“Radical” changes in Washington always have this Charlie Brown/Lucy-like character (remember Lucy holding the football?): it doesn’t take long before you realize how little really ever changes in DC. The latest example is the Dems and IP issues as they affect the Net. Message to the Net from the newly Democratic House? Go to hell.

Dems to the Net: Go to hell

The first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress, attacked for planning to use the Koran at his swearing-in instead of a Bible, will use a copy of the Muslim holy book once owned by Thomas Jefferson, an official said on Wednesday.

Representative-elect Keith Ellison, a Minnesota Democrat, requested the 18th century copy of the Koran for the unofficial part of his swearing in on Thursday, according to Mark Dimunation, chief of rare books and special collections at the Library of Congress in Washington.

Ellison, a Muslim convert who traces his U.S. ancestry to 1741, wanted a special copy of the book to use, Dimunation said, and approached the library for one.

The third U.S. president, serving from 1801 to 1809, Jefferson was a collector with wide-ranging interests. His 6,000-volume library, the largest in North America at the time, became the basis for the Library of Congress.

I've been ignoring all the silly bickering about Ellison getting sworn in using a Koran, because frankly, it's too damn stupid for me to take seriously. As far as I'm concerned, the item used in any oath should have significance to the individual taking the oath. What is the use of taking an oath on something you don't find personally significant? He could use a picture of his mother for all I'd care.. However, I do think it's really neat that he is using Thomas Jefferson's copy of the Koran.

First Muslim in U.S. Congress to use Jefferson's Koran - washingtonpost.com

Vancouver is the world's best place to live, a survey by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) has found.

hooray
i visited in 2005 and loved it

BBC NEWS | Business | Vancouver is 'best place to live'

great article and nice to see an article from der spiegel

i especially like what to me is lesson no 1

A military that acts too brutally in the wrong place merely creates new enemies.

and reading the article reminds me of many of the things I love about America and is likely to have the same effect on Der Spiegel's German readership
so the new doctrine is winning hearts and minds in more than just Iraq

Civilized Warriors: The US Army Learns from its Mistakes in Iraq

Decius wrote:

Maybe the real reason we're down there is to send a message to our own dictators that they have a long term job to do and they better not fuck us.

Dictators emerge
the CIA or whomever may pick a particular candidate (one bully amongst an unsavory selection) as a potential dictator but the individual still has to have what it takes and will, by the very nature of being on the initial short list, be inclined to follow their own path. As you have noted before Decius any leader in Iraq won't be tolerated by many Iraqis if they are perceived as an American poodle.
Consequently, despite arms deals and the rather large assumption that American money can build an army and impose any sort of order to suit American tastes in the short or medium term in the context of the chaos America has produced and where America's own military has failed to achieve that same order, over the long term it is likely there will be prolonged conflict and the CIA will fund a number of potential candidates and thereby fuel the fire because none of the candidates are entirely viable from an American viewpoint. The CIA will argue the case for not having all its eggs in one basket, and where the only stability on offer may be Iran centered to which they will clearly prefer ongoing slaughter.

It strikes me as an example of American arrogance and hubris to pretend you can just install a dictator -- the CIA has been playing that game in Central and South America for years and generally made a monumental mess of it.

You mention Pinochet seemingly in the context of a benevolent dictator and as an example of when America got it right -- suffice to say i think that is contentious.
I think many people in the rest of the planet would be rather pleased if the bungling morons [the US government and the CIA] would butt out and leave people to run their own affairs and make their own mistakes. Planet Earth is not America's private domain and quite a few of us object to it being treated as such.
A more multilateral approach is I would argue both in America's and the world's best interests. Yes America is forced to deal with the likes of Iran and North Korea in a world of instability and weapons of mass destruction but that is the land of grown ups where we must all learn to live together. It is not America's destiny, in my view, despite what some Americans appear to think, to be our planet's unilateral policeman. No policemen without representation, I say.

Good policing is ultimately a product of consent. Consent can be achieved though force, which has failed in Iraq, or a combination of force together with perceived moral authority, America didn't win the latter argument in Iraq. In the wider world, well specically in the west, authority is perceived as being derived up from the people through the conduit of elections. In Iraq authority it would seem derives from family, tribe, sect and religion. If the US had followed the Powell doctrine and begun the first phase with a more stable Iraq, avoided the early chaos and looting, then the results of getting rid of Saddam and establishing stability would possibly have paid a moral dividend in the form of winning consent, perceived moral authority and legitimacy.

Regardless lets deal with facts on the ground and leave that to historians. What is the way forward? More dictators? America has rediscovered that an unpleasant stability is perhaps preferrable to an unpleasant chaos however re dictators the sorcerer's apprentice really ought to stop because Mickey Mouse is doing a lousy job. I actually think an Iranian hegemony is actually the preferred option.

RE: Does Iraq need more debate?

Mike the Usurper wrote:

Perhaps it's because the mainstream media are too timid to declare the difference between right and wrong. Imagine if journalism consisted of more than a collage of conflicting talking points. Imagine the difference it would make if more brand-name reporters broke from the bizarre straitjacket of "balance," which equates fairness with putting all disputants on equal epistemological footing, no matter how deceitful or moronic they may be.

There's a market for news that weighs counterclaims and assesses truth value. It just hasn't kept up with demand. No wonder Jon Stewart has such a loyal audience: He has a point of view, and it's rooted in the reality-based — not the ideology-based — world.

Good call from Marty. Less "balance," more "fair," meaning make a damn call.

no i disagree completely
it is for journalists to report points of view not judge
reaity based? whose reality yours or mine or theirs or Bush's etc
u talk about reality or truth as if it is obvious or self evident and not open to debate
if u can say accurately where your idealogy stops and reality begins then u are very wise
u talk about idealogy as if u had none and its just the others who are prisoners of their idealogy
my idealogy tells me - my liberal bias - says let reporters report in as balanced a manner as they can and let we the jury decide

fine let people do opinion pieces
most of what i recommend on memestreams are opinion pieces but we let the lines blur at our peril
i don't want some journalist telling me al Qaeda are a bunch of fascists - i see what they do and i listen to their justifications - i don't need someone to tell me what they are since i am quite capable of making up my own mind
what i want are facts labeled as facts and opinions marked as opinions that gives me the freedom to choose
abandon balance abandon minority opinions abandon contraversial opinions
let the journalists decide and the editors and the men who hire the editors ---- let the news magnates decide let Rupert Murdoch -- it's quite bad enough already -- this is a solution?

RE: Does Iraq need more debate? - Los Angeles Times

MILAN (Reuters) - The Italian fashion capital Milan has formally barred ultra-skinny and under-age models ahead of its February catwalk shows, as the fashion world comes under pressure to promote a healthier image.

The agreement signed on Monday between the city and its powerful fashion industry bans models under 16 and those with a body mass index of less than 18.5 from Milan's shows.

Milan bans ultra-skinny models from catwalk - Yahoo! News UK

If you are wondering who these criminal sex offenders that legislators are jumping up and down to defend you from are, you might look no further than this case:

Accordingly, while I am very sympathetic to Wilson's argument regarding the injustice of sentencing this promising young man with good grades and no criminal history to ten years in prison without parole and a lifetime registration as a sexual offender because he engaged in consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old victim only two years his junior, this Court is bound by the Legislature's determination that young persons in Wilson's situation are not entitled to the misdemeanor treatment now accorded to identical behavior under OCGA � 16-6-4 (d) (2).

Yes, thats Georgia. And, God forbid this person might use a website when finally released from prison! Won't somebody please save us from these people!!@

The Volokh Conspiracy - Ten Years in Prison for 17-Year-Old Who Had Consensual Oral Sex with 15-Year-Old:

There are hundreds of children in the trailer camp that is run by FEMA and known as Renaissance Village, but they won’t be having much of a Christmas. They’re trapped here in a demoralizing, overcrowded environment with adults who are mostly broke, jobless and at the end of their emotional tethers. Many of the kids aren’t even going to school.

is this a vision of the future? the first of the climate change refugee camps? who wants to bet against many of these people still being there in 20 years?

Out of Sight - New York Times

Little Britain star Matt Lucas has "married" his long-term partner Kevin McGee in a civil partnership ceremony in London.

hoorah
and one day such reports will say married not "married"

i don't know if Little Britain runs on US cable but if so try and catch it

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Little Britain star Lucas 'weds'