The metro Atlanta region generally has about a 10-day supply of gasoline in inventory, said BP spokesman Michael Kumpf. The pipelines have been down for two days.
Alpharetta, Ga.-based Colonial Pipeline Co., cut off from its suppliers on the Gulf Coast, is now pumping gas from huge storage tanks, many in Powder Springs, Ga. Whether electric power can be restored to the pipeline pumps before supplies run out is "the great uncertainty ... that hangs over all of us," said Daniel Moenter, a spokesman for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, a major supplier of metro Atlanta's fuel.

I'm getting ready to drive to Atlanta from St. Louis tomorrow, since Dragon*Con is this weekend. I'll make sure to fill up my tank again, before I get into the city! If any locals have advice about the best place (last place?) to refill along the way in northern Georgia, please let me know.

Elonka

RE: Atlanta may run out of gas.

Mike the Usurper wrote:
Someone said to me today, "If you can't see the difference between the administration and Al Qaeda then there's something ... wrong."

The difference, is the ballot box.

Our administration, like it or not, is a choice of leadership that was made by our country. That you don't agree with that choice, I understand. But that's the country we live in. A controversial issue (like who our leader is going to be) comes up, millions of people vote on it, and the majority wins out.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, was not voted in by anybody. They're a bunch of self-appointed thugs who feel that they know what's better for the world than anybody else. They have no sympathy for other ways of life. They believe that their way is the right way, and to hell with everyone else. They seek to impose their own *very* narrow world-view, upon the entire planet. Our administration, on the other hand, usually bends over backwards to accommodate as many different viewpoints and ways of life as possible.

A further difference is how those two groups (the U.S. administration vs. Al Qaeda) go about exercising their power. The administration has a series of checks and balances. They need to get approval from an enormously complex system before they can do *anything*. And, their power is temporary. A few years down the line, they're gone, and another administration is voted in. If Al Qaeda could have been voted out of power, I think they would have been gone long ago. It is my belief that the vast majority of the muslim world despises the methods that Al Qaeda uses.

Another difference has to do with how power is used, especially when it involves violence. When our administration uses violence, via our military, it is done in a very controlled fashion, with an enormous amount of public debate and consensus-seeking. Nearly every single step is open to scrutiny and consideration by the public, our other leaders, and the rest of the world. Our plans are usually announced well in advance. Further, military targets are chosen with care and compassion. Innocents and civilians are not specifically targeted.

Al Qaeda, on the other hand, exercises its power in secret. They have no public debate. They use subterfuge, they use hatred. They use small groups with no public oversight, that seek to kill as many people as possible, with little care as to *who* they are killing. If they could kill thousands or even millions of Americans with a nuclear bomb in the middle of one of our cities, they would do it. And then if they could, they would do it again, and again, against not just Americans but against *anyone* that stood in their way, until they could force the world into the shape and culture that they wanted.

I have no trouble distinguishing between the two sides. The difference between right and wrong is very clear to me. But it flabbergasts me that anyone can say that the two sides are similar, or that the administration is *worse* than Al Qaeda. That shows to me a phenomenally deep loss of center, and in some ways, a blind hatred of one's own country. And that saddens me.

I'm not saying that I think that you and I should agree on everything. I *like* that we disagree, and I think that the process of discussion is a healthy one. But I hope we could at least agree on some basic definitions of the difference between good and evil.

Elonka

RE: Today's Ugly Question

] As part of the official Saudi government TV coverage of
] Saudi Arabia's counter-terrorism conference in Riyadh,
] February 5 - February 8th, Saudi Sheikh 'Aed Al-Qarni
] made statements accusing the Jews and the U.S. of using
] terrorism. Later, after his statements were translated by
] MEMRI, Al-Qarni retracted these statements on Saudi TV.
]
] Subsequently, the London Arabic-language daily Al-Sharq
] Al-Awsat reported on a campaign "spearheaded by MEMRI,
] against the Saudi Muslim cleric 'Aed Al-Qarni." According
] to the paper, "MEMRI was also behind another campaign
] intended to pressure the U.S. administration not to
] participate in the counter-terrorism conference."

Interesting. MEMRI, the organization that takes it upon itself to provide English translations of Arabic columnists, has gotten enough clout that it's now getting attacked....

MEMRI Controversy

Dolemite wrote:
] ] The Reader recounts the experience of photojournalist
] ] Warren Wimmer's attempts to photograph Anish Kapoor's
] ] sculpture, Cloud Gate (more commonly known as "the
] ] Bean"). When Wimmer set up his tripod and camera to shoot
] ] the sculpture, security guards stopped him, demanding
] ] that they show him a permit. Wimmer protested, replying
] ] that it's absurd that one needs to pay for a permit to
] ] photograph public art in a city-owned park.

This struck a chord with me, because I'm having a problem with a different public sculpture.

When sculptor Sanborn installed the Kryptos sculpture at CIA Headquarters, he also installed several related pieces around the entrance to the New Headquarters Building. One of them has an engraved compass rose, and others have morse code messages upon them. We believe that these pieces have something to do with the code on the "wavy screen" portion of the sculpture.

I have been working *really* hard to obtain photos of these additional pieces. To date, the only close up images we have are from the personal collection of Jim Gillogly, but even in those few pictures, we can't fully see some of the pieces.

I have tried working through the CIA's Media Relations and Public Affairs offices, and have gotten repeatedly rebuffed. I've asked (very politely) how I can go about requesting images of those sculptures. I've gotten replies back saying that I'm allowed to use any images from the CIA website that I want. I reply that those sculptures aren't on the website, and I repeat my request of how I can go about requesting images of the unphotographed sculptures. This goes back and forth a bit, and then I get no reply.

I've also written to the Smithsonian Archive, and the General Services Administration. They're eager to help with any images that they already have, but don't know of any way (so they tell me) to request new ones.

I've tried other government agencies, and my congressional representatives, but to date have gotten zero reply from any of them.

In my opinion, those sculptures were paid for by public money, and are installed in an outdoor setting on government property, and the public has, at the least, the right to see photographic images of the sculptures. To date though, I've been unable to obtain images. I don't even want them for commercial purposes -- these images are being requested for a volunteer-run website, for public information only (I also toss in the fact that I'm a veteran, but that hasn't helped either).

I wish that I had enough contacts in Washington that I could find *someone* who could just pick up the phone and call someone at CIA and say, "Hey, can you find someone with a digital cam and go out on the front lawn and take a couple snaps of those rocks?" But to date, nada.

I haven't given up yet. But my frustration level is rising . . .

Elonka

RE: New (sub)Urbanism: The Copyrighting of Public Space

] As part of MEMRI's Arab TV Monitor Project, MEMRI has
] been tracking Iraqi election commercials and public
] service announcements in advance of the January 30
] election, including one by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
] Many of these clips have been produced by a group which
] describes itself as "a number of scholars,
] businesspersons, and activists, who share a common and
] firm belief in freedom and progress for all the Iraqi
] people," and which has a website at www.futureiraq.org.
] The following are excerpts from the clips; to view a 4:33
] compilation of the clips, visit
] http://memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=499:

Watching this compilation brought tears to my eyes. I highly recommend taking a look at it.

I don't think I can articulate how much of my attention and good will is directed towards Iraq right now. If I could do anything to help their elections run smoothly, even if it meant putting my own life at risk, I would do so. I believe so strongly in the importance of free elections, and the historic nature of what is about to occur in Iraq. They have all my best wishes, in this turbulent time.

Elonka

MEMRI: Compilation of Iraqi Election TV Commercials

] "It is sad and pathetic that the eyes of the entire world
] are upon the Palestinian and Iraqi elections that will be
] held under the lances of foreign occupation, while the
] peoples of the 'independent, free, and sovereign' Arab
] countries have no way of expressing their will. It is sad
] and pathetic that certain countries today are treating
] the Iraqis with the cheapest kind of political hypocrisy,
] even though no one heard any particular Arab protest
] during the time of the regime of the mass graves [i.e.
] during Saddam's rule].

Some interesting (and encouraging) Arab viewpoints here.

Arab Columnists: Arab Countries are Hypocritical on Iraq

This is a transcript of a September 2004 interview with Stanley Hilton.

] Bob Dole's former chief of staff, political
] scientist, a lawyer, he went to school with Rumsfeld and others,
] he wrote his thesis about how to turn America into a dictatorship
] using a fake Pearl Harbor attack. He's suing the U.S. government
] for carrying out 9/11. He has hundreds of the victims' families
] signing onto it - it's a $7 billion lawsuit.
 . . .
] SH: Yeah, we are suing Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld,
] Mueller, etc. for complicity in personally not only allowing 9/11
] to happen but in ordering it. The hijackers we retained and we
] had a witness who is married to one of them. The hijackers were
] U.S. undercover agents. They were double agents, paid by the FBI
] and the CIA to spy on Arab groups in this country. They were
] controlled. Their landlord was an FBI informant in San Diego and
] other places. And this was a direct, covert operation ordered,
] personally ordered by George W. Bush. Personally ordered. We have
] incriminating evidence, documents as well as witnesses, to this
] effect. It's not just incompetence - in spite of the fact that he
] is incompetent. The fact is he personally ordered this, knew
] about it. He, at one point, there were rehearsals of this. The
] reason why he appeared to be uninterested and nonchalant on
] September 11th - when those videos showed that Andrew Card
] whispered in his ear the [garbled] words about this he listened
] to kids reading the pet goat story, is that he thought this was
] another rehearsal. These people had dress-rehearsed this many
] times. He had seen simulated videos of this.

I'm interested in this story, not because I give any credibility whatsoever to the "Bush ordered 9/11 to happen" theory, but because I'm curious why an attorney with Hilton's background would be saying this kind of stuff. I haven't found any substantial debunking sites on the web, so I figured that either (a) he's completely lost it; or (b) he's doing some lawyerly thing where he's trying to present the views of his clients, even though his clients are clearly out of touch with reality.

Several conspiracy sites around the web have pounced on Hilton's lawsuit, but I haven't seen any "real" discussion about it from any reputable sites (if anybody knows of one, I'd be interested in seeing it). In any case, I'm looking forward to learning more about what Hilton's real goals are, or if the entire lawsuit is simply a hoax using Hilton's name.

A bit more info here:
http://www.oilempire.us/hilton.html

Interview with Stanley Hilton

] Press Briefing by White House Counsel Judge Alberto
] Gonzales, Dod General Counsel William Haynes, Dod Deputy
] General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto and Army Deputy Chief of
] Staff for Intelligence General Keith Alexander

I've been surfing the web trying to learn more about Gonzales. As usual, I get annoyed with articles which just offer quick opinionated snippets about controversial issues, and so I look for the raw information -- memos written by Gonzales, or transcripts of interviews with the man himself. Here's a transcript of a 90-minute press briefing he did in June 2004, where he talks about one of the more controversial elements that's come up related to his name -- A February 2002 memo discussing the White House's views on torture and prisoners.

I'd still like to see the raw text of the actual February 2002 memo though. If anyone can find it, please meme it? Thanks.

June 2004 Press Briefing by White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales...

] It defies reason, in much the same way that 52% of the nation
] does. -k]

See, this statement is what scares me. Maybe it's because I'm more centrist? I can see valid points on both sides of the spectrum. I see and agree with points on the liberal side, and I also see and agree with points on the conservative side. I don't regard *either* side as having a 100% lock on Reason and Truth. It pains me when I hear liberals refer to the religious right as "evil". It also pains me when I hear those on the right say, "We want less government, because people should be able to make choices for themselves. Except when it comes to moral values."

Do you really believe that 52% of the nation is just clueless? Is there any part of you that can try to see things from the other side, even if just as an intellectual exercise? Or do you keep coming back to, "They're wrong, I'm right, they're all idiots"?

I truly believe that there are intelligent, wise, compassionate, patriotic people on *both* sides of the spectrum (and a lot of places in between). It bothers me to hear extremist views from either side, from people who deny the possibility that there might be intelligence on the other.

RE: MSNBC - Rove tells conservatives to chill out

] MR. RUSSERT: The last time you were on in January of '01
] after the president had been elected, we had this
] exchange. Let me show it to you:
]
] (Videotape, January 21, 2001):
]
] MR. RUSSERT: You're heading over to the national
] cathedral for a prayer service with our new president.
] What are you gonna pray for?
]
] MR. ROVE: Wisdom and patience. Humility. That's
] important, I think, for people who come here to realize
] that we are here for only a time and we have an
] obligation of service and we need to keep things in
] perspective.
]
] (End videotape)
]
] MR. RUSSERT: Wisdom, patience, and humility, the
] watchwords for the second term?
]
] MR. ROVE: Yes. Those that the Gods destroy they first
] make prideful. So, absolutely.

Interesting reading, and gives me more hope about the next few years. :)

MSNBC - Rove tells conservatives to chill out