Hey, Colby's not the only guy with a vice...
Our first apartment was a free-standing, three-room, 300 sq. foot cottage in back of a two-story house in Oakland, CA. The sort of thing that was built in the postwar boom to rent to veterans going to Berkeley on the GI bill.
It went through a crackhouse phase during the 80s. We got the lowdown from the neighbor who'd been there since the 60s. Apparently another outbuilding, an ancient garage, had actually been condemned and demolished by the city... because of the rats.
Imagine if the US government kept a database where they stored the address of all foreign nationals. Not just resident aliens and people on long non-resident visas (work, student), but also tourists.
Imagine if, as a tourist arriving in the US, you were admonished to appear at the local INS office within two days of arrival and register your address.
Imagine there were a special exemption for those staying in hotels, hostels and inns, because the proprietors of those are required to register you. Imagine if this were billed as a service.
You don't have to imagine it. Not because it's policy in the US, though the Total Information Awareness proposal includes provisions similar to these.
No, you don't have to imagine it, because you can see it in action in the Czech Republic.
Police for Foreigners. Just says it all right there, doesn't it. This was in place when I visited in '88 -- you know, under Communism.
In other news, Robert Fisk is an idiot.
No, really.
It's horrible. I've been trying to avoid this -- not reading Fisk articles, switching to a different website when the term comes up, etc. But now I am sorely tempted to actually fisk an article. A Robert Fisk article, no less.
It starts out like this:
Could anything be more pathetic than the Arab demonstration against war?
Well yes, Robert, something could. How about .. you. Or .. this article. Those are way more pathetic.
A million Britons marched in London, more than half a million Spaniards in Madrid; 200,000 in Paris and New York. And Cairo? Well, just 600 Egyptians turned up in their capital to protest at America's forthcoming invasion of brotherly Iraq – surrounded by 3,000 security police. By way of contrast – brave contrast – 2,000 Israelis protested in Tel Aviv against the war.
Yeah, it takes a lot of bravery for people to march for peace in Israel where freedom of expression is a constitutionally protected right. G'uh!
What on earth is it with the Arabs?
What on earth is it with Robert Fisk tearing through the thin veil that masked his racism? This isn't even "soft racism of low expectations" anymore. It's resurgent colonialism!
Of all people, they – and they alone – are likely to suffer in this American invasion of their homeland. They – and they alone – have the will and the ability to understand that this US military adventure is intended – as Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, frankly declared last week – to change the map of the Middle East.
They - and they alone - are likely to benefit from the destabilization of the regimes which oppress them. Remember the plan - once Iraq is being reconstructed, we can stop supporting the murderous Saudi regime.
Yet, faced with catastrophe, the Arabs are like mice.
There you go again. What is it with the racism?
Their leaders may agree with their people – but they will not let their people say so.
Bobby says their leaders oppose war, but prevent their people from attending anti-war demonstrations. Is it because they fear the U.S. response? Yeah, right: as if we'd torture anti-war protesters in Cairo before the much-more-conveniently-located ones in New York. And if we were going to punish an ally for allowing anti-war protests, we would definitely punish unimportant ally Egypt for a 600-person protest before important ally Britain for a protest of 3/4 of a million in London alone.
More likely the real reason Arab leaders prevented the demonstrations is that they fear that organized demonstrations against the war will lead to organized demonstrations against their own rule.
President Mubarak of Egypt has made it all too clear there is little he can do to rein in President Bush. King Abdullah of Jordan has said there is almost "nothing" the Arabs can do to avert war. Which means Arabs ask, more and more, what their leaders are for.
Didn't I just say that?
The presidents and kings of the Arab world agree with their people, it seems, but do not wish them to express the views they themselves hold.
Actually, I think the leaders of those countries just aren't really big on expression in general. Or any other basic human rights.
True, 200,000 Syrians protested against the war in Damascus. But no one protests in Syria unless they are in accord with their government, which means that this particular "popular" protest was arranged by the Arab Socialist Baath Party of Syria. But at least the Syrians did not carry, as their neighbours in Beirut did, portraits of Saddam Hussein. For in Arab capital cities, there is a special problem. Repeatedly, Arab opposition to war is trammelled up with Arab support for the Iraqi dictator.
How embarrassing for them. [Snip some irrelevant stuff.]
Sayed Nasrallah [the head of the Lebanese Hizbollah guerrilla army] also deplored the fact that "the greatest Muslim demonstration in history" – the gathering of two million Muslim pilgrims at Mecca for the Haj – had not used the slogan "Death to America"
I'm confused -- what happened to "Islam means peace"?
or "No to War".
Hey, Islam does mean peace. I guess if Hizbollah is saying "No to War", then that's not really a gold AK-47 in the fist on their main page...
Nasrallah also accused "certain" Arab regimes of "supporting the war or approving of it in secret". And, of course, we all know who they are.
Who? Who are they? Who and Who and WHO who who Whoooo and Whooooooooooooooooooooo!
And if you missed it the first time around, don't miss this MiSTing of Amiri Baraka's poem.
Not content to march in major cities, they also march in fictional cities.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
...
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
How many final chances can the Security Council give?
By the way, this is from a 1998 speech by Clinton. Link via Tim Blair.