The LLama Butchers

He's crude, stupid, slick, cornball, predictable, laughable, relentless, trivial and, the sum of all these, ridiculous. He's never made a movie you could believe and he still hasn't.

And yet, and yet. Can we perhaps be the optimist here? It is hard. Can the movie bring a remnant few to the original book (much like myself several years back), to read those concluding lines when Charles returns to the Marchmain chapel, to see the small red flame -- a beaten-copper lamp of deplorable design, relit before the beaten-copper doors of the tabernacle; the flame which the old knights saw from their tombs, which they saw put out; that flame burns again for other soldiers, far from home, farther, in heart, than Acre or Jerusalem. It could not have been lit but for the builders and the tragedians, and there I found it this morning, burning anew among the old stones.

Perhaps that's all we can ask.

Colmes: So is this what you're saying? That John Kerry is a Communist? That he's a Red?

Lowry: No, what I'm saying is that John Kerry is a foreign policy idiot.

A word of warning to Monty Python neophytes - do NOT start with this movie! Even though it has some quite amusing bits, MOL is a bitter, ugly, savage piece in comparison to Flying Circus and the earlier movies.

Throughout most of their extraordinary career, the Pythoniotes mercilessly satirized virtually everyone and everything around them, but did so with a nudge and a wink, as if they reveled in the absurdity of life. Here, they seem sick of it all - a bunch of disappointed old men - and good-humored Brit intolerance is replaced by a dismal Scandinavian ferocity. (Imagine Strindberg trying to imitate Shaw and you'll get the idea.) And unfortunately, that ferocity translates into some extremely heavy-handed humor like the Live Organ Transplant. Compare that to King Arthur hacking up the Black Knight in Holy Grail and you'll see what I mean. Twice the gore and none of the sublime silliness.

Nonetheless, for those already well-versed in Pythonalia, there are of course some good bits (but you knew that already): The Crimson Permanent Assurance, Death and the Salmon Mousse, the Tiger in Africa. And I occasionally sing the Universe Song in the shower. On the whole, though, I'd say don't bother buying this - rent it if you get the urge. And for Pete's sake, don't watch it by yourself on a rainy afternoon!

Ted - You ditched Napoleon!? Deacon, do you realize you've stranded one of history's greatest leaders?

Deacon - He was a dick!

Monday

North Korea appeared even less inclined to scrap its nuclear weapons after three days of talks between its officials and those of the United States and four regional powers ended inconclusively at the weekend.

The return to office on Friday of the detente-minded South Korean President, Roh Moo-hyun, after the country's Supreme Court overturned an impeachment charge, has weakened the US options of trying tighter economic sanctions or military pressure to induce the North to disarm.

President Roh has signalled that his government will not countenance either approach, which would depend vitally on South Korean co-operation. He and the liberal Uri Party, which won a resounding victory in last month's National Assembly elections, favour continuing the "sunshine" policy of engaging the North Koreans.

Tuesday

The United States has notified Seoul it will withdraw 3,600 US troops from South Korea, where they deter an attack by the communist North, for combat duty in Iraq, a Pentagon spokesman said.

The decision to switch troops defending South Korea dramatically underscored the strains that have been placed on the US Army as it fights Iraqi insurgents.

The redeployment is part of a phased rotation of US forces in Iraq, said Lieutenant Commander Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman.

"Over a period of months, the army looked at various units and recently, very recently, came to the conclusion that the best unit to provide the support was going to come from South Korea," he said.

Plexico said 3,600 of the estimated 37,000 US troops now stationed in South Korea will deploy to Iraq late in the northern summer.

The unit tapped for duty in Iraq is the 2nd Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division, said a defence official, who asked not to be identified. Many of the 2nd Infantry are based near the tense border with the North.
Advertisement Advertisement

In Seoul, officials said the South Korean government was notified of the decision early on Monday.

The Pentagon spokesman said it should not be inferred that the move would lead to a permanent reduction of US force levels in South Korea.

"Don't draw that link. This is a deployment, it's a rotation," Plexico said.

"When we look at it a few months from now, we'll decide whether it makes more sense for those troops to come back to South Korea or to go somewhere else," he said.

North Korea is testing temporary exit permits allowing its citizens to visit relatives in China, in an apparent step to ease food shortages resulting from recent cuts in international aid.

Residents in Tumen, a Chinese border city near the north-east of North Korea, which has a large number of ethnic Korean inhabitants settled for generations, say that the new 30-day visit passes began in early April.

Large numbers of North Koreans had already used the passes. "The question is: will they return, or will they run as far as they can?" said one resident. "I have heard of both."

While applicants for the passes are supposed to name relatives living in China, there appeared to be little effort to check, and it was possible that many would have entered China on invented family connections.

Community leaders in Tumen speculate that the motive for issuing the passes was to help relieve pressure on limited food supplies in North Korea in the normally lean spring months before crops ripen.

Contributions by foreign governments to the United Nations' food assistance effort have fallen since a crisis blew up 18 months ago over North Korea's nuclear weapons schemes. Officials from six countries including the US and North Korea were discussing the crisis in Beijing yesterday as part of the Chinese-sponsored search for a solution.

The UN's World Food Program halted regular food rations to about 2.7 million needy North Koreans early this year as its food stocks dwindled. It concentrated resources on some 1.5 million people most at risk.

Local Chinese people of Korean descent who take food parcels across the border to their relatives are reporting that bands of hungry children are roaming some North Korean towns. One woman said she had food snatched from her hands by desperate children.

Ragged children from North Korea, who apparently crossed the shallow Tumen River that forms the border, have also been sighted more frequently begging in the city of Yanji and nearby towns.

With North Korea's partial transition to a market economy begun in mid-2002, people in villages are desperately compiling items for sale, including rusty nails extracted from old fences and buildings, and offering them for sale or barter at local markets.

Residents in China and UN officials say Chinese authorities are no longer automatically deporting any North Koreans found living in China illegally. Those who are employed, married or in de facto relationships are more likely to be allowed to stay, though UN officials say they still hear of disturbing cases of deportation.

About 200,000 North Koreans are thought to be living without papers in China.

Ryongchon Explosion Eight Times as Great as North Claims
TOKYO -- Japan's Kyodo News, citing numerous diplomatic sources in Vienna, reported Saturday that the force of April 22's train explosion at the North's Ryonchon Station was about that of an earthquake measuring 3.6 on the Richter scale, which would have required about 800 tons of TNT -- about eight times that officially announced by North Korea.

The sources referred to earthquake figures gotten by the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Organization.

The North's official Korean Central News Agency had previously reported that the destructive power of the blast was that of 100 tons of dynamite, and explained that the accident was caused by "the electrical contact caused by carelessness during the shunting of wagons loaded with ammonium nitrate fertilizer and tank wagons".

The CTBTO feels that the cause of the explosion may differ from the North's explanation, and noted the explosion might have been caused by highly-explosive materials like military-use fuel going off. Officials at the CTBTO plan to look into the causes of the accident

Letter of Abraham Lincoln to Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, dated May 17, 1864. (Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1859-1865 (Library of America, 1989), p. 594.

Please notify the insurgents, through the proper military channels and forms, that the government of the United States has satisfactory proof of the massacre, by insurgent forces, at Fort Pillow, on the 12th. and 13th. days of April last, of fully white and colored officers and soldiers of the United States, after the latter had ceased resistance, and asked quarter of the former.

That with referrence to said massacre, the government of the United States has assigned and set apart by name [redacted] insurgent officers, theretefore, and up to that time, held by said government as prisoners of war.

That, as blood can not restore blood, and government should not act for revenge, any assurance, as nearly perfect as the case admits, given on or before the first day of June next, that there shall be no similar massacre, nor any officer or soldier of the United States, whether white or colored, now held, or hereafter captured by the insurgents, shall be treated other than according to the laws of war, will insure the replacing of said insurgent officers in the simple condition of prisoners of war.

That the insurgents having refused to exchange, or to give any account or explanation in regard to colored soldiers of the United States captured by them, a number of insurgent prisoners equal to the number of such colored soldiers supposed to have been captured by said insurgents will, from time to time, be assigned and set aside, with reference to such captured soldiers, and will, if the insurgents assent, be exchanged for such colored soldiers; but that if not satisfactory attention shall be given to this notice, by said insurgents, on or before the first day of July next, it will be assumed by the government of the United States, that said captured colored troops shall have been murdered, or subjected to Slavery, and that said government will, upon said assumption, take such action as may then appear expedient and just.

Arab Media Accuse US of Exploiting Berg Murder
Ranwa Yehia, Deutsche Presse-Agentur


CAIRO, 14May 2004 — The Arab world has denounced the on-camera beheading of an American civilian, in part because the murder allowed the United States to deflect public attention from its abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

“Whose payroll are these murderers acting upon?” the Egyptian daily Al-Akhbar charged yesterday in the caption beneath a photograph taken from video footage showing telecommunications technicians Nick Berg sitting in front of his kidnappers moments before his death.

The tape “resulted in a sharp change in public opinion with American officials rushing to take advantage of the incident to reduce pressures on the US administration from the scandal of prisoners’ abuse,” Al-Akhbar said.

Echoing this view the United Arab Emirates Gulf News condemned the killing yesterday: “There is never any justification for taking life in this cold-hearted way. No political purpose will be served and indeed a lot of damage will be done, especially in Iraq.” “Indeed the act totally alienated the executioners from the Iraqi people,” the English-language daily continued, but went on to note the “atrocity took the spotlight away from those who are suffering in detention.”

Amongst Arabic-language papers, the Lebanese An-Nahar daily pinpointed the ugly irony with which it felt the White House was benefiting from the killing. Columnist Rajeh Khoury said: “What could be uglier than Nick’s death is a feeling among some groups in the US that what happened within Iraqi prisons can be accepted or justified. It is extremely strange that some US statements had embedded messages that the video of beheading the hostage could lead to reduced sentences to the torture crimes in Abu Ghraib.”

Wissam Saadeh — columnist with As-Safir, another leading Arabic- language daily in the country — said the murder reflected the “deterioration of the conflict to a level full of ugliness and barbarism.”

Many Arab media also downplayed the Berg’s murder. While pictures of Berg appeared on inside pages of most Arab newspapers, the editorials continued to focus on the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq.

Editorials that did comment on the killing strongly condemned it, but those were mainly found in the English language newspapers across the region.

However, Islamic organizations in Lebanon and Egypt also denounced the murder as a violation of Islam.

The Hezbollah movement said late Wednesday the killing defamed Muslims, but went on to point out: “The timing of this incident is aimed at benefiting the interests of the US administration. It will give them (Americans) more excuses to carry out uglier actions against the Iraqi prisoners.”

A spokesman for the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood movement told Deutsche Presse-Agentur that the killing was “a barbaric act not endorsed by Islam or any other religion.” Issam Al-Aryan said: “The Muslim Brotherhood condemns this crime and considers that it harms the worldwide campaign against the torture crimes in Iraqi prisons.”

A few days ago, Michele wrote about the wars and civil wars that are consuming America. She missed one, the civil war between Thomas Jefferson and Phil Sheridan, the general who reputedly said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian."

Within America, within the warbloggers, indeed within each of our hearts, is a war between our inner Thomas Jefferson and our inner Phil Sheridan. We want to bring stability, peace, a pluralistic society, and democracy to places like Afghanistan and Iraq. We self-interestedly want to pursue those noble goals. At the same time, we are angry about 9/11, terrorists who blow up buses of Israeli kids, serial video decapitators, etc. There is a very powerful Old Testament desire, "Lord, smite my enemies."

I am not sure that I can differentiate, as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has, between the "Old Europe," which opposed America on Iraq, and a "New Europe," which supported America; Americans must recognize that public opinion in the vast majority of Europe is heavily opposed to U.S. policies. But I strongly believe that a "New America" has replaced the "Old America" and that this will be a more and more important factor in America's perspective on the construction of Europe, and on the world.

Even before the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration's views on a variety of policy issues differed significantly from those of Europe. On the Kyoto Protocol; on the International Court of Justice; on the Antiballistic Missile Treaty; on the role of the United Nations and on many other issues, the administration wanted to be free of international constraints. At the same time, from the death penalty to pre-emptive war, from religion to genetic foods, a deepening divide in policy, culture and public opinion has been opening between the two sides of the Atlantic.

A recent special issue of The Economist on America was illuminating. The "New America," according to this view, which I share, is more radical and more committed than ever to the need for unchallenged military dominance. It is more individualistic than Europe, more religious, conservative and patriotic. This American exceptionalism - which is now, in every respect, far stronger than the "French exception" ever was - was brought to the surface by Sept. 11.

President George W. Bush is committed to radical changes in America's domestic and foreign policies, which are more than ever focused on America's national interest. As a result, Americans see Europe as old-fashioned and bureaucratic, and think of America's future as more connected to China, India and Russia than to the Atlantic partnership, which served America so well during the last half century.

From the end of World War II until the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, America and Europe appeared to grow increasingly similar in many ways, as the trans-Atlantic economic relationship steadily grew in importance. But at the end of the 1980's, our economies began to diverge, and America began to grow more rapidly than Europe.

We are still each other's biggest customers, suppliers and investors; the economic trans-Atlantic partnership, which has become broader and deeper over the years, is equal in importance to the political and security partnership. But America faces significant long-term economic challenges, which are having an impact on its international posture. Since 2000, the combination of recession, stock market collapse, wartime spending on Iraq and successive massive tax cuts have devastated the federal budget. America now depends heavily on foreign capital as well as on foreign energy.

China is rapidly becoming one of America's main sources of financing, a growing source of manufactured goods, and will soon become a major global force in the creation of intellectual capital. Simultaneously, India has become a rapidly growing provider of services to the U.S. economy, and a more important U.S. creditor and security partner. And Russia's future role as a major supplier of energy to the U.S. and as a recipient of U.S. investment will inevitably increase as a result of America's continued dependence on foreign sources of energy and the continued instability of the Middle East.

These economic and security realities must be viewed together with the growing demographic, political and economic importance of the America's West and Southwest, the acceleration of Hispanic and Asian immigration, and the decline in the political importance of the America's East and of its European heritage. America's economic and strategic interests are shifting toward China, India and Russia, with a lower priority given to Europe and its slow-growing economies.

Continued negative European public opinion about the United States is still harmful to the relationship. Much of America is still now looking at Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" but instead of recognizing a dynamic "New Europe," it has focused on "New China," "New India" and "New Russia."

The euro cannot be overlooked, however. The euro is now an integral part of the global financial system and in order to believe in the euro, one needs to believe in Europe. The fate of the euro is in part about competing rates of return between Europe and the United States, but it is also tied to the integration of Europe. And many Europeans want their sovereignty and identity aggressively protected against the effects of globalization and so-called American hegemony.

Yet the reality of the euro and the pressures of the marketplace are likely to require further significant reforms throughout Europe in areas such as taxation, budgets and pensions. The political debates in Europe over these issues reflect a deep ambivalence over the distribution of wealth, over the role of the state and over the nature of global capitalism. Under the circumstances, one has to wonder whether popular support for the European project can be sustained in a timely way.

Political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic should also take advantage of the construction of Europe to explore a new alliance. It might revive the possibility of France reintegrating a new and different NATO in some fashion; it should justify greater European-American cooperation in the war against global terrorism, as a result of the tragedy in Spain.

I am hopeful that President Bush's meetings with President Jacques Chirac of France on the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings will be the signal of renewed Franco-American cooperation on many of these important issues; common values and mutual respect, as well as mutual interest, have to become, once again, the platform of our relationship.

As part of such an effort, there are also important economic initiatives to be explored. The volatility of the world's main currencies should be considered by the Group of Seven industrialized countries, and a more aggressive growth-oriented policy by the European Central Bank would be welcome. The establishment of a North Atlantic free trade area could be discussed, along with greater cooperation in trans-Atlantic defense industries and trans-Atlantic regulatory initiatives on food and drug safety, antitrust and, in particular, accounting.

Whether Europe grows as fast as America will depend on European growth-oriented policies and on demographics. What is equally important, however, is to allow a stronger, more integrated Europe to take its place alongside America as our partner. Remaining strongly linked by the Atlantic partnership is critical to the future of Europe as well as of America.

Binladin Group Short-Listed to Build World’s Tallest Building
Staff Writer


JEDDAH, 10May 2004 — The Saudi Binladin Group has been short-listed to build the world’s tallest building. It is the only Arab company on the short-list for the construction of the705 -meter Burj Dubai in the emirate, scheduled for completion in2008 .

The skyscraper will outstrip by more than 250 meters the current contender, Petronas Towers in Kuala Lumpur, and will house a hotel wing, apartments, offices, entertainment centers and restaurants.

A spokesman for UAE developer Emaar Properties earlier told the Gulf News daily the projects also included one of the world’s largest malls — the Dubai Mall with over two million square feet of retail space — and a mock “old town”, making it “a city within a city.”

Record-obsessed Dubai is already home to the world’s largest man-made island, the Palm Jumeirah, and the world’s first seven-star hotel, the Burj Al-Arab.

Fittingly, the Binladin group is Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction company and has carried out projects including the expansion of the two holy mosques in Makkah and Madinah.

Construction of the Burj Dubai project has already started, with excavation of the site completed recently.

Sales of residential units in the tower will start soon, said an official with Emaar Properties. This follows the bullish response to the apartment sales on the six high-rises branded “The Residences”, and part of the wider Burj Dubai project.

Traditional Gunshots Nearly Killed the Groom
Staff Writer


QATEEF, 10May 2004 — A young man spent his wedding night in hospital after he was accidentally shot by one of the invited guests, Okaz reported. It is a custom in Qateef to fire shots into the air to celebrate happy occasions. The man was fortunately in stable condition and the celebrations continued. Police have banned the use of firearms on such occasions.

My one and only take on the prison story

This whole thing makes me sick---I've written then deleted at least a dozen postings on this because they were either intemperate, or nonsensical, or outrageous, or some combination thereof. But I've distilled it down into three points, so here goes:

1. Obviously this is all morally and ethically repugnant, and in violation of the Geneva Convention. It doesn't matter that the Iraqis or AQ don't or didn't adhere to the Geneva Convention, nor for that matter did the North Vietnamese, the North Koreans, the Japanese Empire or the Nazis. It just doesn't matter. The rules are there as much to protect yourself as a nation from becoming what you cannot be---it is for us to avoid our Melian moment. The Romans would have done this publicly, and of course Saddam would've used the pictures as Ramadan cards. But that's not the standard one wants to be judged against.

2. Obviously, the exploitation of this for political purposes is sickening, but unfortunately not surprising from the ethical pigs that inhabit the far left. Pictures of Americans being lynched, burned, and dismembered by an Iraqi mob? Legitimate expressions of frustrations. Yeah, right. Pictures of an American Female MP with an Iraqi partisan on a leash? We've lost our moral footing in the world. My only question is, since when did anyone on the far left consider Amerika to have any moral footing at all? I thought we were the evil empire and all? Oh yeah, that's right.

3. The dangerous part: I have been fighting the feeling that people like Atrios had when they saw the pictures of the lynched Americans in Fallujah: the "it serves the bastards right" moment. Won't. Do. It. Can't. Hopefully that's what differentiates us from the Ted Ralls of the world. [Man, I'm channeling Cox & Forkum without realizing it--which is either a good thing or a sign of serious delirium on my part.]

With that said, however, it raises a dangerous point: the timing of all this right on the heels of the Battle of Fallujah. The question that comes out of these pictures is "I wonder what's going through the minds of the Jihadis now?" In other words, is there a fate worse than death for a racist, sexist, homophobic Islamic fascist than the vision of being placed on a leash, naked, by an American woman MP? I'm sure this fits with their definition of hell. That was probably the point of all this, barbaric as it is. The irony out of this is that we are all appalled by this, but we are appalled because we see it for the violation of our morals and ethics: they are appalled for seeing the reversal of their gender roles, their treatment of women played out in surreal reverse. [This Cox & Forkum cartoon nails it]. Maybe this whole thing is being timed on purpose---this is the PR MOAB of the war. The damage to us is obvious: the question is however does it destroy their will to fight? If that happens, would the abuse have been worth it? In my humble (and safe) position, no. There are some things you just shouldn't do. Hence the Melian moment idea. But....the question the jihadis, as well as North Korea, should be asking themselves is "what is America capable of it truly gets pissed off?" Lileks has floated this idea as the "going Roman" idea--not to advocate it as a good idea, but to lay it down almost as a warning, back in the dark days after 9/11. What if America started acting like its critics say it is? What then? It would be an appalling, bad thing. Words cannot do that tragedy justice. But, because it is not something they should want ever to happen. Is America capable of truly evil things, atrocities in war? Sure: just ask a Sioux. Or for that matter look at the pictures of the POW camps from the Civil War, both sides. Moral of the story: we are not the Romans because we are debating how to punish the people responsible, not asking ourselves how we can better publicize this. But if pushed to a point of utter desperation and anger, are we capable of "going Roman on them?" The answer, frighteningly, is yes. Frighteningly for us, yes, but hopefully even more frighteningly for them.

America is not going to get its moral standing back by apologizing, groveling, instituting sharia or allowing itself to be nuked. We will not get our moral standing back in the eyes of most in the world precisely because no matter what we do, it's not going to be acknowledged as long as we refuse to play the "let's pretend" appeasement game the rest of the world wants us so desperately play along. Genocide in Rwanda while the UN peacemakers on the ground look the other way? Let's promote the director of peace keeping operations to UN Secretary General, and give him the peace prize to boot! The UN cynically profiting from the corruption of the oil for food program? Look the other way! North Korea getting nukes? Look the other way! PLO and Hamas on a murderous cult of death? Look the other way! Many on the left pine for the early days of the UN when the US was looked to as a moral beacon in international politics. Of course that was a different time: the world knew the cost of appeasement and "let's pretend."

If I've offended any of the regular readers, I apologize. I'm trying hard to be a good person, but these days, more than ever, it's just that much more difficult. I'm weak, I'm human, and very often I'm wrong. And this whole issue just wants to make me cry. But at the same time it fills me with a murderous rageful hatred for those trying to exploit this. And that's something that can NEVER be given into, no matter how loathesome they become.

Back in London, I was having dinner in the Groucho Club - this week’s in-spot for what’s left of Britain’s lit glitz and nouveau rock riche - when one more person started in on the Stars and Stripes. Eventually he got, as the Europeans always do, to the part about “Your country’s never been invaded.” (This fellow had been two during the Blitz, you see.) “You don’t know the horror, the suffering. You think war is…”

I snapped.

“A John Wayne movie,” I said. “That’s what you were going to say, wasn’t it? We think war is a John Wayne movie. We think life is a John Wayne movie - with good guys and bad guys, as simple as that. Well, you know something, Mister Limey Poofter? You’re right. And let me tell you who those bad guys are. They’re us . WE BE BAD.

“We’re the baddest-assed sons of bitches that ever jogged in Reeboks. We’re three-quarters grizzly bear and two-thirds car wreck and descended from a stock market crash on our mother’s side. You take your Germany, France and Spain, roll them all together and it won’t give us room to park our cars. We’re the big boys, Jack, the original, giant, economy-sized, new and improved butt kickers of all time. When we snort coke in Houston, people lose their hats in Cap d’Antibes. And we’ve got an American Express card credit limit higher than your piss-ant metric numbers go.”

“You say our country’s never been invaded? You’re right, little buddy. Because I’d like to see the needle-dicked foreigners who’d have the guts to try. We drink napalm to get our hearts started in the morning. A rape and a mugging is our way of saying ‘Cheerio.’ Hell can’t hold our sock-hops. We walk taller, talk louder, spit further, f*ck longer and buy more things than you know the names of. I’d rather be a junkie in a New York City jail than king, queen and jack of all you Europeans. We eat little countries like this for breakfast and shit them out before lunch.”

[Prather continues:] I included the bulk of the quote for amusement purposes, but you get the point. America has been resented – even hated by some on the leftist fringes – for decades. We lead during the Cold War, and won, while providing the bulk of the support for NATO. That’s still true, though I don’t know why. A new standing military coalition is needed, this one to deal with terrorism.

That we’ve been resented is nothing new. If other countries would focus on their own problems – liberalize their economies, build up their militaries – there would be no cause for resentment. Instead they would rather focus on us. It takes their minds off their own problems.

At least six of the 10 members of a bipartisan commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks have made partisan campaign donations since joining the panel, campaign finance reports show.

Democratic Commissioner Jamie Gorelick has given roughly $14,000 to Democratic candidates and causes since joining in December 2002. That includes the maximum $2,000 each to presidential nominee-to-be John Kerry and former hopeful Dick Gephardt and $1,000 to former presidential candidate Wesley Clark.

Gorelick said the commission decided early on that members shouldn't physically take part in partisan political activities, but that they could make campaign contributions. She is one of five Democratic members; there also are five Republicans.

Gorelick said that while the independent commission is bipartisan, it has not voted along party lines.

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, a Democrat, has donated at least $25,000 to Democratic candidates and party committees since being named to the panel in December 2003.

Donor name: gorelick, jamie
Cycle(s) selected: 2004

Total for this search: $16,750

WILMER CUTLER AND PICKERING/PARTNER


6/27/2003 $2,000 Gephardt, Richard A

1/26/2004 $1,000 Metzl, Jamie

9/5/2003 $1,000 EMILY's List

1/28/2003 $1,000 EMILY's List

9/9/2003 $1,000 Biden, Joseph R Jr

3/26/2003 $1,000 Kerry, John

5/23/2003 $1,000 Kerry, John

2/9/2004 $1,000 Mikulski, Barbara A

3/24/2004 $1,000 Mikulski, Barbara A

12/11/2003 $1,000 Clark, Wesley

1/8/2004 $1,000 Van Hollen, Chris

4/17/2003 $750 Dodd, Chris

2/10/2003 $500 Dorgan, Byron L

1/14/2003 $500 Pelosi, Nancy

10/28/2003 $500 Leahy-Cantwell Cmte

10/28/2003 $250 Cantwell, Maria

12/22/2003 $250 Leahy, Patrick

Yes, they hate Bush with a consuming passion. But the truth is that they hate the United States of America more. They find the war in Iraq loathsome not because they are pacifists, but because the idea that America is a liberator nation sickens and enrages them.

And that's why Abu Ghraib might be John Kerry's worst nightmare: The anti-American Left is already seizing on these photos and the behavior of .001 percent of the Americans present in Iraq as evidence that the entire U.S. effort in Iraq is a moral catastrophe from stem to stern.

The issue will no longer be the supposed "lies" of George W. Bush, but the supposedly "criminal" conduct of the American occupiers. In other words, they will openly turn from blaming Bush to blaming American troops, American soldiers, American contractors - and America herself.

The Ballad of INDC Bill

[cue lonesome Harmonica sound]

Everybody's talkin' about moonbats
I don't see a trackback their linkin'
Only the echos of my pings
People stop and stare
I can't see their URLS
Only the shadows of Instapundit's wry

I'm goin' where the links keep shinin'
Through the pourin' hits
Goin' where the traffic suits my moods
Bankin' off the T-shirt sales
Rollin' in the paypal
and skippin over the blogads like a bone

Everybody's talkin about moonbats
But they're not not linking to me
Hey--where did you all go?
I won't let you leave my blog behind
No I won't let you leave
I won't let you leave my blog behind

French, in common with most romance languages, distinguishes between the " formal " you and the " informal "
you. The same constructions as the English singular and plural, indeed, the same as the romances singular and
plural.
That's the formal bit.
What it really means is that if you know someone vaguely, you " vous voier " them. You use the second person
plural to say " you ". As you did, " vous " and votre for the possessive.
When you know someone well, then at some inmdeterminate time in the relationship you will switch to " tu toier
", or using the second person singular . " Tu" or " toi " for your etc. One also has to change the verb of
course.
There are a number of relationships where it is simply assumed that it will always be " tu ". Mother to child
for example, and some where it will always be " vous", me to a President.

So, I would think that " Francois, je suis ton Pere " or " toi pere " would be right. Singular anyway.
Actually writing this out I'm getting confused myself, because of course, your point is that they don't know
this, that while they have a father son relationship, they haven't met. So maybe plural is correct.
So confusion. " I am your ( polite form ) father " looks weird as opposed to " I am your ( intimate form )
father ". But in this case may actually be correct.

A way round it ? If some pompous ass like myself picks you up on using the formal form ( ie the plural , vous )
tell them that's the point : while they may be related, and thus should use the singular, they've never
actually met, thus the plural.
So in fact, je suis votre pere, can be defended, but you might want to add that accent if you can work out the
html. A graves above the first e . I think.

Scumbag

Lower than whale shit

Can't draw

No talent

Man-Sheep Love Association

And of course,

Tiny penis