![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92){kind=small}
Last week the Lab put out a new blog in which they announced updates to their policies on TPVs, and apparently the usual "ZOMG, it's the end of SL" dog was taken out and its tail wagged by all the usual suspects. Every time the Lab makes a change to something -- such as gambling, ageplay, having orgies on "mature" land, etc -- out comes the blogsphere to talk about how "this time it's really the end of SL!"
This doesn't seem to be any different. And while there is some reasonable criticism that can be levied at LL for some of their thinking, it's really not going to affect most of us. First let's look at the changes from the LL blog:
Here are the new sections of the policy:
2.a.iii : You must not provide any feature that circumvents any privacy protection option made available through a Linden Lab viewer or any Second Life service.
2.i : You must not display any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of any other Second Life user.
2.j : You must not include any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of the user in any messages sent to other viewers, except when explicitly elected by the user of your viewer.
2.k : You must not provide any feature that alters the shared experience of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab viewer.
Looking at 2.a.iii, no issues there. I doubt many people are going to complain that the Lab is trying to protect privacy of people. You can set your privacy so that only friends can see you online, and even then just set it so certain friends can't see you. This will prevent scripts, written by others, that cause prims to "light up" if the user is on to be functional any longer. Also affected are hud devices and other scripts that will tell you if so-and-so is really online by using presence functions in LSL, unless the person him/herself makes the device or writes the script.These are pretty common at sexclubs and such places where you can find a huge wall of prostitutes and if they are online or not. Ok, now they just have to create the prim themselves and place it somewhere. And a possible client could always just IM the prostitute in question, I'd suppose.
I do hate it when a so called "friend" sets their viewer so that I can't see if they are online. Firestorm used to have the functionality to see if someone had blocked you from seeing them, but that seems to be gone now. I would always remove people, with a couple exceptions that don't need to be mentioned, that did that. That's gone by the wayside as well.
2.i and 2.j are also very sensible. This will break the ability of viewers, such as Firestorm, to display what kind of viewer a person is doing, along with color coding viewers. I never really got why we needed that info anyway, and while I'm sure some people are pissing in a bucket about not knowing what kind of viewers people are using, I doubt many will care.
2.k is the one that is causing the highest level of apoplectic fits. This essentially says that interesting things which change the viewing of the world, made by creators of TPVs, have to be placed first in the official, LL viewer before they can be put in TPVs. In other words, if I'm working on Vanni Viewer, and come up with something cool, I have to first let LL see it, decide if it's ok or not, and then IF they put it in the SL Viewer I can put it in my viewer.
Apparently, most current content like RLV are being grandfathered in, and do not have to come first via the SL Viewer. But it does seem that anything new will have to be vetted by LL first. This is what's flipping people out, talking about the sky falling, etc.
As usual, both the "this is the greatest idea ever!" crowd and the "the end of SL!" crowd are way off base. The truth is somewhere in the middle. One of the biggest problems for LL was ever making the code for the SL viewer Open Source. Now, before you Open Source folks grab the gasoline and the the stake, let me explain.
SL is not "Second Lives" but "Second Life." It's supposed to be a shared world with content put together by residents in tandem with the Lab. It's NOT supposed to be a mish mash of whatever you want to do, make, or cause anyone else to see. So when ten different coders make ten different viewers that do ten different things, and they work only within the confines of that viewer, it causes problems.
For example, at the Viewer Developer's Meeting (available online), Oz Linden pointed out how the old Emerald viewer had an older form of double attachments (hand2, left arm2, etc) that allowed multiple things to be placed on a point. While that worked great for Emerald users, anyone else would just see a avi with a collection of second-attachment items strapped to their butt. This is the kind of thing they are trying to prevent.
People have to understand that SL and LL are business models, and they want to be sure their product is cohesive to everyone using it. That means, logically, that all viewers must show the same world. They aren't concerned with HOW things are done on the client side, they are concerned with how things will look to residents using different viewers. LL wants uniformity in world presentation, and I don't see why that's a bad thing.
Quite honestly, I've always been at a bit of a loss as to why LL ever put the viewer code out as Open Source. While cool things have certainly been made, what it did do as an unintended consequence is open this potential can of worms they're trying to control. Now they're trying to reverse engineer the consequences of what was probably a mistake from the get-go.
Of course, it's nowhere near as bad as the naysayers seem to make it. Quite honestly, since most of the non-privacy items are simply being accepted in with grandfathered status, the actual change to the world for the vast majority of residents will be zero. And there has to be some flow control here. LL has actually become more responsive to fixing things in the last year, and seems to be intent on actually making SL work.
But all that said, if I were a TPV developer, and I had to wait til they put my idea in their viewer before I could release it, I'm not sure I'd be bothered to even try anymore. In the final analysis, TPV coders are being asked to work gratis if they come up with ideas that change how the world looks. While I do understand why LL is doing this, it does seem to have the consequence, intended or not, of killing off the desire to work on TPVs, since not only do things have to be OKed by the Lab, but used in their viewer first.
SL continues to be a frontier that is being slowly brought to order. Sometimes its good, sometimes its bad. We'll see where this latest decision leads.
--V
- Location:Home
- Mood:
pensive
It's time to acknowledge the foreign policy disaster that American support for the Porfirio Lobo administration in Honduras has become. Ever since the June 28, 2009, coup that deposed Honduras’s democratically elected president, José Manuel Zelaya, the country has been descending deeper into a human rights and security abyss. That abyss is in good part the State Department’s making.
The headlines have been full of horror stories about Honduras. According to the United Nations, it now has the world’s highest murder rate, and San Pedro Sula, its second city, is more dangerous than Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, a center for drug cartel violence. Much of the press in the United States has attributed this violence solely to drug trafficking and gangs. But the coup was what threw open the doors to a huge increase in drug trafficking and violence, and it unleashed a continuing wave of state-sponsored repression.
The current government of President Lobo won power in a November 2009 election managed by the same figures who had initiated the coup. Most opposition candidates withdrew in protest, and all major international observers boycotted the election, except for the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute, which are financed by the United States.
President Obama quickly recognized Mr. Lobo’s victory, even when most of Latin America would not. Mr. Lobo’s government is, in fact, a child of the coup. It retains most of the military figures who perpetrated the coup, and no one has gone to jail for starting it.
This chain of events — a coup that the United States didn’t stop, a fraudulent election that it accepted — has now allowed corruption to mushroom. The judicial system hardly functions. Impunity reigns. At least 34 members of the opposition have disappeared or been killed, and more than 300 people have been killed by state security forces since the coup, according to the leading human rights organization Cofadeh. At least 13 journalists have been killed since Mr. Lobo took office, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
State-sponsored repression continues. According to Cofadeh, at least 43 campesino activists participating in land struggles in the Aguán Valley have been killed in the past two and a half years at the hands of the police, the military and the private security army of Miguel Facussé. Mr. Facussé is mentioned in United States Embassy cables made public by WikiLeaks as the richest man in the country, a big supporter of the post-coup regime and owner of land used to transfer cocaine.
Wow, sounds like Libya before our glorious intervention there to "free" the nation (cough cough sputter). The question, as always, is: why is the "freedom loving" United States supporting a human rights monster government yet again? Dana Frank gives us that answer in another piece she wrote for The Nation:
In the past two years since the coup US funding for the Honduran military and police has escalated dramatically. The US has allocated $45 million in new funds for military construction, including expansion and improvement of the jointly operated Soto Cano Air Force Base at Palmerola (supplied now with US drones) and has opened three new military bases. Police and military funding, almost $10 million for 2011, rose dramatically in June with $40 million more under the new $200 million Central American Regional Security Initiative, supposedly to combat drug trafficking in Central America—which is, indeed, rampant, dangerous and growing in Honduras under Lobo’s post-coup government, especially in the Aguán.
Ahhh, of course! We have to keep the world safe! Ergo, we need to create military bases there to assist in this "global safekeeping." The fact that the people we're supposed to be "protecting" are being butchered by their government seems to suggest that might not be working so well. What happened to Responsiblity to Protect, the very notion invoked in the Libya intervention? What's being "kept safe" are Ameircan political and military interests, NOT people. As long as our hegemonic policies are being carried out, to hell with the suffering masses in these nations.
Once again, the sad fact of American foreign policy is played out. If a human rights abusing government does what it's told to do -- in this case, let us use your land for our military bases -- you not only get to commit all the abuses you wish on your people, you get paid to do it. Further, the US Government will look the other way while you commit an endless array of crimes and smuggle cocaine out of your country. And of course, as any sensible government understands, it's better to be paid than invaded, so of course the Lobo government in Honduras is going to take cash rather than drones coming their way.
So whatever else Santorum might think about Obama's foreign policy in Latin America, he's dead wrong about the basics. Rather than supporting leftist nations, he's busy cozying up to brutal dictators in the grand old tradition of American policy in the region.
- Mood:
aggravated
Several detainees in Libya have died after being tortured in recent weeks, the human rights group Amnesty International said Thursday.
The humanitarian aid group Doctors Without Borders said it was halting its work in detention centers in the city of Misrata because detainees are "tortured and denied urgent medical care." The agency, known by its French acronym MSF, said it has treated 115 people with torture-related wounds from interrogation sessions.
Amnesty, in a statement, described "widespread torture and ill-treatment of suspected pro-Gadhafi fighters and loyalists," a reference to those who fought for the regime of leader Moammar Gadhafi until his ouster and death.
"Amnesty International delegates in Libya have met detainees being held in and around Tripoli, Misrata and Gharyan, who showed visible marks indicating torture inflicted in recent days and weeks. Their injuries included open wounds on the head, limbs, back and other parts of the body.
This is hardly the first accusation of torture toward the National Transitional Council since the "liberation" of Libya. Back in Ocober 2011, the United Nations also reported torture:
Hanny Megally, head of the U.N. human rights office's Asia, Pacific, Middle East and North Africa branch, led the mission to Libya. They met ministers of the National Transitional Council, as well as activists and lawyers, and visited some prisons but did not speak with inmates.
"...We actually believe that the situation in the prisons is that there is ill-treatment, there are allegations and evidence of torture. Yes, I can say that," Rishmawi said.
This went hand in hand with the plight of black Africans in Libya at the hands of the NTC throughout 2011:
By some estimates, more than 5,000 black migrants have been detained in makeshift jails around the country, and others have faced beatings, revenge killings, and even mass execution. Mercenary fighters found armed have been summarily executed, according to reports. Most detainees maintain that they were not involved in fighting and are simply migrant workers detained without evidence. Black women in refugee camps reported night-time kidnappings and rapes by fighters though to be associated with the NTC. Officials with the National Transitional Council deny such reports.
I guess my question is: if people continue to be rounded up, systematically tortured, and even executed for political crimes, what has changed? Oh I know! Now that oil production is back to more than half of what it was pre-war, we love the TNC! What are a few piddling crimes against humanity when we have lots of black crude coming out of the ground, and the TNC is a much more reliable group of thugs?
This just shows the usual Western response in general, and US view in particular, toward barbaric governments: as long as you do what you're told to do, and get that black stuff out of the ground fast!, you get to do whatever you want to your people. So what if torture and lawlessness are on the upswing? Keep those rowdy folks in check, they're causing my gas prices to go up.
Meanwhile, over in our other glorious success, Iraq, we see much of the same. Reporters without Borders just released their report of press freedoms around the world, and Iraq came in at #152 out of 179 rated nations around the globe. Libya, by the way, went up to #154 last year, tied with the freedom loving nation of Kazakhstan (a nation where The Road Warrior is watched as reality TV). Hey, at least they're more free than China, which holds fast at #174!
Oh and our good ally Bahrain, where according to this report we find "relentless crackdown on pro-democracy movements...trials of human rights defenders and...suppression of all space for freedom," went down to #173. And what is the US response to the human rights catastrophe there? Not much more than a few muted "let's try to control ourselves here." After all, Bahrain is the headquartrers of the US Fifth Fleet, so what are a few massacres and total surpression of freedom there when we have a world to keep safe? Pfft.
Back in Iraq, we see the signs of freedom all over:
Iraqi authorities had suppressed freedom of expression and assembly, beaten and detained anti-government protesters and run a secret prison where suspects are tortured. The report was issued a month after the last U.S. troops left Iraq nearly nine years after the invasion that ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein and allowed the country's Shi'ite majority to rise to power in an elected government.
"Iraq is quickly slipping back into authoritarianism as its security forces abuse protesters, harass journalists, and torture detainees," Sarah Leah Whitson from Human Rights Watch said in a statement released with the annual report. "Despite U.S. government assurances that it helped create a stable democracy, the reality is that it left behind a budding police state."
Lovely. But hey, these are our thugs, damn it all. Or sort of.
Back here in the USA, the next target of choice, Iran, is in the crosshairs of many itching for the next intervention. As the patrician Mitt Romeny falls from grace, and blowhard Newt Gingrich becomes the drug of choice in the GOP, we see exactly where ol' Newts money is coming from:
For weeks this winter, as Newt Gingrich’s presidential hopes faltered under the weight of millions of dollars in attack ads paid for by backers of Mitt Romney, a small group of Gingrich supporters quietly lobbied for help from one of the richest men in America: Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire casino owner and Mr. Gingrich’s longtime friend and patron.
By the time Mr. Gingrich limped into New Hampshire, some of his top backers had given up on Mr. Adelson and begun prospecting elsewhere, including among erstwhile supporters of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, to finance a counterattack.
But on Friday, the cavalry arrived: a $5 million check from Mr. Adelson to Winning Our Future, a “super PAC” that supports Mr. Gingrich. By Monday morning, the group had reserved more than $3.4 million in advertising time in South Carolina, a huge sum in a state where the airwaves come cheap.
In actuality Adelson and his wife have pumped $10 million in Gingrich's war coffer, via the Super PAC "Winning our Future," and you can be sure that more is in the pipeline. Gingrich and Adelson have a relationship going back "two decades," and it really shows. This is the worst in croneyism I think I've ever seen (any of you GOP folks that hounded Bill Clinton for his "croneyism" going to touch this one?)
Adelson's Israeli newspaper, Israel Hayom, is quite interesting: (all links in original)
Since 2007, Adelson has owned a daily newspaper called Israel Hayom, which is distributed free of charge -- chiefly on Adelson's dime -- to the largest audience of any paper in the country.
The paper was so positive toward Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a close ally of Adelson's, both personally and ideologically, that many people believed it had been founded simply to help him return to the premiership.
"If you are a person like me who reads the paper every day, you can trace how Israel Hayom is supporting Netanyahu on every page of the paper," said Uzi Benziman, the editor of an Israeli media watchdog blog called the 7th Eye. "Not just in the opinion pages, but even in the news pages: they hide reports on news that is negative to Netanyahu and they emphasize stories that are very good. It reminds me very much of how when Israel was just beginning, each political party had own paper. That's what Hayom is: Bibi's political paper."
Lately, Israel Hayom seems to be Gingrich's personal paper.
As Noam Sheizaf, an Israeli journalist and editor of the web magazine +972 has pointed out, the paper was granted an exclusive interview with Gingrich last year, and has lately published several positive op-eds with titles like "Three Cheers for Newt Gingrich" and "Gingrich Sets Himself Apart."
Adelson is pumping money into Gingrich's campaign as well as using his personal yellow journalism soapbox to advocate for Gingrich in Israel. Can you imagine why? Connie Bruck, via Wayne Barrett gives us some insight:
In Connie Bruck’s extraordinary New Yorker profile of Adelson, she reported that as early as June 2007, Adelson was so ready for war with Iran that he separated the men from the boys on the basis of their willingness to strike Iran. At a conference in Prague sponsored by his own Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies, he dismissed the son of the former shah because, he told one participant, “he doesn’t want to attack Iran.” He said he liked another Iranian dissident at the conference “because he says that if we attack, the Iranian people will be ecstatic.” He attributed his own lust for an attack to his love of Israel, adding that he didn’t care what happened in Iran.
The views of Adelson seem to have altered good old professor Gingrich, a person of note and sought on the lecture circuit for his academic viewpoints. Back in 2005, Gingrich penned an article in the Middle East Quarterly, where he called pre-Israel Palestinians "relatively wealthy, educated, and cosmopolitan people. They were in some ways among the most international and most advanced people in the Arab world." After talking about quite reasonable ideas surrounding Israel's right of defense, he further intoned:
While Israelis have the right of self defense, Washington should impose three limitations on Israel: first, the White House should insist that a free hand in building a security fence does not mean a free hand to expand the Israeli settlements in a land grab. The U.S. government should become the protector of the Palestinian people's right to have a decent amount of land and to have continuous communications and travel between their areas. The desire of some Israelis to use security as an excuse to grab more Palestinian land should be blocked by Washington even if that requires employing financial or other leverage to compel the Israeli government to behave reasonably on the issue of settlements
Second, the U.S. government should actively support a democratic Palestinian state. There are a number of Israeli politicians who would be willing to see the negotiations carried on forever. In their view, there is no reason to have a Palestinian state. They are in their own way the equivalent of those Palestinians who believe Israel can be coerced into a right of return for Palestinians even if it would mean the end of Israel.
Third, the United States should begin to take clear steps to bring a better life for the Palestinian people and should propose better systems and solutions to ease the daily depravations of the Palestinian people.
Gringrich, in a rather interesting moment of lucidity here, states quite clearly that a stable partner is the only real chance that Israel has for lasting peace in the region. He also rightly points out that the Palestinians must shuck off violence, the leadership must take their people first and politcial goals second, and work toward peace in a meaningful way if they want Israel to back off from them. I agree with all of that.
So now we see Gingrich saying this just last December:
Republican presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich is telling a Jewish cable channel that Palestinians are an "invented" people and that they are really Arabs who chose not to live elsewhere. The Jewish Channel on Friday released excerpts of an interview in which the former House speaker says there was no Palestine as a state and that the residents there were part of the Ottoman Empire before the creation of the state of Israel.
Gingrich says Palestinians were historically part of the Arab community and that they had a chance to go many places. Gingrich says the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians has been, quote, "delusional." He says President Barack Obama's effort to treat the Palestinians the same as the Israelis is actually, as he puts it, "favoring the terrorists."
Gee, Newt, what happened? Well, when facing defeat, and you have a croney waving around millions of dollars, I guess you'll say anything to get elected, won't you? I suppose those "cosomopolitan" Palestians are really just a bunch of drooling Urak-Hai sitting on Israeli land after all? And those "educated....international and advanced people" just "invented" themselves to boot. Wow! Can you imagine Gingrich trying to say any of those things in the 2005 paper today in a GOP rally? He'd be burned at the stake.
If you have connected all the dots, you'll see that Adelson is buying Newt, hoping he'll win, to create a even more bellicose posture toward Iran. A war with Iran would devestate not just the US economy, but the whole world. Take this into account from the Finanical Times:
The Rapidan Group, a Washington-based consultancy, has released a survey that offers a crucial insight into the psychology of the oil market as tension in the Middle East rises. The consultancy, run by Robert McNally, a White House oil adviser from 2001 to 2003, asked market participants what price response they anticipated in the event of a surprise Israeli attack in March 2012 against Iran’s nuclear programme, taking into account current supply, demand and inventories fundamentals. The responses pointed to the potential for a huge price rally.
In the first hours of the attack prices would surge, on average, by $23 a barrel, according to the survey. Under the worst case scenario, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, prices could increase, on average, by $61 a barrel, lifting Brent crude to an all-time high of $175 a barrel. Some traders warned that the increase could be much bigger, pushing oil prices up by $175 a barrel to a dizzying $290 a barrel.
This would be the total end of our economy. But nutjobs don't care -- Christian lunatics ally themselves with "Greater Israel" lunatics and see the demise of Iran as a blessing. After all, in all that chaos, Christ just has to come back, right? And why would Adelson care about $15 a gallon gas? He tossed $60 million to help celebarate Israel's anniversary, so what does he care if Mom and Pop American go broke trying to get to work -- if there is work.
And for you conspiracy/croneyism haters out there (Whitewater, anyone), also take into account that Gingrich's pal Adelson is under investigation by the SEC and FBI for corruption charges. He also does business in China, which is a sore point for America First folks who detest the Commie regime there and think we should increase hostilities with the Chinese Dragon. Do you think if Obama were getting $10 Million from such a person the GOP would be quiet and accepting of it? HA!
So if you like Gingrich, I hope you also like a return to Feudalism, as that's pretty much what's going to happen if Gingrich and his handler get their way.
- Mood:
annoyed
I was listening to some sports radio today and heard a lot of polarizing things about Paterno. This is hardly surprising, with the breaking of the Sandusky sex scandal at Penn State. Paterno was fired under a cloud, and since that time his supporters and detractors have been engaged in a war of words that only will only escalate now that the man has passed on.
It is important to remember, as I said before, that Joe Paterno committed no crime, was not responsible for any of the victimization of any children, and was in a way an indirect way of Jerry Sandusky. Sandusky, through his (alleged) obscene acts, has brought shame to a great university, its students, faculty, alumni, and supporters, and caused the Board of Trustees to dismiss Paterno for his inaction in the alleged crime.
While not a criminal in any way, Paterno has a certain amount of criticism coming his way for failing to do more than he did. In his final interview with Sally Jenkins of the Washington Post, just days before he passed away, he said:
I didn’t know exactly how to handle it and I was afraid to do something that might jeopardize what the university procedure was. [---] So I backed away and turned it over to some other people, people I thought would have a little more expertise than I did. It didn’t work out that way.
Paterno also said that he is "sick about" the fact that Sandusky may be guilty of these crimes, and I take it to mean his soul was sickened by the enormity of the crimes that, if proved true, will put Sandusky away for the rest of his life. That's well and good, and I don't doubt in the least that Paterno was very sincere in his disgust of these acts. Any right minded person would be sickened.
All that taken into account, we still have Paterno's lack of further action in this matter. He claimed that when his assistant Mike McQueary told him what he saw Sandusky doing in the shower to a boy (anally raping the child), Paterno didn't know what was meant by that. I doubt that he really didn't objectively know what homosexual rape is, but that the thing was so far from his mind he had trouble reconciling one of his close friends actually do that to a kid. So he went and reported it to the Athletic Director and Director of Finance of the University, who disallowed Sandusky from using the shower facilities and then hoped it would die.
That's not surprising -- with college athletics such huge moneymaking machines, I can see why they hoped the issue would just go away. That doesn't excuse it, but it's understandable they were trying to "protect the brand." Had that come out at that time, it would have cost Penn State a large sum of money and recruits, no doubt.
Still, financial considerations must never come before moral considerations, and this is where Penn State failed in the test. Paterno did do his legal duty by reporting the incident upwards, but why didn't he follow up on it? Did he even bother talking to his old pal Sandusky to see what was true? He just did the good employee thing, and passed the buck up and went about his business. This lack of action on the part of the entire university let an alleged predator stay free for another seven years, assailing at least one other known boy, and very likely many others.
So now with the passing of Paterno, we have the war of words between the Joe Lovers and the Joe Haters.
The Paterno Supporters, much like the Michael Jackson supporters that came out when MJ passed away a few years ago, feel that this scandal shouldn't have anything to do with the legacy of JoPa. He's not a criminal, he made a couple mistakes, but in the end, those mistakes can't erase 61 years of incredible legacy. This is a man, they rightly claim, who was the winningest coach in college football, had two national championships, two undefeated seasons, had over 250 players go into the NFL, never had any major recruiting violations visit the university, graduated players on a regular basis, and gave back millions to the university in grants and scholarships. Yeah, he made a mistake, but...come on, they say, we can't let one lapse of judgment ruin an entire career of great deeds.
The Paterno Detractors, on the other hand, say "so what?" This is a man who came to knowledge of a sick, sexual crime against kids, and just passed the buck up. They say there was no way he couldn't have known what was going on, after all he was not just the head football coach, the man was in essence Penn State University. And even if he didn't know what all Sankdusky was up to, he certainly knew about that particular crime that was reported via McQueary. And what did he do? Just pass it up the command chain and hope, like all the rest, that it would go away. Their point, which is also fair, is while JoePa didn't do anything criminal himself, sick things were going on under his watch, and at least indirectly he helped to cover it up. And as he was the public face of the College, he had to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate failing.
Both sides have good points, but in the end, both miss the point.
The Paterno Supporters need to realize that their guy helped to cover up a sick, repugnant crime. And the Detractors are right -- the man was the face of the college. Just as coaches, especially ones in the position in which Paterno found himself, want all the glory and love the fame that winning brings, so do they have to bear the cost when things go wrong. And how many times have coaches said things like "That's not my fault! I didn't have anything to do with that!" Well maybe you didn't, but at the same time "that thing" went on under your watch, and so you have to face the music for it. You can't selectively choose to accept or not accept media scrutiny, and in a case like the Penn State situation, it's ten times worse than the most severe player violations one can imagine.
I'm also annoyed with hearing some go on with this line: "Joe died of a broken heart." Please. The man died of metastic lung cancer, which probably came on slowly and asymptomatically until the malignancy went through his body. Could the stress over the situation have brought about a faster end to the frail, 85 year old man? Quite possibly, but to say the situation killed Paterno is just playing one sympathy card too many.
Paterno should have done more, and even he admitted that before he passed away. To simply say "he did what he had to do, let's ignore all that in favor of his achievements" is passing the buck. Just as we can't forget all the weirdness that surrounded Michael Jackson in favor of his amazing career, so too will all of Paterno's accomplishments sadly have an asterick attached to them. And he did bring that on himself by not doing more.
Then we have the Paterno Detractors saying that we should just forget all his great accomplishments in favor of his inaction and indirect culpability in the Sandusky case. That's going too far in the other direction. Paterno was guilty of no crime, and he did do his legal duty in reporting the case to his superiors. His rather clear inaction does not negate 61 years of fantastic coaching, teaching, graduating and philanthropy. As much as the haters might hate on Paterno, he was a good man who did much good for his program and his community. He messed up, badly, but that can't erase all the good he did.
So yes, we should remember Joe Paterno for all the greatness he brought to Penn State. And at the same time, we are going to have to remember him for the serious moral failing that came at the very ending of his storied career. Sure, the crime of Sandusky has nothing to do directly with Paterno and his fame at Penn State, but Joe got caught in the whirlwind that was partly of his making, and as the face of the University, he pays the final price.
I do think it is sad that a great guy with such a rich, full life and career has to have this coda on his legacy. But, we are what we make of ourselves, sadly, and when a person is such a storied, public figure, they're the ones that take the hardest fall when the storm hits. So let's remember Joe Paterno for his great coaching career, his passion for the game, and his wonderful philanthropy, while at the same time keeping in view the whole picture. It would be a mockery to the victims of Sandusky to simply try to forget the entire set of circumstances that brought about such a sad end.
Joe Paterno, rest in peace.
- Location:home
- Mood:
sad
Not so fast, y'all.
First of all, it's very mistaken to believe that the "accumulated powers of the Net" were really responsible for the sudden reverse-face in Washington about these acts. Simply put, our solons in Washington couldn't care less about the will of the people, in the US particularly and around the world in general. Sure, Wikipedia and other sites had "blackout" days to raise awareness, but in reality what really got Washington's attention was the massive counterpoint being raised by Silicon Valley powerhouses:
“It’s D.C. versus Silicon Valley in the SOPA fight,” observes [Forbes writer] Greg Grillot. “You have Google, Mozilla, Wikipedia, Reddit, Firefox and Boing Boing against it. And how many D.C. shills for it?”
“It’s a true war: the last bastion of creative/productive ingenuity in America versus the swamp of D.C.’s parasitic, industry-conflicted bureaucracy.”
Well yes, it's the power of super-powerful government vs the power of super-powerful business going head to head in a Hereculean match. But everyone who wrote posts about the evil of SOPA, and the "blackouts" and such by websites, really meant nothing to the vested interests of DC -- all that mattered was suddenly giant companies said "hey, we don't like this" and then Washington backed down, knowing where its money valve is located.
Beyond that point, SOPA is really needless. The Federal government already has all those powers, as we saw with the "MegaUpLoad" case that brought about arrests the day after the "defeat" of SOPA:
In what the federal authorities on Thursday called one of the largest criminal copyright cases ever brought, the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized the Web site Megaupload and charged seven people connected with it with running an international enterprise based on Internet piracy.
Megaupload, one of the most popular so-called locker services on the Internet, allowed users to anonymously transfer large files like movies and music. Media companies have long accused it of abetting copyright infringement on a vast scale. In a grand jury indictment, Megaupload is accused of causing $500 million in damages to copyright owners and of making $175 million through selling ads and premium subscriptions.
Four of the seven people, including the site’s founder, Kim Dotcom (born Kim Schmitz), have been arrested in New Zealand, the authorities said; the three others remain at large. Each of the seven people — who the indictment said were members of a criminal group it called “Mega Conspiracy” — is charged with five counts of copyright infringement and conspiracy. The charges could result in more than 20 years in prison.
Going to the MegaUpload site allows you to see this: 
Now, to be fair, the charges against MegaUpLoad are very serious, and if proven, would show that this company has allowed users to share upwards of US$500 million worth of copyrighted material. MegaUpLoad also has been used by many people for legitimate uploads of their own content and information, but at the same time the owners have allegedly profited from selling ad space on the site while allowing criminal activity to flourish. Under the Racketeer Influenced, Corrupt Organizations stauate (commonly known as RICO) they can all be charged with consiparacy to commit crime and face serious charges.
But here is the things: they are accused of these crimes. Using US forfeiture laws, the Feds have seized the website, confiscated what assets they had and frozen the rest, and it is now up to the defendants to prove that they did not make money off of illegal activity. And while there may certainly be illegal, criminal activity going on with MegaUpLoad, at the same time, there is a great deal of legal, First Amendment protected activity that was going on at the site, and has now been stopped due to the Feds accusing the owners of MegaUpLoad of criminal activity.
Copyright cases are rarely "black and white," and it should be up to the government to prove that these illegal activities took place before they close down the site. But in these days of "Due Process is such a quaint, antiquated term," the Government just does what it pleases and leaves us to try to prove we didn't do what they allege. It's the reverse of due process.
This shouldn't be surprising -- after all, both Bush and Obama have said they have the right to arrest, rendition to foreign countries for torture, indefinitely imprison, and under Obama, even assassinate, anyone, anywhere on the planet for being accused of being a "Terrorist." And most of the US population doesn't care about that -- it's only when the TSA is busy looking at people in their underwear with full body scanners or groping grannies for bombs that people suddenly become incensed about due process rights. When it's a Muslim person with funny name in a wierd places called "Yemen?" Who cares, what's on TV tonight?
Now all the government has to do is call a person a Pirate (arrg!) and you are the target of every federal law imaginable to stop you from your activity. The only reason the public is getting upset about this is that it might cause their favorite website to be brought down, bringing their entertainment to a grinding halt. Otherwise, most people couldn't care less who the government targets, strips of assets and imprisons.
I'm not arguing that piracy is acceptable -- it's not, it's wrong and robs creators of any media content of the right to profit off their intellectual assets. It's criminal and I don't mind the government going after criminals. What I do have a serious problem with is the government naming a person a criminal, and with no due process or fairness, simply stripping them of their assets and making them prove those assets were not taken via criminal activity.
And my main point is that SOPA and PIPA are really just window dressing -- the Feds already have all these powers at their disposal. Oh sure, these acts would have simple further codify and enhance the powers of the federal government, but as we can clearly see, they already have this ability.
I don't think that they really intended to match the handing down of these forfeiture acts the very next day from "Internet Blackout Day," but whether they did or didn't, the point is clear: "Yes, enjoy your delusions of democracy, fairness and due process. Your little protests are so amusing -- watch this!"
And by the way: SOPA and PIPA are not dead, just put in the meat locker for now. Like Frankenstien's monster, they will return in a somewhat mutated form once the public's eye is elsewhere and the heat about the issue had died down. This is how rights are taken away -- not from the external force of compulsion, but from the internal complacency that kills the freedom of people.
"It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." -- John Philpot Curran: Speech upon the Right of Election, 1790.
- Location:home
Every year a small but rather vocal crop of conservative Christians (mostly Evangelical, although others get in on the action as well), right after Thanksgiving, will start droning on about how the "secular, pagan world" is trying to destroy Christianity in the United States. This revolves around how these secularists are trying to take out the "Christ" from Christmas by doing such things as saying "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas," how the government is trying to reduce the aspect of religion in Christmas, and how atheists are taking over the planet, etc, etc, etc.
Take for example Bill O'Reilly, who regularly drones on his show at this time of year about the "secular plot" to remove the religious aspect of Christmas. He went on about how "if you look at what happened in Western Europe and Canada, if you can get religion out, then you can pass secular progressive programs, like legalization of narcotics, euthanasia, abortion at will, gay marriage, because the objection to those things is religious-based, usually."
The reduction of religiosity in Europe and Canada is not some "plot" by evil athiests to destroy society's moral base, but rather the people becoming disenchanted with religion over time. Even here in the United States, while a large majority of the population claims to be "Christian" (in a very general sense), you're lucky to see 25% of the population attending weekly religious services. Religion may not be dying on the vine here as it has in other Western nations, but it's certainly not the force it was fifty years ago when most people attended some form of religious service weekly.
This reduction in religiosity has convinced the Religious Right that the rest of society is "out to get them," and it's only a matter of time before we have men marrying men, everyone high on heroin, mandatory euthanasia at 50, and abortion booths in every supermarket. Generally speaking, the more conservative a person is, the more in dread fear that person lives that the rest of the world is out to get them, destroy their way of life, and take everything from them.
There is research to suggest that liberals and conservatives have different brains, and that the paranoia felt by people who are more conservative is actually due to their brain structure. But even with such possible brain differences, the continual propaganda that the Religious Right uses on their kids and adherents is more than enough to explain whey they think "Christmas" is under assault by the dark, dangerous leftist atheists ploting their demise.
While Christmas at its heart is certainly religious, the way it is celebrated comes from a long standing secular tradition. Placing the Natvity Celebration on December 25 in the middle part of the Fourth Century, Pope Julius I hoped to replace the pagan celebration of the Saturnalia and Juvenalia, along with the rites of Mithras, with Christian ideas. The Nativity spread around the Christian world, replacing winter observances such as Yule in the north and days such as Mean Geimhridh in Ireland.
However, by the 1600s, while Christmas was still celebrated in churches as a religious festival, it was more of a drunken time of revelry for the common person. Oliver Cromwell, his Puritan sensiblities offended by the riff-raff using the holiday as an excuse for drunken excess, tried to ban Christmas -- it was later restored when the Monarchy was brought back. In the United States, the Puritan settlers did not allow the observance of Christmas or any other holiday deemed "Romanist" and too Catholic. Trees brought into the house were a long standing Germanic tradition at Yule, and were simply imported into Western Christianity and then into the secular pop-culture of Christmas.
By the 20th Century, while Christmas remained a holy time for Christians to celebrate the birth of the Savior, it had also taken on the familiar ultra-materialistic veneer that it has today. The secular ideas of gift buying into debt, eating and drinking to excess, and generally having down time between Christmas and New Year were firmly part of the Western cultural experience.
So the conservatives are wrong -- no one is out to get them. Rather, the boozy, party like atmosphere which has always been present around the time of the winter solstice among European peoples has simply caught up with, and in many way surpassed, the religious aspect of Christmas because of continuing secularization of society. While religious people can -- and in my opinion should -- celebrate Christmas as a mostly religious holiday, most people see it as a time to celebrate materialism, gluttony and to their credit, time with friends and family. And this, by the way, includes a large number of people who would consider themselves at least nominally "Christian."
Are there loudmothed secularists who would like to banish anything religious from society? Sure there are, just like there are loudmouthed religious folks who would like to cram their beliefs down the throats of others. But quite honestly, the fringe folks on either side are few. Most people, even religious people, see Christmas as a time to gather with loved ones, eat, drink, give presents and enjoy a season together. Some number will see it as a religious obligation, some won't. And that's the way it should be.
Sadly, it's the loudmouths on both sides that get most of the attention. That said, conservatives, society is not out to get you, or take away your right to celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. Most people are too busy maxing out their credit cards or basting a turkey to really be worried about the "Christ" in Christmas and its expression in the world. So go to church, celebrate the birth of Christ, and enjoy a warm season without worrying about who's out to get you.
Merry Christmas! (or Happy Holidays, take your pick!)
-V
- Location:North Pole
- Mood:
amused
I asked my mom why they had told me something untrue, and she explained it was part of the magic of Christmas, but now that I was getting older I needed to understand Christmas another way. I suppose it was a sort of rite of passage into later childhood.
Some professionals say that kids should not be told about Santa -- it will only lead to resentment of the parents later when the kids find out they had been lied to for all those years. I can say that I felt no anger towards my parents for telling me there was a Santa Claus, and there was never any deep seeded resentment for it. By the time I was around ten I could understand that a person in a sleigh couldn't have magical flying reindeer, never mind travel around the entire world in one night dropping off toys to kids.
The one sort of funny Santa story was when I was around six we lived in an apartment, and we didn't have a chimney. I asked mom and dad how Santa would get in the apartment without a chimney, and mom said rather quickly "Oh, he has a key to all the apartments."
So this guy has a key to every apartment in the world? That's scary. Actually, come to think of it, a fellow in a red fetish suit that hangs out with a bunch of "elves" all year and comes down your chimney (or enters with a key) to eat your food and drop off toys of dubious origin is pretty scary......
Merry Christmas!
For those of you that follow college football, or just the news, you know that long time Penn State University head football coach Joe Paterno was fired Nov. 9th for his non-criminal part in a sex scandal involving young boys and a former defensive line co-ordinator.
If you're not, here is a quick summary of the facts of the case: Jerry Sandusky was a coach hired in 1969 a few years after Paterno was made head coach at the university. Sandusky started a program in 1977 called The Second Mile, which was a group foster home to help children who were in absent or dysfunctional families. It is believed this program started innocently, but as Sandusky's appetite for young boys started to grow, he used it as a hunting ground for victims for his perversions.
Most of the victims were from The Second Mile, with Sandusky meeting them at picnics and other functions. Most of the actual criminal activity took place at Penn State University, where at least twice, Mr. Sandusky was seen with young boys in the shower. First he was content with showering with them and giving them "hugs," but then his twisted interests went to oral sex and then anal rape of the kids. Sandusky retired in 1999 but continued to have access to the Penn State locker room, players and facilities, as any well liked, honored and well received coach would be allowed to do.
In March 2002, Sandusky was seen anally raping a 10 year old boy in the Penn State locker room men's shower by graduate assistant Mike McQueary, who reported what he saw to Joe Paterno. Paterno, in turn, reported the incident to his superior Tim Curley. At the end of March, McQueary was brought before Curley and Vice President for Finance and Business Gary Schultz. McQueary is told that Sandusky has had his keys and access taken away and the matter was reported to The Second Mile. McQueary was not questioned by the cops til late 2010 when he was then brought before a grand jury to testify to what he saw.
Apparently the matter was dropped by the university. Sandusky continued to use The Second Mile to lure children to his summer home for further sexual activity, with at least one other victim due to the inaction of Penn State in the matter. In 2009, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office began an investigation of Sandusky after receiving a report of his alleged molestation of a child, which culminated in his arrest on Nov. 5, 2011. Joe Paterno and Penn State University President Graham Spanier were on the 9th of November for their inaction in this matter.
It must be made clear that Paterno and Penn State were not party to this crime, and did not facilitate it. However, what is clear is there was inaction on their part, and this inaction and failing was from the very top of the system, down to the coach.
The question becomes, why didn't McQueary go to the police immediately upon seeing a grotesque act of child rape going on in the showers at Penn State? Why didn't Paterno report this to the police? Why didn't the administration of the University, upon learning of this sick act, go to the police? A predator would have been taken off the streets, and at least one more child would have been spared the sick victimization of child abuse.
McQueary and Paterno did nothing illegal, but what they did was certainly unethical. McQueary did his legal duty by reporting what he saw to Paterno, and Paterno did his legal duty by reporting it to the administration of the University. The University however, failed in their duty, and charges of acting as an accessory to child molestation as they didn't report it and allowed Sandusky to continue in his actions.
What must be understood about this case is the tremendous amount of money that is brought in by sports to universities. Advertising, sponsorships, booster and alumi money, tickets to games, TV contracts are all on the line. When a university learns of illegal wrongdoing, it should report the matter, but often will not. The main desire is to protect the brand, and obviously a case like this, where a well liked, well received coach is raping kids in the shower, will cause all kind of moral repricussions, which could cut into the finances of the system. That's the last thing a university wants to see happen.
Like a business, everyone in the bureaucracy of a learning institution is taught to push the matter to the next highest person internally, and not let out anything to the public that might "hurt the brand." One might ask why McQueary and Paterno didn't inform the police of what they saw, and I think is because they were doing what they were told to do. People in the system are pressured to only report the matter vertically to the next highest person, and not horizontially to someone outside.
Beyond failings on the institutional level, there are also personal moral failings. Why didn't McQueary go and stop the rape of the child? Why didn't Paterno confront his longtime coach? McQueary and Paterno did their bare legal duty in reporting it to a superior, but it seems they should have taken further steps to protect children. If this sicko is raping kids in the shower, what else could he be doing? The moral failing is beyond belief here.
The trustees were right in firing Paterno. While he may have done nothing illegal, he is a stain on the University. The scandal and moral failings here will affect Penn State for a long time to come. As it was said after the Watergate scandal, it's not so much the crime, as it is the coverup. Had Penn State dealt with this immeidately, it would have been paid but the damage would have been containable. Now it's far, far worse, and the University is going to pay for this for years to come.
I want to feel bad for Paterno, but I can't. Here is a coach that was in the game for around 50 years, is the winningest coach in College Football ever, has done so many things for the Univeristy, donated millions back to it, and has been a well liked, respected member of the profession for a long time. To see a person who has done so much right have his career end in such an inglorious way should be sad.
But I'm not sad. He failed at the ultimate test. He let children be harmed, and while he may have covered his legal backside, his moral failing is extreme. That can't simply be forgiven. And while he and the Penn State administration may not have facilitated these crimes, they looked the other way and let it happen. To let children suffer this is beyond excuse.
My heart goes out to all the victims of that twisted sicko, Sandusky. I hope they find healing and peace in their lives. And I do feel bad for the students and players at Penn State, who are now suffering due to the inaction of the coaches and administration. I can only hope that this incident will be a showcase of what should be done, and that money, fame and glory are never more important than the welfare of children.
- Location:Home
- Mood: angry
The alleged plot runs like this, according to the Department of Justice narrative: The evil Muslims in Iran decide to kill the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. This job is going to be on US soil in a grand, terrorist fashion, provoking two acts of war (with the US and the Saudis) and have very questionable value to the interests of Iran. But no matter -- these are, after all, the "Mad Mullahs" of Iran, who want to blow up Israel with nukes, so anything is possible.
In order to facilitate their masterstroke, the Qods (the Revolutionary Guard of Iran, the secret police/espionage unit) decides to bankroll a certain Manssor Arbabsiar, a failed used car saleman in Texas with a string of other failed businesses and a minor criminal record. In a profile of this Terrorist Mastermind, his former acquaintences have the following to say about him:
“He was pretty disorganized, always losing things like keys, titles, probably a thousand cellphones,” said David Tomscha, an Aransas Pass businessman who ran a used-car lot with Arbabsiar. “He wasn't meticulous with taking care of things.
”Tom Hosseini, an Iranian whose friendship with Arbabsiar dates back 30 years, went as far as calling Arbabsiar “a joke.” Thee two were roommates at what's now Texas A&M University-Kingsville, but Arbabsiar dropped out after two semesters and finished his degree in Louisiana. It was Hosseini who nicknamed Arbabsiar “Jack,” for the quantities of Jack Daniel's whiskey Arbabsiar would drink.
Ah! But he must be one of those crazy, fanatic Muslims that love to blow things up, including themselves, for Allah, right? Is this guy the next Osama bin-Ladin in terms of his religoius fervor? Well not quite:
“He couldn't even pray, doesn't know how to fast. He used to drink, smoke pot, go with the prostitutes,” Hosseini said, laughing with a clerk at his market in downtown Corpus Christi. “His first wife left him because he would lose his keys every other day. ... This guy is not a mastermind.”
In 1983, Arbabsiar was attacked and stabbed 32 times and left for dead, spending six months in the hospital. This must have had an impact on his overall health, including his mental capacities. Apparently this guy couldn't keep track of his keys or his cell phone. He would on a regular basis lose titles for the cars in his business -- no wonder it went broke -- and may have very well been suffering from some kind of mental problem. Just the kind of person that the Qods would recruit to mastermind a terror activity on American soil right?
I beg to differ on that. The Iranians may be a bit over the top, but at the same time the Qods does know what it's doing, and this guy seems to be the exact opposite of the type of person they would want for such a sensitive operation. However, as we will see later, it's quite the type of person that our government might very well want to get their hands on.
Anyway, it gets a lot worse. The Qods, now with the fanatical mastermind Arbabsiar in their pay, order him to get in contact with the Mexican cartels to do the hit. If the idea that the Iranians are going to get a jackass in their employ to commit a masterstroke doesn't send your BS meter up to "high", the idea that they would want the Mexican Cartels in on the job should really empty the bucket of any credibility.
It's well known around the world that the Mexican Cartels are a bunch of criminal thugs with no morals. The idea that the Qods would get this scatterbrained moron to hire the Mexican Cartel Las Zetas to do a hit for them, on American soil, strikes any right thinking person as utterly incredulous. As Gary Sick, at the Middle East Instittue at Columbia University had to say:
"It is difficult to believe that they would rely on a non-Islamic criminal gang to carry out this most sensitive of all possible missions. In this instance, they allegedly relied on at least one amateur and a Mexican criminal drug gang that is known to be riddled with both Mexican and U.S. intelligence agents. Whatever else may be Iran’s failings, they are not noted forutter disregard of the most basic intelligence tradecraft, e.g.discussing an ultra-covert operation on an open international line between Iran and the U.S. Yet that is what happened here."
Kenneth Katzman, a Middle East analyst with the Congressional Research Office, concurs:
"There is simply no precedent — or even reasonable rationale — for Iran working any plot, no matter where located, through a non-Muslim proxy such as Mexican drug gangs. No one high up in the Quds, the I.R.G.C. command, the Supreme National Security Committee, or anywhere else in the Iranian chain of command would possibly trust that such a plot could be kept secret or carried out properly by the Mexican drug people. They absolutely would not trust such a thing to them, given Iran’s undoubted assumption that the Mexicans are penetrated by the D.E.A. and F.B.I. and A.T.F., etc — and indeed this plot was revealed by just such a U.S. informant…."Are we to believe that this Texas car seller was a Quds sleeper agent for many years resident in the U.S.? Ridiculous. They (the Iranian command system) never ever use such has-beens or loosely connected people for sensitive plots such as this."
But no matter, the official narrative has been given and that's all our government worshpping press needs.
Anyway, this alleged person with "strong contacts" in the Mexican Mafia goes to hire a member of Las Zetas, who rather helpfully turns out to be an informant working for the DEA. One would think that if Mssr. Arbabisar were such a well connected person, he wouldn't run right into the DEA man in the field -- but that's exactly what happened.
As the official narrative goes, Mr. Arbabisar offered to pay this person, known as "CS-1" in the indictment, $1.5US Million to do the hit. "CS-1" then began feeding him ideas for how to do it, eventually working up to blowing up a ficticious restaurant which the Saudi Ambassador was allegedly known to frequent. Mr. Arbabisar, who in the indictment can't seem to figure out if he's getting money from a "colonel" or a "general" in Iran, then allegedly says "kill just him if you can, but if you have to blow up everyone in the place, f**k them."
Two payments of over $49,000 each are wired from a "foreign source" (not named in the criminal complaint) to Chase Manhattan Bank, as a down payment for the hit job. What was the source of this funding? The only other "evidence" that the FBI has of any real note is a series of conversations, over an open line, with Arbabisar's cousin (either a "general" or a "colonel" who Arbabisar told CS-1 was "on CNN" -- a lie).
Several things are really odd about this whole thing. As we see in the criminal complaint, Arbabisar says he was initially contacted by his cousin Gholam Shakuri to kidnap, not murder, the Saudi Ambassador. But when he went to Mexico to meet "CS-1" the plot turned to a murder of the Ambassador. Why would this suddenly turn into a murder when it seems this "high ranking member of the Qods" wanted a kidnapping?
Allegedly, Arbabisar went to Iran and met with his cousin Shakuri and a second "high ranking members of the Qods." It was there he was vetted with being the middleman between the Qods and Las Zetas. The agreed upon word for the assassination was "Chevrolet." However, when Arbabisar was aressed and confessed, he made phone calls to Shakuri (on an open line -- this "high ranking member of the Qods" must be a total idiot), where they used two terms, "Chevrolet" and "the Building". This discussion is very interesting to say the least:
[Arbabsiar] I wanted to tell you, the Chevrolet is ready, it’s ready, uh, to be done. I should continue, right?
[Shakuri] Yes, yes, yes. You mean you are buying all of it?
[Arbabsiar] I don’t know for now, it’s ready, okay?
[Shakuri] So buy it, buy it.
[Arbabsiar] Buy it? Okay.
[Shakuri] Buy it, yes, buy all of it.
[Arbabsiar] this boy wants, uh, some money, he wants some expenditure. What do you say, should we give him some more? He wants another 50.
[Shakuri] With you, no, you … that amount is fine. [UI] give him the rest. He should buy the car for us first. [ellipsis original]
[Shakuri] Do it quickly, it’s late, just buy it for me and bring it already.
"Buy it" and "bring it"...later on in the taped conversation, Shakuri wants to know if they are indeed going to get "the merchandice."
Now, call me crazy, but what would people go to the Mexican Mafia for in reality? Would the Qods go to them to stage a brazen attack on a diplomat's life in a country just looking for a reason to lob a few cruise missles their way? Or...is it just possible that Shakuri figured his cousin, in Corpus Christi, TX, with the ability to go over the border to Mexico, could in fact get something for him and some other hypocrites in the Qods that might be a bit more difficult to get in Iran...like drugs? A large amount of drugs?
I'm thinking this was a drug deal to begin with, and this mental case Arbabsiar started talking about spy games and such to his contact who turns out to be a DEA informant. The first contact between Arbabsiar and CS-1 was helpfully not recorded, so what he originally went to CS-1 for is dropped down the memory hole, in favor of this more interesting narrative of "kidnap - shoot -- blow up and kill lots of people" sequence.
Once however this fellow started talking about spy games, the DEA agent gets the FBI involved, who are always itching to create a new "plot" that they can foil and look like heroes. I think the Feds simply had CS-1 help Arbabsiar build the story further and further. It's quite notable that the complaint is an amended complaint, not the original. What was in the original, I'd like to know.
Now, this bizzare case that reads more like a cheap spy novel is being used as grounds for really turning the screws to Iran. The President and the Vice President are going on about "no option off the table" in dealing with Iran, Hillary Clinton is thundeirng about reprecussions, etc etc. The whole world is supposed to now unite against Iran due to this dastardly act that is so out of character with the Qods I can't even think of a good analogy.
This doesn't mean that the USA will go to war with Iran immediately, but in my opinion, this is just one more brick the road to what the War Party really wants: armed conflict with Iran. I also think that this case will exist just long enough to get the public fired up, and then go down the memory hole as well. I seriously never expect this will go to a trial, where the "evidence" as it is could be brought to the light of day. Rather, as he has already "confessed," expect that Mr. Arbabisar will be held, plead guilty, and be sentenced to somewhere far away where he can't talk to the media personally. Having done his job for the War Party, he can stay safely behind bars.
- Mood: confused
Dal in Hindi simply mean "lentil," and lentils come in a variety of types: brown, black, yellow, green and red are the more common ones found in stores. To make a dal you simply take the lentils, cook them in water with tumeric and salt When they are finished one adds a tadka, an oil that has been cooked briefly with spices such as cinnimon, garam masala, cumin seeds, mustard seeds, fenugreek seeds and dried red chili pepper. After the oil has been saturated with the seeds and spice, then just add some ginger, garlic, onions, fry til the onions are softened, and then dump it into the lentils and mix it throughly. I usually take a whisk and mash up the lentils a bit. Serve with basmati rice, dinner is done.
Dal is very healthy -- the lentils provide lots of fiber and protien, and the oil provides healthy unsaturated fats along with the positive influence of the spices. Fat-phobic Americans might say "oil! Ahhhh! FAT!" but quite honestly, getting healthy fats from olive, grapeseed or canola oil is a good thing for your body, in proper moderation of course.
Aloo gobi
means "potatoes and califlower" in Hindi, and is exactly what it sounds like. Aloo gobi is very easy to make as well. Take some oil (three tablespoons or so) and throw some cumin seeds in and watch them pop. Then add chopped onion and garlic and fry til transluscent. When that's done, put in the pieces of potato, add tumeric, garam masala, ginger, coriander, mix, cover the pot, and cook on low for 15 or so minutes. Then add the pieces of califlower, mix well, cover the pot and let sit another 20 minutes til the potato and califlower are nice and soft. Serve with basmati rice and naan.
- Mood: hungry
