Er zijn van die onderwerpen waar ik een week gevoel van krijg. Een ‘gatver’ die ik verder niet goed kan omschrijven. Gelukkig zijn er anderen die daar stukken beter in zijn. Zoals Hanneke Groenteman over Neelie Kroes, of over de KRO aktie voor Anne Frank.

“I wrote a ridiculous Perl program to generate text. Thing is, it developed some bugs, and has managed to create phrases and combinations of words (which actually make sense) that I didn’t even program in. I hooked it up to the Blogger API, and now it updates its own weblog with no editing on my part (I just give it a bunch of topics to talk about).”

The first perl script with its own weblog…

Wow. Move your mouse around over the photograph.

[Quote:]

The Rev. Jerry Falwell boasted Friday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election.

“The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives,” Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition.

Falwell said evangelical Christians are now “by far the largest constituency” within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition.

[Quote:]

One day after the Supreme Court sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush, his running mate, Dick Cheney, went to the Capitol for a private lunch with five moderate Republican senators. The agenda he laid out that day in December 2000 stunned Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, sending Mr. Chafee on a painful journey of political conscience that, he said in an interview last week, has culminated with his decision not to vote for Mr. Bush in November.

Advertisement

“I literally was close to falling off my chair,” Mr. Chafee said, recounting the vice president’s proposals for steep tax cuts, missile defense programs and abandoning the Kyoto environmental accords. “It was no room for discussion. I said, ‘Well, you’re going to need us; it’s a 50-50 Senate, you’re going to need us moderates.’ He said, ‘Well, we need everybody.’ ”

For Mr. Chafee, who was a prep school buddy of the president’s brother Jeb and whose father, the late Senator John Chafee, was close to the first President Bush, that day was the beginning of an estrangement with the president, whom he had worked to elect. In the months since, he has opposed Mr. Bush on everything from tax cuts to gay marriage and the war in Iraq. Now, this life-long Republican has concluded that he cannot cast his ballot for the leader of his party.

“I’ll vote Republican,” he said, explaining that he would choose a write-in candidate, perhaps George Bush the elder, as a symbolic act of protest. Asked if he wanted Senator John Kerry to be president, Mr. Chafee shook his head sadly, as if to say he could not entertain the question. “I’ve been disloyal enough,” he said.

[Quote:]

So there you have it. If Kerry wins, he’ll persecute us, but God will kick his ass. If Bush wins, God will take care of everything because we voted for a moral man. And if you have a race between a Jew and an American who is a homosexual, pick the Jew because he might secretly be Christian.

[Quote:]

If we were to sum up where we have ended up after four years of the Intifada, [we would find that] there are three opinions: the first opinion is that after the killing of 1,000 Israelis in the Intifada, Israel would collapse, as would Sharon; the second opinion is that the armed Intifada would liberate the homeland; the third opinion is that the Intifada would bring the settlements to a halt. An examination [of the matter] shows that Sharon did not fall. On the contrary, he has become the most popular [leader] in the history of Israel, after having been subjected to condemnations in Israel. On the same note, all of the Palestinian lands are now occupied and vulnerable, and the settlements have nearly doubled. We damaged our relations with the Americans and with Israeli public opinion; the latest statement from the Quartet is an additional indication of what has become of us.”

– former Palestinian Authority prime minister Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen).

[Quote:]

Secretary of State Colin Powell is not staying for a second Bush term. When he goes the last bulwark against complete neoconservative control of U.S. foreign policy goes with him.

[..]

The realization that the same neocons who dismissed State’s accurate “Future of Iraq Project,” prepared before the war, may now take over at State in the second term is widely viewed inside the department as a threat to the very integrity of the country’s diplomatic first line of defense. Corridor discussion has turned desperate — maybe former Secretary of State James Baker will intervene, maybe former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft will talk to someone, maybe 41 will talk to 43.

State personnel are used to comings and goings of Democratic and Republican administrations, serving all equally and fairly. Not since Vietnam, however, has the U.S. diplomatic establishment viewed the future with such a degree of alarm. Retired U.S. ambassadors and diplomats have raised their own public concerns in signed public statements about the direction of U.S. foreign policy — but that concern pales compared with the quiet revolt brewing against a neocon takeover at Foggy Bottom.

Fox is basically reporting the same:

[Quote:]

Nearly all the senior officials who came to office with President Bush still are on the job. But a big exodus and a Cabinet reshuffling seem likely if he wins a second term.

[Quote:]

The U.S. military is fighting the most complex guerrilla war in its history, with 140,000 American soldiers trained for conventional warfare flailing against a thicket of insurgent groups with competing aims and no supreme leader.

The three dozen or so guerrilla bands agree on little beyond forcing the Americans out of Iraq.

In other U.S. wars, the enemy was clear. In Vietnam, a visible leader — Ho Chi Minh — led a single army fighting to unify the country under socialism. But in Iraq, the disorganized insurgency has no single commander, no political wing and no dominant group.

U.S. troops can’t settle on a single approach to fight groups whose goals and operations vary. And it’s hard to sort combatants from civilians in a chaotic land where large parts of some communities support the insurgents and others are too afraid to risk their lives to help foreigners.

“It’s more complex and challenging than any other insurgency the United States has fought,” aid Bruce Hoffman, a RAND counterinsurgency expert who served as an adviser to the U.S.-led occupation administration.

[Quote:]

It was only after I had been in Baghdad for a month that I found what I was looking for. I had traveled to Iraq a year after the war began, at the height of what should have been a construction boom, but after weeks of searching I had not seen a single piece of heavy machinery apart from tanks and humvees. Then I saw it: a construction crane. It was big and yellow and impressive, and when I caught a glimpse of it around a corner in a busy shopping district I thought that I was finally about to witness some of the reconstruction I had heard so much about. But as I got closer I noticed that the crane was not actually rebuilding anything—not one of the bombed-out government buildings that still lay in rubble all over the city, nor one of the many power lines that remained in twisted heaps even as the heat of summer was starting to bear down. No, the crane was hoisting a giant billboard to the top of a three-story building. SUNBULAH: HONEY 100% NATURAL, made in Saudi Arabia.

Seeing the sign, I couldn’t help but think about something Senator John McCain had said back in October. Iraq, he said, is “a huge pot of honey that’s attracting a lot of flies.�? The flies McCain was referring to were the Halliburtons and Bechtels, as well as the venture capitalists who flocked to Iraq in the path cleared by Bradley Fighting Vehicles and laser-guided bombs. The honey that drew them was not just no-bid contracts and Iraq’s famed oil wealth but the myriad investment opportunities offered by a country that had just been cracked wide open after decades of being sealed off, first by the nationalist economic policies of Saddam Hussein, then by asphyxiating United Nations sanctions.

Looking at the honey billboard, I was also reminded of the most common explanation for what has gone wrong in Iraq, a complaint echoed by everyone from John Kerry to Pat Buchanan: Iraq is mired in blood and deprivation because George W. Bush didn’t have “a postwar plan.�? The only problem with this theory is that it isn’t true. The Bush Administration did have a plan for what it would do after the war; put simply, it was to lay out as much honey as possible, then sit back and wait for the flies.

* * *

The honey theory of Iraqi reconstruction stems from the most cherished belief of the war’s ideological architects: that greed is good. Not good just for them and their friends but good for humanity, and certainly good for Iraqis. Greed creates profit, which creates growth, which creates jobs and products and services and everything else anyone could possibly need or want. The role of good government, then, is to create the optimal conditions for corporations to pursue their bottomless greed, so that they in turn can meet the needs of the society. The problem is that governments, even neoconservative governments, rarely get the chance to prove their sacred theory right: despite their enormous ideological advances, even George Bush’s Republicans are, in their own minds, perennially sabotaged by meddling Democrats, intractable unions, and alarmist environmentalists.

[Quote:]

My name is Michael W and I am a 30-year-old National Guard infantryman serving in southeast Baghdad. I have been in Iraq since March of 04 and will continue to serve here until March of 05.

In the few short months my unit has been in Iraq, we have already lost one man and have had many injured (including me) in combat operations. And for what? At the very least, the government could have made sure that each of our vehicles had the proper armament to protect us soldiers.

In the early morning hours of May 10, one month to the day from my 30th birthday, I and 12 other men were attacked in a well-executed roadside ambush in south-east Baghdad. We were attacked with small-arms fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, and two well-placed roadside bombs. These roadside bombs nearly destroyed one of our Hummers and riddled my friends with shrapnel, almost killing them. They would not have had a scratch if they had the “Up Armour” kits on them. So where was [George] W [Bush] on that one?

It’s just so ridiculous, which leads me to my next point. A Blackwater contractor makes $15,000 [£8,400] a month for doing the same job as my pals and me. I make about $4,000 [£2,240] a month over here. What’s up with that?

Beyond that, the government is calling up more and more troops from the reserves. For what? Man, there is a huge fucking scam going on here! There are civilian contractors crawling all over this country. Blackwater, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton, on and on. These contractors are doing everything you can think of from security to catering lunch!

We are spending money out the ass for this shit, and very few of the projects are going to the Iraqi people. Someone’s back is getting scratched here, and it ain’t the Iraqis’!

My life is left to chance at this point. I just hope I come home alive.

[Quote:]

Dismayed that the technology company Accenture had located its headquarters in Bermuda, thereby avoiding paying hundreds of millions of dollars in US taxes, the House Appropriations Committee voted 35-17 this summer to strip the firm of a $10 billion Homeland Security contract.

It was a rare moment of bipartisan agreement and an important victory for those who decry corporate tax loopholes. But it didn’t last long. The Rules Committee, the all-powerful gatekeeper of the Republican leadership, prevented the measure from reaching the House floor. In a further show of its power to pick and choose what the full House can vote on, the Rules Committee allowed the House to vote on a ban on future Homeland Security contracts to overseas companies — but let the $10 billion flow to Accenture, which spent $2 million last year lobbying the government.

The Accenture episode is emblematic of the way business is conducted in the 108th Congress, where a Republican leadership has sidelined legislation unwanted by the Bush administration, even when a majority of the House seemed ready to approve it, according to lawmakers, lobbyists, and an analysis of House activities. With one party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress, and having little fear of retaliation by the opposing party, the House leadership is changing the way laws are made in America, favoring secrecy and speed over open debate and negotiation. Longstanding rules and practices are ignored. Committees more often meet in secret. Members are less able to make changes to legislation on the House floor. Bills come up for votes so quickly that elected officials frequently don’t know what’s in them. And there is less time to discuss proposed laws before they come up for a vote.

“There is no legislative process anymore,” said Fred Wertheimer, the legendary open-government activist who has been monitoring Congress since 1963. “Bills are decided in advance of going to the floor.”

[Quote:]

Rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York, was asked to explain the connection between Saddam and Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda network, blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

“I have seen the answer to that question migrate in the intelligence community over a period of a year in the most amazing way. Second, there are differences in the intelligence community as to what the relationship was,” Rumsfeld said.

“To my knowledge, I have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two,” Rumsfeld added.

Does that count as a flip-flop?

[Quote:]

Of the many cultural grenades being tossed that day, though, the one must-see is “George W. Bush: Faith in the White House,” a DVD that is being specifically marketed in “head to head” partisan opposition to “Fahrenheit 9/11.” This documentary first surfaced at the Republican convention in New York, where it was previewed in tandem with an invitation-only, no-press-allowed “Family, Faith and Freedom Rally,” a Ralph Reed-Sam Brownback jamboree thrown by the Bush campaign for Christian conservatives. Though you can buy the DVD for $14.95, its makers told the right-wing news service WorldNetDaily.com that they plan to distribute 300,000 copies to America’s churches. And no wonder. This movie aspires to be “The Passion of the Bush,” and it succeeds.

[Quote:]

About one in four Americans holds anti-Muslim views, such as a belief that the religion teaches violence and hatred, according to a survey an Islamic advocacy group released Monday.

The survey by the Council on American-Islamic Relations found a majority of Americans hold positive views of Muslims, while a substantial number have no opinion at all.

Perhaps they should read some of this:

[Quote:]

The Dalai Lama on Monday told more than 1,000 people at the National Cathedral he doesn’t believe differences between fundamentalist Islam and the religions of the West are the cause of war and modern violence.

The 14th Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet, joined representatives from 11 other major religions to lead a prayer session for peace in the heart of historic downtown Mexico City.

“Some people were under the impression that there is a clash” between traditions of the East and West, said the Dalai Lama, adding that he didn’t think so. He said “hatred was easily manipulated” and that “some mischievous people manipulate religion.” But he added later that “the whole world, due to communication, population and tourism, is something like one entity, one body.”

[Quote:]

Before negotiating telecommunications contracts for clients out West, Bill Harris made a habit of reviewing network outage reports filed with the Federal Communications Commission, scanning for clues that carriers had laid fiber on open ground in areas prone to wildfires.

“It’s not something a typical customer would think of, but if I’m in California, would it be important? Absolutely,” said Harris, a partner with CCS Partners LLC, in Louisville, Ky. “You may negotiate on a certain point, and [the account team] would look at you as though to say, ‘That will never happen.’ Then you pull out the outage report and show them.”

By knowing where carriers had experienced problems, Harris said he was better prepared to discuss SLAs (service-level agreements) and to procure redundant services where necessary. But he’s now lost that advantage. After more than a decade of making such carrier outage reports available to the public, the FCC in August ruled that the information will be kept secret, lest it fall into the hands of terrorists.

At the same time, the FCC has ordered more carriers, including wireless and satellite operators, to begin turning over more-detailed data about a broader variety of network outages.

The policy reversal reflects a larger practice in post-9/11 Washington of demanding an ever-increasing amount of data from corporate America while holding back information from the public. The government will know what’s happening in the networks, but for businesses seeking to compare network performance and service availability, there no longer will be objective data to consult.

[Quote:]

Canada is at a critical stage in the development of its copyright law: it has not yet ratified the 1996 World Intellectual Property Organization “Internet Treaties,” but it is poised to do so. This article analyses the rhetoric of “protection” ubiquitous in Canadian discussions of copyright policy, and identifies among the various uses of the term both a problematic assumption that protection is or should be the primary function of copyright, and overblown claims about copyright’s power to protect Canadian culture and creators. These “common sense” ideas, fostered by rights–holder lobbies, emerge out of a peculiar Canadian history of cultural nationalism(s), but they may not promote the interests of Canadians. Ironically, while professing fear for their cultural sovereignty, and following the paths of their own internal political, bureaucratic, and rhetorical culture, Canadians appear to be constructing a copyright policy in complete harmony with the needs of American and international capital.