybody about that --

QUESTION: No, this has been an ongoing issue. Do you know whether in the past you have asked Venezuela?

MR. MCCORMACK: Teri, I haven't looked -- I haven't looked into the issue.

QUESTION: Okay.
Strike two... with eggs on top.

QUESTION: Well, what about this idea that there will be no talks until the Iraqis have formed their government and put forward their own people for this meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: We don't have -- don't have a timeline for such a meeting. Ambassador Khalilzad, as you know, has for some time had the authorization to have a meeting with his counterpart concerning issues of mutual concern in Iraq. We've had concerns about the Iranians' behavior in Iraq. We are calling for good, neighborly, transparent relations between Iraq and Iran.

As for whether there will be a meeting, we'll see. Ambassador Khalilzad does have that authorization so we'll try to keep you updated if, in fact, there is a meeting.

QUESTION: So you still want this meeting to go ahead?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, there -- again, this is something that Zal has had the authority to do for some time, going back into the fall. We made back in the fall time an initial offer to the Iranian Government saying that this channel of communication was open on this narrow set of topics. They had no interest in it at that time.

Now that they find themselves under the scrutiny and the harsh spotlight of the international community concerning their nuclear activities, all of a sudden they're interested. So at this point there is not a meeting scheduled and we'll see. We'll see if there is such a meeting. We'll try to -- like I said, we'll try to keep you updated.

QUESTION: Did you notice that ElBaradei is going there?

MR. MCCORMACK: I did. I saw that.

QUESTION: And do you have any reflections on --

MR. MCCORMACK: Inasmuch as his trip involves reinforcing the message to the Iranian Government that it must come into compliance with its NPT obligations, that it must heed the call of the IAEA Board of Governors, then that certainly is positive.

QUESTION: So you think he will be reinforcing the --

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, we certainly hope that that is the message that he will be sending.

QUESTION: Just -- oh, you remember those Iranian exercises that -- I don't know if it was you or Adam was talking about the other day? Do you have anything new on that? There's some British think tank that finds some cause for concern over something called a flying boat, and I don't even know what a flying boat is. (Laughter.) But they have found reason for concern. This is in --

QUESTION: Howard Hughes.

QUESTION: Hmm?

QUESTION: Howard Hughes.

QUESTION: Howard Hughes. I think he's dead now.

You don't have anything new to say?

MR. MCCORMACK: I don't have anything new.

QUESTION: You're going to dismiss as, you know, they bloviate, they kind of exaggerate their prowess. But you have nothing new on an assessment of --

MR. MCCORMACK: I have nothing new on that assessment, Barry.

QUESTION: And do you know what a flying boat is? No?

MR. MCCORMACK: I've seen pictures of flying boats. Yeah.

Elise.

QUESTION: This is about Iranian journalists in the U.S. There are a couple of, I think, a handful of visas that you gave Iranian journalists and some of them, particularly the ones that worked for the Iranian News Agency, have the same restrictions as diplomats in the sense that they're limited to a 25-mile radius of New York. Now, in recent months, you've talked about the need to increase cultural exchanges and try and forge more understanding about the Iranian people and the United States. Do you think it would be wise to kind of give Iranian journalists more of a license to travel the country so as to bring that greater understanding of America back home?

MR. MCCORMACK: You're certainly right that we are seeking ways to speak directly to the Iranian people. Officials from the State Department and other government agencies on a regular basis do interviews with Persian language media outlets that broadcast into Iran.

As for the government journalists, I don't -- I'm not aware of any move at this point to reexamine these -- any restrictions that may be placed upon their movement. I would assume that there are good reasons for those restrictions. I'll be happy to check into the matter whether or not there is any -- there's any interest in revisiting whether or not there will be any changes to those restrictions.

QUESTION: I understand --

MR. MCCORMACK: But I would underscore the fact that there are -- there are a lot of different ways to speak directly to the Iranian people, a number of different outlets. And as I said, our officials on a regular basis appear on those outlets.

QUESTION: Understood. But I mean, in terms of the whole idea of cultural exchanges, isn't it better for Iranians themselves to see what America's like and put that back home, as opposed to State Department officials or any government officials kind of giving -- you know, trying to speak about America? I mean, isn't it better to hear from the Iranians?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, it doesn't -- in a sense it doesn't really matter who's doing the interview. I know it matters to some of you. But the important point for us is the ability to speak directly to the Iranian people and the message that we send in certainly the hopes that the Iranian people are listening.
I'm quite sure they heard the call of "Strike three". Game error in repeating the spector of Hughes and that old cry of "strike it rich in sea-mines today".

OYAITJ:
103363 : Polly poops on a pillock's pious pope'n, Mr Chen et all was off pope'n too, plus more. Including this by this JE's lead author -- I went back to Zimbabwe in 1995 for the first time since the end of the liberation war, and the contrast with South Africa was stunning. It was only one year since the end of the apartheid regime in South Africa, and I had just come from the rural northern Transvaal, hardly the richest part of the country -- but across the river in Zimbabwe was a different world. Nobody was starving and most of the kids were getting at least a few years of school, but despite a fifteen-year head-start on South Africa as a post-colonial, non-racist society, Zimbabwe's black majority were hugely poorer than their counterparts in South Africa. That was Mugabe's fault. It was not written in the stars that Zimbabweans had to be many times poorer than South Africans; they were poor because their leader lived off the laurels of his liberation war glory and didn't bother about the economy or social justice issues. And since ordinary Zimbabweans are not stupid, they noticed what was wrong (although they held their tongues because it really was not wise to be seen as a dissenter). Then, in order to secure Zanu-PF's hold on power forever, Mugabe held a referendum in 1999 to change the constitution and turn Zimbabwe into a one-party state. That gave everybody an opportunity to say no, so they said it loud and clear, rejecting the proposal, and Mugabe has been running scared ever since.

TYAITJ:
67782 : Iraqi militants are threatening to kill three Japanese hostages unless Tokyo withdraws its troops within three days. The three civilians were snatched by a group called the Mujahideen Brigades and Arab al-Jazeera TV showed them being held at knife-point. Elsewhere, one Canadian and two Arabs were also kidnapped, but seven abducted South Koreans were released. , Cyprus, Condi says she thinks... a lot, and more.

TYAITJ:
29882 : Trade wars.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Repost of previous entry works...Again! [Still, surly!]

[insert jpg of Cheney grasping for a composited earth]

As mentioned in the pre-synopsis for 'The 21st Century Pundits and Ox-Pull' this gentleman, quoted first today, sure could use a ghost writer. Rumours on the Internets suggest there may be a movie made out of this book. One can hope they give it to a real writer before the create the screenplay.

Criticism of Richard Clarke's lack of skillz in the authorship dept. aside, and far be it for a hacker[both usages] like myself to do so ... too often, he writes from a viewpoint few may claim to have had.

Moreover, he gets full props for sharing his experiences during that time with us in a written form. I have selected a portion that should illustrate why it might be useful for you [anyone] to take the time [and withstand the pain] to read "Against All Enemies". It also is a point in the book that crosses turf with your/our sphere.

The second quote is from Armgaard, an old favorite, who has had several chunks presented to you previously in this Journal.

Quote(1):
Could we have stopped the September 11 attack? It would be facile to say yes. What is clear is that there were failures in the organizations that we trusted to protect us, failures to get information to the right place at the right time, earlier failures to act boldly to reduce or eliminate the threat.

Had we had any chance of stopping it, had we the knowledge we needed to prevent that day, those of us sitting as members of the CSG would literally have given our lives to do so; many of those around the CSG table had already put their lives at risk for their country. But it must be said in truth that if we had stopped those nineteen deluded fools who acted on September 11, as we should have done, there would have been more later.

At some point there would probably still have been a horrific attack that would have required the United States to respond massively and systematically to eliminate al Qaeda and its network. Al Qaeda had emerged from the soil after the Cold War like some long dormant plague, it was on a path of its own, and it would not be swayed. And America, alas, seems only to respond well to disasters, to be undistracted by warnings. Our country seems unable to do all that must be done until there has been some awful calamity that validates the importance of the threat.

After September 11, I thought that the arguments would be over, that finally everyone would see what had to be done and go about doing it. The right war was to fight for the elimination of al Qaeda, to stabilize nations threatened by radical "theology" and ideology of the terrorists, and to reduce our own vulnerabilities at home. It was an obvious agenda.

Roger Cressey, my deputy at the NSC Staff, came to me in early October, after the time that I had intended to switch from the terrorism job to Critical Infrastructure Protection and Cyber Security. The switch had been delayed by September 11. He and I, and the others in our little office, had been working eighteen-hour days and more every day since the attacks. At age thirty-six, Cressey had often been mistaken for a graduate student ten years younger. Not anymore.

His worry showed and now his concern was that I would want to stay on in the NSC terrorism job to implement our plans. "You're not gonna move now, are you? Finally, they're paying attention to yah, so you wanna hang around and get your White Whale, huh?" Cressey had grown up near the fish piers in Gloucester, Massachusetts. He knew about obsessive fishing boat captains. He wanted me to move to the new Critical Infrastructure and Cyber job. His frustration with our NSC colleagues and bosses had been getting dangerously high before the attacks.

I was exhausted, from the ten years in the White House, from the marathon since the attacks, from the sleepless nights going over what I might have done to prevent the attacks. I looked at Cressey. "Well, Rog, as I said before: counterterrorism from now on will be a self-licking ice cream cone. It won't need anybody like me running it. Everybody will know what to do now. There won't be disagreements over policy or any need for a ramrod to get things done. It's obvious stuff now. We gave them the game plan. Hell, we gave it to them in January." Cressey was beginning to smile back at me; he saw where I was going. "Cyber security is a virgin where we can make a real impact." I went on. "It's the next threat, the next vulnerability, but people do not understand that yet. Let's go do that for a year and see what we can get done."

A month later, after a six-hour trip from Washington, we walked into a bar in Silicon Valley. I had just become the Special Advisor to the President for Cyberspace Security and was going to spend two weeks getting to know the leaders of the high-tech industry in California. There was a jazz combo playing and I ordered my first alcoholic drink since the night of September 10. People were laughing and having a good time. Cressey and I had spent the weeks since the attacks holed up in a fortresslike White House, going to our homes for a few hours a day, carrying our gas masks, expecting another wave of attacks. In Palo Alto, as in most of America, life was going on. The people trusted, as I did, that the mechanisms of government, now awakened, would deal with the terrorist threat completely and systematically. We were wrong.

Replacing me as the senior NSC counterterrorism official was Wayne Downing, the retired four-star Army general who had led Special Operations Command. Wayne and I had first met twenty-eight years earlier when he was a young Major and I was an even younger Pentagon analyst, thrown together to share a windowless office in the bowels of the Pentagon. As soon as the terrorist attack on Khobar Towers had occurred in 1995, I asked Wayne to lead an investigation of whether there had been lax U.S. security at that Air Force facility. There had been and he said so, much to the Pentagon's chagrin. He was a no-nonsense kind of general, the perfect man for the job of coordinating the post-September 11 response. Within months of replacing me, Wayne Downing quit the White House in frustration at the Administration's continued bureaucratic response to the threat.

Wayne was replaced by two people, John Gordon and Randy Beers. As with Downing, I had known Beers and Gordon for a long time, having started working with them in 1979 and 1981, respectively. Beers was a young Foreign Service officer then and Gordon was an Air Force Major. John Gordon went on to command a wing of nuclear armed missiles in Wyoming, be George Tenet's deputy at CIA, and then be the first Director of the new National Nuclear Security Administration. Randy Beers and I would spend the next twenty-three years working together in the White House and State Department, as Deputy Assistant Secretaries, NSC Directors, Assistant Secretaries of State, and Special Assistants to the President. When Randy Beers went to the terrorism job in the NSC in 2002, he began working for his fourth president in the White House (having previously worked there for Reagan, Bush, and Clinton). Beers had enormous experience working on intelligence policy and operations, terrorism, foreign military operations, and law enforcement. He was the perfect man for the job.

Beers called from the White House months later and asked if he could stop by my house for a drink and some advice. "Randy, since when have you started calling before you dropped by? See you in a few minutes." We had been giving each other advice and counsel for years, but I sensed that there was something wrong, maybe there was new information about another planned al Qaeda attack. I sat on the stoop of my old Sears catalogue house and thought back to the night twelve years earlier when I had been sitting there drinking Lagavulin and cursing the CIA for saying that Iraq would not invade Kuwait. Older now and off Scotch, I opened a bottle of Pinot Noir from a small winery I had found along the Russian River. When Beers sat down next to me his first words were, "I think I have to quit."

I thought I knew why, but I asked. His answer flowed like a river at flood: "They still don't get it. Insteada goin' all out against al Qaeda and eliminating our vulnerabilities at home, they wanna fuckin' invade Iraq again. We have a token U.S. military force in Afghanistan, the Taliban are regrouping, we haven't caught bin Laden, or his deputy, or the head of the Taliban. And they aren't going to send more troops to Afghanistan to catch them or to help the government in Kabul secure the country. No, they're holding back, waiting to invade Iraq. Do you know how much it will strengthen al Qaeda and groups like that if we occupy Iraq? There's no threat to us now from Iraq, but 70 percent of the American people think Iraq attacked the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. You wanna know why? Because that's what the Administration wants them to think!" I could see that there was some considerable built-up anxiety with the Bush administration. I got another bottle of the Pinot Noir.

Randy continued. "Worse yet, they're using the War on Terror politically. You know that document from Karl Rove's office that someone found in the park? Remember how it said the Republicans should run for election on the war issue? Well, they did. They are doing 'Wag the Dog'! They ran against Max Cleland, saying he wasn't patriotic because he didn't agree 100 percent with Bush on how to do homeland security. Max Cleland, who lost three of his four limbs for his country in Vietnam!" Beers had lost hearing in one ear in Vietnam, where he had served two tours as a Marine. " I can't work for these people, I'm sorry I just can't."

Beers resigned. He was right about Karl Rove's strategy against not just Max Cleland, but against all Democrats. From within the White House, a decision had been made that in 2002 congressional elections and in the 2004 reelection, the Republicans would wrap themselves in the flag, saying a vote for them was a vote against the terrorists. "Run on the war" was the direction in 2002. Then Rove meant the War on Terror, but they also had in mind another war that they would gin up.

The churn of senior counterterrorism officials continued. John Gordon was transferred shortly thereafter to the position vacated by Tom Ridge, as Homeland Security Advisor. Fran Townsend, who had worked for Janet Reno and played such a key roll in getting court orders during the Millennium Terrorist Alert, took over the NSC counterterrorism coordinator job in 2003.

Looking at this revolving door in the counterterrorism job after my departure, and thinking back to the ten months that I had served President Bush as his National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Infrastructure Protection, I am still amazed that I had never been given the chance to talk with him about terrorism until September 11. In fact, during that time I had only three meetings where I developed the agenda and briefed him on issues, but each time on subjects other than terrorism. My proposal to brief the President on terrorism was deferred until "after the Deputies Committee and Principals Committee completed their review." In this regard the second Bush administration was like his father's: NSC Staff saw the President infrequently and always with a chaperon. That style stood in sharp contrast with two terms of Clinton's presidency in which NSC Staff members regularly interacted with the Chief Executive, often telling him things that his National Security Advisor might not have said.

From the interactions I did have with Bush it was clear that the critique of him as a dumb, lazy rich kid was somewhat off the mark. When he focused, he asked the kind of questions that revealed a results-oriented mind, but he looked for the simple solution, the bumper sticker description of the problem. Once he had that, he could put energy behind a drive to achieve his goal. The problem was that many of the important issues, like terrorism, like Iraq, were laced with important subtlety and nuance. These issues needed analysis and Bush and his inner circle had no real interest in complicated analyses; on the issues that they cared about, they already knew the answers, it was received wisdom.

Bush was informed by talking with a small set of senior advisors. Early on we were told that "the President is not a big reader" and goes to bed by 10:00. Clinton, by contrast, would be plowing through an in-box filled with staff memos while watching cable television news well after midnight. He would exhaust the White House staff's and departmental staff's expertise and then reach out to university and other sources. More often than not, we would discover he had read the latest book or magazine articles on the subject at hand. Clinton stopped me in the hall one day to say "Good job on that speech in Philadelphia." Wondering how he knew what I had said, I asked, "How the hell did you see the speech?" The President gave me a sheepish grin and admitted: "I had C-SPAN on while I was reading last night."
--R. Clarke

Quote(2):
I reflected that June --it was in 1911-- had been a decidedly strenuous month for more than one cabinet in Europe. Germany and France were snapping and snarling. France was going around with its chest stuck out; its attitude decidedly belligerent.

Of course, this cockiness was due to the fat fingers of honest John Bull; indeed, England had more than ten fingers in this pie that was baking.

I knew that the air was full of Morocco and war talk. I knew that there was a certain faction in Germany that was trying to push the Kaiser into a war. This clique, composed of army and navy men and the junker, the "Jingo" party, the big gun interests, backed by public opinion, were trying their utmost to urge war with France. What was the latest at the Wilhelmstrasse?

On the stroke of 10.30 I was there. I handed my number to the commissaire. This number is important. All German secret agents are known by number, all carry little cards and a photograph of mine is published between these covers.

Presently the commissaire returned and showed me into the chambers of Graf von Wedel, Privy Councilor to the German Emperor. With another man in evening dress, I was told to wait in an antechamber. We bowed, and although we took pretty good stock of each other, neither spoke. It is an unwritten law not to hold unnecessary conversation in the Imperial Secret Service. After about half an hour's wait, we were shown into the Count's private room. This rather astonished me, for the usual rule at the Wilhelmstrasse is to interview only one man at a time. Clearly something out of the ordinary was in the air. After the Count greeted us, he inquired if we were known to each other. Receiving a negative, he introduced us. My companion was a Herr von Senden, ex-officer of the Zweite Gaarde Dragona.

"You will both be taken at half-past eleven to a certain room," said the Count. "You will advance to the middle, wheel to your right, face the porti're and stand at attention. You will answer all questions, but make no comments or queries yourself. I need not enjoin you to total silence. You understand?"

We bowed. Just then a gong boomed somewhere below us. A last word from the Count, "Be ready!" He left us. Reappearing almost immediately, he beckoned us to follow him. We noticed that he seemed even more grave than usual. Down a flight of stairs along a great corridor we made our way, no one speaking a word. At the end of the corridor we saw two sentries; then, a big solid oak door, guarded by an attendant in the livery of the Royal Household. At a sign from the Count we halted; he knocked. The door was opened by an officer of the Erste Gaarde du Corps and, remembering our instructions, we entered and came to attention in the middle of a large room, facing an adjoining chamber, the porti'res to which were divided. The room in which we stood was brilliantly lighted, but the other was dark, save for a green glow that came from a shaded reading lamp on a big writing desk. Senden looked at the desk and gave a sort of gasp.

Then I quite understood his emotion. For seated behind that heavy, old-fashioned desk, was Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany.

We stood at a rigid attention, absolutely silent, for full five minutes. The dimly lit, solitary figure at the desk made no sign but went on writing. I am not a timid or a nervous man, the sort of work I was doing seasons one pretty thoroughly. But this began to get on my nerves. Drawn up in front of the Emperor and waiting, waiting. Contact with the great ones of the earth, especially through Secret Service, can take some almighty queer turns and a short circuit is confoundedly unhealthy for the negative wire. The more I looked at that silent, lonely figure, War Lord of Europe, the more I began to feel a great big longing for the African Veldt, a thousand miles north of Port Natal, preferably.

Suddenly the Emperor made a move, and there came a sharp, rather high pitched voice, saying, "Wedel, I will see the doctor."

At once Herr Senden was shown from the room; obviously the mission, whatever it was, was not for him. I never saw him again.

I was bidden to step to within three paces of the Emperor; the officer who escorted Herr von Senden from the room attempted to return, but was waved out. There were just the three of us: Count Wedel, standing at the corner of the desk on the right, the Kaiser and myself. I had seen the Emperor on many occasions, but never so close before. He appeared to be lost in some document. He looked well but older than any of his portraits. Tanned, almost dark, his rather lean face bore a striking likeness to Frederick the Great; more so than ever, for he is getting gray. I realized that none of his portraits do his eyes justice. Of a bluish-steel gray, they have an icy, impersonal, weighing look in them. It is hard to define. It struck me in that moment that Lord Kitchener, Teufick Pasha, Cecil Rhodes, and Li Hung Chang had exactly those same eyes--the eyes of men who feel it in them to master the world.

Presently His Majesty looked up, and in that same, rather shrill voice, asked:

"How long are you in the Service?"

"Three years, sir."

"You know Morocco?"

Morocco! So that was it. France and Germany quarreling over the bone, at the point of war! I replied:

"Yes, sir!"

"How long were you in Morocco?" continued the Emperor.

"About twelve months, sir."

On this he seemed to hesitate. Frankly, I was nervous, so instead of thinking about Morocco, I noticed that the Kaiser wore the undress uniform of a Colonel of the Grenadier Guard with the star of the Order Pour le Merite, dangling from his coat button. As if making up his mind, he turned again on me those gray eyes.

"You know Kaid MacLean?"

"Yes, sir."

"How did you get to know him?"

"I happened to be of assistance to Sir Harry Kaid MacLean who was at that time Commander-in-Chief and Man-of-Affairs to the Sultan of Morocco."

My answer seemed to please the Emperor, for his eyes gleamed.

"Any likelihood of his remembering your services?"

I hesitated, then said:

"I cannot vouch for another man's memory, sire. Besides, I do not care to put the Kaid to the test."

The Emperor looked at me queerly, but, evidently satisfied with my answer, he turned to Count Wedel, saying:

"He will do. Have the dispatches ready."

At once the Count hurried noiselessly into an adjoining room. The Kaiser, making one of his characteristic sudden movements, flung himself back into the chair, looked steadily at me, and added:

"Besides the official dispatches you will memorize these commands, for the Captain of the warship Panther." He handed me a note, which I did not immediately look at, for he continued: "Outside of Count Wedel, no one is to know anything of your mission. No one is to know that you are carrying a verbal message from me to the Captain of the warship Panther. Understand?"

"Yes, sir."

The Emperor as abruptly drew himself forward, and propping his head with his hands, fell into a deep study, gazing fixedly at nothing. He seemed in that moment to be considerably older. His face, even for the tan, had that grayish look of a man who is carrying some tremendous responsibility. It came to me swiftly, the popular clamor for war, Panther!--the Panther was lying off Spain ready to steam across the Mediterranean to Morocco. And I was to bear secret orders from the Emperor to the Panther's captain.

Then I opened the note that the Emperor had given me, and began to memorize its contents. Amazement must have shown on my face. A blow with a feather would have knocked me down. So wonder Wilhelm II was staring blankly, no wonder this message had to be delivered verbally. Hurriedly I began to memorize it. Presently, I saw Count Wedel come in and he and the Kaiser began to talk in whispers. Then Wilhelm looked up and said:

"Have you memorized it?"

"Yes, sir!" Taking the note from me, he at once struck a match and held it under the paper until it was reduced to ashes. Then making a curt gesture of dismissal, Wedel gave me a signal to retire and we backed toward the door. I was in possession of a secret known only to the Emperor himself and which at that moment the cabinets of France and England and the financiers of the world would have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to possess. Out into the hall we backed, always being careful never to commit the discourtesy of turning our faces away from the Emperor, and the last I saw of him, was that lonely figure seated at his desk, the greenish light playing over him, around and beyond him darkness and his face illuminated against that background, grayish, old. There he was, at his desk at midnight, in an underground chamber of the Foreign Office, the Emperor of Germany, working in solitude, while most of his subjects slept, tirelessly mapping out a policy the trend of which he dared discuss with no man save Wedel and possibly his oldest son.

Bowing, we were out in the hall; the big oaken door closed. Wedel led the way to his private chamber. He produced a package of sealed papers and handing it to me, said:

"Doctor, this is a most important affair. There is a most serious trouble brewing somewhere--trouble about war. We have our suspicions as to what power is behind all this and we are going to find out. You are well enough acquainted with the situation to require no further illustration. You know how here at home they are also trying to force the Emperor into a war-- You will leave this package at the Embassy in Paris. It must be there at the Rue de Lille to-morrow noon. To do so you will have to catch the Orient Express at half-past three this morning. At the Paris legation you will receive another package which you will take on to Madrid. After delivering this, you have carte blanche to make your way to the Panther, which you will find off Barcelona. Also, you will visit Gibraltar and inform yourself of the strength and state of preparation of the British Naval Squadron there." He paused. "This time you will not apply at the cashier's desk. Your expenses are borne this time out of the Emperor's private chatulle. In a few hours time I will have French and Spanish money ready for you and send it to your lodgings. You thoroughly understand your instructions? Of course, you have not forgotten the message that you memorized before the Emperor?"

I assured him I had not and after a cordial handshake I bowed myself out and hurried back to my quarters. Here I found that my boy had my traveling bag ready with his usual completeness. One does not take much baggage on these trips. Pajamas, slippers, smoking cap, tooth brush, have seen me three-quarters around the globe, and I never carried a six-shooter in my life. In all my experience I have seen few secret agents who do carry it. The only protective article I ever carried was a little silk bag containing a mixture of cayenne pepper, snuff and certain chemicals. It is very effective to throw into the faces of those who attack you.

Soon there came a messenger from Wedel with the promised funds, a thousand francs and two thousand pesos. It lacked a half hour to three-thirty, so I made my way to the Friedrichstrasse depot on foot. Experience has taught me that the Orient Express is generally overcrowded and that unless one reaches the depot early and uses a good deal of palm oil, it is impossible to secure a decent seat. A judicious oiling of palms enabled me to get a very pleasant window seat in the middle compartment. After making myself at home I took a tour through the train. It is my invariable custom to take stock of my fellow travelers and in this case it was most imperative.

Nothing happened until we pulled in at Frankfort-on-the-Main, the second last stop for the express in Germany. Glancing out of the window I saw a party of three entering the carriage. They selected the compartment next to mine. Obviously they were traveling together, equally obvious was it that there was plenty of room in their own compartment. The train was hardly in motion, however, when the woman of the party entered my compartment. She started to complain about being annoyed by the man next door and to ask my protection. As a matter of course, I got up and offered my assistance to remove her belongings into my compartment. I had, up to now, not the slightest doubt as to there being anything fishy in her request. I had, in fact, no reason to be apprehensive of any interference, because only two people besides myself--Wedel and the Emperor--knew my mission. Of course, there were others who would have given anything to know of it, who would have done anything to prevent my reaching my destination.

I had hardly entered the compartment and tried to remove the traveling bag indicated by the lady as hers, when one of the men exclaimed:

"How dare you remove my wife's property?"

The lady in question stood in the corridor of the carriage. I had my back to her but I could see her by means of the looking-glass with which the sides of the compartment were framed. I noticed her make a sign to the man. Of course, this put a different light on the affair. It was preconceived. For the life of me, though, I could not see how they could use the situation to advantage.

Presently I was enlightened. When the conductor came along, the "husband" coolly requested my detention on grounds of interference with his wife's luggage. He was stanchly supported by the other man and by the lady who had come to me for assistance. I attempted to explain, but it didn't go down with the conductor. Pending our arrival at Cologne, he locked me up in my compartment and leaving me, said that he intended to hand me over to the station master here.

I had time to ponder over my situation. I was thoroughly angry, chiefly with myself. Here I was, an old, and presumably experienced, secret agent and I was caught by a simple device. But the simplicity got me! When one is prepared for elaborate schemes, the simplest trick lands one high and dry. Still I could see no daylight. They could not hope to keep me on this preposterous charge. A single wire to Berlin would settle the matter, but then there would be a delay. I would not reach Paris until six o'clock at night. Wedel had insisted that I be there at noon. Hum!

Delays at this time were of tremendous importance. A difference of six hours might mean war. Powerful influences in Germany were all for war. It filled the air. It needed only a false or overstep on the part of any government official to bring about an explosion. France seemed fairly itching for a fight. My verbal message to the captain of the Panther must be delivered on schedule or the explosion might occur. I began to see what they hoped to gain by the trick of detaining me, but how they got word of my mission I have never been able to learn. I must have been shadowed from my lodging to the Wilhelmstrasse and subsequently lain in wait for on general principles.

According to the time-table, the Orient Express stops at Cologne nine minutes. This time it stopped eleven. The station master held it up. After the party in the next compartment made their charge, we all hurried to his office. I called the station master aside and showed him my Secret Service card.

I showed him a package addressed and sealed to the German Embassy at Paris. It was an official linen envelope tied with a black and white silk cord and with the Foreign Office seal on the back. He was impressed.

"This is a ridiculous charge," I declared. "Telephone the Wilhelmstrasse at my expense. Detain me and you do so at your own peril. That is all. I have given you the facts. I put no obstacle in the path of your duty. I judge, though, that you are a man of discretion."

The station master *was* a man of discretion. I could imagine what was going through his mind:

"This fellow who says he is the Emperor's messenger," he doubtless thought, "has three more hours on that train before he crosses the German border. If he isn't what he claims to be, we can catch him at the Frontier. If he is what he claims to be and I hold him here, I will get in trouble."

Finally, he told the others that their charge was too thin and they hurriedly left his office. I never saw them again. The station master escorted me to my compartment and I noticed that from Cologne to the French Frontier I had no other traveling companions. My arrival and what I accomplished in Paris is commonplace. Arriving in the Gare du Norde, I took a taxi to the German Embassy on the Rue de Lille, where an under-secretary signed for my dispatches and handed me two letters addressed to the Embassy in Madrid. I immediately posted his receipt to the Wilhelmstrasse, something German secret agents always must do--mail the Foreign Office signatures for documents as soon as they are delivered. Without further adventure I reached Madrid. As the train was four hours late I did not present myself at the Embassy. I was met by a commissaire at the station, delivered him the paper, received his signature, posted it to the Wilhelmstrasse, and made connections for Barcelona. Somewhere off the city, on the open sea, the Panther was waiting.

With the utmost difficulty I chartered a tug and in the twilight set off to find the Panther. It was coming night when we finally saw her dark trim hull lying against the horizon. Well named the Panther, for in this case a false spring by her meant war. As we steamed up alongside a sentry hailed us from the deck. I shouted that I had come to see the Captain, but he told us to stand off. Finally, after persistently hailing the warship, the officer of the watch came to the rail and held parley with me.

"I have Imperial orders to see the Captain," I shouted.

Apparently this satisfied him, for he let me come on board. Without further delay I was shown into the Captain's room. Very important, the Captain. Picture him, a man in the forties, straight-backed, rather jolly, and with one of those German naval beards. The slightest mistake by the Captain of the Panther and England and France would have flung themselves into war with Germany. He stood for a moment regarding me, then he said,

"Well, what is this? What is your Wilhelmstrasse number?"

"Seventeen," I told him.

That appeared to satisfy the Captain. I knew that the Wilhelmstrasse had wired him that "Number Seventeen" was coming. Still he was careful.

"Where were your first instructions received?"

"From Wedel."

"Subsequently?"

I felt him looking at me sharply.

"Confirmed by the Emperor," I replied, "and I deliver you herewith the following message. You are requested to use the private service code as soon as I have delivered this message to you and repeat it at once direct to Count Wedel."

The Captain got up and, moving noiselessly to the door, opened it swiftly. There was no one about.

"All right," he said, "let me have it."

I repeated what I had memorized, what the Emperor had given me in the secret chamber and immediately afterward destroyed all visible trace of. I said: "On no account, it does not matter what official commands you have received or may receive, are you to use open force when the Panther goes to Agidir. No matter what stress is brought to bear upon you by arising conditions, no matter what affront may be done your code of naval honor, you are under no circumstances to use any force against France or England."

Like myself, when the Emperor gave me that message, the Captain of the Panther was dumbfounded. It was a direct contradiction of the official orders he had received from the Foreign Office to go to Morocco and make a demonstration against the French and the English interests. Those previous orders had been to create war, this verbal message was to stop war.

Could the German "jingos," the big gun manufacturers, the shell people, the army and navy men, the powerful feudal faction have heard me deliver that message to the Captain of the Panther, they would have bellowed in rage.

The whole empire wanted war, but the tired, swarthy faced man in the little underground chamber at the Wilhelmstrasse, not "absolutely absolute" as he is popularly supposed to be, deemed it wise not to fly in the face of public opinion at the time and countermand the official orders to the Panther. So he had done so in the dark, verbally, by me, knowing that so he served the best interests of his empire. --Dr. A. K. Graves

In the next JE I'll be moving from the tale of the panther[and its inverse] to presenting a bit from the lead in today's News section. It, in turn, will be contrasted by 'the man trapped in a bog'. Until then.

News in a 'New World Odor'[sic...em]:
BrownLeatherJacket in Montenegro. And it's still there. You can see their point, but Montenegrin separatists have a point too. Their country has only been attached to Serbia since the First World War, when the victors bundled the Montenegrins into the new, Serb-dominated state of Yugoslavia along with Bosnians, Croatians, Slovenes, and Macedonians. A minority of Montenegrins immediately rebelled, demanding their old king and country back, but they had no real chance of leaving until Yugoslavia began to break up in the 1990s in reaction to the intolerant and brutal rule of Slobodan Milosevic, an extreme Serbian nationalist. Even then, opinion was so divided that they kept postponing the decision to leave.

The Vicar's collection plate is rather heavy. 10 million pounds is a ball breaker for the deacon. Pizza flavoured popcorn!!!

Simon mentions the curry. We went along to Downing Street for the monthly press conference, catching the prime minister right after the latest worst day of his political career. But he has worst days roughly as often as the rest of us go out for a curry, and somehow he invariably survives. Yesterday he had a shiny new cliché, hot from the cliché mint in the Downing Street basement. It is "direction of travel". Some people, notably the chancellor, would like his direction of travel to be towards the back door of No 10, fast, possibly as a result of the imbroglio over honours. In fact, he means his programme to reform all public services. "This is the direction of travel," he told us, "and there is no point in my hiding it!" That would be a difficult trick unless the entire electorate were locked blindfold, travelling in the back of a delivery van. That's one Shrub and Co have yet to try. But... I'm sure they've looked into it.

\Like a leper messiah\

Too bad the smell of it is all there is. However, one can be sure the napalm and dismembered bodies stink as they always have.

Libya and France get New-Kew-Lur. It is the first such agreement to be signed with Libya since the country gave up its nuclear ambitions for military use more than two years ago. The supervisor of Libya's National Centre for Nuclear Research and Development, Maatug Mohamed Maatug, says the accord is an important milestone in Libya's relations with the rest of the world. Mr Maatug says they are looking to use nuclear energy for water desalination plants to meet the country's projected water shortage in 15 years. Other civil nuclear power uses envisioned include agriculture and solar energy. Iran looks on and asks; "Like my goats smell any worse or sum'tin"

India looks to Russia for its pile.

Brukim sindaun, gol fiva --planim, wanples, wanlain, na wanlotu lus.

Adam Ereli takes the plate for another round of SD-DPB Softball.
QUESTION: On Belarus. I understand the situation is not getting any better, just in terms of dealing with the opposition. And indeed there was another incident involving an opposition for (inaudible) opposition force.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: Can we have the U.S. reaction? Also as we get closer to this and we get a piling up of abuses, is there any prospect of any concrete action as opposed to just words?

MR. ERELI: Yeah. I think first of all, we've got to condemn what happened today. The authorities who have once again detained democracy activists this time, Mr. Anatol Lyabedzka, who was one of the top officials in the campaign of opposition candidate Alexander Milinkevich. This is just the latest in a continuing series of detentions and sentences that are keeping opposition activists in custody, at least with the March 19th elections. It also comes in addition to seizure by the authorities of independent newspapers. All of these actions are clearly inconsistent with the Government of Belarus's claims that it intends to hold a free and fair election this Sunday and are also inconsistent with its commitments to the OSCE -- as a member of the OSCE.

What are we going to do about it? I think that is something that we will be consulting with our partners in the OSCE about, with our partners in Europe. It's a matter of grave concern for all of us, when a country acts in such flagrant disregard of its own commitments in international standards. And we'll continue to watch. We'll see how the elections unfold. As is customary in these sorts of processes, we'll get together, we'll consult and we'll look at ways that I think we can support true democracy, true respect for the rights of its citizens in Belarus.

QUESTION: If I can I just follow-up on that. With all due respect, I mean, we've now got six months, eight months, maybe a year that we've been saying exactly the same thing -- put a spotlight, condemn --

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: What incentive is there for Mr. Lukashenko to change his ways?

MR. ERELI: A government is answerable to its people and the incentive of any government is to treat its people decently according to its laws and according to international standards. That's a -- frankly, that's the way Europe works; Belarus is a part of Europe. The more they act in defiance of standards of Europe and in defiance of basic human rights, the less and less they'll be a part of Europe. I think the incentive to us is clear: the future of Belarus and the future of the Belarusian people lie in Euro-Atlantic integration. The actions the government has taken -- continues to take move Belarus in a different direction. That's unfortunate. It's something we all want -- it's a trend we all want to reverse. And I think it's something that requires concerted action over time.

You mentioned the time period of six to eight months, sometimes it takes a bit longer to get things moving in the right direction. But clearly there's a groundswell -- I don't know if I'd use the word groundswell -- clearly there is a strong and committed movement in Belarus and by brave members of the Belarusian civil society and political intellectual communities to act in ways that move Belarus in a direction consistent with the kind of standards and the kind of practices that I've been talking about.

We're going to continue to support them, continue to work with them so that they can prevail in their struggle, to make Belarus a truly democratic state that respects the rights of citizens.
Charity starts at home. Where the Umpire yells: One and One!

QUESTION: Any comment on the funeral of Slobodan Milosevic this coming Saturday in Belgrade, since he cooperated with the U.S. Government too to reach the Dayton agreement ten years ago?

MR. ERELI: No. I don't have any comment.
How soon old deals are swept under the rug. Two and one.

QUESTION: Okay, another thing. Apparently two photographic journalists citizens of Sweden has been arrested today -- this morning in the local timing -- south of Iran. They accusing of taking the picture from the military and nuclear site.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: Do you have anything about it?

MR. ERELI: I haven't seen those reports. I don't have the facts on it. I'll see if we've got anything.

QUESTION: Can you please see?

MR. ERELI: Sure.
Three and not dead press! Oh, and if you read on in that one you'll want/need this one too.

OYAITJ:
100932 : Red Warrior returns to auto mayhem, Jammed radios, Kings will be kings, Rice to Asia, plus a lot of other silly things.

TYAITJ:
65414 : Marklars, Greenspan, Rummy dances, Genocide Roll and more.

TYAITJ:
[skips]

FYAITJ:
6191 : Now just where did she get to after that? Hmmmm? I do hope you've all been paying attention. The poor thing gets handed the worst jobs. She's got a brain and knows her law, but she seems to keep getting bypassed, all too often, by the political game. There was a few bits of news, over last month, that seemed to indicate she's less than pleased with Shrub, Cheney & Rummy's rush past her. What she, or anyone, can do at this stage of the game is a big question mark.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of George W. Bush speaking to the press. Standard slogan wall behind with the repeated text; "Nun pro life er'... ah'-ation". Overlayed speech bubble has him saying; "Obviously, nuclear power is a renewable source of energy, and the less demand there is for non-renewable sources of energy, like fossil fuels, the better it off it is for the American people."

This is not a sequence. But, the next few JEs *will* be collected as one. Call it 'The 21st Century Pundits & Ox-Pull'. News, Texttoon, etc too. Press Hard!

This new Sequence will be comprised of a number of quotes from a pile of current era authors. [and] They will span a wide diversity of interesting examples, from; BrownLeatherJacket, Juan of Managua, Lefty-wanks, Right-tanks, dazed-cranks, Mr. 'I need a ghost writer, badly!', and a lady described to me by someone, when I showed her tome to them, as being "Bug-Shagging-Crazy"*.

Many, if not most, will be matched with quotes from the usual suspects of the 18th, 19th and 20th century's most bileful critics. Of course, with any topical bits that need to be spread may bump an entry as usual. Anyway, On words!!![sic]

*You may wish to try to guess that author's name, based on the description, and can post your guesses below. [Hint: Ann Coulter, Judy Miller, and Andrea Mitchell all are disqualified for; gender-ambiguity, professional-fouling and high-sticking, in that order].

Quote(1):
Every GOP administration since 1952 has let the Military-Industrial Complex loot the Treasury and plunge the nation into debt on the excuse of a wartime economic emergency.

Richard Nixon comes quickly to mind, along with Ronald Reagan and his ridiculous 'trickle-down' theory of U.S. economic policy. If the Rich get richer, the theory goes, before long their pots will overflow and somehow 'trickle down' to the poor, who would rather eat scraps off the Bush family plates than eat nothing at all.

Republicans have never approved of democracy, and they never will. It goes back to preindustrial America, when only white male property owners could vote.
--HST

Quote(2):
It is tempting to counter-attack using facts and figures. Resist the temptation.

Several Republicans at the convention made the claim that our economy is chugging along just fine and used statistics to prove it. Well, I've got bad news for you - no matter who you are, if you try to link economic statistics with voter's pocketbooks, you fail - they just don't see it or believe it.

If you still feel the need to reel off statistics, then go right ahead, but understand that these cannot be the brunt of your argument. A more effective message is to focus on why jobs have been lost and what will bring them back. Though the numbers are true, they're just not credible. Instead, focus on the future. Americans don't want to be told things are getting better. They want to hear a plan of action to make them better. The President's language works because it speaks to a series of individual proposals that common sense suggests will lead to job creation and because it identifies a series of specific obstacles that need to be removed.

BUSH WORDS THAT WORK
'To create jobs, my [LONG-TERM] PLAN will encourage investment and expansion by restraining federal spending, reducing regulation and making tax relief permanent. To create [GOOD] jobs, we will make our country less dependent on foreign sources of energy. To create jobs, we will expand trade and level the playing field to sell American goods and services across the globe. And we must protect small business owners and workers from the expansion of frivolous lawsuits that threaten jobs across America.
[Much of this we have already begun and that's why there are almost two million new jobs created in the last year. And we plan to do even more.]'

But telling people what you are for is not enough. You also have to tell people what you are against. The language below does just that:

GOP WORDS THAT WORK
I will not be satisfied until every American who wants a job can find one. But that requires us to stand up and SAY NO to the SPECIAL INTERESTS that stand in the way of creating new jobs.

Washington does not create jobs. The economy does. Washington doesn't give raises. Employers do.

It's time for Washington to stop making life more difficult for employers and employees and give them the freedom to create jobs and provide raises for American workers.

A tax code that is too complex, lawsuits that are out of control, and too much bureaucracy destroys jobs and prevents raises. We need to remove these OBSTACLES to more jobs and higher salaries. This is where my opponent and I fundamentally disagree. For the last four years, we have tried to remove the obstacles to more jobs and higher salaries, but both Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards have VOTED NO. President Bush and I believe that when Washington sets taxes too high, and when greedy personal injury lawyers push frivolous lawsuits, Americans lose jobs.

You can't say you're fighting for the American worker and support higher taxes and oppose lawsuit abuse reform at the same time. You have to choose.

September 11th changed everything. So start with 9/11. This is the context that explains and justifies why we have $500 billion dollar deficits, why the stock market tanked, why unemployment climbed to 6% and why we are still in a rebuilding mode. Much of the public anger can be immediately pacified if they are reminded that we would not be in this situation today if 9/11 had not happened, and that it is unfair to blame the current political leadership or corporate America for the consequences of that day.

THE POSITIVE MESSAGE.
'The plain and simple fact is that American businesses, jobs, and consumers were all hurt by September 11, and some businesses are still suffering more than three years later. But we are fighting back. People are returning to work. We are returning to our daily lives. And in celebration of the American Dream, we are not just striving to recover that which was lost, but to rebuild our nation and ourselves even better than it ever was. And let me be clear: our best days are still to come.'

Without the context of 9-11, you will be blamed for the deficit. The deficit is a touchy subject for both Republicans and Democrats - your supporters are inherently turned off to the idea of fiscal irresponsibility, and Democrats see nothing but hypocrisy. The trick then is to contextualize the deficit inside of 9-11 and the war in Iraq, which Republicans sometimes do, but not early enough in the answer.

GOP WORDS THAT WORK
In order to appreciate all that we have done, it's important to remember what we've been through. As a country, we have faced a challenge unique to our generation - a devastating attack on our soil that severely constricted our economy. As a result, we've had to take some extraordinary measures that are quite costly. But our first priority is national security and we determined that it was necessary to invest in protecting the homeland. That was the right decision because homeland security is the right priority. The next step is to get domestic spending under control. Frankly, you don't do that by adding dozens of new federal programs and raising taxes. You do that through discipline and accountability. The President has established a tough, but realistic goal of cutting the deficit in half over the next four years. With the right amount of restraint in non-defense discretionary spending and uncompromising accountability, we'll make it.

Link the war on terror to the economy. As the emotional reaction to 9-11 subsides, it is important to remind Americans of the more tangible impact the events of that day continue to exert on their wallets and pocketbooks. It's clear that they understand this even if it is something they themselves would rather not articulate.

CHENEY WORDS THAT WORK
The terrorists clearly have as one of their objectives trying to throw off the economy, trying to inflict economic pain, and it's important that we not allow them that victory. The terrorists win if we end up so hunkered down that we have to fundamentally change our lifestyle, our open society, our free movement of goods and people and ideas back and forth across international borders. If we can't live the way we'd like to live, then the terrorists score a major victory. We can't allow that to happen.

Don't assert that the tax cuts caused the economic recovery. This is probably heresy but we have never found a Republican who bas effectively made the case for strong economic growth as a result of the tax cuts. It has been tried and tried and tried and it just doesn't sound credible. Claiming the tax cuts are working because economic numbers say so simply does not resonate - and repeating it often won't make it so. Worse yet, attempting to link tax cuts to an improving economy actually undermines the cornerstone of the administration's economic policy in their eyes.

Instead of linking the current economic situation with tax cuts, you would be better off linking tax increases to future economic hardship. In plain English, take credit for 'reducing the tax burden on hardworking Americans.' Then talk about taxes in terms of real people. A personal, real life success story told in someone else's words is the perfect coda. Laura Bush's words work because they tell the story of the most popular employer in America:female small business owners.

LAURA BUSH WORDS THAT WORK 'I could talk about the small business owner and entrepreneurs who are now creating most of the new jobs in our country - women like Carmela Chaifos - the only woman to own a tow truck company in all of Iowa. The President's tax relief helped Carmela to buy the business, modernize her fleet, and expand her operations. Carmela is living proof of what she told me. She said, if you're determined and you want to work hard, you can do anything you want to. That's the beautiful thing about America.

Concern about outsourcing has not and will not disappear simply because John Kerry is no longer on the stump. Even now, in 2005, Americans are still concerned about losing jobs overseas, and let's face it: the Democrats have been controlling the debate. It's time for the GOP to take control of this tricky issue. This is a winnable issue so long as you communicate it appropriately. The principles below are a good place to start, but if you truly want to own this issue, read the following pages carefully.

SOLUTIONS. That is the word that encapsulates what Americans want most right now when it comes to the issues of jobs, outsourcing and the future of the American workforce. Stop talking about outsourcing as an 'economic reality or a natural progression of globalization' and START empathizing with American workers. And there is no better way to empathize than to provide them with a solution.

The words you say will be just as important as the passion with which you say them, and what follows is a detailed and tested lexicon of the words, phrases, and chunks of language to make it happen. Message is essential here. Americans are listening very closely to what you have to say and how you say it. Your language needs to be disciplined amidst your outrage, and your message must remain consistent in its appeal to the positive vision you'll espouse. This memo won't provide you with specific policies, but it will help you to communicate the core principles of a return to American prosperity in the 21st Century global economy.

*YOUR BEST 130-WORD RESPONSE*
Our approach offers a better solution because our approach offers less. Less taxation. Less litigation. Less regulation. And that means more innovation.

Less taxation, so that small businesses can hire employees rather than accountants. Less litigation, so that health can costs are spent in the operating room, not the courtroom, and the products you buy cost less because the predatory lawyers and frivolous lawsuits don't cost more. Less regulation, so that companies no longer have to file paperwork that no one reads or get caught between two mammoth bureaucracies that have conflicting rules and red tape.

And that means more innovation because more businesses and more people can be focused on creating a better future with better products and better services. When it comes to government, less IS more.

Quite frankly, business leaders and conservative politicians often fail to show empathy. You can never have enough empathy, particularly when a person's livelihood is at stake. Remember, this is an issue that strikes at Americans' hearts as much as it does their livelihoods. It threatens their dreams as much as it does theft checkbook. Too often Republicans offer principles that are only economic in nature. Voters and shareholders also need to know you share theft hurt and anxiety.

ANSWERING A TOUGH QUESTION: SHOWING YOU CARE
Q:'So I'm an employee. What do you say me? I've made sweaters for 25 years and I was darn good at it and my job until my factory just went away. What do you say to me and my kids because my company took my job away?'

A: 'Above all else, we're sorry for the situation that you're in. No one should have to endure such hardships, especially after so many years of hard work -- and honestly, it's hard for me to understand just how hard it is.

But what I do understand is that we need to work together to create an environment where we can create jobs so you can have work again.'

'We deserve a better approach. You will not win this debate by merely attacking the veracity or credibility of your opponents. The public rightfully sees a problem and they are looking for answers. You cannot spend too much time criticizing the opposition (no more than 2 minutes). Within the first two minutes you need to offer a summary of what you propose. No matter what they say, say we can do better. No matter what they do, it could have been done better. Everything we talk about should embrace 'a better approach' and take the principle of improvement to the next level.

WORDS THAT WORK: OUTLINING THE SOLUTION
'You deserve a better approach - and we have one. If we want companies to stop sending jobs abroad, we need better policies right here at home. Reducing taxation, reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies, reducing litigation, and increasing education will restore our economic vitality, enhance our prosperity and make America more competitive.'

Everyone must benefit. The public is looking for inclusive policies and responding best to inclusive language. While we are not a society prone to class warfare, there is a greater concern now than in the past that the poor are being left behind and that more needs to be done to protect their interests. In this outsourcing debate, it really is essential that you make a commitment that all Americans will be helped by your efforts.

It's not about jobs. It's about CAREERS. Job training and lifelong learning is at the core of a policy of long-term, sustained, genuine economic success. Job training and lifelong learning is at the core of the American Dream the opportunity to grow a job into a career, the opportunity to grow a career into a business of your own;The opportunity to work where you want and do what you want. So talk about 'creating jobs so that millions of Americans can have the career of their dreams.'

WORDS THAT WORK: CAREERS, NOT JUST JOBS
'A career is something that you look forward to. It puts you on the path of life. A career is about pride, about self-worth, something you share with family and friends. A job is something you get after high school or college. At a job, you look forward to coming home from work. At a career, you look forward to going to work. What we want to do in this American economy is give people access to careers, working for themselves and their future. If you're just going to a job and punching the clock, you're not going to be happy, you're not going to be prosperous, and you're not going to be looking toward the future. If you have a good career then you feel like you're making a difference, not only in your life but in lives of others, then you feel like you're apart of the American system of progress. That is a career, that is a good thing, and that's the American dream.'

GENERAL ISSUES OF OUTSOURCING AND PROSPERITY
Never, never, never begin a response to outsourcing by saying it is beneficial to the U.S. economy. Never.

Outsourcing is nothing more than the impact of taxation, regulation, litigation, innovation, education and trade policy all rolled up into one. Each one of these issues needs to be addressed as a component of your message. We start with trade because that's the traditional Republican response. It is actually the weakest The single biggest mistake proponents of the free market system make is to respond to an attack on outsourcing with a defense of free trade. It may be the right policy but it is most certainly the WRONG politics.

Nonetheless, there is a perception problem among Americans when it comes to outsourcing. We asked Americans what they thought to be the greater amount: the number of jobs American companies have outsourced to foreigners overseas over the past ten years, or the number of Americans employed in America by foreign-owned companies. 54% of Americans thought that the number of outsourced jobs exceeded the number of 'insourced' jobs, while only 8% thought the opposite.

This is your core problem. Americans do not realize the value that foreign companies bring to this country. This must be communicated more often and more effectively. Outsourcing is a problem, but don't be afraid to talk about its flip side. Let's face it: Americans who work for foreign companies are not acutely aware of their own situation, particularly in the context of the outsourcing debate. They must be reminded of their place in the global economy, and in fact, of how it benefits them. It cannot be too crass, but this is an extraordinarily effective point and must therefore be emphasized.

Still, this cannot be an issue about just 'outsourcing;' it must be about identifying and solving the ROOT CAUSES of an inhospitable business climate. This is how you set the context for why the Republican agenda is better for the American economy than the Democrat's plan. You can't rail against taxes, or rally for lawsuit abuse reform, or even clamor to cut red tape until you provide the context for those aggressive issues. Otherwise voters will think you are just pursuing your own pet projects. Rather, you must communicate that you want to identify and solve the problem for what it really is, not just offer short-term gimmicks in response to a very large-scale problem. Highlighting the root causes is the best way to turn a tough question on its head, while taking the positive route.

WORDS THAT WORK: IDENTIFYING THE ROOT CAUSE
'What we need to worry about is why it's profitable for companies to move jobs offshore. We should be looking to change the environment, change the rules, and enforce our trade agreements so that those giqs don't have to move jobs offshore.'

A GREAT ANSWER TO A TOUGH QUESTION
Q: 'You come from a state that has been punished by major corporations moving jobs overseas, isn't it time that we punish those corporations for punishing their employees?'

A: 'Well a lot of people will tell you first it's time for us to ask the question, 'Why do these companies leave?' What is it that forces them to make the decision to leave the United States, the stability of our government and the rule of law and the protection of patents and everything else that goes along with it? I think that's where Washington has missed it. We really need to look at the role of government in making a U.S. manufacturer uncompetitive in a global marketplace.'

It's not the size of the business that matters. It's the 'entrepreneurial spirit' that moves people. As a general rule, when you're defending corporations, you must understand that it is literally impossible to score a language home run. But as unsympathetic as Americans are to corporate America right now, they are still totally supportive of the entrepreneurial spirit of innovation, discovery and success. It is here that your tax simplification, lawsuit abuse reform, and red tape cutting solutions will resonate most. Businesses will be the first to benefit from those solutions, and they'll be the first to hire on more workers as soon as they get the hint from you that this country's not going to be hostile to them any longer.

Focus on INNOVATION. In fact,break it down this way:Education Innovation Employment. Talk about the greatness of American workers with regards to innovation and discovery. Talk about how America's utilization of technology has made us the envy of the world and how other nations send their best and brightest to America to learn. Then link innovation with education, and you have a very strong argument.

WORDS THAT WORK: EDUCTATION & INNOVATION
'There is no question that without quality education, we may loose the Innovation that leads to full employment. When you look at the new careers, they're coming from new technology. They're coming from the most innovative fields. They're inventing new products, new services, a better quality of life. They're doing things differently, and better than its ever been done before. Those are the jobs we want to create; the careen we want to encourage; the skills we need to teach. Those jobs become careen, and a career allows a worker to Invest In themselves and their community. That's what I mean by innovation.

'But in order to make innovation happen, we need to reinvest in education at all levels. The President's Initiative of No Child Left Behind is a good start, but we need to add to that. We need to add to it federally. We certainly need to add to it on the state level. We need a partnership between business, and government that insures that innovation will continue That's something America needs to work a lot harder on.'

PRODUCTIVITY is a key principle of prosperity. Americans love to work, and we love the idea that we love to work. More accurately, this nation is one that prides itself on productivity. It's not just that we work for the sake of working, but that we work for the sake of PRODUCING. We love to be productive, and we love to be reminded of just how productive we are. Americans want you to know that they're worth their wages, that there is more to them than a salary and an employment statistic. It is their productivity that makes them the unparalleled resource they truly are. Show them you understand both their hopes and their fears.

THE TRUE VALUE OF U.S. WORKERS
'Employees an capital assets. They're not just a line on a ledger sheet. They're not just an amorphous group of people treated the same way we treat machinery. They are people with dreams and hopes and visions.They have kids in college. They have mortgage payments to make. I care about them, I value them, and I am determined to help them succeed.
--Chairman Don Manzuflo

Americans will not accept second place or second best. When it comes to trade, we want to win. While this language of competition and victory plays somewhat better among men than women, we react to international, trade the way some people react to the Yankees-Red Sox. The only acceptable outcome is a victory. Any mention of the trade issue should be accompanied by an explicit expression of support for the American worker and the American workforce, and a commitment to fight and win for them.

WORDS THAT WORK
'As a matter of principle, when Americans compete In anything, we must play to win, not to tie and most certainly not to lose. Trade is not a zero some game. What we need are fair trade arrangements that promote the needs and advantages of each nation. And as you and I both know, America has a lot of advantages. All we need is to enhance the ability of American businessmen and women to seize those advantages in the global marketplace.'

WORDS THAT WORK & A SIMPLE FACT
'I reject the notion that we should shut out foreign countries and foreign products from American markets. I reject the notion that we should stop buying Sony, Panasonic, Volvo and VW. I reject the notion that we should kick out the Japanese and German automobile factories that operate in more than a dozen states and employ tens of thousands of Americans, As Americans, we should strive to produce the best and buy the best.

Economic Isolationism will not work. We cannot close our borders and pretend the rest of the world doesn't exist. The fact is, thanks to American innovation and productivity, American businesses produce a lot more than we could possibly sell in America.

We're five percent of the world's population. That means that 95 percent of the markets are outside the United States. We've got the best workers in the world, the best businesses. We can be competitive. We've got to make sure that the rest of the world is open to our farmers, our agricultural producers and our manufacturers, I think what we need to make sure of is there's a level playing field for our workers, that we're all playing by the same rules and we're enforcing trade laws, and this administration will work very hard to do that.'

TAXATION LITIGATION. INNOVATION, EDUCATION: THE POLICIES OF PROSPERITY

'An out-of-work American has been denied the American dream of a steady paycheck and the satisfaction of a good day's work. Losing a job in the name of efficiency is no comfort to a displaced mother who needs to feed her children. We must therefore ensure a personal, compassionate response to this impersonal and callous global economy.'

Taxation. Litigation. Innovation. Education. Remember those four words for they are at the core of your message, your policy and your response to critics of corporate America. Here is the policy answer to the outsourcing challenge that offers a solution without selling out conservative free-market principles. The four words should be strung together, repeated often, with an adverb attached: too much taxation, too much litigation, not enough innovation and not enough education. That should be your mantra. Remember it. Fortunately, the words rhyme, which means your audience will remember it as well.

Americans want you to define the role of Washington. The problem is there is absolutely no consensus as to exactly what Washington should be doing right now. They just want something done. The most credible language has a pitch that resonates to all ears. For Republicans, it talks about limiting intervention. For Democrats, it talks about creating the right economic environment. And for both political partisans, it has an explicit focus on the future.

WORDS THAT WORK
Our job in Washington is to set the right course for the business community, but with an important caveat The true engine for job growth In this country will never be the federal government. What the federal government can and must do is to foster the most fruitful economic environment possible so that those Americans pursing their own entrepreneurial dreams can have the best possible chance for success We must prepare our workers for today's international marketplace with the skills for tomorrow's economy.

Stay on message! Focus on ROOT CAUSES... don't talk about 'outsourcing' as an issue of 'trade.' The moment the public bears you dismiss outsourcing as an economic reality or just a component of trade is the moment they will look to the Democrats as the party that speaks to their needs. To talk about this in terms of trade is to communicate without empathy for their individual concerns and without offering tangible solutions.

WORDS THAT DO NOT WORK
Q: 'I watched the speech that the president made today in Ohio. Strong defense of his economic policies, and he went further in talking about fighting economic isolationism. But Secretary, be never used the word 'outsourcing. 'Why is the administration shying away from this outsourcing issue?'

A: 'Well, you know, Alan, all that is, is trade. He talked a lot about trade. He talked about the importance of free trade. He talked about the fact that presidents of both parties since World War II have moved to expand and open trade around the world, and how important that is for creating the environment for better jobs here in America, for a more secure America.'

It's about tax SIMPLIFICATION. While most Republicans would probably prefer calling for tax relief, any battle over tax cuts immediately becomes partisan and that means you lose more than half your audience. Similarly, despite Kerry's campaign, less than half of Americans would advocate a reduction in corporate taxes. However, what Americans do want, and what conservatives, moderates and even some liberals do support, is tax simplification.

WORDS THAT WORK: TAX SIMPLIFICATION
As a matter of principle, if we want American companies to create more American jobs, we need to have an American tax system that encourages employers to stay right here on our soil.

This is not a pitch for tax cuts. But it is most definitely a pitch for tax simplification. Too many companies have to hire too many accountants and too many lawyers to fill out too many forms to comply with a tax code that is simply beyond comprehension. By simplifying the tax code, companies can cut overhead, increase productivity, and hire more Americans to create more products, more services and more profit. True, a few lawyers might temporarily lose their jobs, but that's one profession that always lands on their feet.

The current administration recently streamlined tax-reporting requirements for small businesses, helping 2.6 million small businesses save 61 million hours of unproductive work. That was a fantastic first step, but we need to do even more for all businesses.

Talk 'tax rates' rather than tax cuts.' Americans have had enough talk about tax cuts for a while. If you want to engage the public in a context that you can win, a better approach is to talk about over-taxation without specifying the solution or calling for more tax cuts. A lot more Americans believe companies are overtaxed than believe those tax rates should be lowered. The public wants something new and different. Drawing the linkage between too much taxation and the threat to prosperity surely has been said before, but it is less philosophical. For most Americans, it's just plain common sense.

WORDS THAT WORK: OVERTAXATION
'What we need is some common sense here. If we want to encourage US companies to employ US workers, it makes no sense to tax them to where they have no choice but seek cheaper labor. When it comes to job loss, we can't tax our way out of the problem but we sure can tax our way into It. Too much taxation destroys innovation and destroys prosperity.'

Talk 'tax fairness and 'tax neutrality.' The public has no patience for a tax code that actually hinders American products sold abroad while helping foreign products sold here. Reducing taxes on exports and/or increasing taxes on imports begins to move toward complicated economic philosophy but the labels 'tax fairness' and 'tax neutrality' explain enough that you should not shy away from this argument if you believe it. The key principle in this tax adjustment debate is a phrase you've all heard before:'a level playing field. 'American products deserve exactly the same treatment abroad that we give foreign products at home.

Ending lawsuit abuse. Please, please, please STOP saying tort reform. For too many Americans tort reform has something to do with a French pastry. Tort reform is legalistic, bureaucratic and definitely impersonal. But while a large segment of Americans don't know what tort reform actually means, virtually all Americans know what lawsuit abuse reform does TO THEM.

LAWSUIT ABUSE WORDS THAT WORK
'As a matter of principle, companies should be spending less money on litigation and more money on innovation. The single greatest disincentive for America businesses to do business here In America is the absurdity of our legal system. We have become the lawsuit capital of the world. Some companies actually spend more money fighting off frivolous lawsuits than the gross national product of countries that belong to the UN. Other countries use their legal system only when necessary. In America, too many people see the legal system as a loose slot machine, and too many personal Injury lawyers see it as a potential jackpot.'

It's not just the legal system. It's the people who are abusing the system for their own financial gain. Once and for all, it's time to take on the PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS. Those on the outsourcing kick have personalized and demonized America's CEOs. To some degree that's a smart (though highly unjustified) strategy because it puts a human face behind the condemnation. You need to practice exactly what they preach, and the personal injury lawyer is the perfect foil. The truth is, GREEDY personal injury lawyers have cost more jobs than any CEO through their reckless abuse of the legal system.
--The "Luntz" report c.2005

I'll restrict my comments to the observation that I think trying to cut the feedbag off the lawyers is right after 'land war in asia', but I could be mistaken.

Many more quotes to come in this 'The 21st Century Pundits & Ox-Pull' sequence. Next up some contrast for that initial midden. Until then.

News with amber waves:
350K tons from Oz. And a whack more from US and Canada. $190 rumoured pay out for US. Less for the others, like (??) ~150 for Oz and ~175 for Kunukistan. Ouch!

Don't run in the subway, Darling/ No peace while the poor can't reign

Resist, is good too. Note it's 'Guerrilla training'; not 'local militia', 'homeland security', or even Swiss.

Ex-Croatian Serb leader Milan Babic, a one-time ally of Slobodan Milosevic, commits suicide in The Hague. Ex-Ex, Surly?!?

Dictator-boy picks on the Mayor of Kabul. Kabul wants Islamabad to crack down on Taleban rebels who launch attacks in Afghanistan. Pakistan denies claims it is lax on militants in border areas. Gen Musharraf said he was "surprised and shocked" by reports suggesting that Mr Karzai had given intelligence information about the whereabouts and location of Mullah Mohammed Omar in Pakistan.

While they can't seem to Thai down the Thai-PM.

UK Flight flap has backbenchers hopping[hope'ing, surely?].

Anatomy of agitprop part II. RS: You know the old saying of the appearance of impropriety? So imagine a regular US citizen watching this unfold. You have two highly visible Iran Contra figures meeting in Rome during a time of war. Iran is declared part of the axis of evil. Add to that that one of the members of the party, Larry Franklin, a DIA analyst, has now pled guilty for passing classified information to Israel and Iran, and possibly false intelligence on Iran to the US. Another member of the party, Harold Rhode, working as a consultant for the Pentagon went on to have meetings with Ghorbanifar in Paris, despite being asked to stop. Add to that, the Niger forgeries began to make their rounds in the form of transcripts only a short time later. So you can understand why there is skepticism?
Ledeen: As for "looking bad," it looks pretty good to me, since it saved American lives in Afghanistan. [Insert standard owl here]

She looked cool in a charcoal trouser suit [...] She was asked about the move to digital television and she said how the government was going to help "vulnerable" and "at risk" groups, as if not being able to watch Noel Edmonds' Deal Or No Deal was a disaster like catching hypothermia because you can't afford fuel. But we realised she was going to be all right when a Tory, Mark Lancaster, announced that it was "a special pleasure to see her here today - and I mean that genuinely". If even the Tories were supporting her, what could she have to fear? Well, her slightly crazed understrapper, the sports minister Richard Caborn, for one. He told the Tory frontbench , "there's an old saying, when you're digging a hole, throw the bloody shovel away!" (I am not aware of this old saying. Is it similar to "if you're beating an egg, throw the bloody whisk away", or "if you're driving a car, get rid of the wheels"?)
And this from a previous outing-- Then he read out the scores, and we learned that Ming had won by a wider margin than anyone had expected. He paused, then raised an arm. Then he raised both arms. Then he grabbed the arm of Simon Hughes and raised that, too. Then he realised he had failed to grab the arm of Chris Huhne so that was hoisted as well. Then they all raised all their arms. Then they put them down. They let go and turned their arms round. They were doing the hokey cokey without even being drunk. It looked like communal origami. If you had given them a sheet of paper, they would have produced a swan.

USA's SD-DPB SoftBall Time. Tom Casey at bat March 6th.
QUESTION: Well, ElBaradei said today that this seemed to be the sticking point, the idea of centrifuge-related research and development, and that he hopes that the agreement, as Barry said, would come within the week. So would the U.S. ever accept small-scale uranium enrichment work?

MR. CASEY: Look. I think I just answered that, but you can't be just a little pregnant. You can't have the regime pursuing enrichment on any scale, because pursuing enrichment on any scale allows them to master the technology, complete the fuel cycle, and then that technology can easily be applied to a clandestine program for making nuclear weapons.

Certainly if you look at other examples, if you look at what happened in North Korea, they completed the fuel cycle and then very quickly, as Chris Hill said to you guys before, took a civilian nuclear program and turned it in about 30 days into a bomb-making program.

The whole purpose of the approach that the international community has taken to date is to assure ourselves that Iran does not have the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. And so I think the lines that have been drawn by the international community broadly in the IAEA Board of Governors resolutions, by the EU-3 through the Paris agreement, are pretty clear and that's certainly where we are.

QUESTION: Do you have any indication that the Russians are coming here tonight with that proposal in mind though?

MR. CASEY: I don't have anything on that. You know, certainly we do expect to see Foreign Minister Lavrov here this evening as well as tomorrow for meetings with the Secretary, and I expect Iran will be an important topic of conversation among the many they'll cover. But I'm not aware of any specific proposal they're coming with.

QUESTION: Could you expand on that?

MR. CASEY: Sure.

QUESTION: What other issues will they talk about? And also there was a Council on Foreign Relations report released over the weekend which suggests that Russia is increasingly becoming an obstacle to U.S. interests.

MR. CASEY: Okay. Yeah. Let me try and walk you through a little bit of what we're expecting. First of all, as you know, Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov will be in Washington today and tomorrow and will have discussions with the Secretary. We're really expecting these to cover pretty much the full range of both bilateral issues as well as a number of international concerns. As I said, Iran and Iran's clandestine nuclear program will be one of them. Certainly expect they'll be covering and talking about the Middle East, and in particular the continuing efforts by the Quartet related to the Mideast peace process. Russia, of course, also has the presidency of the G-8 right now and we'll be interested in hearing from them on preparations for the St. Petersburg summit, as well as the developments on the agenda that Russia has laid out for the G-8 at this point.

On bilateral issues, I think as the Secretary has made clear, we have the kind of relationship with the Russians where we can have a frank discussion of those issues, including areas such as their latest law on nongovernmental organizations and some of the issues in the energy sector where we've already expressed our concerns.

In terms of the Council on Foreign Relations report that you were referring to, George, we have had a chance to take a look at it but not really in full. Certainly we'll study it carefully. But I think the main point for us is that the U.S. and Russia have an active and constructive dialogue on a broad agenda of priority issues. Certainly we're cooperating well with them on counterterrorism issues, on nonproliferation issues, as we've discussed, and through the Quartet and on a variety of other areas as well.

There are areas where, as I said, we differ and we think we can have a frank and candid exchange of views with them on those subjects. And we're certainly going to continue to make clear our concerns about those areas where we do have problems.
One and one. The strawman pregnant meme is allowed to expand into a dance number. [cue clip of Slim Pickens:BS--'Kansas City faggot'] Play Ball!

QUESTION: Taiwan's President Chen, in an interview last Friday, declined to say if the upcoming constitution reform would contain certain clauses that could change the status quo, including the official end of Taiwan. He said everything's possible. This is obviously not consistent with his previous assurances to the U.S. Are you going to do anything about that?

MR. CASEY: Well, I haven't seen those comments. I'd simply just reiterate what our long-standing position is and I would also refer you back to the statement that we made last week about some of the comments that had been made on the National Unification Council. Obviously we oppose any unilateral measures to change the status quo and believe that dialogue between Taiwanese officials and those in Beijing is the appropriate way to settle any cross-strait tensions.

QUESTION: On Taiwan?

MR. CASEY: Yeah, in the back. Okay, sure.

QUESTION: President Chen was saying basically, you know, in an interview with the Japanese newspaper, he was not ruling out, you know, possible change of the name of the country, Republic of China, and other sensitive issues, as long as the proceedings were in compliance with the constitutional procedure. Does the United States have any concern over this? I mean, this is -- the United States has been pushing President Chen to honor the "Five No" pledge on numerous occasions. Are you still sticking to those pledges that he has to honor?

MR. CASEY: Well, again, in terms of the assurances that President Chen has made, I'd refer you back to the statement we made on Thursday. While it was related to a slightly different issue, that that same policy applies. I mean, obviously we believe the maintenance of Taiwan's assurances is critical to preserving the status quo, and our firm policy is that there should be no unilateral changes to the status quo. And we've said that many times and I'd simply refer you back to that same statement again.
Five no? No, two and one. *hurl* Unification or economic federation might be an interesting way to bypass the concerns on both sides. The hardliners, more than anyone else, know that Taiwan is no Hong Kong.

QUESTION: On Turkey?

MR. CASEY: Okay, on Turkey and then we're going to go down to --

QUESTION: According to the Turkish press, the U.S. Ambassador to Ankara Ross Wilson stated, "Turkey was assigned a leading role in the enlarged Middle East and North Africa project." I'm wondering why Greece is not being considered for a role in the enlarged Middle East and North Africa (inaudible). Historically, as you know, Mr. Casey, Arabs and Greeks have excellent relations and the Greeks have lived in Arab countries for centuries.

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, I'm not sure -- I haven't seen the Ambassador's comments, so I'm not sure exactly what he is specifically referring to. Obviously Turkey, as a neighbor of Iraq, is a country that has a very important relationship there as a predominantly Islamic country or a country where the majority of citizens are Muslims. It also has a part in the broader Islamic world. Certainly though, we would look to any and all countries, including Greece, to be able to do what they can to help promote democracy and freedom throughout the broader Middle East area.

QUESTION: A follow-up. As we know, the U.S. Government wants to expand the area covered by the NATO task force called Active Endeavour, the NATO-led counterterrorist task force in the Mediterranean, to include the Black Sea. Turkey and Russia, however, have both opposed this initiative. Do you know if the subject will be in the agenda during the today's dinner between Secretary Condoleezza Rice and the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in town --

MR. CASEY: It is not on the --

QUESTION: -- 7:30 p.m.?

MR. CASEY: It is not on the agenda as far as I know, but if it does come up, we'll give you a read-out on the conversations tomorrow.

QUESTION: And Turkish officials are concerned that this initiative might be at attempt on part of the U.S. Government to water down the Montreux Convention which gives Turkey rights over the Straits of Dardanelles. How do you respond to this?

MR. CASEY: Again, since I'm not sure it's even going to come up, I don't think I have much to add for you on it. Okay?
Obviously Turkey, Strike three. Turkey Roll: A large dual bun, 'like wine skins', served by maidens with bright knowing eyes.

Free and not dead press. And if your boss is reading along unbeknownst to you-- here's a 'Piss off, wanker!' for him/her.

OYAITJ:
100276 : Graff gaff, LEGO colour shock, the flaming ghost head of David Kelly, Darfur, ...That's really not the issue today and I don't think I want to comment on it. Our policy is very well known on this and the reasons for our policy are very well known..., judicial orgy, etc.

TYAITJ:
64595 : Naomi, awful prospects, merc-plane fun begins(much Brian Eno, riffing followed), questions of legality, King Paul and more.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Donald Rumsfeld speaking to the press. Faux backscreen with a map of the Iran/Iraq border. An overlayed speech bubble has him singing, shown by music notes used as quote marks;
"We rock the planet, up to the zenith/ Feel that adrenalin overload
Can't stop the fever, that road fever/ It's in my blood, in every single bone
It takes power to walk in our shoes/ It takes power to walk on"
Caption at the bottom: "They're on the road again!"

Delayed entry. This was to be all finished for monday, but alas, it's now Friday. Click it anyway.

Anyway([/;-P), the first pair of quotes for this JE could have been added to johndiii's birthday party. Tho' they are hardly a fitting subject for such greetz, yet I'll still note them here in his honour. The third and fourth; a quote from an idealist, and one from a wise-fool. The wrap-up and an index to the sequence 'Revoloution and its dangers' follows. News, texttoon, and previous years JE's on this day.

Quote(0):

If heaven were not thus pure, it soon would rend
If earth were not thus sure, 'twould break and bend
Without these powers, the spirits soon would fail
If not so filled, the drought would parch each vale
Without that life, creatures would pass away
Princes and kings, without that moral sway
However grand and high, would all decay

-- Traditional

Quote(1):

As I lay asleep in Italy
There came a voice from over the Sea
And with great power it forth led me
To walk in the visions of Poesy

I met Murder on the way
He had a mask like Castlereagh
Very smooth he looked, yet grim
Seven blood-hounds followed him

All were fat -- and well they might
Be in admirable plight
For one by one, and two by two
He tossed them human hearts to chew
Which from his wide cloak he drew

Next came Fraud, and he had on
Like Eldon, an ermined gown
His big tears, for he wept well
Turned to mill-stones as they fell

And the little children -- who
Round his feet played to and fro
Thinking every tear a gem
Had their brains knocked out by them

Clothed with the Bible, as with light
And the shadows of the night
Like Sidmouth, next -- Hypocrisy
On a crocodile rode by

And many more Destructions played
In this ghastly masquerade
All disguised -- even to the eyes
Like Bishops, lawyers, peers, or spies

Last came Anarchy -- he rode
On a white horse -- splashed with blood
He was pale even to the lips
Like Death in the Apocalypse

And he wore a kingly crown
And in his grasp a sceptre shone
On his brow this mark I saw--
"I AM GOD, AND KING, AND LAW!"

With a pace stately and fast
Over English land he passed
Trampling to a mire of blood
The adoring multitude

And a mighty troop around
With their trampling shook the ground
Waving each a bloody sword
For the service of their Lord

And with glorious triumph -- they
Rode through England proud and gay
Drunk as with intoxication
Of the wine of desolation

O'er fields and towns, from sea to sea
Passed the Pageant swift and free
Tearing up, and trampling down
Till they came to London town

And each dweller, panic-stricken
Felt his heart with terror sicken
Hearing the tempestuous cry
Of the triumph of Anarchy

--Percy Bysshe Shelley

Quote(2):
Rome did not fall in consequence of the strength of her external enemies, nor through the corruption of private morals and manners, which was never greater than under the first Triumvirate.

She fell from the want of true statesmanship in her public men, and patriotism in her people. Private virtues and private vices are of the last consequence to individuals, both here and hereafter; but private virtues never saved, private vices never ruined a nation. Edward the Confessor was a saint, and yet be prepared the way for the Norman conquest of England; and France owes infinitely less to St. Louis than to Louis XI., Richelieu, and Napoleon, who, though no saints, were statesmen.

What is specially needed in statesmen is public spirit, intelligence, foresight, broad views, manly feelings, wisdom, energy, resolution; and when statesmen with these qualities are placed at the head of affairs, the state, if not already lost, can, however far gone it may be, be recovered, restored, reinvigorated, advanced, and private vice and corruption disappear in the splendor of public virtue. Providence is always present in the affairs of nations, but not to work miracles to counteract the natural effects of the ignorance, ineptness, short-sightedness, narrow views, public stupidity, and imbecility of rulers, because they are irreproachable and saintly in their private characters and relations, as was Henry VI. of England, or, in some respects, Louis XVI. of France. Providence is God intervening through the laws he by his creative act gives to creatures, not their suspension or abrogation.

It was the corruption of the statesmen, in substituting the barbaric element for the proper Roman, to which no one contributed more than Constantine, the first Christian emperor, that was the real cause of the downfall of Rome, and the centuries of barbarism that followed, relieved only by the superhuman zeal and charity of the church to save souls and restore civilization.

But in the constitution of the government, as distinguished from the state, the nation is freer and more truly sovereign. The constitution of the state is that which gives to the people of a given territory political existence, unity, and individuality, and renders it capable of political action. It creates political or national solidarity, in imitation of the solidarity of the race, in which it has its root. It is the providential charter of national existence, and that which gives to each nation its peculiar character, and distinguishes it from every other nation.

The constitution of government is the constitution by the sovereign authority of the nation of an agency or ministry for the management of its affairs, and the letter of instructions according to which the agent or minister is to act and conduct the matters intrusted to him. The distinction which the English make between the sovereign and the ministry is analogous to that between the state and the government, only they understand by the sovereign the king or queen, and by the ministry the executive, excluding, or not decidedly including, the legislature and the judiciary.

The sovereign is the people as the state or body politic, and as the king holds from God only through the people, he is not properly sovereign, and is to be ranked with the ministry or government. Yet when the state delegates the full or chief governing power to the king, and makes him its sole or principal representative, he may, with sufficient accuracy for ordinary purposes, be called sovereign. Then, understanding by the ministry or government the legislative and judicial, as well as the executive functions, whether united in one or separated into distinct and mutually independent departments, the English distinction will express accurately enough, except for strictly scientific purposes, the distinction between the state and the government.

Still, it is only in despotic states, which are not founded on right, but force, that the king can say, L'etat, c'est moi, I am the state; and Shakespeare's usage of calling the king of France simply France, and the king of England simply England, smacks of feudalism, under which monarchy is an estate, property, not a public trust. It corresponds to the Scottish usage of calling the proprietor by the name of his estate. It is never to be forgotten that in republican states the king has only a delegated sovereignty, that the people, as well as God, are above him. He holds his power, as the Emperor of the French professes to hold his, by the grace of God and the national will--the only title by which a king or emperor can legitimately hold power.

The king or emperor not being the state, and the government, whatever its form or constitution, being a creature of the state, he can be dethroned, and the whole government even virtually overthrown, without dissolving the state or the political society. Such an event may cause much evil, create much social confusion, and do grave injury to the nation, but the political society may survive it; the sovereign remains in the plenitude of his rights, as competent to restore government as be was originally to institute it.

When, in 1848, Louis Philippe was dethroned by the Parisian mob, and fled the kingdom, there was in France no legitimate government, for all commissions ran in the king's name; but the organic or territorial people of France, the body politic, remained, and in it remained the sovereign power to organize and appoint a new government. When, on the 2d of December, 1851, the president, by a coup d'etat, suppressed the legislative assembly and the constitutional government, there was no legitimate government standing, and the power assumed by the president was unquestionably a usurpation; but the nation was competent to condone his usurpation and legalize his power, and by a plebiscitum actually did so. The wisdom or justice of the coup d'etat is another question, about which men may differ; but when the French nation, by its subsequent act, had condoned it, and formally conferred dictatorial powers on the prince-president, the principal had approved the act of his agent, and given him discretionary powers, and nothing more was to be said.

The imperial constitution and the election of the president to be emperor, that followed on December 2d, 1852, were strictly legal, and, whatever men may think of Napoleon III., it must be conceded that there is no legal flaw in his title, and that he holds his power by a title as high and as perfect as there is for any prince or ruler.

But the plebiscitum cannot be legally appealed to or be valid when and where there is a legal government existing and in the full exercise of its constitutional functions, as was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in a case growing out of what is known as the Dorr rebellion in Rhode Island. A suffrage committee, having no political authority, drew up and presented a new constitution of government to the people, plead a plebiscitum in its favor, and claimed the officers elected under it as the legally elected officers of the state.

The court refused to recognize the plebiscitum, and decided that it knew Rhode Island only as represented through the government, which had never ceased to exist. New States in Territories have been organized on the strength of a plebiscitum when the legal Territorial government was in force, and were admitted as States into the Union, which, though irregular and dangerous, could be done without revolution, because Congress, that admitted them, is the power to grant the permission to organize as States and apply for admission.

Congress is competent to condone an offence against its own rights. The real danger of the practice is, that it tends to create a conviction that sovereignty inheres in the people individually, or as population, not as the body politic or organic people attached to a sovereign domain; and the people who organize under a plebiscitum are not, till organized and admitted into the Union, an organic or a political people at all.

When Louis Napoleon made his appeal to a vote of the French people, he made an appeal to a people existing as a sovereign people, and a sovereign people without a legal government. In his case the plebiscitum was proper and sufficient, even if it be conceded that it was through his own fault that France at the moment was found without a legal government. When a thing is done, though wrongly done, you cannot act as if it were not done, but must accept it as a fact and act accordingly.

The plebiscitum, which is simply an appeal to the people outside of government, is not valid when the government has not lapsed, either by its usurpations or by its dissolution, nor is it valid either in the case of a province, or of a population that has no organic existence as an independent sovereign state. The plebiscitum in France was valid, but in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the Duchies of Modena, Parma, and Lucca, and in the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies it was not valid, for their legal governments had not lapsed; nor was it valid in the Aemilian provinces of the Papal States, because they were not a nation or a sovereign people, but only a portion of such nation or people.

In the case of the states and provinces--except Lombardy, ceded to France by Austria, and sold to the Sardinian king--annexed to Piedmont to form the new kingdom of Italy, the plebiscitum was invalid, because implying the right of the people to rebel against the legal authority, and to break the unity and individuality of the state of which they form an integral part. The nation is a whole, and no part has the right to secede or separate, and set up a government for itself, or annex itself to another state, without the consent of the whole.

The solidarity of the nation is both a fact and a law. The secessionists from the United States defended their action only on the ground that the States of the American Union are severally independent sovereign states, and they only obeyed the authority of their respective states.

The plebiscitum, or irregular appeal to what is called universal suffrage, since adopted by Louis Napoleon in France after the coup d'etat, is becoming not a little menacing to the stability of governments and the rights and integrity of states, and is not less dangerous to the peace and order of society than "the solidarity of peoples" asserted by Kossuth, the revolutionary ex-governor of Hungary, the last stronghold of feudal barbarism in Christian Europe; for Russia has emancipated her serfs.

The nation, as sovereign, is free to constitute government according to its own judgment, under any form it pleases--monarchical, aristocratic, democratic, or mixed--vest all power in an hereditary monarch, in a class or hereditary nobles, in a king and two houses of parliament, one hereditary, the other elective, or both elective; or it may establish a single, dual, or triple executive, make all officers of government hereditary or all elective, and if elective, elective for a longer or a shorter time, by universal suffrage or a select body of electors.

Any of these forms and systems, and many others besides, are or may be legitimate, if established and maintained by the national will. There is nothing in the law of God or of nature, antecedently to the national will, that gives any one of them a right to the exclusion of any one of the others. The imperial system in France is as legitimate as the federative system in the United States. The only form or system that is necessarily illegal is the despotic.

That can never be a truly civilized government, nor a legitimate government, for God has given to man no dominion over man. He gave men, as St. Augustine says, and Pope St. Gregory the Great repeats, dominion over the irrational creation, not over the rational, and hence the primitive rulers of men were called pastors or shepherds, not lords.

It may be the duty of the people subjected to a despotic government to demean themselves quietly and peaceably towards it, as a matter of prudence, to avoid sedition, and the evils that would necessarily follow an attempted revolution, but not because, founded as it is on mere force, it has itself any right or legality.

All other forms of government are republican in their essential constitution, founded on public right, and held under God from and for the commonwealth, and which of them is wisest and best for the commonwealth is, for the most part, an idle question. "Forms of government," somebody has said, "are like shoes--that is the best form which best fit the feet that are to wear them." Shoes are to be fitted to the feet, not the feet to the shoes, and feet vary in size and conformation.

There is, in regard to government, as distinguished from the state, no antecedent right which binds the people, for antecedently to the existence of the government as a fact, the state is free to adopt any form that it finds practicable, or judges the wisest and best for itself. Ordinarily the form of the government practicable for a nation is determined by the peculiar providential constitution of the territorial people, and a form of government that would be practicable and good in one country may be the reverse in another.

The English government is no doubt the best practicable in Great Britain, at present at least, but it has proved a failure wherever else it has been attempted. The American system has proved itself, in spite of the recent formidable rebellion to overthrow it, the best and only practicable government for the United States, but it is impracticable everywhere else, and all attempts by any European or other American state to introduce it can end only in disaster. The imperial system apparently works well in France, but though all European states are tending to it, it would not work well at all on the American continent, certainly not until the republic of the United States has ceased to exist. While the United States remain the great American power, that system, or its kindred system, democratic centralism, can never become an American system, as Maximilian's experiment in Mexico is likely to prove.

Political propagandism, except on the Roman plan, that is, by annexation and incorporation, is as impracticable as it is wanting in the respect that one independent people owes to another. The old French Jacobins tried to propagate, even with fire and sword, their system throughout Europe, as the only system compatible with the rights of man. The English, since 1688, have been great political propagandists, and at one time it seemed not unlikely that every European state would try the experiment of a parliamentary government, composed of an hereditary crown, an hereditary house of lords, and an elective house of commons.

The democratic Americans are also great political propagandists, and are ready to sympathize with any rebellion, insurrection, or movement in behalf of democracy in any part of the world, however mean or contemptible, fierce or bloody it may be; but all this is as unstatesmanlike as unjust; unstatesmanlike, for no form of government can bear transplanting, and because every independent nation is the sole judge of what best comports with its own interests, and its judgment is to be respected by the citizens as well as by the governments of other states.

Religious propagandism is a right and a duty, because religion is catholic and of universal obligation; and so is the jus gentium of the Romans, which is only the application to individuals and nations of the great principles of natural justice; but no political propagandism is ever allowable, because no one form of government is catholic in its nature, or of universal obligation.

Thoughtful Americans are opposed to political propagandism, and respect the right of every nation to choose its own form of government; but they hold that the American system is the best in itself, and that if other nations were as enlightened as the American, they would adopt it. But though the American system, rightly understood, is the best, as they hold, it is not because other nations are less enlightened, which is by no means a fact, that they do not adopt, or cannot bear it, but solely because their providential constitutions do not require or admit it, and an attempt to introduce it in any of them would prove a failure and a grave evil.

Fit your shoes to your feet. The law of the governmental constitution is in that of the nation. The constitution of the government must grow out of the constitution of the state, and accord with the genius, the character, the habits, customs, and wants of the people, or it will not work well, or tend to secure the legitimate ends of government. The constitutions imagined by philosophers are for Utopia, not for any actual, living, breathing people.

You must take the state as it is, and develop your governmental constitution from it, and harmonize it with it. Where there is a discrepancy between the two constitutions, the government has no support in the state, in the organic people, or nation, and can sustain itself only by corruption or physical force. A government may be under the necessity of using force to suppress an insurrection or rebellion against the national authority, or the integrity of the national territory, but no government that can sustain itself, not the state, only by physical force or large standing armies, can be a good government, or suited to the nation. It must adopt the most stringent repressive measures, suppress liberty of speech and of conscience, outrage liberty in what it has the most intimate and sacred, and practise the most revolting violence and cruelty, for it can govern only by terror. Such a government is unsuited to the nation.

This is seen in all history: in the attempt of the dictator Sulla to preserve the old patrician government against the plebeian power that time and events had developed in the Roman state, and which was about to gain the supremacy, as we have seen, at Pharsalia, Philippi, and Actium; in the efforts to establish a Jacobinical government in France in 1793; in Rome in 1848, and the government of Victor Emmanuel in Naples in 1860 and 1861. These efforts, proscriptions, confiscations, military executions, assassinations, massacres, are all made in the name of liberty, or in defence of a government supposed to guaranty the well-being of the state and the rights of the people.

They are rendered inevitable by the mad attempt to force on a nation a constitution of government foreign to the national constitution, or repugnant to the national tastes, interests, habits, convictions, or whole interior life. The repressive policy, adopted to a certain extent by nearly all European governments, grows out of the madness of a portion of the people of the several states in seeking to force upon the nation an anti-national constitution. The sovereigns may not be very wise, but they are wiser, more national, more patriotic than the mad theorists who seek to revolutionize the state and establish a government that has no hold in the national traditions, the national character, or the national life; and the statesman, the patriot, the true friend of liberty sympathizes with the national authorities, not with the mad theorists and revolutionists.

The right of a nation to change its form of government, and its magistrates or representatives, by whatever name called, is incontestable. Hence the French constitution of l789, which involved that of 1793, was not illegal, for though accompanied by some irregularities, it was adopted by the manifest will of the nation, and consented to by all orders in the state. Not its legality but its wisdom is to be questioned, together with the false and dangerous theories of government which dictated it. There is no compact or mutual stipulation between the state and the government. The state, under God, is sovereign, and ordains and establishes the government, instead of making a contract, a bargain, or covenant, with it.

The common democratic doctrine on this point is right, if by people is understood the organic people attached to a sovereign domain, not the people as individuals or as a floating or nomadic multitude. By people in the political sense, Cicero, and St. Augustine after him, understood the people as the republic, organized in reference to the common or public good.

With this understanding, the sovereignty persists in the people, and they retain the supreme authority over the government. The powers delegated are still the powers of the sovereign delegating them, and may be modified, altered, or revoked, as the sovereign judges proper. The nation does not, and cannot abdicate or delegate away its own sovereignty, for sovereign it is, and cannot but be, so long as it remains a nation not subjected to another nation.

By the imperial constitution of the French government, the imperial power is vested in Napoleon III., and made hereditary in his family, in the male line of his legitimate descendants. This is legal, but the nation has not parted with its sovereignty or bound itself by contract forever to a Napoleonic dynasty. Napoleon holds the imperial power "by the grace of God and the will of the nation," which means simply that he holds his authority from God, through the French people, and is bound to exercise it according to the law of God and the national will. The nation is as competent to revoke this constitution as the legislature is to repeal any law it is competent to enact, and in doing so breaks no contract, violates no right, for Napoleon and his descendants hold their right to the imperial throne subject to the national will from which it is derived. In case the nation should revoke the powers delegated, he or they would have no more valid claim to the throne than have the Bourbons, whom the nation has unmistakably dismissed from its service.

The only point here to be observed is, that the change must be by the nation itself, in its sovereign capacity; not by a mob, nor by a part of the nation conspiring, intriguing, or rebelling, without any commission from the nation.

The first Napoleon governed by a legal title, but he was never legally dethroned, and the government of the Bourbons, whether of the elder branch or the younger, was never a legal government, for the Bourbons had lost their original rights by the election of the first Napoleon, and never afterwards had the national will in their favor. The republic of 1848 was legal, in the sense that the nation acquiesced in it as a temporary necessity; but hardly anybody believed in it or wanted it, and the nation accepted it as a sort of locum tenens, rather than willed or ordained it. Its overthrow by the coup d'etat may not be legally defensible, but the election of Napoleon III. condoned the illegality, if there was any, and gave the emperor a legal title, that no republican, that none but a despot or a no-government man can dispute.

As the will of the nation, in so far as it contravenes not the law of God or the law of nature, binds every individual of the nation, no individual or number of individuals has, or can have, any right to conspire against him, or to labor to oust him from his place, till his escheat has been pronounced by the voice of the nation. The state, in its sovereign capacity, willing it, is the only power competent to revoke or to change the form and constitution of the imperial government.

The same must be said of every nation that has a lawful government; and this, while it preserves the national sovereignty, secures freedom of progress, condemns all sedition, conspiracy, rebellion, revolution, as does the Christian law itself. --O. A. Brownson

Quote(3):
It might reasonably be expected in questions which have been canvassed and disputed with great eagerness, since the first origin of science and philosophy, that the meaning of all the terms, at least, should have been agreed upon among the disputants; and our enquiries, in the course of two thousand years, been able to pass from words to the true and real subject of the controversy.

For how easy may it seem to give exact definitions of the terms employed in reasoning, and make these definitions, not the mere sound of words, the object of future scrutiny and examination? But if we consider the matter more narrowly, we shall be apt to draw a quite opposite conclusion. From this circumstance alone, that a controversy has been long kept on foot, and remains still undecided, we may presume that there is some ambiguity in the expression, and that the disputants affix different ideas to the terms employed in the controversy. For as the faculties of the mind are supposed to be naturally alike in every individual; otherwise nothing could be more fruitless than to reason or dispute together; it were impossible, if men affix the same ideas to their terms, that they could so long form different opinions of the same subject; especially when they communicate their views, and each party turn themselves on all sides, in search of arguments which may give them the victory over their antagonists.

It is true, if men attempt the discussion of questions which lie entirely beyond the reach of human capacity, such as those concerning the origin of worlds, or the economy of the intellectual system or region of spirits, they may long beat the air in their fruitless contests, and never arrive at any determinate conclusion. But if the question regard any subject of common life and experience, nothing, one would think, could preserve the dispute so long undecided but some ambiguous expressions, which keep the antagonists still at a distance, and hinder them from grappling with each other.

This has been the case in the long disputed question concerning liberty and necessity; and to so remarkable a degree that, if I be not much mistaken, we shall find, that all mankind, both learned and ignorant, have always been of the same opinion with regard to this subject, and that a few intelligible definitions would immediately have put an end to the whole controversy. I own that this dispute has been so much canvassed on all hands, and has led philosophers into such a labyrinth of obscure sophistry, that it is no wonder, if a sensible reader indulge his ease so far as to turn a deaf ear to the proposal of such a question, from which he can expect neither instruction or entertainment. But the state of the argument here proposed may, perhaps, serve to renew his attention; as it has more novelty, promises at least some decision of the controversy, and will not much disturb his ease by any intricate or obscure reasoning.

I hope, therefore, to make it appear that all men have ever agreed in the doctrine both of necessity and of liberty, according to any reasonable sense, which can be put on these terms; and that the whole controversy has hitherto turned merely upon words. We shall begin with examining the doctrine of necessity.

It is universally allowed that matter, in all its operations, is actuated by a necessary force, and that every natural effect is so precisely determined by the energy of its cause that no other effect, in such particular circumstances, could possibly have resulted from it. The degree and direction of every motion is, by the laws of nature, prescribed with such exactness that a living creature may as soon arise from the shock of two bodies as motion in any other degree or direction than what is actually produced by it. Would we, therefore, form a just and precise idea of necessity, we must consider whence that idea arises when we apply it to the operation of bodies.

It seems evident that, if all the scenes of nature were continually shifted in such a manner that no two events bore any resemblance to each other, but every object was entirely new, without any similitude to whatever had been seen before, we should never, in that case, have attained the least idea of necessity, or of a connexion among these objects. We might say, upon such a supposition, that one object or event has followed another; not that one was produced by the other.

The relation of cause and effect must be utterly unknown to mankind. Inference and reasoning concerning the operations of nature would, from that moment, be at an end; and the memory and senses remain the only canals, by which the knowledge of any real existence could possibly have access to the mind. Our idea, therefore, of necessity and causation arises entirely from the uniformity observable in the operations of nature, where similar objects are constantly conjoined together, and the mind is determined by custom to infer the one from the appearance of the other. These two circumstances form the whole of that necessity, which we ascribe to matter. Beyond the constant conjunction of similar objects, and the consequent inference from one to the other, we have no notion of any necessity or connexion.

If it appear, therefore, that all mankind have ever allowed, without any doubt or hesitation, that these two circumstances take place in the voluntary actions of men, and in the operations of mind; it must follow, that all mankind have ever agreed in the doctrine of necessity, and that they have hitherto disputed, merely for not understanding each other.

As to the first circumstance, the constant and regular conjunction of similar events, we may possibly satisfy ourselves by the following considerations. It is universally acknowledged that there is a great uniformity among the actions of men, in all nations and ages, and that human nature remains still the same, in its principles and operations. The same motives always produce the same actions.

The same events follow from the same causes. Ambition, avarice, self-love, vanity, friendship, generosity, public spirit: these passions, mixed in various degrees, and distributed through society, have been, from the beginning of the world, and still are, the source of all the actions and enterprises, which have ever been observed among mankind. Would you know the sentiments, inclinations, and course of life of the Greeks and Romans? Study well the temper and actions of the French and English: You cannot be much mistaken in transferring to the former most of the observations which you have made with regard to the latter.

Mankind are so much the same, in all times and places, that history informs us of nothing new or strange in this particular. Its chief use is only to discover the constant and universal principles of human nature, by showing men in all varieties of circumstances and situations, and furnishing us with materials from which we may form our observations and become acquainted with the regular springs of human action and behaviour.

These records of wars, intrigues, factions, and revolutions, are so many collections of experiments, by which the politician or moral philosopher fixes the principles of his science, in the same manner as the physician or natural philosopher becomes acquainted with the nature of plants, minerals, and other external objects, by the experiments which he forms concerning them. Nor are the earth, water, and other elements, examined by Aristotle, and Hippocrates, more like to those which at present lie under our observation than the men described by Polybius and Tacitus are to those who now govern the world.

Should a traveller, returning from a far country, bring us an account of men, wholly different from any with whom we were ever acquainted; men, who were entirely divested of avarice, ambition, or revenge; who knew no pleasure but friendship, generosity, and public spirit; we should immediately, from these circumstances, detect the falsehood, and prove him a liar, with the same certainty as if he had stuffed his narration with stories of centaurs and dragons, miracles and prodigies. And if we would explode any forgery in history, we cannot make use of a more convincing argument, than to prove, that the actions ascribed to any person are directly contrary to the course of nature, and that no human motives, in such circumstances, could ever induce him to such a conduct. The veracity of Quintus Curtius is as much to be suspected, when he describes the supernatural courage of Alexander, by which he was hurried on singly to attack multitudes, as when he describes his supernatural force and activity, by which he was able to resist them. So readily and universally do we acknowledge a uniformity in human motives and actions as well as in the operations of body.

Hence likewise the benefit of that experience, acquired by long life and a variety of business and company, in order to instruct us in the principles of human nature, and regulate our future conduct, as well as speculation. By means of this guide, we mount up to the knowledge of men's inclinations and motives, from their actions, expressions, and even gestures; and again descend to the interpretation of their actions from our knowledge of their motives and inclinations. The general observations treasured up by a course of experience, give us the clue of human nature, and teach us to unravel all its intricacies. Pretexts and appearances no longer deceive us.

Public declarations pass for the specious colouring of a cause. And though virtue and honour be allowed their proper weight and authority, that perfect disinterestedness, so often pretended to, is never expected in multitudes and parties; seldom in their leaders; and scarcely even in individuals of any rank or station. But were there no uniformity in human actions, and were every experiment which we could form of this kind irregular and anomalous, it were impossible to collect any general observations concerning mankind; and no experience, however accurately digested by reflection, would ever serve to any purpose. Why is the aged husbandman more skilful in his calling than the young beginner but because there is a certain uniformity in the operation of the sun, rain, and earth towards the production of vegetables; and experience teaches the old practitioner the rules by which this operation is governed and directed.

We must not, however, expect that this uniformity of human actions should be carried to such a length as that all men, in the same circumstances, will always act precisely in the same manner, without making any allowance for the diversity of characters, prejudices, and opinions. Such a uniformity in every particular, is found in no part of nature. On the contrary, from observing the variety of conduct in different men, we are enabled to form a greater variety of maxims, which still suppose a degree of uniformity and regularity.

Are the manners of men different in different ages and countries? We learn thence the great force of custom and education, which mould the human mind from its infancy and form it into a fixed and established character. Is the behaviour and conduct of the one sex very unlike that of the other? Is it thence we become acquainted with the different characters which nature has impressed upon the sexes, and which she preserves with constancy and regularity? Are the actions of the same person much diversified in the different periods of his life, from infancy to old age? This affords room for many general observations concerning the gradual change of our sentiments and inclinations, and the different maxims which prevail in the different ages of human creatures. Even the characters, which are peculiar to each individual, have a uniformity in their influence; otherwise our acquaintance with the persons and our observation of their conduct could never teach us their dispositions, or serve to direct our behaviour with regard to them.

I grant it possible to find some actions, which seem to have no regular connexion with any known motives, and are exceptions to all the measures of conduct which have ever been established for the government of men. But if we would willingly know what judgement should be formed of such irregular and extraordinary actions, we may consider the sentiments commonly entertained with regard to those irregular events which appear in the course of nature, and the operations of external objects. All causes are not conjoined to their usual effects with like uniformity. An artificer, who handles only dead matter, may be disappointed of his aim, as well as the politician, who directs the conduct of sensible and intelligent agents.

The vulgar, who take things according to their first appearance, attribute the uncertainty of events to such an uncertainty in the causes as makes the latter often fail of their usual influence; though they meet with no impediment in their operation. But philosophers, observing that, almost in every part of nature, there is contained a vast variety of springs and principles, which are hid, by reason of their minuteness or remoteness, find, that it is at least possible the contrariety of events may not proceed from any contingency in the cause, but from the secret operation of contrary causes.

This possibility is converted into certainty by farther observation, when they remark that, upon an exact scrutiny, a contrariety of effects always betrays a contrariety of causes, and proceeds from their mutual opposition. A peasant can give no better reason for the stopping of any clock or watch than to say that it does not commonly go right: But an artist easily perceives that the same force in the spring or pendulum has always the same influence on the wheels; but fails of its usual effect, perhaps by reason of a grain of dust, which puts a stop to the whole movement. From the observation of several parallel instances, philosophers form a maxim that the connexion between all causes and effects is equally necessary, and that its seeming uncertainty in some instances proceeds from the secret opposition of contrary causes.

Thus, for instance, in the human body, when the usual symptoms of health or sickness disappoint our expectation; when medicines operate not with their wonted powers; when irregular events follow from any particular cause; the philosopher and physician are not surprised at the matter, nor are ever tempted to deny, in general, the necessity and uniformity of those principles by which the animal economy is conducted. They know that a human body is a mighty complicated machine: That many secret powers lurk in it, which are altogether beyond our comprehension: That to us it must often appear very uncertain in its operations: And that therefore the irregular events, which outwardly discover themselves, can be no proof that the laws of nature are not observed with the greatest regularity in its internal operations and government.

The philosopher, if he be consistent, must apply the same reasoning to the actions and volitions of intelligent agents. The most irregular and unexpected resolutions of men may frequently be accounted for by those who know every particular circumstance of their character and situation. A person of an obliging disposition gives a peevish answer: But he has the toothache, or has not dined. A stupid fellow discovers an uncommon alacrity in his carriage: But he has met with a sudden piece of good fortune. Or even when an action, as sometimes happens, cannot be particularly accounted for, either by the person himself or by others; we know, in general, that the characters of men are, to a certain degree, inconstant and irregular.

This is, in a manner, the constant character of human nature; though it be applicable, in a more particular manner, to some persons who have no fixed rule for their conduct, but proceed in a continued course of caprice and inconstancy. The internal principles and motives may operate in a uniform manner, notwithstanding these seeming irregularities; in the same manner as the winds, rain, clouds, and other variations of the weather are supposed to be governed by steady principles; though not easily discoverable by human sagacity and enquiry.

Thus it appears, not only that the conjunction between motives and voluntary actions is as regular and uniform as that between the cause and effect in any part of nature; but also that this regular conjunction has been universally acknowledged among mankind, and has never been the subject of dispute, either in philosophy or common life. Now, as it is from past experience that we draw all inferences concerning the future, and as we conclude that objects will always be conjoined together which we find to have always been conjoined; it may seem superfluous to prove that this experienced uniformity in human actions is a source whence we draw inferences concerning them. But in order to throw the argument into a greater variety of lights we shall also insist, though briefly, on this latter topic.

The mutual dependence of men is so great in all societies that scarce any human action is entirely complete in itself, or is performed without some reference to the actions of others, which are requisite to make it answer fully the intention of the agent. The poorest artificer, who labours alone, expects at least the protection of the magistrate, to ensure him the enjoyment of the fruits of his labour. He also expects that, when he carries his goods to market, and offers them at a reasonable price, he shall find purchasers, and shall be able, by the money he acquires, to engage others to supply him with those commodities which are requisite for his subsistence.

In proportion as men extend their dealings, and render their intercourse with others more complicated, they always comprehend, in their schemes of life, a greater variety of voluntary actions, which they expect, from the proper motives, to co-operate with their own. In all these conclusions they take their measures from past experience, in the same manner as in their reasonings concerning external objects; and firmly believe that men, as well as all the elements, are to continue, in their operations, the same that they have ever found them.

A manufacturer reckons upon the labour of his servants for the execution of any work as much as upon the tools which he employs, and would be equally surprised were his expectations disappointed. In short, this experimental inference and reasoning concerning the actions of others enters so much into human life that no man, while awake, is ever a moment without employing it. Have we not reason, therefore, to affirm that all mankind have always agreed in the doctrine of necessity according to the foregoing definition and explication of it?

Nor have philosophers ever entertained a different opinion from the people in this particular. For, not to mention that almost every action of their life supposes that opinion, there are even few of the speculative parts of learning to which it is not essential. What would become of history, had we not a dependence on the veracity of the historian according to the experience which we have had of mankind?

How could politics be a science, if laws and forms of goverment had not a uniform influence upon society? Where would be the foundation of morals, if particular characters had no certain or determinate power to produce particular sentiments, and if these sentiments had no constant operation on actions?

And with what pretence could we employ our criticism upon any poet or polite author, if we could not pronounce the conduct and sentiments of his actors either natural or unnatural to such characters, and in such circumstances?

It seems almost impossible, therefore, to engage either in science or action of any kind without acknowledging the doctrine of necessity, and this inference from motive to voluntary actions, from characters to conduct. --D. Hume.

Once you've dug into this sequence, or if you have been reading along, you can't fail to see a sub-theme of 'benefit and/or useful-by-product' in many of the selected quotes. Under the main layer of; Danger to: whom, why, and what--has happened before--. Which is dissected from a number viewpoints (and times [and places, braces and hyphens]).

The results strived for often lead into interesting side-benefits on a number of levels. One[I (hehe {stop that!})] could have chosen a number of sub-themes, such as the more common "what if change had not occurred?", but that kind of emergence is all too well traveled. As is, the most common of all, illustrations of the direct results. Blah!

After all, it hardly matters who got all the prezzies in the end. One, it's a doddle to look it up. Two, it's often too difficult to ascribe direct links. Yet, as the first point there shows, the results are usually quite visible. It's one of those dualism thingies that I find so useful in these JE-Sequences.

It[the sequence] is/was a bit sketchy at the beginning, as it had started more as several foreshadowing and semi-topical selections around Franklin's birthday, mixed with several current trends/threads discussed on various boards (vis the situation in the USA, among other places).

To place him in the frame of revolutions, as it were. As the sequence evolved, the sub themes and sub-references gathered steam to continue the exploration in a more systematic[ha!] way.

I hope it has, or can, illustrate the true danger faced by a society opening the doors to such radical change-- that being; it works all too well. Usually for someone other than the originators, and almost never for the populous at large. Of course, this leads on in time to the tactic of 'Goading to'. Some, myself included, might even suggest inciting-to-revolution has nearly become a fucking artform by our era. And even that fails, as all too often the costs are beyond what any community could/can support, and the cycle repeats or echoes.

Moreover, regardless of the motives or plans by anyone's side. The few remaining instances have faced the horrid revelation that nothing really changed, other than who got all the cake. So why does it keep happening?[aside from those clearly instigated, of course.] Given this history of lack of direct successes and known problems in its implementation?

That is a larger topic than could be accomplished in this sequence format. Or even a lifetime for that matter. Yet, I'll encourage you to make your own adventures to its origins. In the next few JEs I'll run a couple of topical quotes before starting any new sequences. Until then.

Index to 'Revolution and its dangers':
126117 : B. Russell
126381 : W. H. Prescott, D. Dandridge(topical), Punch c. 1920
126523 : M. P. Parmele
126636 : B. Franklin
126981 : E. Gibbon
127589 : T. Paine, J.T. Headley, T. Hardy
127785 : T. Carlyle, G&S(topical), Byron
128093 : G. S. Fullerton, BA:The Cavalier Years, Punch c.1920(topical)
128182 : E. Gibbon
128523 : T. Carlyle
128626 : T. Carlyle, E. Burke
128820 : T. Paine(Seq' & topical), F. D. R. (topical)
128934 : C. Boulger
129342 : C.J. Griffiths
129473 : Edward Law, Anon, G. le Bon
129603 : B. Russell
129949 : T. Paine, C. Juglar, Nietzsche

News with a jolly 'your[sic] all gay':
There has to be a right to insult. You can't always have polite discourse. Wouldn't stop me, nor a horde of others, if there wasn't.

Also of interest on AlterNet: Mueller taunting and OCB. That, though, was before Jesse Trentadue came forward with his own stash of official documents. Trentadue is an undeniably colorful character, filling his legal briefs with trenchant statements about the federal government's iniquities and writing taunting e-mails to Robert Mueller, the FBI director, and others whenever he feels he has won a little victory over them. Last May, when Judge Kimball issued a ruling ordering the FBI to produce every document Trentadue had requested, the subject line of his e-mail to Mueller read: OH MY GOSH DARN BIGGEST FRIGGIN' HECK!!! "After you read [the judge's] order," he wrote, "you are going to need a case of Preparation H!" OMGDBFH?

Stand Up! Scientists, engineers, and programmers understand technology better than the people who are generally promoting and making laws around technology. We are best aware of both the benefits and the pitfalls. Without our participation, the general public will be led to accept things that aren't good for democracy and the world. Technocrat.net helps us learn more about these issues and the politics around them, and helps us put that knowledge to work. Technology is a double-edged sword/ Especially when it's used for the weapons of war/ But when you think about the progress we've made/ To cure a disease or travel into space/

Gitmo list. However, the names do not appear as a simple list - they are buried within 6,000 pages of documents posted on the Pentagon's website. They are transcripts of tribunals in which the 500 detainees were screened and their combat status assessed.

Firecrackers? Scuffles have broken out in the town of Nazareth in northern Israel after three Israelis set off firecrackers in the Church of the Annunciation. The incident during a service late on Friday caused panic among worshippers and sparked angry protests outside. The three intruders were taken away for psychiatric checks as police sought to disperse large crowds. Christians believe the church, one of their holiest sites, marks the place where the birth of Jesus was foretold.

And more in Baghdad too.

BlogBlocks and BushPhotoOps.

Oz wheat deal returns. More corruption is sure to follow. It is thought the trade will not be conducted through the AWB - normally the monopoly exporter - and that the board will waive its veto over other grain companies taking part in the deal. O RLY?

Free and not dead press.

SD-DPB Games continue. No room for a full play-by-play but here are three examples of heavy-spinning. Fib 28th, Mire 1st, and Mire 3rd. However, this one should be noted.
QUESTION: Let's say tomorrow Iran, the regime of Iran, would tell to the EU-3, 'I'm going to stop right now.' Then what's happened? What will -- any change in your position --

MR. ERELI: Well, that would be a scenario that would be nice to have to deal with, but so far that hasn't happened. I'm not going to speculate about what our response would be. I think we've all been clear, if you're serious about this, you will suspend enrichment activity and you will return to negotiations. That's been the basis for these discussions from the beginning. That's been the basis for these discussions since Iran walked away from the Paris agreement. I would also note that it's not just about suspending enrichment and returning negotiations. Read the Director General's report. Look at the -- it's the Board of Governors. Well, it's not public, but look at what's been said about the Director General's report. Read the Board of Governors resolution on February 4th. There were very clear questions that the Board of Governors put to Iran, and there were very clear calls from the Board of Governors to Iran to take certain actions, that they haven't fulfilled. And it's important that Iran does that, too. So you've got -- with regard to the EU-3 and their diplomacy, these two very important issues, but you've also got a whole body of actions taken by the Board of Governors that Iran has simply ignored that also need to be addressed. [emp mine]

OYAITJ:
99959 : Empty is a very tenuous description of space., Eno and The Vicar, Thicky, SimianOverlord in time, and more.

TYAITJ:
64088 : King Howard, Haiti, Brown science, HipHop, etc.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Gordon Brown speaking to the press. Overlayed speech bubble has him singing;
"Mother sees, but does not read the peeling posters/ And can't believe that there's a world to be won/ But in the public schools and in the public houses/ The battle of britain goes on/

The constant promise of jam tomorrow/ Is the new breed's litany and verse/ If it takes another war to fill the churches of england/ Then the world the meek inherit, what will it be worth/"

And yes, I wear paisley ... a lot. Get over it. A last batch of short background quotes for 'Revolution and its dangers', News, Texttoon and the *YAITJs. Click for radical change.

All short quotes today, as the News section has eaten half the alloted rant size available in a single entry. There will be a wrap up and index of this sequence at the end of the weekend. But before I let the matter rest, I thought these might add some insight into the nature of revolution. Anyway, on to the quotes.

Quote(1):
The King of England is one of the readiest believers in the world. In the beginning of the contest he passed an act to put America out of the protection of the crown of England, and though providence, for seven years together, has put him out of her protection, still the man has no doubt. Like Pharaoh on the edge of the Red Sea, he sees not the plunge he is making, and precipitately drives across the flood that is closing over his head.

I think it is a reasonable supposition, that this part of the speech was composed before the arrival of the news of the capture of Cornwallis: for it certainly has no relation to their condition at the time it was spoken. But, be this as it may, it is nothing to us. Our line is fixed. Our lot is cast; and America, the child of fate, is arriving at maturity. We have nothing to do but by a spirited and quick exertion, to stand prepared for war or peace. Too great to yield, and too noble to insult; superior to misfortune, and generous in success, let us untaintedly preserve the character which we have gained, and show to future ages an example of unequalled magnanimity.

There is something in the cause and consequence of America that has drawn on her the attention of all mankind. The world has seen her brave. Her love of liberty; her ardour in supporting it; the justice of her claims, and the constancy of her fortitude have won her the esteem of Europe, and attached to her interest the first power in that country.

Her situation now is such, that to whatever point, past, present or to come, she casts her eyes, new matter rises to convince her that she is right. In her conduct towards her enemy, no reproachful sentiment lurks in secret. No sense of injustice is left upon the mind. Untainted with ambition, and a stranger to revenge, her progress has been marked by providence, and she, in every stage of the conflict, has blest her with success.

But let not America wrap herself up in delusive hope and suppose the business done. The least remissness in preparation, the least relaxation in execution, will only serve to prolong the war, and increase expenses. If our enemies can draw consolation from misfortune, and exert themselves upon despair, how much more ought we, who are to win a continent by the conquest, and have already an earnest of success?

Having, in the preceding part, made my remarks on the several matters which the speech contains, I shall now make my remarks on what it does not contain.

There is not a syllable in its respecting alliances. Either the injustice of Britain is too glaring, or her condition too desperate, or both, for any neighboring power to come to her support. In the beginning of the contest, when she had only America to contend with, she hired assistance from Hesse, and other smaller states of Germany, and for nearly three years did America, young, raw, undisciplined and unprovided, stand against the power of Britain, aided by twenty thousand foreign troops, and made a complete conquest of one entire army.

The remembrance of those things ought to inspire us with confidence and greatness of mind, and carry us through every remaining difficulty with content and cheerfulness. What are the little sufferings of the present day, compared with the hardships that are past? There was a time, when we had neither house nor home in safety; when every hour was the hour of alarm and danger; when the mind, tortured with anxiety, knew no repose, and every thing, but hope and fortitude, was bidding us farewell.

It is of use to look back upon these things; to call to mind the times of trouble and the scenes of complicated anguish that are past and gone. Then every expense was cheap, compared with the dread of conquest and the misery of submission. We did not stand debating upon trifles, or contending about the necessary and unavoidable charges of defence. Every one bore his lot of suffering, and looked forward to happier days, and scenes of rest.

Perhaps one of the greatest dangers which any country can be exposed to, arises from a kind of trifling which sometimes steals upon the mind, when it supposes the danger past; and this unsafe situation marks at this time the peculiar crisis of America.

What would she once have given to have known that her condition at this day should be what it now is? And yet we do not seem to place a proper value upon it, nor vigorously pursue the necessary measures to secure it. We know that we cannot be defended, nor yet defend ourselves, without trouble and expense. We have no right to expect it; neither ought we to look for it.

We are a people, who, in our situation, differ from all the world. We form one common floor of public good, and, whatever is our charge, it is paid for our own interest and upon our own account.

Misfortune and experience have now taught us system and method; and the arrangements for carrying on the war are reduced to rule and order. The quotas of the several states are ascertained, and I intend in a future publication to show what they are, and the necessity as well as the advantages of vigorously providing for them. --T. Paine.

Quote(2):
The panic was terrible from the 3d to the 10th of May; for two days no one wished to part with his money; it was impossible to borrow on any collateral, at any price whatever. Hence came a decline in the public securities, which fell below the low prices of 1873.

The public complained that it could not have foreseen the panic, because the loss of gold had been concealed by the oft-repeated assurance that there was a reserve of $600,000,000 in Washington.

Similar situations in 1857 and in 1873 were recalled, and it was remarked that like troubles had not occurred until after a long period of high prices, when capital was scarce and the rate of interest high, whereas this was far from being the case at this period.

It was nevertheless notorious that the decline in prices began two years back, that the advance in prices had been stopped by the breaking out of the panic of 1882 in Europe, at Paris, and that since that moment prices had begun to decline, less rapidly, however, than in Europe, because the shock had then merely disturbed a market which had not yet recovered from the panic of 1873, from which, in consequence of the Franco-Prussian war, France had escaped. The mine not being sufficiently charged in the United States the explosion had not recurred. Speculation, unable to restore a new impulse to the rise in prices, was nevertheless able to hold its own, until May, 1884, when the delayed explosion finally occurred, covering the market with ruins and bringing about a liquidation with its accustomed train, a great and lengthy decline of prices.

We may here note similar delays in the breaking out of panics, in the period of 1837, 1839, 1864-1866 in France and in England. Even an involved state of affairs may be hidden by certain conditions, and the situation, although itself exposed to the same excessive speculation, may witness the breaking out of the panic which has been delayed for a certain time, only to occur simultaneously with the beginning of a decline of prices, and when it is thought that danger has been escaped.

As in Brussels and in the United States in 1837-1839 and in England in 1864-1866, large houses and powerful institutions of credit had maintained a whole scaffolding of speculation which was already out of plumb, but still able to stand upright through the general effect of the parts which connected them, and in this unstable equilibrium it sufficed for a single one to detach itself in order to overthrow the whole edifice at a juncture at which it was hoped it would continue to stand and even grow stronger. Does not this prove that after these epochs of expansion and activity characterizing prosperous periods (and there is no prosperous period without a rise in prices) a stoppage is necessary, a panic allowing a period of rest to permit the liquidation of transactions employed in helping to make a series of exchanges at high prices, and to allow the capital and savings of countries which had been too rapidly scattered and exhausted to reconstruct themselves during these years of tranquillity and of slackening business?

Confidence had already returned in New York despite the steady demands of the country bankers upon their correspondents, which pulled down the reserve below the legal limit; nevertheless in the midst of all the failures there was no suspension of specie payments.

The crisis of 1884, according to the Comptroller of the Currency, had been less foreseen than the crisis of 1873, and this notwithstanding it was sufficient to observe the number of enterprises and schemes flung as a prey to speculation, in order to foresee that financial troubles and disasters to the country must result.

The continuation of payments in gold, the low prices, and the outlook for a fine harvest gave courage, preserved the remaining confidence, and already allowed a speedy resumption of business to be anticipated.

The panic, although spreading over the whole Union, raged especially in New York. Without wishing to expatiate upon its primary causes, the Comptroller of the Treasury could not help remarking that it had shown itself under the same circumstances as recently as in 1873; above all there were issues for new enterprises; the speculation had rushed to take them up at a premium, and people now asked their true value.

At this juncture railroad earnings, instead of increasing, showed weakness, and suffered a slight reaction; the solvency of houses interested began to be doubted; new loans were refused them, and immediately the artificially constructed edifice gave way.

To advance prices on the Stock Exchange, the banks had made immense loans on the shares and obligations of the new railway issues, and as soon as quotations, artificially maintained at the rates to which they had been carried, began to drop, everything became unsalable. Until this occurrence, led on and fascinated by the rise in prices, every one had bought; hardly was the advance arrested when every one reversed their operations at the same time. The bankers had loaned not only their capital but in addition a part of their clients' deposits; brokers had encouraged a speculation which brought them business; and thus it was that all hands had flung themselves upon a path that could only lead to ruin.

The Comptroller of the Currency remarks with pride that, in the midst of the general upheaval and numerous failures of honorable houses, only two National Banks were involved: one of them failed, the other suspended payment. -- C. Juglar

Quote(3):
Let us at once say again what we have already said a hundred times, for people's ears nowadays are unwilling to hear such truths--OUR truths.

We know well enough how offensive it sounds when any one plainly, and without metaphor, counts man among the animals, but it will be accounted to us almost a CRIME, that it is precisely in respect to men of "modern ideas" that we have constantly applied the terms "herd," "herd-instincts," and such like expressions. What avail is it? We cannot do otherwise, for it is precisely here that our new insight is.

We have found that in all the principal moral judgments, Europe has become unanimous, including likewise the countries where European influence prevails in Europe people evidently KNOW what Socrates thought he did not know, and what the famous serpent of old once promised to teach--they "know" today what is good and evil. It must then sound hard and be distasteful to the ear, when we always insist that that which here thinks it knows, that which here glorifies itself with praise and blame, and calls itself good, is the instinct of the herding human animal, the instinct which has come and is ever coming more and more to the front, to preponderance and supremacy over other instincts, according to the increasing physiological approximation and resemblance of which it is the symptom.

MORALITY IN EUROPE AT PRESENT IS HERDING-ANIMAL MORALITY, and therefore, as we understand the matter, only one kind of human morality, beside which, before which, and after which many other moralities, and above all HIGHER moralities, are or should be possible. Against such a "possibility," against such a "should be," however, this morality defends itself with all its strength, it says obstinately and inexorably "I am morality itself and nothing else is morality!" Indeed, with the help of a religion which has humoured and flattered the sublimest desires of the herding-animal, things have reached such a point that we always find a more visible expression of this morality even in political and social arrangements: the DEMOCRATIC movement is the inheritance of the Christian movement.

That its TEMPO, however, is much too slow and sleepy for the more impatient ones, for those who are sick and distracted by the herding-instinct, is indicated by the increasingly furious howling, and always less disguised teeth-gnashing of the anarchist dogs, who are now roving through the highways of European culture. Apparently in opposition to the peacefully industrious democrats and Revolution-ideologues, and still more so to the awkward philosophasters and fraternity-visionaries who call themselves Socialists and want a "free society," those are really at one with them all in their thorough and instinctive hostility to every form of society other than that of the AUTONOMOUS herd (to the extent even of repudiating the notions "master" and "servant"--ni dieu ni maitre, says a socialist formula);

at one in their tenacious opposition to every special claim, every special right and privilege (this means ultimately opposition to EVERY right, for when all are equal, no one needs "rights" any longer);

at one in their distrust of punitive justice (as though it were a violation of the weak, unfair to the NECESSARY consequences of all former society);

but equally at one in their religion of sympathy, in their compassion for all that feels, lives, and suffers (down to the very animals, up even to "God"--the extravagance of "sympathy for God" belongs to a democratic age);

altogether at one in the cry and impatience of their sympathy, in their deadly hatred of suffering generally, in their almost feminine incapacity for witnessing it or ALLOWING it;

at one in their involuntary beglooming and heart-softening, under the spell of which Europe seems to be threatened with a new Buddhism;

at one in their belief in the morality of MUTUAL sympathy, as though it were morality in itself, the climax, the ATTAINED climax of mankind, the sole hope of the future, the consolation of the present, the great discharge from all the obligations of the past;

altogether at one in their belief in the community as the DELIVERER, in the herd, and therefore in "themselves."

We, who hold a different belief--we, who regard the democratic movement, not only as a degenerating form of political organization, but as equivalent to a degenerating, a waning type of man, as involving his mediocrising and depreciation: where have WE to fix our hopes? In NEW PHILOSOPHERS--there is no other alternative: in minds strong and original enough to initiate opposite estimates of value, to transvalue and invert "eternal valuations"; in forerunners, in men of the future, who in the present shall fix the constraints and fasten the knots which will compel millenniums to take NEW paths.

To teach man the future of humanity as his WILL, as depending on human will, and to make preparation for vast hazardous enterprises and collective attempts in rearing and educating, in order thereby to put an end to the frightful rule of folly and chance which has hitherto gone by the name of "history" (the folly of the "greatest number" is only its last form)--for that purpose a new type of philosopher and commander will some time or other be needed, at the very idea of which everything that has existed in the way of occult, terrible, and benevolent beings might look pale and dwarfed. The image of such leaders hovers before OUR eyes:--is it lawful for me to say it aloud, ye free spirits?

The conditions which one would partly have to create and partly utilize for their genesis; the presumptive methods and tests by virtue of which a soul should grow up to such an elevation and power as to feel a CONSTRAINT to these tasks; a transvaluation of values, under the new pressure and hammer of which a conscience should be steeled and a heart transformed into brass, so as to bear the weight of such responsibility; and on the other hand the necessity for such leaders, the dreadful danger that they might be lacking, or miscarry and degenerate: --these are OUR real anxieties and glooms, ye know it well, ye free spirits! these are the heavy distant thoughts and storms which sweep across the heaven of OUR life.

There are few pains so grievous as to have seen, divined, or experienced how an exceptional man has missed his way and deteriorated; but he who has the rare eye for the universal danger of "man" himself DETERIORATING, he who like us has recognized the extraordinary fortuitousness which has hitherto played its game in respect to the future of mankind --a game in which neither the hand, nor even a "finger of God" has participated! --he who divines the fate that is hidden under the idiotic unwariness and blind confidence of "modern ideas," and still more under the whole of Christo-European morality --suffers from an anguish with which no other is to be compared.

He sees at a glance all that could still BE MADE OUT OF MAN through a favourable accumulation and augmentation of human powers and arrangements; he knows with all the knowledge of his conviction how unexhausted man still is for the greatest possibilities, and how often in the past the type man has stood in presence of mysterious decisions and new paths: --he knows still better from his painfulest recollections on what wretched obstacles promising developments of the highest rank have hitherto usually gone to pieces, broken down, sunk, and become contemptible. The UNIVERSAL DEGENERACY OF MANKIND to the level of the "man of the future" --as idealized by the socialistic fools and shallow-pates--this degeneracy and dwarfing of man to an absolutely gregarious animal (or as they call it, to a man of "free society"), this brutalizing of man into a pigmy with equal rights and claims, is undoubtedly POSSIBLE!

He who has thought out this possibility to its ultimate conclusion knows ANOTHER loathing unknown to the rest of mankind, and perhaps also a new MISSION! --Nietzsche

A final quote or two and the index in the next JE. Until then.

News of Americans:
George Liquor, American.

Juan Cole, American. I think it has been a long time since Americans felt oppressed by foreign countries in the political sphere, but it's not so hard to understand these things if you think about it economically, for instance. In the mid-'80s we had an incident here in Detroit where a Chinese man was killed because autoworkers identified him as Japanese and were angry about the advances the Japanese auto industry was making in the United States; there was kind of a nativist rejection of the foreign economic impact on their lives. They were getting fired and laid off. That kind of anger that was demonstrated toward that Chinese man who was killed by Detroit autoworkers is behind a lot of what's going on now in the Muslim world. The Muslim world is economically dominated by the West, and people are always having their lives rearranged economically by Western concerns. A few holes, less than his usual, and overall it's a decent survey. The Interviewer gets points too, for the followup quips.

Karen Hughes, American. Well, I hear concerns. I hear ongoing concerns about things like Guantánamo that you mentioned. I hear concerns about Abu Ghraib. And I want to tell you, as an American, I think those pictures are disgusting, they're horrible, and they are embarrassing to me as an American; frankly, they're totally against American policy, and what you see in those pictures are crimes. And I don't think the good people of Germany would want pictures of criminal acts committed here in Germany to somehow represent the image of their country around the world; because we all know that even lawful societies, societies that have rule of law, have criminals in those societies, and what we do in a society based on the rule of law is, when people engage in criminal acts, they are punished, they're investigated. The people who perpetrated those crimes at Abu Ghraib are now serving prison sentences in the United States, including one who is serving a lengthy ten-year prison sentence, and another who is serving an eight-year prison sentence. So, I hear concerns, because obviously this is a difficult time, a time of challenge in the world, but I also hear about how much we have in common. I mean, all of us, Americans and German, we want education for our children, we want a better life, a better future, we want jobs and opportunity, and, for many people around the world, I think, although there are some disagreements on issues, America still for many people represents the hope of a better life. I meet people around the world who tell me they want to come to America to study, and we welcome, by the way, students to come to America. We want more Germans to come to America. Over mountain, over dune and over sea/ Crude map and compass lead the caravan/ And lead the fleet/ Here's the loot and plunder/ They bore home

Andrew Sullivan savaged by Sparky the penguin, American.

Toonists[best strips], American. To the opening of the new Cartoon Museum at 35 Little Russell Street, near the British Museum in Bloomsbury. Cartoons are probably the only field of art where the British undoubtedly excel. Actually, the Americans are far better at strips than we are, and we have no real equivalent of Tintin or Asterix, but Searle, Heath Robinson, Bateman, Trog, Steve Bell, Gerald Scarfe - I doubt if any country could begin to match them. Here, here. Bell's tone, in particular, has always struck me as the perfect balance between ink, dung, and bile.

Adam Ereli, American. Press-Softball player, and well known to sport fans everywhere. We can expect some fine spinning, and no doubt, that's why the poolboy[Sean] has been rotated out from the lineup. Let's get right to the play-by-play for this double header.
On the 22'nd.
QUESTION: Adam, within the last number of hours, while she was in Cairo, Secretary Rice was interviewed by Egyptian Television. Well, one of the questions to her was excessive meddling has brought Shiites in Iraq to power. Now prior to her tour to the Middle East, media guru Karen Hughes was on the tour I guess a week and a half ago, were you satisfied with her particular tour and were the media bodies in those particular companies listening to Karen Hughes because she visited since Al Jazeera --

MR. ERELI: Under Secretary Hughes went to Qatar, the UAE and I believe she's now in -- well, she's now in Germany or on her way back. And she went to Qatar to participate in a conference on understanding and leadership and democratic development and bridging of differences between groups. And she had, I think, a very eloquent and important speech at that occasion. I'd refer you to our website where you can find a copy of it, where she stressed the importance of individual courage and sacrifice as an agent of change and positive change for societies and for countries seeking to help their citizens and to promote understanding and to promote human rights and a better life for their citizens.

She did have an opportunity obviously to engage with media and different groups in the region and that's within the context of our broader efforts which she is leading to build understanding, to exchange views and to, I think, attack some of myths about what the United States is about and what the United States is seeking and to try to establish a common understanding and -- of what our shared values are. So that's point one about Under Secretary Hughes.

Point two about the specific point of -- with regard to the Secretary and the Iraqi elections, she dismissed the question very skillfully, as is her habit, and she said, look, the results of the Iraqi elections were determined by Iraqis and what you see in these results is all the communities of Iraq equitably represented according to the will of the Iraqi people, and that's what democracy is all about.

QUESTION: So the elections in the Palestinian territories that produced a Hamas-led government, does that reflect the same sort of support, enthusiasm, represent the wishes of the Palestinian people? That's what elections are supposed to yield, I think.

MR. ERELI: Do you want to stick on Iraq?

QUESTION: I'd like to stick on Iraq for just one more question.

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, two questions, actually. One is you say that we are not in a situation of civil war; you think I was overstating it there. My question is this, is that you had the Ambassador talking about sectarian conflict or tensions there. You have the fact that there's not -- I don't think there's one single unit in the army that's integrated ethnically or according to sectarian groups. They're all broken up into sort of mini-militias. Where is the evidence there that we're doing anything to bridge or to avoid a civil war?

And the second question is more factual. Where are we with the constitution that's supposed to be under deliberation, or the amendments to the constitution after the election?

MR. ERELI: I'll have to check on the latter. On the second question, I'll have to check and see what the specific timetable is. And there is a period of time after the elections or, actually, after the seating of the assembly for amendments or discussion about the constitution to be -- to take place and to be approved. But let me check and see what exactly that timetable is.

QUESTION: There's a clock running on --

MR. ERELI: Again, I'll have to check.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. ERELI: As far as your question about sectarianism, Ambassador Khalilzad and other U.S. officials, I think, have stated quite clearly that the policy of Saddam Hussein for 30 years was to divide and rule, and was to promote differences among ethnic and tribal groups and religious groups in Iraq. And so as you -- as Iraqis shake off the legacy of decades of manipulative dictatorship, they've got to overcome a lot of the divisions that were deliberately inculcated by the regime. And that's what -- they've made a lot of progress in that, I think as evidenced by their ability to put narrow self-interest aside, agree on significant power-sharing and federalist principles in their constitution, participate in elections, participate in the political process that not everybody bought into 100 percent but saw as the best way to address their grievances, and chart a way forward toward true national unity and a viable social compact that, frankly, hasn't existed for a long time in Iraq.

So as they move toward that, it's not fair, I think, in looking at it, to say, well, because they're not there yet and it's not, you know, it's not fully accomplished, then therefore there's a civil war going on. No, the way to look at it is you're trying to create a political culture and, as I said before, a social compact that is based on the principles and ideas that have been actively derided and suppressed for 30 years. That's going to take some time, whether it be in integrated military units, whether it be on certain constitutional provisions, whether it be in the rules of procedure in the assembly. It's going to take some time.

Progress needs to be measured not whether it's 100 percent done or zero percent done, but where they've come from where they were. And by that measure, I think there's significant progress and it would be erroneous to conclude, as some of those that you cited have, that there's a civil war going on. There are sectarian differences. Everybody acknowledges it. And I think what everybody acknowledges, including Prime Minister Jafari in his comments yesterday, was it is the goal of the Government of Iraq and the leadership of Iraq to overcome and minimize those sectarian differences so that the elected representatives of the people of Iraq can work for all the people of Iraq, as opposed to one specific community versus another specific community.

QUESTION: So the sectarian differences that are due to Saddam Hussein's rule, there's --

MR. ERELI: I said he exploited --

QUESTION: -- their differences --

MR. ERELI: I didn't say that.

QUESTION: -- the Shiites and the Sunnis always got along fine until Saddam Hussein came down the road and played on their differences?

MR. ERELI: No, I said he exploited that as a way to divide and rule, and that that exploitation has deepened and in many cases exacerbated divisions that -- in a way that has not served the Iraqi people well.

QUESTION: But the Bush Administration sees enough reason to expect the communities will get along with each other and build a democratic government and not fall into a civil war.

MR. ERELI: I think that is the vision of the leadership of Iraq and the vision of the great many Iraqis who have -- who risked their lives for a political process that they think is going to lead to a better future.

QUESTION: Well, the Ambassador didn't sound so optimistic the last time around. But I guess that's his statement. Could we turn to Hamas and can you verify does the U.S. have knowledge of Iran being willing to help finance a Hamas-led government?

MR. ERELI: Well, obviously, we've seen the statements by the Iranians to that effect. The views of the United States are clear and I think they're the views of the great majority of those in the international community that the only viable way to address the ambitions and hopes and dreams of the Palestinian people is through a negotiated solution that leads to a Palestinian state. That's what we're committed to, that's what the friends of the Palestinian people are committed to. There happen to be two countries that endorse an arms struggle against Israel, that refuse to recognize Israel and that believe that violence is the way to achieve the Palestinian national aspirations -- that's Iran and Syria. So I think that just tells you where those two countries lie on the international spectrum of support for the Palestinian people.

There -- on that score, as in many -- as on many of the other issues that we do with them, they're just on the wrong side of the issue. And if they continue to support violence and terror, then they're only going to succeed in further isolating them and themselves and I think undermining the aspirations of those who they pretend to support.
What a volley! Too bad it's not tennis boys. Two and one.

QUESTION: Deputy Secretary Zoellick met with Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Yang yesterday. Did the subject come up in their meeting?

MR. ERELI: Well, they talked about a number of things. Obviously, they talked about preparations for the visit of Chinese President Hu next -- in April. They talked a lot about economic issues, particularly trade and currency concerns, as well as intellectual property rights and market access. They discussed regional issues such as the six-party talks and Iran. Issues of human rights were raised, particularly religious freedom, internet restrictions and, yeah, the issue of Taiwan was raised and the Deputy Secretary as well as Assistant Secretary Hill reiterated our longstanding positions on that issue in the context of that discussion.

QUESTION: What is your policy on the direct contact between U.S. officials and Taiwanese officials? Do you simply pretend they don't exist?

MR. ERELI: No.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, why can't you acknowledge the meeting that supposedly took place recently?

MR. ERELI: Well, there are two meetings that are being discussed. One is between an NSC official and officials in Taiwan. I'd leave it to the NSC to talk about. I'm not going to talk about it. As far as this other official, I just don't know. I hadn't heard about it. I can't confirm it because I don't have the facts. But without reference to a specific visit or not or a specific meeting, I can articulate for you what our longstanding policy is and what we tell them whenever we have the opportunity to do so.

QUESTION: That's fine. Does Assistant Secretary Hill have occasional meetings with Taiwanese representatives?

MR. ERELI: Let me check.

QUESTION: Please.
Umpire looks at the BlackSox catcher and rases an eyebrow. Issues a new ball. "Two and two".

QUESTION: The State Department signed off on this port deal that there's a big dispute about. Who did the State Department consult with, which agencies, before signing off on it? Did you speak to various intelligence agencies before signing off on it? How does the procedure work?

MR. ERELI: Yeah, this is -- there's a really long and detailed answer to that which experts at the Department of Homeland Security have spoken to at length in briefings, which Mr. McClellan has spoken to today for probably --

QUESTION: I just wanted to know about the State Department.

MR. ERELI: -- over an hour and which I'll defer to him on because he's much more well read into it than I am.

The State Department participated as a member of this Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States. All departments are called upon to bring to the table derogatory information that they may have that would bear on the decisions of the committee. I would say that the deliberations are confidential so there's basically not much I can share with you about what the specific deliberations were. But I think that obviously we have had, you know, whatever relations we have had with the UAE entities and the UAE would have been presented. And as the Secretary has made clear, our relations with the UAE, our experience with the UAE, both as a strategic ally and a partner in the war on terror and counterterrorism, has been excellent.

QUESTION: If I can just follow up on that. Just as another aspect of it, this thing has taken on such a proportion now, especially in the United States. Are you concerned that it's now becoming a public diplomacy issue in terms of people seeing us going through this angst here abroad and having --

MR. ERELI: Well, I haven't seen it take that turn yet.

QUESTION: Is there a fear that it might take that turn?

MR. ERELI: We would hope that the issue -- that this issue could be discussed on the merits of the case and that it's therefore a commercial decision with due consideration given to national security concerns.
Securities, surly! Out!

Next game. The 23'd.
QUESTION: Has there been a lot of contacts -- back on the six-party issue -- recent contacts between the Chinese and the North Koreans? For example, has there been diplomacy going on, perhaps leading up to this North Korean willingness to show up at these talks on Monday?

MR. ERELI: There have been consistent contacts among the various parties of the six-party talks on a return to the talks. As we said yesterday, it came up in discussions with the Vice Foreign Minister and the Deputy Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs.

As you know, the Assistant Secretary -- Assistant Secretary Hill was in Beijing a couple of weeks ago and met with officials there on this issue. So we've been talking to the different parties about returning to six-party talks. That's one area of activity. I wouldn't link it to this meeting in New York specifically. The meeting in New York, as I said before, was something that was an idea that's out on the table that we've been willing and available to pursue and that has materialized. But again, they're distinct.

QUESTION: Well, I know that, but --

MR. ERELI: You're asking, is the activity out of context. Yeah, all the time.

QUESTION: The North Koreans have made a big deal about these sanctions and there appears to have been a link between the imposition of the sanctions and --

MR. ERELI: They've made a link. We've clearly said there isn't one.

QUESTION: I know. I know, but they seem to have made a link between their willingness to go back to the talks and the imposition of the sanctions.

MR. ERELI: Right.

QUESTION: And so I'm trying to draw a link which you are not willing to do. Okay, I have no question. (Laughter.)

MR. ERELI: Thank you, George.
One and one. Gah!

QUESTION: Could you describe what the U.S. thinking was, you know, with regard to the visa that was first denied and then issued to this esteemed Indian scientist that's created a bit of a rhubarb, I guess?

MR. ERELI: Well, just to get the facts straight, Professor Goverdhan Mehta, a prominent and distinguished Indian scientist, applied for a visa and that visa is being issued. It was -- there never was a refusal of a visa. There was information that was needed to process the visa application that we did not receive. Because Professor Mehta is engaged in the sciences and in the kind of research that he -- a specific kind of research, U.S. law requires us, in order to be able to issue a visa, to get some information about his activities and the purposes of his visit and all that sort of stuff. That took some time. And pending the receipt of that information, we weren't in a position, by law, to issue the visa. Once we got the information, we issued the visa.

Yes.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Nick Burns in Delhi talking about (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Mr. Mehta clearly felt that his visa had been denied.

MR. ERELI: Well, it was not. There was never denial of a visa.

QUESTION: Well, if you -- if he's invited back to the consulate to get an answer and he's not given a visa, isn't that a denial of a visa?

MR. ERELI: No. It's -- he applied for a visa. We need this information. If we have the information, we can process the visa -- the request; if we don't have the information, we can't process it. So we've got it. We'll act on it when we get the information. A refusal is, you applied, we've looked at all the information, and we decided not to issue a visa, but that was never done.

QUESTION: But even in that case, you're allowed to reapply.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, sure. But in this case, there was no reapplication. There was an application. It was -- when we had all the information, the application was reviewed and the decision was made to issue the visa.

QUESTION: Well, what can you say about the perception in India, though, as David mentioned, that it seems to be quite a hot case there with other people who believe that he was initially denied?

MR. ERELI: That's why I think it's important to clarify the facts. The facts are: number one, there was never a denial; number two, there was an application, the application was reviewed, it was held up because we didn't get information we needed. Once we got that information, the visa was issued.

And I think it's also important to point out that that process, the requirement for information and the decision-making once that information is received, is based on U.S. law and it's not discretionary.

QUESTION: Adam, the Embassy issued some sort of a statement of regret, and I wonder what was the regret about?

MR. ERELI: Oh, I did not see the statement. I mean, obviously this is a prominent individual. We don't want to cause anybody inconvenience. We respect the dignity of all those who want to come to the United States and we try to treat people with that respect, regardless of who they are. But, obviously, in the case of a prominent citizen, it certainly is relevant.

So anyway, I think just to clarify it, look, this is a process that applies to everybody. We try to treat everybody fairly. We certainly think we did so in this case, frankly. And we look forward to him having a good trip to the United States. (Laughter.) Because the United States wants to be open and welcoming to all those who wish to come here and we've made every effort in this case to be open, to be welcoming and to deal with Professor Mehta in a respectful and cordial way.
UMPIRE: Two and two.
(Laughter.)
UMPIRE: (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: On Iraq, unless there's anything else.

The sectarian violence seems to be increasing in Iraq and the talks to form the new government seem to be collapsing. The U.S. has put a lot of its stock in a new government being formed and everything moving along nicely and then the gradual sort of withdrawal of U.S. troops, the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops. Where does this new upsurge in violence put U.S. policy in Iraq and what are you planning to do? How are you planning to turn the corner here and help the Iraqi people to move away from that?

MR. ERELI: Well, the fundamentals are the same, frankly. What are those fundamentals? A political process that's moving forward. And that continues to be the case. You've got record turnout in the elections in December. You've got negotiations. You've got the results that were declared final maybe ten days ago. You've got negotiations to form a government based on national unity.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR. ERELI: They've paused for a day. So what are you saying? That because they pause for a day or because they're not going today the way they were yesterday, that the whole system has collapsed? I mean, come on, let's not blow this out of proportion. It's not a straight line with the same amount of movement every single day. It is a path with twists and turns. We all know that and that's always been the case. So one should not conclude that because there is a pause one day that the whole political process is collapsing. That is just an exaggeration that is not substantiated by the facts.

The facts are that this is a broad-based constitutional dynamic that is going to move forward and that is going to have challenges and that is going to -- there are going to be deviations and, as I said, twists and turns. But it's going forward and I don't think that everything you've seen from the Iraqi leadership suggests that they are abandoning this process. That's point one on the political side.

Point two, on the security side, again, as I said yesterday, this bombing, the bombing of the Samarra mosques, is a reminder that there are those out there that are trying to derail the political process and sow sectarian strife in order to plunge Iraq into chaos and frustrate the democratic development of that country. They've been at it for a number of years. Although the bombing was unprecedented in its, I think, boldness and depravity because of the religious significance of the site, it was not new in its character, in a sense that you've got religious targets -- there have been religious targets that have been deliberately chosen in order to provoke the kind of chaos that would harm Iraqis.

And I think what you've seen is remarkable restraint, given the provocation of the bombing in the wake of this attack. You've seen it in, number one, statements by all of Iraq's political and religious leaders of all confessions saying this bombing was a crime and that even though all Iraqis are deeply offended by it, they should not practice violence and they should remain calm and they should work through the leaderships and the political process to address their grievances.

And number two, the reaction. Yes, there have been some incidents of violence.

QUESTION: A lot of incidents.

MR. ERELI: I would dispute that. There have been incidents of violence. There has not been the kind of widespread unrest that many people feared, and I think that is a result of the leadership, the vision, and the courage of Iraq's political and religious authorities.

And on the security side, I think you've seen a very vigorous response from Iraqi security forces: declaring a curfew, imposing the kind of limitations designed to -- restrictions designed to maintain calm. And this is an outgrowth of, I think, a longstanding policy on behalf of the Iraqis and the coalition to develop Iraqi capabilities, to develop Iraqi security forces so that they can be capable of dealing with situations like this that we know are going to happen.

So rather than see a collapse or a setback, I think in some ways, you can see an affirmation that the approach we've been taking has worked. You've got political leadership acting together on behalf of the common good and you've got security forces demonstrating a capability and a responsibility as a national entity that we've been working to develop and that has now been put to the test and I think is proving successful.

And finally, the third element of our policy which -- of our fundamental approach is the economic rebuilding of Iraq. That continues to move forward and this incident doesn't attenuate that in any respect.

QUESTION: The problem is that positive approach or positive statement you just made doesn't square very well -- obviously, we weren't there, we just read about it -- with what the Ambassador is saying. The Ambassador the other day spoke with great exasperation, almost threatening if they don't end the sectarian violence, maybe the United States can't -- the U.S. can't want, you know, a political outcome more than the Iraqi people themselves.

MR. ERELI: Yes, yes, yes.

QUESTION: Well, you think he's just the other side of the same coin?

MR. ERELI: No, I think that we're all saying the same thing.

QUESTION: You do?

MR. ERELI: Which is that the future of Iraq lies in national unity and which lies in a government and a leadership that puts national interests first, confessional or tribal interests second, and that if you have a government that -- whose loyalty is to one group or another group, then that doesn't serve the national interest.

And what we've seen in the response, I think, to this blatant attempt to exacerbate these sectarian differences is an affirmation of what Ambassador Khalilzad is saying and Ambassador -- and a validation of what all of us are saying, is that put your countrymen and the welfare of your countrymen first, not on the basis of whether they're Sunni or Shia, but rather on the basis of whether they are Iraqis and your fellow citizens and people who you have to live side by side with every day.

QUESTION: Adam, you said the economic rebuilding of Iraq was moving ahead well, but on the key indicators --

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- like electricity, water and oil, they're all below prewar levels.

MR. ERELI: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know that it's the capacity, as the Secretary pointed out --

MR. ERELI: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: The capacity for it to be better because you've improved, you know, electricity generating plants, et cetera. But on all those indicators, it's worse than before.

MR. ERELI: Yeah, and on other --

QUESTION: So how can you say that the economic sort of rebuilding is improving? Because it's really not.

MR. ERELI: Well, look, I'm not in a position to give you a full briefing on the economic picture in Iraq. Clearly, there are challenges and there remain challenges in terms of infrastructure and in terms of public services, and that is something that, frankly, we're working hard on and the Iraqis are working hard on and more needs to be done. There are a lot of other indicators that I think are very positive both in terms of, you know, new businesses starting, a stock market, entrepreneurship, private sector development.

So I can't give you a comprehensive picture of the economy, but what I can tell you -- and this is what I was trying -- the point I was trying to make earlier -- is that the fundamentals are there and you're -- and to those who would see in this bombing and the response a mortal challenge to the forward progress of Iraq, I would say you are not seeing the big picture and you're ignoring some very important positive indicators that come out of this terrible crime.
That's it for the big picture with an; "out!" But, be sure to check out the great 'Hammas'ing about in the first game, and Russian Iranians & the 'Free and not dead press' for today [The first is to express our condolences and sympathy for the families of Al Arabiyya reporter Atwar Bahjat and camera man Adnan Abdullah and their sound man Khalid Muhsen, who were savagely killed in Iraq yesterday. This is a tragedy and a crime. We condemn it absolutely and we praise these brave journalists as well as the many other journalists who have died in the line of duty in Iraq at the hands of terrorists. We should recognize their sacrifice, recognize their dedication and recognize their commitment and let -- not let this act deter us from all of our efforts on behalf of the Iraqi people. ] in the second, for more laughs. You'll need em, to stand the hollow irony of "...brave journalists as well as the many other journalists who have died in the line of duty in Iraq at the hands of terrorists..." from this administration. [insert stock photo of Mazen Dana]

OYAITJ:
99312 : Afghan Election, trigger happy tigresess, Abu-Grabass, the ghost of Seldes, etc.

TYAITJ:
63092 : Rolls, Shrub, The Vicar, and more.

Texttoon:
Fumetti : Stock photo of Patrick Fitzgerald walking. Composited ream of paper with the text 'W.H. Email' set on it. A speech bubble has him singing; "While though the tempest loudly roars/ I hear the truth, it liveth/ And though the darkness 'round me close/ Songs in the night it giveth/ No storm can shake my inmost calm/ While to that rock I'm clinging."