Capitol Hill Follies

If Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D.-GA) had any sense of class or decency (and the evidence suggests that she doesn't), she'd send a bottle of champagne to Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D.-RI). Ok, maybe not champagne. Maybe a nice fruit basket.

McKinney is the cretin who accused the Capitol Hill Police of being racists for trying to enforce the rules. McKinney tried to bypass a metal detector - which she's allowed to do, provided she's wearing the pin which idenitifies her as a member of Congress, which she wasn't. When a police officer tried to stop her, she assaulted him and then held press conference after press conference claiming the incident was racially motivated.

Well, in a way, she's right. Like most of her generation of black "leaders", McKinney plays the race card every chance she gets. When her party was outmaneuvered in Georgia and her district gerrymandered to where Democrats were the minority, she claimed it was based on race. It couldn't have had anything to do with the fact that earlier, during her first stint in Congress, right after the 9/11 attacks, she accused President Bush of complicity in the worst attack ever on U.S. soil. Naahhhh. Had to be "whitey". McKinney suffers from "Carpenter's Syndrome". When you're a member of the racial grievance industry....

Lucky for her, Ted Kennedy's son, Rep. Patrick Kennedy came along to bump her out of the news cycle. What a piece of work this guy is! Early Thursday morning (about 2:45 a.m.), Kennedy slammed his car into a Capitol Hill Police barricade at the corner of First and C Street. He staggered from his car claiming to be late for a vote even though the House had been closed for hours. Capitol Hill Police wanted to perform field sobriety tests, but their supervisor ordered them all to leave the scene. Then the supervisor drove Kennedy home!

Kennedy claims he wasn't drinking. A waitress at a nearby bar, the Hawk & Dove, says otherwise. So do the Capitol Hill Police officers on the scene. They thought Kennedy was drunk and wanted to give him a sobriety test. Only their boss decided it was his duty to play chauffeur to this privileged git.

Where to begin? How about at the beginning? I mean, you have to feel a little sorry for this guy since the deck was stacked against him from birth. His parents are Joan and Ted "Manslaughtering Cheater" Kennedy. Talk about being pre-disposed to alcoholism! It would be a minor miracle if he weren't a booze hound.

Now, Patrick Kennedy is 39 years old - basically my age. In 1987, while a student at Providence College (what's the matter? had Harvard already met their quota for Kennedys?) he did a stint in rehab for cocaine abuse. Do the math - he was 20! He has since developed a reputation for a guy who uses his famous name and office to get special treatment. There's video tape of him from three years ago trying to avoid an airport security checkpoint. When confronted, he berates and shoves the checkpoint attendant - a woman. Whatta guy! Earlier this year he was involved in another auto accident in his home district where he was apparently speeding through a parking lot.

Kennedy claims that he has a problem with prescription medication. He has wrapped himself in the victim's mantle and has checked himself into rehab. I would ask if he has a sense of shame, but knowing he is the son of Ted Kennedy, the question's rhetorical.

Now, if you or I crashed a car into a police barricade and staggered out reeking of booze, there's likely nothing we could do to avoid a field test. This would be followed by a night in jail, a date in court, a court-ordered alcohol education program, substantial fines, increased insurance premiums, and restricted driving privileges.

Not little Patrick Kennedy. Instead, he's going to get a six-week vacation and a date on the Oprah Winfrey show.

The Kennedy clan have gone from being "American royalty" to the Jackson family of politics and we have descended into a full-scale celebritocracy.

Where is the outrage?

Long time, no blog

Greetings, loyal readers! (Or reader, as the case may be.) It's been about two months since I vented my spleen about the state of the world. Since I am easing back into this, I thought I'd catch everyone up on what's been going on these last eight weeks.

I last blogged from Tirana, Albania. I was there for work, as usual. Frankly, Albania ain't much too look at, but I was glad to get the assignment again since my brother and sister-in-law are there. I should amend my earlier statement. Tirana isn't much to look at. I'll bet there is plenty of beautiful Balkan countryside in Albania, I just didn't get to see it. If you are ever considering traveling to that part of the world, I recommend not going there in February. It wasn't particularly cold, but it rained nearly the whole time we were there (almost three weeks).

After Albania, I spent the rest of March stateside crawling the walls, waiting for my next trip. Luckily my next trip was a vacation to Brazil. I took my Mom down to Recife to meet my girlfriend, Ana Maria Bezerra Sales. I also delivered an engagement ring to Ana making her my fiancee. We spent four days in Brazil and had a really good time. I also took the Foreign Service Written Exam (the first step towards becoming a Foreign Service Officer) at the U.S. Consulate there. I was sorry to leave Brazil and Ana but my next trip beckoned.

I'm writing to you from my next destination, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. This is my fourth trip to Jeddah. I have to confess: I pretty much loathe Saudi Arabia. It's hot and dusty and no fun at all.

What's to like? Not much. For starters, what infuriates me the most is how the Saudis subjugate their women. I mean, can you imagine living in the 120 degree heat of the desert and having to wear a long, black dress and a black headscarf when out in public? It's nigh on cruel and unusual punishment. Frankly I think the men here know that they don't have what it takes to truly love and please a woman and so they subordinate them. I gotta hand it to them, though. They've brainwashed the women into thinking it's for their own good, while the men walk around in their long, white dresses.

Your average Saudi doesn't work - at least not much. For that they have all manners of foreigners. From Americans and Europeans to perform the skilled labor (lawyers, engineers, doctors) to Pakistanis and Bengalis to do all the menial labor (domestic servants, food service, sanitation). They are obsequious towards the former and condescending, bigoted and cruel towards the latter. Again a reflection of their so-called "manhood".

You have to time when you go out for a meal because they close all the shops during prayer time. I would have much more respect for the Saudis and their puritannical culture if I didn't know it was rank hypocrisy. I mean, I would respect their piety if they all, or at least a significant number of them, stopped to pray during prayer time. But they don't.

As for the prohibition on alcohol, that's looked at with a wink and a nod. Everyone knows that in the homes of the rich and powerful and the royals, alcohol is consumed. In fact, it's rumored that it is the royals who are largely responsible for what traffic there is in drugs and alcohol in the Kingdom. And they are well-known party people as soon as they set foot outside the Kingdom.

In all, I highly recommend that you NEVER come to Saudi Arabia, if you can at all help it. Stick to Brazil. Better food, better weather, better women.

Luckily I am getting out of this gilded hell-hole tomorrow night. I fly from Jeddah to Kuala Lumpur to Ho Chi Minh City. I was there in 2004 and had a great time. I can't wait to get there. I'll write you once I get settled in.

Wow, that's big of him!

Check out this from EFE news (a Spanish news agency) reported March 6:

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez will seek a constitutional amendment to extend his presidency until 2031 should opposition parties boycott the Dec. 3 presidential election, Chavez said in his weekly radio and television address March 5 that the United States was orchestrating the potential opposition boycott in an effort to undermine his presidency. The Dec. 3 election is the last one in which Chavez can legally participate under current laws.

I must say that it is remarkably magnanimous of Chavez to only ask for a twenty-five year extension to his presidency, as I would have expected him to press for a presidency-for-life.

Of course, given that Chavez is 52, a twenty-five year extension is pretty much the same thing. And who's to say that if he lives to be 77, Chavez won't push for yet another extension?

Don't hold your breath, Mahmoud

Posted without comment.

The International Atomic Energy Agency must compensate Iran for damaging its development by suspending its nuclear activities, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said March 7.

Ouch!

Check out this item from the Palm Beach Sun-Sentinel. I think in this case even I might be inclined to sue. Whoo-boy!

One sharp cookie

Check out this letter to the editor of delawareonline.com from one Bradley Lehman of Hockessin, DE. The letter is not very long, so please give it a read.

Mr. Lehamn is just 17 years old. This is one bright kid. He sees very clearly what so many in the United States, blinded and unhinged by their hatred of President Bush, do not.

As the old saying goes...

...you can't make this stuff up!

The New York Times has a lengthy article on what they call "mixed-orientation" marriages. The first few paragraphs explain what the phenomena is. Paragraphs four and five cite some statistics that seem to try and convince the reader that this phenomenon of gay men (or, as the Times calls them, "men who have sex with men") married to women isn't as rare as the reader might first think.

Paragraphs six, seven and eight try to give some historical context, citing some famous gay men, past and present, who have been married to women. These are only anecdotal and hardly indicative of some burgeoning national trend. In paragraph nine, however, they do acknowledge that anything resembling exact numbers just aren't available.

They then quote a research anthropologist from Rutgers University, Helen Fisher, who says that, "human partnerships are shaped by three independent neurochemical brain-body systems, responsible respectively for sexual attraction, romantic yearning and long-term attachment." Ms. Fisher (I assume she does not hold a Ph.D. else the Times would have referred to her as Dr.) tells the reader that these "three independent systems help explain why people can be wildly sexually attracted to those they have no romantic interest in, and romantically drawn to — or permanently attached to — people who hold no sexual interest."

The article then continues on with a discussion of whether or not women who enter such relationships are truly deceived or if they are, in fact, deceiving themselves. They also cite what statistics are available on the success or failure of such marriages.

I have to admit, the article is pretty even-handed. It does attempt to show both sides while not condemning such unions. This is more than I expected from the Gray Lady.

But the real shocker is how the Times chooses to end the article. They finish with a look at one such "mixed-orientation" marriage. The last five paragraphs informs the reader of the marriage of Paulette and Jerry Cormack from (where else?) California (sorry, Nick!).

First let me invoke another old saying: "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt." Here's how the Times describes Mrs. Cormack's view of her "marriage":

For 34 years, Mrs. Cormack said in an interview, she has known that although she and her husband are sexually active together, his erotic desires otherwise focus almost exclusively on men. "It's not easy, but I truly do love him," Mrs. Cormack said.

As if that weren't pathetic enough (pathetic in the sense that Mrs. Cormack is deserving of sympathy) here's the last paragraph of the article:

He added: "I am totally committed on all levels to Paulette. I felt so intimate with her when I was caring for her during her cancer treatments — to me, that's a stronger expression of love than whether I'm having anonymous sex with a man." (emphasis added)

How can I possibly expound on such an extraordinary attitude?

Crap as an appetizer

This is what passes for rational commentary and persuasive speech from the Left in Oregon (but I repeat myself).

Voters selected this menu

After having been force-fed a steady diet of terrorist teriyaki in 2004, fearful Americans re-enthroned a delusional White House chef de cuisine who believes that he has a divine mandate to jam his recipe for theocracy down the nation's throat.

Consequently, a five-star evangelical eatery has its tables set for a battle between Planned Parenthood and the state of South Dakota. This fundamentalist food court is called Chez Scalitomas. And anti-choice members of its staff are now preparing the Lord's supper at One First Street NE in Washington, D.C.

For carnivores, the reactionary restaurant's road kill menu may soon feature eviscerated Roe vs. Wade served on a tasty bed of freshly slaughtered stare decisis. Vegans may be offered a delightful Garden of Eden salad topped with a heavenly creationist dressing intelligently designed by cordon bleu Bible-thumpers.

Voters asked for this born-again carte du jour. Now the meal they ordered from it is about to be served. Bon appetit!

What I don't understand is why a reputable newspaper would print such tripe. It's not even very clever. It contains all the usual tropes mouthed by the Left. It's certainly not original.

So, let's carve this turkey!

First you have the use of the word "enthroned", as if Bush were some kind of unlawful or illegitimate ruler. Bill Clinton served two terms and never once garnered more than 50% of the vote. Was he "enthroned", too?

Then is the mandatory claim that America is going to become a theocracy. Well, which is it, crunchy? Is he a monarch or a mullah? I won't even pretend to understand what the next paragraph is all about. The author seems to be saying that the theocratic lackeys of George Bush on the Supreme Court (only two of whom were appointed by him) are going to overturn Roe v. Wade. Well, so what if they do? Then what will happened is what should have happened before the disastrous Roe ruling was handed down. The people might actually get to decide if abortion should be legal.

What I don't get is the fact that, despite all the overblown rhetoric about rulers being enthroned and theocratic takeovers of society and democracy and its institutions being sacrificed, the author contradicts all his own breathless pronouncements in the title and the second-to-last sentence. " Voters asked for this born-again carte du jour." Yes, they did. Get over it.

Muslim Hyper-sensitivity

Check out this article from OregonLive.com. It details the reaction by Muslim students at Oregon State University to a column about "cartoon-gate" by an OSU junior named Nathaneal Blake.

The colum, entitled "The Islamic Double Standard", accuses Muslims of demanding a double-standard of sensitivity for their beliefs while extending little to others' beliefs. The reason for the Western media's indulging of this double standard, according to Blake, is that "[b]luntly put, we expect Muslims to behave barbarously".

This touched off the expected student protests and hyperbolic sound bites like this one from the OSU Muslim Student Association's vice president, Nada Mohamed:

Tears were flowing out of my eyes as I was reading [the column]. I felt like somebody was ripping my heart out.

I've commented myself on the double standard demanded by Muslims and won't rehash those arguments here.

What I wanted to draw your attention to was this item on the second page of the article on OregonLive.com:

[OSU Daily Barometer editor DD Bixby] said editors have been checking copy with Muslim students, and on Tuesday deleted one paragraph from a piece scheduled to be published the next day

What's that? The Daily Barometer appears to have accepted some kind of "Muslim sensitivity" editorial review board that is striking items from stories slated to be published in its pages. Haven't these people heard of a little thing we in America like to call the First Amendment?

Lunacy!

Oscar Picks Revisited

I was pleasantly surprised to wake up this morning and find that I wasn't living in a "Brokeback World". I couldn't have been happier to go 2-for-5 in my Oscar picks.

I both pleased and hugely surprised that "Crash" picked up the Best Picture award. It really is a fine, thought-provoking, well-acted drama.

I don't think Clooney or Rachel Weisz deserved their Best Support Oscars, but those are traditionally the categories where the Academy is allowed to screw up (the Marisa Tomei rule). I think with Clooney was the sense, "Look, the guy is taking his charm and clout and trying to use them to do serious work that will provoke real conversations about topics without being a Sean Penn or a Sarandon/Robbins - polarizing figures - so let's reward him." I thought Syriana was really mediocre, but remember Clooney was nominated three times last night, so I think the sense was he had to win something.

I think the same could be said of Ang Lee and "Brokeback Mountain". "Mountain" was nominated for 8 Oscars but only won three. The Academy has to award it something, otherwise why was it so heavily nominated in the first place?

I thought "The Constant Gardener" was a long, boring mess of a movie and didn't really think anything about it was Oscar-worthy. In it, you take a member of an acceptable modern-day "bad guy" group - drug companies - and pit them against the plucky, "you-can't-tame-me-you-stodgy-British-diplomats" wife/heroine and stir. The story is like "Syriana" but for drug companies. Such characterization and demonization of drug companies is too facile by half.

You go, boyyyy!

A hearty congratulations to new Chief Justice John Roberts. Not only did the Roberts Court side with the defendant, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the case Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR), but Roberts was able to do so unanimously. Not only were there no dissents, there weren't even any separate concurrences.

As such, it was a huge rebuke to the academy. The academy, in this case 36 law schools, filed suit against the DoD protesting that the Solomon Amenment (which provides for forfeiture of certain federal monies if the institution in question does not permit military recruiters the same access to students as other employers) was a violation of their right to free speech and free association.

It seems that the shrinking violets at these law schools just couldn't bear to be associated with the military and their [congressionally-mandated] "don't ask, don't tell" policy. Now, the obvious solution is the one that Chief Justice Roberts asked during oral arguments. If the law schools had a problem with the military and its policies, why not just not take the money?

But that was unthinkable to the law schools. Cynically, they insisted on a right to suckle at the federal teat, with none of the responsibilities (as if it were beyond the power of Congress to attach conditions to receiving federal funds). This would certainly be news to the states, who have had to lower the threshold for driving while intoxicated and the legal drinking age in order to keep receiving federal funds for maintenance of highways.

Roberts and Co. smacked the law schools down, 8-0. (Justice Alito, who was not on the bench during oral arguments, was prohibited from deciding the case.) Way to go!

And, yet there is another aspect to this case that has gone unexamined as far as I can tell. It is this: why wasn't FAIR suing the Congress? Maybe you can't and that's why. But if you can sue the DoD, why not Congress?

In any case, if the law schools represented by FAIR had a problem with the Solomon Amendment, why not take it up with Congress?

Come on! You know the answer as well as I do. Objecting to the "don't ask, don't tell" policy was a pretext. The law schools were looking for a reason to deny military recruiters access to their students and they thought they had found it.

Does anybody really think that anyone would have conflated the law schools allowing military recruiters on campus with support for the military in general, or this policy in particular? Do the law schools allow RJ Reynolds and Phillip Morris to recruit on their campuses? Do you think anyone thinks that the nation's elite law schools support the tobacco companies? Of course not. The idea is ridiculous.

Many elite schools already deny ROTC access to campus and have since long before "don't ask, don't tell". (Trying to allow ROTC back on campus at Harvard was one of the disputes outgoing president Lawrence Summers was having with his petulant faculty.) This is just an extension of that policy. "Don't ask, don't tell" was merely the straw at which they grasped to do so.

For Pete's Sake!

Check out this article.

Will someone please tell me why U.S. taxpayers are going to pay to rebuild a mosque that our troops didn't destroy (and presumably would have prevented from being destroyed had they been given the opportunity)?

Why don't we round up the Sunnis who blew the thing up and garnish their wages or freeze their assests, to be used to rebuild the mosque? Why doesn't some enterprising Iraqi approach al-Jazeera about broadcasting a telethon a la Jerry Lewis to raise money to rebuild the mosque?

Haven't we helped Iraq enough without paying for all the damage wrought by the insurgents?

The Opposite of Assimilation

For me, this story from the Chicago Tribune captures exactly one of the problems with immigration.

In this story the reader is told of the travails of Bridgeview's Universal School girls basketball team. What is the problem, you ask? The Universal School is a private school for Muslims. As such, the girls who attend it wear the long, flowing robe (called a jilbab) and headscarf (the hijab) that some seem to think Islam requires. Such garb is worn to promote modesty, which in and of itself, especially in this day and age of Brittany Spears and bared mid-riffs, isn't a bad thing.

(Never mind for a moment that it turns the idea of self-restraint on its head. This uniform for Muslim women serves a dual purpose. It also serves to keep the women from tempting the men. In the 100+ degree heat of Saudi Arabia, I have always found this stricture exceedingly cruel. The men are allowed to go out in their sun-reflecting white thobe, while the women must wear the all-black - and heat-absorbing - abbaya. I always think the same thing, "Why not ask the men to exercise a little self-control instead of enshrouding the women in what surely must be the most uncomfortable garb one could have devised for the desert heat?")

What is a bad thing is what the Universal School is considering demanding of its prospective opponents. In order to play basketball, the girls must, perforce, doff their long robes and headscarves. Horrified at the idea that male spectators would be able to see the bare arms and legs of 15-, 16- and 17-year old girls, the Universal School has decided that it must bar male spectators from the girls' games. This, in and of itself, would not be a problem if similarly-minded opponents abounded. The rub is that they don't. In the Chicago area there are only four other such schools.

Obviously this would make for a very short season. Or a very dull one, facing off against the same competition four or five times each season. So, Universal School would like to play some public school competition. Not a bad idea, you say.

The problem is that would-be opponents "would have to agree to bar men and boys above the age of puberty from watching the games". This means that no fathers and not many brothers would be allowed to watch their favorite young hoopsters play. It would also deprive the opponents of much of their fan support. Not to mention the small fact that many public schools' girls basketball teams are coached by men.

According to the Tribune article, this "dilemma underscores the balancing act many Muslims perform as they toggle between American and Middle Eastern culture".

Yes, it does. And at least one member of the Universal School girls' hoops team has the right idea. "I don't want to have to impose our religious requirements on anyone else," Farhat Siddiqi says. Yet Ms. Siddiqi seems to be in the minority among her minority.

Apparently the Universal School has considered and rejected as impractical the idea of having the girls play in sweat pants and head scarves. Still, in reading the article, they seem unwilling to make any further concessions towards the larger majority. What's wrong with the modest concession of allowing the girls play in short-sleeved jerseys and knee-length shorts like those favored by basketball players from high school through the NBA?

All of this is my long-winded way of underscoring one of the things that is wrong with immigration today. Instead of immigrating to America and embracing our culture while preserving parts of their own, modern-day immigrants seem intent on moving to America and recreating, in toto, their native cultures.

Yet in the elites' imposition of total obeisance to diversity, must we now bar fathers and brothers from watching their daughters and sisters play basketball so as to not offend the hyper-sensitivity of a small segment of our population? What's wrong with a few concessions from the minority?

Fundamental Misunderstanding of Economics

Check out this item from BBC:

The military chief of Nigeria's Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta declared "total war" Feb. 17 against all foreign oil interests in southern Nigeria. In an interview with The British Broadcasting Corp., Maj. Gen. Godswill Tamuno issued an ultimatum to all oil companies to leave the area by midnight Feb. 17. The group's "Dark February" campaign is aimed at stopping foreign exploitation of the region's resources, he said.

If I had been interviewing MG Tamuno, I think the follow up question I would have asked would have gone something like this:

"Well, if foreign oil interests don't exploit these resources, who will?"

What I think the General fails to grasp is that leaving all that oil in the ground doesn't benefit anyone. The Nigerians can derive economic benefit by allowing foreign oil companies to export the Niger Delta's oil reserves. The fact that the revenues from such exporting hasn't benefited the people of southern Nigeria is something MG Tamuno should take up with Abuja, not the oil companies.

France - what a joke

Responding to accusations that the French are working to overthrow Bashar Al-Assad, a French Foreign Ministry spokesman said, "Paris only wants Lebanon to fully recover its sovereignty in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1559."

Oh. So now the French care about enforcing U.N. Security Council Resolutions. Where were they when the U.S. was trying to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441?

Quick Hitter about Iran's Nuclear Weapons Program

Are you ready for a real howler? Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki said that the Iranian nuclear program isn't a threat because "...Iran's religious beliefs prevent it from developing nuclear weapons."

Oscar Picks

I have a long history of disagreeing with the Academy dating back to 1994 when "Forrest Gump" won Best Picture over "The Shawshank Redemption". I could go on about the terrible injustices meted out by the Academy (e.g., "Titanic" over "L.A. Confidential") but won't.

Instead I am going to list my predictions for the "Big Five" awards along with who I think ought to win. Here goes:

Best Picture: "Brokeback Mountain" - It has all the buzz and momentum and has already entered the American lexicon.
My Pick: "Walk the Line" - This is a movie that normal folk can relate to which makes it unsuitable to the Academy. It doesn't flatter the Academy's intellectual vanity.

Best Director: Ang Lee, "Brokeback Mountain" - Again, big Mo' for "Brokeback" will carry Lee along with it.
My Pick: Steven Spielberg, "Munich" - I'm afraid the excellent morality tale will end up being shut out.

Best Actor: Phillip Seymour Hoffman, "Capote" - Again, he has all the momentum going in and the depiction of supreme egotist Capote flatters the Academy's intellectual vanity.
My Pick: Joaquin Phoenix, "Walk the Line" - For the same reason that "Walk the Line" won't win Best Picture, Phoenix will not win the Actor's trophy.

Best Actress: Felicity Huffman, "Transamerica" - Has anyone outside NY, LA and the Academy even seen this movie? Yet lauding movies about homosexuals and transsexuals makes the Academy feel more enlightened than "Red State" America.
My Pick: Reese Witherspoon, "Walk the Line" - For the same reasons Phoenix will not win Best Actor, Witherspoon will not win Best Actress.

Best Supporting Actor: Matt Dillon, "Crash" - This excellent, intricate story of race relations in California will probably not pick up nearly as many awards as it deserves. Dillon is their best shot.
My Pick: Matt Dillon, "Crash" - "Crash" should win more Oscars than "Brokeback Mountain". I mean, really. How relevant are gay cowboys in America? Especially compared to race relations.

Best Supporting Actress: Catherine Keener, "Capote" - Keener is a great actress in the same mold as previous Supporting Actress winner, Marcia Gay Harden. This pick will help stoke the Academy's sense of moral righteousness.
My Pick: Catherine Keener, "Capote" - She's just a great actress.

I'll check back after the awards and see how I did. Lord knows, I hope I am wrong on some of these.

You hit me and I'm going to hit...that guy over there!

Israeli newspaper Haaretz had this report:

Iran will respond to a U.S. attack with a military strike against Israel's main nuclear facility, an Iranian adviser to the Revolutionary Guard said, Haaretz reported Feb. 24. The adviser said the Iranian retaliation against Israeli targets would also focus on Haifa, which houses several chemical factories and oil refineries, and Zakhariya, where an Israeli missile base is located.

Now, in the twisted mental machinations which pass for logic in the Arab world, this might make sense. Except that experience should tell the Iranians they don't want any part of the Israelis. Even when outnumbered and outgunned, the Israelis have mopped up the floor with the Arabs in every stand-up fight they've had with them.

As I write this and think about it, it must just be rhetoric for the masses. The Iranians can't be that stupid, can they?

Most Under-rated Iraqi?

There's an influential figure in Iraq who gets very little media attention. He is not part of the government yet he easily could have been. When others are fanning the flames of sectarian divisions he consistently calls for restraint, cooperation, compromise and dialogue between Sunnis and Shias.

He is Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and, although he is Iranian by birth, he is the senior and most respected Shia cleric in Iraq. Quite simply he is one of that remarkable and all-too-rare breed that we call a "statesman".

On the eve of the 2003 American invasion of Iraq, he issued a fatwa (religious decree) calling on Iraqis not to resist the occupation forces. Shortly after the American occupation began, Sistani issued fatwas calling on Shia clergy not to get involved in politics. He worked with firebrand Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr to agree on a common slate of Shia candidates in the Jan. 30, 2005 elections.

He is a nearly unabashed supporter of democracy in Iraq. He supported the formation of a constitutional convention, and later demanded a direct vote for the purpose of forming a transitional government (perhaps seeing this as a sure path to Shiite dominance over Iraq's government, since most observers say that Shiites make up about 60% of Iraq's population). Subsequently, Sistani has criticized American plans for an Iraqi government as not being democratic enough (!).

In the aftermath of the February 22nd bombing of the Al-Askariyah Shrine in As Samarra, he called for seven days of mourning and restraint against attacks on Sunni mosques.

In my opinion, he is a truly remarkable man and one can only hope that there are many more like him waiting in the wings of the Shia community in Iraq.

Down with the U.S.?

Check out the following report from Agence Presse-France:

About 15,000 Shiites in the town of Budgam in Indian-controlled Kashmir protested the bombing of the Golden Mosque, a Shiite shrine in As Samarra, Iraq, Agence Presse-France reported Feb. 23. The protesters reportedly chanted "down with the U.S." and "death to the enemies of Islam."

What the heck does the United States have to do with this? I think one thing most everyone can, or should be able to, agree on: neither the U.S. nor its armed forces bombed this mosque. In fact, in all likelihood it was a member of that well-known "religion of peace", Islam. Proof again that no good deed goes unpunished.