Insomnia

Wherein Kevin James is an idiot... and Chris Matthews is a hack.

Fri, 16 May 2008 06:11:05 GMT

It was a pleasure watching Chris Matthews tear this right-wing talk radio hack a new one in this clip...

Except, of course, that the clip also showed that Chris Matthews' own knowledge was pretty questionable, in that the Munich Agreement was in '38, not '39.

Maybe not a huge deal, but still... not exactly a sign of great historical knowledge on his part either.

It was a nice trap... and it's nice to see Americans actually insist on some semblance of historical knowledge for a change, but you'd think Matthews would've been prepared for his own trap, frankly.

California sez...

Thu, 15 May 2008 20:30:27 GMT

Marriage is marriage. A right for all Americans. And it leaves what that means up to you.

Today, several more of my friends are old married couples than yesterday. And why not, because every one of them have stayed together since they were married in San Francisco back in February 2004.

And that goes a long way towards saying why, even with all its faults, I'm still a Californian.

Pakistan -- former US ally.

Thu, 15 May 2008 20:26:45 GMT

A US drone attack on Islamic militants in Pakistan has caused a significant international incident in that country, with Pakistan's new Prime Minister, Yousaf Raza Gillani, saying,

"I strongly condemn this. It's absolutely wrong. It's unfair. They should not have done this action."

Gilani, a top member of assasinated former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto's PPP party, apparently views US attacks in Pakistan as illegal.

Interestingly enough, Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar said the U.S. missile strike was aimed at scuppering the peace talks with the government.

"They don't want peace in Pakistan and that's why they are doing it but we'll continue the talks."

So, we've got a Taliban that is apparently on the verge of negotiating a peace treaty with the Pakistani government that would help secure their power base, allowing them to attack into Afghanistan more readily, a Pakistani government that supports such talks as a way of ending internal violence and unrest, and a U.S. government, apparently trying to stir dissent.

This does not bode well for the future of Afghanistan.

Yes they can?!

Wed, 14 May 2008 21:18:42 GMT

The Obama campaign is announcing a "big national endorsement" tonight at a 7pm rally in Michigan... and rumors are flying that its none other than John Edwards.

***Update: Rumors confirmed. Endorsement imminent!***

Pretty impressive, if that's the case... especially considering that he said that he wouldn't be endorsing anyone anytime soon.

Hillary won in W. Virginia yesterday, which would ordinarily be worth reporting, if it mattered at all... but the only significance of it that I can see is that Obama is about 8 delegates closer to victory today because of it than he otherwise would be. Even in the aftermath of a strong Hillary victory, Obama gained another four superdelegates today, plus a major endorsement by NARAL, plus this major national endorsement tonight... which presumably comes with a superdelegate vote to boot.

Maybe it's just me, but somewhere along the line, Senator Clinton's campaign seems to have stopped functioning as an actual candidacy, sharing the same party and most of the same issues as Senator Obama's... and now it increasingly serves as a badge of pain, pride, entitlement, and self-victimization, frozen in time like a confederate flag on the back of a busted up pick-up truck.

Meanwhile, for people like me who strongly supported Gore, or others who favored Edwards, Kucinich, etc., well... we've already moved on long ago, to the point that most of us are pretty content with things as they stand. Perhaps Hillary's diehards will decide they don't want to buy into the whole self-victimization thing, because there is, in fact, life after the Democratic primaries, even if your candidate loses.

NYC can turn on you, I guess...

Mon, 12 May 2008 00:29:38 GMT

After Hillary Clinton's very chummy treatment and successful appearance on Saturday Night Live, this has gotta hurt.

And no, not just because it''s on national television... but because it's very much a local show to her senate seat, and because SNL has always tried to reflect the general feelings of New Yorkers... and New Yorkers aren't as supportive of Hillary Clinton as they once were, and are probably increasingly turned off by her after the past few weeks.

New Yorkers like fighters, but I don't suspect they care much for losers... especially sore losers. She'd better start moving to restore her base in NY, or else her career in politics may be a whole lot less a sure thing that most poeple assume it to be.

Beirut under siege.

Fri, 09 May 2008 10:25:34 GMT

You can read the news about all this...

...but really, you'll probably learn more about the situation in a far shorter time by reading communistmonkey , who is in Beirut right now, and is, btw, a very cool person.

Other LJers over there right now who are actively posting from Lebanon include itinerantsphinx, rayziz, timeiswarped, threadofdesire, and distanced_eyes ... wish 'em luck.

I'm going out of town for the weekend. Have a Hezbollahriffic day, everyone. Don't hit the hookah too hard!

End of the line.

Wed, 07 May 2008 23:36:34 GMT

A senior Clinton advisor indicates that Hillary Clinton will drop out of the race by June 15th.

So, basically, this whole race isn't about Michigan or Florida at this point. It's probably about the Clinton campaign raising money to pay off their campaign debts.

North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

Wed, 07 May 2008 06:28:09 GMT

It's been a long night, but the results are just about final now...

Barack Obama will win North Carolina by almost exactly 15% ...while Hillary Clinton (and Rush Limbaugh) will win Indiana by approximately 1.8%.

Now, there's little left to do but watch the superdelegates roll in and wait for Oregon and Kentucky, which should put Obama over the top in total delegates. That will leave Hillary with no argument other than the need to seat Florida and Michigan... which Obama can do pretty easily, really. All he has to do is make loud, repeated offers to settle it fairly, to her advantage... say a 5% edge in both races.

If she refuses, she looks like a goat... both to voters, and to superdelegates.

Tue, 06 May 2008 17:03:42 GMT

It was with a good deal of relief to see that rm decided to throw her hat into the LJ Advisory Board race.

I've known her on LJ for quite some time, and all I can say is that I have a great deal of trust in her intelligence, in her ability both to be an effective communicator, and also her strong stance on supporting the rights of the users of LiveJournal. She has been on LiveJournal since even before I joined, which is a rare thing, and knows very well what has been lost along the way.

She can help to unify LiveJournal around issues, not novelties. I am especially pleased to see that her post to LJ United hit on the kind of topics that are important and relevant to many LiveJournal users and probably all of LJ United's members, and that she has done a very good, thoughtful job in replying to any and all questions asked of her by our members. She has also made it clear to me that she would be willing to work closely with LJ United, keeping us informed and using us as a sounding board and a resource on important issues effecting the site.

It is for these reasons that I endorse rm as LJ United's official candidate for the LJ Advisory Board, and invite all of you to ask her questions on the issues, get to know her a bit better, and support her candidacy.

Ron Paul refuses McCain endorsement, gives Obama a non-endorsement endorsement?!

Sun, 04 May 2008 01:45:05 GMT

Today on CNN's "The Situation Room" , Rep. Ron Paul indicated that he is staying in the race for as long as his supporters are interested, and he could not see himself endorsing McCain due to his support of the war in Iraq. Full video available here.

Rep. Paul cited McCain's foreign policy as the primary reason why he opposes him, and, when asked which of the candidates he thought would be best on foriegn policy, he favored Obama as "the one who would most likely keep us from expanding the war", indicating that "he would be slightly better on foriegn policy."

When asked about why he wasn't endorsing McCain, Rep. Paul responded,

"I also believe in unity in the Republican Party, but unity is secondary to what we believe in. If we unify on something that is non-Republican, it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, and that's what I'm afraid the Republicans are drifting into. They're begging and pleading for unity, but we've gotta know what we believe in, and I think that's what our problem is today."

This could be a very interesting development. Could we possibly imagine Ron Paul endorsing Barack Obama... or possibly being invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention?!

Because the best way to empower women is to rob blacks of their vote.

Thu, 01 May 2008 00:43:32 GMT

Recently, there were numerous reports in North Carolina of anonymous, caller-ID blocked robocalls in North Carolina from a black man claiming to be a "Lamont Williams", urging voters in predominantly black communities to return their voter registration form to the State Board of Elections... without voting.

Well, it turns out that these anonymous calls from a ficticious black male were made by Women's Voices Women Vote, a D.C.-based PAC which aims to boost voting among "unmarried women voters."

Unfortunately for WVWV, the State of North Carolina was able to track them down and the media attention was significant, so they put out a statement saying that it was a mistake...

Nevermind the fact that the calls are clearly illegal, as calls that use a blocked phone number and provide no contact information are a clear violation of North Carolina rules regulating "robo-calls" (N.C. General Statute 163-104(b)(1)c). It is also a Class I felony in North Carolina "to misrepresent the law to the public through mass mailing or any other means of communication where the intent and the effect is to intimidate or discourage potential voters from exercising their lawful right to vote."

... or that they're not targeting women voters with these calls, and apparently too ashamed to even identify themselves and promote their efforts to register women voters.

... or that they made the same "oops!" mistakes in Arizona, Wisconsin, and numerous other states, which led to the State of Wisconsin singling WVWV out as having "ignored or disregarded state deadlines" . . . causing "hundreds of Wisconsin voters who think they registered in advance" to not be. Jan Brewer, Arizona' Secretary of State, was even more blunt in her criticism, calling the organization's tactics "misleading and deceptive".

Of course, the unbiased nature of WVWV would be a lot easier to believe if Maggie Williams, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, wasn't one of their boardmembers.

But please, don't be swayed by the fact that the organization is run by a major Clinton donor who donated $4200 to Hillary, another $2500 to H
ILLPAC, and a whopping $5000 to Emily's List, donating to them after they publically endorsed and started campaigning for Hillary Clinton.

You could perhaps overlook the fact that despite WVWV's supposedly neutral stance on the candidates, the organization's founder practically gave an endorsement speech for Hillary Clinton at the 2007 WAND/WILL conference.

... and did I mention that the organization's Executive Director worked for Bill Clinton,"assisting in the development and implementation of all polling and focus groups done for the presidential primary and general election campaigns"?

Now, ordinarily I would say this could potentially be a mistake... but when you repeat the same mistakes over and over again, are repeatedly called on it, and not only fail to change the content of your robocall campaign, much less the timing... well, that sounds an awful lot more like a carefully-thought out voter supression tactic to me...

... with legal advice provided by Holly Schadler, "an operator for the Clinton White House", who "along with Robert Bauer and Judith Corley--two of her partners at Perkins Coie--incorporated the Back to Business Committee, set up in 1994 . . . to defend Bill and Hillary." This committee later became part of James Carville's "Education and Information Project", which performed the same function: protecting the Clintons by attacking their critics. Once again, Schadler was one of the founders of James Carville's project, willing to dedicate her time and energy to discredit and potentially run ads against an independent federal prosecutor appointed to investigate the President.

Really, this org's repeatedly "accidental" slimy acts of voter supression, combined with numerous hardcore ties to Hillary Clinton's campaign makes "Swiftboat Veterans For The Truth" look like a bunch of kids making mudpies.

For such a professionally advised organization, how could they possibly overlook the fact that they have a responsibility to the public and to the states whose laws they repeatedly violated? In what way *don't* their repeated criminal acts justify that *someone* gets thrown in jail for at *least* a few months?!

If you liked 1989's Batman...

Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:50:06 GMT

...then you might like The Dark Knight, given that they seem to be almost exactly the same movie and everything.

Or, alternately, it might be a good excuse to see something else. Not sure yet.

Wow. A political cartoon that's actually funny!

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:02:57 GMT

Need suggestions for promoting LJ United.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:41:04 GMT

Hey everyone.

I'm at the very beginning of trying to promote the LJ United idea, and I wanted to ask...
Where / how would you recommend?!

It seems like LJ communities would be the obvious place, but I want to make sure they're somewhat relevant LJ communities... or at least, "anything goes" / general chatter communities. But I really don't belong to many such communities myself.

Any suggestions?!

LJ United.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 12:38:45 GMT

So, today I received yet another email regarding the LiveJournal Advisory Board...

"You don't know me, but I'm a long time lurker.

Please, please, /please/ tell me you're going to nominate yourself for the Advisory Board. If it were possible for others to nominate you, I'm sure they would have done it a thousand times over. You're one of the few people on this blogspace that I could imagine doing a good job, and god, the last thing I want is anyone less than you taking a spot on the board."

This isn't the first time I've been asked to throw my hat in the ring, thus far. Several others suggested it in December.

Frankly, I'm considerably torn about this, because:

I love LiveJournal.

I met noressa on LiveJournal. I've made friends with people from all around the world here. And, through my personal journal and my conversations with myself and others, I've found my own voice.

I have a history with LiveJournal.

I have been sharply critical of LiveJournal's owners / management in the past, including during the time I oversaw the business side of LiveJournal. The reason I was so critical at the time is because I felt that LiveJournal was taking incremental steps down a slippery slope, away from its roots as a community-run, open source movement... something that each member of LiveJournal could feel proud of, with a real sense of ownership of *OUR* journals and *OUR* community. At the same time, I can understand how my past positions could be divisive with some of those at LiveJournal.

I have moved on, in personally important ways.

It's difficult to leave something which you have dedicated so much of your time and emotions on, but I don't regret having done so entirely, if only because it has allowed me to spend more time concentrating on the people and things which matter most to me. I don't want to find myself so busy that I put my own personal life and the people who are important to me on the back burner again, for the sake of a corporation... even if that corporation owns an online community I care about.

While I suspect an advisory position at its most basic would not require such a degree of time and effort, any meaningful attempt to effect the path which LiveJournal follows in any meaningful way would require interacting with LiveJournal's members, with other advisory board members, and with representatives of the company in order to influence and suggest better alternatives to potentially harmful policies.

I would want to see the potential for real change.

I don't want to find myself an emotional slave to LiveJournal's frequently harmful and hamfisted corporate decisions, especially if I do not feel empowered to help bring about meaningful change that benefits its members. While it's nice that the advisory board will have some members of LiveJournal on it, from my point of view, the number of representatives are insufficient and their actual influence, questionable.

LiveJournal's founder recently advised SUP against getting rid of rid of free accounts. And while he and I have certainly disagreed in the past, I appreciated his stand on this issue. However, LiveJournal completely disregarded his advise. So, if LiveJournal's founder is frustrated with his inability to effect this new state of affairs, I can't say I'm enthusiastic my chances to do so... and I *REFUSE* to play the role of a convenient figurehead for the "democratic" approval of policies that hurt LiveJournal. If I were on the advisory board, and I believed that there was a consistant policy of ignoring and overriding the opinions of LiveJournal's members, I would strongly advocate that I and my fellow boardmembers should initiate a boycott of the company's advisory meetings, combined with a grassroots effort to oppose such policies, thereby denying the company any semblance of legitimacy in such decisions.

I have fundamental disagreements with current management.

To this day, I feel that the main reason why I was let go from my position at LiveJournal is because I opposed transitioning the business away from being community run and open source, to being centralized, top-down, and, in my opinion, less accountable and less inclusive. LIveJournal's founder did this for what were, to him, the best of reasons... but he also unintentionally undermined what we stood for.

But that said, I also question a some of my own actions as well. Was I happier running LiveJournal?! In the first days, when there was more willingness to knuckle down and concentrate on features that mattered to LiveJournal's users, I would say yes. We were extremely busy, but we got a lot done as a team, putting in very long hours. But in the later days, when efforts to improve the site and to embrace growth and innovation met with obstructionism? No. LiveJournal literally spent years turning its back on the potential of syndication and site interconnectivity features which have grown into the "web 2.0" world that so many new media "specialists" drone on about these days.

And frankly, in retrospect, I regret the fact that those of us running LiveJournal sometimes allowed ourselves to be too entranced by the whole media hype and "cult of personality" surrounding blogging.

LiveJournal needed to -- and did -- earn respect amongst the media and amongst the digerati types... but it came at a price. Sometimes, there was too much focus on the conventions, the seminars, the gatherings... but we needed to put LiveJournal's members first. Working our plan, and not buying into or being distracted by theirs.

I was understandably proud of LiveJournal, and wanted to see that it was treated with the kind of respect it deserved for being a powerful, feature-rich blogging platform... not treated like a freak show by the daytime talkshows, or attacked by media fearmongers, who argued that, by helping to give teenagers a new voice, we were somehow empowering predators to turn our users into victims. Nevermind that LiveJournal has *ALWAYS* had strict rules against anyone who tried to illegally solicit minors, and that it has a wealth of features capable of empowering conscientious parents to take responsibility for their kids... if they make the commitment to do so.

As we have seen, there is a price to be paid for not taking a strong, proactive stand in defending free speech. LiveJournal's policies have, at times, been unfair, unnecessarily inciting, and damaging to the fandom community, to fully grown adults, and, sadly enough, to the actual victims of sexual abuse. Occasionally, they have been in direct opposition to the kind of freedoms we claimed to stand for.

The need to stand up for free speech on LiveJournal is especially critical in Russia, where LiveJournal user Savva Terentyev is behind bars today, facing the possibility of two years imprisonment for posting anti-police comments.

Why? Because he said that Russia's police were poorly educated, thuggish, repressive tools of the state... and that Russia would be better off if, every year, the people would publically incinerate one bad cop.

Harsh words, perhaps... but criminal?! I'm not too sure about that.

We must understand -- for many Russians, LiveJournal *IS* the real media. Uncensored. Unrestricted. And, oftentimes, surprisingly intelligent. They, more than perhaps any other nation, have embraced the full potential of the LiveJournal software, legitimizing it to a degree that most in the West take for granted.

Those who make up the Russian LiveJournal community have legitimate concerns that LiveJournal's new owners, Russian business SUP, will not adequately protect their privacy and rights. There is a chill that hangs over many Russian users... a fear that LiveJournal could become the pawns of what some view as an increasingly controlling government. These members are a large, vibrant part of our community, and their rights to privacy *MUST* be safeguarded, regardless of their personal beliefs or political views. Their concerns are not going to be addressed without firm, verifiable commitments from both LiveJournal *AND* SUP, in order to guarantee their protection against government access to their private information. And LiveJournal should make it clear to them that they will *NEVER* comply with any subpoena related to freedom of speech.

There is much that needs to be done to safeguard the rights of LiveJournal's members, and sadly, a limited amount that any one person by themselves can do.

But the big question I keep coming back to is this one.

If not me, then who?!

Seriously... I don't have an answer to this question. At least not yet. There are a few individuals who I greatly respect who I wish were on the advisory board, but they're hardly excited about the idea... they know the difficulties firsthand. And if not me, and not them... then really I don't know who else with the kind of experience you'd want has given the position much serious thought.

I have, out of circumstance, been forced to think about it... and frankly, I'm concerned that this position, in most people's hands, would empower LiveJournal essentially saying:

"Well, we have heard the feedback from the members... and we're going to do things our way, anyway."

I don't want to see these positions be filled like some kind of beauty contest... a LiveJournal's "most popular blogger of the year" award. That's a recipe for inexperienced, unprepared, halfhearted candidates, who lack the determination to stand up for our rights, and the kind of united movement needed to put real teeth behind their opinions... and without building a strong opposition to oppose bad policies, it is likely that LiveJournal's elected representatives will be steamrollered, just like LiveJournal's founder recently was.

As many of you know, a few months back, I hoped against hope -- and fought for the idea of -- Al Gore throwing his hat in the ring and running for President of the United States again.

Frankly, I understand that it would've been a hard decision to make for him, and that he would risk that which he had been able to accomplish, in order to attempt to effect change at the highest level. Had he chosen to run, some would've inevitably accused him of being political or egotistical. That said, I wish he had answered the call. Obama's great, but given the choice between judgement and experience... well, though judgement is critical, I would prefer to choose both.

So, when people are expressing incredible frustration to me about where LiveJournal is heading, and want me to step forward to help... well, it's damned if you do, and damned if you don't, isn't it?!

No. There *IS* an alternative.

Unity.

Unity based on a shared ideal for what LiveJournal should stand for.

That is the policy *I* stand for. The policy that matters. The one that reflects the promise of LiveJournal, and the promises that were made in perpetuity to ALL of us.

They are promises that were meant to last forever. They cannot be changed, or rescinded, or revoked. Not without our willing consent.

They are what we should stand for. All of us. Always. Even if they are not always what we can get.

That is why I am anouncing the creation of ljunited. A coalition of concerned LiveJournal users who believe that the best, truest, most honest encapsulation of our shared aspirations for LiveJournal have their roots in the promises we started off with.

A LiveJournal that is at its best, when it is:

Working with the community, for the community.
Honoring the status of every account.
Maintaining the uptime and performance of the site.

Staying advertisement free.
Never sending us unsolicited e-mail.
Supporting the Free Software movement.

...and their final promise, to safeguard our privacy.

It is our goal to make this platform the gold standard by which all others are measured. One which we will encourage *ALL* LiveJournal members and all potential candidates to sign up for. A strong, unified movement of LiveJournal members, each commited to the premise that the promises that were made to us then should be our aspirations now.

Our immediate goal is to:
1> Work as a team, to seek out other LiveJournalers and encourage them to join our movement, and to build our community at ljunited.

2> On Monday, May 5th, the first day of nominations, we will post to lj_election_enand lj_election_ru, letting people know about ljunited's platform, and about our coalition's goal of fielding a "ticket" of two candidates, encouraging all of our members to endorse and vote for them. We will encourage people who visit the various lj_election sites to join ljunited and play an active role in our community, letting them know that they should make a post to the community if they are particularly interested in -- and feel up to the challenge of -- being on the advisory council.

3> On Wednesday and Thursday, May 7th and 8th, we will encourage people to vote, recommending their top three candidates for the ljunited community, in order of preference, both for the Russian and the "everything other than Russian" ticket. If necessary, we will create ljunited_ru beforehand, in order to facilitate this process and jumpstart the Russian LJ United community.

4> On Friday, May 9th, the ljunited nominees will be posted to the respective lj_election sites, and LJ_united's members will be encouraged to endorse their nominations, as a voting bloc.

5> LJ United will leverage our strong, populist platform, our combined ticket (in which we will ideally get both Russian and "English" users voting twice, as a bloc, for each of the candidates), our grassroots efforts, and, ideally, some kind of strong, consistent visual theme to establish our platform and candidates as the most authentic and legitimate representation of LiveJournal's aspirations. I suspect our candidates, who will be nominated based on merit, will stand out from any "beauty contest" candidates.

6> If / when we have people from LJ United on the advisory council, we will make sure that our advisory council boardmembers regularly communicate with, and receive feedback on upcoming votes, etc. from, the members of LJ United. They will be expected to accountable to both the platform and to the will of the members, explaining their feelings regarding upcoming votes, and seeking out feedback, in order to best advance our position. Polls will be posted, when appropriate, to make decisions, seek out feedback, etc.

Please. Join LJ United, and help fight to safeguard and, whenever possible, restore, the rights of LiveJournal's members.

Thanks,
Mark

Someone just sent you a bitchy post about Facebook! Do you want to know who it is?!

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:10:37 GMT

Facebook. I don't get it. Never have, really.

I created an account a long time ago, but really, it's been nothing but misery. Really. I refuse to use it, but people keep friending me, and, well... bugging me. And the sad thing is, they're my friends and loved ones, so it's hard to tell them all to f*ck off.

I mean, at first, it all started out with connecting to a few friends I was already connected to on other sites... and a simple online hug or kiss request... and then it snowballed from there. Now, it's just completely vaccuous and annoying.

"Here's a little green patch!... Now install this software... and bug all your friends!"
Here's my middle finger. Please insert thusly.

"Who were you in a past life?!"
I'm pretty sure I was sticky and swam pretty fast.

"Can you do better than me on the friends quiz?"
I don't know. Can you get out from behind your computer and actually *be* a friend?!

"Support my cause! Help by joining, donating, or inviting your friends!"
Support my cause. Leave me and my friends the hell alone!

"I've sent you some delicious Chocolates. See what type they are and send your own to friends."
All tease. No please... Sorry. I'm on a digital diet.

"Will I attend ____ event?!"
No. No, I will not. Why?! Because it's a thousand miles away!

"_____ added books on Visual Bookshelf, then decided to invite you to share yours."
Don't you mean that you've decided to share the books you have decided to share? Something tells me that this has stopped being about literature, and has morphed into a contest... as if I don't already have fifty books to read which are actual classics in their genre, still gathering dust. And as for the latest books out there, if I wanted a pleasant diversion, I'd probably be surfing the 'net for porn. Besides, books are made from dead, unhyperlinked trees.

"_____ thinks you are trustable and send you one trust point. Do you want to know how trustable you are in your friend's eyes?"
I have seen the future of Whuffie, and I am scared... because someone gave you and every other Facebook user a vote.

"What's your secret sexual fantasy?!"
(Hint: It's a secret for a reason. If you really want to know, drop by sometime and I'll show you. P.S. - Be sure to bring sexy friends... extra points for contortionists and other sideshow acts!)

So, while I understand how Facebook is a complete waste of time, what I don't get is what it's supposed to do for me that's actually helpful and convenient. Maybe I'm expecting too much from their crappy website?!

Pennsylvania Primary.

Wed, 23 Apr 2008 05:58:09 GMT

With 99% reporting, it's 54.3% Clinton to 45.7% Obama...
Everywhere, the media is reporting "ten point victory", but you do the math. It's 8.6 points!

... which is pretty okay, really, given that the Obama campaign expected to lose Pennsylvania based on its demographics, according to a spreadsheet that was previously leaked to a website.

Ultimately, Pennsylvania was about expectations and momentum for the Clinton campaign while for the Obama campaign it was all about keeping a very ugly contest close, allowing for further attrition that would lead them towards the goal of 2,025 delegates.

While Hillary Clinton's campaign closed their ~140 delegate gap somewhat, they face a much more serious challenge, because after tonight, they find themselves needing nearly two delegates for every one that Obama needs to win... and that ratio will only get uglier after Guam, North Carolina, and Indiana.

By not losing badly tonight, the Obama campaign dodged the last big bullet, and put themselves considerably closer to victory. It's not clear how, if at all, the superdelegates will respond, but I don't suspect it will effect things all that much, or make the kind of argument that Hillary Clinton would like to make about Obama not being electable.

Next stop, Guam! ... which should be an easy Obama pick-up, I suspect, based on Obama's connections with Hawaii.

Hillary Clinton declares war on Democratic activists.

Sat, 19 Apr 2008 04:53:21 GMT

In a newly released campaign recording today, Hillary Clinton blamed "the activist base of the Democratic Party" and MoveOn.org for her repeated losses throughout the election, and accused both of voter intimidation.

-----------------------------------

"Moveon.org endorsed (Senator Obama) -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down. . . We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party.

MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know, they turn out in great numbers.

And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

-----------------------------------

The audio of this is available over at Huffington Post.

As a highly informed Democrat who takes an active role in my country's politics, I reject and denounce Senator Clinton's statements. This is just further evidence that Hillary Clinton will viciously attack *ANYONE* who decides for any reason that Barack Obama is the superior, more intelligent, more conservative candidate.

And no, I don't mean conservative in the sense of neoconservatives... who are, in fact, willing to disregard intelligence and common sense in order to risk everything for their hollow dreams of a global Pax Americana. I mean conservative in the best possible sense... prudence, care, and a nuanced approach to foriegn policy, rather than the kind of hamfisted hackery we've seen over the past seven years, going into not one, but *TWO* simultaneous longterm occupations, with no exit strategy for either of them.

I joined moveon.org in the late '90s not because I liked, trusted, or believed in Hillary Clinton's terminally unfaithful, lying husband -- I didn't -- but because the smears and attacks against him were excessive, and disproportionate to what was appropriate.

Sadly, Senator Clinton has let us all down since then, by playing up the same kind of ugly smears against a fellow Democrat, by fearmongering and beating the drums for war on Iraq *AND* Iran, by her repeated slimy ties with lobbyists and her corrupt fundraising antics, and, of course, by her old-fashioned corrupt partisan politics.

Like most of moveon.org's members, I do not believe in or support every initiative they suggest... but they *DO* and *HAVE* accomplished numerous things that have helped keep this country somewhat more on the rails than they would otherwise be had they not been there.

Lots of people talk about issues... MoveOn.org's claim to fame is that they have historically made it easy to do things about them. They get results.

... unlike Senator Clinton.

I think it needs to be asked... did she get the people of upstate New York the 200,000 jobs she promised them? No. They *LOST* 30,000 jobs under her tenure... which is bad enough.. had she not made it worse by throwing Al Gore under the bus, blaming him for her failure, because he didn't win the presidential election... primarily because he had to run *AGAINST* the corruption of the Clinton administration.

That's not class. That's crass.

Contrary to Senator Clinton's statement today, Moveon.org isn't "a gusher of money that never seems to slow down" for Obama. His loyal grassroots supporters are. Moveon only supported Obama relatively recently in the contest, and Obama had *already* achieved his greatest fundraising successes prior to MoveOn's endorsement of his candidacy.

Hillary Clinton says "we have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party."

So, she doesn't want our votes then?! I'm in my forties, but I, of course, interact with younger voters constantly, and it's great to see them not only enthusiastic about politics, but incredibly informed in many cases... certainly moreso than supposedly "adult" individuals who have the chance to ask a candidate anything they want, but choose to ask them about why they don't constantly wear a flag pendant that they wore only a few days prior to the debate.

If anything has been remarkably clear to me in this election, it's not just how informed and intelligent so many young voters are... but how ignorant, scared, and pessimistic so many older voters can be. (Bitter, even.)

Senator Clinton complains that "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan". This is untrue. MoveOn.org *NEVER* opposed the invasion of Afghanistan. Not once.

Still, she fails to address the key point of the argument... we invaded Afghanistan in order to remove a government that refused to turn Osama Bin Laden -- a very popular leader in that part of the world -- over to perhaps the second most hated nation in Afghanistan -- The Russian invaders presumably still being #1 at that time -- so that he could face justice. Not an easy thing for any leader to do, under the circumstances.

That said, the government of Afghanistan *WERE*, in fact, willing to extradite Osama Bin Laden to another country to stand trial:

Indeed, this was something that the U.S. should've pursued in the U.N. -- a global *INSISTANCE* that Osama Bin Laden be turned over to a neutral international criminal court to stand trial for his crimes. Such an action by the Bush administration, at a time when the entire world sympathized with our loss, would've given our nation unprecidented unity, and the most unanimous potential international coalition that the world had ever seen, should the Government of Afghanistan refuse our request.

So, why did the Bush administration effectively shut down this line of negotiation in order to rush into a war... besides, of course, for the bullshit failed ideology of the neoconservatives?

Just think... Osama bin Laden could be behind bars today -- if not judicially executed for crimes against humanity -- if it weren't for those who rushed to put our troops in harm's way. Instead, he is a free man.

- A war which has cost over 500 US lives, including those of numerous contractors and aid workers, who horribly butchered for all to see.
-  A war that has cost over 800 coalition lives -- for we should honor the dead of our allies as if they were our brothers.
-  A war that has killed tens of thousands of Afghanis, and turned whole cities into little more than ghosttowns.
- A war which has significantly increased opium exports into all major western countries.
- A war which *STILL* has *NO EXIT STRATEGY IN SIGHT, EVEN AFTER SEVEN YEARS!*

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, the Taliban are once more on the rise, optimism is fading, hunger is increasing, and there are far too few jobs, many of which are being done by foriegn workers. Afghan police and military are hideously corrupt, and support for the Karzai government is gradually eroding.

So, for Hillary Clinton to attack and belittle those who believed that war should be the last resort...

... who believed that we should've forged a strong international coalition *BEFORE* going to war.
... who knew that we should've built up enough troops in the region in order to capture Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice, rather than let him slip through our fingers.
... who were appalled to see US soldiers die in Afghanistan's early days because they rode into battle in the backs of unarmored rented pickup trucks rather than armored vehicles.

Well... WE WERE RIGHT to urge caution, weren't we?!

It's not that war in Afghanistan should've been completely ruled out -- although the goal of Taliban compliance or capitulation could likely have been accomplished through US airpower alone -- but to rush into war in such a hamfisted, haphazard manner without even having adequate numbers or basic equipment on the ground?! No wonder Osama Bin Laden is still a free man.

"The general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all!"
-Sun Tzu, the Art of War

So yes, we Democratic activists do "turn out in great numbers" to vote for Barack Obama... but we're not some kind of infestation, Senator Clinton. We're reasonable, rational Americans who are fed up with Bush-era incompetence... the kind that you bought into, hook, line, and sinker.

We're Americans, Hillary. And your belittling of Democrats who actually give a damn about their country is an elitist statement that insults us all.

"they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them."

Perhaps that's because you were *WRONG* about the three biggest national security issues that faced our country?!

You supported rushing us into a conflict in Afghanistan, with still no exit stragegy after seven years... and despite your position, you have yet to suggest any kind of adequate exit strategy except "stay the course"... which,frankly, isn't a strategy.

You repeatedly backed the Bush administration to the hilt, without effective oversight or any sense of caution. As a result, BILLIONS have literally disappeared in both Iraq and Afghanistan -- simply unaccountable and gone forever -- while our country can't even manage to rebuild and properly house the refugees of New Orleans.

You fearmongered about both Iraq *AND* Iran, accusing both countries of having active nuclear weapons programs, even when the intelligence for such claims simply wasn't there.

During the most recent debate, you said:
"We are at a very dangerous point with Iran. . . Iran has not been deterred. They continue to try to not only obtain the fissile material for nuclear weapons, but they are intent upon using their efforts to intimidate the region. . . we cannot permit Iran to become a nuclear weapons power."

Perhaps you didn't get the news a few months back that Iran scrapped their nuclear program years ago, and didn't notice that President Bush was deservedly ripped apart for the kind of behavior you are now exhibiting?!

In January, you said...

". . . we are pursuing every available diplomatic avenue to halt Iran's nuclear weapons program once and for all."

...and in November:
"Iran . . . must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply . . . ALL options must remain on the table."

These are not coincidences. Senator Clinton knows very well what she is saying, and that she is fearmongering on the issue... even though her statements are not factually supported by the available intelligence.

Incidentally, this kind of language is nearly identical to President Bush's language in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But that's nothing new for Senator Clinton either.

"Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda. . . If left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological And chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

In fact, during the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq’s supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq’s possession of such weapons “are not in doubt” and were “undisputed.” Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 2005 speech at the UN was “compelling”, although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims, in many cases going to the actual sites of claimed "weapons facilities" and "mobile biological labs", only to find absolutely no threat whatsoever.

You have, Mrs. Senator, played the role of a Bush administration apologist and sockpuppet.

Even during the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 that your husband launched at the height of the Lewinsky scandal, you played the role of cheerleader and apologist, claiming that...

"the so-called presidential palaces … in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs. . . When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left.”

There were, of course, no weapons labs in Saddam's presidential palaces, and you misrepresented the facts regarding UN weapons inspectors, who were still in Iraq performing their duties until ordered to pull out at the request of the Clinton administration.

You, madame Senator, *DESERVE* to be criticized for your national security and foreign policy positions, because they have been systematically hamfisted and wrongheaded, showing gaping -- or willful -- ignorance of critical intelligence sources and of the complete lack of the kind of meaningful oversight that you *should* be performing in order to make sure US troops are only sent into conflict when they are fully prepared to fight, and only when we have an actual plan in place to win the war, win the peace, and return home.

"they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."

Excuse me, but did or did not you and your husband argue in support of the disenfranchisement of Nevada caucusgoers? Did or did not your campaign encourage your caucus leaders in Nevada to criminal behavior, telling them "it's not illegal unless they tell you so"? How can you possibly claim indimidation of your supporters, when your campaign effectively encouraged your supporters to engage in widespread voter supression and fraud?

How dare you, Senator Clinton.

The belated defense of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:21:22 GMT

There seems to finally be some serious push-back on the demonification of Reverend Wright. And it's about time.

Jeremiah Wright gave up a student deferment to volunteer to serve in the Marines. He transferred to the US Navy, and entered the corpsman school, where he graduated as valedictorian. He trained as a cardiopulminary technician at the National Naval Medical Center, where he graduated as salutorian. He was assigned as part of the medical team charged with the care of President Lyndon B. Johnson. He went on to a masters degree in English, and a doctorate in theology, preaching to thousands, and being there for not only Barack Obama, but for Bill Clinton in times of need.

My hero for the day is Reverend Michael Fleiger, who did a wonderful job defending Rev. Wright, making "O'Reilly Factor" producer Porter Berry look like a partisan flunkie turned journalism school dropout .

And Rev. Fleiger is right. If Martin Luther King were alive today, his words would be twisted or taken out of context in order to demonize him, fixating on a handful of statements, while ignoring the obvious manifest good that he has brought to this nation. And indeed, this wouldn't have been anything new for him.

Don't believe me?! Watch MLK on "Meet The Press", where he was accused of being a communist sympathizer, and accused of believing that criminality was okay, because the ends justified the means. Or listen to MLK's "Drum Major Instinct" sermon, in which he called America "the supreme culprit" which has "committed more war crimes than almost any nation in the world"... but that "God has a way of putting nations in their place."

You could say that MLK believed that violence begets violence and that America's chickens could come home to roost one day.

MLK preached Christianity and non-violence, yes... but like Gandhi, he wasn't timid in his criticism of the system, nor was he willing to passively obey its unjust laws. Rather, he operated based on a calling to a higher law, based on the rights of all people. When we beatify people like MLK and forget that they were flesh and blood, we not only underestimate and trivialize them, we damage and discredit our own potential to be exceptional, and to live up to their example.

Three protesters scale the Golden Gate Bridge.

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 19:16:08 GMT

Not sure how this is effecting traffic, if at all... but I'm watching live footage of it online right now. Looks like they're giving the bridge a pretty nice decoration job, with additional smaller tibetan prayer flags. Looks like someone from the bridge crew has now climbed up on a special bucket lift to talk to them.

You know, as far as protests go, this is an interesting one. That said, I wouldn't want to do it...!

*** Update: Looks like they're taking it down already. That didn't last long... ***

Desperation mode.

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:50:03 GMT

"I actually started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, Apr. 5, 2008.

Um... no.

"We have not, are not and will not pursue the pledged delegates of Barack Obama."
--Clinton Spokesperson Phil Singer, February 19, 2008

"I am here tonight because I am seeking your support."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, Apr. 5, 2008, addressing North Dakota delegates that, by and large, are already pledged to Obama.

Because there's no time like now for a tasteless joke...

Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:15:13 GMT

So, I hear that Charleston Heston wanted to be buried with his favorite shotgun, but it was stolen before the funeral.

Someone pried it out of his cold, dead hands.

The Basra Blame Game Begins.

Tue, 01 Apr 2008 04:21:16 GMT

"This is a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq." - George W. Bush, March 28, 2008

Looks like Bush is right for a change.... just not in the way he thought.

This article by Gareth Porter does a nice job of pointing out how, when the Basra offensive started looking like a failure, both Bush Administration and US Military representatives started blaming Maliki for the conflict. It also makes it clear that instead of blaming Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki for the failure in Basra, we should probably put the blame where it belongs... on General Petraeus.

Apparently, Petraeus is good at bargaining with Iraqis, good at buying and negotiating peace in counterinsurgencies, good at counterterrorism... but not all that hot at training and appointing Iraqi commanders, coordinating major military operations with the presumption of possible local uprisings, and at getting actionable intelligence from within the Sadrist community.

The operation was a major intelligence failure, where, despite detaining approximately 2000 Sadrists in the run-up to the attack on Basra, General Petraeus apparently had no clue as to the strength of Sadr's forces, the level of support to expect from the Shi'ite community, and the threat that Sadrists would pose throughout Baghdad and other cities. Likewise, he clearly overestimated the ability of Iraqi security forces to wage this fight on their own.

Petraeus apparently thought that Sadr backed down repeatedly over the last few months due to military weakness and due to Iranian influence in Sadr's decision-making, rather than as a tactic to both wait out his enemy and to gather and conserve his strength. Iraqi forces weren't up to the task of attacking the Sadrists, and, in many cases, they melted, with both Iraqi troops and Iraqi leaders retreating, refusing to fight, or outright surrendering their arms when faced with Sadrist opposition.

To make matters worse, when Petraeus decided to send in his own forces, he did so in a piecemeal, indecisive fashion, rope-a-doped into attacking a strong enemy who, ironically, grows all the stronger when he doesn't have to fight protracted conflicts. Given that the very act of sending in US troops came with a real cost -- the undermining of the whole premise of the operation, and the strengthening of the moral argument for the Sadrists -- the fact that Gen. Petraeus did not execute decisively when he chose to cross that line compounded the nature of the defeat.

The Sadrists now appear strong, both militarily and morally. If they can maintain this appearance of strength, this appearance of being able to bring security, to resist occupation, resist Maliki, and resist rival factions, then it's hard not to imagine that they'll be the dominant party in the next elections, which could bring about a firm, rapid timetable for US withdrawl.

Unless Sadr can be either provoked to violence or taken down in a clearly antidemocratic putsch, it's hard to imagine that Iraqis won't democratically rid themselves of occupation. And given that this conflict was probably the last great chance of the US and the current Iraqi government to resist these ends, the Sadrist's victory in Basra will, indeed, likely be a defining moment in the history of a free Iraq.

Muqtada al-Sadr, Iraqi patriot?!

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 15:33:53 GMT

Fighters loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, a Shia leader, have rejected a call by Iraq's prime minister to disarm, and are continuing to battle Iraqi army troops in Baghdad and the southern city of Basra.

Violence continued a day after Nuri al-Maliki said that fighters allied to al-Sadr would receive a reward if they hand in their weapons by April 8.

"Sadr has told us not to surrender our arms except to a state that can throw out the occupation," Haider al-Jabari, a member of the Sadr movement's political bureau, said.

In an interview with Al Jazeera in Damascus, Muqtada al-Sadr called on the Arab League, the Organisation of the Islamic Conference and the United Nations to recognise "the Iraqi resistance".

"I appeal to these parties to add legitimacy to the resistance and to stand by, not against, the Iraqi people because the Iraqi people need Arabs as much as they need any other person.

Iraq is still under occupation and the United States' popularity is falling every day and every minute in Iraq. I call, through Al Jazeera, for the departure of the occupying troops from Iraq as soon as possible."

---------------------------------------

I agree with the message, though I strongly disapprove of the messenger. The choice of that messenger, however, is not mine to make, but rests in the will of the Iraqi people, who are the only legitimate rulers of their country. I find the attack against Basra to be, essentially, the start of a Shi'a civil war, and an attempt to rob the people of Basra of real democracy... which includes the freedom to say no to Iraq's current rulers, and no to a continued occupation of their country.

--------------------------------------

When governments conduct police actions involving searches and seizures for contraband, for every successful seizure many items go undetected. So it was that the American provincials accumulated vast stores of arms and ammunition, and secreted them at some thirty private homes and farms in Concord. General Gage anticipated orders from England to seize the patriots' arms, and on April 15, 1775 Lord Dartmouth wrote to the General to do just that.

"The policy of disarming the people had been acted on, though it had not been followed up very energetically. The indications now were, that this policy would be carried out in earnest."

As Gage planned his search-and-seizure operation against Concord, all able-bodied males ages 16 through 60 of that town, from its gentlemen and yeomen to its laborers and apprentices, were carrying their muskets everywhere they went. It should be noted that these minutemen and militia were in fact the people who provided their own arms.

As the British began their march into the countryside on that day of April 19, 1775, Lexington's militiamen responded to the alarm, assembled at the town common, and began exercising with their arms. The widely published American account of what happened when the Redcoats arrived, began with the order shouted by British Major Pitcairn:

"...the voice of America thus describes the commencement of this unnatural war.

About eight or nine hundred soldiers came in sight, just before sun rise, of about one hundred men, training themselves
to arms, as usual ; and the troops running within a few rods of them, the commanding officer called out to the militia,

"Disperse you rebels, damn you, throw down your arms and disperse!"

Upon which the troops huzzahed — immediately one or two officers discharged their pistols — and then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole body. Eight Americans were killed upon the spot, and nine were wounded. The soldiers in a few minutes resumed their march to Concord ; and there, speedily destroyed a considerable quantity of flour and other stores, belonging to the public.

Another party of militia, about one hundred and fifty men, alarmed at such violence, had assembled near a bridge at Concord. The soldiers fired upon them and killed two men. It was this repeated act of deadly hostility, that roused the Americans to repel force by force. They now returned the fire — beat the King's troops out of the town, and compelled them to retreat to Lexington, where they met a reinforcement of one thousand fresh men and two pieces of cannon. The militia being by this time increased in their numbers, they s'oon dislodged the troops from this post, who, during the remainder of the day, made a precipitate retreat through the American fire, and gained a place of safety under cover of the night.

In this battle of Lexington, the Americans had thirty-nine men killed and nineteen wounded. The King's troops lost two hundred and sixty-six men, killed, wounded and missing; and by subsequent accounts it appears, that in consequence of that action, General Gage's army has sustained a diminution of one thousand men, by death, wounds, prisoners, desertion, surfeits, and other incapabilities of service. For, the troops being four-and-twenty hours on duty, marched — fought — and fled forty-three miles in that time, without the least refreshment. Let it be remembered, that these eighteen hundred British regulars, consisting of the picked men of the whole army — grenadiers — light infantry, and marines carefully prepared for the expedition — were defeated and driven by about twelve hundred American militia, brought to repel an unexpected attack, and marched in accidental parties upon the spur of the occasion. Let it be delivered down to posterity, that the American civil war, broke out on the 19th day of April, 1775. An epoch, that in all probability will mark the declension of the British Empire!"

Three days after Lexington and Concord, Gen. Gage represented to the Selectmen of Boston that "there was a large body of men in arms" hostilely assembled, and that the inhabitants could be injured if the soldiers attacked. The next day a town committee met with Gage, who promised:

that upon the inhabitants in general lodging their arms in Faneuil Hall, or any other convenient place, under the care of the selectmen, marked with the names of the respective owners, that all such inhabitants as are inclined, may depart from the town .... And that the arms aforesaid at a suitable time would be return'd to the owners.

The committee recommended "that the town accept of his excellency's proposal, and will lodge their arms with the selectmen accordingly." "The town unanimously accepted of the foregoing report, and desired the inhabitants would deliver their arms to the Selectmen as soon as may be."

On the 27th of April the people delivered to the selectmen 1778 firearms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses.

Gage was then in a position to, and did, refuse the passage of both merchandise and people. The people of Boston sacrificed their weapons, and, despite numerous promises and assurances, made themselves unwilling subjects to British tyranny.

An anonymous patriot attacked "the perfidious, the truce-breaking Thomas Gage" in the latter's dealings with the people of Boston as follows:

"But the single breach of the capitulation with them, after they had religiously fulfilled their part, must brand your name and memory with eternal infamy. . . you remain an infamous monument of perfidy, for which an Arab, a Wild Tartar or Savage would dispise you!!!"

Well, that didn't take long.

Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:23:09 GMT

So, yesterday I said in my comments on my last Iraq post :

"All this begs the question...

Right now, the US military is talking "Iraqi forces are in charge, fighting these battles, etc."

So, what happens if said forces start looking like Mussolini trying to invade Greece? Do US tanks start rolling in, under any circumstances?"

And this morning, the Washington Post announced that U.S. troops with armored vehicles are now taking the lead in fighting inside Basra.

After five years, even the best units of the Iraqi Army, trained by the world's best soldiers and handpicked by their PM for the assault on Basra, still can't fight their countrymen.

I guess they'd recruit the most motivated Iraqis into the army... if only they weren't fighting for the other side.

Seems to me that the best strategy for the Mahdi Army when faced down by U.S. armored forces is to vanish back into the woodworks, while fomenting dissent elsewhere in the country or waiting for the US troops to leave, so that they can target the less motivated and experienced Iraqi troops instead.

It's one thing for the Americans to lead an assault into Basra, but it's an entirely different thing for them to try to keep the peace there. The British certainly didn't have much luck at it.

*** Update: Iraqi PM Maliki blinks?! Extends deadline for militants to turn over their weapons from Friday to about two weeks from now... offers money. (Maybe he should just say pretty please.) ***