Cruel Provocation...

...Is still permissible in "Letters-to-the-Editor." Long live freedom of speech!

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday that a newspaper cannot be sued for printing a letter that suggested Americans respond to attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq by going to the nearest mosque and killing the first five Muslims they see.

Jingles

The folks at B3ta collect these things - God knows why:

A few weeks back we asked you to send us crap advertising jingles based upon re-workings of popular songs.

However, you mostly ignored us, and sent us entirely the wrong stuff. However, it was all insanely great anyway so who cares?

This week B3ta features three jingles:

Handi Gandhi - Apparently a recording for an Australian curry sauce, this jingle might offend Hindus. And make Australians a little embarrassed too.

Yum Yum Bumblebee Tuna - For the revolting mental image alone, this jingle is a stomach-churning classic.

But the best jingle isn't really a jingle at all, but rather an:

Amateur voice over - "I work in radio", whispers Phil, "and sometimes clients insist on either voicing, or making, their own commercials. This is one of the latter, the very end cracks me up every time."

Daily Rotten

Picked up the box jellyfish story.

Subtle Plame

Economaniac suggest that the Plame case is not about a vendetta as such, but rather bureaucratic politics meant to conceal lies about WMD:

What started as a potential case of intentionally leaking the identity of an agent has now become about perjury and obstruction of justice in an attempt to conceal White House involvement in fixing the intelligence that led to war. Cooper and Miller were all over the prewar intelligence beat, so they become keys to understanding how the White House went from propagandists fighting CIA skeptics over WMD to triumphal victors haranguing their doubtors to well meaning victims of bad intelligence. The Plame disclosure happened right in the middle of the transformation, which means that it draws attention to both the WH role in the fixing of intelligence and its efforts to deny that role.

Fitzgerald needs the reporters to contradict whatever whitewash the WH has come up with for this mess. Its not just the identity of the source, it is what the WH was saying and when that will show that they lied to Fitzgerald and the Grand Jury to cover up their manipulation of and lying about prewar intelligence. This is what happens when the administration's Orwellian alteration of history occurs in a venue where lying is a crime and providing talking points is conspiracy to obstruct justice.

But As Bad As Albuquerque's Air Is....

Baghdad's air is worse....

Air Quality in Albuquerque

Is suffering - from the fire north of Phoenix, 400 miles away! Wow!

LA Settles For Second Place

The second-rainiest season on record:

They say Los Angeles likes a winner. But when it comes to rain, the city is going to have to settle for a close second.

The epic 2004-05-rain season comes to an end at midnight Wednesday, and downtown Los Angeles missed the all-time record by a measly 0.93 of an inch.

War of the Worlds

I don't like the color much myself:

IN a breakthrough that could bring a new defence against the world's deadliest animal, Queensland scientists have discovered that the box jellyfish flees from the colour red.

While a colour often associated with passion, red is a complete turnoff for the dreaded jellyfish, which in the warmer months inhabits tropical waters in northern Australia and has killed 70 people.

"The King and I" Review


Courtesy of Andy (and Steve), here is the Davis Enterprise review (for readability, save and expand).

Some aspects of the review are....idiosyncratic, to say the least. Could it be Malibu Barbie and Aunt Barb ARE THE SAME PERSON??? Oooowwweeeooo!

And now....the text!

Getting to know this 'King'
By Bev Sykes, Enterprise drama critic
Published: June 28, 2005

No make-up designer is listed in the program for the Davis Musical Theater Company production of "The King and I," which opened Friday at the Varsity Theater.

It's unrealistic, I suppose, to expect a small community theater to find a cast of actors who look Siamese/Burmese, but a little make-up magic would have helped credibility.

The characters who suffer the most from the lack of authenticity are Tuptim (Chelsea Beatty), the Burmese gift to the King of Siam, who narrates her story of "Uncle Tom's Cabin" wearing traditional Siamese headgear ... which, I hate to say it, just made her look like Malibu Barbie on the way to a Halloween party.

Likewise, the King's first wife, Lady Thiang (Jennifer Bonomo), does a marvelously consistent job with her accent, which seems strange coming from a woman who looks like my aunt Barb.

That said, if one can get past the fact that most of the faces on stage look no more Siamese than director Steve Isaacson, the show's good bits quickly fall into place.

This story of Anna Leonowens, a feisty British widow who travels to Siam with her young son Louis, in order to teach the king's children is, at the outset, visually stunning. Juan Ramos, who also plays the King, has designed a beautiful set within the confines of DMTC's always meager budget.

When the curtains opened Friday evening to reveal the King's chambers, some gasps came from the audience, at the simple beauty on display.

Add Dannette Vassar's subtle, effective lighting, and Jean Henderson's beautiful costumes, and we're off to a good start.

Isaacson has assembled a top-notch cast for this popular show. Unfortunately, no bios were made available, so I'm not sure who is new to the cast; I failed to recognize quite a few names, though, so several may have made their DMTC debuts. If so, I hope they stick around.

DMTC veteran Marguerite Morris plays Anna, and she's wonderful. Her clear, steady, strong voice is a delight whenever she sings. Her acting, as well, is first rate (although her projection could use a bit more oomph in her dialogue scenes). It's difficult to fault her; she's a marvelous casting choice.

Ramos also is equal to the task. He's a commanding presence, despite his less than commanding stature. He has the bearing of a king and a strong voice to go along with it. There's palpable chemistry between the King and Anna during their dancing scene ("Shall We Dance"), when they realize that they have feelings for each other, which never will progress further.

Chelsea Beatty and Ryan Favorite, as Tuptim and her lover Lun Tha, are outstanding. Beatty has a voice to die for, and it remains as strong in her top notes as in her mid-range. (If only she looked the part.) Favorite is a tall, handsome Lun Tha; although less sure as an actor, he handles the part vocally. Their duets are beautiful.

Young Andrew Lampinen is a fine Louis, with a good stage presence and a convincing British accent. John Ramos — as the young Prince Chulalongkorn, who will inherit his father's title on the death of the King — is somewhat less comfortable, though basically he does a good job.

Unfortunately, the two boys' duet, a thankfully brief reprise of the king's "A Puzzlement," is painful. They may have been unable to find the right note to start, and were unable to recover.

Ryan Adame turns in a very strong performance as The Kralahome, the King's right-hand man. (Adame is also one of the few who does look the part.)

The King's children — LisaSoto, Michelle Brunader, Maya Rothman, Macey Almendariz, Paige Almendariz, Brittney Almendariz, Linnea Lampinen, Tanya Campos, Kazuo Koyama, Camila Ortiz and Brittany Aldrege — are all adorable and well drilled.

Michael Miiller's choreography is particularly skillful in the superb rendition of "The Little House of Uncle Thomas," danced beautifully by Katy Fast, Robert Coverdell, Marisa Casillas, Maria Ramirez, Tanya Campos and Marcy Gribin.

I'm certain a few are not already familiar with this Rodgers and Hammerstein story, and with the songs that have become so much a part of the American scene ("Getting to Know You," "Hello, Young Lovers," "Whistle a Happy Tune," and others.). This production, which closes out DMTC's 20th season — and, Isaacson assures me, is the last DMTC show to be staged at the Varsity Theater — has its flaws, but they're outweighed by its strong points. The production is well worth checking out.

Copyright, 2005, The Davis Enterprise. All Rights Reserved.

Billmon Finds The Pea Under The Shell

The best reaction to Bush's speech is by (courtesy of PBD) Billmon, who sees a new Bush strategy: negotiate a settlement with some of our foes - specifically Sunnis who may have only been loosely associated with Saddam's regime (now called insurgents), and not others (now called terrorists). Quoting Billmon:

If you go back and look at the old party lines (versions 1.0 and 2.0) you can quickly see that something new has been added. Heretofore, the "anti-Iraqi forces" have consisted of:

1.) Foreign Terrorists (aka "assassins")
2.) Regime Remnants (aka "dead enders")
3.) Criminal Elements (aka "thugs")

But now we have a fourth category, one with a nice neutral name that doesn't allude to hacking people's heads off or gassing your own people or hating our freedoms:

4.) Iraqi Insurgents (aka "negotiating partners.")

From there on out, the speech carefully and repeatedly distinguished between the terrorists and the insurgents, who are now -- in the fantasy world of the White House propaganda shop at least -- two unique and different populations, where before they were one and indivisible....

So, there was something new in the speech after all! A subtle but very clear shift. You never negotiate with terrorists, after all, but negotiations with insurgents is just a matter of course. We are going to negotiate our way out, likely leaving Iraq to the mercies of a very nasty bunch of people!

Indeed Juan Cole notes that already some of the Shia suspect the Americans are talking too much to the Sunnis, and maybe are planning to stab them in the back.

So remember, from now on, the operative term is now "Terrorists AND Insurgents!"

The Soothing Cloak of Darkness

Yesterday afternoon about 4 p.m., a truck collided with - and completely broke at the base - a telephone pole at the intersection of 21st Street and 2nd Avenue in Sacramento (across from Swanberg's). Thus, when I went home last night, I was startled by the sound of jackhammers in the darkness. My house was apparently at the edge of the blackout zone created as the SMUD workers replaced the telephone pole and transferred the electric cabling to the new pole. Everything from 2nd Avenue to the railroad was cloaked in velvety darkness.

I relished plunging into the jet black streets on our 2 a.m. walk, but I think Sparky was a bit spooked.

Forest For The Trees

The harrassing calls come in on the cell phone nightly, starting around 3 a.m. Jungle Woman keeps some strange hours for a businesswoman, leaving disorder in her wake...

Afflicting the Convenience Store Clerk:

"The gas pump isn't working. You need to reset it."
"You turned off the pump. Do you want the change?"
"I just gave you $20 for gas! I tried to put gas in the tank, but none came out."
"I show that you put $2 worth of gas in your tank, then turned it off."
"Turned it off? That is the STUPIDIEST thing I ever heard of! Who would EVER do anything so STUPID?"
"Would you like your change?"

Catching Up on Pop Culture:

Elvis Presley: King Of The Rock!

Favorite Movie Line (supposedly from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon):

"I AM the Green Destiny! Now BEG for your mercy!"

Impressions of George Bush's Speech

Here are some of my impressions:

The terrorists who attacked us – and the terrorists we face – murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance, and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression – by toppling governments, driving us out of the region, and exporting terror.

And yet, unlike Communism, it's an ideology without a name, right? So mysterious! But wait! Most of our opponents are Muslims, so presumably that's the ideology. But our allies are Muslims too. So complicated!

Our mission in Iraq is clear. We are hunting down the terrorists. We are helping Iraqis build a free nation that is an ally in the war on terror. We are advancing freedom in the broader Middle East. We are removing a source of violence and instability – and laying the foundation of peace for our children and our grandchildren.

To an increasing extent, we are not hunting down the terrorists. Rather, the terrorists are hunting down our forces. We are on the defensive, have precious little intelligence regarding our enemies, and simply await slaughter.

Some of the violence you see in Iraq is being carried out by ruthless killers who are converging on Iraq to fight the advance of peace and freedom. Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who have come from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya and other nations. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order. They fight because they know that the survival of their hateful ideology is at stake. They know that as freedom takes root in Iraq, it will inspire millions across the Middle East to claim their liberty as well.

Well, this is progress. A year ago, Bush was claiming that only dead-enders and recalcitrant Saddam loyalists were opposing the "Advance of Freedom." But what he says now was true then as well. And our enemies don't have a quarrel with "liberty," or even "freedom," as such: they see their enemy as being the United States of America: Christian, modern, aggressive, and in their backyards.

Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: “This Third World War … is raging” in Iraq. “The whole world is watching this war.” He says it will end in “victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

We determine where the central front is as much as bin Laden does. We said it's Iraq: so it's Iraq!

These are savage acts of violence – but they have not brought the terrorists any closer to achieving their strategic objectives. The terrorists – both foreign and Iraqi – failed to stop the transfer of sovereignty. They failed to break our Coalition and force a mass withdrawal by our allies. They failed to incite an Iraqi civil war. They failed to prevent free elections. They failed to stop the formation of a democratic Iraqi government that represents all of Iraq’s diverse population. And they failed to stop Iraqis from signing up in large numbers with the police forces and the army to defend their new democracy.

The insurgents do not appear to have much of a political arm - they never said they wanted to do any of these things. So how can we say they've failed?

The lesson of this experience is clear: The terrorists can kill the innocent – but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11 … if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi … and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden. For the sake of our Nation’s security, this will not happen on my watch.

But we have yielded "the future of the Middle East to men like Bin Laden," by failing to eradicate him. We didn't follow through in Afghanistan!

A little over a year ago, I spoke to the Nation and described our Coalition’s goal in Iraq. I said that America’s mission in Iraq is to defeat an enemy and give strength to a friend – a free, representative government that is an ally in the war on terror, and a beacon of hope in a part of the world that is desperate for reform. I outlined the steps we would take to achieve this goal: We would hand authority over to a sovereign Iraqi government … we would help Iraqis hold free elections by January 2005 … we would continue helping Iraqis rebuild their nation’s infrastructure and economy … we would encourage more international support for Iraq’s democratic transition … and we would enable Iraqis to take increasing responsibility for their own security and stability.

In the past year, we have made significant progress:

One year ago today, we restored sovereignty to the Iraqi people.

Sovereignty without control of the armed forces is hollow indeed. And how can the U.S. prevail if we don't commit enough troops to the campaign?

In January 2005, more than eight million Iraqi men and women voted in elections that were free and fair – and took place on time.

The elections featured slates of candidates, and not specific individuals - to announce a candidacy meant courting death. The elections gave only the roughest idea of true voter sentiment.

In the past year, the international community has stepped forward with vital assistance. Some thirty nations have troops in Iraq, and many others are contributing non-military assistance. The United Nations is in Iraq to help Iraqis write a constitution and conduct their next elections. Thus far, some 40 countries and three international organizations have pledged about 34 billion dollars in assistance for Iraqi reconstruction.

And troop levels by donor countries are being reduced month by month.....

The progress in the past year has been significant – and we have a clear path forward. To complete the mission, we will continue to hunt down the terrorists and insurgents. To complete the mission, we will prevent al-Qaida and other foreign terrorists from turning Iraq into what Afghanistan was under the Taliban – a safe haven from which they could launch attacks on America and our friends. And the best way to complete the mission is to help Iraqis build a free nation that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.

But we are on the defensive, not the offensive. If force protection is the order of the day, we will have failed our soldiers. Seize the offensive, or get picked off by snipers and bombers!

The principal task of our military is to find and defeat the terrorists – and that is why we are on the offense. And as we pursue the terrorists, our military is helping to train Iraqi Security Forces so that they can defend their people and fight the enemy on their own. Our strategy can be summed up this way: As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.

Vietnamization, Part II!

I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I. Some contend that we should set a deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces. Let me explain why that would be a serious mistake. Setting an artificial timetable would send the wrong message to the Iraqis – who need to know that America will not leave before the job is done. It would send the wrong message to our troops – who need to know that we are serious about completing the mission they are risking their lives to achieve. And it would send the wrong message to the enemy – who would know that all they have to do is to wait us out. We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed – and not a day longer.

But what, again, is our job? The mission changes all the time! It was once WMD: now it's the training of troops. Is that a proper function for our soldiers, instead of their sergeants?

Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever – when we are in fact working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters – the sober judgment of our military leaders.

It has long been clear that if military officers ask for more troops, their careers are cut off at the knees: witness General Abazaid. So, the military commanders don't ask for more troops, ever! - they make do. Remember, the commanders take orders from Bush: they don't "ask" him for jack! And what about the "14 bases" we are angling for in Iraq, the ones the Coalition Provisional Administration made sure our sovereign right to insist upon was embedded in Iraq's Constitution?

One big reason we don't ask for more troops is that we've made a conscious decision that the goal is not worth more troops, however important we might say the mission is. So, we are, in essence, lying to our own troops about the value of their mission. They can sense the gulf between rhetoric and action, and who can blame them if they lose heart?

As Iraqis make progress toward a free society, the effects are being felt beyond Iraq’s borders. Before our Coalition liberated Iraq, Libya was secretly pursuing nuclear weapons. Today the leader of Libya has given up his chemical and nuclear weapons programs. Across the broader Middle East, people are claiming their freedom. In the last few months, we have witnessed elections in the Palestinian Territories and Lebanon. These elections are inspiring democratic reformers in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Our strategy to defend ourselves and spread freedom is working. The rise of freedom in this vital region will eliminate the conditions that feed radicalism and ideologies of murder – and make our Nation safer.

One consequence of freedom is that people now openly shout "Yankee Go Home" rather than grit their teeth in silence. Condi Rice's latest trip to the Middle East generated lots of nice headlines here, but no applause there.

America and our friends are in a conflict that demands much of us. It demands the courage of our fighting men and women … it demands the steadfastness of our allies … and it demands the perseverance of our citizens. We accept these burdens – because we know what is at stake. We fight today, because Iraq now carries the hope of freedom in a vital region of the world – and the rise of democracy will be the ultimate triumph over radicalism and terror. And we fight today because terrorists want to attack our country and kill our citizens – and Iraq is where they are making their stand. So we will fight them there … we will fight them across the world – and we will stay in the fight until the fight is won.

No, we are making OUR stand in Iraq: the "terrorists" will go wherever we do! And I didn't recall Bush asking for our perseverance after September 11th: instead, he asked us to continue shopping!

Well, no imminent draft apparently, but no reinforcements for our struggling troops, which means we'll flog them to death, just like we did with the "Rag Soldiers" of WWII, during the Battle of the Bulge (at least there, we had an excuse - we didn't have many troops yet in Europe). Plus, Bush recites hollow progress, and shows no sign of changing course. Following the Vietnam script the entire way! Bush is Nixon resurrected!

(The Who's "Won't Get Fooled Again.")

We'll be fighting in the streets
With our children at our feet
And the morals that they worship will be gone
And the men who spurred us on
Sit in judgement of all wrong
They decide and the shotgun sings the song

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again

(small instrumental)

The change, it had to come
We knew it all along
We were liberated from the fold, that's all
And the world looks just the same
And history ain't changed
'Cause the banners, they are flown in the next war

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
No, no!

(instrumental)

I'll move myself and my family aside
If we happen to be left half alive
I'll get all my papers and smile at the sky
Though I know that the hypnotized never lie
Do ya?

(instrumental)

There's nothing in the streets
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left
Is now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

(instrumental)

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

Iraq, Vietnam's Flashback

Vietnam, the Sequel, where we still lose. Not hard to persuade me: they are deeply similar in many ways.

New Book on Social Security Sleazoids

A new book is coming out describing the Bush Administration's jihad against America's retirement system: Michael A. Hiltzik's "The Plot Against Social Security: How the Bush Plan Is Endangering Our Financial Future."

New Source Review Court Decision

I enter the field of air pollution control carefully: not only is it controversial, but it's outside my immediate range of experience (dispersion modeling). It looks like the recent Appeals Court decision regarding EPA’s December 2002 New Source Review (NSR) reforms doesn't lean THAT heavily in industry's direction. Still, everyone is waiting to see what happens with the NEXT court decision:

The Bush administration's plan to let aging industrial plants modernize without buying expensive new pollution controls was upheld Friday by a federal appeals court.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia sided with the Environmental Protection Agency, saying New York and 13 other states failed to show how key areas of the administration's new regulations violate the 1970 Clean Air Act. But the unanimous decision also came down against the EPA on two parts of the rule changes, and told the agency to review a third, giving environmentalists some reason for optimism within the 73-page decision.

...The Bush administration argued that its decision to let older power and other industrial plants modernize without making them install expensive new pollution controls will remove barriers to innovation and increase productivity -- and will not worsen air quality. But environmental critics say the changes also will increase sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides that contribute to acid rain and public health woes....

...The judges' ruling said it is not clear if the administration's changes in "new source review" regulations -- rules governing industrial sources of pollution -- will lead to greater pollution, or if leaving the old rules in place would deter companies from modernizing. The new source review rules apply to some 17,000 facilities around the country, including power plants, refineries, steel mills and pharmaceutical factories.

...Another lawsuit, focusing on plant maintenance and upgrades, will be of greater importance to power plants. That case is pending.

Among its decisions, the Appeals Court rejected an exemption for pollution control projects. For example, if you install a scrubber on a coal-fired boiler, you will generate a large reduction in SO2 emissions and a small increase in particulate emissions. Under the old rules, the increase in particulate emissions could trigger NSR and Best Available Control Technology requirements, thus creating a disincentive to install the scrubber. The December 2002 rule changes would have exempted these collateral emission increases from review under certain circumstances, but the Court held that there is no basis in law for this exemption. Some California District rules include similar exemptions.

Most significantly, this Court decision has nothing to do with the Routine Repair, Maintenance and Replacement provisions of the NSR Reform package. These provisions are the most controversial provisions that lead to the claim that power plant operators might be able to modernize their facilities without undergoing NSR. The Court decision didn’t address those provisions because the States’ lawsuits didn’t challenge those provisions, because they were adopted by EPA less than two weeks ago. So that battle is yet to come.

Big Party

Over at East Lawn Cemetery (43rd & Folsom) this evening at 7 p.m., as they celebrate their 101st anniversary. Tours of notable burials wil be featured.

Between this, the Chimp's speech this evening, and Pepper Von step aerobics, all I can say is I'm glad I live in a city!

Mea Culpa

Courtesy of Gabe, a photo of a young Pope John Paul II on a camping trip.

I Don't Have A Problem With Religion

But religion has a problem with me (From Betty Bo Bibster at B3ta):

Top Ten List

Debra Dickerson's Top Ten reactions to the U.S. Senate's recent lynching apology:

1. Bite me.
2. Damn right, the least you could do.
3. Mighty white of you.
4. Gee, couldn't you have waited just a little longer -- until even the trees from which the "strange fruit" swung were dead?
5. I'm not impressed, but then, I'm bell-curved. What do I know?
6. Thanks for kicking our asses so hard, and for so long, that we were forced to develop entire art forms around our oppression.
7. Try not to break your arm patting yourselves on the back.
8. Give us back the land, the businesses and the unpaid debts that were the true cause of many lynchings. You sleaze bags!
9. Gee, was there no appropriate Hallmark card? Let a sister help you out:
   
   Sorry I castrated your granddad. My bad.
   What's 300 years of raping your ancestors among friends?
   Sticks and stones may break your bones ... Oops. They already did.
   
   And my topmost reaction to your lame-ass, late-ass lynching apology:
10. Thanks for absolutely, positively nothing. You feel better. We feel worse. Déjà bloody vu all over again.