WTF, Dick?

The WashPo has a story on the secretive doings of VP Cheney on today's front page. Here are five highlights (as selected by Slate's Roger McShane in his 'Today's Paper' column):

5. "In the usual business of interagency consultation, proposals and information flow into the vice president's office from around the government, but high-ranking White House officials said in interviews that almost nothing flows out."
4. "Man-size Mosler safes, used elsewhere in government for classified secrets, store the workaday business of the office of the vice president."
3. "Even talking points for reporters are sometimes stamped 'Treated As: Top Secret/SCI.' "
2. "Cheney declines to disclose the names or even the size of his staff, generally releases no public calendar and ordered the Secret Service to destroy his visitor logs."
1. "His general counsel has asserted that 'the vice presidency is a unique office that is neither a part of the executive branch nor a part of the legislative branch,' and is therefore exempt from rules governing either."

My favorite is No. 1--what does that mean anyway? His office is "exempt from rules governing" the executive and legislative branch? So, in effect, there are no rules for him (because he sure as hell doesn't fall under the judiciary)?! Even if everything he's doing is above board (which I doubt), just by conducting business in this way, he's drawn a tremendous amount of suspicion down on himself. Why? Because, he just doesn't give a fuck! I'm sure in his mind he can do whatever he wants because he alone knows what our country needs--fuck the common voter. We're all stupid and don't know what's good for us. We need him to make that decision for us. And, we certainly don't need to know about what's going on in our government. That would just make us more confused. Good thing we have Dick up there, watching out for us... and covering his ass in secrecy should he turn out to be wrong. (Ooops, he already has?)

A Lost Cause?

Here is a very interesting conversation between two, award-winning Guardian reporters regarding their experiences in Iraq, views on the current situation, roots of the civil war, and where they see things going.

One of the most interesting insights is the role of Paul Bremer in creating a Shia/Sunni polarization that previously did not exist before the Americans invaded. The reporters claim that prior to 2003, no one in Iraq identified themselves as Sunni or Shiite. They were Iraqis first. They also say that Iraq had the highest inter-marriage rate between Sunnis and Shia in the Muslim world. Then there was the "American effort at social engineering in Iraq. And there was a simplicity to it. It was almost binary: Sunnis equal bad guys; Shia equal oppressed. We must empower the Shia, we must marginalise the Sunnis." And, now there is a civil war. (That's an oversimplification and it leaves out several aspects of their argument, but you'll just have to read the article.)

Perhaps most disturbing, though, is their thoughts on the possible success of partitioning. They feel that the Sunnis and Shia don't want this because both groups feel they can still defeat the other and take control of the country. Right now, the groups are locked in a land grab in order to seize as much territory as possible before the Americans leave, at which point, according the reporters, the "real" civil war will begin.

Frightening. Disturbing. Is there any hope for Iraq?

For cryin' out loud...

Here's what I can't stand about the folks who take to the streets about this or Danish cartoons, or whatever. They run around protesting, rioting, threatening to kill people, ACTUALLY killing people, etc. etc. every time someone does something to offend them. Publish a cartoon they don't like? Riots and mayhem. Write a book they don't like? Death sentence, riots and mayhem. Make someone a knight whose book they don't like? Death sentences, riots, and mayhem.

At the same time, they (and this is a very broad "they", perhaps overly broad) elect a president (Iran) that openly talks of the destruction of Israel and denies the Holocaust, elect a terrorist organization (Hamas) that has actually killed many, many people to run a government (Palestinian Authority), burn our flags in the street, chant "Death to America" (or whoever else they're pissed at) like it was as commonplace and inoffensive as "Let's Go Mets," and a myriad of other things infinitely more offensive to the West or Israel than anything they go bonkers about.

Yet we're supposed to let them be. In the meantime, they can pronounce death sentences and ransack places in response to a cartoon or a book. WTF? Its so one-sided its impossible to take seriously. The inability to see another's perspective is reminicent of childhood development, where a kid below a certain age just CAN'T look at things from another's point of view. And yet these are adults.

You want to be treated like adults? Like men? Like sovereign nation-states with legitimate grievances? Then stop acting like whatever you do is A-OK, while taking deadly offense to every little thing someone else does! No wonder nobody takes to you seriously (except as violent threat)! No wonder the world looks at you as unreasonable wackos.

End of rant.

Everyone Loves Tort Reform...

Until the tort's on you! Illustrious (if evil) conservative jurist Judge Robert Bork just filed a $1 million (plus punitives) slip-and-fall lawsuit against the Yale Club in NYC for a fall he took while he was there to give a speech.

His injuries appear to be a really bad bruise, although I defer to any medical personnel who could correct me on this. He has hired one of the most respected (and expensive) firms in the country to pursue this case. I guess now that Johnny Cochran's passed away...