Oh, lighten up!

Late Night Political Jokes from the last week:

"Doctors in Israel are now slowly drawing Prime Minister Ariel Sharon out of his coma to see what his remaining brain function is. Political experts say it is unlikely someone could run a country with a severe loss of brain activity. I beg to differ." --Jay Leno
"Doctors say that Ariel Sharon is emerging from his coma and can move his hand. The first thing he did was give Pat Robertson the finger." --Jay Leno
"Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has regained some brain function. The bad news: Pat Robertson, still no brain function at all. You know about this -- last week Pat Robertson said Ariel Sharon had a stroke because God was punishing him for dividing Israel. You remember a couple of years ago Pat Robertson announced he had prostate cancer? You think God was punishing him for being a pain in the ass?" -- Jay Leno
"There was also the emotionally-charged saga of Mrs. Alito. I myself will never forget the sight of her crying as she listened to Sen. Lindsey Graham defend her husband from Democratic attacks on his character. It was a sign of how brutal and hard-hitting these hearings can be, especially for a woman who, due to a tragic laundry accident, was forced to show up wearing her grandmother's couch." --"Daily Show" correspondent Ed Helms
"Senators were shocked that Alito would belong to a group made up of exclusively white males, as opposed to the Senate, which is, of course, overwhelmingly husky white males. If your organization is all white and all male, make sure they're all fat." --Jon Stewart
"Have you been watching the Alito Supreme Court nomination hearings? The Democrats are upset, they're crazy, they're already accusing him of giving vague, contradictory answers. And Alito was on that, he shot back, 'Maybe, maybe not.'" --David Letterman
"Supreme Court confirmation hearings are under way for Judge Samuel Alito. It's pretty interesting. Democrats want to know his position on privacy, while Republicans want to know his position on prison terms for bribery." --Jay Leno
"This week, New Jersey voted to temporarily suspend the death penalty. Lawmakers say it sends a strong message to death row inmates: If we can't leave New Jersey, neither can you." --Conan O'Brien
"Last Thursday, the president tried to counter the growing criticism of his Iraq policy by gathering together 13 former secretaries of defense and state, a regular who's who of who's blown up what. ... Also on the guest list, Robert McNamara, defense secretary during the Vietnam era. The White House invited him to ensure that at least someone in the room had fu*ked up more than they have." --Jon Stewart
"Indicted Congressman Tom DeLay announced that he will not run for re-election as House Majority Leader but that he will run for re-election to Congress. So apparently he thinks he's too corrupt to be a leader, but not too corrupt to be just an ordinary congressman." --Jay Leno
"In Washington, the Justice Department was evacuated because of a suspicious package. It was okay, it just turned out to be a bag of cash dropped off by Jack Abramoff." --David Letterman
"So what? A lobbyist cheated Indian tribes out of $25 million then laundered their money through phony Christian charities trying to stop other Indian tribes from getting casinos [on screen: 'Thou Shalt Not Compete'] and bribe congressmen in the process. Know what I call that? I call that business as usual in Washington. [on screen: 'Screwing Indians']" --Stephen Colbert

And how could we end without another great Non Sequitur:


Reminds me of many of the scintillating conversations that go on in our house every day!

Dyn-o-mite

I haven't read Paper Dynamite Online before but found this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It expresses my sentiments exactly, so therefore I do believe it is brilliant!
PD criticizes the Globe and Mail for its lukewarm Harper endorsement this morning -- he says they are letting a self-indulgent preference for Harper's style overwhelm their objective judgement about what is really the best for the country. What he says applies to all of us, I think:

I, like many Liberals and Canadians in general, have been disappointed with the Liberal campaign. But beyond the chaotic messaging and themeless Liberal campaign, there does exist rational arguments for voting Liberal.
The three great challenges that will confront Canadians in the next five to ten years are; 1) the innovation economy and globalization, 2) the environment and 3) increasing pressures on the health care system from aging Baby Boomers. The Conservatives are ideologically ill equiped to meet these challenges which will require more government involvement in key areas like research and development, higher education as well as a strong commitment to Kyoto. Furthermore, the impending strain on the health care system means that the Federal government must remain on the path of fiscal prudence. On the other hand, Harper has said during this campaign that 'all taxes are bad' and he believes surpluses indicate Canadians are over taxed. That's exactly what George Bush said to justify his reckless tax cuts which have led to ballooning deficits in the States.
Over the past 12 years the Liberal government has taken Canada from the verge of becoming Argentina North to the most fiscally sound economy in the industrialized world. Recently they've outlined policies on innovation, education, and the environment that will serve Canadians well as we strive to meet the complex challenges awaiting us. And they've done so within the context of a meta-promise not to go back into deficit.
Anger, frustration and disillusionment are powerful psychological forces. We can indulge them or we can try to think clearly and rationally.

Absolutely correct, I think. Now, as my reader knows, I like Paul Martin -- not his style necessarily, but his substance. Overall, I think the Liberals have the right ideas for Canada.
I didn't always think this -- I disliked Trudeau's liberals and I rather liked Mulroney (yes, GST and NAFTA and all). I came around to the Liberals in the mid-90s -- though I must admit I never did like Chretien (who began his Prime Ministership with lies about abolishing the GST, and ended it with lies about the sponsorship scandal). As I have grown older, I have come to see the value of many of the Liberal ideas. Their policies, I think, have been good for the country.
And their courage on social issues is outstanding.
An ordinary government -- a cowardly one -- would have taken the easy way and just left gay marriage to be permitted province by province as the courts decided it. But Paul Martin not only brought the issue back to Parliament, but he led the way in getting MPs and Canadians to accept gay marriage by framing it as a civil rights issie.
It is an example of true and courageous political leadership -- for which Martin hasn't been given nearly the credit he deserves.

The woman beside the throne?

CP Photo Ryan Remiorz
If Stephen Harper becomes Prime Minister, just how influential would Laureen Teskey Harper be in Canadian politics?
Today's CP story includes reference to a possible Conservative cabinet. But, it says, Harper "hasn't even started discussing cabinet jobs with Tory candidates. 'I have not sat down and had a discussion with anybody on that subject yet,' he said. 'I haven't even discussed it with my wife yet.'"
So the woman that the Globe and Mail described as "a party girl who likes to laugh . . . opinionated and not afraid to speak her mind -- just not to reporters" will be advising Harper on who should be in Cabinet?
This London Free Press article tells us more. First, a bizarre factoid leads us to suspect that he and Georgie will have even more in common than we already thought: "Strategists say that thanks to Harper's wife's influence, the Tory leader is much more comfortable working closely with women in his caucus than he is with the men."
But don't worry, Canada, as well as Laureen, there will be some old party hacks hands coming back to help our boy out. "Harper is expected to look to Tory Senator Hugh Segal and former prime minister Brian Mulroney to help him draft his front-line team."

Its everywhere

Now here's a series of photos I can support. The Freewayblogger is posting photos of "impeach" signs from across the United States. Well, its a lot more encouraging than those photos on Rush Limbaugh's website of people wearing his Gitmo gear.
And Freeway also has a funny post up showing the 'mass graves' of War on Christmas . . .

Great line of the day

In a great post about The Calgary School - The Voices In Harper's Head, the Galloping Beaver describes the gang booking their flights to Ottawa a week Tuesday: "Should Harper actually win the election on the 23rd, you can be assured that writers of policy, the advisors in the Prime Minister's Office and the framers of legislation will be a group of racist, homophobic, anti-feminist bigots; those we now know as The Calgary School."
Oh, we're in trouble now, Mabel . . .

The Jesus Industry

Now, here's an interesting writer -- Joe Bagent. Apparently he grew up in an American religious fundamentalist household and now he writes lengthy but excellent essays about how the fundies are dominating American politics. Here's an excerpt from Joe's essay on What the 'Left Behind' Series Really Means

Just as the propaganda value of associating Jewish people with rats in Nazi Germany helped the German populace accept persecution of the Jews, the Left Behind books foster a morality that excuses horrors done to "non-believers." Forget about sanity and reason. Christian fundamentalist media promotes a hermetic worldview cut off from reason. From the standpoint of those who consume such media messages, it is not so much propaganda as it is an abundant offering so complete as to be a parallel bizzaro world of its own. It gives answers to questions not even asked.
It is a world in which the Secretary General of the United Nations is the anti-Christ (Left Behind) and the "Clinton Crime Family" deals in cocaine and is linked to the Gambino family (Joshua Project, and other sources.) It is one in which abortion doctors are microwaving and eating fetuses according to testimony given by anti-abortionists before a Kansas House subcommittee (WorldNetDaily, of course) and where crowds of good folks get teary-eyed as Rev. Pat Evans, of the NASCAR "Racing for Jesus Ministries’ rumbles onto the track. . . . cultural documents such as Left Behind or the movies Revelations and Passion of the Christ do great harm, and at a critical time when we are facing economic upheaval, fighting illegal wars and suffering deep religious antipathies across the planet. "Aw," my liberal New York and West Coast friends tell me, "That is overstating the case. The Democrats will eventually be back in power." We cannot afford to wait a few more years and see. No matter if the Dems actually can be elected back into powerlessness, they will have needed at least some of these people’s votes to get there. Next election we will find out if it is possible to be elected without the fundamentalist Christians . . . .

Maybe we're seeing this here already.
One of the (many) things that bothers me about Elsie Wayne's Vote Marriage Canada group which is trying to outlaw gay marriage, is the links on their website to right-wing Christian evangelicals and wingnut anti-gay theology
And here's a CTV update on the gay marriage war:

. . . a video from February, 2005, that shows Rondo Thomas, the Conservative candidate for Ajax-Pickering, speaking at a "Defend Marriage," rally outside the office of incumbent Liberal Judy Sgro. During his speech Thomas is unapologetic about his anti same-sex marriage stance, using war-time jargon and talking about "engaging the enemy and going to battle," on the issue of same-sex marriage. "We're looking for your financial support as well as your physical support and your presence at the time the election is called to defeat members of Parliament who will vote for this bill," Thomas said. "And they need to know we are committed to this war, to win it, and we're going to win it for righteousness and morality in our society." Then in a brief interview he explains further. "We cannot change the definition of marriage. The definition of marriage has been in place since Adam and Eve. That's about 6,000 years for those who might not be aware," Thomas said. . . In Saskatchewan, Vote Marriage Canada . . . has endorsed four incumbent Conservative candidates . . . Lynne Yelich, running in Blackstrap riding, Brad Trost in Saskatoon-Humboldt, Carol Skelton in Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, and Maurice Vellacott in Saskatoon-Wanuskewin . . .

Mulligans

Does Harper want to backdate us to 1993, so we can declare mulligans on ALL the battles of the last 12 years, and do everything over? Is this what Canadians actually want? So now its not only outlawing same sex marriage and abandoning the daycare plan and reinstating taxes, but now it is also joining the US missile defense, and abandoning Kyoto, and dumping the Kelowna accord:

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper is saying 'No' to Kyoto, 'Maybe' to missile defence, and 'Sort of' to aboriginals . . . Harper signalled Thursday that he would turn his back on the Kyoto climate-change accord and renegotiate a recent $5-billion federal-provincial deal with natives. And he left the door open to joining the controversial U.S. missile defence system, while promising to hold a free vote in Parliament before signing on.

So what else will he want to declare a do-over? Even though he says now that he wouldn't do it, will we someday find ourselves "shoulder to shoulder" helping the Americans lose their war in Iraq?

Gonzo Alert

Gonzo journalism is when a reporter takes a cheap shot, trying to make a big hairy deal about something stupid.
The last campaign's gonzo story was the journalists bus breaking down after the Normandy commemoration ceremonies in France.
And here is this campaign's gonzo story: Jack Layton had hernia surgery at private clinic. Well, so what? Yes, he should have remembered and mentioned it, but it was a decade ago, long before he was NDP leader.
Doesn't count, guys, sorry.

The Tory Cabinet, according to Mercer

Rick Mercer has some Cabinet suggestions for Stephen Harper, using their own words to demonstrate how profoundly inept and embarassing these CPC caucus members would be in government. You want accountability? Well then, folks, account for all these offensive, meanspirited and untrue statements:

Stockwell Day Minister of Foreign Affairs . . . When he was questioned as to why his party did not offer condolences to the Palestinians when Yasser Arafat died Stock responded by sending out a column by David Frum that speculated that Yasser died of AIDS. With Stock representing Canada on the world stage can Peace in the Middle East be far away?
Jason Kenney Minister of Health . . . "I do support the idea of private health care." - Jason Kenney, Conservative Party critic on Canada-U.S. Relations, October 31st 2000.
Rob Anders Minister of State (Multiculturalism) . . . "Nelson Mandela is a terrorist. '- Rob Anders "Rob is a true reformer and a true conservative. He has been a faithful supporter of mine and I am grateful for his work."- Stephen Harper endorsing . . . Anders
Vic Toews Minister of Justice Vic is the current Justice Critic and he takes the bull by the horns. He believes the notwithstanding clause should be used to override minority rights. He calls it the "ultimate tool" and so it is. The notwithstanding clause can be used to take away the rights of gay people to marry each other or the rights of the Chinese to drive. If you’re white and straight the chance of this being used against you are slim to none. This is for uppity minorities only . . .
Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Art Hanger “Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read.”- Conservative MP Art Hanger
Myron Thompson Minister of State (Youth Justice) “Let's lower the age to ten.” - Conservative MP Myron Thompson, commenting on the age at which he believes one should be tried as an adult, at a Vernon, BC meeting.
David Sweet Minister responsible for the Status of Women “There's a particular reason why Jesus called men only. It's not that women aren't co-participators. It's because Jesus knew women would naturally follow. Men, on the other hand, had to be called.” - Conservative Candidate David Sweet former President & CEO of Promise Keepers Canada
Brian Fitzpatrick Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development “You can’t scalp me because I haven’t got much hair on top of my head.” -Conservative Candidate Brian Fitzpatrick
Darrel Reid Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board "I think every Christian's under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values. Different Christians are going to try to change different laws, according to the call God gives them. You see Christians in all political parties. That reflects different understandings of what God's call is to us. That's a healthy thing. If the yeast congregates in one part of the loaf, it makes for pretty bad bread." -Conservative Candidate Darrel Reid former president of Focus on The Family Canada
Cheryl Gallant Women’s Caucus Chair “We saw that young American having his head cut off. What's happening, what is happening down there no different.” - Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke) at a 2004 pro-life rally on Parliament Hill, comparing abortion to the beheading of American Nicolas Berg by insurgents in Iraq

Does this collection of right-wing idiots actually represent Canadian values? I would hate to think so.
UPDATE: Oops, sorry -- forgot to credit Paperboy, in the comments, for this link.

Better beware those Quakers!

So I finish my previous post and then I see this story, which exactly illustrates the increasing US hostility toward civil liberties.
Raw Story has an explosive scoop about how the National Secutiry Agency mounted a massive spy op on a Baltimore peace group Here's some of what they did:

. . . According to an NSA email dated July 4, 2004, the agency collected license numbers and descriptions and the number of people in each car and filed a report about them gathering in a church parking lot for the demonstration. NSA agents also logged their travel to the demonstration, including stopping as a gas station along the way. A canine dog unit was used to search a minivan when it was stopped on the way to the demonstration - nothing was found. NSA officials even reported on the balloons being inflated for the demonstration and the content of their signs . . . Extensive plans are described for the day of the Oct. 4, 2004 demonstration . . . NSA planned to have their Weapons of Mass Destruction Rapid Response Team on site, an officer with a shotgun, an increase in the number of officers, mobile units monitoring the highway and parking lot, roving patrols on bicycles in various areas, four K9 handlers, agents to provide counter-surveillance, aerial observations by the . .. police and photography/video surveillance of the activities. "The NSA Weapons of Mass Destruction Rapid Response Team will have a limited staffing on hand to support the event," Talbert's memo reads. "...County Police will be requested to provide aerial observations" . . . Allwine also discussed how the Pledge has been infiltrated. She described a March 20, 2003 demonstration in downtown Baltimore where "a provocateur (whom we had identified at our planning meeting the previous night) joined us. We'd never seen him before. . . during the die-in at the federal courthouse, he was taunting the police in a violent manner. We had to quiet him down, he then disappeared and we never saw him again - and, of course, he wasn't arrested with the other 49 of us." The monitoring is ongoing. Allwine says that at demonstrations the police "have had cookies and drinks set up for us (we don't partake!) and tell us they knew we were coming."

And all this organization and effort is for just one little group. Imagine how many thousands of law-enforcement hours are being spend doing this across the US.

Writing on the walls

Several bloggers, and commenters on this blog, aren't happy with Martin's promise to amend the constitution. Basically, their argument seems to be that the constitution was approved with the notwithstanding clause, perhaps even because of the notwithstanding clause, so it is just not right to change it.
But I believe times have changed.
Thanks to 9/11 and George Bush, rights and freedoms are much more at risk now from politicians than they were 30 years ago. When that clause was passed, it was believed that politicians would not abuse it. They wouldn't dare -- we thought then that any politician who tried to use the clause to roll back a minority's civil rights would be thrown out of office by an enraged electorate. But not anymore.
The writing is on the wall. The increasingly fascist society just south of us is promoting a hostile attitude toward civil rights of all kinds -- we see their 'enemy combatants', and Guantanamo, and wiretapping without warrants, and finding excuses for torture, and demonizing gay people through their anti-gay marriage amendments, and 'intelligent design' and targetting judges and university professors and 'liberals'. With at least three more years of the Bush administration, the attack on civil rights will be even worse than it is now.
Martin reads the writing on the wall, too.
These US attitudes are spreading across the border. The people who are against gay marriage in Canada are prejudiced fanatics who are inspired by people in the US like James Dobson and Pat Robertson to keep on fighting. And they're not even ashamed of it! These aren't people who wear sheets -- they are proud of their determination to legalize prejudice against gay people.
If the notwithstanding clause is available to people like this, they just might be successful someday in using it.
I know the notwithstanding clause was brought in because people didn't quite trust the Canadian Supreme Court not to be too radical.
But if I have to chose between trusting my civil rights to the Supreme Court or to Elsie Wayne and Stephen Harper, I'll chose the Court, thank you very much.

Swiftboating Martin

I checked out the Liberals attack ads at the Liberal website and they are pretty strong. But its worth making one point -- the Liberal ads attack political decisions that Harper has made since he became active in federal politics. As such, they raise legitimate questions about his political judgement and his political beliefs.
The Conservatives, on the other hand, are attacking Martin on personal grounds, for what his shipping company may or may not have done years ago.
So while the Liberals are doing political attacks, the Conservatives are doing personal attacks. I think there is a difference. The Swiftboat Veterans for Truth attacked John Kerry's character and personal integrity with lies and manufactured accusations -- is this a tactic the Conservatives here think is appropriate to use in Canadian politics? Rove of the North strikes again!
And by the way, Stephen, who DID you get money from for your leadership campaign?

I think Martin did it

It was a brilliant move, both strategic and meaningful.
Martin grabbed the headlines from tonight's debate by his announcement that he wanted to dump the "notwithstanding" clause. Here's the CBC headline:Martin says he would ban notwithstanding clause
And here's the CTV headline: Martin vows to end federal notwithstanding clause
And Canadian Press: Martin targets Harper in debate, vows to end federal notwithstanding clause.
Not only did he get the headlines, but he got them with an issue that truly represents the basic difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
Lets review: the most offensive thing Harper is doing in this campaign is playing politics with Canadian rights -- and sneering at Canadian gays -- by encouraging the wingnuts in his party to think they can repeal same-sex marriage. And he keeps lying to Canadians by saying that he wouldn't implement a repeal by using the notwithstanding clause, when in reality this is the ONLY say such a repeal could be done.
So for Martin, its the perfect issue for the last two weeks of the campaign. Ending the notwithstanding clause demonstrates to Canadians that Martin is totally serious about making sure our rights are protected -- while reminding people just how far apart he and Harper are on basic values.
As for the rest of the debate, I thought Martin generally did better than I expected. Harper did pretty well, too, though he lost it a couple of times. Duceppe had a complete meltdown -- about a third of the time, I couldn't understand what he was talking about when he was babbling about long-forgotten incidents or insults. Layton was overall good, too, though he got pretty preachy by the end.
And I liked the format -- it was spirited but controlled, no one was yelling or out-shouting the other, and I think just about everybody got their chance to state their case and reply to the other one's points. I thought the moderator did a very good job -- his questions didn't pull any punches and yet were asked in a respectful tone.
And sometimes, often for several tantilizing minutes in a row, we saw rational discouse break out -- four intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgeable men engaging in a vigorous discussion about the future of the country. Only in Canada, you say? Pity!

No sunshine

Gad -- what terrible news: Conservatives surge ahead of Liberals in new poll
Well, I suppose it is worth noting that this is a tracking poll -- according to what I read during the American election, tracking polls can indicate direction but daily polls shouldn't necessarily be relied on for absolute numbers. Therefore it may not turn out to be true that the Conservatives are actually that much more popular than the Liberals. But certainly the trend is Conservatives up, Liberals and NDP down.
Damn!
I think people don't anticipate how bad the Conservatives will be.
And I guess people don't appreciate how good the Liberals have been. We not only have balanced budgets, we have social programs and development programs which are the envy of the world. We have a multicultural, multilingual, multiethnic society which cares for people. Today's Conservatives neither appreciate nor support the kind of Canada which the Liberals have created, and that I love.

Ain't no sunshine when she's gone.
Only darkness every day.
Ain't no sunshine when she's gone and this house just ain't no home. Anytime she goes away.

No limits

I saw this Guardian story this morning about the Guantanamo prisoners being force fed in Iraq, and it was so appalling I couldn't write about it.

New details have emerged of how the growing number of prisoners on hunger strike at Guantánamo Bay are being tied down and force-fed through tubes pushed down their nasal passages into their stomachs to keep them alive.
They routinely experience bleeding and nausea, according to a sworn statement by the camp's chief doctor, seen by The Observer . . . It is painful, [Dr.] Edmonson admits. Although 'non-narcotic pain relievers such as ibuprofen are usually sufficient, sometimes stronger drugs,' including opiates such as morphine, have had to be administered. Thick, 4.8mm diameter tubes tried previously to allow quicker feeding, so permitting guards to keep prisoners in their cells for more hours each day, have been abandoned, the affidavit says. The new 3mm tubes are 'soft and flexible' . . . a Guantánamo spokesman confirmed that the number of hunger strikers has almost doubled since Christmas, to 81 of the 550 detainees . . . Although some prisoners have had to be tied down while being force-fed, 'only one patient' has had to be immobilised with a six-point restraint, and 'only one' passed out. 'In less than 10 cases have trained medical personnel had to use four-point restraint in order to achieve insertion.' Edmondson claims the actual feeding is voluntary. During Ramadan, tube-feeding takes place before dawn. . . .
Article 5 of the 1975 World Medical Association Tokyo Declaration, which US doctors are legally bound to observe through their membership of the American Medical Association, states that doctors must not undertake force-feeding under any circumstances. Dr David Nicholl, a consultant neurologist at Queen Elizabeth's hospital in Birmingham, is co-ordinating opposition to the Guantánamo doctors' actions from the international medical community. 'If I were to do what Edmondson describes in his statement, I would be referred to the General Medical Council and charged with assault,' he said.

Now I have two points to make.
First, there is the aspect which Digby points out in his post called Sickness:

Someday, US Army grunts and innocent Americans with no operational information are going to be held captive by another country and that country is going to use the same rationale for imprisoning and tormenting them indefinitely. And the people who do it will eventually go to the ninth circle of hell and join George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as they scream into the void for eternity about how they had to become sadistic monsters in order to prove they weren't afraid.

Second, there is this story. Robert X. Cringely wrote this just after Bush got reelected in 2004:

If the experts are correct, the 2004 election results mean we now live in a country where morality is apparently the major concern of people. Am I wrong, or is the same thing not true in Iran? And if our morality is in fundamental conflict with their morality, which side will be willing to sacrifice more to obtain what they view as their just end? I can tell you it ain't us.
Back in 1986 I talked Penthouse magazine into giving me an assignment to write the story: "How to Get a Date in Revolutionary Iran." The premise was that hormones are hormones, and those wacky kids in Tehran, most of whom could still remember the Shah, had to be finding some way to meet members of the opposite sex. So I headed off to Iran to find out the truth. If you are interested in such stuff, the only time a single man and woman not from the same family could be together in private back then was in a taxi (he being the driver), so all the teenage boys who had or could borrow cars turned them into taxis. This, of course, put all the power in the hands of the woman since she could see him but he had to take pot luck.
I eventually finished the piece and decided to go see the war since I had been in Beirut and Angola, but had never seen trench warfare, which is what I was told they had going in Iran. So I took a taxi to the front, introduced myself to the local commander, who had gone, as I recall, to Iowa State, and spent a couple days waiting for the impending human wave attack. That attack was to be conducted primarily with 11-and 12-year-old boys as troops, nearly all of them unarmed. There were several thousand kids and their job was to rise out of the trench, praising Allah, run across No Man's Land, be killed by the Iraqi machine gunners, then go directly to Paradise, do not pass GO, do not collect 200 dinars. And that's exactly what happened in a battle lasting less than 10 minutes. None of the kids fired a shot or made it all the way to the other side. And when I asked the purpose of this exercise, I was told it was to demoralize the cowardly Iraqi soldiers.
It was the most horrific event I have ever seen, and I once covered a cholera epidemic in Bangladesh that killed 40,000 people.
Waiting those two nights for the attack was surreal. Some kids acted as though nothing was wrong while others cried and puked. But when the time came to praise Allah and enter Paradise, not a single boy tried to stay behind.
Now put this in a current context. What effective limit is there to the number of Islamic kids willing to blow themselves to bits? There is no limit, which means that a Bush Doctrine can't really stand in that part of the world. But of course President Bush, who may think he pulled the switch on a couple hundred Death Row inmates in Texas, has probably never seen a combat death. He doesn't get it and he'll proudly NEVER get it.
Welcome to the New Morality.

And America thinks they will eventually break the will of these hunger-striking Guantanamo inmates by forcing tubes down their throats? I think the inmates are now in charge of the assylum.