Month: April 2006

I saw former New York Times correspondent Stephen Kinzer speak last night about his new book Overthrow, a eagle-eye's perspective on the last 14 regime changes carried out by the United States (he's written more in depth about the coups in Guatemala and Iran).

The Q&A was mostly about the situation in Iran. He mentioned having been in Los Angeles, with its very large population of American-Iranians, talking with several immigrants and dissidents friends. I saw him on CSPAN-2 Book TV a few weeks ago, but his composure was changed last night. He looked worried as he related this new story of a large number of prominent Iranian-Americans being pulled to Washington in the past week to talk with administration and military officials, who are trying to get a sense of the reaction on the street if the President were to bomb Iran. And for kickers, how would it play out in the coffeehouses if they were to, say, drop a small tactical bunker-busting nuclear weapon on Iran?

The funny part is how much the administration believes that (a) a free, democratic, Western-and-peace loving Iran is not going to want the nuclear bomb even though backwater neighbors like Pakistan have them and (b) that us bombing a couple hundred military and scientific station is going to cause a democratic revolution, and that people will rise up against the government, instead of, ya know, rallying around it, and (c) how much they want to find a dozen or so Iranian dissents to sign off on it for accountability reasons ("We've consult with people who know Iran and found that the people there crave getting nuked…"). I can only assume it's like an episode of Sopranos, with contracts going out to whomever is willing to go public with support ("you can take 3 points on the construction of Tehran, with 5 no-work jobs and 2 no-shows"); the lack of the government being able to find a patsy only highlights how poorly this is all going to go.

It's great when the internet adds little touches to my favorite television shows. I'm thinking of the slideshows presented by the DP and costume designer for "The Sopranos" on hbo.com. Over the weekend someone told me that the 24 webpage has the resume of all their major characters posted, filling you in on some of the character's backgrounds off-air.

Since it's off the air, they get to have some fun with it. I love that, according to his online resume, the current "24" President, the cowardly, insecure and power-hungry Charles Logan, was was former House member who became the CEO of "Western Energy Coal & Reserve" (winning the "Energy CEO of the Year"), and left his energy company to become the Vice-President. Wonderful.

Those biographies add little neat details – First Lady Martha Logan has an Standford art history degree and worked as a fundraiser, a path about as Congressional wife as you can get. And my favorite, god bless them, is that Jack Bauer studied at Berkeley. I can't describe how happy I am filling in the blanks of my previous visits with Bauer running around Telegraph Street foiling hippies' plans in real time ("Audrey listen! These are plans for a drum circle! a drum circle!" tick tock tick tock).

Three things about "24": (1) For an actor, to say one line and then have to repeat it louder and more angry must be difficult to do all the time. Considering that is more than half of Jack Bauer's lines I genuinely respect Kiefer as an actor. (2) Isn't it weird to consider that Kiefer is a brat packer? He was in Stand by Me, The Lost Boys and Young Guns. Statement: Jack Bauer versus the entirety of the 80s brat pack movie generation. Through in everyone; Anthony Michael Hall to Molly Ringwald to John Cusack. Bauer wins, hands down.

(3) As a friend pointed out, if Jack Bauer asks you to go somewhere with him, don't go. He does just fine by himself, while it's about 99% likely you are going to die (if only so they don't have to write you into the next episode).

As Edward is locked in a room right now trying to finish his qualifying exams, I offer up this entry and bandwidth as a prayer to the Big Baby Jesus (aka Ol' Dirty Bastard) watching over us from the next world, to come and grant his good wishes on Ed.
online pharmacy doxycycline best drugstore for you

Observe a moment of silence as you watch Ol' Dirty Bastard crash the Grammy awards:

The more you watch that, the more the Dirt Dog will guide Ed's political science knowledge from beyond the grave. Feel free to watch other things on youtube related to ODB, including him cashing welfare checks on MTV or the classic Got Your Money video.

On a related note, the new Ghostface Killah album, "Fishscale", is even better than the hype.
online pharmacy clomid best drugstore for you

buy xenical online buy xenical no prescription

Seriously, go out and find it. It may even be better than Liquid Swords as the best (non-ODB) solo Wu-Tang effort.
buy diflucan online buy diflucan no prescription

So Seymour Hersch reported in the New Yorker that the Bush team wants to use "mini"-nuclear weapons against underground Iranian targets. People seemed surprised. My question: do they not remember anything?

This newspaper graph is from October 2000

National Institute for Public Policy (pdf), "Rationale and Requirements for U.S. Nuclear Forces and Arms Control" 01/2001 (italics mine):

Hardened facilities are designed to withstand conventional or nuclear weapons effects. Hardened targets built underground and deeply buried facilities are the most difficult to destroy and will influence the required number and characteristics of nuclear weapons. Tunnels and caverns, for example, can be hundreds of feet below the surface and well-protected by soil and rock. Examples of hardened and buried targets include missile silos, launch control centers, concrete aircraft shelters, deeply buried command posts, tunnels for missile storage and assembly, storage bunkers, and underground facilities for weapons research and production. (p. 5)

(that report is fun to read, with the think tank suggesting, pre 9/11, the need to keep the military flush for our upcoming military conflict with the "worse yet, a Sino-Russian alliance". Hersch points out in his article that signers of the above document are currently, among other thigns, the national-security adviser, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security for the Bush team.
online pharmacy nolvadex best drugstore for you

buy strattera online buy strattera no prescription

)

That report fed into the Nuclear Posture Review, a Rumsfeld signed confidential report given to Congress in March 2002 (excellent broad overview, with links to accompanying editorials, here):

"Composed of both non-nuclear systems and nuclear weapons, the strike element of the New Triad can provide greater flexibility in the design and conduct of military campaigns to defeat opponents decisively. Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or bio-weapon facilities).
online pharmacy premarin best drugstore for you

buy cytotec online buy cytotec no prescription

" (p. 12-13)

I find it so weird that people are surprised when, after watching the President ask Congress for funding for the research and development of low-level nuclear weapons and the military for plans and rationales to use them against underground WMD bunkers, it gets reported that the Bush team is very interested in the idea of actually using the things they were so interested in against Iran. New Yorker:

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons.