Originally Posted by Number Two

if you look closely, you'll see that my posting rate has fallen to below 4 posts a day (so it's only about half of what i was doing a while back)

No, no! That wasn't what I was talking about. I was refering to the manner in which you post, not the number of posts.

I'm guilty of this as well, but what happens is that you don't allow for the fact that your audience might not be thinking as fast as you are when you type out your notions. Therefore they tend to look a bit muddled.

I'm deliberately vague, sometimes :wink: but I can't afford to lose the audience, else I sound worse than the gong that I already am.

Please post, and often.

Schr?der squeezes home in knife-edge German vote

The "Greens" give it to a guy who thinks Dubya is the "next Hitler", huh?

Reminds me of how Al Gore called E2K a choice between "good and evil". How very selective the left is, of the use of such a word, eh, Mr. Saari?

No matter. This thing tells me that "We be 3T", a redo of the infamous E2K.

You doubt me? I would remind you of E1933. :wink:

But then again, some of you folks thought that E2K was the great kickoff of the grand fourth I can't wait till Jesus, er, the Gray Champion, comes back turning!

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

Schr?der squeezes home in knife-edge German vote

The "Greens" give it to a guy who thinks Dubya is the "next Hitler", huh?


It was a gal who thought Dubya was using foreign affairs to hide domestic troubles in the U.S....that the Progressives in Germany also used foreign affairs to hide domestic troubles brings to mind that motto of feline coloring in the absence of light.

Reminds me of how Al Gore called E2K a choice between "good and evil". How very selective the left is, of the use of such a word, eh, Mr. Saari?

Mr. Gore is said to (in a speech today) appease Mr. Bush on the matter of war with that other Hitler in the Mideast...not so selective after all.

No matter. This thing tells me that "We be 3T", a redo of the infamous E2K.

You doubt me? I would remind you of E1933. :wink:

But then again, some of you folks thought that E2K was the great kickoff of the grand fourth I can't wait till Jesus, er, the Gray Champion, comes back turning!


I think it rather grand to think that anticipation of this sort will move either the Deity or Clio into speeding things up for us mortals.

The female German Justice minister who made the Bush=Hitler remark lost her seat.

I am a little surprised that the Socialist-Green coalition won especially after a clear cut debate of the war, no-war issue. It may temper my expectation of a huge realignment this November here. However, the results do indicate a shift to the right (with an increase in the radicals) on the left. Without the benefits of coalitions here, a similar loss of the Green vote by the Dems could cost them many seats.

This may just be something of a Pyrrhic victory for Schroeder since he has cost Germany dearly by pandering to anti-Americanism and will have to deal with the Greens. Bush is already putting the German relations into the freezer. The consumption of Becks will decline in the US, unless American enviros begin drinking heavily. I wonder if Stonewall thinks that this is an opportunity to get US troops out of Germany.

I think the behavior of the Greens in Germany will demonstrate whether they can be a force in the 4T. Saavy or greedy? This will be a good experiment for those here who have been pointing for an enviro party in the 4T. Schroeder has defiantly stuck to the Third Way, and if he is wrong, and the German economy continues to be in its funk, there is no repeat performance.

Any one know if Germany provides for elections before 2006, such as after losing a vote of no confidence? Or do they have the American system? I don't suppose there are any Jeffords among the Socialists.

Originally Posted by David Lynch

Kiff '61-

In response to your question, "is this a generational thing?", let me first of all say that this is my 1st entry into this website. Please forgive me for not being as savvy on this site as the other entries I've seen.

Welcome to the site, David. Love your films, by the way. ;-)

Thanks for the thoughtful answer to my question. I think you are probably on the right track with your reasoning.

The subject of Saddam came up between the two of us a few times over the weekend, and my husband is just as insistent as before that going to war is a good idea (though he does want a firm congressional resolution behind any move that Bush makes). His new saying is: "I hate it when I agree with Bush on anything."

I won't touch the subject any more with him because right now we just get too emotional when we try to discuss it.

Originally Posted by monoghan

I am a little surprised that the Socialist-Green coalition won especially after a clear cut debate of the war, no-war issue. It may temper my expectation of a huge realignment this November here. However, the results do indicate a shift to the right (with an increase in the radicals) on the left. Without the benefits of coalitions here, a similar loss of the Green vote by the Dems could cost them many seats.

I understand neither why you are "surprised that the Socialist-Green coalition won especially after a clear cut debate of the war, no-war issue," nor why you expect a huge realignment here in November. But I question if Germany even qualifies as a valid subject for your analysis. Have they experienced an even remotely catalytic event? If not, they should still be in 3T and their politics would not parallel those of a nation in 4T (and you are arguing that the US is now in 4T).

This may just be something of a Pyrrhic victory for Schroeder since he has cost Germany dearly by pandering to anti-Americanism and will have to deal with the Greens.

I did not catch the anti-Americanism. I caught plainly justified criticism of the Bush administration's use of war as an obvious distraction from the economy and its own scandals. The whole western world appears to have the Bush administration's number, not just Germany. And since the rest of the western world seems to share the perception that the Bush people did something dirty to steal the election (the foreign press has been much more aggressive in reporting the Republican foul play), they obviously do not associate the will of the Bush administration with the will of the American people. Therefore criticism of the Bush administration does not equal anti-Americanism.

Bush is already putting the German relations into the freezer. The consumption of Becks will decline in the US, unless American enviros begin drinking heavily. I wonder if Stonewall thinks that this is an opportunity to get US troops out of Germany.

I'm not an enviro but I believe I will start drinking Beck's per your recommendation. And the US troops should have been pulled out of Germany as soon as the Soviet Union collapsed since their sole purpose in being there was to defend against Soviet tanks coming through the Fulda Gap. Naturally, NATO, a treaty alliance designed specifically to counter the Soviet threat, should have been dissolved as soon as its raison d'?tre (the Soviet Union) ceased to exist. Of course nothing that should have happened did in fact happen, but what else is new? Our masters' interests are not American interests.

This will be a good experiment for those here who have been pointing for an enviro party in the 4T. Schroeder has defiantly stuck to the Third Way, and if he is wrong, and the German economy continues to be in its funk, there is no repeat performance.

You imply that the Third Way is part of the Green agenda and I believe this is very, very wrong (although Greens seem so disorganized that many of them probably do not even realize that it is wrong). Tim Walker actually asked an excellent question in the Politics section over the weekend but he deleted the thing before I could even respond to it (Tim, you have to knock that off! :wink. He wished to compare and contrast the four visions (globalist or "isolationist") associated with the four quadrants of the political grid. Let me try to do that right here:

• Authoritarian Right: Unilateral Globalism; US dominates and rules the world as its empire; the Roman Empire is restored with all roads leading to Washington. Rule exercised exclusively through the three intertwined "pillars" (WTO, IMF, and World Bank). Would prefer to abandon UN. Reliance upon the "three pillars" exclusively leads to a purely corporatist global empire.
  
• Authoritarian Left: Multilateral Globalism = Third Way; US is a partner in global governance. Rule exercised through "three pillars" plus UN. Still corporatist to the extent that it relies upon the "three pillars" to loot and plunder the treasuries of vassal states in order to control them, but is a "softened" corporatism given use of counterbalancing UN.
  
• Libertarian Left (Greens): Multilateral Globalism, but not Third Way. Would abolish the three corporatist "pillars" (WTO, IMF, and World Bank) which are essential to both the Unilteralist and Third Way schemes. Rule presumably exercised through UN exclusively.
  
• Libertarian Right: Sovereignty of nation-states and resistance to all globalist schemes. Commerce with all; entangling alliance with none.

Brian Rush can probably pick this apart and it would probably be a good thing if he did. The electorate needs a clear perception of how his (and presumably the Green) globalist scheme differs from the others. It can be stated in no more concrete terms than in elimination of the three part global corporatist racket, the WTO, IMF, and World Bank (if that is indeed what it is). But people need to know this. Regardless, it is not Third Way and Schroeder's adherence to the Third Way does not provide the referendum on the Green globalist scheme which you claim. Brian?

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Schr?der squeezes home in knife-edge German vote

Reminds me of how Al Gore called E2K a choice between "good and evil". How very selective the left is, of the use of such a word, eh, Mr. Saari? --Marc Lamb

Virgil Saari responds:
Mr. Gore is said to (in a speech today) appease Mr. Bush on the matter of war with that other Hitler in the Mideast...not so selective after all.

Lifted from the pages of my local paper today:
SEPTEMBER 24, 03:59 ET
Gore Denounces Bush's Iraq Efforts

By IAN STEWART
Associated Press Writer
AP/Marcio Jose Sanchez

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ? In his first major speech about Iraq, former Vice President Al Gore issued a harsh criticism of President Bush for wanting to go to war with Saddam Hussein, warning of ominous and untold consequences.

Like other leading Democrats, Gore has expressed reservations in recent months about military action against Iraq, suggesting the diplomatic costs would be extremely high.




Of course, this could change quickly... The formerly pro-life Gore, inventor of the internet, saviour of Love Canal, is most famous for his "I really didn't say that" routine flipflops. The same Gore, who once bragged to the Big Tobacco lobby on how he "hoed it, tilled it, suckered it..." after his sisters death from cancer, will no doubt sieze the moment and change his mind once he senses the right time to do so.

Perhaps as early as today, maybe. :wink:

Nevertheless, Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power. Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq. Indeed, should we decide to proceed, that action can be justified within the framework of international law rather than outside it. In fact, though a new UN resolution may be helpful in building international consensus, the existing resolutions from 1991 are sufficient from a legal standpoint.


We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible.


http://www.algore04.com/news/gnn/EpF...rTfONOYJ.shtml

The whole appeasement of Dubya available above. It is an argument of manner rather than matter in this content free election time. Sen. Paul (I Was Lying) Wellstone was painting himself as a friend of the Defense Department yesterday on MPR while his rival was at a Veteran's club. The content free election I warned of is here. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/756157/posts

During one of the campaign debates in 2000 when then Governor Bush was asked if America should engage in any sort of "nation building" in the aftermath of a war in which we have involved our troops, he stated gave the purist expression of what is now a Bush doctrine: "I don't think so. I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. We're going to have a kind of nation building corps in America? Absolutely not."

The events of the last 85 years provide ample evidence that our approach to winning the peace that follows war is almost as important as winning the war itself. The absence of enlightened nation building after World War I led directly to the conditions which made Germany vulnerable to fascism and the rise to
Adolph Hitler and made all of Europe vulnerable to his evil designs. By contrast the enlightened vision embodied in the Marshall plan, NATO, and the other nation building efforts in the aftermath of World War II led directly to the conditions that fostered prosperity and peace for most the years since this city gave birth to the United Nations.



Note it is Mr. Gore who played the "H"-card and not your poster, VKS.

Think back a few years-remember the polls that indicated that a majority of the American public chose "to share power with other countries," with the next largest group being the isolationists. Compare this with the different World Orders listed in the Stonewall post. I'm trying to think up a possible organizing method that would accomodate the two largest groups, with a grass roots, bottom up flavor. (BTW, I went on a deleting spree when I noticed that my posts were turning into rants).

"We also need to look at the relationship between our national goal of regime change in Iraq and our goal of victory in the war against terror. In the case of Iraq, it would be more difficult for the United States to succeed alone, but still possible." Al Gore, Jr.

The first comment is quite laughable considering we've been engaging in this sort of "navel gazing" since 1998, when the Clinton/Gore folks really were, imho, attempting to distract the American people (as in "Wag the Dog") with a little "War on Iraq". Part II, of the comment, is even more funny than the first. But only to a conservative, as liberals view American power with such, such distaste, as to render selfsame "power" as virtually nonexistent.

If Gore equates Saddam with Hilter, why did he and Clinton, "appease" the guy back in 1998?

As far as "nation building" goes, personally I don't care if Iraq is rebuilt pr not. Another "constitutional democracy", in tandem with Israel, would be a nice thing to have in a region of horrific despots, but that's really up to the Iraqi people, themselves. Third World countries have a bad habit of replacing one bad guy with another bad guy. But so what? The current "bad guy" has obvious, imho, bad designs on America, and Americans, and has to be dealt with.

And then we'll deal with the next "bad guy" that comes along. It is, after all, in our best interests, imho, to do so.

IMHO, of course. :wink:

Stonewall,

You raise some fair criticisms. Sorry that I lumped the Greens with the Third Way. I once called a Trotskyite a Stalinist and caught hell for it. I still think that the Greens and Schroeder will have a tough time together and it will reflect on the Greens, for good or bad. Especially in light of your explanation of how they differ on international bodies.

My view of the shift to the right in Europe is based on the past few elections in Italy, the Netherlands and France, and the fact that shifts in Europe have led those in this country (Thatcher before Reagan). In any event, the German election did continue the narrowing of the mandate of the left.

As for anti-Bush criticisms not being anti-Americanism, you are probably right. All the Euro lefties were pro-American and supportive of the use of force when Clinton rattled the sabers at Iraq in 1998 right during the impeachment proceedings. Their flip flop now when Bush says the same things is a sign that they are anti-Bush and not anti-American.

I trust that Becks will understand the need to switch its distribution from the blue area to the red area. As for me, I am now partial to Bass and Tony Blair. Whatever happens in the 4T, commerce must remain open with these brewers, even if they are owned by major corporations.

Brian Rush can probably pick this apart and it would probably be a good thing if he did. The electorate needs a clear perception of how his (and presumably the Green) globalist scheme differs from the others. It can be stated in no more concrete terms than in elimination of the three part global corporatist racket, the WTO, IMF, and World Bank (if that is indeed what it is). But people need to know this.

Stonewall, I don't really feel I can speak for the American Green Party, let alone their German counterparts. I do believe the Greens stand against those three organizations as currently constituted, and I agree with them.

But let's clarify one thing. The reason those bodies are objectionable is that they represent global governance wholly in service to corporate interests, without proper regard for the public good, and without accountability to the people. They are not objectionable merely because they represent global governance or global economic regulation.

It might actually be possible to use the WTO, IMF, and World Bank for good purposes if, somehow, they could be made accountable to electorates. But if that can't be done, then they need to be scrapped and replaced with something that can be made accountable.

Regardless, some governing entities capable of countering the power of multinational corporations are necessary. As always, vigilance is required to prevent government (which should serve the public interest) from being corrupted to the service of private greed and ambition.

I am far from certain the U.N., as presently constituted, can fill the bill, either. We need considerable reform and remaking of our institutions of global governance. This will not be a simple task.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

I am far from certain the U.N., as presently constituted, can fill the bill, either. We need considerable reform and remaking of our institutions of global governance. This will not be a simple task.

It remains unclear if the UN can fill any bill. The Secretariat Building in New York could almost be the World Futility Monument, based on the UN's record.

As I began reading this in my local newspaper this morning, I of course thought.... "now this is very 4T." I was a bit surprised when the final advice from the interviewed family included READ "THE FOURTH TURNING."



Home Designs Uniting Family Generations
Wednesday, September 25, 2002

BY BROOKE ADAMS
THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE

PARK CITY -- From the outside, the two homes look like any of the other high-dollar houses tucked into the hillsides of this resort town.
Expansive views. Multi-car garages. Exquisite styling. Lots of bedrooms and bathrooms. Enough space for not just one family, but two -- which is exactly what these "intergenerational homes" or "extended family homes" are designed to accomplish.
Built in the past year, the Noble/Hooten home in Jeremy Ranch and the Morken/Brown home in Mountain Ranch Estates are designed to accommodate -- under one roof -- two branches of a single family: the one just starting out and the one moving into its later years.
"The kind of thing we're doing here has an honorable tradition of separate, independent living in the younger years and [communal] living in the elderly years," says Hugh Morken, 57, who lives with his wife and their daughter and son-in-law and their five kids.
These homes-within-homes are a pioneering update on the granny flat; each family has complete living quarters -- side-by-side in the Noble/Hooten house, stacked in the Morken/Brown home.
The families say that by collaborating, they are able to live in a place and in a home that otherwise would have been beyond their individual means. More importantly, they are prepared to meet each other's caregiving needs -- tucking babies in today, tending to an aging parent in the future. And they are guided by the idea that the strongest family is an extended one, with the oldest generation helping to raise the newest one.
Intergenerational housing was a common phenomenon at the dawn of the 20th century, said Larry McNickle, chief housing advocate for the American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging.
But mobility took over, and families began spreading out across the country.
Now, he said, such living arrangements may be making a comeback because they allow autonomy while providing proximity and security -- a combination that appeals to Baby Boomers who are assuming responsibility for aging parents or facing the specter of their own future needs.
Living with loved ones "may be more cost-effective and compassionate than some of the alternatives out there," McNickle said. "You get the best of both worlds, independence with opportunity for instant involvement if needed."
The Morkens/Browns began talking about living together about three years ago, a conversation that gained urgency after Hugh Morken, who taught political science at Regent University in Virginia, took an early retirement because of health concerns.
"I really felt the need for family support," said his wife Mary Morken.
At the same time, son-in-law Matt Brown was interested in launching a construction company in Park City, where he had moved with wife Eva and their five children ranging in age from 10 months to eight years.
"Where I'm at in my career, it's very difficult to live in Park City and we really wanted to stay here," he said.
Joining forces made sense, Matt Brown said, and the Morken's other children backed the decision.
"We made a commitment to stand by them with whatever is going to happen in the next few years," said Matt Brown, 30. "Part of that involves building a house with them and living with them."
Cherie Hooten, a former Montana County Commissioner, credits divine inspiration with guiding her to share a home with daughter Deanna and son-in-law Michael Noble and their two children in Park City. "It was weirder that we were moving to Utah than that we were going to live with my mom," said Deanna Noble, who previously lived in California. Her husband Michael's home-based business was easily relocated.
They tried sharing an existing house, looked at homes with mother-in-law and basement apartments, but found that to really work, Cherie Hooten "needed her own kitchen, her own space -- her own house basically," Deanna Noble said. And that meant starting from scratch.
Matt Brown and Scott Stubbs, partners in Legacy Group Construction, built both intergenerational homes and are bidding two others.
"You hear more people asking for homes designed like that," said Stubbs. "Ten or 15 years ago it was easy for people to put their parents in an old folks home, but now you want to bring your parents home with you and take care of them."
Both families say it was easy to come up with a design that fit each generations' needs, including guestrooms in the grandparents' space for when other children and friends visit, separate heating zones and, in the Morkens' case, hallways wide enough to accommodate a wheelchair -- should the need arise.
That planning may pay off sooner than expected for the Morkens, as Hugh Morken's 92-year-old dad is likely to come live with them in the near future.
The mortgage is in the name of the older generation, though the younger family helps make the payment. Other bills are split.
Cherie Hooten shares meals with her daughter's family about three times a week; the Morkens eat less often with their daughter's family.
The families say they work at respecting each other's privacy, given the lack of walls to separate them. The Morkens, for example, don't come upstairs into their daughter's family space unless they have arranged to beforehand or ask, just like any visitor.
When Mary Morken wanders upstairs to help her daughter or visit her five grandchildren, she sings out in her smile-washed voice "Knock, knock" and raps on air.


"Arbitrary walls make it possible to get along," said Mary Morken. Her husband adds that "living in such close proximity makes distance critical."


The Morkens and Browns say two books are required reading for families thinking about intergenerational living: The Fourth Turning and Boundaries (both by Dimen- sions in paperback).


Deanna Noble says family meetings help clear the air on the rare occasion when things get touchy. "It's not like you have the privacy you'd have by yourself," Cherie Hooten said. "But sometimes you have to give a little to get a little."








? Copyright 2002, The Salt Lake Tribune

Sign that we are no longer in 3T, Toto:

Christopher Hitchens quits writing for The Nation after 20 years.

Well, it looks like the stock market dodged the bullet again this week. However, if we are in early 4T, then how many more times can that happen before the Great Devaluation does occur? How many more rabbits are left in the hat, so to speak? Guess we're gonna find out...

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Well, it looks like the stock market dodged the bullet again this week. However, if we are in early 4T, then how many more times can that happen before the Great Devaluation does occur? How many more rabbits are left in the hat, so to speak? Guess we're gonna find out...

The great devalution is more likely to occur later in the decade. THis is the opening shot of the secular bear market that should last the entire Crisis.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Well, it looks like the stock market dodged the bullet again this week. However, if we are in early 4T, then how many more times can that happen before the Great Devaluation does occur? How many more rabbits are left in the hat, so to speak? Guess we're gonna find out...

The great devalution is more likely to occur later in the decade. THis is the opening shot of the secular bear market that should last the entire Crisis.

I do think you are right on this one Mike, The 4T mood is not going to see the kind of binge spending which went on in the unraveling with it's near zero savings rate and very heavy borrowing by consumers. That means less consumer spending and less investment in the stock market.

The best economic advice for the next few years is to avoid a mass panic on the stock market (the huge Boomer cohorts retiring could trigger that off) and/or deflationary spiral (as the result of such a stock market panic). If such a stock market panic occurs, there should not be the kind of jacking up of trade tariffs that happended after the 1929 crash. I think the establishment of a strong effective global government, there will be a ban on trade tariffs.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Well, it looks like the stock market dodged the bullet again this week. However, if we are in early 4T, then how many more times can that happen before the Great Devaluation does occur? How many more rabbits are left in the hat, so to speak? Guess we're gonna find out...

The great devaluation might not happen for some time yet, I would expect it around 2010 at the latest. However it could be a slow drawn out affair.

I expect when the great devaluation comes the Developed World will suffer a lot less worse than the Developing World, especially if the Developed World start's jacking up tariffs.

Originally Posted by jds1958xg

Well, it looks like the stock market dodged the bullet again this week. However, if we are in early 4T, then how many more times can that happen before the Great Devaluation does occur? How many more rabbits are left in the hat, so to speak? Guess we're gonna find out...

It starting to look like, 'Not very many.', at least to me. I saw an article in USA Today this morning which brought me up to speed on how the Dow has done so far this year. We're looking at a 28% drop in value in the last six months, with more of the same expected. Add to that not only the prospect of war with Iraq, but also the West Coast Port Facilities labor dispute, and resulting total lockout by management, with no end in sight, and you can draw your own conclusions.

I'll post this article by Jude Wanniski for a couple of reasons. One, he presents an amazing rebuttal to a host of the Bush administration and major media's claims (follow the link to the column's original page in order to follow his source hotlinks). But two, he describes how he has been censored by a few outlets on account of his oppositional views. Is this censorship turning-related? At least it seems to me that this is more active censorship than we typically saw in the '80s and '90s. Maybe, maybe not.


http://supplysideinvestor.com/showar...articleid=2233

(For educ. and discussion)



Memo on the Margin
October 2, 2002


Saddam Hussein is an Ugly, Evil Monster!!!



Memo To: Everyone, Everywhere, Anytime
From: Jude Wanniski
Re: The Price of Admission

The fact that I have been taking issue with assertions about Saddam Hussein that I believe to be false has made me something of a pariah in political circles. After several years of having a link on Matt Drudge?s excellent website, we were yanked without warning earlier this year and have heard Matt got tired of the complaints he was getting about my resistance to war. Townhall.com invited me to write for its popular website of commentators, but will only run on the front page those that deal with economics, as they say they get swamped by angry e-mailers when I write about the Middle East. Some of my own Polyconomics clients have recently been advising me to at least insert a sentence in my letters and memos noting Saddam?s evil nature and how I would celebrate if he got hit by a truck or a stray bomb by our ?surveillance? aircraft.

My clients, who have been reading my analytics for years, at least know that I do not publish material I have not thoroughly vetted, have been nice about their recommendations. I get plenty of unsolicited e-mails from folks who think I am a ?f****** traitor and demand I admit Saddam should be boiled in oil and the burn in Hell forever. I finally decided to write this memo when a regular thorn in my side wrote last week that it is well known Saddam puts children in foul and filthy prisons and treats them with unspeakable cruelty. As I try to answer all e-mails, I responded that this is good news to me, as I had earlier heard Saddam executes children who displease him. Last month, I read in London?s The Independent that Saddam?s favorite weekend hobby is drowning kittens. I subsequently remembered that the Independent is an anti-war paper and was surely making a joke, but one never knows. Maureen Dowd of the NYTimes thinks Saddam must be wacko because he does not turn down the front brim of his fedora. But Human Rights Watch, which is supposed to be a serious outfit, asks us to believe that in 1987 and 1988, Saddam rounded up 100,000 Iraqi Kurds -- men, women and children -- put them in trucks, hauled them south, then machine-gunned them to death and buried them in mass graves!! (HRW first said Saddam?s army used poison gas to kill these Kurds, but switched to machine guns when persuaded gas would be impractical.)

Up until now, I have been avoiding calling Saddam an ugly, evil monster on the basis of reports that I cannot verify independently. There is a persistent report that he once, in his office, pulled out a pistol and shot dead a cabinet minister who disagreed with him on some matter. There is another report he once executed eleven cabinet ministers because he suspected them of something or other. But these things I have not been able to verify. He is said to have ordered the assassination of a retired American President who was vacationing in Kuwait, and the son of that ex-President says that is one of the reasons he wants to get Saddam, dead or alive. But in running down this story, I find it was almost certainly the Kuwaiti government that cooked up this coo-coo story to discourage President Clinton from doing business with Baghdad.

On the other hand, Saddam Hussein has been complaining for years that the US Air Force and the British Air Force have been flying war planes over his country and, when they get the urge, drop some bombs or fire some missiles at Iraqi installations. The United States say they are only firing and bombing in self-defense, because the Iraqis either fire at them, or train their radars on them, which is a signal they might fire. The United States has been saying they have been doing this under UN Resolution 688 which was passed in 1991 to protect Iraqi citizens from military attacks by their government. Now I have checked into this and discovered that the ?no-fly zones? we have been bombing all these years have been for ?humanitarian reasons.? France, which in 1991 participated in the aerial protection of the Kurds in the north and the Shi-ites in the southern ?no-fly zone? decided to stop when there was no evidence that Iraq was engaging in military attacks and if they did, there would be more than no-fly zones. I?ve also learned that UN General Secretary Kofi Annan has stated on several occasions that there is NO authority by the United Nations for the US and Brits to be flying around in Iraqi air space, let alone bombing Iraq, destroying Iraqi property and killing Iraqi citizens.

The Russian government, as a matter of fact, on Monday announced that continued United States bombing of Iraq is making diplomacy difficult in working out details to get the weapons inspectors back into the country. The Pentagon has been stepping up the bombings and the overflights, it seems, hoping the Iraqis will get lucky and shoot one of the planes down. This would be a clear signal for a massive bombing campaign and invasion. The U.S. Secretary of War, Donald Rumsfeld, who used to be called the Secretary of Defense, has pooh-poohed the Russian complaints, and now announced for the first time that the US and British airplanes can fly anywhere they want, because they are acting on Resolution 687!! Resolution 687, also passed in 1991, mandates Iraq's disarmament and required that Baghdad allow U.N. weapons inspectors into the country to certify it was no longer producing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. What the US Secretary of War is saying, in other words, is that the fighter-bombers screeching over Iraq are peeking down now and then to look for weapons of mass destruction.

You may have thought these flights were authorized by the United Nations, people everywhere, but as you can plainly see from Mr. Rumsfeld?s little joke, they are not. Why doesn?t the UN General Assembly pass a resolution saying the US and Brits should stop these illegal flights? It is because the rules of the UN prohibit the General Assembly from acting on matters under the purview of the UN Security Council, which Iraq is, at the moment. Why don?t the other members of the Security Council present a resolution telling the US and UK to cease and desist? Because the US and Brits can veto the resolution. Why bother?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24799- 2002Sep30.html

Iraq's Latest Offer: Bush, Saddam Duel
Friday, October 4, 2002


By SAMEER N. YACOUB
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An Iraqi official offered an unusual suggestion Thursday for solving the U.S.-Iraq standoff: Saddam Hussein and President Bush should fight a duel to settle their differences and avoid a war.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan would be the referee, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan said. It should be "a president against a president, a vice president against a vice president, and a minister against a minister in a duel."
Iraq has two vice presidents. Ramadan did not say whether he or Taha Muhie-eldin Marouf might take on Dick Cheney.


Is this an end of 3T idea or a 4T idea????

Anyway, it has merit.